The Iraqi Navy was training up to handle some pretty competent Italian kit back before Desert Storm. Admittedly that was the thick end of two decades ago and the Iraqi Navy isnt a shadow of its former self, but, you dont entertain the concept of inducting modern warships if you havent the people to keep them going…normally. Some of those skills have to have survived somewhere.

Highly unlikely, given two decades of anyone with enough brain cells to locate the border leaving and a couple of wars (the first one of which hit the Iraqi Navy very hard- good old Sea Skua) I would be astonished if any of those skills still exist.

With a good long lead time to get a couple of crews through HMS Collingwood and get some sea time in, when the security situation stabilises enough to base warships like these in country, these boats would actually be damn near perfect for Iraqi requirements in the northern gulf.

You would need a very long lead time, there is no practical Iraqi defence planning for the forseeable future that is concentrating on anything other than COIN and associated operations for which these ships are grossly over equipped. I will happily confess that that in a stable successful Iraq these ships would be ideal but the circumstances are just not right and are unlikely to be so for a very long time. One of the major issues in Iraq at the moment is a shortage of skilled labour, sticking a good part of that on over specced ego corvettes in the Gulf would not be a great use of resources.

He was indirectly, which is close enough. I mean I’m sure the reporters made up the theory. Get real. . . .. . :rolleyes:

When it was said, or even a year later. Come on man, you are fighting a losing argument.

There is no evidence in that report that that comment came from an official source, it is not a losing battle but one that I have already won. The article does not even suggest it is an indirect qoute, the only thing it actually attributes to him is the headline. Find a direct qoute or go away.:rolleyes:

lawrence I hate to say this man, but you really gotta get your head straight.

You are obsessed with anything Pavel Podvig, and do not accept anything except what you believe is right, even I’m not that stubborn.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060301/43852312.html

More “bad” news about Bulava being based on the SS-27.

No that is the same news just repeated in a different article and still not a qoute. When will you learn source analysis and save yourself all this effort.

The Varyag was refitted recently. It rejoined the fleet earlier this year. It is possible that they have equipped her with new missiles.

– New missiles from S-300/S-400?
– New Versions of the OSA ?
– The VULCAN antiship missile replacing the previous BAZALT?

IIRC it was always rumored that Varyag had Vulcans anyway?:confused: S-300FM is a possibility given its half hearted deployment on PV.

Not necessarily, they could have taken the majority of components from Topol-M and essentially resized the “tube” to better fit the Borei Class Subs. This means the failures could be as a result of re-shaping and re-configuring the missile. It’s also a clear the word “derivative” means different things for some people, but there’s no way so many articles are making up stories about how the Bulava is a derivative of the Topol-M, it’s something Masorin said, and quite frankly, he probably knows what’s he’s saying.

Ie, a new tube with a similar or modified motor, similar warheads? similar guidance system, etc.

I’d say that’s enough to be a derivative of something.

I mean just look at the Su-34 an Su-27, new radar, new avionics, new cockpit, yet similar airframe.

Almost like a reverse situation.

Nice way to back out of you position whilst trying to avoid admitting that you are wrong. You do not have a single reliable supporting source, while me and Austin are in agreement with a basic analysis.

And stop manipulating your sources, we do not know that Masorin said that at all as it is not a direct qoute.

So lets connect the dots here….

1)Zumwalt DDG programme just reported to be down to units-ordered only.

2)Tico CG’s approaching end-of-life and no Clancy-esque multi-regiment, blue-water, air threat likely anywhere for the next couple of decades.

3)CG(X) project definition phase in prolonged state of flip-flopping as DDG-1000 stole much of the CG(X) thunder.

So the CG(X), to be relevent, needs to do something more than the DDG’s to justify its funding especially now DDG-1000 has, apparently, gone the same way as LCS.

Suddenly there is a Washingon Times article about ‘possible’ Chinese anti-carrier ballistic missiles. Missiles that everyone knew about, and many have debunked as impractical without a shudder-inducing amount spent on radarsats, a few years back.

Hmmm. I think I know how the PLAN can defeat the USN now. All they have to do is come out with the real story behind these ‘AShBM’s’, make it perfectly clear that they dont really have them and couldnt employ them without a huge and expensive ramp up of their ocean reconaissance assets anyway, then sit back and watch while the US Govt backs off CG(X) as well as DDG-1000!.

I have a sneaking suspicion I know what certain people in the USN/DoD are upto. Turn the Zumwalt program into a dead duck but put all the development costs for SPY-3, the new hull design, machinery, Mark-57 VLS etc onto that program, then order CGX as near off the shelf using the components paid for under the Zumwalt project, just hopefully without the 155mm guns.

http://www.1913intel.com/2007/08/28/bulava-missile-not-ready-for-mass-production/

Again, you are a failure.

Yeah, you and Austin better call Masorin up and tell him he’s an idiot.

Er No, that is not a qoute, just a paraphrase with the bit about a Topol derivative likely added later by the journalist to make the article look more informative.

it is a (big) mistake of an unknown journalist of RIA Novosti.
They are but MiG-29 which are currently undergo a kind of modernization … no MiG-27 !!!

Not necessarily modernisation, likely just overhaul/refurbishment.