Blog powered by Typepad

« I think 'The Kraut' is nicking my copy! | Main | In which, very nervously, I disagree with Simon Russell Beale »

Friday, 11 April 2014

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Just to give you David, "a little look/see."

http://defensetech.org/2014/04/09/navy-ships-to-be-more-lethal/

I mean, if an officer can load the damned thing, war as we knew it is definitely over!

(But my guess is - it'll only be enlisteds anywhere near the sharp end - the officers most likely will be sitting at the remote control "joysticks." Probably ... no officers ever need be at sea again.)

I simply know all you blokes are going to jump all over me but I think - and have thought for many years, that the powers that be have decided that big wars are too dangerous for presidents and other assorted dictators and so the answer is to keep lots and lots of little wars going on all over the planet.
As I see it, it keeps the population down a bit and keeps all the billionaires in pocket money through the sale of armaments and associated war equipment.
That's all I've got to say on the subject and you may all jump to your heart's content but I still think it's true!!
So there!

Jump all over you, Andra? I wouldn't have the nerve.

Even so, I think your notion on the causes of war are a little too simplistic. The armament manufacturers provide the means but not necessarily the motives for war. Those motives are often very difficult to analyse not least because different people encourage war for different reasons. However, it is true that during the stand-off in the Cold War, sundry 'wars by proxy' erupted on contents well away from Europe.

I have not looked in on D&N for many months, largely because I've not been blogging myself since last August as real life has (rather wonderfully) got in the way and left little time for such activities.

The Chinese aircraft-carrier (Liaoning) was built by the Russians (originally as Riga, renamed Varyag), not the Indians.

The Indians had the Vikrant (formerly our own HMS Hercules, sold to them in 1957), but it has recently been sold for scrap.

Our two QE-class carriers are being built by the very British, very listed, very un-French BAe Systems, previously British Aerospace, and emphatically not the French.

The French have one carrier (Charles de Gaulle). They were planning a new one, to be based on the (very British) BAe design, not vikky verky, but the project was cancelled last year.

So, only four errors, then, I'm improving!

Thanks, Webbers, and do let me know when you get back to blogging so I can keep it on my list.

I have a feeling that HMS Gordon Brown 1 & 11 are built by a consortium - BAe and Thales.

By the way, the EM gun needs a lot of power, so the Americans are putting it on a large slow boat. More power than is needed to drive a destroyer along. Also, not long ago it was about 20 years away from becoming operational. The Russians have had (for more than 40 years) a supersonic sea skimming missile. The answer to this is that an aircraft carrier is protected by its aircraft out to about 200 miles.

Of course, HMS Gordon Brown doesn't have any aircraft, so will be restricted to the Firth of Forth!

Ah, I thought the Frogs were involved somewhere. Also, I noticed a piece somewhere that the Yanks have just launched a high-tech destroyer that looks like a fishing boat when you catch it on radar! That's crafty - boom-boom!

We used to identify Russian SIGINT trawlers by their lack of sea gulls. Of course, we might have missed the ones where the crafty Russians were busy throwing tins of tuna over the stern.

Devilish cunning, those Russkies!

Also, I noticed a piece somewhere that the Yanks have just launched a high-tech destroyer that looks like a fishing boat when you catch it on radar!

I noted this comment when you made it David - and I recalled seeing something on it just couldn't recall just where. But that was then ...

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/04/11/7th-fleet-admits-lcs-not-suited-for-pacific.html?ESRC=dod.nl

The article does mention this "high tech" ship might be good in the Persian Gulf but it fails to mention how to get it there.

I'm actually on the GAO listserve and tried going back through to find the actual report but ... since I've no longer the access I once had (I don't think Obama likes me).

Anyway ... I couldn't find the actual report ... but then I noticed

“Several 7th Fleet officials told us they thought the LCS in general might be better suited to operations” in the smaller Persian Gulf, the U.S. Government Accountability Office said in a 56-page report, labeled “For Official Use Only,” obtained by Bloomberg News.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-10/littoral-ship-s-fitness-for-asia-questioned-in-u-s-navy.html

I don't think Obama likes me.

The carriers are to a (modified) French design, but British built.

Oh, and the Chinese have developed a ballistic missile that can target carriers. So they lob it waaaaaaaay up into the atmosphere, and it comes down vertically and raaaaaather fast onto the big, wiiiiiiide open space of the carrier's deck. An early version, DF-21D, would be aimed at the known position at time of launch, computed for estimated speed and direction, but the next-generation will be able to hunt the target while its coming down.

There is no defence. Boom boom, indeed.

Oh, and the Chinese have developed a ballistic missile that can target carriers.

Indeed.

http://www.usni.org/news-and-features/chinese-kill-weapon

Thank you, gentlemen, it all confirm my main thesis that war is becoming impossible!

The comments to this entry are closed.