thobbesThe MiG-23MS was junk – pretty much MiG-21 grade gear in a MiG-23 airframe.
My odds are on the well flown Lightning.
Once you throw in a latter model MiG-23, the odds change.
thobbesNo there wouldn’t, the money assigned to building and then running the SLBM capability would be taken out of the budget altogether. There would be no extra money for anything else.
Unfortunately what you say is true.
The government would cut the nuke subs in order to fund other capabilities, then scrap those capabilities and pour more money into social security.
thobbesImmature – well I won’t deny that.
As for anti-US, I’ve got nothing against US. US is great country that has done many great things for the world. They make good music too. And I’m always in awe of US patriotism – they don’t really do it justice here in Australia (patriotism is frowned upon) and on my Croatian side it’s a bit ridiculous (actual quote from a relative: “We speak with one voice.”)
And whatever anti-US hegemony advocates may say, US hegemony has kept global peace. Right now is the most peaceful period in recorded human history with no major wars being fought (Iraq and Afghanistan were relatively small scale compared to Iran-Iraq, Vietnam and a few others during Cold War).
I’ve got something against a lot of anti-China/Russia statements whose main basis appears to be “cultural dislike” and not any factual information.
thobbesMassive assumptions made there. 1991 Iraqi air force units were tracked by AAW vessels routinely and shore based forces fired on Coalition naval forces, Serbian AShM batteries locked up RN frigates on SHARP GUARD several times. Someone has to provide those covering units and it cant always be the Americans.
But if you go from 18 frigates to 6 destroyers, then you can’t even participate in a meaningful way in these kinds of operations anyway due to lack of hull numbers.
You become a token capability.
RN is struggling to meet commitments with smaller fleet.
Would it have been better to have acquired only 2-4 Darings and then maintain a larger frigate force.
Currently the best American units are a little way behind state of the art anyway.
An irrelevance as most likely opponents are 1970s/early 1980s tech and have poor operational readiness.
The AWD provides more than just a floating SAM battery anyway so its presence will always be required in forward deployed scenarios.
Fair comment.
What use is a smaller ship if you need an area radar/missile to enable your forward ops?.
What use is a large ship if fleet is so small, you ‘re struggling to meet peace time commitments and have no capacity for surge operatons?
thobbesWhat makes you such an expert on the subject???
I know more about economics, policy development and history than aeroplanes or warships, having studied them at University and working as a bureaucrat in government. Even did terrorism studies at Uni. Applied for ASIS but didn’t get in due to their tests being so insanely hard (and the psychiatrist conducting them said they were the hardest cognitive tests in the world).
And I continue to read about things on these topics.
(and how do you know what I read?)
No offence but you often come across uninformed.
thobbesYou dont think that ships tasked to NGS or MCM need an anti-air screen?. Supporting those missions in a hostile littoral is exactly an AWD’s mission as is the lesson that came out of the Falklands and the Gulf.
But in Coalition type actions, one assumes air cover and air superiority as that is standard modus operandi.
Did Iraqi, Serbian or Libyan air forces ever threaten Coalition naval forces in 1991, 1999, 2003 or 2011?
Would they ever let Syrian or Iranian aircraft threaten Western ships? Of course not – air superiority would be established quickly.
And in any case likely opponents (e.g. Syria and Iran) don’t have much in the way of airborne anti-shipping capability and any operation would be US led – hence plenty of carriers, AWD destroyers etc.
They’re also both in range of land bases.
Why is there so many?. I dont think there are especially – we have 6, but, we have HVU’s to screen. France and Italy the wildly excessive 2 apiece, Germany 3, Holland 4 and Spain 5. Of the last two states the Dutch have sacrificed one capability to keep the more industry valuable 7Provs going and the Spanish were early at the party with their boats and, today, they are really more GP hulls with a modest area missile fit than contemporary AAW hulls.
Actually here’s part of my issue – the AWD have been procured at expense of larger numbers of smaller ships that would be more useful in most operations being conducted.
One might only buy 3 AWDs but they then scrap more of their smaller ship holdings.
thobbesLoosely defined…as a peer!. A state of more or less equal combat power…should it need to fight alone or, more likely, in an allied framework. The requirement is no different…to be able to provide a warfighting element able to defeat an equivalent threat.
In context of an Allied force, there should be consideration of what one can bring to an allied operation. If every one brings an AWD to the fight and no-one brings minesweepers or maritime patrol aircraft, then that’s a problem. And as already stated, that’s a problem in Europe.
As for “fight alone,” in that case they need to look at their strategic environment, define the potential threats and equip accordingly.
No-one therefore it should clearly disband all its forces!.
Not saying that.
In fact I’d say that current threats to Netherlands are terrorism, piracy. Then look at NATO requirements for coalition warfare – NGFS, MCM, sanction enforcement.
None of this sounds like AWD territory.
Is Russia a peer state to Norway…are there any Norwegians that are aware of its nascent superpower status?.
No – this enforces my point. What are the threats and how do we respond to it?
France
Really even in 2013 after 100+ years of alliance?
Likely as there is no-one to contest the domination of the USN in blue-water and there still wont be 20 years from now.
100% agreeance.
Your point is somewhat elusive?. Are you saying that because France can only generate a carrier group 6 out of 7 years, or whatever, they should give up and spend their money on corvettes and just chase pirates?
In a nutshell yes!
As already stated, I would not be looking at corvettes.
The light-medium frigate is perhaps the most optimum vessel, especially if built to similar specs to the Absalon class flexible support vessel (smaller in tonnage though).
The AW Destroyer is generally superfluous and such a role has not been used in anger since 1980s.
As for carriers and even LHDs, I think that most Navies procuring them don’t actually have any real requirement for them and the carrier/LHDs are just “toys for boys” with limited utility and especially since many countries that have them don’t procure enough to have a full time capability (i.e. 3 hulls).
Also that French carrier isn’t even available 6/7 years. Remember crews have to be rotated and new crews require lead up time.
thobbeshttp://m.upi.com/story/UPI-53631373908627/
Well there are potential 77 F-16A and 16 F-16B from Mid-East Super Power arsenal that being unloaded. Potential target is customers from Latin America, Asia, and Africa. Well perhaps some Balkan and Eastern Europe will be interested ? After all it will be promised at bargain price.
Interesting to see if anyone’ll put their hands up for these, especially as later model ex-USAF F-16C/Ds are coming on the market.
thobbesBy the sounds of it, I’d say that the fleet will look closer to that in 2025-30, than 2020.
Money’s dried up and JF-17 service entry seems to have slowed down.
thobbesVery nice. Thanks for the photos and I’ll make sure to check your link.
thobbesNA at least three times as formidable as the former USSR. Sorry, you’ve lost all credibility…………
He did state economically.
USSR was an economic pigmy and in a state of stagnation since Khruschev was deposed in 1964.
And money makes the world go around. US power is after all due to it’s economic power.
Without economic power, you can’t afford a military. And economic power is often a lot more powerful method of coercing people to do as you please than the blunt bludgeon of military force.
In fact people will often willingly follow your orders if there’s economic gain involved than when there’s just violent repurcussions involved.
As for the other comments, I agree.
I read an article from a US intelligence operative where he said that the US intelligence services were completely surprised by Arab spring and that the Egyptian revolution had damaged a lot of intelligence ties and in some cases destroyed them.
US intelligence also missed such basic things as nuclear tests in India and Pakistan, 9-11 and a whole heap of other things. In one book (Horse Soldiers) it talks about early US special forces operations in Afghanistan following 9-11 and they were getting a lot of their intel from National Geographic and Times and a lot of the stuff provided by the CIA was horribly wrong (e.g. General Dostrum was meant to be dying when he was in fact completely healthy)
Problem is group think and arrogance.
Scooter you might want to read more than just articles on F-35.
thobbesOriginally Posted by Jonesy
The ability to engage and defeat peer/near-peer threats is always the primary responsibility of a naval service. Chasing pirates around the Indian Ocean is an elective mission. The fleet must be tailored, fundamentally, to be able to fulfil its main responsibilities.
The peer has to be defined though.
Who’s the Netherlands expecting to fight?
Is Norway really convinced it can fight Russia on it’s own?
What peer is Britain looking at fighting?
And in what waters? Are we talking sending the Dutch Navy to take on the Saudi Navy all alone? Or taking on Belgium?
The Western states need to pool and organise resourcing much better.
This is very much evident in aviation where there are critical deficits in a variety of areas.
I read a NATO paper a while back talking about growing lack of capability to control the seas. Lack of hulls is a big factor here.
The US provides the high end assets to the alliance – carriers, large pool of hunter-killer missiles, most of of its MPA/ISTAR etc.
The other allies are becoming token forces with no real capability or capabilty locked up in a very few assets with limited availability – e.g. France’s part time carrier force.
thobbesTo be honest I’m wondering what he is looking for as well.
First of all, what kind of convoys do you expect in the future? I’m not sure why a Kilo would pose much more of a threat than a H6K or Tu22?
Because the bomber is land based (and usually from very specific airfields with right support assets), and easily detectable by radar.
A submarine can be anywhere. This is why SLBMs are so popular.
Piracy is just a temporary threat, it goes up and down and is only dangerous enough in some cases.
And high end conventional warfare where something like an Air Warfare Destroyer would be useful has been virtually extinct since 1992.
One of these bombers can have devastating effects on any convoy, certainly when you put some corvette with RAM or similar air defence as an escort. It just won’t do. Also don’t forget that today a single merchant ship loss is a lot more than back in WWII, if you look at their tonnages and capacities. Any of these ships/convoys would definately warrant a high level escort in the class of an AAW destroyer etc.
Yes, and in WWII convoys often had destroyers in the escort and cruiser squadrons (and later light carriers) hanging around for support.
But the vast majority of escort work was done by corvettes and sloops.
Now I’m not saying build small corvettes. I think the better vessel is the light frigate which usually offers much more capability – basically similar to cold war types in terms of tonnage.
I’d rather 2-3 frigates than a single destroyer.
In any case our economy nowadays doesn’t really support convoy systems and lots of things will have to change to make it really viable in a conflict.
The assumption is WWIII type scenario.
In most routine operations outside of WWIII, the Air Warfare Destroyer is overkill and for the most part in the same position as battleships and cruisers in the past – large, expensive and inefficient at best and limited utility at worst.
Naval warfare is in decline. Last time any significant naval warfare occured was 1980-88 Iran Iraq War (bombing non-functional Libyan frigates in port or Saddam’s yacht doesn’t count).
As for other points, if you have submarines lurking (remember we’re talking WWIII) then the convoy is still the best system available for ensuring protection of ships.
If you’re looking at Piracy convoys, it will still not work. Currently only a few seperate countries are doing real convoy duties and they use real frigates and destroyers for it. Which is necessary in a way as a helicopter really is necessary. Distances are long between ships and speed at sea is very limited. The moment a pirate boat is close-by and close enough to really identify it as a pirate boat, it’s too late for any warship to interfere, a helicopter can still make it. So any small corvette would at least have to keep a helicopter and landing pad.
Most frigates generally have a helicopter landing pad and some have hangar facilities.
Another cost factor is maintenance, some parts have to be replaced after X amount of hours, regardless of its state. On a destroyer you have more systems, but for something as simple as an engine, you’ll be replacing two parts (if you have two smaller ships) instead of 1 part (on your single high-end destroyer) every X-hours. And that for all systems/parts onboard. The point that a destroyer has more systems very likely doesn’t weigh up against this.
Same argument for fuel etc. The running cost of a larger fleet of ships will be much larger than the cost of a couple high-end ships, simply because you’re doing the same things a lot more.
The question arises, what purpose does your Navy have.
A lot of Western navies seem to be headed for “token large destroyers” which have limited utility in both peace time and WWIII.
thobbesAustralia actually maintains smaller ships for some of the roles mentioned above – 8 ANZAC frigates, 14 Armidale class patrol boats and 6 Huon class minehunters.
In this instance the destroyers fit as part of a unified force.
I’m also doubtful AEGIS can stop massed attack, not that anyone in Asia Pacific can perform a massed missile strike on Australia. And in any case, 3 destroyers is weak when it comes to stopping Chinese nuclear ballistic missiles attacks on 6 major cities (Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide) spread across thousands of kilometres and Australia lacks any other kind of defense against these threats.
The main role of Hobarts is fleet protection anyhow. I remember at time of acquisition there was debate as to whether they were needed as RAAF was meant to provide air defence for fleet.
But if you look at RN – reduced to 6 destroyers and 13 frigates which is completely insufficient for level of commitment.
Or the Dutch (18 frigates in 1993, 6 in 2013 including 4 large ones).
Would it have been better to buy larger numbers of smaller ships than a handful of large ones?
thobbesChina has clearly pushed the issue over the last couple of years. To suggest this has been an major on going contention is well laughable……….
Read into the dispute and you’ll see a lot more activity.
As for escalation, I’m not seeing naval clashes like in 1980s.
China is not the enemy of the US or anyone else. Yet, it’s actions are causing concern. You could take US out of the equation and it would change nothing. As a matter of fact the tension would likely be far greater.
US has already made China out to be the enemy with it’s push to emphasising Asia-Pacific region, despite growing instability in Middle East/Mediterranean region and a resurgent Russia.
US politicians like John McCain, Mitt Romney are pushing for tougher stance with China.
Obama has taken Philippines side on Spratley’ dispute despite Filipino claim being based on “no-one was there so we want it” unlike China who has some sort of historical argument for it.
It’s clear US is anti-Chinese. USA after all needs an enemy to dwell on and the USSR is gone and Islamists don’t have that scare factor (plus the Americans love the filthy rich guys who fund terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism – Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar).
In Australia press and government are all very anti-Chinese. Though credit to Australia, it actually toned down anti-China rhetoric in last Defence White Paper – a smart dog doesn’t bite the hand that feeds.
Sign In
