NeptuneShould also consider that the current Lekui type is even further stealthified and given the name Jebat, second of the Lekui class, I think they are just ordering something similar or slightly upgraded and no real new variant… Probably not as stealthy as a LaFayette, but all in all for that area a good ship for its task.
NeptuneNimrod, of course it would still be modern. The weapons are the same as about any other ship at the moment and they are surprisingly stealthy compared to other ships of that age. So all in all, if the price was good, I don’t think it’s a bad decision. Also because they already have Lekui and Jebat, so extra crew training and different spare parts will be minimized along with probably no extension of the arsenal of Navy weapons. There are of course other vessels on the market, but I don’t think they’ve chosen the wrong one. I did however hear that the first two were extremely expensive due to the SeaWolf SAM, but could there have been an extra payment for an option on two more ships involved? Hence exercising that option now with a reduced price?
NeptuneWhat quote?
And yes a T-45 (well, if it ever succeeds in firing a missile, which it hasn’t done up till now) is the better AAW platform. It’s designed for it and most likely with the same level of training it will be a better AAW platform.
Crew is limited by the weapon, of course, but the weapon is a LOT more limited by the crew and that is what the point is here. A ship is a lot more dependent on its crew than the crew on its ship.
Still being arrogant I see, you know nothing about me and what I have done and you never will so I suggest you leave it at that rather than trying to make yourself out to be so wonderful becouse you claim to have done so much- does not wash.
I am not wonderful nor have I done much (if that was what you wanted to hear), but for the little things I did do, I have figured out that the crew of a ship is much more important to its operations and capabilities than the ship to its crew in regard of such operations. If you call such a statement arrogance, then so be it, most people call it reality. Why do you think I never, or hardly, come into aviation forums (except when i’m curious about something or want to find pictures)? Because I don’t know things about that. And yes, I do know some internet statistics about missiles and airplanes, but does that make me knowledgeable? no it doesn’t, I’d be wasting my time there. About shipping I do know some things and if I can help people by explaining these few things, then I’m pretty happy with that. If I’d have to answer by copying some internet sites and statements of “unknown sources”, then I’d be pretty sad, and I even prefer to say I don’t know then fetch up some of those answers. (and sometimes I even pose questions myself)
Why did the MoD even bother with the type-45 as you seem to think that the Type-23 is perfectly adequete?
I didn’t say it was adequate, but if necessary in a certain occasion you’d be pretty happy to have it capable by its crew rather than seeing it sail away or finding it unable to get a missile out.
NeptuneIf you really want that answer, I know Turbinia’s credits and education, hence I said that. Hadn’t much to do with anything else and honestly, we, people with experience, can very rapidly see which people have, or don’t have, experience or work in our branche. And yes, Turbinia has worked in my branche and we do know and share our points of view here.
Making rediculous remarks and covering yourself up with “slighly less trained crew” isn’t solving your problem. There is a huge difference in certain training schedules and indeed a possibility of only a slight difference (but most likely unknown to anyone over here, including myself) can still make a huge difference.
Make a short range missile hit get that range, no it can’t, it can however get a longer range than used by someone else. But as I mentioned there are other ways of defending yourself.
As I have mentioned before, some things can’t be changed. If that Sniper has to kill his target and only gets an M-16A4 to do that, then the people who gave him the assignment will have to wait untill he gets closer, as simple as that, time critical target or not. The human mind can solve a lot of problems and technology or no technology, he will succeed in that, even if he has to use old technology in a way that it was never meant to be used.
So if you called the above a “rediculous suggestion” , then I think you should start living in reality and see that, even if you keep stubbornly stating your opinion, changing about every question given to you to fit your theory, it will still not make the reality.
Who, in his right mind, would ever send an amphibious assault to a shore with only a type 23 as defence? And even if that type 23 was the only unit remaining to defend that group, then it will do so. Even if that means they have to move their ships closer or do other manoeuvres. A realistic area defence? No, it isn’t, but if it is the only thing there, you’ll be very happy with your good crew that extends its defences…
If you are going to compare “deaf/blind” people (your words from an earlier post) with some of the most highly trained personell in the world I can compare sticks and stones with Patriot and Aster systems.
If you have failed to see that that was just an indication of what I meant, then I feel sorry with you. The others did seem to get it. Using the extreme is sometimes a way to make people see your point very clearly and rapidly. Most people over here know that I meant an “incapable” or “less capable” radar operator by saying deaf and blind… You obviously didn’t…
Too bad that’s not one of the choices Turbinia outlined to you.
Other people seem to agree with me… I guess I’m not the only one avoiding questions then?
NeptuneYou didn’t get the question, this IS your choice, the US crew on an OHP and the Nigerian crew on a Burke, that is all you can choose from. Certain things can’t be changed in life.
Well, the only true answer is none of both as merchies don’t like Navy Cowboys in their vicinity. 🙂
But idd I’d go for US crew on the OHP. And the OHP is not a better ship compared to a Burke, but once again you see how useless it would be to compare both ships. Nice assumption there Turbinia, another note, “assuming they ever get out of their own port without grounding” 😉 (did I just hear a MEKO scratch the bottom there?)
As for the type 23, the same case. They’d just pull their ships all close together so that the Type23 CAN at least offer some protection. That is why human factors are once again there to solve the problem.
I’ve seen an 8 year old ship run an operation a lot more smoothly, faster and in better condition compared with a 3 year old ship and certainly the 3 year old one had the best equipment of both!
Another point, as you always seem to call for “bare hand” or stone and stick situations. What is your point with that in relation to “comparing two ships is useless”? You want to compare stones and sticks with SAMs? Of course there has to be some technology otherwise there would not even be a comparison.
I think your finally starting to get it, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, Why did the Mig beat the F-15, becouse the pilot was the limiting factor for the Mig, but if both the pilots were more less equally matched then the aircraft would be the limiting factor- an aircraft is only as good as its pilot, but the pilot can only do what the aircraft will allow, thus they are of equal importance and the same applies to every scenario. Dont forget there have been far more occasions where the F-15 has beaten the Mig-21.
No, the pilot is not the limiting factor there. The if your MiG can’t do the turn you want to the right, you have to think of something else to solve your problem or reach your aim. Once again depending on the human mind to solve that problem.
Technology will do what it is designed to do, but only if all the humans involved do their job right. And with a good crew you can even do more with the technology than what it’s designed/advertised to do. But somehow I think you’ll see another proof of your theory and disproof of mine (although mine is actually the above statement).
Neptunehttp://nw.rian.ru/army/20060720/81478626.html
СЕВЕРОДВИНСК, 20 июл – РИА Новости. Министерство обороны РФ не будет финансировать достройку атомной подводной лодки “Белгород”, заявил вице-премьер, глава Минобороны России Сергей Иванов.
“Атомная подводная лодка “Белгород” министерству обороны не нужна, и оплачивать ее достройку министерство обороны не будет”, – сказал Иванов.
“Мы рассматриваем другие варианты достройки лодки, но не в интересах министерства обороны”, – добавил вице-премьер.
В то же время, по его словам, военное ведомство будет оплачивать ремонт тяжелого атомного крейсера “Адмирал Нахимов”.
Подводная лодка “Белгород” – проекта 949-А типа “Гранит”, к которому относилась субмарина “Курск”, потерпевшая катастрофу в Баренцевом море в 2000 году.
Practically it says Russia will not pay for the completion of Belgorod as they don’t really need this boat. They are looking at options for the completion of the ship, but not for the Russian Navy…
They will however pay for the upgrade/refit of Admiral Nakhimov (Kirov class).
NeptuneNeptuneits also quite revealing that you have yet to provide any method to accurately or reliably compare the perssonel of different countrys yet you persist in saying that they are all that count.
One final question for you, what happens if the crew does not have the technology?, they cant shoot down planes with their bare hands they cant sink ships by looking at them and they cant walk on water, the equipment needs men as much as the men need the equipment.
As I’ve said, there IS NO WAY to compare a crew capability (in quality or quantity) that is why your equations cannot be solved and hence the discussion won’t have a reliable outcome!
As I have mentioned before, if you give two ships a SeaWolf SAM system and one crew is good the other is bad, then the good crew will likely be able to defend itself out at 15km rather than the “internet official” 10km. The bad crew will either not manage to get one missile fired or only, at maximum get 10km out of it.
Let’s get to “this discussion”. Even if one has (again theoretically according to the internet) longer range missiles and a better radar, that does not guarantee that it’s therefore a better ship, if the crew is not trained to use it, or the maintenance of such a system is too hard, then it’ll ultimately fail. Is it required to stop a missile at 120km when you have more chances at 80km with a different missile?
A type 23 is not built as an AAW vessel but all in all if they need this ship to do some air defence and its crew is indeed better trained than it might perform this mission too, at shorter range yes, but if they manage to kill the incoming target than it will have succeeded in that task.
And as I have said, comparing any ship to another is not to useful. You should take in account the accuracy of it’s logs, GPS’s, and all other different technologies. It’s nice ot have the best of all radars, but if your log isn’t giving the right speed then you’re still weaker than the one with the worse radar but better log. All in all a Chain is only as strong as its weakest link. So if you want to go compare those too, go ahead. See you in 20 years with the results then.
And yes, I stumbled into another forum and saw one thread: the best dogfight missile in the world. Didn’t even care to read, how are you going to compare? Anyone ever encountered ALL dogfight missiles in the world? Real live examples in excess maybe?
And I guess the Mig-21 that beat the F-15 that too was because only the technology of MiG-21 is better than the F-15’s??? (ok, I admit, Americans ALWAYS lose in exercises, so probably they don’t really do their best).
NeptuneIt might have been arrogant, but compared to you, it likely was justified.
The members here do seem to agree somehow that this is a useless discussion. And after “more attempts than I care to remember”, we still haven’t succeeded in letting you get the point. You once again turn a point into: it proves my point and disproves yours. I have seen you saying that, more than I care to remember, number of times, but honestly haven’t really find any reasoning behind it.
If a crew doesn’t maintain it’s technology, it won’t work, if a crew can’t operate its technology, it won’t work, if a crew knows very well how to operate its technology, it can enhance its capabilities, once again what do you think is most important on a ship? I never said only people count, I only said people count in a MUCH higher way than most “internet specialists” think it does and that hence, plain comparisons of ships are nearly impossible to give a real/reliable outcome.
And I haven’t seen anyone begging for an appology except for you, I did however see other people say this is a rather pointless discussion and also give the reasoning behind how important people are, so maybe you can appologize to us now as you seem to think people are stupid here? :dev2:
NeptuneIIRC the second ship of the Lekui class was called Jebat… So wouldn’t this just be another two (possibly slightly improved, but overall same) Lekui class frigates?
Neptune1) Try not to fell into ambushes
I think you can replace that one by : do not underestimate your enemy in any occasion.
Wanshan, detection was likely. I think the missile struck the helopad and hanger because she was doing evasive manoeuvering, possibly using softkill measures.
If she indeed carried her 76mm, then there wouldn’t have been a Phalanx, that was what I intended to come to with beginning question of what she was actually doing there. Up till now we don’t have proof which one of the two she carried.
NeptuneBadger, that was indeed something I was thinking about too. I remember seeing a picture of one of the Eilat class with such a 76mm gun in front. But all recent footage of Hanit seems to suggest a Phalanx in front. I would like to see pictures of the real damage… and not of the diesel exhausts.
NeptuneNo the argument does not prove both are point it proves mine and disproves yours. I am not using the single crew different equipment scenario I am using the differnt crew different equipment scenario and point out that both factors influence overall capability (as I have now said more times than i care to remember) Thankyou for very eloqouently explaining my point and disproving yours. As you said the missile gives the crew the ability to strike to a range of 15km but if they only choose to use the range to 10km, then the crew is the limiting factor. But should they choose to use the missile to is maximum range then the missile is the limiting factor. Ultimately though no matter how well trained the crew is they can not make a 15km missile go any further, but if they had Aster-30 and they were trained to use it they could go to 80km. Thus as I have already said the Human factors and the Material factors have to be regarded as EQUAL in importance. You tried to claim that the human factors were more important, even that material factors are irrelevant, but you have been disproved.
Clearly not and I guess you’re the only one over here that doesn’t seem to get it anyway. Now I’ll stop wasting my time with this as you obviously can’t seem to understand it anyway (and even if you do you’re obviously too proud to admit it and keep stubbornly asking for “prove” which you will then turn into something for your own point although it doesn’t even make sense). I do have more interesting and useful things to do than this.
NeptuneOh, so now you want an appology, don’t push it too far Mr.
The ones that need it will get it personally.
It seems that both our points are proven by the same example, which clearly means that we have a different point of view, as I have explained. You are using a single crew and different equipment in your assessments, I am using a different crew with different equipment and same equipment (sniper and soldier with combat rifle as well as regular gun).
So using your language, it becomes, the SeaWolf gives its crew the capability to do this, but the crew gives the SeaWolf the chance to be used that way. So all in all, if other crews aren’t trying to fire at such a range, it will effect your ships capability, reducing its Air defence range from 15 to only 10km. Guess my point is proven too now. (happy?)
Neptunehow about he Iranian version itself, Kowsar? What if that missile was used? Does it have an optical seeker?
As for Iran’s involvement, it’s a war, who cares about words? It’s not like anyone would believe them if they officially denied any involvement… I think they are not really involved openly because they know it would give US a stick to beat them. This is quite a situation no one had expected to happen at this moment!
Sign In
