sealordlawrenceOk smarty pants, short-medium ranged balisitc missile (in my ayes still fall into category of Scuds.. but have it your way) …still rather primitive compared to what other powers are fielding. And still decades away from actualy threatening continental USA.
In that case you dont know what a scud is.
Content of that article begs to differ and capability it describes (providing that US seeks/intends to achieve such capability)
Over a very long time frame the US intends to develop the ability to intercept MIRV’s. Perfectly reasonable given that those powers currently developing missile forces could deploy them and countermeasures.
sealordlawrencei never said it wasn’t an amazingly useful asset, and from what i hear(from an RAF air ops guy whos been in afghanistan) they could do with more, but isn’t there quite a large gap in transport helo’s out there, so if you combine say a helicopter gunship, with the ability to carry troops, like say….the hind, would that not be a pretty useful asset-two jobs, one airframe?
i obviously don’t know what i’m talking about again, comman sense with regards to military aviation is misplaced
What is the actual troop carrying capacity of a Hind how many fully equipped (by UK standards) troops is actually going to fit in that poxy cabin, not too mention weight issues associated with hot and high and massively inferior sensors and avionics even the latest model hinds have compared to a WAH-64?
UK Apaches are not RAF, they are Army.
sealordlawrenceI bet the british army kicks itself about the amount spent on those WAH-64’s when the number needed is so much less, but other capability(troop transpot) is limited
No they dont. They just wish they could get greater availability out of what has proved to be an amazingly useful asset in Afghanistan.
sealordlawrence1) You can not get much more flexible than a 90,000ton nuclear powered ship with a huge flat deck and then another one below it.
2) CdG is really too small and the French know it, hence the larger designs for PA2 (even before the propulsion down select)
4) That leaves CVF as the smallest realistic size for non-V/STOL operations, at over 70,000 tons full load potentially.
5) Since the late eighties US ship design has sucked, the DDG1000 went too far and costs escalated as a result. LCS produced nice platforms but the project has been appallingly mis-managed. Only now are the big amphib ships moving away from steam! Belatedly the US has started to look at fully integrated masts but in terms of ship design (balancing cost and modernity) the European yards lead the way at the moment. The decision to continue building the AB’s is a symptom of this. However they are still one of the most powerful destroyer designs out there (arguably the most powerful with only KDX-3 going further and excluding the Ticos due to their ridiculous cruiser designation). Only the San Antonio class and now the Makin Island have really shown any pace in development but both of those classes have had quality control issues. And dont even get me started on the decision to build LCS-1 on lake Michigan!
sealordlawrenceGeography is not your stronger side…
PS: Well this completely blows US position that Missile shield is not aimed at Russia (China)… since every other country they claim shield is aimed at, is more less at SCUD level of missile technology … and decades away from any type of sophicticated ICBMs… let alone MRV capability.
If one day (distant day) US does develop shield capable of “significantly increasing defense capability ” against lager number of ICBMs with MRVs… Logical step for Russia (China) is to mount Warheads on satellite like platforms in geosynchronous orbit above continental North America and Europe, and the MAD continues.
Oh dear, someone else with no knowledge about what they are talking about.
Since when was a Scud a solid fuelled missile with a range in excess of 2000km?:rolleyes:
Russia and China can do what the hell they like, the missile shield is not pointed at them, as long as they stick to their treaty obligations or withdraw from them through the proper channels.
sealordlawrenceYou know, I think you should learn a little more before writing about aviation history.
In 1958 Switzerland ordered 100 Hunters.
In the 1970’s Switzerland evaluated the Corsair II and Dassault Milan as a replacement for its de Havilland Venoms. Eventually Switzerland decided to order more 60 more Hunters instead.
The Hunter reached about 35 years of use in Switzerland!
Dude, the guy is a fanboy, he will not let the truth get in the way of his fantasies.;)
sealordlawrenceGood question. I’d say the fleet could be cut back substantially.
Sure it could. But the US has decided that it wants to be a globe straddlng hyper-power.
sealordlawrenceI’m seeing plenty of posts about why you want bigger carriers, but not much on why the US taxpayer NEEDS bigger carriers. Plus some of the answers contradict what the USN seems to be saying with the next gen carriers, particularly the 4-cat point. The new gen non-steam catapults supposedly increase reliability and launch rate so logically fewer would be needed. 2, with the exception of the E-2s, the aircraft planned for the future air wings are much smaller than the F-14s of the original Nimitz specs, so again less deck space required – and UCAVs will take that further(?).
Why does the US tax payer even need carriers? If you are going to procure an entire navy for the pupose of global power domination then you may as well gold plate it.
Interms of carrier operations, more cats and more deck space are always a benefit.
sealordlawrenceI mean, after all, NATO vessels never hit rocks, run aground, hit each other, have accidents or need help from a support vessel. I mean honestly! The very idea.
In TEAMWORK 88 alone, the Belgian frigate Westhinder hit a rock, the Canadian frigate Athabaskan hit the same rock and crumpled her sonar dome, the British LSL Sir Geraint ran aground, the American LST Boulder went aground short afterward and suffered serious damage, and the HMS Penelope swung across the bows of the Candian refuelling tender Preserver and got sent home with a 20ft long gash in her side, and that’s not even a complete list. The USS Puget Sound got heavy trade indeed. Ships are not invulnerable just because they’re from one navy over another.
Not this nonesense again. Compare the number of active vessels, the number of nautical miles sailed per year and the number of days at Sea of NATO to the Russian Navy and then count the number of accidents. You will then discover that the Russian Navy’s accident rate is ridiculously high compared to that of NATO.
sealordlawrenceWhy there is always a tugboat in the middle of these task forces? It is the same with the ships that went to Venezuela…Is this a “standard procedure” for the RuN or fear that the ships will break middle of the way….????:confused::confused:
I ask because this is motive of laugh all around the web….It gives the impression that they not trust their own ships…:confused:
Can someone enlighten me?
Its a standing joke amongst western navies and intelligence officials that the Russian’s always send the ocean going tug out first. The reason is because they do not trust their own ships. Given their safety record would you?
The destroyer tenders the US navy used to use were largely to support the legacy units in the fleet with basic maintenance, remember that the USN had WW2 era destroyers in service into the 1980s and the destroyer tenders are now all gone.
Of course the fanboys wont have this.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrencePhiladelphia tried this…it didn’t work.
I think that the problem was insufficient bombs.
sealordlawrenceIt deservedto die. It was an aweful shop selling aweful products running an aweful business model. Its death has been a long time in the coming but just like the US auto industry the current economic situation was just the straw that broke the camels back.
sealordlawrenceIt deservedto die. It was an aweful shop selling aweful products running an aweful business model. Its death has been a long time in the coming but just like the US auto industry the current economic situation was just the straw that broke the camels back.
sealordlawrenceSorry but i still think you are missing the point, surely in assessing the threats you may need to counter you have to take the other guys viewpoint into consideration, thus however irrational the action or decision may appear to you, thats an irrelevance, you need to be thinking “how is the other guy viewing this?”
Not if the ‘other guys’ view point has transcended the reasonable point of rationality. From a military perspective, the timing of the invasion was utterly ludicrous and in many ways its outcome was determined from the very start.
The point is that the ‘other guy’ turned the thought process on its head. Rather than looking at the international and military situation prior to determining a course of action the course of action was determined on the need to stem the collapse of public support at home. The rest was then made to fit. This is not a rational act (although again rationality is always subjective) and it is not a thought process that should be anticipated from a ‘western’ regime. The prospect of war was outlandish, and really in the same category as the prospect of an invasion of Gibralter by Spain.
In defence planning a line has to be drawn somewheer and in this case I strongly believe that it was drawn correctly. However this discussion is acdemic as the pre Nott Royal Navy proved perfectly adequate of unertaking the Falklands operation anyway.
sealordlawrenceAgain I agree with you, yes they have. But no European city has been struck by a ballistic missile since 1945.
So? Was there some sort of law laid down by god in 1945 that forbade any human from launching a ballistic missile against Europe ever again?:rolleyes:
This would be analagous to using a cell of three B-52’s laying down some carbet bombing to kill a mosquito. The threat is not there to warrant such an expense on such a system that in your own estimation is a work in progress.
Not at all, it is analogous to a country building air defences to defend against aircraft. Kind of like Russia building the S-400 system and deploying it around Moscow, as they are.
I do find it troubling that you seem to be trying to put a price on human life however.
The fact that you cannot see past the Bush/Cheney rhetoric on this issue astonishes me.
Quite the contrary, this issue is far more complex than either their rhetoric or your understanding. This is about expressing global power, strengthening alliances and preserving leverage in the face of a proven threat. Saddam Hussein demonstrated how a state could use ballistic missiles try and leverage local states whilst North Korea has shown how the threat of a nuclear warhead to go on top such a weapon can also extract concessions. To a very large extent this system is actually never meant to be used in anger, it is intended to simply degrade the power of a states ballistic missile force so as to prevent its use as leverage.
Sign In
