NeptuneAgain a nice reply from a guy who sees his world fall down. Oops that hobby of comparing numbers wasn’t exactly that useful was it?
I don’t see anyone else complaining…
But however, and watch this as you won’t read it that many times in your life on such boards, I do AGREE that the equipment needs at least some capability to do what it has to do. Did the Swordfish do what its pilots want it to do? Probably not, they’d probably have preferred an F-14 or A/F-18 instead. You clearly start your equasions from a different point of view, namely, the point of view of the equipment. I however start from a different question namely what does this equipment mean and what do we know about it? You can use a bunch of numbers on the net to “prove” that one has a longer range than the other, but does that mean that that is necessarily true? No, it isn’t. SeaWolf SAMs have made kills at ranges over 15km in practices, you won’t find that range in any internet source I think. That is just one case. Is this missile capable of doing that? Yes it is, but would a normal crew fire a missile like that when a target is still quite far out of range (in this case at over 25km)? That depends on what they have learned and what the man in charge says. Does this prove your point? I don’t think so as nearly no one would allow them to fire at that range with the risk of just losing a missile.
So the sniper needs the gun to achieve that range, but from close by he would have most likely had more chances of scoring the kill. So luck is yet another factor in your precious equation. That makes Luck + crew capability + equipment= capability. It’s getting complicated isn’t it?
And with luck and a ballistic thougth with range in mind, you might just get your kill at such a range with such a cardridge. A lot of luck, but still possible.
So back to topic now, is type 45 (not even launched and not even a crew) better than type 124 (launched and already practiced for a while)? I guess the above gives you an idea how complicated that question, and even more so the answer, is. How they compare to each other? A totally different thing as they were designed by different minds and as long as they don’t lay next to each other in the same situation no one will be able to give you the answer.
NeptuneI assure you you will find it impossible, as most of that information is difficult to come by if not entirely subjective.
So, now you have proven to yourself and the others that a comparison is impossible.
If your so important equation is equipment+personnel= capability (oh yes, in last page it was equal to efficiency so then efficiency and capability are equal to you too then?)and you your “personnel” is an unknown, then your equation can’t be solved and hence “capabilities” can’t be compared either unless you equalize “personnel” and hence don’t take it in account. If you want to go into mathematics, you took the wrong person. AFAIK you need two different equations when you have two unknowns.
There is no case where two crews are equal.
A) he was a sufficiently well trained and Skilled shooter, had he have not have been he would not have been able to make the kill.
B)His equipment was capable of it, he was equiped with a bolt action rifle chambered in .50BMG thus he had the ability to shoot that range. Had he have been equiped with say a standard M-16A4 (not a bad rifle in itself) he simply would not have been able to make that shot, no matter how good he was. Thus it was the equipment that gave him the capability.
I assume that in your world, the sniper would have been abe to make that shot with a stone and a piece of clothe becouse its only the people that count?
That is only partially true, as mentioned you still need equipment, but if you put a normal soldier with a sniper rifle he won’t be able to make the kill either, while in a different case the sniper will be able to make a kill with an M-16 at a range a soldier hardly believes to be possible. And if a sniper is limited by his gun then he will just move closer and kill it with wathever weapon he has. The soldier however, if trying to do the same, will most likely compromise himself while trying to get closer.
Ever thougth of what the British achieved with their Swordfishes, not really the best thing around either was it?
What the real point is, if you have a good trained crew on the say, “strongest” of this little debate and a better trained crew on the “weakest” then it might just make the weaker one the better.
I’m far from putting people below me, I added a part to Turbinia’s post to make sure it wasn’t forgotten and as far as I know you are the one using the words “pathetic”, “simplistic and flawed” etc.
If I look fake to you that’s nice.
NeptuneAll in all Ja is the only one who’s right here then. You are really leaving out the crews with this topic as you hardly have an idea how German and Royal Navy training compare to each other.
As Ja mentioned the question would rather be how good they are in their roles in use of their countries. Which is a country specific question that should take in acccount about everything from crew training to country doctrine. All in all a question a LOT bigger than a ship vs ship comparison.
It isn’t that hard to figure out a fake from a real on the net though.
NeptuneSo the other Sa’ars were the ones that bombed the shore. Where they in the area of Hanit? Or were they on a seperate place, hence unable to render aid in air defence?
NeptuneI guess you have your own perception of things. Turbinia means that the Oberons are not at all such good boats, but that only due to the crew’s knowledge and capabilities they made it a good one. If you put a badly trained crew on an SSN and a well trained crew on a WWII boat the chances that the WWII boat will win will have been changed quite a lot, same thing with the Oberon.
I won’t be wasting my time in this I-know-better-coz-I-read-the-internet-all-day topic. Turbinia, I and others with experience over here know better (and obviously they are not really participating either), so I’m looking stupid, I guess that would be only to you and your dream world. It’s not entirely useless to make this kind of assessments, but it is entirely useless when it’s only based on internet and book facts. If you were really in the military intelligence (and doing this discussion with your sources and collegues) then it might be useful.
NeptuneYou know what strikes me the most??? If that Air Defence system was off, then what was she doing there??? Bombing the shore? with what? It’s Phalanx???
NeptuneThis is all lovely jubly but such comparisons are carried out everyday for a number of reasons varying from intelligence analysis to procurement studies.
Your opinion is actually rather simplistic and flawed. What you need to understand is the concept of limiting factors. A crew can only be so good, and their capability is going to be limited by the equipment that they are using, equally the capability of the equipment will be limited by the quality of the crew. Treality is that overall quality is a determined by the combination of men and material.eg- a crew may be sufficiently trained and proficient to be able to use ABM systems but if the systems they are using are not capable of that they will not be able to do it. On the other hand another crew may have the required ABM equipment but if they are not of a high enough quality to use it they wont be able to carry out that function. Of course the ultimate combination would be the equipment and the men that can use it.
The collation and analysis of data relating to the capabilities of men is far harder to achieve than the analysis of statistical data realting to material, therefore in forums such as this we are left with the material discussions.
It is a display of extreme ignorance to simply say that it is the personel who make a weapons system, becouse what the personel can do is limited by the material they have to use. Therefore threads like these are actually very worthwhile.
Oh yes I’m so stupid and don’t know how things go! Let me think, you must be: a military intelligence officer who does such things everyday ? Or a seagoing officer like me that studies radar manuals and operates radars quite regularily?
My opinion is certainly less simplistic than what people are talking about here. As Turbinia said, the crew cannot just be ignored. In this discussion you think the crew is rather flawless and the equipment your discussing (on VERY limited knowledge and no experience) is also flawless. You’ll find a very correct result I guess…
I’ve seen (AND done) very stupid things with radars and history has already proven that in combat situations the same happens often enough. (oh and in case you didn’t know, the APAR still doesn’t work as it should in REAL life)
You just can’t take the crew out of the equation and your information about this system is a LOT less, and probably not even correct, than anything the real intelligence services would use to assess a ship’s capabilities. Hence such discussions are useless.
NeptuneAbsolutely correct, crew quality is THE most important factor in military performance, and this makes comparison of many ships meaningless.
That is exactly why I’m not participating in such discussions. I only watched this thread because I saw your name here (and was surprised that you would actually participate, now I know you’re too smart for that).
NeptuneOne Delta IV, called Tula, has been refitted with the new Sineva system, which is an improvement over the older SS-N-23, not sure if NATO is going to give it a new designation.
The Delta IIIs still have SS-N-18, although I doubt there are many that still have those tubes filled… They are more used for space launches than for anything else.
How many Topol-M do they actually have in service now?
Neptune4) It’s the crew that makes the capabilities of a ship, not its equipment. No matter how good and accurate that radar is, as long as you put a blind and deaf man in front of it, you won’t get any advantage.
NeptuneProblem with those high tech radars is that due to the “anti-stealth” development of them, they also start detecting low echo targets like seagulls etc. Therefore some radars have a limitation on speed, for example speeds lower than 150km/h are not engaged or displayed by the Smart-L. For a Sa’ar V, there could be a same type of limitation, hence allowing slow speed drones to pass without unnoticed.
On the other hand, someone at a c i g noted that the “missile” was rather fast and that there was nearly no exhaust, so that it was more likely to be a missile rather than a drone.
NeptuneTurbinia, I think ANY country in that region has better things to spend his money on than weapons. That is also why our governments are trying to limit sales to such countries nowadays. On the other hand US and Russia don’t care, so then it’s mopping with the tap open! It has more to do with history and pride than anything else. I still find a paper to collect clothes for India once a month in my mailbox (same with collections for Pakistan etc.). But hey, opinions differ among the world’s leaders and people and I don’t think it’s up to us to tell them what to spend their money on. If they want to pay us for weapons, then we should deliver.
NeptuneThat is not entirely true Steve, government orders are always on the verge, no real gain there. Most of the profit from shipbuilders comes from Merchant/Commercial vessels. If your shipbuilders have to depend on low profit government orders, they have little life left.
It’s a pitty to see once again a high quality yard disappear, but the cheap contract always wins. I wonder why the money has become so important and quality so neglected… 🙁 I for example would love to pay even the double for an all metal scisors (all in all I think it would even be cheaper to produce too, as they did in the past) instead of one with these stupid plastic finger parts that always break! In the end you’re paying more! And at least those old all metal things are nearly endless (idd, very bad for a manufacturer), but I guess it reflects what is happening on the big scale too.
NeptuneHere she is, the video, you do need DivX for it:
http://almaz.info/corvette_for_web_DVIX3.avi
I don’t think they’ll do this upgrade directly to the first ship.
Vympel, normally she was to get Uran, you can see that on the size of the tubes on the drawings compared to her beam. Yakhont is much bigger. This video shows a VLS Klub (although I suppose with some cramming a Yakhont VLS would get in there too) instead of the Kashtan forward. Modular design or so it seems. Quite some overpunch for Russia at the moment and probably more expensive too with this upgrade. I do think however, that with the difference amidships, the Uran “well” that is “filled up”, doesn’t really allow to change the design, so Stereguchiy, if built with this well there, will probably be fitted with Uran. I guess we’ll soon find out…
NeptuneSo it was based on FACT then? So, tell me, what real facts have you read in the article I translated??? Except for some obscure source and a bunch of could’s, I haven’t really seen many facts there. Well of course Chile has 2 Scorpenes and India will have 6 and Malaysia 2, but otherwise, little or nothing that really goes about facts. I did however see Indians get upset that France would sell “upgraded or Improved Scorpenes” to Pakistan, which would then be better than their own boats… All based on pure fact I guess.
A lot of fuss but all in all just a fart in a bottle.
Now Pakistan even starts asking for a specific propellor, if they all know it so well, why don’t they just make it themselves. (of course they will have to pay for such things), what I don’t really get in this whole story is that the first article mentions the Germans and Spanish as competition to this sub, but all in all Pakistan can’t afford to just toss away a French sub specifically designed to their demands. So actually there is no competition I guess… If DCN just follows the demands, then of course the sub will be better suiting these demands than the other general designs.
All I’m saying is, if there is no real information, then there is no reason to worry, argue or discuss anything. Don’t stick your nose where it doesn’t belong. This is all just a game as you might start realising.
Sign In
