sealordlawrenceAll your posts are full of assumptions. X will not survive in front Y without any reason or historical evidence. I am not going into costs and sustainability of conflict. simple scientific reason.
No at all.
sealordlawrenceI can assure your your wrong, care to give a source on that claim?
Firstly this is common knowledge, Secondly this is the best online source I have found:
Go to the PDF: Russian/Sovjet Sea-based Anti-Ship Missiles, download it and go to the bottom of page 10.:rolleyes:
Whilst your at it count how many of the missiles that can be carried by Flankers and Fulcrums will put the launch aircraft more than 300km from the target.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceI quoted you because you only mentioned “Tu-22Ms” as a survivable asset of the Russians, when in reality there are far more.
It’s hard to not get “carried” away by “lots and lots” of missiles, since there’s probably a point that a fleet will even run out of SAMs to defend itself. Irrelevant, maybe, but that would be something now, wouldn’t it?
Google the meaning of the word ‘most’.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceDo we have a right to stop India, Pakistan, or Israel from developing nuclear arms as well, or is this a one-sided policy?
The US has as much right to stop them as they do Iran and North Korea, that is no moral or legal right but an individual sovereign policy right.;)
sealordlawrenceI don’t think it is worse than you, me or others commonly use in everyday life.
NIE documents only express common judgment of the US intelligence agencies. I regard this as highly one-sided, politicized judgement. The whole circus with the reasons for Iraqi war has clearly shown that your intelligence is light years away from being politically independent and objective.
Maybe you are not used to that but for me this world is much more than just what United States have to say about it.
Here I have to agree, albeit with some objections. I would certainly support intervention to such countries, but not decided, planned and performed by the United States.
Such practices performed by one single country would soon turn into purposeful pursuing of own national interests under the smoke screen of officially approved interventions in order to restore democracy. I am sure that the US would be picking oil or gas rich countries like Iran or Nigeria, while completely ignoring human rights issues in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia which are already on their side.
If it is the case that this is the way you converse in everyday life then yours must very unpleasant indeed.
I suggest that you find another country that is not Iran that genuinely believes that Iran is completely innocent in regard to nuclear weapons, I assure you that you will struggle. The faliure in Iraq was politicised intelligence, but not to that level that many wish to believe. All the politicians did was exaggerate an already established conclusion. It was the intelligence analysts that were wrong before the politicians. The reasons for this are really a subject for another thread. Again I point out that even France was convinced that there were WMD in Iraq.
What is wrong with a country pursuing its own national interests but taking a moral approach? None whatsoever, I have a great distaste for the US approach to SA but that is the real world, try reading up on China’s approach to Sudan.
sealordlawrenceHe is quoting you becuase u are automatically assuming alot of things. like Club/Granit performance against ADGES system or intention behind doctorine. if u go by claims than there is claim about SU-34 that it is completely immune from missiles/Guns so it can fly over the top of the target. there is no point of defending.
I am not assuming anything about anything. Actually try reading the whole thread before posting in it.:rolleyes: Usual pointless rubbish from you.
sealordlawrenceIf a flying Chinese dustbin can knock out a modern Israeli destroyer (as occured off Lebanon a couple of summers ago) then think of what a swarm off stealth UCAVs with their miniscule RCS will do to a CV BG, evading LR CAPs and AEGIS PAs, delivering their payload with next to no early warning- or were you betting on a Tu-22 surviving long enough with it’s barn door RCS?
Maybe you’d prefer the UCAVs to play Wagner’s ‘Ride of the Valkyries’ to signal their aproach to ‘even up the rules’?
As for Kirov, that anti-CBG/ SSGN combo is totally outmoded, from the 1970s.
Peter the Great is more of a liability than a credible anti-carrier platform, how many keels that have been laid-down since Pyotr Veliikii evoke the Kirov ethos? -zilch.
The key word is OBSOLESCENCE. It happens, now let it go & get on with your life.
The Israeli vessel was not a destroyer, it was a corvette and it was only damaged. The full details of the incident are not known so it is impossible for us to use it as a benchmark.
The reason no Kirovs have been completed since the eighties has nothing to do with obsolescence and everything to do with economics and the international situation. No nation is willing to fund such a ship that has a requirement for one. You are wrong the to say that no hulls have been laid down since Peter the Great, a fifth Kirov was laid down after her but was cancelled and scrapped in 1992.
As previously stated a UCAV is no different to any other airborne threat to naval forces, naval radars and missiles will evolve to deal with stealthy threats just as land based systems will. A Tu-22 is perfectly useful as long as the missiles that it carries remain useful and to that end the Kh-22 is being evolved into the Kh-32.
sealordlawrenceIn the coming decade, the proliferation of UCAV technology & it’s deployment in the anti-shipping role must present a major headache for US Navy (and other blue-water navies) planners.
UCAVs with a decent range & payload targetting the AEGIS specifically or the BG at random, with minimal reaction time is going to severely dent the BG’s role as principal tool of power projection- especially when you consider that a disabled CVN is going to pose bigger problems than one lying at the bottom of the sea.
It appears history repeats itself from a hundred years ago with the ‘Dreadnought’ & U-Boat to the CV BG & UCAV.
Why would a UCAV be any different to any other aircraft, the same rules applie. UCAV’s dont change anything. And the Dreadnought was not done away with by the U-Boat, that honor goes to money and the greater utility of aircraft carriers. Of course some would argue that the Dreadnought is very much alive and that the lead unit was called Kirov.
sealordlawrenceHow’s about a dozen PLAN ‘Skat’-type UCAVS, stuffed full of those zig-zaggin’ ‘Sizzlers’ engaging a CV BG in the S. China sea…major headache for planners huh? & surely more lethal than any ‘Backfire’.
Certainly a possibility but I would first question how many a Skat could carry. The point of the backfies is that the Kh-22s have a long range and are high speed and fit in with the rest of the ordnance being lobbed at the CBG quite nicely. It is also worth pointing pout that a Sizzler is subsonic for most of its flight profile. Again the effectiveness of missiles against an AEGIS protected CVBG is really an unknown.
sealordlawrenceMy FSC;
Say, 8 T45’s, 4 ASuW T45 derivatives, 13 T23 follow on ASW frigates, for 25 major surface combatants, plus 8 large OPV’s for C3.
Highly unlikely, that would give you 35 corvettes/frigates which is even greater in number than the overly optimistic 1998 SDR suggested. I find it difficult to see anymore than 26 in total ultimately. Also bare in mind that any genuine T23 replacement will effectively give you a FREMM minus the land attack capability, hardly a cheap option and would raise the obvious question of why not kill the T45 and procure FREMM’s as France and Italy have done. At the end of the day they are getting very effective ships but as stated before massively overkill for police duties.
I must admit that I am now leaning towards the 16 T45 option with 8/8 split between AAW and ASW. Both variants are capable of taking enough cells for Naval Scalp without really sacrificing capability in other areas. Adoption of the 127/62 would allow for a very long reaching main gun for shore bombardment that could be fitted to all 16 ships without losing VLS cells as 155/52 might require. The sad thing about this is that a properly funded T45V hull should be able to perform all the roles required of upper tier ships, ASW/AAW/land Attack much as the Arleigh Burkes do, without having to have seperate variants.
sealordlawrenceIn terms of defending an attack, the US CVBGs would have to worry about a lot more than Tu-22M3s. Any anti-ship or anti-radar capable surface-to-surface or air-to-surface platform would be deployed, including coastal defense batteries… Su-24s, Tu-160s, Tu-95s…
The amount of crap the Russians could muster for defense is rather insane.
I dont know whay you qouted me for that as I am well aware of it, but do not get carried away with this idea of lots and lotd of missiles. The intention behind the doctrine was always to swamp the target with incoming missiles. A Kirov does not carry twenty Granits to sink twenty ships, it carrys them becouse it expects very few of them to get through. Each CVBG would have dozens of missiles targeted at it.
sealordlawrence(Targets, purpose, return on investment). Churchill was 1918 Minister of Munitions. In his The Great War (my copy: Ch.LXX, P.1108: ) he reproduces his Survey to War Cabinet on the 1919 Munitions Programme: “how are we going to win the war in 1919?” “there are 4 new arms…Aeroplanes…Gas…if either side possessed the power to drop not 5 tons but 500 tons of bombs each night on the cities and manufacturing establishments…the results would be decisive. If the Germans had used poison gas on a sufficiently large scale…they could undoubtedly have broken up our whole front in the West….(for 1919)we should create an army essentially different in its composition and methods of warfare from any that have yet been employed by either side…we may contemplate drawing upon the artillery and the material which supplies it…to raise chemical warfare to its proper proportionate position in our organisation. It is unnecessary to speak of the air, for this is already accepted. We have..the power…of making such decisions fully effective…if we act…upon a…ruthlessly pursued plan…and revolutionary changes in…the methods of warfare are unhesitatingly faced…”
Tom Mangold, Plague Wars, may have more on this. WSC saw CBW as legitimate (in April,1944 he broadcast en clair that if our landings met gas, we would drench Berlin). He also dispatched captured German tabun bombs in June,1945 to Tiger Force: Mangold says MacArthur would have used CBW for Coronet. In 1918 WSC was not the decision maker, but he is unlikely to have printed these quotes if the notion had been rejected by his colleagues.
Interesting Ken. However I have to say that the ability of Bomber command to kill 100,000 people in one night did not prove decisive in round two so I find it unlikely that CBW would have been much more effective in 1919. I tend to agree with the Germans, aircraft are better used in support of the Army (via Plan-1919) than being wasted on very costly and largely pointless strategic bombing efforts.
sealordlawrenceIMO Commandante is too small, too short-range for the RNs “Global Corvette”, or O(ceanic)PV. Good for the Italian navy, operating in the Mediterranean.
Agreed on the amphibious/disaster relief aspect. We have plenty of amphibs; shame to waste them. Having a modest passenger/cargo capability on OPVs (C3) is OK, because they may be operating on the lonely stations, such as the S. Atlantic, but a waste of space on the proper warfighting ships. We should use OPVs for the drug-smuggler & pirate hunting.
Sorry swerve you just missed my edit, certainly more range would be required but that level of capability in terms of weapons sensors and aviation facilities seems appropriate.;)
sealordlawrenceIt is worth pointing out that the T23’s are still very powerful assets perfectly capable of defending themselves and with the right upgrades very adequate ASW ships. However as with the T22’s they are single scenario vessels, that is they are meant to hunt Soviet submarines whilst being attacked by Soviet missiles. As a result they were relatively easy to define. The problem now is that the previous is still required (maybe to a lesser extent) but it is now desirable for the ships to be capable of performing a seeming plethora of other roles.
However what these roles actually are seems somewhat vague, the classic is hunting drug smugglers in the Caribbean and illegal immigrants in the med. Now clearly a T23 is overkill for this but it would certainly seem that a helicopter capability is a must. Something like this seems appropriate to me:
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/commandante/
I think that we have to except that this program will likely only ever produce 16 ships, in which case I would suggest eight of the above or something along the same lines but to take advantage of the latest available technology at the time of procurement, clearly extra range would be required for global operations as seem to be envisaged. For the upper tier eight T45 derivatives reconfigured for land attack and ASW rather than AAW, obviously retaining a suitable self defence capability, ASTER-15 and a reasonable radar would be sufficient, I think MConrads has already mentioned the single array light version of Sampson.
The very substantial amphibious fleet should be able to perform all required disaster relief and amphibious operations without the necessity for the frigate replacement ships to have a substantial capability in that area (ie large cargo area for troops or aid workers etc).
Thoughts?
On the gun issue, I dont think either the 127/62 or the 155/52 has any pretence to be AAW weapons and the decision to use such guns for land attack really involves accepting that they will be very lacking in defensive capability. The choice likely means little in terms of capability, the perfect example is the Oto Vulcano ammunition, it is being developed for both the 127 and the 155. As such I would suggest that it is a case of hull space and economy. Something which is interesting me a lot at the moment is the move towards medium caliber weapons for inner layer defence. Oto-melera is working on a missile defence modification (new specialised ammunition and fire control system) for the 76mm Super rapid (the Horizons mount two of these weapons) and the USN DDG1000 is to get the 57mm bofors gun for the same role. The advantages for use against surface threats as well as air ones are obvious and as long as the systems are effective I see this as a positive move.
sealordlawrenceAs expected. :rolleyes: For years the whole forum was full of people supporting the Iraqi invasion for whatever artificial reasons created by the US administration (WMDs, AQ, Kurds). I think at least me and Garry will remember that well. Now you will not find a single man who would say *yes, I believed these ideas and I was wrong*, all neocons crawled back to their holes, turned their coats and now proudly present themselves as liberal democrats who knew it from the very start.:p
You have explained that and that was pretty much the part I have completely agreed with you. But what makes you think that you have right to forbid Iranians to work on their nuclear programme (be it for civil or military purposes) and even threaten with an attack is beyond me, especially if the evidence for any military-oriented programme is still missing. (Unless they have found since late December 2007, I haven’t checked yet)
You are very wrong thinking that this here gets me emotional.. This all does not concern my life or my country a tiny bit, so why bother? I am simply having fun..
You are getting very emotional, hence the insults and bad language.
The US/west has as much right to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons as Iran has to pursue them. Again you have shown that you are short on knowledge, the NIE did not say they was no evidence of an Iranian military nuclear program, what it said was that there was one but it was suspended at an early stage in 2003 and that Iran was still pursuing technologys that would allow for the development of nuclear weapons.
I am a liberal interventionist, indeed to a certain extent (note that phrase) I am even an ideological imperialist: By that I mean that I believe liberal democracy, capitalism and globalism as the lesser of many evils and that if a people is subjugated, brutalised and impoverished that it is not wrong to intervene and help them. As such I would support action in Zimbabwe and Burma if it was practical.
Sign In
