sealordlawrenceNo, I live in the real world, not science-fiction wargameboy fantasy land.
Talk of LCS exports is an excercise in futility.
1. The chances of production even for the USN are edging ever closer to [b]zero[/i]
2. The export prospects are about the same as its chances for mass production for the USN – near zero and closing. Like so many previous classes built specifically for the requirements of the USN it is a little hard to fathom what the average export customer would find appealing – unless FMS funds were involved. And that brings us to…
3. Folks who buy USN ship designs tend to buy U.S. sourced equipment to go with them. There are reasons for this of course, the most obvious being that ships are designed around the equipment they carry (The Thyssen MEKO’s being the notable exception). Substantial changes to that equipment require substantial (and expensive) redesign. And of course if your buying a U.S. ship design chances are your buying it because of the U.S. equipment the ship was designed around.
If a customer wants Euro stuff there are plenty of generic GP frigates available from the various European yards that are far more oriented towards the needs of the typical export customer anyway. All this stuff you folks are amusing yourselves with is so much science fiction.
Ignoring your rudeness it is necessary to point out that you are wrong. The LCS falls quite nicely into the weight category that is often procured by those buying frigates from other countries, a GP version should not be that challenging and would likely be quite appealing to anyone with the cash. Especially the trimaran version. Sure it would likely take US equipment, or maybe israeli but it is not absurd to discuss other options.
I must say that it is a shame that you started posting in this thread.
sealordlawrenceI don’t think so. The Fulcrums were pretty expensive for the standard Sudan was getting, AFAIK.
Hardly Mig-29M’s.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceThat was quite expectable. In the arms race between Abu Dhabi and Dubai, what is the best way to counter the F-16Es? Rafale F3, what else?
Sorry flex I dont know whether you are trying to be sarcastic there or not, no offence intended i just dont know?
i have to doubt this article for the simple reason that the Mirage 2000-9 fleet is very very young and should have allot of life left in it?
sealordlawrenceOf course it is, but sferrin and sealord wake up in the morning with wet pants after dreams of an invincible USA. 😉
neither me or Sferrin ever said the US is invincible, we were simply mocking the absurdity of the idea that Russia could ‘win’ a nuclear war. You really need to stop lying on this forum, it is a nasty habit that only makes your posts even more worthless than they are already.
sealordlawrenceIt’s predictable that you and sferrin would back each other up, being the biggest die hard American flag wavers here. LOL.
typical pointless comment from someone who has demonstrated on multiple occasions that he is completely ignorant on the issue of Russian weapons.
Russia’s system protects its capital, they are not really expanding it, probably because they know it is useless. Theater defense for Russia might make sense. For the US? Please. Yeah, Mexico is attacking soon eh? Take cover.
The US theatre defence is mobile, it is intended to be forward deployed to places like the middle east and asia where there is a large proliferation of shorter range missiles. Just because Russia is to weak to take its forces beyond its own region it does not mean the US is.
Considering no one will attack the US (1)
North korea has tried pretty hard to develop a system that can hit the US, the purpose of NMD was not to physically stop an attack by such a system unless it absolutely had to but to remove the diplomatic power that would be granted to such a rogue state by neutralising its potential threat to the US main land.
And Russia (and probably China) can make this system useless anyway (2)
It was never intended to stop Russia and as far as I am aware no one except for winging brats like you have suggested that it is.
It is a well, useless system.
just been demonstrated as wrong.
sealordlawrenceWow. IQ’s keep dropping around here.
Only since you started posting.
Now tell me again which one is lighter and smaller when comparing apples to apples? If you don’t get it by now this conversation is really over.
It never really started anyway but you have still failed to provide any weigt figures to back up your claim.
4.
There is no requirement for any of this on LCS anyway, so who the hell cares? A point I’ve been emphasising all along I might add but which everyone else seems to miss. None of this matters. It’s like the old days of arguing Iowa class reactivation. Yuck.
You obviously have not read any of the posts here.
sealordlawrenceThose calculations were wrong, scince Russia has an ABM sysytem like no other and the U.S.’s is virtually nothing (outside of 100/150 missiles) most of U.S.’s ICBM’s will be shot down while 95% of Russia’s will hit thier target.
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
sealordlawrencePlease read postings in a correct way. Eritrea received FGA after 1990 f.e.
Sudan was to switch to US equipment, when stopped by change in politics.
Cold War considerations did not count in Africa really, when interest in resources did and do.
All the Flankers and Fulcrums delivered into Africa in smaller numbers from the 90s (or the end of the Cold War) were built in the SU/Russia, but not all delivered from. Such high performance FGAs were “delivered” with specialists too, see fate of Sudanese MiG-29 loss.
In the asymmetrical wars in Africa air-power is of limited value in general. Besides that, the power changes took place not by elections in general, but by armed fractions in tribe societies. So some dozen FGA are more than enough for the basic needs. When it comes to the money, oil-rich African countries are not limited to such smaller numbers. But the circumstances in Africa in mind for most of that countries an AF and FGAs are a waste of money at all by bolstering the “wrong” fraction. The main purpose of military forces in Africa is the internal use in general and to impress the own people.
Non is eager in flying-hours or proper combat-training, when some people have a nice life to use the related money in a more “peacefull” way.
That is my point, the cold war is irrelevant to the presnce of fulcrums and flankers in Africa.
sealordlawrenceI can assure at this point right now, if U.S./Russia were to go to nuke war, U.S. would be lossing massivly more than Russa.
your funny.
sealordlawrenceYou see that part written in bold italics and underlined? Try to look closely at it. EVEN IF NOT ALL I don’t know whether you have problems with the English language but I think my point was very clear. And for the huge part: MiG-23s Mig-21s Mi-24s Su-25s and Su-22s.
All of Sudans equipment was bought cheaply.:rolleyes:
The primary assets in the Ethiopian and eritrean air forces are flankers and fulcrums now, you keep ignoring this because it proves you are wrong.
sealordlawrenceDoes your bias and American flag make you feel safe? Tool.
Good luck wasting your money on something that will neither make you safe, nor be of any use. 😀
Just like Russia then.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceI don’t care.
A35? Does it even exist yet as hardware? Is anyone even using it? Why even make A35 unless there was something not quite up to par with A43? More importantly, why compare A35 to Mk 41? Wouldn’t Mk 56 be more appropriate?
Secondly, it is not relevant to the discussion since no one is advocating ASTER.
Third, if you read my comments in context – particularly from my last post – you see why this doesn’t matter one bit
You seem to be completely unaware of the subject about which you are attempting (but failing) to talk about. A43 is fine but it is built of Aster-15, A35 is built for the significantly smaller VL Mica, a lighter and more compact launcher for a lighter and more compact missile. Your comment is like saying that the development of the self defence Mk41 shows that the strike length version is deficient.
Why would Mk-56 be more appropriate? It is a significantly larger VLS that has yet to be deployed on an operational warship and is intended for much larger missiles.
sealordlawrence[QUOTE=fitz;1255244]
In the land of the blind the man with one eye is king, for you have apparently not seen post #11.
I have read post 11 and it does nothing for your argument………not that you have one anyway. LCS will not be operating in the land of the blind, it will be operating in the land of the blind, it will be operating in potentially strange waters which will be well known to its opponents.
I will when you do. I was a latecomer to this thread remember. First is first. And besides, I don’t know why we are still talking about Sylver and VL MICA.
if you are making a claim you need to provide sources or it is utterly meaningless, frankly you seem to be just making things up.
1. VL VICA is fired from GWS26 launchers, not Sylver
2. Neither Sylver or GWS26 can compete with the quad-packing option of ESSM and Mk 41 – 32 missiles or 8 in the approximatley same weight/volume envelope. Hmmmmm.
So prove it is the same weight/volume footprint.
sealordlawrenceI am not sure I understand your point now. If you look closely, you will find out that the number of exported Su-27s until 1989 was zero. The first export orders came from China few years later.
Regarding MiG-29s, the number of exported machines outside Warsaw pact was zero with the exception of India who were the launch customers for financial reasons. If ETAF were to have Fulcrums at that time, they would have most likely have been donated, not purchased for hard cash.
That is point, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Angola and Sudan are all more or less in the same tech/numbers bracket independant of purchases made during the cold war. Fabe tried to claim that all but Sudan got their Fulcrums and Flankers from the Soviet union because he has no idea what he is talking about.
sealordlawrenceAround 1990 Ethiopia had ~140 FGA from MiG (17/21/23).
In 1990 Eritrea had none, because it claimed victory in 1991 and declared independence in 1993.
In 1990 Angola had ~160 FGA from MiG/Su (17/21/23/22).
After 1990 none of that FGA was in production any longer, but the services of that countries were used to Russian FGA.
So non is surprised to learn, that they stick to known producers.
From that time scale second hand and rebuilt Flankers and Fulcrums were exported to former clients. In the special case of Eritrea via its sponsors.
How many Fulcrums and how many Flankers, that was the question and as you have poited out the answer is none thus proving me right and fabes utter nonsense wrong.
Sign In
