Iran to build aircraft carrier!

[TLAM Strike]

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/201620.html

YEA RIGHT!!! :har::har::har::har:

1st thing I thought was: Is Ivan selling the Kuznetsov?!? :o
2nd thing was: They got a buyer for HMS Invincible? :O:

So THAT is what this photo was of:
http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/5072/irancarrier.jpg

[CCIP]

Does their Jamaran even qualify as a destroyer by today's standards? :hmmm:

[MH]

Good idea and hope it costs lot more than they can spend.
They already have the new f-18s:ping:...and tomcats.

[TLAM Strike]

Does their Jamaran even qualify as a destroyer by today's standards? :hmmm:
it didn't qualify as a Destroyer by the standards of the 1970s when it was designed. :haha:

[magicstix]

A carrier? They need to build a DDG first IMO...

[Torplexed]

Let them sink all manner of expensive resources into it. If they succeed...

The new Iranian carrier Ayatollah Khomeini two minutes after it's commissioning.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_tIZgZsDWYj4/Rtq-bozqGZI/AAAAAAAAAKE/LpEFw_VCmGk/s640/nuke.jpg

[TLAM Strike]

A carrier? They need to build a DD first IMO...
*Fixed that for you. :O:

[magicstix]

I think we should name an SSN USS Praying Mantis and permanently station it in the Arabian Gulf just to screw with the Iranians.

[Betonov]

I think we should name an SSN USS Praying Mantis and permanently station it in the Arabian Gulf just to screw with the Iranians.

Just make them think you have one and watch their economies collapse trying to find it :DL

[Onkel Neal]

Let them sink all manner of expensive resources into it. If they succeed...

The new Iranian carrier Ayatollah Khomeini two minutes after it's commissioning.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_tIZgZsDWYj4/Rtq-bozqGZI/AAAAAAAAAKE/LpEFw_VCmGk/s640/nuke.jpg



:Kaleun_Applaud:

[soopaman2]

Let them sink all manner of expensive resources into it. If they succeed...

The new Iranian carrier Ayatollah Khomeini two minutes after it's commissioning.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_tIZgZsDWYj4/Rtq-bozqGZI/AAAAAAAAAKE/LpEFw_VCmGk/s640/nuke.jpg


Hey now, there are alot of realism freaks around here!

Try this on for size :cool:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxpwIsZCgtM:rotfl2:

[Jimbuna]

Reading that article had me thinking "That Deputy Navy Commander must be on drugs" :hmmm:

I reckon the best they can aim for is purchasing something another country is done with.

[Osmium Steele]

I suppose something along the lines of the early Bogue class converted merchantmen wouldn't be out of their depth. A modern tanker, should have the length to launch and land jets.

Making it anything other than a laughingstock, by modern standards of carrier design, is another matter entirely.

Hrm, is Iran looking at buying any of the harriers soon to hit the market?
Almost any converted merchantman could handle those.

Just tossing some ideas out there.

[Oberon]

Reading that article had me thinking "That Deputy Navy Commander must be on drugs" :hmmm:

I reckon the best they can aim for is purchasing something another country is done with.

Well, it's strange because I recall a saying that we wouldn't be able to afford to run both QE carriers when they're made...what's the betting some nugget in the MoD will put the two together... :hmmm:

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Well, it's strange because I recall a saying that we wouldn't be able to afford to run both QE carriers when they're made...what's the betting some nugget in the MoD will put the two together... :hmmm:HMS Queen Elisabeth & IS Prince of Wales? :DL

[danny60]

In true iranian style, the new carrier will have only one working shaft, be built using 16th century tech and will probobly last around 2 days, then someone will start smoking in the fuel bunker...

[Oberon]

HMS Queen Elisabeth & IS Prince of Wales? :DL

Knowing Iran it'd be the IS Mohammad Sidique Khan :damn:

[MothBalls]

Where do you think these countries get the money to buy these toys? "We" [Western Civilization] are buying them for them, every time we buy cheap crap at Walmart and put gas in our pickups and SUV's.

We put money and weapons in our enemies hands, then try to stay a step ahead of them, the end result is 14 trillion dollars of debt. We've had our own foot in the cross-hairs every since the 70's.

[the_tyrant]

Where do you think these countries get the money to buy these toys? "We" [Western Civilization] are buying them for them, every time we buy cheap crap at Walmart and put gas in our pickups and SUV's.

We put money and weapons in our enemies hands, then try to stay a step ahead of them, the end result is 14 trillion dollars of debt. We've had our own foot in the cross-hairs every since the 70's.

Hmm:hmmm:
I didn't know that China is a part of Iran

[MothBalls]

Hmm:hmmm:
I didn't know that China is a part of IranNever said it was.

http://news.yahoo.com/chinas-first-aircraft-carrier-makes-maiden-sea-trial-000047792.html

Just saying we keep putting money into the hands of potential enemies.

You think China's carrier won't be parked off of the coast of Taiwan any time in the near future?

[Jimbuna]

In true iranian style, the new carrier will have only one working shaft, be built using 16th century tech and will probobly last around 2 days, then someone will start smoking in the fuel bunker...

LOL

[CaptainMattJ.]

thatsssssssssssss a niceeeeeeeeee carrier you got there...

[mapuc]

I wonder if Iran could build a Carrie, if they put their mind into it.

I Don't know if they have the knowledge to do so.

Markus

[magicstix]

I think it's about time we start telling the Iranians "That's a nice crucial gasoline refinery you have there, it'd be a shame if something were to happen to it."

[mapuc]

I think it's about time we start telling the Iranians "That's a nice crucial gasoline refinery you have there, it'd be a shame if something were to happen to it."

So you say that, if they could build a carrie they are not allowed to do so, by the american and the europeans

Or did i misunderstand you?

Markus

[magicstix]

So you say that, if they could build a carrie they are not allowed to do so, by the american and the europeans

Or did i misunderstand you?

Markus

No, I'm saying it's about time we stop playing softball with a brutal regime that has promised a second holocaust and is obviously going for nuclear weapons with a crackpot in charge whose stated goal has been to bring about the apocalypse.

[1480]

No, I'm saying it's about time we stop playing softball with a brutal regime that has promised a second holocaust and is obviously going for nuclear weapons with a crackpot in charge whose stated goal has been to bring about the apocalypse.

Aaaaaaaaa- men- ah! :Kaleun_Applaud:

[mapuc]

No, I'm saying it's about time we stop playing softball with a brutal regime that has promised a second holocaust and is obviously going for nuclear weapons with a crackpot in charge whose stated goal has been to bring about the apocalypse.

I truly agree with you.

Markus

[danny60]

No, I'm saying it's about time we stop playing softball with a brutal regime that has promised a second holocaust and is obviously going for nuclear weapons with a crackpot in charge whose stated goal has been to bring about the apocalypse.

Here-Here!
Personally, I think that iran Could build a carrier, however, I highly doubt their navy is capable of A. deploying it effectively and B. maintaining it, after all, Carriers are very fragile bits of kit, which require dry-docking, and general TLC. And if the state of the current iranian fleet is anything to go by, thats not gona happen.
Were also forgetting that mister crack-pot also has to buy planes for the damn thing, otherwise its one great big moving target.

[magicstix]

Here-Here!
Personally, I think that iran Could build a carrier, however, I highly doubt their navy is capable of A. deploying it effectively and B. maintaining it, after all, Carriers are very fragile bits of kit, which require dry-docking, and general TLC. And if the state of the current iranian fleet is anything to go by, thats not gona happen.
Were also forgetting that mister crack-pot also has to buy planes for the damn thing, otherwise its one great big moving target.

It's going to be a giant moving target *anyway.* The Iranians' ASW capability is more or less nonexistent. Judging by the last time they started something with the US Navy, their air defense capabilities are nonexistent, and they don't have enough surface combatants to even put together a viable CVBG.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

It's going to be a giant moving target *anyway.* The Iranians' ASW capability is more or less nonexistent. Judging by the last time they started something with the US Navy, their air defense capabilities are nonexistent, and they don't have enough surface combatants to even put together a viable CVBG.I most honorably disagree. For example their Jamaran class "destroyers" carry 4 SM-1 copies, dual-purpose 76 mm gun, Bofors 40 mm copy and two 20 mm Oerlikons. That is truly an area air defence capability - rivals even Britons Type 45.


:O:

[magicstix]

I most honorably disagree. For example their Jamaran class "destroyers" carry 4 SM-1 copies, dual-purpose 76 mm gun, Bofors 40 mm copy and two 20 mm Oerlikons. That is truly an area air defence capability - rivals even Britons Type 45.


:O:

And how many Jamarans do they have? :O:

Besides, Jamarans are basically just a minor upgrade of the Alvand class FFs to carry SM-1s, and we know how effective the Alvand class is from Op. Praying Mantis... :D

[Jimbuna]

I most honorably disagree. For example their Jamaran class "destroyers" carry 4 SM-1 copies, dual-purpose 76 mm gun, Bofors 40 mm copy and two 20 mm Oerlikons. That is truly an area air defence capability - rivals even Britons Type 45.


:O:

I know which vessel I'd rather have in my fleet and it doesn't begin with the letter 'J'

[mapuc]

I know which vessel I'd rather have in my fleet and it doesn't begin with the letter 'J'

It remind me of an conversation I had with a fellow, during my military duty, in the swedish navy

He was, among many others in the swedish navy, bragging about how well the swedish vessel was in defending it self, in airial combat.

So I said to him. No swedish ship in the navy, have been truly tested. No one have ever been in an full scale war, where there's not one missil coming your way, about every 2-3 minutes. No I'm talking about 5-10 missil coming your way at almost same time.

To test if our vessel is that good we, should try it out.

Take an old warship, put a 40 mm canon, a 57 mm canon, some radars and other stuff, make it remote, put it into the sea.
From a given distance, some of our warship fires some of their missils and then we can see if this old warship can survive this massive attack.

Markus

[Gerald]

You are entitled to certain factors, but a little of note, is that Swedish marine units have been fully tested, in and against active enemies, but as you say, we have not been in any war,it is quite right.

[TLAM Strike]

You are entitled to certain factors, but a little of note, is that Swedish marine units have been fully tested, in and against active enemies, but as you say, we have not been in any war,it is quite right.
You not fully tested until they've taken a shot at you.
http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/4327/ussstarkdamage.jpg
http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/5470/0580630.jpg
http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/8800/20090404142609usstripol.jpg
http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/5373/usscoleddg67departs.jpg
US Navy: Combat proven since 1775

[Gerald]

I have no opportunity to comment on these kinds of pictures Mr. B, just because they're not fair, but some vessels have suffered you know it, but not those that you now show, which belongs to U.S. and not SWE. ;)

[TLAM Strike]

I have no opportunity to comment on these kinds of pictures Mr. B, just because they're not fair, but some vessels have suffered you know it, but not those that you now show, which belongs to U.S. and not SWE. ;)
If I had photos of Swedish navy ships that have seen combat I would post them, but its hard to find photos of their last combat engagement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Hvaler). :O:

[Cohaagen]

The Swedish Navy was kicking people's teeth in and dominating the Baltic at a time when most Americans were busy dropping dead from smallpox, making mud pies, and had yet to float anything bigger than a sweetcorn turd.

Also, it's probably not a good idea to boast of your battle prowess using a picture of the USS Tripoli of all things, the minesweeping flagship which managed to get itself...um, mined. The story behind those clearance operations makes for interesting reading - two ships seriously damaged due to incompetence and institutional arrogance on the part of the USN, a refusal to acknowledge that other allied navies knew far more about minehunting, and an initial ops plan that was openly described as "suicidal" by the RN Commodore attending.

[magicstix]

The Swedish Navy was kicking people's teeth in and dominating the Baltic at a time when most Americans were busy dropping dead from smallpox, making mud pies, and had yet to float anything bigger than a sweetcorn turd.



K, so what have they done lately?

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

K, so what have they done lately?If I remember correctly, in 1980s they dispensed their destroyer force as there was apparently no need for such thing as ASW. Lately they have been building corvettes which were supposed to carry 57 mm, SSMs, SAMs, ASW torpedoes and ASW rockets. Swedish government as cost consicious opted to delete SAMs and ASW rockets from design. Therefore those magnificent ships' defence against aircraft and missiles rest solely on countermeasures and its 57 mm gun.

Finland is - despite its location in continental Europe - from trade point of view an island, most trade comes and leaves via sea. I have very little faith to Finnish Navy's capability to protect commercial shipping, but I have even less faith to Swedish Royal Navy's capability to do it. Sorry Swedes, you have great sub force but its not really great for commerce protection.

[Jimbuna]

It remind me of an conversation I had with a fellow, during my military duty, in the swedish navy

He was, among many others in the swedish navy, bragging about how well the swedish vessel was in defending it self, in airial combat.

So I said to him. No swedish ship in the navy, have been truly tested. No one have ever been in an full scale war, where there's not one missil coming your way, about every 2-3 minutes. No I'm talking about 5-10 missil coming your way at almost same time.

To test if our vessel is that good we, should try it out.

Take an old warship, put a 40 mm canon, a 57 mm canon, some radars and other stuff, make it remote, put it into the sea.
From a given distance, some of our warship fires some of their missils and then we can see if this old warship can survive this massive attack.

Markus


Yes...that would be one way.

[Gerald]

If I had photos of Swedish navy ships that have seen combat I would post them, but its hard to find photos of their last combat engagement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Hvaler). :O: Should you have pictures from today, or from the past? You must always rely on trusted sources, rather than what is available for public view, in other words, scratch a little harder on the surface and you get the result you want, (I thought never, I would leave such a comment to B....:timeout: ever....... maybe too much time off, over there) :hmmm:......:O:

[Jimbuna]

Come on then....let's see those photos from the Gulf War :DL

[nikimcbee]

Don't you mean: "Iran is building a large target?"

So who will sink it first? Air Force or Navy.:hmmm:

[Gerald]

My sons ... it is best that you please, otherwise I upload photos, which only consists of camels and sand, :haha:

[Jimbuna]

LOL :DL

[mapuc]

If I remember correctly, in 1980s they dispensed their destroyer force as there was apparently no need for such thing as ASW. Lately they have been building corvettes which were supposed to carry 57 mm, SSMs, SAMs, ASW torpedoes and ASW rockets. Swedish government as cost consicious opted to delete SAMs and ASW rockets from design. Therefore those magnificent ships' defence against aircraft and missiles rest solely on countermeasures and its 57 mm gun.

Finland is - despite its location in continental Europe - from trade point of view an island, most trade comes and leaves via sea. I have very little faith to Finnish Navy's capability to protect commercial shipping, but I have even less faith to Swedish Royal Navy's capability to do it. Sorry Swedes, you have great sub force but its not really great for commerce protection.

Lets take their Robotbåtar=missilboats: they have 40 mm AND 57 mm canon.

Do not underestimate the swedish navy when i comes to it's offensive skills and not to forget our Submarines, they are the best in the world.

It's was their defensive skills I was critising.

It's a shame that my duty was in the end of the 80'ies and the movie "The Sum of all fear" came in 2002. 'cause, then I would said to him:
did you see this scen, were the russian bombers send all those missiles against the carrier from USA? That's how it's gonna be.

I'm about to order a swedish book, a book about the navy's history.

Back to this iranian dream of world domination and it's first goal: Build their first carrier.

After my duty in the swedish navy I went to back to school to get further education. During this period I became good friend with an elder man from Iran. He had a rang higher that captain in the Iranian navy,

He flet with his family to sweden, about 2-3 years after the religious revolution.

I could be wrong, but I'm sure he said, that the iranian was thinking in terms of buiding lots of small highspeeds boats with a 40 mm guns and 2 by 2 missils.

Some years after he told me this: The swedish news told us swedes, that the iranian government had ordret many small boats from some swedish boat designer. If I'm not wrong the order was about 200 of them.

So the iranian must have "Re think" their navy's roll in the area the last 20 years.

Markus

[Gerald]

I think this may well be true, they have made some upgrades to the fleet, TS can confirm this, with links .. it's better to office people do things like this, :DL

[Jimbuna]

Do not underestimate the swedish navy when i comes to it's offensive skills and not to forget our Submarines, they are the best in the world.



Care to provide the evidence to back that up...preferably where they have proven the fact in war conditions when crewed by Swedes?

[magicstix]

Care to provide the evidence to back that up...preferably where they have proven the fact in war conditions when crewed by Swedes?

Gotland class subs are about as loud as a flashlight, I'll give them that, but they're not invisible nor invincible. As previously stated the problem of surface vs sub is an issue of training, not equipment. There seems to be this pervasive mindset in the submarine community that surface ships have no clue they're even there, and that's simply not true.

[CCIP]

Well it's not combat conditions, but the Gotland has certainly got enough eyebrows raised in the US Navy - enough to lease her for two years. I'd say that's a pretty big mark of approval on her from the most capable navy in the world.

Otherwise any notion of 'best' is always tricky - you can't ever come up with an inarguable definition of that. The only one you can defend is 'most successful', and in that sense no current-generation combat sub can be called 'most successful'. Nobody's subs have really scored in any actual ASW or ASuW combat as of late.

[soopaman2]

So what I'm reading here is the Swedish Navy can kick the garbage out the US navy?

I may be misunderstanding the banter, but would you care to compare numbers...I know the US spends more on it's military budget then the top 3 countries below us. We provide the UN with a majority of it's hardware and manpower and financial support, all for China and Russia to veto us, just because they hate us.

You can tell me USA sucks for alot of things, but militarily isn't one of them.

USS Constitution for the win!

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

@Mapuc:
My critic was mostly directed to Royal Swedish Navy's ships self defence capability which in my opinion is not sufficient to current conditions. This largely applies to Finnish Navy as well.

Warship which only exists to see first salvo incoming is rather useless in my opinion. What if attacker is aircraft? Without credible means to shoot aircraft and possibly incoming missile down, your navy's nice corvette is not much more than high price practice target. Same applies to many of our ships too and none of them have any serious capability to sustain even minor scale saturation attack without going down.

In Finnish Navy only vessels with even somewhat credible air defence capability are Hamina class missile boats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamina_class_missile_boat) (guns + Umkhonto) and Hämeenmaa class minelayers/escorts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A4meenmaa_class_minelayer) (guns + Umkhonto). If real shooting starts in Baltic Sea I don't believe Finnish Navy to be much more than a bad joke.

[magicstix]

You can tell me USA sucks for alot of things, but militarily isn't one of them.



Except that we have an F-22 that can't fly, an F-35 severely overbudget, a DDG the Navy doesn't even want but is getting crammed down its throat, and an LCS that is little more than a hull since all of its modules keep getting cancelled....
:D

[Jimbuna]

All I'm asking for in #50 and in response to the comment made in #48 is evidence to back up a firm statement.

If I'd stated the Astute class is the most lethal stealth equipped offensive weapon under the oceans surface (which some would attest to and bearing in mind it's abysmal track record thus far) I would expect to be challenged.

There are submersible platforms out there, most noticeably US and UK who have been tried and tested in 'the real world'....the world in which they were designed to operate in who have aquitted themselves extremely well.

I remember living in Holland during the gulf war and hearing similar statements from my Dutch friends and colleagues but they never had an answer when asked to prove why they considered their subs to be the best.

'No track record' springs to mind.

[Jimbuna]

All I'm asking for in #50 and in response to the comment made in #48 is evidence to back up a firm statement.

If I'd stated the Astute class is the most lethal stealth equipped offensive weapon under the oceans surface (which some would attest to and bearing in mind it's abysmal track record thus far) I would expect to be challenged.

There are submersible platforms out there, most noticeably US and UK who have been tried and tested in 'the real world'....the world in which they were designed to operate in who have aquitted themselves extremely well.

I remember living in Holland during the gulf war and hearing similar statements from my Dutch friends and colleagues but they never had an answer when asked to prove why they considered their subs to be the best.

'No track record' springs to mind.

Still on line so possibly awaiting others to feed in so making a response easier.

[soopaman2]

Except that we have an F-22 that can't fly, an F-35 severely overbudget, a DDG the Navy doesn't even want but is getting crammed down its throat, and an LCS that is little more than a hull since all of its modules keep getting cancelled....
:D


Well we have to feed our military industrial complex, the one General Ike warned us about in a speech on his way out, from his presidency in the 50s.
Heck your 100% right.

But 700 +plus bases worldwide......It saddens me honestly, so many people here struggling, only to build useless f35 engines we won't use. But Cicero said that money is the sinews of war, or something like that. (at least until China and Japan say "enough")

One day people will be playing a war game about us in our time.

[mapuc]

@Mapuc:
My critic was mostly directed to Royal Swedish Navy's ships self defence capability.

That's what I wrote earlier in this thread.

I was pointing at their defence capability. when I had this discussion with a fellow during my military duty.

Markus

[Jimbuna]

Care to provide the evidence to back that up...preferably where they have proven the fact in war conditions when crewed by Swedes?

That's what I wrote earlier in this thread.

I was pointing at their defence capability. when I had this discussion with a fellow during my military duty.

Markus

Still awaiting an answeer 'respectfully' :salute:

[magicstix]

Well we have to feed our military industrial complex, the one General Ike warned us about in a speech on his way out, from his presidency in the 50s.
Heck your 100% right.

But 700 +plus bases worldwide......It saddens me honestly, so many people here struggling, only to build useless f35 engines we won't use. But Cicero said that money is the sinews of war, or something like that. (at least until China and Japan say "enough")

One day people will be playing a war game about us in our time.

The problem isn't so much that we're spending, it's that we're not getting our money's worth.

The F-22 would be an incredible platform... IF IT WORKED.

The DDG-1000 isn't worth it when the Navy wants more DDG-51s instead.

The F-35 is a great idea, but it's being poorly executed.

The LCS has limited use since all of its modules have been cancelled, so why are we still running the program or not funding new modules?

Like it or not, at the end of the day, the US military *is* the world police. Unfortunately we have a large number of countries benefiting from world stability who will not or can not contribute to its upkeep.

Just look at the EU in Libya. They begged for US support, couldn't get it, and executed a weak plan that they couldn't logistically support. Look at the fact that they almost ran out of ordinance!

Ultimately, our military industrial complex provides a lot of skilled jobs at home, but we can't afford to be as wasteful as we are.

[Jimbuna]

I'd suggest the EU actually did a pretty effective job....not that I'm a particular fan.

The proof of of the pudding is in the eating.

Let's not mention the fiasco or eventual outcome in Vietnam!!

Respect is a two way street.

Evidence of 'begging for support' would be appreciated.

[mapuc]

Still awaiting an answeer 'respectfully' :salute:

I can't give you any prof of their offensive capability, only what kind of weapon we have* and those who are used by other countries.


* watch this thread(that's one among many)
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=188093

I had some knowledge about the way sovjets would fight in a navalbattle

They send almost every SSM/other type of sea-sea missil against you at once. Thereafter they close in on you and finish the job with their canon.

Ohh found this on youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzfqxmHpxfU&feature=related

How could I ever forget that.

In the end of my duty, our captain called us to a meeting, He needed 4 people to take a test on a new type of vessel stridsbåt 90(prototype)

So we was 2 person/boat. I tell you, you really could feel the force when you put the "pedal-to-the-metal" You really felt how you were pressed into the seat. This journey of fun, was only 1-1½ hour, then back to harboe
making a report on how it was a.s.o

Markus

[Jimbuna]

I can't give you any prof of their offensive capability, only what kind of weapon we have* and those who are used by other countries.


* watch this thread(that's one among many)
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=188093

I had some knowledge about the way sovjets would fight in a navalbattle

They send almost every SSM/other type of sea-sea missil against you at once. Thereafter they close in on you and finish the job with their canon.

Ohh found this on youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzfqxmHpxfU&feature=related

How could I ever forget that.

In the end of my duty, our captain called us to a meeting, He needed 4 people to take a test on a new type of vessel stridsbåt 90(prototype)

So we was 2 person/boat. I tell you, you really could feel the force when you put the "pedal-to-the-metal" You really felt how you were pressed into the seat. This journey of fun, was only 1-1½ hour, then back to harboe
making a report on how it was a.s.o

Markus

Then please try to understand when I say 'respectfully' "I am not convinced". :sunny:

[soopaman2]

The problem isn't so much that we're spending, it's that we're not getting our money's worth.

The F-22 would be an incredible platform... IF IT WORKED.

The DDG-1000 isn't worth it when the Navy wants more DDG-51s instead.

The F-35 is a great idea, but it's being poorly executed.

The LCS has limited use since all of its modules have been cancelled, so why are we still running the program or not funding new modules?

Like it or not, at the end of the day, the US military *is* the world police. Unfortunately we have a large number of countries benefiting from world stability who will not or can not contribute to its upkeep.

Just look at the EU in Libya. They begged for US support, couldn't get it, and executed a weak plan that they couldn't logistically support. Look at the fact that they almost ran out of ordinance!

Ultimately, our military industrial complex provides a lot of skilled jobs at home, but we can't afford to be as wasteful as we are.

It's sad that it is plain as day to relative "laymen":x

As for your point on Libya I heard they needed more than anything our GPS. That ended up being a hotpoint against president Obama for getting "involved in another war" even though Sarkozy (sp?) of France tried to take the lead to save the US face as being warmongers or world police.

Yes many countries do benefit from our presence but that is not negative. We as a people don't mind. it gives a young nation amongst ancient proud giants legitamacy.

[mapuc]

Then please try to understand when I say 'respectfully' "I am not convinced". :sunny:

Hopefully it will never be the case.
(a full scale war were Sweden is involved)

I remember how this discussion started.

My friend said:
It's enough to send one of our "Robotbåtar"=missilboats, to get the sovjets navy to think otherwise.(run home to their mommys)

Markus

[soopaman2]

Hopefully it will never be the case.
(a full scale war were Sweden is involved)

I remember how this discussion started.

My friend said:
It's enough to send one of our "Robotbåtar"=missilboats, to get the sovjets navy to think otherwise.(run home to their mommys)

Markus

I don't want to sound like a typical across the Atlantic jack-off, but seriously. The Soviet navy and especially the sub fleet has been underfunded since the Germans took their half of the country back.

Yes, Russia is coming back but are starting from behind.
?
What would they do against a real contender...Like China or America?

[mapuc]

I don't want to sound like a typical across the Atlantic jack-off, but seriously. The Soviet navy and especially the sub fleet has been underfunded since the Germans took their half of the country back.

Yes, Russia is coming back but are starting from behind.
?
What would they do against a real contender...Like China or America?

You to remember, this was in the year 87-88.

Markus

[magicstix]

What would they do against a real contender...Like China or America?

As far as ASW is concerned, China isn't a real contender... :D

But then, the USA has been slacking off too in that department... :cry:

[TLAM Strike]

My friend said:
It's enough to send one of our "Robotbåtar"=missilboats, to get the sovjets navy to think otherwise.(run home to their mommys)

Markus

really? :shifty:
By Missile Boat I assume you mean what we call PTGs. Those are very limited in usefulness, especally if one side lacks air superiority. Just look at the Battle of Bubiyan, 5 TNC 45 PTGs, 1 LCU, 2 Zhuk class PC sunk by three RN Lnyx helicopters, USN bombers sank another dozen or so ships. Or Operation Morvarid where IRIAF F-4s and the IRINS Paykan sank ~14 Iraqi PTGs. Or the 1986 naval action in the Gulf of Sidra where 1 corvette and PTG were sunk and the same damaged.

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/3368/burninglibyancorvette.jpg
^Nanuchka class Corvette after AGM-84 Harpoon hit.

A warship with a rapid fire VLS SAM, point defenses and advanced air defense radars are the price of admission to a modern sea battle. Fast ASM equipped ships don't cut it anymore.

[mapuc]

really? :shifty:
By Missile Boat I assume you mean what we call PTGs. Those are very limited in usefulness, especally if one side lacks air superiority. Just look at the Battle of Bubiyan, 5 TNC 45 PTGs, 1 LCU, 2 Zhuk class PC sunk by three RN Lnyx helicopters, USN bombers sank another dozen or so ships. Or Operation Morvarid where IRIAF F-4s and the IRINS Paykan sank ~14 Iraqi PTGs. Or the 1986 naval action in the Gulf of Sidra where 1 corvette and PTG were sunk and the same damaged.

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/3368/burninglibyancorvette.jpg
^Nanuchka class Corvette after AGM-84 Harpoon hit.

A warship with a rapid fire VLS SAM, point defenses and advanced air defense radars are the price of admission to a modern sea battle. Fast ASM equipped ships don't cut it anymore.

Yes Really
You also must understand, that the military should, take on both side in a world war III(said by the politicians)

It's okey to believe in your self and your military, but it's very dangerous to put your self on a higher chair and look down on your opponent as they were monkeys controlling their military equipment.

Here's a homepage, where you can see a slideshow showing a swedish missilboats.
http://www.robotbatar.se/

I have search the internet on PTG and what I found was this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_class_corvette

Those we called kustkorvetter.

Markus

[CCIP]

Yes Really
You also must understand, that the military should, take on both side in a world war III(said by the politicians)

It's okey to believe in your self and your military, but it's very dangerous to put your self on a higher chair and look down on your opponent as they were monkeys controlling their military equipment.

Markus

That's not what TLAM said at all, though, and I think he's got a pretty good argument. In his examples it's not exactly all first-rate powers in WWIII scenarios, and I think they definitely show that small fast ships no longer cut it against an opponent that has any sort of serious air/sea assets ready to fight. Practically any military has aircraft, and those aircraft will pick apart a navy who doesn't have at least the minimum that TLAM gave. This isn't about crew or politics, but pure technological reality. A missile boat will not last in a serious air attack, period.

[Gerald]

Yes Really
You also must understand, that the military should, take on both side in a world war III(said by the politicians)

It's okey to believe in your self and your military, but it's very dangerous to put your self on a higher chair and look down on your opponent as they were monkeys controlling their military equipment.

Here's a homepage, where you can see a slideshow showing a swedish missilboats.
http://www.robotbatar.se/

I have search the internet on PTG and what I found was this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_class_corvette

Those we called kustkorvetter.

Markus The first link that you display here are based on a series of boats that are not in the operational stage, unless the Government decides otherwise, and these boats are original developments from Spica class, and there are a number of years ago these were in use,link http://home.swipnet.se/Amphion/nkg/nkg.html

The second link is correct, :yep:

[mapuc]

The first link that you display here are based on a series of boats that are not in the operational stage, unless the Government decides otherwise, and these boats are original developments from Spica class, and there are a number of years ago these were in use,link http://home.swipnet.se/Amphion/nkg/nkg.html

The second link is correct, :yep:

True.

Some of them are stil active. They have been upgraded and are now a part of the 3rd naval division(if I'm not wrong)

They almost new, when I made my military duty(87-88).

Markus

[soopaman2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotland_class_submarine

I do have to give my appreciation to this Mapuc. If you want to showcase a great Swedish boat then this would be one of them. Quietest in the world they say.

The Swedes have always had a great naval tradition. Don't let my jabs or anyone elses discourage the faith you have in your impressive hardware.:yeah:

[Gerald]

True.

Some of them are stil active. They have been upgraded and are now a part of the 3rd naval division(if I'm not wrong)

They almost new, when I made my military duty(87-88).

Markus True, some are active, so that they can be deployed in a very short time.

[mapuc]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotland_class_submarine

I do have to give my appreciation to this Mapuc. If you want to showcase a great Swedish boat then this would be one of them. Quietest in the world they say.

The Swedes have always had a great naval tradition. Don't let my jabs or anyone elses discourage the faith you have in your impressive hardware.:yeah:

And invisible to the radar.

I'm not being discourage by any, however Jimbuna was right, when he wrote
"Then please try to understand when I say 'respectfully' "I am not convinced".
A navalship or a whole fleet can look very impressive or fearful.
But they are nothing more than that, until proven in a fullscale sea/air combat situation.

series of boats that are not in the operational stage You were right about it.

http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Norrk%C3%B6ping_(T131/R131)


Back to iran:
I do believe that the iranian have the same attitude.
- We Send one of our boats and the american will run home to their mommy

Markus

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Norrk%C3%B6ping_(T131/R131 (http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Norrk%C3%B6ping_%28T131/R131))Your link doesn't work "Svenskspråkiga Wikipedia har inte någon artikel om "HMS Norrköping (T131/R131" ännu."

Edit: Reason is that you didn't include ")" to link. :)

[Gerald]

http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil:Swedish_Torpedo_Boat_T133.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_torpedo_boats_of_the_Royal_Swedish_Navy

[mapuc]

Your link doesn't work "Svenskspråkiga Wikipedia har inte någon artikel om "HMS Norrköping (T131/R131" ännu."

Edit: Reason is that you didn't include ")" to link. :)

I googled the word Robotbåt
I then choosed "HMS Norrköping"

http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Norrk%C3%B6ping_(T131/R131

Here are what it says:



HMS Norrköping (T131) senare (R131) var en av svenska marinens (http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svenska_marinen) robotbåtar. Byggdes ursprungligen som torpedbåt (http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpedb%C3%A5t) i Norrköpingsklassen (http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norrk%C3%B6pingsklass) men byggdes om till robotbåt (http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robotb%C3%A5t) i Norrköpingsklassen (http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norrk%C3%B6pingsklass) mellan 1982 (http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982)–84 (http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984) och betecknades därför som (R131) efter ombygganden. Mellan 1995 (http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995) och 1999 (http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999) genomfördes en livstidsförlängning av sex av robotbåtarna som bland annat omfattade uppgradering och ombyggnad av SLC (stridsledningscentralen). Efter denna ombyggnad döpte man om klassen till robotbåt Ystadsklass (http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ystadsklass) efter det sist producerade fartyget i Norrköpingsklassen.
Gradvis började man fasa ut de sista sex robotbåtarna i början på 2000-talet (http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000-talet). Efter försvarsbeslutet 2004 (http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%B6rsvarsbeslut) så bestämdes det att även de två sista robotbåtarna (Norrköping och Ystad) skulle tas ur organisationen. HMS Norrköping avvecklades 1 september (http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_september) 2005 (http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005). För HMS Norrköping finns det planer på att fartyget skall ligga i Norrköping (http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norrk%C3%B6ping) som museifartyg (http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museifartyg) under initiativ av föreningen flottans män.


I'm sorry I can't find the english version.

Markus

[Gerald]

http://www.fatburen.org/jan-erik.karlsson/norrkoping5.htm

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

I googled the word Robotbåt
I then choosed "HMS Norrköping"

http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Norrk%C3%B6ping_(T131/R131 (http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Norrk%C3%B6ping_%28T131/R131)

Here are what it says:



I'm sorry I can't find the english version.

MarkusJag kan läsa svenska det är inte problem. Det bara föra mera timme därför att jag måste kolla ordet från ordbok. Min godmur leva nära Norrköping och många äldra boker i min familjens bokhylla är i svenska. :DL

[Gerald]

Jag kan läsa svenska det är inte problem. Det bara föra mera timme därför att jag måste kolla ordet från ordbok. Min godmur leva nära Norrköping och många äldra boker i min familjens bokhylla är i svenska. :DL But you probably need to upgrade your Swedish dictionary a part ... I guess :DL but otherwise it was good.

[mapuc]

Here's some info about Karlskrona naval base, where I was posted during my military duty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karlskrona_naval_base

My boats

HMS Stockholm
I was only there for some few month

HMS Pelikanen
During an execise I got a heavy wounded knee and was hospitalized for 2 weeks. So after about 6 month I was "moved" to

Baskompagniet. There I got my own boat.
A transport/ambulance boat.
I was there until I "muck"* (Late autumn 88)

Swedish abbrivation
M=Militär(military)
U=Utryckning(called out)
i=(in)
C=Civila(Civil)
K=Kläder(Clothes)

Markus

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

@Vendor

I have very little use for swedish language so its very easy to forget. Its much easier to read than write yourself and personally I have forgot most of grammar. In school my average grade in swedish (4-10) was 5-. :DL

[Gerald]

@Vendor

I have very little use for swedish language so its very easy to forget. Its much easier to read than write yourself and personally I have forgot most of grammar. In school my average grade in swedish (4-10) was 5-. :DL Very good,:DL

[magicstix]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotland_class_submarine

I do have to give my appreciation to this Mapuc. If you want to showcase a great Swedish boat then this would be one of them. Quietest in the world they say.

The Swedes have always had a great naval tradition. Don't let my jabs or anyone elses discourage the faith you have in your impressive hardware.:yeah:

Who is "they?" Gotland is quiet yes. Quietest? Not sure I'd go that far.