Iran to build aircraft carrier!

[magicstix]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

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]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

Still awaiting an answeer 'respectfully'

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



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]

Originally Posted by mapuc

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



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".

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by magicstix

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"

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]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

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

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]

Originally Posted by mapuc

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]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

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]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

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

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

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

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by mapuc

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?
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.


^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]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

really?
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.


^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]

Originally Posted by mapuc

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]

Originally Posted by mapuc

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,

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Vendor

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,

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.