sealordlawrenceWell, if the west have a right to develop a total ABM system if want to in sovereign states like Poland, Russia certainly have the right to deploy as many Iskander as want in Kaliningrad (remember Kaliningrad is Russian soil) and also have the right to sell as many weapons as like to free and sovereign countries like Venezuela. The west should stop whining about this (like it did by just … 100.000 AK :D) and accept that Russia and other countries are free from western coercion. They can’t coerce anymore.
Yes and no, absolutely Russia has every right to base missiles in Kaliningrad and nobody has said that they do not. In terms of exporting arms they are of course constrained by whatever treaties and understanding they are signed up to. Noone gives a rats **** if Russia sells AK’s to Venezuela
sealordlawrenceGame, set and match Sean.
Absolutely, SOC has shown beyond doubt how evidence can overcome ignorance.:)
sealordlawrenceNo, since it’s not relevant. :rolleyes:
Its absolutely relevent! How can you make such an absurd statement, the number of accidents compared to fleet size and activity is the only way to guage the real levels.:rolleyes:
A navy with five ships that spend five days a year at sea but that have five accidents a year is infinately worse than one with ten ships that spend one hundred days a year at Sea but still only has five accidents.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceI often wonder what has happened to you, as it appears that you are regressing more and more intellectually and in terms of maturity with every passing post. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but your posts are fast becoming little more then the kind of angry, shamelessly self gratifying online garbage that a pre-puberty child would be embarrassed to admit responsibility for.
If ‘USA is better then China’ is your response to everything, then I’m happy to leave you in your simplified world and wish you the best of luck in the real world, since it appears you would need it if the above is anything representative of your attitude and intellectual capacity.
Now that is hypocrisy.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceA clear explanation:
Holy cow that is funny.:D
I feel sorry for anyone who believes that nonsense……………oh:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceBecause historically, America has almost always been the one doing the attacking, and that one of the chief considerations in deciding whether or not to bomb someone is how costly that endeavor is likely to be? And that America has constantly implied or even overtly threatened military action if others do not ‘play ball’?
In the eyes of many a ‘loser’ country, as you so maturely puts it, :rolleyes: saying ‘you can’t attack me’ is pretty much synonymous with America saying, ‘I can smack you up as much as I want whenever I want, so behave biaach’.
If you think trying to prevent yourself from being attacked by developing the means of taking out strike assets that potentially might be used against you with hostile intent is not provocation, then the US should not get into such a huff about China developing means to sinking its aircraft carriers around China then. After all, who seriously think China wants to invade the US? All China wants is to develop the means of being able to say ‘you can’t attack me’ to the US. According to you, that should be perfectly acceptable then.
BS post from someone who can not accept that the US is better than China.:p
sealordlawrenceFrom what I’ve read it’s the China thing. Think about the number of missiles being deployed and the number of types (SM-3 Blocks I & II, SM-2 Block IV, SM-6, and talk of PAC-3). That’s WAY overkill for one or two that might land in the vicinity of a CVBG from NK. It’s with China in mind. Both to defend forward deployed assets and the CVBG itself.
Well what you have read is dreaming, its not just direct attacks against the battle group but also sea base defence of near shore assets, amphibious assaults and the like. Sure you could try and use against a chinese assault if you wanted, and you might take out a few incoming missiles, but such a thing is beyond the current remit.
sealordlawrenceAbsolutely not the case. The Iskanders would be there for political reasons, at most, to assuage unrealistic and dangerously unfounded Russian paranoia. Accept that this is a reflection of the general state of mind of the current Russian leadership and shudder!.
The Polish GBI’s are there for the mission they were always declared for. Deterrence of Iranian missile development. What is the point of the Iranians pouring billions into developing their current IRBM capability into multistage ICBM capability if its only going to get defeated by GBI in E.Europe anyway. The alternative being that they pour in the resources not only to develop the missiles but to deploy them in sufficient quantity to swamp the Polish GBI’s. That means tying up resource that is not then going into conventional or unconventional military capability.
Both ways, against the developing threat systems, the GBI’s in Poland are achieving a return just by being there. Is it cost-effective….probably not. What would be the costs of a nuclear tipped ICBM getting through to New York though?. Not my taxes paying for it, but, the Americans on the thread seem mostly to be happy to pay for it.
DJ,
Missiles from Iran flying to the US would pass over E.Europe far to the north of Turkey and Greece….which was why Poland was chosen to site the weapons.
Qouted for actual truth.:p
sealordlawrenceOne of the missions SM-2 Block IV (modified), SM-3, and SM-6, are intended for is to protect the fleet against ballistic missiles. Why do you think the urgent SM-2 Block IV mods?
The question is against whos ballistic missiles, there is a distinct difference between China firing a mass of guided precision. EMP equipped dedicated AShBM’s and North Korea lobbing a nuclear tipped scud into the general area of a battlegroup.;)
sealordlawrenceFunny old thing, I requested exactly the same a few months ago (and posted a pic), but had no responce.
I probably haven’t got anything that you wouldn’t have, ie stock pics etc.
Have you seen the Farnborough shows Vid/DVD, it shows the Hermes V doing a very low flypast, a great sight and sound!
Be interesting to know why as a large turboprop airliner it wasn’t put into production?
Pagen, you are a star!:) I have not seen the Farnborough DVD but it is on my to do/procurement list.
I suspect two reasons for the type not entering production, the Hermes in general does not seem to have had a great reputation and with Bristol working on the Britannia it would probably have been squeezed out?:confused:
sealordlawrenceYou might want to let the USN in on that.
No need, they are well aware of it.
sealordlawrenceShoddy American engineering. :rolleyes:
Again, would you like to compare the hull numbers and operational tempo of the Russian Navy with the USN?:rolleyes:
sealordlawrencesealordlawrence , you are trying to fish in troubled waters and trying to have your own “share of fun” from it.
We dont know for now what events or chain of events has led to this tragedy …….. only an investigation would revel the exact cause.
The last thing to blame here is some “Shoddy Russian Engineering”
Snake65 at BRF mentioned that during the trials of Gepard there were ~ 300 people onboard mostly civis
Not at all, simply pointing the very high accident rate in the Russian Navy that is undoubtedly the result of years of underfunding and endemic corruption. I find it troubling that you think that people could extract fun from this incident.:mad:
sealordlawrenceU.S. sailor dies in submarine accident, 24 wounded:
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/01/10/nuclear.submarine.update/index.html
Sinking of a trawler by US submarine, 9 dead:
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/english/200102/13/eng20010213_62203.html
Sailor Dies Following Accident on USS Frank Cable
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=26942
Two UK sailors killed in submarine accident
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Two_UK_sailors_killed_in_submarine_accident
USS Freedom suffers fire:
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/naval/jni/jni070427_1_n.shtmlFire on US carrier. Do you have any idea how serious this could have been?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/23/ship.fire/index.htmlAccidents happens, the numbers of casualty were not so high in these events, but still serious enough!
RSM55, i have not seen any report about the submarine beeing submerged when the accident happened. Link?
Any idea how many sea days the USN has per year compared with the Russian Navy?:rolleyes: Or do you think that a country operating over 100 major surface combatants, dozens of submarines, twelve aircraft carriers and a multitude of other vessels at an infinitely higher operational tempo falls into the same category as the Russian Navy?:rolleyes:
Sure accidents happen, difference is they are far more frequent in the Russian Navy (per ship/per day at sea/per man)……alarmingly so.
sealordlawrenceI’d rather look at actual accident rates. :rolleyes:
And how can you do that without looking at Sea Days? Compare the number of accidents with the number of Sea Days, and be in no doubt that Russia falls to the bottom of the list.
Sign In
