sealordlawrenceTell me you are a politician right?
Why is that people are always ready to jump in with “it will never happen”? How many thought the first Falklands War would ever happen? – not many
How many thought we’d be fighting Germany again 20 years after the first “round”? – not many. So you cannot imagine another location – okay, but you to could be wrong.To take your Falklands scenario, yes it is a very remote possibility given the state of defences now cf 1981/2 and the converse state of Argentine offensive capability.
But procurement and doctrinal decisions made now reflect the state of the armed forces for the next 20-30 years, in which time Argentinia may have changed. [hell, to believe some forum members it will be an almost federalised continental superpower anyway].
And above all this is a DISCUSSION forum, so let us discuss.
And just because you cannot imagine any other situation, does
DJ is right. Argentina is in no position to undertake any serious military action against the Falklands in the near to medium term. Any large scale rearmament would be noted by the UK government bu the Argentine economy is simply not capable of it.
sealordlawrenceWhat the hell does “crew properly maintained” mean lol? They aren’t exactly an engine boiler 😉
Pathetic trolling, you knew I meant training.
The ship was going to be decommissioned, why would it be well maintained
As long as there are cre onboard a certain level of safety and thus maintenance should be provided.
This may as well have happened in a house. Fire + closed space = fatality.
But it did not, it happened on a Russian Navy ship and represents yet another occasion where that intitution has had a fatal accident. This continues the shockingly high accident rate in the Russian Navy that is resulting in the needless loss of young lives. You seem to suggest that fires just happen,they do not, they are usually the product of shoddy maintenance or procedure, both of which the Russian navy would be to blame for.:mad:
sealordlawrenceMaybe you need to re-read my post. Person that died was not from ship’s crew, but i guess in other navies sailors are superhuman and they cannot die from suffocation. And the photos are in enough resolution to be seen that the ship is well maintained.
How can you tell if a ships internals (you know the important bits that provide power etc:rolleyes:) are well maintained.
Training, you know the stuff that condition sailors to deal with things like fires. And so what if he was not a meber of the crew, he was naval personnel which means he should have been up to speed anyway.
sealordlawrenceI assume that according to you this is “decrepid tub”.
Just because it has an average paint scheme it does not mean that the vessel is well maintained and that its crew is properly maintained.:mad:
sealordlawrenceSandbox, not Shipwreck.
Interesting development.
So we might see two of the old Kievs around eh. . .
It is common knowledge the the Kuznetsov class use Shipwrecks.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceI figure that if you can build something the size and complexity of a Kirov class cruiser you possibly could also manage to build a carrier…
Maybe, but that is not taking into account the degrading effect of the last two decades on the Russian shipbuilding industry.
sealordlawrenceNot really, because it’s been entirely possible to be deployed on an RN ship as an RAF Harrier pilot for some time. Then putting the statistical probability of eventually ending up on the Harrier fleet, you’d be daft to use that as a reason. Obviously there’s the danger that of you join the RAF, the numbers might not add up, and you could end up being a truckie, at ISK, or flying round in circles in an E3D.:)
I’m sure there are probably more than enough people applying for pilot slots in the RAF anyway to ensure there isn’t a recruiting crisis.
Not to mention that joint force helicopter also makes deployment at sea a very real probability as it is.
This particular exercise is yet another symptom of having an unnecessary armed force that has no specially defined role.
sealordlawrenceWell, what are the new PLAN Su-33’s going to operate from if not the Varyag???:confused:
China has not actually bought any yet and there are suggestions that Mig has been trying to push the Mig-29K
However this story is BS anyway so it is really rather irrelevant.
sealordlawrenceYet again: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20081208/118747597.html 😡
sealordlawrenceShould have shot them on sight.:rolleyes:
Whilst I am an extremely strong advocate for free speech I find it utterly unaccetable that such ‘people’ should be allowed to interfere with the travel plans of the middle class. At the very least the police should have moved in with dogs and rubber bullets combined with a very liberal use of batons, part of me can sympathise with the view quoted above. I only hope that such a despicable act will not be allowed to happen again.
sealordlawrenceYou’re both kind of missing the point. If Saddam had submarines the place for them to operate would have ben well away from his coast, probably in the Gulf of Oman, Arabian Sea or even Red Sea where they could have caused havoc. His missile boats were countered, but there were a threat until this had happened. A threat that demanded having appropriate forces to deal with them.
Saddams fast attack craft were defeated with ease and him having submarines would not have resulted in operations in outside the Gulf, the vessels would simple have been hunted and then sunk at best causing a minor delay.
Pre WW2 the Royal Navy did not expect attacks by multiple U boats on the surface. Hopes had been pinned on ASDIC (Sonar) as they didn’t expect them to attack on the surface, and struggled to counter the Wolfpacks. They didn’t understand how serious the air threat was, either.
In fact that statement suggests you need to do more reading on WW1/WW2 naval history.
No it does not, it suggests that you need to, it suggests that you need to understand the difference between good strategic outlook and and tactical misunderstanding. Before both WW1 and WW2 the RN prepared to fight the correct opponent Germany. Not some paranoid fanboy fantasy that in reality did not exist.
sealordlawrenceYes, LHA’s, LHD’s, LPD’s, LSD’s, LKA’s, and many other types of Cargo Ships that would needed to support any major amphibious assault. Which, are extremely vulnerable while operating within the littorals………:(
Except only the USMC has any intention of doing such a thing, not so much the USN.
sealordlawrenceThe world is full of attack aircraft, surface warships, submarines, mines and land based anti ship missiles. Just a few MiGs with long range missiles, missile armed craft, the odd diesel electric submarine or the odd well place minefield could cause choas.
Most of those are in the hands of western powers, any well versed navies will have little trouble with them.
Imagine what would have happened if Saddam had a few submarines under his belt when he invaded Kuwait, and instead of allowing the US led coalition to spend several months preparing and gathering intelligence, he sent his forces into Saudi Arabia, drawing the allies into a fight on his terms?
But he did not, so it is irrelevant and even if he did they would have been of little issue to the naval armada that assembled in the Gulf.
The same as the US. Who can predict the future? The threats that materialised in 1914, 1982, 1990 and 2001 bore very little relation to percieved priorities. We have no idea what is around the corner….
1914 and 1940 were exactly what exactly what the relevent navies had been preparing for. 2001 in no way affected western naval supremacy and 1990 was a walk over.
That’s certainly what the Government think. Or at least it was the main excuse for saving (not vey much) money by scrapping the Sea Harrier six to eight years before its replacement enters service. A dangerous decision, discussed at length in various places (such as here). Not everyone was convinced – including the RN themselves.
So what if not everyone is convinced. It is a reasonable cost cutting measure in a world where there is virtually no aerial threat to the UK fleet.
It’s actually more like 95%!
So? What is the threat to it beyond a few Somali pirates?
The beauty of a carrier is flexibilty. You could use carrier based fighters to protect your fleet or logistics, to escort strike aircraft or to enforce a no fly zone. You could use carrier strike aircraft against sea or land targets. You could operate helicopters in seaborne roles like ASW, or for amphibious assault and ship to land logistics roles.
The ugliness is their expense, not just of the vessel but of the associated aircraft. Investment in carriers requires careful consideration to insure that one is not investing a money pit that provides little if any capability. Sao Paulo and the Thai carrier come to mind, even CdG to an extent.
sealordlawrenceIn response: I believe a true Blue Water Navy that seeks to exert influence over the sea beyond the range of it’s own nations land based air forces cannot do so without organic air power; I did not mention, infer or otherwise refer to nations such as Finland, Sweden or even Germany. These nations and others like them operate Naval Forces primarily for defence of home waters, or in Germanys case as a contribution to Nato. Britain is a nation with interests worldwide, not just in her coastal waters. Over 90% of Britains trade goes by sea, and not just across the channel. We import almost everything we need to survive on a daily basis for nations on the far side of the world, and as far as I am concerned the number one defence priority for Britain is her SLOCs which extend globally. Land based fighters cannot defend these, neither can land based MPAs for the same reason. Too many here and elsewhere have got it into their heads that Carriers are all about power projection from the sea to the land, whereas I see it differently.
What is Britain defending its SLOC’s against exactly?:rolleyes:
So the German fleet is not blue water, and the Dutch, thats just a coastguard force right, and well the Absalon is a littoral vessel right?:rolleyes:
The priorities of an aircraft carrier (certainly in the British context) are:
1.AIR DEFENCE OF THE FLEET And this includes the Merchant fleet too;
Wrong, that is why the F/A-2 has gone, Britain has virtually no threat to its surface fleet from air attack.
2.AIR DEFENCE OF THE FLEET By means of ship based fighter and AEW aircraft. Doesn’t matter how good your DDGs and FFGs are, they can’t see over the horizon, so they are limited in their engagement time. Aircraft give you reach.
Sure, if you need to defend the fleet and you can afford a modern carrier with modern aircraft.
3.AIR DEFENCE OF THE FLEET Did I mention this? because it cannot be over emphasised.
Again, only if foreign policy and doctrine require it, Somali pirates are somewhat short of aircraft
4.ANTI SHIPPING STRIKE Again, aircraft give you reach.
Again, only if this is a major doctrinal requirement, you will find that helicopters have done most of the recent hostile ship sinking.
5.ASW Best way to hunt a sub is with another sub. Next best way is with a helicopter.
And this does not require a fleet carrier, see the Japanese fleet or the Invincible class up to the early 1990’s.
6.Finally we get to POWER PROJECTION OVER LAND Which is what everyone else is obsessed with at the moment.
For western navies this is currently the priority, they face no conventional threat and thus build their ships to exert influence in a world in which they have absolute naval supremacy.
I am not saying the Australian would or should have gone ahead with the Essex deal, just that they could, and there would have been pros and cons to the deal. I do not generally coment on the political dimension of these situation because politics rarely involves logic or reality. Yes an Essex would have involved a lot more manpower to run it compared to Melbourne, but the Australian Government also turned down Hermes in the late 60s because of ‘manpower issues’, and she only required a small increase in complement over Melbourne, easily covered by the crewmen released by the paying off of Sydney with a few hundred to spare.
Making it very clear that Australia did not regard a larger platform as economically viable or required in terms of foreign policy.
Sea Dart may well have been a better air defence system than the Phantom, but only out to about 30 miles. After that, the Phantom wins every time, because the Sea Dart will have run out of fuel and dropped into the sea. Or am I missing soething due to my ‘ignorance’ here?
And how threatening is an aerial platform to the ship outside of thirty miles, remember the timeframe and the threat that the UK was expecting to engage.
So the Skyhawk isn’t very good at A2A? So why did the USN use them at Top Gun? Obviously they should have asked your opinion first…
Turn it around, why did they procure the F-8/F-4/F-14 etc and phase out the radarless skyhawk with its limitation to SRAAM’s. As a fighter the type was of extremely limited usefulness.
I do not believe that Navies are a constant at all. I believe they should be equipped with the best weapon systems available in order to give them the best chance of winning any conflict they are sent into. Currently the aircraft carrier is the best available because nothing better has appeared to replace it. The Carrier will be obsolete the same day aircraft become obsolete. The Carrier is simply the best way of taking those aircraft to sea.
You have just proved that you do with your uninformed list of British naval prioritys. It is obvious that you have never read the 1998 Strategic defense Review and thus have no understanding of what the royal Navy is being built for.
And Yes I can ‘Say the Same of You’, it’s called free speech. If you don’t understand that your posts have been verging on personally abusive, then I would hope you do not speak to people in every day life in the same tone of voice. Most are not as forgiving as I am..:D
You misunderstood me (I am not surprised) You can not say they same because I have the understanding you are lacking.
Again: Economy + International Situation + Society = Foreign Policy
Foreign Policy = Doctrine
And Doctrine = Procurement + Military Education.
It is very simple really.
sealordlawrenceI have never implied I am a moderator, but the fact remains that your posts on this thread have been quite hostile. You can roll your eyes as much as you like, but you do not have a right to make rude comments about other posters. If you disagree, that is your right, but this forum is intended for friendly discussion, and your replies are very far from friendly.
Dont read them then.
Sign In
