JonesyReally interesting concept. The idea, I presume, is that many systems can be tested on a smaller (and hence, cheaper) ship. The Type 032 isn’t actually expected to see service, is it?
That was my view as well Ink. if memory serves they’ve used a Golf class as a test boat before….turning a Kilo into a Golf (a ‘Kilf’ perhaps…better than ‘Golo’??) seems fairly logical if you want to carry on in the same vein. Cant see any reason PLAN might have for an operational vessel with the resultant SSBG’s capabilities?.
If they have perfected their own version of the USN’s ‘MAC tube’ why not design it into a platform that can deploy LACM effect practically at range….their SSN platform. A two shot SLBM capability on a discrete platform may offer an interesting STOF attack profile option, but, travelling to transoceanic range to deploy against the only opponent they might wish to employ the tactic against, whilst staying discrete, is going to be ludicrous to consider.
JonesyHmmm first response seems to have vanished….my point was that, fair enough, as this is a Navy news thread I’m happy to leave this as (i)the boats have been delivered and (ii)there is a difference of opinion as to whether this is a sensible act of reinforcement of national laws and regional law-enforcement accords or its the draconian act of a bunch of right wing fascist autocrats.
JonesyWhat?. These people can pay thousands of dollars for a place on a smugglers tramp steamer…but not for an airline ticket?. How does that work then Leon?. In the UK people fly in on perfectly normal, safe, commercial airlines and turn up at our ports on commercial ferries seeking asylum every day. Its the ones who know they’ve no chance of getting residence who try the illegal route. If they are doing something illegal in the first place why should they not be caught?. Australia has a right to restrict the numbers it offers handouts to the same as every other country in the world. The Australian people seem quite happy with their governments policy on that…after all it is them picking up the bill for these asylum seekers….or did you forget that little fact?.
JonesyI’m a lot less concerned about the operations of people smuggling outfits than about the desperate circumstances people face that drive them to employ such services. But then that’s one of the fundamental differences between the political ‘left’ and ‘right’ — the left cares about people, their welfare and dignity, whereas the right cares about ‘laws’ and other self-serving abstractions that, as a rule, are crafted by the powerful to protect their interests against those they would oppress.
The fact that the apathy of the people smugglers towards the safety and security of their ‘cargo’ compounds the misery of the unfortunates involved is lost on you then…so you care about the poor souls caught up in the trafficking but only when their plight supports your, somewhat contradictory, left wing agenda?!.
Again how does the supply of two patrol boats do anything to interfere with or hamper legal, safe, asylum requests?. In fact you could even make the case that, if those patrol boats help to cripple the illegal smuggling trade, they make the trade less attractive to the poor misbegotten souls trying to escape their individual oppressors and help them choose the legal route that keeps them safe. If you are concerned about ‘the people’ surely you support the activities that will expose them to least harm and keep them safe?.
JonesySupplying armaments to murderous regimes is generally frowned upon; except, of course, when it serves even the most venal of western interests — in this case, keeping the victims of said regime from seeking asylum in Australia. Shameful.
Alternately “Australia augment their asylum/people smuggling patrols by donating surplus vessels to originator/conduit state”. In a strategic sense a clearly sensible move for the Aussies and in a legal and moral sense the presence of two additional patrol boats is no obstruction to legal asylum applicants from Sri Lanka. Surely your moral ‘outrage’ Rii doesnt extend to condoning the people smuggling outfits that these boats will counter?.
JonesyI don’t find that offensive at all, I quite like that they’re showing a sense of humour, almost laughing at themselves. But then what do I know.
I dont find it offensive either, but, if someone chose to attempt to reinforce the message I may feel it necessary to point out the alternate interpretation of the sign which is:
‘if you dont do as I say my invisible friend will get you’
…which may in fact cause offense!
JonesyNot necessarily, plenty accurate enough to use conventional submunition warheads to take out runways.
Its a somewhat risky strategy that Lukos…runways can be swept of submunitions within tens of minutes and small cratering repairs little longer. Digging up a runway means carving up the runway sub-base…its foundations…effectively. Knocking out air operations isnt the work of a couple of weapons with a sprinkling of bomblets. Its the work of a brigade targeting runway intersections, taxiways and aprons. One weapon from such an attack series going off course slightly, and I’m sure Russian weapons do just as much as everyone elses, hitting a residential block full of NATO personnel on a declared air-policing task and we have an immediate casus belli. Not very clever…unless the idea is deliberately to escalate into direct conflict.
JonesyIf she has made a payment she may have de facto admited liability for the debt, but, if the loan shark has provided no official means to track or record payments…ie a paying-in book etc…then he may be on shaky ground trying to prove the existence of the debt in the first place let alone her payments towards it. If he cant prove the debt exists then this is covered under the Theft Act 1978
“21. Blackmail”. —
(1) A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief—
(a)that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and
(b)that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.
(2) The nature of the act or omission demanded is immaterial, and it is also immaterial whether the menaces relate to action to be taken by the person making the demand.
(3) A person guilty of blackmail shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
If he can prove the debt is owed then he can use the ‘reasonable grounds’ defence, but, then he falls foul of the below:
Administration of Justice Act 1970
“Punishment for unlawful harassment of debtors.â€
1. A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing a person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under a contract he:
– harasses the other with demands for payment which, in respect of their frequency, the manner or occasion of making any such demand, or of any threat or publicity by which any demand is accompanied, are calculated to subject him or his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation.
– falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay for it utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character, or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not
2. A person may be guilty of an offence by virtue of sub-section (1)(a) above if he concerts with others in the taking of such actions as is described in that paragraph, notwithstanding that his own course of conduct does not by itself amount to harassment.
…simple as that. Its just a case of getting someone to enforce the law.
Jonesy“In the land of the blind, one-eyed man is the king” 🙂
It’ll give good excuse for everyone else to start training ASW, if nothing else…
….or perhaps, noting the point TR1 made so succinctly, training in submarine recovery procedures!.
JonesyWasnt this meant to have been heading to DSME in South Korea as an order for four of their ‘budget’ DP1200 design?. When did that become 4 Meko A-class and, if that picture is anything to go by, 4 well specced A class hulls at that?.
JonesyNow in Al-world it goes further than that
It’s all about the offsets; we buy 48 (see below before MCI) and Japan uses marinised BR710s on theirs.
The only bad news leaking out about the P1 programme is with the engine. Use BR710 instead. Ta da 3 problems solved in oneOkay now the issue of 48 units
1 that’s how many Nimrods we had
2 that would give 4 squadrons (subject to the caveat of a squadron can be as big as you want it to be) 2 in N and 2 in S
3 We take the Canadian Aurora/Arcturus approach
2 squadrons (1N and 1S) are all-singing, all-dancing, FAA crewed ASW and ASuW assets
2 squadrons (1N and 1S) come without the ASW kit; these are used for crew training, launching Storm Shadow, SAR and coastal surface patrol
Looked at re-engined P-1 concept as well. Think there is real merit in the idea especially when you look at the costs of the American solution.
BR710 was my first thought as well, but, I dont think its a goer. Look at the weight difference between the 710 and the Japanese engine….2100kgs against about 1300 plus the RR unit is more than 2ft longer. You then need to multiply that up by 4 so you’re looking at a 3 tonne weight penalty on the airframe for that engine plus a need for a longer/remounted nacelle.
If we needed to re-engine the better choice would look to be the last mark of the older Tay 611…the 8C. 20yr old motor but its reliable, there are plenty of spares out there for it and its both still offered by RR and the choice engine for the G450!. More importantly its power output and physical dimensions are a near match for the Japanese units and the Tay is just 100kgs heavier. SFC is nearly identical to the BR710 as well at 0.685 compared to 0.707 in the 710’s favour. If part of the concept is to minimise the costs for adapting the design it’d be the Tay I’d be looking at.
JonesyWe need the referendum as a stick to beat the EU with in order to help get the concessions we want. A vigorous, well informed and well reported pro- and anti- campaign would also go some way to influencing minds on the continent that we are genuine in our intention to re-evaluate our relationship with the EU.
Ultimately it makes not a whit of difference whether we say we’re staying in or opting out as we’ll still need to trade with the EU and, whether thats through the EEA/EFTA structures or some Swiss-style accommodation, it still means we have to follow EU rules if we want to trade with them. Suppose it’ll make a lot of work for the legislators, political media outlets and leaflet printers/poster makers though.
JonesyMany thanks for the response Mountain….what you say about the Chinese angle does sound all too plausible sadly. It just struck me that Gabbiano qualification would’ve been quite an enabler for those flying Falco and it surprised me that there were no reports of a take-up. If the Pakistani’s are looking elsewhere, for their own reasons, that would answer a part of it at least.
JonesyAre the Pakistan Air Force still manufacturing Falco UAV’s does anyone know?. If so is it known if they are they looking at shifting up to the Evo version….with the integration work completed with the Gabbiano T-series radars it looks like Falco/Gabbiano could be a seriously useful marpat capability for the Gulf approaches?.
JonesyThe media making a story out of nothing, as per usual
Showing ignorance here perhaps but shouldnt NOTAMs have defined where the boundaries where if there was a scheduled paradropping set for that day?.
Sign In
