bgnewfI was wondering if anybody who has served can perhaps address how an air force like lebanon’s that has not flown said aircraft, or for that matter no fast jets, for a lot of years keeps pilots curent and qualified?
bgnewf…
“23-MAR-04
In yet another blow to Russia’s beleaguered military, the navy’s commanding admiral ordered a nuclear-powered battle cruiser to return to port Tuesday for fear that “it could explode at any moment.” Adm. Vladimir Kuroyedov said the Peter the Great, the flagship of the Northern Fleet, had become unseaworthy and dangerous. During a recent inspection he found the cruiser to be poorly maintained, including “the contents of the (on-board) nuclear reactor.”
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-7668831_ITMHow many major ports facilities would a Kirov class ship be allowed into, in case of a malfunction, it being nuclear powered and all? Even if she were properly maintained.
Given:
“Over 150 ships are powered by more than 220 small nuclear reactors and more than 12,000 reactor years of marine operation has been accumulated.
Most are submarines, but they range from icebreakers to aircraft carriers.
In future, constraints on fossil fuel use in transport may bring marine nuclear propulsion into more widespread use. So far, exaggerated fears about safety have caused political restriction on port access.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2030564/posts
Probably why only the the Udaloy apparently docked in Venezuela and why the Peter The Great is anchored offshore. Beautiful looking ship that Kirov, but I would not let a ship that my own Navy’s commander stated was essentially a deathtrap dock in any port of mine, especially if she was nuclear powered.
bgnewfGuys, all of you are right 😀
The Russian AF is indeed VERY interested to acquire the Su-35.
Not only as an interim fighter before the PAK-FA, but as a replacement for a part of its SU-27 regiments and certainly most of its MiG-29 numbers.
The Su-35 is still undergoing tests. No way the RuAF is going to formally order an aircraft that hasn’t finished its test phase yet.By contrast, the Su-34 has been accepted into service and a small batch has been ordered for combat eval, but there are still discussions in the AF about the real need for such an aircraft vs modernisation of the Su-24M to the M2 or GM levels and the “multirolisation” of the existing Su-25/27 fleet.
PAK FA will fly next year indeed. The procurement programme itself might be delayed, because of the reasons stated above. It’a a risk assessment after all. My guess is that the RuAF will opt for a batch of 100+ PAK FAs for the coming 12 years, with 150+ later. Not more.
The PAK FA will basically mirror the Raptor numbers and missions, as well as some Lighting missions, and will be deployed much more massively in the Far East and the Northern District than in the West/South, whereas the Su-35 will basically mirror the (big) niche of the Super Hornet and the F-15E.
The Su-35 has never been thought about as a pure air superiority fighter.
Its aim is to provide potent and effective airspace denial capability while carrying a big inventory of ordonance for AG operations if needed, and still being a capable fighter should danger come ahead.
It’s basically a AG/anti-ship missile and bomb bus on steroids, with a very powerful radar. And a decent interceptor against most of the threats Russia will face in the coming 20 years. I know it’s not the standard reading on this thread, and even on Russian threads – but that’s what the RuAF wanted. They didn’t want a “kinda Raptor without stealth”.Specialised interception missions will remain the privilege for upgraded Foxhounds. Specialised strike missions will be given to upgraded Frogfoots and (maybe) UCAVs resembling the Skat prototype – if the eggheads in the MoD finally understand the importance of such assets.
I have to compliment you on your assessments. It is very refreshing to read thoughtful commentary on Russian developments without all of the same fanboy arguments about IRBIS/PAK-FA/Su-35/Bars, etc being better than anything else ever made in the history of aviation.
bgnewf4 cats are ideal. When an Air Wing and the Carrier crew is on a roll they can launch aircraft on 4 cats every 30 seconds.
Yes the new electromagnetic cats may be more reliable but do you want to take the chance and increase the potential risks if there are problems with say one of the only two cats installed on a new carrier’s deck?
Steel is cheap people.
bgnewfI do not understand why the Marines need the capability of a Prowler when the USAF does not have the equivalent. I am glad the Marines have it but it makes no sense to me that the USAF is lacking such an organic capability themselves.
The F-4G and EF-111A were never adequately replaced in my humble opinion. Could someone in the know confirm if the Growler’s systems like the ALQ99 would be transferrable to say a F-16?
bgnewfCould a towed decoy like the ALE-50 used on the B1-B possibly increase the chances of survival?
bgnewfCanadian Military stalling on early C-130J deliveries?
The United States has offered Canada early delivery of new C-130J military transport aircraft, but the Defence Department has taken months to decide whether to accept. Canada signed a contract with Lockheed Martin in December, 2007, for 17 C-130Js, with the first aircraft to be delivered by December, 2010.
But the U. S. Air Force has agreed to free up two of the C-130Js from an ongoing order of its own with the manufacturer. That would allow the aircraft to be delivered to Canada six months earlier than scheduled so the Canadian Forces could get a head start in introducing the transport planes into the military system.
Canada’s existing C-130 Hercules planes, the predecessors of the C-130J, are considered the transport workhorse of the air force. As those aircraft get older, there is concern that not enough of them will be available to handle the Canadian Forces’ transport needs.
Lockheed Martin spokesman Peter Simmons said the firm is standing by to hear how Canada wants to proceed. According to an e-mail from the Defence Department’s procurement branch, the Canadian Forces is “currently investigating options to expedite the delivery of the first aircraft. Therefore a possible date for early delivery has not yet been determined,” the e-mail added.
Last year, Dan Ross, the head of the Defence Department’s procurement branch, confirmed that Canada had asked the Pentagon if it could pave the way for early delivery of the C-130J. It is unclear why this is not yet happening; the United States offered up aircraft months ago. The e-mail from the Defence Department did not give further details. The Conservative government announced the acquisition of the C-130Js in the summer of 2006.
The assembly of the first Canadian aircraft is expected to start midway through next year, according to Lockheed Martin. The final aircraft is slated to be delivered by the end of 2012. Canadian Forces officers have warned that up to 14 of Canada’s C-130s might be grounded early because of wear.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=997985
bgnewfCanada Increases Helicopter Capabilities in Afghanistan
Ottawa, Ontario – The Honourable Peter Gordon MacKay, Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, today announced that eight CH-146 Griffon helicopters will be deployed to Afghanistan in early 2009 as part of the Joint Task Force Afghanistan (JTFA) – Air Wing. The helicopters, with crews from 408 Tactical Helicopter Squadron based in Edmonton, Alberta, will act as escort aircraft for the recently acquired CH-147 D Chinook helicopters. The deployment of the Griffon helicopters directly supports Canada’s commitment to meet the conditions set forth by the Independent Panel on Canada’s Future Role in Afghanistan.
“The deployment of the Griffons in conjunction with the Chinooks displays our commitment to the men and women of the Canadian Forces (CF) while ensuring the security and effectiveness of the mission,” said Minister MacKay. “We are proud of the work completed by all government departments to meet the February 2009 conditions established by the parliamentary motion.”
The Air Wing will be composed of CH-147 D Chinook medium – to heavy – lift helicopters, Heron Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) and CH-146 Griffon helicopters.
The transportation capability provided by the CH-147 D Chinook helicopters, the escort capabilities of the CH-146 Griffon helicopter and the intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance provided by the Heron UAV will contribute to the reduction of risk to Canadian troops and government employees from ambushes, land mines and improvised explosive devices. These assets will all be deployed to Afghanistan by February 2009.
This deployment is an important enabler to help Canada achieve the benchmarks it has set for the six priority areas and three signature projects that define its work in Afghanistan. Today, the Government also released its second quarterly report to Parliament, a detailed assessment of its progress in Afghanistan covering the period mid-June 2008 to the end of September.
“The safe employment of Chinook helicopters requires the use of escort aircraft. Today’s announcement fulfills the final requirements of the Air Wing,” said Lieutenant General Angus Watt, Chief of the Air Staff. “The mounting of this unit and these new CF capabilities in such a short time represents a significant accomplishment by the dedicated and professional men and women of the CF.”
The Griffons directly support the new air capabilities which were conditions set out in the Parliamentary motion of March 13, 2008 extending Canada’s military mission in Afghanistan until 2011. These air resources were one of the recommendations of the Independent Panel on Canada’s Future Role in Afghanistan, headed by the Honourable John Manley.
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2813
bgnewfOne cannot plan to take into account every single eventuality when scarce defense dollars have to be allocated. You can;t have everything you need. The Falklands was to me such a case. One has to take a serious look at the threats you face and then take the dollars/pounds you have and do the best you can to prepare to face them. The UK made the decision to focus on the NATO AOR and to have at least some naval capacity for out of area operations.
CVA-01 was deemed as too much ship for the need and the fortunate happenstance of the Harrier being developed around the same time allowed them to keep a semblance of sea based air power that more closely matched the threats they deemed they were facing. UK defense planning in the 1960’s/1970’s for an Argentine invasion of the Falklands would have been seen as a very low probability.
And to agree with sealordlawrence, the Pre Nott Review RN still had the ability to undertake significant out of area operations anyways.
bgnewfOh so its not worth defending cities against conventionally armed ballistic missiles then? Because Such weapons have never killed anyone?:rolleyes:
Again I agree with you, yes they have. But no European city has been struck by a ballistic missile since 1945.
This would be analagous to using a cell of three B-52’s laying down some carbet bombing to kill a mosquito. The threat is not there to warrant such an expense on such a system that in your own estimation is a work in progress.
The fact that you cannot see past the Bush/Cheney rhetoric on this issue astonishes me.
bgnewf[QUOTE=sealordlawrence;1327599]
…The clue is in the name, ballistic missile defence, it is intended to defend against ballistic missiles irrelevent of their warheads. Care to tell us how many ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads have been fired in anger?:rolleyes:
None of course.
So America wants to build a multi billion dollar system to intercept a Scud with a couple of hundred pounds of guncotton in the nose? Right. You very well know that this is being sold to the public as a tool to prevent nuclear warheads to be used against America or Europe. You are being disingenious if you do not address this fact.
In fact this reminds me of how Bush “sold” America on the Iraq War. An over-reaction to a threat that did not exist. Let me guess…You supported that misadventure as well.
bgnewfOf course it has not, it is a developmental technology, why is this concept so challenging for you.:rolleyes:
Well well. You admit finally that a deployed BMD site in Alaska and that is on the boards for Poland is developmental technology. If that is the case then why is it an operational system? How can the Americans be pushing deployment of a “developmental technology”? How can this be allowed to happen when every other American military system being slated for deployment from a truck to an ICBM must pass stringent OT&E standards by independent agencies that are set up not to be swayed by politics. How can you support deployment of something that in your own words you state is not ready to be operational???
So what, Russia has MIRV equipped ICBM’s, a few Iskanders are meaningless.
Tell that to the population of Poland. Tell that to the populations of Eastern and Central Europe seeing mobile nuclear missiles deployed into the field on their border. Glad you think that the first field deployment of this kind of weapon by Russia since the INF Treaty was signed is nothing to worry about. Glad that you think that the first mention of new American President Obama by Russian president Medvedev was in the context of a warning of this specific deployment along with a strongly worded warning about the consequences for the deployment. It’s OK Eastern Europe…Sealordlawrence says you have nothing to worry about.
Not at all, that would require a western fear of Russia, of which there is none.
Yeah, nothing to worry about here. Russia can only hold Europe hostage by withholding energy supplies. Russia only has the largest stockpile of atomic weapons on earth. It is foolhardy to underestimate a potential adversary.
The queue of countries wanting to join suggests otherwise.
Not what I meant. Poland’s Foreign Minister has already come out stating that the Obama Administration wants to deploy this technology and continue the Bush Administration’s policy. The President-Elect’s people are saying otherwise, that no decision has been made. France and Germany have expressed their opposition to this development. The Polish and Czech administrations are wishing to go ahead with this in spite of huge opposition to it from their own populations. Can you not see that this could disrupt the relations between members of the alliance? Whether this takes place or not there is the possibility that this issue could cleave NATO apart much like the Afghanistan deployment might.
Why the obsession with nuclear weapons?
Incredible!!! BMD is designed to DEFEND against nuclear tipped ballistic missiles. How can you sir be so obsessed with BMD and not think about the rationale for it in the first place??? Successful planning for any defense requires understanding of the offensive threat. Any military tactician will tell you the same thing. Understanding of the threat and it’s scope is the first and most important part in even attempting to devise a defense. Then and only then do you start asking if a defense is actually feasable from technical, political and economic points of view. You are going at it backwards.
You should put away your fanboy flag for BMD and start thinking about the bigger picture for once.
bgnewfSteel is cheap.
The more versatile a platform the more cost effective it becomes.
Simple.
bgnewfBecuase anybody with basic comprehension and understanding skills is capable of applying that caveat, without notification, to any developmental technology. Your decision to apply this specifically to BMD when it has already undergone successful tests is puzzling.
Successful tests……Right. The system deployed In Alaska and on the boards for Eastern Europe was not fully tested and eveluated the way a military system is supposed to be by federal statue before deployment. That is not open for debate. That is fact. There is significant debate about the “success” some of the tests that have been completed actually had. This is fact as well. Can you seriously tell me that you actually believe that the technology has been tested with enough rigor to convince you that it works as advertised?
You have also shown yourself to be grossly mis-informed on multiple occasions in your short time posting on this forum so the value of your opinion is highly limited. It is further limited by your failure to quantify ‘destabilisation politically’.
Russian deployment of Iskanders on the Polish border. The possibility of a renewed arms race or cold war. The possibility of serious conflict with a resurgent Russia. The destabilization of NATO. Take your pick.
You have already demonstrated that your knowledge level is inadequate for such a debate and this rather pointless exercise appears to be a symptom of that.
I have tried to be diplomatic with you. With all due respect, if you wish to get personal then lets get personal. You sir are so blinded by your own opinions you appear to be unwilling to even countenance anything or anyone having a different one that yours.
You profess to have some basis of knowledge on BMD that makes your opinions sacrosanct and fact. They are not. I would submit that you are simply not prepared to see the opinions of others even to small degree having any worth.
Furthermore you miss the most important point of all.
Nobody wants to see a nuclear weapon used in anger ever again. on that I think we are in agreement. You strongly believe in defense against these weapons. But do you not see the folly of BMD in this context? Do you not see that the deployment of this kind of technology actually increases the probability that these kinds of weapons may actually be used?
Climb down of your high horse and open your eyes.
bgnewfYou have already had my reply. It is a comment that applies to all developmental technologies and it does not need stating due to its obviousness. You decision to make an issue out of this is either an effort to troll or foolishness.
Sorry you feel that way, but that is not my intent. All I am stating here ad infinitum is that BMD proponents such as yourself use the definitive article in their language when describing BMD developments when they should not.
If you said “has the possibility” or “perhaps” or even “could” I would not have an issue. Speaking about technology that is unproven, relatively untested, controversial and not even deployed this way without qualification is intellectually dishonest and does not serve you well.
As you can probably tell by this point Lawrence, I am not a true believer in this technology and I can tell you obviously are, and I deeply respect your perspective is spite of our disagreement. However I am not wed to my opinions. I can be convinced to see the “error of my ways” if it can be proven to me that not only with this technology work but that it will provide an actual capability that will be worth the money and worth the destabilization it might cause politically if deployed.
You might call it nitpicking or trolling, and that’s OK, but to me if we are going to have a serious debate about this issue we need to collectively try and speak in clear language that does not cloud the facts.
Sign In
