TinWingMedvedev has made a statement urging Georgia to back down and do this diplomatically, but under the Russian constitution to defend its people, he said he said Russia will be forced to defend Southern Ossetia fully is necessary.
Russia has NOT confirmed reports of any aircraft losses.
To be honest, someone should back down, and I really don’t think it matters who backs down, just as long as someone does. It doesn’t matter who wins or looses in a Caucasus conflict because every side loses.
TinWingPrices of natural resources are increasing and both Brazila and Venzuela has discovered alot more and when they make that alliance i am sure in next 5 to 10 years there will be huge purchases of arms. as they lay claim to greater area on the sea. Falkland end result will be no different than Hong Kong. UK cannot standupt to collective will of South America. ur both short of resources and money.
It is far from clear that there is a “collective will of South America?”
At the moment, there a number of leftist governments that alternately dabble in narco-terrorism and regional dialog with their moderate counterparts. So far, the natural resource boom has created more inflation and social upheaval than sustainable investment and employment. Look at Boliva or Venezuela, and it is clear there is more potential for ethnic and class conflict than any broad regional consensus.
The Falkands bear absolutely no resemblance to Hong Kong. Hong Kong was a commercial center populated by ethnic Chinese, bordering on China and entirely dependant on China, despite the political role that Britain had won during the Opium wars and successive conflicts. The Falklands are barren, isolated and minimally populated by English speaking people who share no cultural ties with the mainland of South America.
TinWing[QUOTE=Adrian_44;1262139]There have been warships lost in hurricanes. Off Okinawa on December 18th 1944, the USN’s 3rd fleet planes off the carriers and shakes the hangars. Eight carriers and one cruiser are disabled and 3 destroyers sink. Eight hundred people are injured or dead while one hundred and eighty-six airplanes are lost. These range from carrier aircraft to scout aircraft of cruisers and, battleships.
URL –http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq102-1.htm
Typhoon Cobra, or the Typhoon of 1944, spurred the interest of the USN in modern meteorology. You can very easily alter the course of a ship to avoid a typhoon or hurricane, given the proper warning. Global typhoon/hurricane tracking was the result of the experience in 1944.
In other words, subsequent to 1944, the issue of riding out a typhoon became a moot point. Ferry disasters in the third world will continue to occur, of course, but no modern navy would expect warships to ride out a typhoon!
TinWingIt is a bit ridiculous to pose this sort of argument. You could argue that without the impetus of the Second World War, the development of the turbojet would have been greatly delayed. You might also argue that commercial turboprops should have been developed earlier, if the emphasis hadn’t been on producing axial flow turbojets for military applications.
However, it is certain that the turbojet would have been developed with or without Frank Whittle.
TinWingProb should be in the news thread but, yes, its finally been confirmed that the hoped-for T45 hulls 7 and 8 are now officially cancelled.
The ‘jam tomorrow’ aspect is that FSC is being ‘brought forward’ which is plainly another lie because 1) FSC is not even defined yet so there is nothing to actually bring forward and 2) the need in the RN is plainly for AAW over GP/ASW.
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.
Looks like the recent decision by Sarkozy to swing the axe at his forces as emboldened the muppet show types over here too.
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.
TinWingWell, true to a point……..don’t forget alot has to do with work! (i.e. jobs) If, a Senator or Congressman doesn’t bring his share of money back to his or her State. They won’t be in office long……..So, the taxpayer has a fair share of responsibility in Goverment Waste.:( The true is most complain but few are really involved. 😮
Oddly enough, Senator John McCain, the Republican Presidential nominee, has never procured a single “earmark” for his home state of Arizona. So much for the theory that you have to “bring home the bacon!”
TinWingWOA!
This is going to cause a Sh*t storm! Boeing supporters are going to be very happy and frankly every European nation that deals with the American defence sector needs to review that relationship.
Keep in mind that the last time the GAO reopened a competition, it was CSAR-X and Boeing was the company that lost the contract and Agusta-Westland was able to rebid with its partner Lockheed-Martin.
The GAO is a neutral 3rd party watchdog organization. Europe was a potential beneficiary the last time the GAO overruled the Air Force. The GAO isn’t partisan or protectionist.
TinWingThirded! Excellent post, and very good conclusions, notably in terms of the emphasis on actual capabilities (weapons fits etc…) rather than assumptions that speed is a defence. I have always been troubled by the US concept that somehow being capable of 40-50 knots in open waters is an almost total defence. Speed has pretty much always been a poor defence, especially when the enemy has weapons that are faster still – and lets admit it, an anti-ship missile travelling at 500mph or more is not going to be bothered whether you are making 30 knots or 50 knots!
I don’t think anyone would claim that 40-50 knot capability is meant for combating anti-ship missiles, but the capability is very useful for engaging small, fast boats in a Persian Gulf context. Against the threat of a low tech, small boat saturation attack, a 50 knot sprint would be entirely useful. Think in terms of the escort of civilian vessels or higher value fleet units against typical littoral threats, such as small boat, midget subs and mines, and you will comprehend the unorthodox thinking behind the LCS.
I have always been a big fan of the Absalon, it seems to be an excellent choice for Denmark, especially given their particular needs. It is, as with pretty much all ships, a compromise based on requirements.
The Absalon is ideal as a minelayer in a potential, if unlikely, Baltic conflict. The expeditionary warfare capabilities are far more widely publicized, but at the heart of the Absalon’s design is a large aft deck capable of carrying 300 mines. Humanitarian aid and special forces capabilities might be far more politically acceptable justifications for the program, but there is little doubt that the Absalon is a potential offensive mine warfare platform. Denmark was obviously considering traditional Baltic concerns along with post-Cold War concerns, but there is a great deal of difference between a potential, and unlikely, Baltic conflict and and a probable, and likely, Persian Gulf conflict.
The Absalon is not an LCS.
TinWingSuperb!
One more addition, DCN was working on a higher speed GoWind design called Fastwind, which will have a speed around 45knots and similar look and capability as the Gowind 200 design.
http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=102730
—–JT—–
I have yet to see any illustration or details on Fastwind. The original GoWind concept was designed around diesels and small gas turbines and could not accommodate the large 20-36MW gas turbines that would be necessary for 45 knot speeds in even a +/- 2,000 ton hull. The waterjet technology is available off-the-shelf, and considering the LCS export drive, it is easy to see why the French seek to market a 45 knot update on the more conventional GoWind.
TinWingi do not agree with you here but the point a another one. from my understanding the us-navy claimed to need the high topspeed for the lcs not to improve the selfdefence but to be able to defend other high value units with the lcs:
Correct.
As hard as it is to believe, the LCS would perform the same anti-fast boat role the 65 foot PB Mk-III patrol boats performed back in the 1980s in the Persian Gulf.
TinWingFritz, it’s evident you didn’t read past the passages you quoted. Read the lot before wanking all over the thread pls.
Oh my. How descriptive – “******* all over the thread…”
You’ve chosen to compare a 23 knot ship with a pair of 40-50 knot ships half the displacement. You can question the LCS requirement, as many people, but you can’t deny there is a very obvious difference between the Absalon and the two LCS designs. The Absalon is a large, blue water design that might be termed a second line combatant, with a very vague operational description – it’s even hard to find a NATO standard designation for the Absalon. The LCS is a blue water deployable, brown water concept with a very broad and inclusive operational requirement – an effective FFG-7 replacement that also will take on every role except for those reserved for the Zumwalt and CG(X) class.
I really admire your artwork but the comparison isn’t entirely natural and the conclusions are forced rather than convincing. I fully believe that the Absalon is an ideal ship for certain types of expeditionary warfare, such as fire support and anti-piracy, and even more appropriate for traditional Baltic roles – if the need ever arises.
The LCS was inspired by the late 1980s “Tanker War” in the Persian Gulf. If you need a seaworthy platform to undertake mine warfare, fend off massed small boat attacks and you want it to self deployable – unlike the only MSOs that were towed to the Gulf 20 years ago, the LCS seems ideal on paper
The F-125 is altogether different, and while you might compare it with the land attack FREMM variants, it has an altogether different operational concept. In short, the F-125 is a specialist design, tied to a requirement to minimize support and maintenance overheads for long term deployments, to a degree never considered in warship design ever before. The F-125 is equivalent to an immense OPV, meant to be deployed half way around the globe from its homeport for years at a time – tremendously different than the FREMM, which appears to be a fleet unit for use in the Mediterranean.
TinWingJust want to add my support to the above, great job planeman6000, a great way to start a good discussion, just a shame about fitz.
It is interesting how you manage to make a compliment and continue a personal attack (from another thread) in the same brief post.
TinWingThis post deals with the SSGT, the previous BMT concept for a large blue water submarine:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=28700&highlight=ssgt
http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/default.htm?ID=1
SSGT DRAWS ADMIRING CROWDS AT PACIFIC 2004
BMT Defence Services Ltd unveiled its concept for a high mobility submarine at the Pacific 2004 maritime exhibition in Sydney, Australia, at the start of February.
A model of the SSGT (Ship Submersible Gas Turbine) was displayed on the BMT Defence Services stand at the show, attracting interest from naval delegations and defence sector professionals from many Pacific Rim regions and countries including Australia and New Zealand; south-east Asia, Canada and the USA during the four day event that began on 3rd February 2004.
Marketing Director for BMT Defence Services, John Davis, explained the key benefits of the design to those viewing the disruptively-patterned submarine model: “SSGT is designed to provide effective mobility approaching that of an SSN without the financial and political costs of ownership associated with having a nuclear reactor onboard”.
Conceived by design engineers at BMT Defence Services in Bath, UK, the SSGT sees the first serious proposal for using gas turbines in a conventional submarine. Though gas turbines can be very compact they are voracious consumers of air and submarine designers have to date been unable to arrange sufficient volumes of air to feed gas turbines buried inside the hull of a submarine.
The innovation proposed by BMT Defence Services, in consultation with gas turbine specialists Rolls Royce, is to locate two independent gas turbine-electric alternator sets in individual containments located in a bulb at the top of the submarine fin where they can draw sufficient air through an 8m tall induction mast. When operating on gas turbines, the submarine runs semi-submerged, with just the gas turbine bulb above the sea surface. In this mode, SSGT is able to travel up to 6,000 nautical miles at 20 knots, far in excess of the capability of a conventional diesel-electric submarine.
The SSGT design trades off tactical covertness of the submarine against strategic mobility on the assumption that the submarine will meet few, if any, threats during transit. Once in-theatre, SSGT shuts down its gas turbines, dives and can operate fully covertly for up to 25 days in an Air Independent Propulsion mode (AIP). A mixture of fuel cells and advanced ZEBRA batteries provide power for systems and permit submerged operations up to 10 knots and short tactical sprints at 30 knots respectively. Kerosene is used to fuel the gas turbines and (via reformers) the fuel cells thus giving deep flexibility between transit and in theatre operations. Liquid oxygen is stored to enable the fuel cells to operate when the boat is submerged. SSGT may also run its fuel cells at the surface taking air using a conventional snort mast. In this way the boat may be more covert whilst in transit and preserve the stored liquid oxygen to maximise discretion in theatre.
Well resourced in onboard power, SSGT supports a highly capable and comprehensive combat suite including chin, fin and flank sonar arrays, six heavyweight torpedo tubes, eight vertical launch missile tubes and stowage for four large unmanned underwater vehicles (UUV) or swimmer delivery vehicles (SDV). Accommodation for up to 12 special forces personnel and a six-man lock-in lock-out chamber complete a flexible design capable of undertaking a range of high and low level missions.
As you can see, it took an unprecedented operational concept and radical hullform to give a conventional submarine the deployability of a SSN – along with a remarkable admission:
The SSGT design trades off tactical covertness of the submarine against strategic mobility on the assumption that the submarine will meet few, if any, threats during transit.
In the end, you can’t snorkel at much more than 10 knots, no matter how large or small the submarine is, and the limiting factor on any deployment is the human element. It would take a radical, semi-submerged submarine concept like the SSGT to make a SSK globally deployable, with adequate transit speeds.
TinWingNo anger at all, just yet another case of you posting some vague generalities without any supporting evidence. I have no problem with people posting their opionions as long as they back them up. Unfortunately you always take an aggresive and dismissive tone towards other posters who clearly know far more than you do, This thread being a classic example.
You’re one who is dismissive of other posters – and not just me. You dismiss detailed and nuanced posts, often falsely claiming that the content is a repetitive, when it most obviously isn’t. You also launch personal attacks, devoid of any real content. Need I mention your attempt to dredge up an old helicopter topic in a submarine thread?
TinWingNothing of use in that post but once again you have made yourself look rather silly (I remind you that this forum is still awaiting an explanation from you as to whay the Eurocopter Tigre is a ‘pan-European Commanche’).
I responded at the time, which must be nearly 2 years ago. I doubt that you would have read or comprehended the the response, but merely would have made your typically ad hominem response.
The parallels between the RAH-66 and the Eurocopter Tigre were perfect obvious. Both programs suffered from mission creep, intolerable delay and massive per/unit costs. Both helicopter were successful in terms of flight dynamics and engine developement. The main difference is that the United States finally canceled the Commanche, and quite justifiably so, but equally obviously, employment concerns prevented the Europeans from doing the same with the Tigre. The issue at the time was the ridiculously protracted delivery schedule for the Tigre, with so few units actually being available for service at the time.
You seem to have the habit of asking question and then getting angry when the responses don’t correspond to your own personal opinions. You don’t seem to be looking for answers as much as personal validation.
Sign In
