dark light

sealordlawrence

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 2,851 through 2,865 (of 5,730 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Mirage 2000 refuelling probes #2507292
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    No cost cutting is the main reason.
    OK,lets say its not,then what else could be the reason behind opting for a non retractable probe?

    The only two viable reasons that I can think of are cost cutting, as you mentioned, and internal space. I cant imagine that the internal space taken up by a well designed probe is that great.:confused:

    in reply to: Mirage 2000 refuelling probes #2507302
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    TAZZ, the Rafale does not have a retractable probe. its a fixed probe and the Dassault website claims its main reason is to eliminate complex systems during design.

    Low Operating Costs- Rafale

    “The decision to eliminate the complex systems from the early design phase (a fixed refuelling probe, but removable, fixed air intake, no airbrake, no constant speed drive due to variable frequency,…) ensures spare, maintenance man hours and support equipment reduction.”

    That is the lamest excuse ever, modern combat aircraft are insanely complicated to the extent that the minor addition of retractable fuel probe should make barely any maintenance impact at all.

    in reply to: PLAN News, Photos and Speculation #3 #2046659
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    Hey SOC,

    Check out the new updated image on Huludao shipyard. In the docks there appears to be actually two 092s, one of them appears to have a modified propulsion unit (looks like a pump jet to me). So much for conventional wisdom. Apparently right now, there are at least four Chinese boomers that can be seen in Google Earth, the other two being the old ones with the 094 in Dalian and the 092 being fixed up in Qingdao.

    So what your saying is that there are two 092s? There were always rumours that was the case but it would be bizzare if it took until now to come out. Is this absolutely certain?:confused: 😮

    in reply to: you must be kidding. #2507371
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    Can you explain to me exactly why Russia will never be a threat, you haven’t given any details to qualify the statement. It worries me that that people sre still using post Cold War assumtions when we are effectively no longer in the ‘post Cold War’ period. the world has moved on and Russia has designs on a powerful Russian Military once again. Combined with pacts with China it appears that the eye is most definitely off the ball.

    Not a lot of use though without air cover is it? We would do best to sink it ourselves and cut out the middleman. Don’t forget chap that it was you who educated me about the state of play with regard to JFH and the carrier air wings but even if Harriers were embarked their air defence capability is somewhat limited don’t you think?

    And which aircraft in the Argentinian armed forces are going to threaten any RN task force?:rolleyes: And you seem to be forgetting the two F-35 equipped CVF’s currently being procured.

    Russia will never be a serious threat becouse it is now a single medium power, with a significantly larger Europe to its west. It does not need any more than that. The only people that seriously regard Russia as a threat are Russian fan boys and paranoid members of the right wing British gutter press, (with the exception of the Economist all British press is gutter press).

    in reply to: you must be kidding. #2507463
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    Emerging threats? A resurgent Russia, China, South America plus a myriad of other smaller issues in other world hot spots. Have you given them any thought? How do you plan to deal with them on 2.5% GDP in the long term? You can’t, simple as. Don’t get me wrong, if this money can’t be invested we have another choice. Withdraw from the world stage and worry about what is going on closer to home. I’m happy with that unfortunately the British government isn’t.

    Plenty of thought, Russia’s resurgency is highly limited as to how far it can go and with a looming demographic crisis Russian power may well yet decline. Russia will never again be a super power on the scale of the Soviet Union the United States, or what China and India have the potential to achieve. China has the square root of nothing to threaten western Europe with and as far as Britain is concerned the South America issue is solely related to the Falklands, note the amphibious fleet is now very impressive.

    in reply to: Syria 'fires on Israel warplanes' #2507679
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    One of these days, in the admittedly extremely unlikely event that the largely pro-zionist US media might be caught off guard for a short while, the West might just wake up and realise exactly what kind of ‘friend’ it has in the state of Israel.

    This is one of those issues where boys-with-their-toys discussions of exactly whch bits of flying hardware might be involved are substantially irrelevant to the overall picture.

    I dont mean to be funny or anything but even Syrias friends seem to have been distinctly muted over this one. This is the kind of event that usually causes Middle east wide Arab condemnation but everyone is keeping very quiet. Makes one wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye.:confused:

    in reply to: More trouble for the RN #2046745
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    please please don’t quote Warships IFR:mad: and uniformed blogs

    As mentioned in another thread recently, Warships IFR is a joke. Its validity as source on defence matters is realy no better than that of the average UK tabloid news paper.

    in reply to: RBS 23 BAMSE – hail and farewell! #1792905
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    In some senses, they are actually like a mini Lafayette class! Not too heavily armed, but stealthy, and quite affordable.

    And in their current very lightly armed state, very upgradable.:D

    in reply to: P X Airborne #2507780
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    The irony is that BAe did studie the possibility of building new Nimrod MRA-4 airframes, and as we all know, new airfram and new wings equals new plane. Obviously the plan came to naught but the idea was seriously studied.

    in reply to: General Discussion #300721
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    But if I belive that Elvis is still alive, would it make me comming from same vein than holocaust denials and Hitlers-alive-belivers or from same as those who belive that world is 6000 thousand years old and Iraq had WMDs???

    You are quite good making “if-he-says-this-then-he-have-to-be-saying-that-too” type of assumptions of other persons and then falling to making personal attacks towards then based on that wonderfull logic of yours…

    Iraq did have WMD’s, ask the kurds…………

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

    So whos logic were you criticising.:rolleyes: :p

    in reply to: The events of 11th September 2001 #1925041
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    But if I belive that Elvis is still alive, would it make me comming from same vein than holocaust denials and Hitlers-alive-belivers or from same as those who belive that world is 6000 thousand years old and Iraq had WMDs???

    You are quite good making “if-he-says-this-then-he-have-to-be-saying-that-too” type of assumptions of other persons and then falling to making personal attacks towards then based on that wonderfull logic of yours…

    Iraq did have WMD’s, ask the kurds…………

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

    So whos logic were you criticising.:rolleyes: :p

    in reply to: More trouble for the RN #2046787
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    The list of UK/EU interests: Global trade in its many disguises

    The list of enemies: Cat A – revolting vassals (just stop sending spares!); Cat B – backward have nots (lotsa talk-talk, nada walk-walk; a week of cruise missiles will do); Cat C – nuclear armed powers (China, India. A war against those folks is only realistic with an all-out effort. And what would be the goal anyway? And: Nuclear deterrence works! Draw a hard line. They’ll understand)

    Q&A: What do you need the forces for these days? Fight insubordinate third-rate peoples with robots. Keep Special Forces for what dirty work remains. And keep your ICBMs and SLBMs thoroughly waxed.

    And that is pretty much it. The UK’s aremed forces are no longer suffering from the kind of financial problems that beset the countrie for the largest part of the cold war. The problem now is a lack of percieved threat (or real threat for that matter). Sure Russia showing off a bit but it is not even a shadow of its former self and its capacity to really threaten Europe is very limited. Furthermore it is easily arguable that Russian power will yet decline. The biggest violent threat to European security is Islam.

    in reply to: More trouble for the RN #2046822
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    Royal Navy to launch remote controlled next-gen ship

    http://www.zeiges.com/img/1056105,0200745120300.jpg

    THIS is the shape of war to come — a supership to launch unmanned jets, submarines, tanks and boats by remote control.
    By 2020 a new generation fleet of Royal Navy ships will replace tens of thousands of troops on the battlefield.
    The Sun has been given exclusive blueprint images of this first prototype.
    Dubbed the UXV Combatant — and nicknamed Mothership — the concept has been drawn up by UK arms giant BAE Systems.
    It could be in service in 13 years — replacing the current fleet of Type 22 frigates.
    The 8,000-ton Mothership is a cross between an aircraft carrier and the Navy’s newest Type 45 destroyer.
    Its sleek, stealth design means it only shows up on radar as the size of a small fishing boat. Main weapons systems will be concealed, including the 75-mile range, 155mm gun with precision-guided shells.
    Each Mothership could carry up to 24 unmanned vehicles for different combat scenarios.
    A handful of the ships could execute a full invasion. Currently, it takes around 20 people to crew and maintain one helicopter.
    An unmanned version could be run by five. Manned surface patrol boats need 50 sailors to manage. The remote control prototypes need just ten.
    BAE Systems’ ship engineering chief Charles Nisbet said: “There is still a way to go but we have been working across industry and closely with the MoD on the concept, and this is a considered response to their request for designs.”
    A senior Navy officer said: “The UXV fits very closely with our thinking. “The next generation of surface ships has to be able to do just about everything.”

    £4bn carriers for navy may mean cuts in fleet

    The first of the 65,000-tonne carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth, is expected to go into service in 2012, and the second, HMS Prince of Wales, in 2015.
    Admiral Sir Jonathon Band, the first sea lord, said the decision to build them meant that Britain remained “big boys in the navy league“. 😮

    The Destruction of the British Navy

    One of Europe’s biggest mistakes ever made is that all Western European countries have destroyed their military after the second world war. Before World War II, European countries had the most powerful armies in the world; we ruled the world, Brittania ruled the waves. No matter what happened, and where it happened, European powers were able to intervene.

    Slowly but surely, more and more Europeans seem to realize this; this is especially the case is Great Britain

    It’s easy to make fun of the Brits, of course, but fact of the matter is that I don’t find this funny at all. Britain once had the most powerful Navy in the world. Labor’s goal seems to have always been to bring it to utter destruction; it has almost succeeded in doing so, if it goes ahead and implements these plans it will succeed. This will not only weaken Britain, it will weaken the West as a whole and the EU. Forget about playing an important role in the world, forget about defending ourselves against possible future attacks, forget about it all. Europe will be handicapped and useless. All we’ll be able to do is to live in our Kantian paradise, hoping everyone will just let us be and live in peace. For if they do not, we can’t do anything about it.

    That article looks very low quality to me. And I am rather lost as to why you felt the need to place a smily in it?:confused:

    As for the UAV carrier, as far as I know it is a private venture by BAe of the sort that all shipbuilders do every now and again. The liklyhood of an RN procurement is minimal at best. This is not an offical MoD procurement program.

    However it is certainly an interesting concept, and if it could carry Taranis sized UCAV’s or larger it may provide a way of diversifying a fleets aerial strike power for Navies that cant afford to operate F-35’s of their amphibious flat-tops.

    in reply to: you must be kidding. #2508077
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    That wouldn’t work. It takes time to spend money. Double the budget immediately & they couldn’t spend it. They could throw it away . . .

    What would you spend all that money on? Add up all the things which one could spend money on quickly, & the extra funding needed to cover them is actually quite modest.

    Hmmmm, let me see.

    RAF…….
    1) 20+ Nimrod MRA-4 instead of the currently stupidly small number.
    2) A decent tanker procurement program to replace the current force properly
    3) The development of the BAe Replica into a full blown combat aircraft for both the RN and RAF.

    RN………
    1) At least double the number of current T45 orders +a new program for a follow on based on the BMT defence services F-5 frigate.
    2) Bring the SSN force back upto twelve units with a follow on class to the Astutes based on some of BAe’s new concepts.
    3) CTOL CVF’s with the above mentioned Replica development and Hawkeye D’s.

    Army……
    1) More Merlins more Chinooks and more Apaches (the 97 originally proposed would be nice)
    2) A challenger 2 development based on the 2E but with the 1650hp Euro powerpack and a Claverham autoloader.
    3)Replace all 105mm guns with 155mm.

    And that just a start.:diablo: 😀

    But seriously I know what you are saying, one of the biggest issues is manpower, and if that were sufficient any organisation needs time to absorb an increased budget rather than just fritter it away.

    in reply to: you must be kidding. #2508079
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    You actually think people want to fly in the RAF for the money? :confused: 🙂

    They need at least some financial incentive.;)

Viewing 15 posts - 2,851 through 2,865 (of 5,730 total)