UnicornSorry guys, it appears we have someone who is being over-eager and doesn’t really have a clue about the RAN, the Collin’s class or operation capabilities.
Ah well, enthusiasm is to be admired, but it should be leavened with knowledge.
UNicorn
UnicornI am sorry guys, but I have witnessed the Indonesian military, in particular the Navy, at close hand for almost 14 years, ending in 2003.
During that time (which included the Interfet mission to Timor Leste) I witnessed numerous cases which indicated the poor maintainence capabilities in the TNI, fairly basic surface ships rusting to pieces, fairly basic electronics such as navigation radars which were inoperative and so forth.
I frankly find it impossible to believe that the TNI was able to maintain their two aging submarines in combat readiness, in fact until they were refitted by the manufacturers they had basically lost their “safe to dive” certification.
As for aspects of piracy and other illegal activity, one of my classmates, driving a Fremantle class patrol boat, pursued an indonesian fishing boat that had been illegally fishing in Australian waters towards Indonesian territorial waters. An Indonesian Navy patrol boat appeared and manouvered to block the Wollongong from pursuing the fleeing boat, despite the international convention of hot pursuit.
When the matter was raised by the Australian Naval Attache and Ambassador in Jakarta the matter went nowhere, no one knew nothing, despite video evidence presented by the RAN of the Wollongong being blocked.
Thats the reality of TNI operations in support of illegal activity.
Unicorn
UnicornHaving spent time tracking the Indonesian Navy’s current submarines in both Collins and Oberon class subs (on the rare occaisions when the Indonesians actually sortied out of harbour) I have to say they are deluding themselves if they think that by buying the platforms an effective submarine arm will magically arise.
The level of tactical expertise demonstrated was about equivalent to an experienced trainee in the tactical simulator, their boats could be heard quite clearly at some distance even when barely making steerage way and the level of situational awareness demonstrated (which says quite a lot about the combat system and the command teams expertise in using it) was quite frankly, abysmal.
Rather than getting delusions of running a submarine arm which is mostly about keeping up with the Joneses in that part of the world (read Singapore & Malaysia) the TNI would be better served by:
a. Developing a professional Navy rather than the pretty corrupt and incompetant entity they currently have and
b. getting a handle on the vast amount of smuggling and piracy which is rife throughout the archipeligo. That requires surface ships and helicopters, not an expensive white elephant of a submarine arm.
Unicorn
UnicornThe issue is that the distances between the continental US and likely operating areas are so vast that submarines have to be sizeable to make the transit.
The Gotland class are not designed for lengthy transits followed by lengthy time on station, then equally lengthy transits back home.
This is one of the reasons the RAN’s Collins Class and the RN’s Upholder’s were as large as they are. Big enough to support the provisions, fuel, crew and capabilities to deploy a long way from home waters for extended durations, the same requirement the USN would have.
The Gotland did not make its transit to the US unaided, as I recall it was transported by a heavy lift ship.
Unicorn
UnicornThey were big boats for SSK’s, especially when built, but still a lot smaller than the British SSN’s (circa. 4400-5000T) and a whole lot smaller than Astute.
One other thing about SSK’s is that they’re a lot easier to get rid of, decommissioning the old reactors and their systems is technically demanding and very expensive. Unless you do it the Russian way and just dump them.
The Collins class are also very large for SSKs, but they get very close inshore and the X tail and fin planes make her very, very manouverable.
I believe that the RN will eventually admit the Upholder disposal was a mistake.
Unicorn
UnicornThe RAN has a gallery of images taken from very close range, what they call an “underwater look”, of the hull, screws and rudder of almost every class of US carrier, a tradition that started with the Oberons and continues with the Collins class today.
“Sinking” US carriers is easy, getting that close, now thats art.
The US Navy has always discounted the threat of SSKs, one day, in a shooting war, that arrogance may well come back to bite them, very frakkin’ hard.
Unicorn
UnicornThe models were not built by me, but by a member of the same club that I am proud to be a part of, Task Force 72 (http://www.taskforce72.org).
All ships here are 1:72 and radio controlled, the largest are the USS Enterprise (CVN-65), the Yamato, Bismark, Hood and the Tarawa.
Shading down through cruisers, destroyers and such you come to the smallest stuff, such as tugs, patrol boats and such. There are also working submarines. The club started out in Australia but has members across the world.
One of our members is a professional builder, his model of USS Winston Churchill is at least as good as anything you would ever see in a museum, and his operates (including the VLS systems, lights, rotors on the helo, sounds, etc).
Bath Iron Works have said it’s “the finest model of an Arleigh Burke class destroyer anywhere in the world”, high praise indeed.
His work can be seen here
http://www.defencemodels.com.au/
Enjoy
Unicorn
UnicornI thought you might like this one Mario.
1:72 scale and radio controlled.
Unicorn
UnicornI would not be quite so quick on that choice for best ocean-going SSK Jonesy.
The Collins class actually cost more than the Oyashio’s when you factor in the new combat data suite.
In addition the Collins get rather more practical exercise at inshore recon and observation than most navies, plus they practice ASW against a wider variety of targets than the Japanese boats, which exercise against the USN and track Chinese and North Korean boats (with the occaisional Russian thrown in).
The Collins get to practice against Singaporean, Korean, US, UK, and Japanese boats, and spar against NK, Russian and PRC boats.
In addition they have at times had run ins with Indonesian, Indian and Pakistani boats as well. If nothing else the Collins boats get around.
Unicorn
UnicornBrezhnev,
in answer to your questions;
In my base of thinking an aircraft carrier is a warship even without its aircraft. The aircrafts, should be only part of the vessel’s armament. CdG, is NOT a warship, is a carrier. Kuznetsov has the Greatest self defence fitted in warship without any counterpart in the world. The only negative is that is NOT nuclear powered.
If you want a warship, build a warship, concentrate on missiles, self defence capability and the sensors to make best use of them. An aircraft carrier’s weapons are its air group, its defences are its air group and the carriers escorts. The USN could have fitted hundreds of VLS cells, Aegis radar and missile designators to their later Nimitz class carriers but took the quite reasonable view that a carriers primary objective is to maximise the size and capability of its air group, not pretending to be an oversized cruiser. Every ton used by a carrier to support anti-ship missiles is a ton not available for supporting aircraft operations, it primary role.
This is Unfair comparison. Bismark was COMPLETELY alone with Prince Eugen heavy cruiser, in fighting with the half British Fleet.
Bismark and Tirpitz were both beautiful ships, as were the Yamato and the Mushashi. The Hood was a beautiful ship, it still went down to the guns of the Bismark. Good looks are irrelevant, what counts is the fighting capability of the ships. Nelson and Rodney, significantly less attractive ships survived being hit by bombs, gunfire, submarine and aerial lunched torpedoes, glide bombs and mines, returned to action and survived the war. That is the only truly effective and relevant measure of a ships worth.
Do you agree with Francois 5 that Russia isn’t even a regional power??? Even, Turkey is considered as Regional power by western “think tanks” and Russia is not??
Russia is a regional power, able to exert influence either militarily or politically on contiguous states and the states that neighbor its neighbors. It is no longer a global power, no longer able to project military or political influence any further than that. Yes it has nuclear weapons, however nuking Eritrea’s capital because they are in dispute with your friend Ethiopia isn’t really an option. That requires troops that you can deploy and the means to deploy them. Russia lacks the capability to do so outside its “near abroad”.
1.Name to me the land baced ballestic missiles of France!
2. Air launched cruise missiles of France are not strategic, because their range is only 500km
3. Only USA and Russia have “nuclear triancle” land air, and sea baced nukes, NOT France.
I stand corrected, as the French deactivated their IRBM base at the Plateau d’Albion a few years ago. My apologies there. As for the air-launched cruise missiles, 500 km on the ASMP-A is more than sufficiant to pour a bucket of sunshine over any reasonable target, ruining said targets day.
As for the lines in my signature block, they are the Mentat chant from the universe of Dune, from Frank Herberts Dune trilogy and other books set in that universe.
Unicorn
UnicornThe French Aircraft carrier is most ugly ship in the world. Kuznetsov is state of art!! The “CdGaulle” How much antiship has on it? Is France Regional power? lol. France in font of Russia is nothing, only 580000sq kms! only as the area of Khabarovsk? Has France any Topol -M? Has France any Tu- 160 strategic bombers? The land area of Russia is Greater than the hole EU!
Brezhnev, lets try and deal with your thoughts / rants one at a time.
Ugly? Since when do looks determine how effective a ship is? Bismark and Tirpitz were attractive, Nelson and Rodney were not, however which two survived torpedo and bomb hits to see out World War 2? Effectiveness is what counts, not looks.
Kuznetsov is state of the art? Please. State of the art in aircraft carriers is the latest US carriers, which are trialling some of the equipment that will go into the next class of carriers, which will be a step change in technology and capability. Kuznetsov is marginally capable on its own, however then capability of a carrier is more than its own capabilities, it also includes its flight deck crews, its maintenance facilities, the size and composition of its air wing and its escorts and most importantly the training and experience of its people. In all of those areas the Kuznetsov is looking decidedly inferior to the US Navy’s latest carriers.
Charles De Gaulle’s antiship capability is vested in the Rafales and Etendards of its air group, which is only proper for an aircraft carrier. Fit all the anti-ship missiles you want to a carrier, they only diminish its capabilities in the most important area, the size, operation and maintenance of its air group.
France is a regional power, it maintains forces around the world, has both tactical and strategic nuclear weaponry and is able to influence events across the world through deployed troops, ships and aircraft. By any standard France is a regional power. In addition no one stated that France was ahead of Russia, that was your own interpretation.
If land area is a determinant of power then Canada, Australia and Brazil are world powers and Antarctica is a superpower. Umm, maybe not.
France does not have Topol, nor does it have Tu-160, however it has ballistic missile submarines, land based missiles and air-launched nuclear tipped cruise missiles.
France is a world power, in some respects more so than Russia, France can project power into the southern hemisphere and elsewhere, something Russia would find difficult if not impossible over the short and even medium term.
As I said, land area means nothing when it comes to the capabilities of a nation. A small nation called the United Kingdom created the largest empire the world has ever known and maintained it for almost a century, a timespan which has not been equalled since.
On the other hand Australia has one of the largest land masses on earth, and is an entire continent, vastly larger than the EU, if land mass counted for anything then Australia would be more powerful that Europe. Quite plainly it is not, so therefore we have to discount land area as a factor in a nations power.
The reason that Russia is no longer a superpower is its inability to decisively influence geo-politics on the world stage. Once the world trembled in fear of the power of the Soviet Armed Forces, however the fall of the Berlin Wall revealed the decay that was at the heart of the those forces. Today what remains is a small shadow of the forces once at the Kremlin’s command, and thanks to a decaying economy (unhealthily dependent on the returns from energy sales) and a dwindling population base, Russia appears to be set for a long period of decline.
Whether that decline is terminal no one can say for certain, that will be answered by historians a century from now.
Brezhnev, you may be a fiercely passionate supporter of Russia, however you have a decidedly thin skin and take offence at the slightest opposing viewpoint.
Learn to accept other people’s viewpoints and that they may be right on some issues and you may be wrong, and you will get a lot more out of your participation on these boards.
Go in with an attitude that your right and everyone else is wrong and you will only provoke arguments and end up in trouble with the mods again.
Unicorn
UnicornMate, you are aware of the cost differential between gas turbine and nuclear propulsion?
Basically the USN bought 27 Ticonderoga’s, whereas they might (emphasis on might) have got four or five nuclear powered Aegis cruisers.
The whole of life cycle costs involved with nuclear propulsion, training, safety, certification, refuelling, decomissioning and storage of both waste and reactor are several orders of magnitude beyond anything associated with gas turbines.
Nuke plants do have some advantages but the cost is pretty steep for those advantages, and for most applications gas turbines are fine.
Unicorn
UnicornChina Orders 6 Giant Russian “Zubr” Hovercraft
China Orders 6 Giant Russian “Zubr” Hovercraft
Posted 13-Sep-2006 07:23
Source: Defence Industry Daily
Defense Tech reports that China has just ordered 6 “Zubr” hovercraft from Russia’s Almaz Shipbuilding.
The Zubr Class is the world’s largest hovercraft, displacing 555 tonnes. It has over twice the tonnage carrying capacity of the US Navy’s LCACs (150 tons to 70 tons); the ability to carry a number of weapons including 140mm rocket pods, 30mm cannon, or air defense missiles; and a cruising range of around 300 nautical miles.
They would be extremely difficult to deploy from another ship in the manner of the USN’s LCACs, but the Zubr’s cruising range and load makes its usefulness in Taiwan invasion scenarios extremely obvious. Vietnam, and other nations with an interest in the Spratly Islands, may also be justifiably nervous. And just to make things really interesting, Defense News believes the Chinese plan to buy them in order to initiate additional production of their own knock-offs. See the full Defense Tech article for more details.
According to SinoDefense.com, 3 Zubr class hovercraft are currently in service with the Russian Navy, 2 serve in the Ukrainian Navy, and 4 were bought by the Greek Navy from 2001-2004.
Unicorn
UnicornVideo of the RN’s OPV, including the launching of Clyde
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUI05Ob2p3g
Unicorn
Unicorn
Sign In
