sealordlawrenceYeah, but then NG/EADS will pull out their army of lawmen :diablo:
Every time I look at this thread I ask myself why I did not become a lawyer.;)
Well great, the USAF gets the aircraft it did not select, Boeing gets handed a monopoly, the entire project gets delayed, costs will increase and all because of some pathetic childish nationalistic BS from the undereducated. Ladies and Gentlemen the flaw in democracy.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceTyphoon FGR.4, ZJ930, arriving at RAF Waddington for static display at the airshow.
TJ
And there is one very good reason why CFT’s should be very high on the priorities list.
sealordlawrenceThe point is there is no direction on how many Yasen class SSN is being built and can they sustain with this $1 billion sub .
The Victor III is a nice SSN and under certain conditions are as quite as the early LA class.
but i still come back to the same point , USN attack submarine fleet looks to remains unchallanged for decades to come in numbers or quality.
True, and the LA class has recieved constant upgrade and development work throughout its life span which is more than can be said for Russia’s SSN fleet. I am hoping and assuming that having put in place the infrastructure for refurbishing Sierra’s they do all the ones that are practical.
sealordlawrenceI have often wondered why many nations are still using the venerable M-2 .50 cal machine guns for small craft defense on Ships. Surely, a small caliber Gatling Gun (Mini Gun if you like…) would be much more effective!:D As a matter of fact GE currently builds the GAU-19A 3-barreled Gatling Gun in .50 cal. If, memory serves me the M-2 fires around 750-850 rounds per minute. The GE gun can select from 1,000 to 3,000 rounds per minute! Also, while landbased and aircraft mounted Gatling Guns are very limited in the amount of ammo they can carry. Any shipped based system could carry vast supplies of this deadly ammunition………….
On most older units the weapons are afterthoughts and the M-2 is a relatively simple and lightweight weapon to mount whilst being considerably cheaper than a gatling gun.
sealordlawrenceWell, I was late to this thread…………..That said, how is one 57mm bofors cannon and one Sea Ram as being adequate to defend any ship in such a high threat enviroment as the littorals???? With all do respect…………Regardless, I don’t appreciate the sarcasm.:p (Really, surprising as you are usually very knowledgeable and pleasant???)
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1252327&postcount=54
sealordlawrenceI think you would have to agree the LCS are a little under gunned……Especially, in the high threat enviroment of the Littorals! :rolleyes:
Been through this before, they are actually well equipped for their intended role. It is very tiresome on this forum when people criticise things without understanding the context.
sealordlawrenceThe russians may well have been cheeky in hiding the true cost of the work, but what astonishes me is that the indians were dumb enough to believe it. I mean come on, this thing had been out of service for a decade in a massively underfunded organisation overseen by notoriously corrupt officials in one of the harshest environments on earth and the indians thought it would be cheap to not only return it to service but to convert it to a role for which it was never designed. Frankly it boggles the mind.
sealordlawrenceKh-41 aka Moskit have been deployed during the eighties in Sovremenny class destroyer. Kh-65s are cruise missiles for exportation (therefore with a short range near 300 km). The Russian conventional cruise missile is the Kh-555, that’s a Kh-55 (aka AS-15 Kent) with a conventional warhead. Both will be soon replaced/complemented by the Kh-101 (conventional) and Kh-102 (nuclear).
L0ovely history lesson that was utterly not required, now perhaps you could tell us how many Kh-41s or Kh-65s are in service with Russia?:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceDon’t know about the KH-65 but the 41 is basically the Sunburn: http://www.deagel.com/Anti-Ship-Missiles/Kh-41_a001022002.aspx
yeah and how many are deployed with the Russian armed forces?:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceI provided plenty of evidence to back myself up, you just chose not to accept it, and I couldn’t care less. You dug yourself into a hole and made love to Pavel’s website. 😀
I provided plenty of sources, you provided nothing but childish fan boy dreams. Pavels site is a good source and you have done nothing to cast doubt on that.
I’m not in the business of disproving your garbage, if you write me a hefty check and mail it to me, I’ll get right on it. :rolleyes: You must think you are special. Can’t wait for your whiny reply.[/QUOTE]
Now you are contradicting yourself, just a couple of posts ago you were not going to let me get away with posting stuff………..make your mind up.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceWell, there you go, if the USN can run OHP’s without their SM1’s and Mk13’s then, goshdarnit, we can run T42’s without GWS30!!!.
Sweet Jesus! :confused:
I can understand the astonishment but to be honest I dont have a massive issue with this, at the end of the day if a real AAW need was suddenly needed there would still be enough of Sea Dart left and PAAMS would be close enough that both could be constituted in a very short time frame. I agree that it is less than ideal but if money is being saved for only a temporary loss of capability at a time when it is not needed then it is not the end of the world.
I always felt sorry for the T42’s anyway, made as small as possible for reasons of economy and then prevented from being the ships that they could have been through the cancellation of the Type 1030 STIR, Mark-2 Sea Dart and the 4 round Sea Wolf launcher based on the Sea Cat launcher. And they were far cheaper than a T22. A sad tale indeed.
sealordlawrenceIt is interesting how you manage to make a compliment and continue a personal attack (from another thread) in the same brief post.
It should not be that interesting to you as (with a spectacular level of irony) you have also continued a personal attack from another thread…………now your funny to.
sealordlawrenceYou’re one who is dismissive of other posters – and not just me. You dismiss detailed and nuanced posts, often falsely claiming that the content is a repetitive, when it most obviously isn’t. You also launch personal attacks, devoid of any real content. Need I mention your attempt to dredge up an old helicopter topic in a submarine thread?
I merely like to establish the character of a poster, it can be very revealing, in your case your history shows you to be racist, prone to vague unsupported generalisations, a poor level of knowledge and a generally rude and patronising tone. Now swerve, Jonesey, Fedaykin et al show none of those attributes so they get my respect.
sealordlawrence[QUOTE=TinWing;1257018
]I responded at the time, which must be nearly 2 years ago. I doubt that you would have read or comprehended the the response, but merely would have made your typically ad hominem response.
The parallels between the RAH-66 and the Eurocopter Tigre were perfect obvious. Both programs suffered from mission creep, intolerable delay and massive per/unit costs. Both helicopter were successful in terms of flight dynamics and engine developement. The main difference is that the United States finally canceled the Commanche, and quite justifiably so, but equally obviously, employment concerns prevented the Europeans from doing the same with the Tigre. The issue at the time was the ridiculously protracted delivery schedule for the Tigre, with so few units actually being available for service at the time.
No you did not so dont make me dig up the thread to prove it, you should have provided the above answer in the aformentioned thread where it would have been very abruptly destroyed as obviously flawed. Commanche was cancelled after two prototypes whereas Tigre is in service and has been exported to two other countries.
You seem to have the habit of asking question and then getting angry when the responses don’t correspond to your own personal opinions. You don’t seem to be looking for answers as much as personal validation.
No anger at all, just yet another case of you posting some vague generalities without any supporting evidence. I have no problem with people posting their opionions as long as they back them up. Unfortunately you always take an aggresive and dismissive tone towards other posters who clearly know far more than you do, This thread being a classic example.
sealordlawrenceNo, I question the original requirement that lead to the Collins class and I question the mistaken logic of pursuing a replacement along the same lines. The RAN deliberately wrote a peculiar requirement that would require a SSK of unprecedented size, opting for a expensive and unprecedented “paper design,” despite the obvious risks and costs. It is time to question the rationale behind a potential Collins class replacement. If the Collins class needs replacement, it is time to reject the limiting notion of a large domestically produced SSK, and to consider a smaller number of more effective SSN, or a larger number of smaller SSKs with innovative forward basing concepts.
Having read the excerpt form the publisher’s website, I can only conclude that the author is woefully ignorant of contemporary economics:
The reality is that protectionism and organized labor, with the resulting wage-price spiral, were at the heart of the economic crisis of the 1970s in Australia. In the end, the Collins class program was just as “focused solely on the domestic market” because of its complete failure in the export market. Of course, the Collins class program exemplifies how Australia has failed to make a break with the economic past. Domestic submarine production maintains Australian trade union employment, while producing a product that is unsuitable for export. In a broader sense, this state of affairs is hardly different that the shipbuilding practices of the 1960s, and although the outlays have been far greater in relative terms, the outcome has been the same – no exports.
In that case, please explain the absence of any export orders?
The uniqueness of the capability speaks volumes.
It is wrong to push forward procurement without re-considering the very peculiar basis of the operation requirements. It is time to question every aspect of the Collins class replacement program, from the seemingly premature nature of the program, driven largely by employment concerns, to the basing of the current subs on the west coast – which only places the submarines farther from potential operational areas, driving up the size and costs of the platform. Other options should be explored. Considering the last boat was only commissioned in 2001, the Collins class is hardly in need of replacement, so there is plenty of time for study.
Nothing of use in that post but once again you have made yourself look rather silly (I remind you that this forum is still awaiting an explanation from you as to whay the Eurocopter Tigre is a ‘pan-European Commanche’).
Why no exports? unique requirement with most other countires requiring smaller SSK’s, the uniqueness of the requirement is the answer to the question.
Perhaps you could tell us where Australia is going to find affordable (both financially and in terms of manpower and logistic foot print) SSN’s from given that with the exception of the still paper Barracuda design most are rapidly growing in size to 7000tons +.
Or maybe you could tell us something about your forward basing concepts, where, how many etc etc? Are there many facilities around the Australian periphery that could forward base an SSK and keep its presence quiet, otherwise how much is the establishment of such bases to cost?
Sure evaluate the procurement costs but anybody with sufficient intellect to dress themselves should be able to see that the large SSK route is really the best if not the only option for Australia.
Sign In
