WanshanWhy are you continuing with this discussion? The mods wiped out much of this conversation. Repeating the discussion isn’t going to change anything.
I’m sorry, I hadn’t noticed (I wonder why they did that.)
WanshanTo which you said he did not say but instead this…
I didn’t say anything about what anybody else meant to say, I said something about how you could have responded differently to that someone else’s statement.
Well, English is not the first language of the Chinese.
Well, English is not the first language of the Dutch either.
WanshanDid Washan point out to dreadnought that the West lies too? No.
So, “no government has a problem with lying” somehow excludes Western governments?
WanshanYou’re clearly too immature to admit your bias in defending the hypocrisy of dreadnought. Like you’re a neutral voice… You’re the one rewriting and reinterpreting what he said. He didn’t post what you said he did. How would you know unless you’re dreadnought. You think you’re arrogant enough to know what he thought? Oh yeah, he was speaking in general of governments around the world when he said in his post…
Sweetheart, I’m twice your age with three times your level of education. I didn’t say anything about what anybody else meant to say, I said something about how you could have responded differently. But that subtlety is lost on you.
I accept it as true because no European Western country said otherwise.
Ok, so it is guilt by reason of not having denied an accusation? Meanwhile you don’t deny that you accept that Bush statement as true, while claiming other statements as lies. Yes, very logical. ….
Incidentally, has the possibility occurred to you that other Western countries may have been too polite to publicly embarrass Bush by denying?
Wanshana) As the Bush Administartion pointed out, many if not all, Western European intelligence services perpetuated the lie of the “imminent” threat of Saddam’s WMDs. Tail wagging the dog or the dog wagging the tail…? It doesn’t matter when its all the same dog.
Would you like to back that up with some sources and proofs. Because I don’t at all recall the intel serivce of my country taking that position. And my country is in the west. As you pointed out, the Bush administration lied, so why do you blindly accept that particular statement as true?
b) But it clearly wasn’t so benign as you make it. Why say such a thing if he believes all governments lie? Maybe because he believes the stereotype the West has integrity and honor while others don’t? That’s only a little speck on top of the iceberg. The lies are endless.
You’re clearly not of the variety of mature people who would shrugging and let it go as unimportant.
c) That’s also called hypocrisy but too bad some don’t bother to notice until someone calls out the hypocrite. Maybe because one favors the hypocrite over the other?
You had better not start calling me names, sir.
WanshanYou don’t have to defend anything but you did say
So i was only replying to that which you im pretty sure said from your own thoughts, i’m aware that you did quote and article that gave what that author thinks is a justification of the high speed requirment of the LCS. I personally think the LCS need for speed is bonkers and unjustified as i hope i have portrayed.
Sorry if i have mislead you or gotten the wrong end of a stick.
You’re assuming RIBs or heli-portable equipments. What about other types of gear: e.g. semi-submersibles? Or remotely controlled waterborne vehicles like Rafaels Protector USV? And what about fire-support roles for special forces ops, e.g. using the 40km Non-Line of Sight Launch System (NLOS-LS) from the rear deck. What about minelaying operations (see UK Abdiel class fast minelayers > Speed: 39¾ knots (38 knots full), Range: 1,000 nmi (2,000 km) at 38 knots (70 km/h), specifically designed for the rapid laying of minefields in enemy waters, close to harbours or sea lanes and as such required to be very fast and to possess sufficient anti-aircraft weaponry to defend themselves if discovered by enemy aircraft.). What about evading threats (e.g. submarines, or swarms of small fast boats)? See e.g. French WW2 Malin class > Speed: 45 knots (40 nominal), Range: 1,200 km at 34 knots, 6,600 km at 17 knots > These ships were designed to outclass the large escorts built by the Italian navy and strongly stressed firepower and speed over armour protection. As mentio0ned earlier, as with MBTs: speed is life.
WanshanThe end effectors would be a combo of RHIB’s that can do over 40knots or even faster helicopters so you really don’t need the LCS to do anywhere near those speeds. Wanshan what gear would you like to take? an SH-60 can sling load over 3,000kg but you either board a suspect vessel or sink it if it does not comply. Most littoral work is Visit Board Search and Seizure (VBSS) which can be done by RHIB’s or helicopters so doesn’t need a 3000ton speed boat burning huge amounts of fuel.
In regards to detectability well the LCS has one hell of a noise signature when moving at speed, 2 MT-30 turbines running at high power not to mention the water being moved. Ok a helo aint that quiet but it’s much faster. Radar, Well it depends most people have surface search radars rather than air search radars and the LCS aint that stealthy especially when moving at speed. So just down to the plain fact that not many people your gonna board have air search radars i would say the helo is less detectable. Visual detectablity is one i don’t really have a clue, depends on weather conditions and many other things.
I personally don’t want to take anything. You’re not going to make me defend an article posted by someone else and written by yet someone else.
WanshanYeah the West never lies like WMDs in Iraq or Pat Tillman. :diablo:
a) ‘The West’ is a rather general (and might I add in this case inaccurate) term
b) inappropriate kneejerk reaction: original statement could just as easily have generalized to “no government has a problem with lying”, by-passing a us-v-them situation
c) if the shoe fits ….
WanshanSend your chopper?
If its personnel only, yes. But what if they have a lot of gear, or a small boat? What can you undersling on a SH/UH60? And how’s the detectability of the LCS relative to a low (or not so low) flying helicopter (think all aspects > sound, radar, visually etc)
WanshanHere’s that Spruance mod proposal
WanshanThe destroyer Kurama was damaged yesterday in a collision with a South Korean freighter in the Kammon Straight, Japan.
There appears to be substantial damage to the bow. I wonder if this will push a decision on the DDH22?
Story at: http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20091028a1.html
See also:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1478937&postcount=160
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1479114&postcount=161 (pics)
WanshanSorry i aint commented back on this thread been using a different computer for the last few days. My view is the LCS design has been ruined so much by the need for speed that it has very little value. The propulsion system takes up far too much of the hull space and dictates a hull design unsuited for the role furthermore this all costs much more money than what is ideal. Hopefully some people on here read Information Dissemination a blog that has covered the LCS in detail covering both the good and the bad.
How does a 3,000 ton warship get into the weeds exactly? It is not a small ship and getting closer to shore is not really relevant. The end effectors are still going to be RHIB’s and helicopters, littoral warfare is mostly about people rather than systems, you have to get people into the crowded littorals to do VBSS roles. The VBSS roles are always done by RHIB’s and helo’s regardless, it dosen’t matter if you are a 3000ton LCS or a 100,000 ton Nimitz class.
As an additional point, i think modern warships do not need speed anymore as helicopters and other effectors can cover for it’s motherships lack of speed. What is needed is endurance, sensors and space.
From his link:
LCS will be a “small, fast, affordable ship: Speed and agility will be critical for efficient and effective conduct of the littoral missions. The LCS must be capable of operating at low speeds for littoral mission operations, transit at economical speeds, and high-speed sprints, which may be necessary to avoid/prosecute a small boat or submarine threat, conduct intercept operations over the horizon, or for insertion or extraction missions.
WanshanIn a sense, any carrier can be considered an amusement park …. :diablo:
WanshanSay what now? 40 RAM per launcher ready to go? I used to think that not upgrading SeaCat to Lightweight SeaWolf was the most criminal failure to upgrade in Naval History now it looks like second place.
RAM ALS was developed by one Per Udsen of Denmark for use in smaller warships.
As for RAM from Mk 29, see Norman Friedman – The Naval Institute guide to world naval weapon systems 2006 ( books.google.nl/books?isbn=1557502625 ):
Page 592: “It is not clear whether Mk 29 launchers will be modified to fire RAM (according to past reports, they will not).”
The Naval Institute guide to world naval weapons systems, 1997-1998 Norman Friedman ( books.google.nl/books?isbn=1557502684 )
Page 413: “All installations use the 21-rnd mk 49 box launcher. Proposals for modification of the Sea Sparrow and Mk 13 launchers failed, and Hughes’ vertical launcher was rejected for the last LHDs (to avoid introducing a unique system). Proposals have been made for launchers to be mounted alongside the standard U.S. 5 inch gun and atop the Contraves Sea Shield Mount”
DD-963 SPRUANCE-class Design …. RAM missiles were to have been installed, four each in two cells of the Mk 29 Sea Sparrow launcher, in the early 1990s, but the modification has been canceled.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/dd-963-design.htm
8×4 = 32 rounds max of RAM in a Mk29
WanshanFF21 (a step up from the Sa’ar 5). Litton-Ingalls IIRC. Note the use of the RAM ALS (alternate launcher system). For size comparison, such a 5-packed set of RAM would also fit in a single cell of the 8-round Mk29 NSSM launcher.
Sign In
