Hey thanks for stating a lot of the obvious.

You honestly do seem to need it most of the time Dionis. You do come across as someone willing to wave his little flag with scant regard for that fact that your knowlege of the subject matter is superficial at best and based on little to no experience.

What reloads? Are you completely insane? In the event of a nuclear attack there’s going to be no Severodvinsk or Severomorsk (or vise versa), unless you think your Yankee friends are extremely stupid. “Yeah – let’s leave their sub bases intact, hah, take another salvo from their SSBNs.” Good one Jonesy. :rolleyes:

Yes because you would schedule a post-strike reload at a major nuclear target?. Perhaps you may want to think about that a bit. Cold launch silos are reloadable so, if the submarine survives it is perfectly feasible to meet up with pre dispatched tender at a remote anchorage. Regeneration of strategic assets is a serious factor in strategic warfighting. Time for you to do a little reading on the topic of nuclear exchanges Dionis.

Point remains simple. It’s a second strike weapon meant to launch no matter what. Thanks for reading.

The obvious point you mention earlier that you are now ignoring. An alert order to a second-strike weapon that allows it time to position. Again – ask a submariner whether he’d surface through 3m of ice willingly. Share the answer with the board. The answer to the question of whether or not the ice-surfacing capability is practical or not is the same.

Hammers, PC cases, and equipment that do not belong to the Typhoon are somewhat trivial to this argument. If the sub was designed to be able to perform certain maneuvers that are difficult – it would have been designed to be able to withstand them, not to mention, light equipment damage is irrelevant when you need to surface and fire off a salvo of SLBMs. This is the entire point of this submarine – deterrence. Not a hard concept I’d think.

Light equipment damage?. Have you the slightest concept of what you are talking about?.

I can see how you might consider a shock induced fracture to a pipe weld trivial. How about if the pipe in question is in the primary coolant loop of the reactor?. A shock-induced dry joint fail on a PCB might be considered ‘light damage’ – unless perhaps its part of the special weapons fire control!.

I promise you that your ‘light equipment damage’ in either of those circumstances would be extremely relevent to the continuation of the platform as a ‘deterrent’ weapons system. In the first case, without K219 levels of heroics, you could be looking at a dead crew and a lost boat.

You might be quite satisfied that the Russian designers of the vessel have somehow certified the boat to be able to crash through 3m of ice because it says so in a book somewhere. I’ll say this to you though, and it will be the last thing I want to hear about it until you manage it – go and ask a submariner if he’d want to take his boat through 3m of ice without an onboard emergency forcing it. Then come back and share the answer with the forum.

Grow up man. This is the adult world – if you wish to indulge in name calling I’m sure there is a forum for that kind of thing – perhaps a kindergarten.

Your ‘deal’ as you have it, bargain of the century, is as it stands today worthless. The yard hasn’t the resources to do the job it was contracted to do and has received payment for. Thats not a bargain its next door to fraud. That is not Russophobia thats plain and simple shoddy behaviour by the Russian yard being called for what it is. I’d call it the same if it were a British yard doing the same thing….in fact I have said as much regarding the Astute build with BAE.

are never going to accept the fact that even in 3 years, things can change around completely. Business is business, and the Russians aren’t going to give the Gorshkov away for free

Poor turn of phrase. Gorshkov was advertised, by the Russians, precisely as being given away free. The cost of its refit was the only money changing hands and it was a laughable amount when the contract was signed – especially when it became known the extent of the refit!. You cant get around the basic facts on this one Dionis its been done to death.

Who wants to try and surface through 3m of ice???.

I’d assume that the CO would direct his Nav officer to find the nearest known polynia for that time of year, there are tables of these things, and make best speed for it. Surfacing through 3m of ice breaks stuff and, if you are about to ripple off the big fireworks, chances are that all the replacements back at port recently reached 10,000 celsius following a rather bright flash.

Not good news, so I think possibly something that is more academically relevent than operationally so!.

Valid points for including a few 20mm Oerlikon single mounts… but not complex maintenance-intensive mini-gun-style weapons.

Nope. Not in the same context.

That kind of 20/23mm cannon is part of a ships light gun fit and requires a trained gunner. That kind of mount requires no small amount of skill to get results with. Completely different to the 50cal type weapon thats being discussed here which would be manned by any old stoker who volunteered to have a crack at a new duty.

It doesnt make the blindest bit of difference what the relative destructive power of a cannon shell is over a 50 cal if the guy firing the weapon cant hit the target. As stated the gatling takes the kind of coverage offered by the M2 type weapons already used and magnifies them for very little additional ship impact.

Complex and maintenance intensive is a bit of a stretch. Gatlings have always been more reliable shot-for-shot, with equal maintenance, than any other type of cannon I’m aware of.

But there is no good reason to do it either. As already noted, the venerable M2HB does the job far more than adequately at lower cost and with less maintenance than any gee wiz this is really cool to watch on Futureweapons solution. The GECAL 50 is the answer to a question no one is asking.

Sorry to say this but thats gash!. The threat is the swarming small boat attack or, in port/at anchor sniper fire.

In the first case a GAU-19, on its GE naval mount, is far more effective than banging out short bursts from an M2. Remember it may not be Carlos Hathcock on the mount and the longer sustainable fire from the gatling will allow for easier fire adjustment and greater effects on target. The difference in maintenance is going to add up to what….an extra few hours with a gunners mate and a few more spares in weps stores?.

As to the second threat I think some people need to loosen their grip on technology a bit. A man stood behind a gun, perhaps with NVG’s in low-vis, is much more aware of his surroundings than someone sat at a fire control console looking at the world through a 19″ flat panel. The threat to the gatling gunner is high from a sniper, but, the same sniper that can hit the exposed part of a person behind a gun and mount can put a bullet through the sensors or actuation mechanism of your stabilised, remotely operated, expensive mount. Its callous to say it but a gunner with a bullet in him is much easier to replace, to get the mount back firing, than a Typhoon with shot out optronics.

Its true to say that M2’s already in the inventory are nice, cheap, solutions that most navies find an easy option to bolt onto their ships in threat environments. To say that the GAU-19 doesnt offer a better solution for what is, in real terms, a very modest amount of money is way off the mark though.

So, maybe UK is going to get 3 more corvettes, just like Italy with the Artigliere class??

Doubtful from what I’ve heard. Apparently the accomodation facilities are specified to the sizes of the intended original customers crews. Without wishing to engage in racial issues the stature of the average RN stoker is not likely to fit too well in a bunk designed for a gentleman of Brunei or Malay lineage. In short the facilities aboard those corvettes would have to be significantly modified for british crews to run them.

Personally these vessels – designed to operate in a warm climate, with fair sensor and weapons fit and good endurance – would seem a good answer to our need to maintain a presence in the Gulf. Basing rights in Oman wouldnt seem outrageously difficult to negotiate and we could cycle through the 3 vessels quite simply to maintain a solid presence and cut the tasking from the current escort fleet. I’m told, by those still in uniform, that such an idea is impracticable though and, whilst cheaper than a 22 or a Duke, the Ragams will not be especially cheap boats to keep deployed….this being the reason that the Brunei Govt backed out of the buy in the first place!.

1) The FSC, or S2C2, or whatever you wish to call it, could be “defined” with the stroke of a pen. The problem is finding the money to fund it.

2) You could question the value of any first-line surface combatant without a substantial AAW capability. Land attack is best left to SSNs and carrier aviation and the ASW threat remains minimal in the near term.

Yes okay….a stroke of the pen. After a definition period as I said so that the requirement the vessel is addressing is ‘defined’. That ones on the fundamentals of project planning course Tinwing. The FSC is NOT just a follow on T23 as that vessel was optimised for a tasking that, as you correctly identify, is no longer pre-eminent in RN planning – blue water ASW.

Whats your definition of ‘substantial AAW’ though. Substantial AAW to me is the full PAAMS suite – anything less is self-defence – you need the project definition phase mentioned earlier to determine the threat level one wishes the vessel to be able to defend against.

Sarkozy had to cut something, and the military spending is always a far easier target than social spending – especially in France. France is in a dire economic situation, as is much of the Eurozone – with the exception of Germany. The French have surrendered their monetary policy to the ECB, and the ECB is primarily concerned with controlling inflation in German, not combating unemployment in the rest of the Eurozone.

Sarkozy prior to his election was advertised as the right-wing hawk and friend of the French military establishment. Looks like a remarkable spin job at the moment doesnt it. Unfortunately, as stated, his defence cuts have strengthened the arm of those who view the military as an expensive moneypit.