sealordlawrenceOK, then please clarify the REAL reasons for Iraq. I am very curious to learn something new..
Already explained many posts back………..around page 10 IIRC.
sealordlawrenceHistoric Aviation would be a better place for this. It has been done to death there.
In short, its all about the economy. Britain could not afford what it was trying to procure and the RAF did not help itself. A cursory look at the projects canceled in 1957 reveals a Mach-3 capable heavy long range interceptor, a Mach-3 capable strategic bomber and a very long range Mach-3 cruise nuclear armed SAM. Massively ambitious projects at the very edge of technology and expensive concepts to start with.
All of this was going on when the RN was unable to find enough technicians and engineers to complete any of its reasonably limited procurement projects. Sandys was not a clown, he was responding to the economic reality of Britain in 1957. The notion that Sandys committed some heinous crime is, just like the myths surrounding TSR-2, complete nonsense formulated to cover the harsh reality that Britain was bankrupt and super power status beyond its means.
A list of some of the canceled aerospace programs:
Blue Envoy
F-155T
Avro-730
Shorts Semew
SR-177
sealordlawrenceCheers Jonesy. I guess we will just have to wait and see how any 155mm turns out.;)
The graphic with helicopter in it looks like it could very well be from the same lineage from which the UVX has come, the hull certainly shows some similarities.
sealordlawrenceBeing a little optimistic here, I don’t think many people in France (and prolly in lots of other countries) believed that Iraq had WMD. I for one never believed that lame argument of Bush.
Nic
French Intelligence Services believed there were WMD in Iraq. Jaque Chiraq stated that if Iraq used WMD in any conflict France would become involved.
sealordlawrenceJonesey, you perfectly underline all the issues that are coming up here. The fact is what are the ships needed for and thus how should they be equipped. The problem seems remarkably similar to what faced the T23 in its early design and development, that is that all the gear that is needed to perform a specific function basically takes you back to the place you are trying to leave. In the eighties it was T23 back to T22 and it now seems like T23 back to C2. The problem there (to me at least) is that C2 could well end up being just a few VLS cells behind a C3, however if the DDH route is taken then that is a different matter, on that subject do you know where one can get access to the artwork to which you are referring?
On the 155 issue, it is about a lot more than just the mount. 155mm ammunition is notoriously heavy and space consuming especially as it is two piece rather than fixed ammunition. I would be surprised if significant amounts of additional structure were not required for the larger weapon. The other issue is what barrel is being talked about, if it is only the 39cal then range will be a very long way behind the 127mm.
sealordlawrenceWell, I see oil as the main intention of the US policy in Iraq. The question remains whether we see oil as immoral or not. Let me guess, for you this is just another ‘individual sovereign policy right’ of the United States, isn’t it? 😉
They don’t have any right to do so. Point. BTW, Koreans agreed to stop their programme in exchange for the goods, they were not forced to do so.
They have every right to do so and never said that they had to use force. The NK example is perfect. The six nations regarded it as in their national interests to prevent NK from being nuclear and thus made it in NK’s national interest to not be nuclear. One group of nations exercised their sovereign right to pursue their national interests and in doing so made it in NK’s national interest to satisfy those countries national interests. Nothing wrong with it.
You are wrong on the issue of Iraq and oil pure and simple. We have been through this several times. For oil to be the main focus it would have been easier to not even bother invading (again Saudi model) and the approach since the invasion hardly screams resource war. Of course that is not to say that oil is not a national interest of the US, it is in the national interest of every country on earth, but to say that it was the primary motivating factor in Iraq is wrong.
sealordlawrenceI think C3, if executed correctly, is a good option for covering a plethora of roles, I am not convinced of the need for any gun bigger than a medium caliber however.
The problem I have C1/2 is that it seems have both ships could end up evolving into each other. After all any true T23 replacement is going to be a powerful asset and likely only a few VLS cells away from C1. As for platforms the Thales F2020 looks like an interesting concept. One does for a brief moment wonder whether the purpose behind C1 is to extract more T45s (unlikely I know) but if that was the case we would end up with a fleet structure not massively dissimilar to the one that the RN has seemed to love for the last decade.
sealordlawrenceFor what it’s worth I was told that in a classified intel brief.
It is not something that was made up by the media. It was genuinely believed by a lot of people and was well within the technology of Iraq.Geez, what’s so hard about admitting that intel was just wrong?
It’s happened thousands of times before…even by the vaunted U.K. & USSR.
Nothing new guys!
Exactly, you probably saw alot of the stuff that was flying around back then. I remember when the soul searching started. An awful lot had been taken from supposed defectors, the people I was working with had dozens of Iraqi exiles/immigrants reports that had been ‘provided’ by Iraqi exile groups, apparently most of them either had uncles who worked on WMD programs or had guarded WMD facilities themselves.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceYou are a funny guy, you know? All you provided was an article that copied stuff from the J.E.D. Amazing. You could get info on Russian ASMs from plenty of other places. It says little to NOTHING about their efficiency against the latest US air/fleet defenses, and vice versa.
Invasion force.. or CVBG.. is still an attack from water. The Russian armed forces are specifically designed to deal with this kind of aggression, as they always have been since Soviet times.
If you want to go back on the original question, “Could Oscar IIs and Tu-22M3s destroy a CVBG?” Maybe. Maybe not. That’s the best answer.
But that’s also not how it works, is it?
Do Oscars and Backfires just venture out alone? No. Not Soviet (or Russian) doctrine. A wise guy such as yourself doesn’t need that to be quoted from somewhere, do you? I mean, you should know that.
Edit: Your entire first page of rambling, including the “big” #13 answer, has no links or anything I could see. The #13 post coulda really used some.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a5LkaU0wj714&refer=home
^ What’s up with this anyway?
Did they update every single US Navy ship to handle missiles like the Klub in the last 2 years already?
Did they test them against hypersonic AS-16s?
You really do need to read the whole thread before posting, it would stop you posting tripe like the above. The link I provided showed how the Russians/Soviets intended to use the AShM assets to engage a CVBG, the point being that they intended to use a very large number of missiles from a large number of launch platforms, which certainly says something about how the Russians perceive their efficiency.:rolleyes: As such the notion that Russians (with what little is left of the Soviet program) could destroy the whole USN is absurd. If you had bothered to read my first post in this thread I pointed out that there is really no way of knowing whether or not the doctrine would actually work without doing it for real. However you clearly chose to ignore that and as a consequence you now look very foolish.:p
I never said that Oscars of Backfires ‘venture out on their own’ now you are deliberatly putting words in my mouth.:rolleyes:
Your last little mistake is just laughable, you have spent so much time ranting about shore based missiles and then you produce this ‘Invasion force.. or CVBG.. is still an attack from water.’ Lol how useful do you think all those coastal defence systems and even fulcrums are going to be against a CVBG out in the open ocean?:D 😀 😀
The thing that is even more amusing than that is that you actually agree with the conclusion I presented in only the second post in this thread, here is your answer to prove it: ‘If you want to go back on the original question, “Could Oscar IIs and Tu-22M3s destroy a CVBG?” Maybe. Maybe not. That’s the best answer.’
So yeah I am a wise guy and you are not, live with it.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceI strongly suggest you leave the decisions about the quality of my life to me.
Finally, if you treat the people around you like you do here in the forum (Let me quote your last response to star49 –> *typical senseless rubbish from you, as usual*) then I wonder if there is anyone to speak with you except your dog and a couple of aquarium fish. I find this arrogant approach of yours much worse that my f-word here and there.
Genuine beliefs are unimportant. Evidence is. I mean objective evidence, not American evidence.
BTW, I, too, find it possible and logical that Ahmy and his clique are playing with the idea of Islamic A-bomb. But I repeat, beliefs are not important.
That is your assumption only. Sure, you got every right to assume that, but then do not present it as a proven fact.
As long as they did not see a reason for military intervention based on this conviction, they could have thought what they wanted, that is OK with me.
Wrong is a relative term. For me personally, a large share of American interests is in partial or complete contradiction to those of mine. And keep in mind that this planet consists of 300,000,000 Americans, but 6,300,000,000 non-Americans.
Funny that you still consider United States policy as moral, then..
BTW, I agree with the Chinese example on Sudan and add Zimbabwe and Myanmar, as well..
For you to lecture me on etiquette is hypocrisy in the extreme and the fact that you trawl through other threads looking for things to quote here suggests some kind of obsessive tendency.
You have failed to show that US policy in Iraq immoral. It may have been conducted in an incompetent manner but the intention was largely good. Policy towards Saudi Arabia on the other hand is a completely different matter as is the approach to Israel.
If you think that all the other countries in the world dont use evidence in the formulation of their beliefs then you are very misguided. To go back to Iraq, in my case it is much more than a genuine belief, it is based on close contact to people in involved (now take that for what you want I wont go into any further detail or anything along those lines, so if you do not want to believe it it is your choice), if you go back to 2003 you will be hard pressed to find any country or any open source that did not expect WMD to be found in Iraq. Even France was convinced they were there. The reasons for the faliure are numerable, but it was an intelligence faliure not a political lie.
For instance I remember an AFM article prior to the invasion stating that Iraq had modified L-39’s and Mirage-F1 for the delivery of C/B weapons and that Mig-23s had been turned into pilotless missiles. It all turned out to be complete nonsense but it was truly believed to be correct based on available information.
Individual countries have every right to try and stop other proliferating if they feel that it is in their national interest, and this is exactly what happened in the case of North Korea.
sealordlawrenceBush: Has Iraq WMDs?
CIA: Not sure. Probably there is left something from the early years. No big deal.
Bush: Enough to claim it as a threat? I need something on Iraq quickly.
CIA: Threat? To whom? The US? You are kidding..
Bush: Damn it. Donald is already getting impatient. Our hands are tied. Those people have already put too much money in us, they need to be paid back or we get into some real trouble, you included. I need it to be claimed as threat..
CIA: Not sure, even if they had a programme running, that would be a very early stage. Rather not. We need to think out something else.
Bush: Rather not? That means it is not a 100% not…
CIA: Well, if you want to see it that way, then ok, there is a 0.1% probability that they attack….
Bush: …. United States?
CIA. No way. but maybe we can say at least Israel.. or our troops in the ME.. Or American tourists in Dubai… You can say anything, nobody will care..
Bush: Whatever.. That is what I needed to hear. We better get in and deal with them right away.
Simply not correct, the intelligence people were convinced of the existance of WMD in Iraq. The evidence they had for this assumption was highly limited and in many cases deeply flawed but they were convinced of it none the less. It is certainly true that when this conclusion reached the politicians it was ‘sexed up’ but that is what politicians do, they did not alter the basic conclusion of the Intelligence people.
sealordlawrenceSome worrying views on C3 here I feel….more to my alarm they seem to be shared by industry too.
We are, apparently, looking at a class of 8 vessels replacing the current Minor War vessels fleet MCM’s, survey vessels and what patrol ships we have remaining. This is, quite frankly, lunacy. Mine Warfare, as the RN is well aware, is a major problem in the littoral…we were caught without it in the Falklands and had a coalition depend on us for it not once, but, twice in the Gulf over the past 18 years. A 2000ton OPV with a RoV is not going to replace a flotilla of three Sandowns and, likewise, we cant find ourselves in the position ever again of having a TF CO trying to work out which of his escorts was ‘most expendable’ to send through an area suspected of having been mined!.
C3 has to, therefore, be available to the group in number to maximise the area swept by UUV’s and RoV’s and be able to keep up with a deploying battlegroup. The last factor utterly precluding the kind of 20knt OPV designs being touted.
As the Dutch have noted with their version of this kind of vessel, on distant patrol station, you have to be big enough to cope with the kinds of disaster assistance, rescue and constabulary duties that are the staple diet of such patrols. The need for an aviation department capable of permanent embarkation of a chopper up to Merlin sized is obvious.
C3 therefore, by virtue of what it is replacing and what it will be tasked to accomplish, has to be at least the same size, and offer similar performance, as an old Type21 frigate. Given that C2 is intended to be a low intensity warfare/MIOPS platform analagous to the German Type 125 design it seems that the taskings, at least, between C3 and C2 produce an overlap.
That C1, the anticipated warfighter replacement for the T23’s, needs to produce some form of SONAR2087 equipped DDH is, I believe, widely accepted. Today there is simply no better system for putting the frighteners on SSK’s lurking in the littoral than the hunting, autonomous, chopper. In Merlin we have, possibly, the best in the world…not leveraging that is insanity of the truest sort!. Now BAE have, unsolicited, produced artwork showing the basic T45 hullform evolved to meet the DDH requirement.
We are in the interesting position, therefore, of having platform overlap between T45/C1 and C2/C3. The logical derivation from that is that we maximise volume savings by building C1 leveraged off T45 without PAAMs and with a redesigned after aviation section and with 2087 line handling gear installed astern. We then build C2 and C3 to a common hull/machinery design of circa 4000tons for, perhaps, 16 units and specialise them as was done with the Leander class. 8 as C2 ‘combattants’ with the 155 forward, UK PAAMS-lite and GWS60 plus ‘half-SAMSON’ and a good CESM/ESM/EO/IR fit plus aviation. 2nd batch of 8 as C3’s with the 155 (for commonality and warfighting tasking) plus a reused Phalanx 1B, extra aviation capacity, launching ramp/davits for fast boats, RoV/UUV handling gear etc.
This would have the net effect of reducing the escort/minor war vessels fleet from 6 or 7 classes to essentially 2. You could streamline machinery further by running C2/C3 on a shrink-to-fit version of T45 IEP with a single turbine and a few aux diesels. Imagine the efficiencies of a single training course and a single-type logistics train for damn-near the whole escort fleet?.
Is it going to be overkill putting a 4000ton vessel out on fisheries patrol duties – the Danes dont seem to think so and, by all accounts, find their Thetis class boats perfectly satisfactory. I’m pretty sure the Falkland Islanders would go for a 4000 ton, grey painted boat sporting a 155mm gun on the foredeck as patrol ship in their, increasingly important, waters too!.
Thoughts?
Certainly a thought provoking post Jonesey. Essentially we are back to the two tier concept. If a DDH really is the requirement then I would go back to one of my original suggestions, a variant of the BAe UVX, obviously minus the rather hideous sponson mounted ski ramps. In addition to that a modernised Thetis type might well be a good way forward.
I would however have to take issue with the 155mm, by all accounts such a weapon takes a lot of space and a lot of weight. Inaddition to that it is unlikely that a 4000ton ship could take anymore than a 39cal barrel which rather defeats the object. In this case the 127/62 would be a better choice IMO.
sealordlawrenceYour post had no real value whatesoever, no sources, no nothing really – just your relatively unsupported opinion that the US Navy could destroy Russia’s defense capability with a Tomahawk attack. Russia isn’t Iraq. Other than the fact that just about any SAM system in Russian service could engage the subsonic Tomahawk… not to mention interceptor patrols like the Mig-31. You seriously lack information on the variety of defenses that the Russian Armed Forces could muster, or are just completely ignorant. In a situation where the US declares some naval attack on Russian soil, an unrealistic scenario since in reality all the Russians would do is wave an SS-18 or SS-27 in the US gov’s face, the US invasion force would face resistance while even approaching the Russian coast from anything ranging from guided missile boats to Tu-160s firing salvos of Kh-15s.
Just how good are “dummy tests” anyway? When they test the defense systems against advanced missiles like the Yakhont or P-700. Is it like the real thing? How close is it?
This is way over anyone’s head to decide here off the bat, and you aren’t really providing any good sources to clarify anything.
My post contained far more substance than any of yours have thus far on this forum. You may wish to go back to the start of this thread and re-read the title………you will then realise that most of what you typed above is completely irrelevant. Nobody said anything about a ‘US Invasion force’ the question refers specifically to the destruction of a CVBG. An invasion force is utterly incomprehensible becouse of MAD anyway. Now go and get your nappy changed learn to read and re-enter the real world then come back and apologise.:rolleyes:
Oh yeah and by the way I have provided more sources than you in this thread.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceI’ll do that right after you point out how (with credible evidence) you concluded that the Tu-22M is the most survivable asset the Russians have.
Already explained in the post you qoted in the first place.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceIf it were possible, do you reckon the kh-55 (and variants) would be placed either on just the centreline pylon or the two underneath the engine intakes or all three:confused: hmmm possibilities
Probably just on the centerline, they are very big missiles for a Flanker.
Sign In
