Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

UK Defence spending boost

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    Those missiles, DF21 & 26 are touted as carrier killers. Anti-carrier ballistic missiles

    This is the first time they were fired into the water in a public demonstration. They usually fired them at test ranges in XIanjiang.

    We don't know if there were moving ships in that closure area they landed in.

    They could have provided the video of those missiles doing just that ie hitting ships but decided to leave it out.

    Next time they want to raise the temperture they'll launch them at a ship.
    The systems have NEVER been tested on moving targets. The anti-carrier bullshit is touted by idiots who pretend to know what they're talking about. I've heard of these anti-ship missiles for over 20 years and the ONLY test I've seen is Iranian missile hitting a stationary ship with a homing becon on board. I very much doubt American carriers would have a Chinese homing becon on board.

    Don't buy into the hype. It's bullshit.

    Chimo

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
      The systems have NEVER been tested on moving targets. The anti-carrier bullshit is touted by idiots who pretend to know what they're talking about. I've heard of these anti-ship missiles for over 20 years and the ONLY test I've seen is Iranian missile hitting a stationary ship with a homing becon on board. I very much doubt American carriers would have a Chinese homing becon on board.

      Don't buy into the hype. It's bullshit.
      We know they have not been demonstrated on moving targets but what makes you think they can't be made to do that ?

      The demonstration does not confirm or deny either way

      It leaves the matter open

      Comment


      • #33
        Isn't the point of a 'carrier group' that the support vessels guard the carrier? It is one thing potentially a static carrier but another penetrating the defence shield provided by the escorts.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
          The systems have NEVER been tested on moving targets. The anti-carrier bullshit is touted by idiots who pretend to know what they're talking about. I've heard of these anti-ship missiles for over 20 years and the ONLY test I've seen is Iranian missile hitting a stationary ship with a homing becon on board. I very much doubt American carriers would have a Chinese homing becon on board.

          Don't buy into the hype. It's bullshit.
          These are wonder weapons, Colonel!

          They are carrier killers and nothing can stop them!!!


          They are just like the Type 93 torpedo the Japanese developed in the 1930s to kill American carriers and battleships.

          They scoured the Pacific of our carriers!!!

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_93_torpedo

          (Narrator: they only sank 1 US carrier, the Hornet and were used to scuttle it.)

          Saddam's fire trenches were supposed to be impenetrable barriers to US tanks in Kuwait in 1991.

          Every weapon system can be defeated by tactics & countermeasures....
          “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
          Mark Twain

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
            We know they have not been demonstrated on moving targets but what makes you think they can't be made to do that ?
            We know there never was a live test because we're watching them. 2ndly, that test range does not move. We know. We've got satellites watching for launches. To claim a capability without a test is simply ... wishful thinking to put it nicely.

            Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
            These are wonder weapons, Colonel!

            They are carrier killers and nothing can stop them!!!
            I can understand the Chinese touting this propaganda but this bullshit is touted by American "experts" who should know better. Worst yet, besides me, I don't know anyone who is calling them on their bullshit.

            Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
            Every weapon system can be defeated by tactics & countermeasures....
            Buck, you won't believe the sheer stupidity of this thing. The missile requires a mid flight course correction, ie a plane or a ship needs to guide it mid flight. But if a plane or a ship can detect the carrier, why don't you launch from that point instead of doing this entire dog and pony show of trying to time the launch and give it course correction before the plane is shot down or the ship sunk?

            In short, nothing needs to be change. We keep 100 miles around the carrier clear as we've always done against KILOS and BACKFIRES and we're good.

            It's hocus pocus and people like The Jamestown Foundation's Andrew Erickson, the DF-21D "expert", should really be tarred and feathered for touting this bullshit.
            Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 03 Dec 20,, 17:11.
            Chimo

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
              We know there never was a live test because we're watching them. 2ndly, that test range does not move. We know. We've got satellites watching for launches. To claim a capability without a test is simply ... wishful thinking to put it nicely.

              I can understand the Chinese touting this propaganda but this bullshit is touted by American "experts" who should know better. Worst yet, besides me, I don't know anyone who is calling them on their bullshit.

              Buck, you won't believe the sheer stupidity of this thing. The missile requires a mid flight course correction, ie a plane or a ship needs to guide it mid flight. But if a plane or a ship can detect the carrier, why don't you launch from that point instead of doing this entire dog and pony show of trying to time the launch and give it course correction before the plane is shot down or the ship sunk?

              In short, nothing needs to be change. We keep 100 miles around the carrier clear as we've always done against KILOS and BACKFIRES and we're good.

              It's hocus pocus and people like The Jamestown Foundation's Andrew Erickson, the DF-21D "expert", should really be tarred and feathered for touting this bullshit.
              Yeah those midcourse corrections...it's why there were so many Kamovs in the Northern Fleet. And the crews all passed around the vodka after 3 sweeps of the radar cause they knew the Phoenixes and Sparrows were inbound ASAP!
              “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
              Mark Twain

              Comment


              • #37
                If the DF-xx AShBM's are BS, why do the newest blocks of the SM-3 and SM-6 seem tailor made to intercept exactly those types of targets? Take a look at some of the recent anti-MRBM tests of the SM-6 and SM-3 missiles from USS John Paul Jones. The USN does not seem to think the threat is nonexistent and is already taking steps to counter it from what I see.
                Last edited by Firestorm; 10 Dec 20,, 02:49.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Because the DF-21s are excellent SSMs against STATIONARY LAND TARGETS. You know, targets that don't need mid-flight course correction. Of course I want to take them out before they hit their land targets.
                  Chimo

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
                    If the DF-xx AShBM's are BS, why do the newest blocks of the SM-3 and SM-6 seem tailor made to intercept exactly those types of targets? Take a look at some of the recent anti-MRBM tests of the SM-6 and SM-3 missiles from USS John Paul Jones. The USN does not seem to think the threat is nonexistent and is already taking steps to counter it from what I see.
                    We are not discounting the weapons.

                    What the Colonel and I are doing are pushing back against the talk that these are wonder weapons with no way to defend.

                    You just laid out a perfect case of how they are defended.
                    “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                    Mark Twain

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                      Until the production line has been paid for, don't count on anything. You and I have lived through countless re-orgs and re-tool. Don't know much about Police reform history but old Army buddies say re-orgs and re-tools are only slightly less hair pulling but only because we have no hair left after leaving the army. Of course, you got to cover more area since you're in a cruiser and not on foot ... but ignoring the fact that you still only got a single pair of original issue Mk1 eyeballs that has degraded over time Still remember the day I decided I need prescription eyewear.

                      Just how many hoops did your police dept jump through to get body armour?

                      In all honesty, Afghanistan and Iraq saved our armies. Canada, at least, was looking to disband the guns and tank regiments. In their place, we were to expand to mortar companies and two tank killer (LAV-105) coys. Instead, we used emergency funds to buy used M777 Howies and LEO-2s to deal with Afghanistan. Before Afghanistan, we were seriously looking into shifting artillery into the reserves just to keep a semblance of gunner experience. The LEO C1s were good as jnuk before they were sent to Afghanistan.
                      Sorry for the late response Colonel. Just saw this.

                      Re the comment your comment about 'living through countless re-orgs and re-tools'. Amen to that! By the time I left my force 're-organization' had more or less become the default state of affairs. Partly this was due to severe budget constraints. Every major new crime type/program could only be funded and manned by moving pieces on the board from A to B with no increase in staffing or equipment possible. Then of course there was the need for senior managers to 'shine' by being 'innovative' . By the time I'd left at the operational level we'd long since given up trying to keep track of who we were supposed to be reporting to beyond our immediate line manager. Eventually it started changing so often we put a whiteboard up in once corner and wit the heading "Your Manager this week is...' Just so people called to the office for a briefing would know who they were talking to... And that was in an environment where the managers concerned were supposed to be over-sighting major, long term investigations with national and international repercussions! As per usual it was senior non-coms and investigators who kept things running they know everyone. You do after 30 years.

                      In terms of equipment? That wasn't so bad. Civil OH&S law being what it is the top leaders were paranoid about getting the organization sued, that and the potential negative publicity was usually all it took to get gear. The hard part was the time it took getting them to make a decision about what model/brand etc to buy. That could take a couple of years. So equipment good vests, pistols, long arms (for the the few that needed them) not a problem. We simply don't have the capital outlays on equipment that the military does. Communications and IT on the other hand were and are our big ticket items.

                      And as for what killed my eyeballs? It was computer time putting briefs of evidence together. I wasn't a GD officer (joined late and had a useful skill set at the time) so I was plain cloths more or less from the get go, then a Detective then Case Office/TL depending on the size of the job/circumstances. Mostly fraud, corruption & narcotics jobs with some CT & foreign interference stuff (plus some other weirder jobs) thrown in. As a rule I only ever put on a uniform on those rare occasions when it was all hands on deck or in my younger days going to 'resolution' on a big op.

                      Finally? I miss the people I worked with, the team work & the chase. I DON"T miss the people I worked for or the stress caused by the constant demands for results with no staffing & all the change that never really ended up changing anything!

                      By the time I was thinking of leaving we were getting a run of suicides in the organization (all that stress). What finally did it for me was a Senior 'Leader' calling a muster after the most recent suicide in another office and urging us all to look after one another better becasue if we didn't the organizations insurance premiums would go up so much it would be unaffordable!

                      That was the moment when the last spark died and I started planning my exit.
                      Last edited by Monash; 11 Dec 20,, 01:06.
                      If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Monash,

                        What you and the Colonel talk about is music to my ears! I started working force structure issues in the mid 1980s when I got to FT Stewart, GA and a mechanized Infantry battalion. We were converting from an M113 to M2 Bradley unit. With that restructure the following happened:

                        - Each rifle company sent their AT section to E Company, the AT company
                        -The maintenance and mess sections were sent to headquarters company (HHC)
                        - We added a rifle company so now we were 1 HHC, 4 rifle & 1 AT

                        Then I became battalion S4 (logistics) and I had to coordinate the accepting new equipment and the turn in of our old equipment. That entailed:

                        - Planning on turning in 98 of the 127 M113s in the battalion
                        - Turning in 101 .50 caliber machine guns
                        - Adding 116 M249 SAWs and turning in 116 M16s
                        - Turning in 63 M151 1/4 ton jeeps & 6 M561 gamma goats and fielding 76 HMMWVs

                        and on and on and on

                        Since 1989 I started working for organizations that fielded new systems...and had to follow they amazing number of force structure changes the US Army has gone through since then to now.

                        And we are starting another cycle...I'm glad I retire in 2 years!
                        “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                        Mark Twain

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post

                          Can't see it happenning in the next 10 years. Too much work to be done. First you need a shake down cruise, finding out the quirks of the ship. There's going to be things the Brits will just have to live with but you have to find them out first. You will need to train 3 sets of crews (1 coming up for deployment, 1 deployed, 1 standing down). You will need to do that within range of a friendly port just in case anything goes wrong. I think only Australia and Okinawa could be counted as such but you have to get there first.
                          Well, its heading to the region soon for an exercise with Japan.

                          ‘Global Britain’ takes aim at China in South China Sea | Asia Times | Jan 08 2021


                          The British armada is expected to pass through contested waters, including the South China Sea and the Taiwan Straits en route to joint naval drills with the US Navy and Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Forces in the East China Sea by the end of the year.
                          Achieved IOC, FOC in 2023

                          UK Carrier Strike Group declares Initial Operating Capability | Naval Tech | Jan 04 2021

                          IOC was achieved on schedule following Exercise Joint Warrior last year which saw UK and US Marine Corps F-35Bs embarked onboard HMS Queen Elizabeth. The exercise saw the largest embarkation of aircraft on a Royal Navy Carrier since 1983.

                          Full operating capability for the UK Carrier Strike Group is expected by December 2023.

                          On Twitter, Royal Navy Commander UK Carrier Strike Group Commodore Steve Moorhouse said: “Symbolically, this is an inflexion point. Until now the Royal Navy has looked to our government and allies to help deliver this project – we are now in the position to offer serious military capability and choice in return.”

                          Moorhouse added that the IOC meant the UK Carrier Strike Group was now at very high readiness and could be deployed at five-days’ notice on operations if needed.

                          “IOC typically implies combat readiness with baseline capabilities, so it will be interesting to see whether the first operational deployment of the Carrier Strike Group this year involves a kinetic tasking.“

                          Last year, when announcing an increase in the UK’s defence expenditure Prime Minister Boris Johnson confirmed that on its maiden deployment HMS Queen Elizabeth would deploy to the Mediterranean, Indian Ocean and East Asia.

                          Previously it had been an open secret that the ship would likely visit waters near China in a freedom of navigation exercise.

                          UK to send aircraft carrier strike group to waters near Japan | Nikkei | Dec 06 2020

                          The British navy will dispatch an aircraft carrier strike group to waters near Japan as soon as early next year, Japanese government sources said Saturday, in a rare development that comes amid the growing maritime assertiveness of China in the region.

                          The group, including the aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth, is expected to conduct joint exercises with the U.S. military and Japan's Self-Defense Forces during its stay in areas including off the Nansei Islands chain in southwestern Japan, the sources said.

                          It is unusual that countries other than those in the region as well as the U.S. keep an aircraft carrier operational in the western Pacific.

                          The move comes amid concerns over China's increasing assertiveness in the East and South China seas as well as about its handling of pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong. It could trigger an outcry from Beijing.

                          During the dispatch, the British navy also plans to conduct maintenance on carrier-based F-35B stealth fighter jets at Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd.'s aerospace systems works in Aichi Prefecture, central Japan, the sources said.

                          Britain announced last year it will dispatch the carrier group to the Pacific and has since been in talks with Japan and other relevant countries, they said.

                          The carrier, commissioned in 2017, is "the largest and most powerful vessel ever constructed" for the British navy, weighing 65,000 tons and measuring 280 meters in length, according to the navy.
                          Last edited by Double Edge; 20 Jan 21,, 17:22.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Strike Group 2021 with a major US presence.



                            IMMEDIATE RELEASE Statement on Carrier Strike Group 2021 Joint Declaration Signing

                            JAN. 19, 2021

                            Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher C. Miller and UK Secretary of State for Defense Ben Wallace have co-signed the Joint Declaration for the Carrier Strike Group 2021 deployment.

                            The Joint Declaration enables the deployment of U.S. Marine Corps and U.S. Navy personnel and equipment, including a detachment of U.S. Marine Corps F-35B Lightning II aircraft and the Navy’s USS THE SULLIVANS (DDG-68), as part of a UK-U.S. combined carrier strike group, led by the UK’s aircraft carrier, HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH.

                            This deployment underscores the strength of our bilateral ties and demonstrates U.S.-UK interoperability, both of which are key tenets of the U.S. National Defense Strategy.

                            The leaders look forward to seeing the culmination of nearly a decade of U.S.-UK carrier cooperation when Carrier Strike Group 2021 sets sail from Portsmouth, UK later this year.





                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by looking4NSFS View Post
                              Strike Group 2021 with a major US presence.



                              IMMEDIATE RELEASE Statement on Carrier Strike Group 2021 Joint Declaration Signing

                              JAN. 19, 2021

                              Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher C. Miller and UK Secretary of State for Defense Ben Wallace have co-signed the Joint Declaration for the Carrier Strike Group 2021 deployment.

                              The Joint Declaration enables the deployment of U.S. Marine Corps and U.S. Navy personnel and equipment, including a detachment of U.S. Marine Corps F-35B Lightning II aircraft and the Navy’s USS THE SULLIVANS (DDG-68), as part of a UK-U.S. combined carrier strike group, led by the UK’s aircraft carrier, HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH.

                              This deployment underscores the strength of our bilateral ties and demonstrates U.S.-UK interoperability, both of which are key tenets of the U.S. National Defense Strategy.

                              The leaders look forward to seeing the culmination of nearly a decade of U.S.-UK carrier cooperation when Carrier Strike Group 2021 sets sail from Portsmouth, UK later this year.

                              Back to the future
                              Attached Files
                              “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                              Mark Twain

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                If..... IF the US Navy can leverage this UK deployment to alleviate another "double pump" of a US carrier, a DDG and Marine Air detachment on the HMS Queen Elizabeth will be a good investment.

                                https://news.usni.org/2021/01/12/car...ump-deployment

                                https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...mp-deployments


                                And............
                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VetpYW954eI


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X