sealordlawrenceread somewhere that rs-24 is just a Topol M with the warhead bus from the ss-20 pioneer.that would explain the very fast development of it.maybe we should call more an adaptation work.
Rsm55 do u know what will happen if Bulava is a failure?will there be a revival for the BARK program or they could refit Sinevas in Borei’s as a military analyst suggested?are the options feseable?
What is your source for the SS-20 warhead bus, just intrigued?
What would be the point in restarting the BARK programme, it was essentially abandoned because it failed in the first place. The Bulava should start to perform soon anyway.
sealordlawrenceNone of course.
So America wants to build a multi billion dollar system to intercept a Scud with a couple of hundred pounds of guncotton in the nose? Right. You very well know that this is being sold to the public as a tool to prevent nuclear warheads to be used against America or Europe. You are being disingenious if you do not address this fact.
In fact this reminds me of how Bush “sold” America on the Iraq War. An over-reaction to a threat that did not exist. Let me guess…You supported that misadventure as well.
Oh so its not worth defending cities against conventionally armed ballistic missiles then? Because Such weapons have never killed anyone?:rolleyes:
sealordlawrence[QUOTE=bgnewf;1327586]
Well well. You admit finally that a deployed BMD site in Alaska and that is on the boards for Poland is developmental technology. If that is the case then why is it an operational system? How can the Americans be pushing deployment of a “developmental technology”? How can this be allowed to happen when every other American military system being slated for deployment from a truck to an ICBM must pass stringent OT&E standards by independent agencies that are set up not to be swayed by politics. How can you support deployment of something that in your own words you state is not ready to be operational???
Because it has been proven to be able to intercept ballistic missiles. it is in a process of continual development. All very easy but confusing to you.
Tell that to the population of Poland. Tell that to the populations of Eastern and Central Europe seeing mobile nuclear missiles deployed into the field on their border. Glad you think that the first field deployment of this kind of weapon by Russia since the INF Treaty was signed is nothing to worry about. Glad that you think that the first mention of new American President Obama by Russian president Medvedev was in the context of a warning of this specific deployment along with a strongly worded warning about the consequences for the deployment. It’s OK Eastern Europe…Sealordlawrence says you have nothing to worry about.
They are all within the range of nuclear missiles anyway, a few iskanders are meaningless.
Yeah, nothing to worry about here. Russia can only hold Europe hostage by withholding energy supplies. Russia only has the largest stockpile of atomic weapons on earth. It is foolhardy to underestimate a potential adversary.
And in doing so destroy its own economy. The Soviet Union never shut of the energy supplies and neither will Russia, the cost to it is far to high.
Not what I meant. Poland’s Foreign Minister has already come out stating that the Obama Administration wants to deploy this technology and continue the Bush Administration’s policy. The President-Elect’s people are saying otherwise, that no decision has been made. France and Germany have expressed their opposition to this development. The Polish and Czech administrations are wishing to go ahead with this in spite of huge opposition to it from their own populations. Can you not see that this could disrupt the relations between members of the alliance? Whether this takes place or not there is the possibility that this issue could cleave NATO apart much like the Afghanistan deployment might.
Pure fantasy, despite its concerns France has even rejoined the alliance command structure. Utter nonsense.
Incredible!!! BMD is designed to DEFEND against nuclear tipped ballistic missiles. How can you sir be so obsessed with BMD and not think about the rationale for it in the first place??? Successful planning for any defense requires understanding of the offensive threat. Any military tactician will tell you the same thing. Understanding of the threat and it’s scope is the first and most important part in even attempting to devise a defense. Then and only then do you start asking if a defense is actually feasable from technical, political and economic points of view. You are going at it backwards.
1) You have already proven that you know nothing about the threat.
2) The clue is in the name, ballistic missile defence, it is intended to defend against ballistic missiles irrelevent of their warheads. Care to tell us how many ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads have been fired in anger?:rolleyes:
You should put away your fanboy flag for BMD and start thinking about the bigger picture for once.
Coming from someone so devoid of knowledge that is just laughable.
sealordlawrence[QUOTE=bgnewf;1327542]
Successful tests……Right. The system deployed In Alaska and on the boards for Eastern Europe was not fully tested and eveluated the way a military system is supposed to be by federal statue before deployment. That is not open for debate. That is fact. There is significant debate about the “success” some of the tests that have been completed actually had. This is fact as well. Can you seriously tell me that you actually believe that the technology has been tested with enough rigor to convince you that it works as advertised?
Of course it has not, it is a developmental technology, why is this concept so challenging for you.:rolleyes:
Russian deployment of Iskanders on the Polish border.
So what, Russia has MIRV equipped ICBM’s, a few Iskanders are meaningless.
The possibility of a renewed arms race or cold war.
Not at all, that would require a western fear of Russia, of which there is none.
The possibility of serious conflict with a resurgent Russia.
Just ludicrous
The destabilization of NATO. Take your pick.
The qeue of countries wanting to join suggests otherwise.
I have tried to be diplomatic with you. With all due respect, if you wish to get personal then lets get personal. You sir are so blinded by your own opinions you appear to be unwilling to even countenance anything or anyone having a different one that yours.
It was you who made it personal.
You profess to have some basis of knowledge on BMD that makes your opinions sacrosanct and fact. They are not. I would submit that you are simply not prepared to see the opinions of others even to small degree having any worth.
If your opionions were valid and backed by knowledge I would consider them but you are grossly misinformed.
Nobody wants to see a nuclear weapon used in anger ever again. on that I think we are in agreement. You strongly believe in defense against these weapons. But do you not see the folly of BMD in this context? Do you not see that the deployment of this kind of technology actually increases the probability that these kinds of weapons may actually be used?
Why the obsession with nuclear weapons?
sealordlawrenceSorry you feel that way, but that is not my intent. All I am stating here ad infinitum is that BMD proponents such as yourself use the definitive article in their language when describing BMD developments when they should not.
Becuase anybody with basic comprehension and understanding skills is capable of applying that caveat, without notification, to any developmental technology. Your decision to apply this specifically to BMD when it has already undergone successful tests is puzzling.
If you said “has the possibility” or “perhaps” or even “could” I would not have an issue. Speaking about technology that is unproven, relatively untested, controversial and not even deployed this way without qualification is intellectually dishonest and does not serve you well.
Ignoring your obvious attempt to insult I point you to the above.
As you can probably tell by this point Lawrence, I am not a true believer in this technology and I can tell you obviously are, and I deeply respect your perspective is spite of our disagreement. However I am not wed to my opinions. I can be convinced to see the “error of my ways” if it can be proven to me that not only with this technology work but that it will provide an actual capability that will be worth the money and worth the destabilization it might cause politically if deployed.
You have also shown yourself to be grossly mis-informed on multiple occasions in your short time posting on this forum so the value of your opinion is highly limited. It is further limited by your failure to quantify ‘destabilisation politically’.
You might call it nitpicking or trolling, and that’s OK, but to me if we are going to have a serious debate about this issue we need to collectively try and speak in clear language that does not cloud the facts.
You have already demonstrated that your knowledge level is inadequate for such a debate and this rather pointless exercise appears to be a symptom of that.
sealordlawrenceExactly. But it is incorrect to state there was no rational thought process (& I do recognise that you qualified that). There was some rationality.
The junta tested their hypothesis, that Britain would not fight, with a series of provocations, & monitored the British responses carefully. The British government ignored the provocations, & proceeded with its own agenda as if they had not taken place. The Argentineans, behaving perfectly normally (cf. US foreign policy almost everywhere, at almost every time), projected their own thought processes on to their adversaries & believed British actions were responses to their own actions. This was entirely rational, if they had not been deluded in thinking that the British government was paying any attention at all to what Argentina was doing.
For anyone who understand the truth, that Argentinean actions were being ignored as unimportant, the idiocy was obvious – but it’s hard for anyone to recognise that to others, their own concerns, & even themselves, are too trivial to be taken notice of.
They really, truly, expected that there would be short-term costs, but after a while, things would settle down. They’d make a deal over the islanders (permanent residence as British citizens, or whatever), maybe even evacuate the islands & let them return to British administration, after getting a recognition of sovereignty & guarantees of economic & other access. Britain would make a fuss, stop military supplies (painful, but bearable – and maybe they’d be resumed eventually), but in private would be glad to have got rid of the financial burden & inconvenience of the islands. Trade would continue. And Galtieri et al would have a place in history, & Argentina would be able to develop & profit from the wilfully neglected (not just undeveloped, but 3rd party development blocked by the dead hand of the Falkland Islands Company) resources of the Falklands.
Indeed, and that is really my point. To the British, and indeed anybody on the outside, the decision looked irrational. I would argue that it was irrational, but rationality is subjective to personal consideration of circumstance. From this perspective the act was rational.
sealordlawrenceI read the article sir. I took issue with your characterization of it being something that would (in your words) “…provide a massive increase in capability…”.
I await your reply on why you chose to characterize this contract (and that is all it is, a few scribbles on a piece of paper) as something that will massively increase some nebulous capability you speak of.
You have already had my reply. It is a comment that applies to all developmental technologies and it does not need stating due to its obviousness. You decision to make an issue out of this is either an effort to troll or foolishness.
sealordlawrenceReally, it highlighted numerous lacks – self defensive fits; lack of AEW; lack of sea-keeping – many of which would have been far more fatal in their intended war role. Yes Hermes and Invincible were adequate for the task (or more correctly SHar?), but I’d suggest not by such a great deal.
Again, the war was won, and by a significant margin, sure lessons were learned, they always are.
3 CVA?
Prior to the Nott review three Invincibles were planned anyway.
An act of desperation maybe, but not one that could be said to have been completely unsurprising. There were signs of build-up to similar activity in the late 70’s and Argentine Govts have never exactly backed away from the claim to the islands.
So? Do you expect Spain to Invade Gibralter? Again you do not rationally start a naval war with the country that is supplying the entire propulsion system for your future surface fleet. That the invasion falls into the bounds of improbability on the basis of irrationality, justifies it not being given doctrinal significance until after it actually happened.
But a notion that has been put forward as the basis of why the RN was structured as it was in 1960’s, including the cancellation of CVA-01! That is, that the RN had a very limited role outside the NATO role. If
Not just a notion but the correct notion. The RN had virtually no role outside of NATO and the Falklands proved that the RN was adequate for this limited role.
sealordlawrenceI am not saying that in the abstract that the concept is not feasable from a technological point of view in the abstract. What I am saying is that the language used to describe the technology is often full of spin and also that simple measures like decoys and saturation are not taken into consideration when speaking about the feasability of these kind of schemes to actually provide the kind of protection its proponents speak of.
And in the “…hitting a bullet with a bullet…” vein, it is pretty simple to overwhelm defensive measures with more bullets. I like to use the analogy of Tank development as a way to describe how defensive measures are always defeated by offensive ones. The more armor a Tank carries the larger the guns and more sophisticated the projectiles become to overcome them. This back and forth technological race has always eventually been won by the offensive side of things and when it comes to BMD I do not see that changing.
:rolleyes:
Same applies to everything, it should not nedd explaining.:rolleyes:
The multiple bullet threat is the point of the multiple kill vehicle programme, something you would have got if you had read the article.
sealordlawrenceYes, but the Argentinean invasion was predicated on the UK being unwilling to fight (hence the attempt to keep it as bloodless as possible, to minimise the urge for revenge), & the timing was dictated by the combination of internal political & economic events, & the signals from the UK which were misinterpreted as showing unwillingness to fight. Wait three or four years & the UK might have a different government, as in early 1982 the Tories were deeply unpopular, & there would have to be an election by mid-1984 at the latest.
They saw British military strength as secondary, since they didn’t expect it to be used.
The crucial point in the anaylsis is not the Argetine thought process in the weeks immediately prior to the invasion but the decision taken in months and years before. Again, why would you have your entire planned fleet of frigates and destroyers equipped with British propulsion sets if you are planning on confiscating one of their posessions. The invasion of the Falklands was an act of desperation aimed at curtailling the home situation and was in no way based upon a rational thought process of military or even foreign policy concerns.
This was the irrational act of a desperate collapsing government, the idea that the UK would not fight was really just a notion to support a decision that had already been made (forced) by the domestic situation.
sealordlawrenceGreat discussion people!
Yes it was an aberration, but assuming you are only going to have to face threats that are nicely telegraph by ideological differences is a bit narrow-minded and essentially that is what the cancelling of CVA-01/”East of Suez” role left us with. That is what the Falklands highlighted. Fine, if we are willing to accept that, but as it turned out, the Govt. at the time decided it was not acceptable, therefore the decision behind cancelling the CVA programme was effectively void.
Still struggling in Afghanistan and Iraq 5+ years could be considered an “aberration” – certainly to the planners, though many predicted problems before the invasions began. It happens, yet “we” never want to be ready for it.
Having said that, I’m with SLL in that it is difficult to see how we could have paid for the carriers. Not to say we couldn’t, but to what pain at home and impact on NATO? I think there are some parallels with today – new carriers, new (AAW) escorts, new subs, working up (or not as the case maybe :mad:) to new boomers and frigate replacements. Oh and there appears to be a recession coming chaps…..
The UK won the Falklands, and by quite a margin, the fleet proposed prior to the Nott defense review was more than adequate of supporting that role. Sure two fleet carriers would have helped, so would have fifteen, the line has to be drawn somewhere.
Preparing for all possible circumstances is nothing more than an invititation for banckruptcy. Illiminating unlikely circumstances from defense planning is imperative. The deletion of the Falklands was entirely logical, who in their right mind starts a navally orientated war when they are also planning a surface fleet that is near 100% dependant on the ountry you are starting the war with.
With that in mind the timing (from a military perspective) also shows the madness of the Argentine operation, wait three or four more years and you face a much reduced Royal Navy with your own fleet approaching the completion of modernisation.
And today, or at least prior to the recession, the UK had finally stabilised its economy just as the threat to national survival comes to an end. Who presents a military threat to the UK again?
sealordlawrenceUse B-52s, B-1Bs and B-2s flying out of Diego Garcia to lay waste to any town or village out of which a pirate sails. You could use JDAM’s to make sure that every building was hit.:diablo:
Afterall it is the responsibility of western governments to ensure that not a single western child has to go without its desired games console and that all the exotic fruits an other food stuffs are readily available on supermarket shelves, no mercy should be given in attaining this end.
sealordlawrenceLooking back on the Astute project, the @10 year gap in orders created huge problems, yes guy’s could sit a computers and design the boat but when it came to actualy cutting metal and screwing it together things didn’t work out so well.
Just look at what happened to USS Makin Island: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3837922&c=AME&s=SEA
And these cases are in countries where design skills have been kept current too.
sealordlawrenceBecause they haven’t (due to inadequate finance) , does that mean they can’t (given adequate finance)?
By analogy, the latest T-90 is still based on the T-72. Does that mean the russians can’t design and build an entirely new, modern MBT?
Skill and knowledge currency and maintenance require near constant design activity. The Russian shipbuilding industry has not had that.
sealordlawrenceVery much agreed. But that doesn’t mean they could not be substantial steps forward over existing russian ship.
To retain any sort of credibility they have to. Even next to a current production Arleigh Burke the Sovremenny/Udaloy generation look elderly.
Sign In
