Surely this is a perspective issue – in your estimation the term holds that connotation Lawrence. Can you assume that as a general rule for everyone?. Your ‘hun’ example is a perfect illustration…how many contemporary Germans would necessarily be all that bothered about being called that?. If they stopped to look up the derivation then perhaps….even then context and intent apply.

I can assure you that I am well aware of many from both countries who despise both

As to the assumption of your racial heritage, simply, the name ‘Lawrence’ isn’t one of Chinese origin. Why would I assume you would be if your assumed identity is deliberately intended to be misleading?. 😎

Why would my name have to be misleading? The global transport network makes it entirely possible and indeed frequent that someone from one ethnic or racial backgorun could carry the name of another.

Whats wrong with “hun”?

Do you know the historical background?

Does anybody have any pictures of the original project 41 Neustrashmiy destroyer from the 1950s? IIRC she was a very handsome ship!

Thanks in advance sealordlawrence

The Sevmash shipyard has had a lot of practice lately in the finer points of carrier construction (Vikramaditya), and I’m sure they will have learned a lot from the experience, mostly what not to do! Tenyears from starting the project to commissioning the first unit sounds about right, but for all we know the go ahead may have been given a couple of years ago. The first two or three years would be design and development, but from keel laying to commissioning would be closer to six or seven years. Remeber also that a carrier’s construction, like any warship, is split between different areas of a shipyard. The hull is built on a slipway (or in a drydock) and launched when structurally complete, this takes anything from two to four years depending on how much prefabrication is done, then the hull is moved to a fitting out berth for the more complicated fitting out process. Once the building dock/slipway is clear construction of a second hull can commence, usually quicker as lessons from building the first can be incorporated. Thus a production line is set up, and although the first ship may take a long time to appear from project commencement, after that follow on units can appear at regular intervals. So ten years to produce carrier one, but after another ten years three could be in service, possibly four depending on how much of the shipyard’s resources are devoted to the endeavour. If a second slipway/dock is brought on line four units in ten years is more believable. This is all hypothetical of course, we shall have to wait and see.

I would suggest fantasy rather than hypothetical, given that Russian FFG/Corvette programmes are running 2 years behind schedule and the Russian navy remains in a dire state the notion that the Russians are going to embark on a project of such scale in such a timeframe is quite absurd, especially given the current economic circumstances.

Furthermore this is simply a continuation of the usual Russian carrier rumours that have yet to generate anything official or material beyond a few fanboy wet dreams. I agree, we must wait and see, but I suspect that we shall be waiting for quite some time.

[QUOTE=Al.;1371980

]Firstly. I am almost embarssingly politically correct and I did not know that ‘chinaman‘ was a racial slur. So thanks for the heads up and assuming that I am not a complete moron I don’t find it unbelievable that someone else could use the term without realising that it could cause offence. If I had made the gaff I’d have have appreciated a subtle word in my shell like rather than an accusation of racism. Maybe disagreement with a discussion point could have been separated from disagreement with (quite possibly inadvertent) use of an offensive term. (And I am more than aware that this advice is gross hypocrisy given the format of this post!)

‘Chinaman’ should not be used.

Fifthly. I THINK that the initial thought experiment is an interesting one. And I would echo the sentiment ‘history shows us that just because we cannot envisage a scenario that does not mean that it will not happen‘ AND THUS that just coz we THINK that Argentina is the only likely specific case of this general scenario that don’t make it so. (Spain and Gibralta?!? Channel Islands and France?!?)

A case of probabilities and practicalities, what is the likelyhood of those scenario’s coming to pass? To prepare for every event irrelevant of how remote is to embrace the sort of paranoia that has bankrupted many a government and continues to do so.

Sixthly. It is also a slightly depressing thought experiment. What a shock service personnel are put into a situation where they may die. And that some of those deaths may be entirely unecessary because the politicos sending them off to fight didn’t want to splash the cash to equip them correctly. I certainly hope that this scenario will never come to pass.

The consequence of my previous remark is that it comes to pass everytime, more money could always have been spent, 3%, 4%, 5%, 6%…..why not 30% of GDP? I assure you that there will always be more that could have been purchased, the grass is always greener on the otherside, there is always something just out of reach. However the very nature of being a serving member of armed forces is that you place yourself in an inherently dangerous environment, the nature of armed conflict is violence and that brings death and injury. Whilst I advocate sensible procurement the current low casualty rates seen by western armed forces (The entire coalition Iraq list is little more than an average day on the western front) has little to do with any particular shift away from killing as the basic tenement of warfare and everything to do with the feebleness of the opponents. Rest assured that a western army fighting another western army would rapidly return us to the days of mass slaughter. Perhaps just as great a crime is to have conditioned society to believe that death in warfare is a rare and strange event that is quite uncharacteristic of ‘modern’ war?

I have somewhat deviated from my line, my point is that the defence industry is a capitalist institution like any other and as soon as someone has bought the highest end product it shall generate another just in case someone can afford that, by procuring everything industry has to offer you are doing little more than feeding its capacity to produce more.

Something I saw in JDW reminded me of this.

BAe has a big advertising supplement this week about its UAVs. Usual (but quite interesting) stuff about Taranis, Mantis, Herti (very interesting information about control systems & autonomy), & Fury. Confirmed that live firings of the LMM from Fury took place last year. That is, firings in flight, not from a tethered aircraft. Showed the containerised ground control system, configurable for all their UAVs, & suitable for sticking on the back of a lorry.

The more I hear of BAes UAV programme, the more I like it.

Anyone else read it? Any comments?

Certainly did, nhuge advert and cleverly styled to look mlike publisher content, I hope Jane’s made them pay hansomely for it! Did you notice the General Atmics add straight after?;)

Agree on the BAE UAV programme, seems rational and progressive and I hope that they UK government support through actual procurement.

You see the difference with us is that unlike you despite my somewhat negative view towards USA, I don’t go ranting around USN related threads and trying to bash every single issue which I can found.

Yes you do.

No I shouldnt:diablo:

Yes you should.