sealordlawrenceI have a pretty high end speaker system too and I have never noticed a difference.
sealordlawrenceI have a pretty high end speaker system too and I have never noticed a difference.
sealordlawrenceI’ve abandoned the exchange with sealordlawrence. Forum members can make their own judgement (should they wish) as to which one of us is making a “ridiculous claim”, “absurd statements”, “mistakes”, is “simply ranting”, or does not “understand the subtle nature of the English language”.
Turning to a fresh subject:
In a private message sent earlier today, I replied that:
“In all the strategic systems I’m aware of, the release of RVs and penaids comes soon after the final stage has burned out. (Thus the US interest in ascent-phase ABM solutions – get the brute before it releases its payload!)
“I can’t recall for the moment why that is so.”
Thinking about this over lunch, I can see several potential reasons. After the final stage of the booster (or the only stage in the case of short-ranged systems) has burned out, the post-boost vehicle (PBV) needs to execute an ‘aerial ballet’ to bring itself onto the trajectory needed by each RV, release the RV, back away in a manner that does not disturb any of the RVs it has released, then head off onto the next required trajectory. The entire process of releasing a full load of RVs can take up to 10 minutes.
One original motive for getting the RVs released as soon as possible may have been to avoid steadily-increasing inertial errors throughout this time. This no longer applies if the PBV uses stellar-inertial guidance and can take star shots in order to update its guidance system.
The most important reason for getting the RVs away as soon as possible is probably to ensure that the entire process can be carried out beneath the enemy’s radar horizon. By the time that the enemy sees a target, he is faced with a complex target array of warheads, fully-inflated balloon decoys, fully-deployed chaff, etc.
A third reason likely to become more important in the future is the need to get the RVs away before an enemy ABM can engage the missile or the PBV.
Mercurius Cantabrigiensis
It was you who was making such statements.
One of the motivations behind the satellite based ‘pebble’ system proposed for the SDI in the eighties was to try and take out the missiles before warhead release, the reason being obvious. A fully loaded (ignoring treaty requirements) Ohio class SSBN can launch 288 MIRVs, if you only have to take out the 24 missiles life becomes a lot easier. However the system would have been vulnerable to ASAT warfare and may well explain Skif-D.
sealordlawrenceLoiter is important…but not so much as to justify steam cats and all the associated expend for the carriers. What is the value in range, operationally, that the F-35C brings over F-35B…and please be specific here?.
Which affects one weapons system currently in the UK inventory. Again I say to you is the lack of internal carriage option for the 2000lb EPW worth the cost of building CATOBAR over STOVL.
CATOBAR surge is nowhere close to that offered by STOVL – a factor proven time and again by the Royal Navy. Surge capacity that HAS actually proven valuable under operational conditions.
To be honest Sealord when it has been explained to board members repeatedly, and in such clear terms that people actually PM me tell me to give it up as I’m not penetrating closed minds, I’m not taking accusations of being patronising as fair comment. The requirement is that set by the Ministry of Defence to replace what we have in the CVS’s. It, no matter what anyone says, is a quantum leap over that capability and, most importantly, is what we can, just about, afford without shelling the rest of the fleet.
The RN is making no ‘sacrifice’ to get capabilities it hasnt enjoyed in over 30 years. Its true that it is not getting capabilities that a vessel of 60k tonnes could bring BUT as stated ad nauseum what value is there in having them if they are never used. The value of having the most efficient carrier possible is manifest – we get to keep money back to invest in Escorts that we DO need rather than in catapults and Hawkeyes that we can do perfectly well without!. Until that fact is grasped knock off the hurt and offended tone when someone points out a few operational realities to you!.
The RN is making a sacrifice as has been pointed out inumerbale times by inumerable people, in many cases far more qualified than either you or I. I dont care how many PM’s you get or how arrogant you make your posts sound it does not make you right.
The reality is that the RN is getting an aircraft of reduced range and payload in order to save money. The only reason you have produced is the surge excuse, the fact is that the fuel lost by the B compared to the C makes this irrelevant, if you really want to create a large strike package the C will have more than enough fuel to wait around in the air for a few minutes whilst the other aircraft are launched, not to mention the fact that the increased payload of the C would reduce the need for larger numbers of aircraft to start with.
The fact that you seem to think that the UK’s inventory of A2G weapons is going to remain static for the next 30 years is just absurd.
I appreciate that you think you are better than the rest of us but you clearly are not and contrary to your opinion we do not need to be lectured by you.
sealordlawrenceIndia will still have 3 AC’s by 2020, so not an issue.Agree on the ships infrastructure etc but IN has been operating 2 AC’s of different types again not a big deal. Training would be same and I don’t see why maintenance cost would add up to more than the premium required to build it in europe. Why would manning costs be cheaper? Fifth debatable,as IN could have had a carrier earlier by ordering a new one in russia also not to mention cheaper.
Maybe you could tell us the last time a Russian shipyard built an aircraft carrier from scratch?:rolleyes: The IN’s previous carriers of different types were actually built in the same country to the same infrastructure and systems, in fact one was an evolution of the other. The Gorschkov is of a completely different design and country from any other carrier the IN has.
On the man power issue, yes they would be cheaper. European industries and navies have worked tirelessly to reduce crew levels on ships to the extent that the CVF’s will have only about the same size crew as an Invincible, a class less than half the size of the CVF.
sealordlawrenceI don’t think this discussion is getting anywhere useful, so propose to end my contribution with the following comments, which are intended only to clear up misunderstandings of what I posted earlier:
Sealordlawrence says I am misquoting him. Are “in relatively short periods of time” (his words) and “quickly” (my word) not alternative ways of saying the same thing?
At no point have I suggested that China does not have an active penaid programme and facilities that support such a programme. The question “What facilities or expertise do you know China to have that would allow it to move faster than the UK in developing penaids?” was asking if there was any evidence that China could conduct a penaid-development programme on it own faster than the UK could with US assistance.
Nowhere did I imply that it was feasible to “just hop online and order up a laser defense system”. The laser-based system described earlier is not a laser weapon or a laser-defence system. It is not a kill mechanism, not have I suggested that it is.
It is only a sensor that would use a laser to create outgassing and minor ablation from the warhead or decoy being examined. This would involve a much lower power level than would be needed by a laser weapon such as the US Airborne Laser, and could be accomplished using relatively-mature laser technology.
I did not claim that such a laser sensor was “technically feasible to everyone”, only that it could be adopted by nations attempting to develop ABM defences – a ‘club’ that for the moment consists of China, India, Israel, Russia, and the US, all of whom have significant laser expertise.
Mercurius Cantabrigiensis
Now you are backing away from your mistakes, you clearly do not understand the subtle nature of the English language, You have made absurd statements about ABM countries being able to just adopt technology that thus far exists only as a concept in the US. In addition to that you continue to rant about a single example for your penaid point whilst ignoring the fact that conversation has moved on and left you behind- as I pointed out, it is highly unlikely that China would be starting from scratch with such technology. Te reason that ‘this discussion is not getting anywhere useful’ is you.
sealordlawrenceI think you’re missing my point – it’s easy enough to connect the iPod and synch … what I want to do is use different codecs between the version on the PC and one on the iPod. I don’t know if you can do this.
Yeah but why?
sealordlawrenceI think you’re missing my point – it’s easy enough to connect the iPod and synch … what I want to do is use different codecs between the version on the PC and one on the iPod. I don’t know if you can do this.
Yeah but why?
sealordlawrenceEh? If you are using itunes just load your CD’s onto the that and transfer seemlessly to you ipod.
sealordlawrenceEh? If you are using itunes just load your CD’s onto the that and transfer seemlessly to you ipod.
sealordlawrenceConsider the apparent difficulty in spoofing modern WVR AAMs that have IIR seekers. Now put the target in the cold background of space and try to spoof a MUCH more capable seeker. Not nearly as easy as fooling radar (not that THAT is exactly child’s play).
Very true, which is why you go for multiple re-entry vehicles as far as possible (IIRC 12?) make them as fast as possible and as agile as possible. But certainly IIRC is the way forward for this task.
sealordlawrenceDon’t forget they also would like to get KEI to sea. (Of course it has to make it off the drawing board first. 😉 )
That is the one function I could see for a ship like this. A kind of 21st century Kirov. Huge and armed with KEI for ABM (and other interception tasks that may arise) and the planned land attack version for surface tasks, to support the carrier groups.
sealordlawrenceAs has been shown over the years it takes a lot of work. India, China, etc. can’t just hop online and order up a laser defense system. How many years and billions of dollars has the US sunk into developing lasers to the point of shooting down missiles and where are they at with that? The US shot down a Vandal target over 15 years ago and we still aren’t close to having a laser CIWS on ships. Eventually yeah, but not overnight. Maybe at some point we’ll have supercavitating intercontinental Project Plutos flying around that stay under water and then pop up to cruising on the deck. Who knows? Definitely be interesting when everybody can plink ICBMs out of the sky effortlessly.
Again you took the words out of my mouth,.;)
sealordlawrenceBack and forth, back and forth. The thing is why would you want to GIVE the other guy an open door vs countering what he comes up with?
Exactly, this counters that counters this etc etc on and on and on. That is my point. This ABM system is never going to require anybody to enhance their strategic arsenals by a factor of 100, it is an absurd suggestion just as it is to say that other countries will not be able to come up with various counter measures in the short to medium term.
We all saw how the Soviets reacted to ABM systems, various counter-measures for Topol-M and Bulava, ASAT systems for early warning satellites, high speed cruise missiles/stealthy cruise missiles for ground stations etc etc.
Then of course there is the fact that the other side will likely seek its own ABM systems, so both sides still end up in the same position.
sealordlawrenceWas your post irrelevant to my point?
Your original claim was:
“People who believe that ABM systems are some kind of strategic panacea need to take a serious reality check. They are not, various ways round them can, will and have been developed in relatively short periods of time.”
The substance of my reply was to quote a statement by a leading engineer from a major penaid programme saying that such developments would be neither simple, quick, nor easy. To me, that seemed relevant to the discussion.
The laser-based technique I mentioned is now in the public domain, so could be adopted by India, China, Russia, Israel, or any other nation attempting to develop ABM defences.
Any discussion of ASAT systems will have to wait until after the holiday season, when I might have more time. It’s a major subject in its own right, and I’ve got a lot of work I need to get through this week.
What facilities or expertise do you know China to have that would allow it to move faster than the UK in developing penaids?
Mercurius Cantabrigiensis
Do you know China does not have those facilities? Google it there is evidence that they have been working on them for years.
The laser system could not just be adopted by any nation, just becouse the concept is in the public domain it does not make it technically feasible to everyone, that was a ridiculous claim on your part and shows you to have double standards- you expect me to provide evidence that China is developing penaids yet you can just say that any country may possibly at some point in the future develop a laser system that is only a proposal in the US…..quite ridiculous on your part.
I said ‘relatively short periods of time’ not ‘quickly’ you deliberately mis-qouted me. considering how long it takes to develop and deploy a fully active and capable ABM system penaids could be deployed relatively quickly. Simply ranting about one example over and over again does not prove your point.
Sign In
