M.Dancer Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 (edited) WellDancer, you and I are both wrong and right. It was started under Martin in Dec. 2005 in the MIDST of an election, but it didn't come into law until March of 2006 when O'Connor was minister of Defence! He refused to change it. Try to be a liitle nicer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Afghan_detainee_abuse_scandal No I am right and you are out to lunch. The agreement was negotiated during the Liberal ttenure and signed during the Liberal tenure. The liberals own it and you trying to foist it off on the Conservatives is indicative of your incredibaly small mind and your partisan dishonesty. And that is me being very nice Edited November 25, 2009 by M.Dancer Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
wyly Posted November 26, 2009 Report Posted November 26, 2009 That's what they said in the sixties. They were so sure of it the USAF didn't install a gun on their F-4 Phantoms. Guess what? They weren't long in Vietnam before they designed a 20MM Vulcan pod they could hang on it. Every fighter since has had a gun, regardless of how much better missles have become. After the F-4, their next fighter was the F-15, not an interceptor but an air superiority fighter designed to fight other fighters. Even if it were true, there will be times when aircraft are needed to carry the missles and carriers to carry the aircraft. carriers are only one war away from obsolescence, just as WW2 quickly proved the Battleships day were done a war with a nation that has the latest cruise missile technology will end the carriers days...carriers are defenseless vs the latest Russian cruise missiles which even Iran is suspected of having... carriers and the air superiority fighters will only be effective against countries that can't even defend themselves against today's fighters...the newest fighters will useless unless you can bring them into range and without carriers that isn't possible... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
M.Dancer Posted November 26, 2009 Report Posted November 26, 2009 carriers are only one war away from obsolescence, I agree....but that war is about 100 years away. Russian cruise missile claims, like photos of Iranian missile launches, should be treated with tractor trailors of salt. Even so, Carriers don't operate in a vaccuum,... think of patriot missile armed escorts using the latest aegis radar technology....the Russians aren't even in the same league. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 26, 2009 Report Posted November 26, 2009 ....carriers and the air superiority fighters will only be effective against countries that can't even defend themselves against today's fighters...the newest fighters will useless unless you can bring them into range and without carriers that isn't possible... Then I guess you better add Canada to the list of defenseless countries. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted November 26, 2009 Report Posted November 26, 2009 While cruise missile technology is dangerous to most any type of target, the ability to knock both sub-sonic and supersonic warheads out of the sky is soon if not already a looming reality. This will once again force a rethink of everybody's tactics...who can role with the punches quickest? Me thinks the USA... Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 26, 2009 Report Posted November 26, 2009 While cruise missile technology is dangerous to most any type of target, the ability to knock both sub-sonic and supersonic warheads out of the sky is soon if not already a looming reality. This will once again force a rethink of everybody's tactics...who can role with the punches quickest? Me thinks the USA... Good points as usual.....unless attacked with nuclear warheads, a CBG can remain effective as a forward deployed, tactical weapons resource even after sustaining battle damage because of distributed VLS (vertical launchers). The legacy Phalanx CIWS has now evolved into SeaRam to address current and future missile threats to capital assets. BTW....back in the day we had a submarine mission profile calling for an attack on the Kirov class battle cruiser. The geeks at Penn State calculated that it would take 10 MK-48 warshots to sink such a vessel. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
wyly Posted November 26, 2009 Report Posted November 26, 2009 I agree....but that war is about 100 years away. Russian cruise missile claims, like photos of Iranian missile launches, should be treated with tractor trailors of salt. Even so, Carriers don't operate in a vaccuum,... think of patriot missile armed escorts using the latest aegis radar technology....the Russians aren't even in the same league. no sorry to ruin your dream of western tech supremacy it's here now...Russian cruise missile claims are witnessed and verified they have them, the Chinese have them and it's believed Iran also has them...Mach 3, air launch, ship launch, mobile land or fixed, attack avoidance systems deadly accurate and the US has nothing that can touch them, there is no defense Aegis wasn't designed to respond to something that flies Mach 3 at 50' and neither was the Patriot, they can only stay out of range... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 26, 2009 Report Posted November 26, 2009 no sorry to ruin your dream of western tech supremacy it's here now... How many super carriers have they sunk to date? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
wyly Posted November 26, 2009 Report Posted November 26, 2009 While cruise missile technology is dangerous to most any type of target, the ability to knock both sub-sonic and supersonic warheads out of the sky is soon if not already a looming reality. This will once again force a rethink of everybody's tactics...who can role with the punches quickest? Me thinks the USA... the US is playing catch up in cruise missile tech...the Russians can redesign their cruise missiles faster than the US can rebuild a ship based weapon system...and it's far cheaper... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted November 26, 2009 Report Posted November 26, 2009 How many super carriers have they sunk to date? how many carriers did battleships sink until ww2?...how many wars have carriers faced the new cruise missiles?...the first time is always a rude surprise, but the US military unlike you are already aware of the threat of these new missiles, and they take the threat of Iran closing the Persian gulf very seriously because if they have these missiles they can... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 26, 2009 Report Posted November 26, 2009 how many carriers did battleships sink until ww2?... http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=114686 how many wars have carriers faced the new cruise missiles?... New or old....pick your war...none sunk. Ever been to the Strait of Hormuz? the first time is always a rude surprise, but the US military unlike you are already aware of the threat of these new missiles, and they take the threat of Iran closing the Persian gulf very seriously because if they have these missiles they can... Hence SeaRam....see above. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 26, 2009 Report Posted November 26, 2009 the US is playing catch up in cruise missile tech...the Russians can redesign their cruise missiles faster than the US can rebuild a ship based weapon system...and it's far cheaper... All while Russian naval assets rust in port. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted November 26, 2009 Report Posted November 26, 2009 BTW....back in the day we had a submarine mission profile calling for an attack on the Kirov class battle cruiser. The geeks at Penn State calculated that it would take 10 MK-48 warshots to sink such a vessel. Really? Those make a big boom. Depends where one hit it I suppose. It took 36 torp and bomb hits to take out the Musashi. I doubt the Kirov has that baby's belt armor. So maybe that was just to make sure. the US is playing catch up in cruise missile tech...the Russians can redesign their cruise missiles faster than the US can rebuild a ship based weapon system...and it's far cheaper... Hah...you sound like one of those guys back in the Cold War that claimed the Russians would wipe the floor with us. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted November 26, 2009 Report Posted November 26, 2009 All while Russian naval assets rust in port. Great point. 'Inferior' US technology has essentially made the Russian navy obsolete. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted November 26, 2009 Report Posted November 26, 2009 http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=114686 New or old....pick your war...none sunk. Ever been to the Strait of Hormuz? Hence SeaRam....see above. SeaRam is just the last line of missile defence. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 26, 2009 Report Posted November 26, 2009 (edited) Really? Those make a big boom. Depends where one hit it I suppose. It took 36 torp and bomb hits to take out the Musashi. I doubt the Kirov has that baby's belt armor. So maybe that was just to make sure. The MK-48 heavyweight torpedo uses a proximity fuse to detonate under the hull and break the keel with gas displacement. Contact fuse is secondary....Kirovs are hard to sink (in theory). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mark_48_Torpedo_testing.jpg Edited November 26, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 26, 2009 Report Posted November 26, 2009 SeaRam is just the last line of missile defence. Correctomundo....a CBG has layered defenses beginning with a large perimeter. The US Navy even uses helos in sacrifice mode. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted November 26, 2009 Report Posted November 26, 2009 The MK-48 heavyweight torpedo uses a proximity fuse to detonate under the hull and break the keel with gas displacement. Contact fuse is secondary....Kirovs are hard to sink (in theory). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mark_48_Torpedo_testing.jpg Yeah...I remember that poor ship...lol. (re: pic) Re: Kirov. I suppose they might be hard to sink via shockwave. Are they known to be reinforced from below? Correctomundo....a CBG has layered defenses beginning with a large perimeter. The US Navy even uses helos in sacrifice mode. Aye...the RIM-191 SM-3 comes to mind. Now thar be a hittin' stick. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 26, 2009 Report Posted November 26, 2009 (edited) Yeah...I remember that poor ship...lol. (re: pic) Re: Kirov. I suppose they might be hard to sink via shockwave. Are they known to be reinforced from below? If watertight integrity is set for all compartments, it's damn hard to sink Kirov. But she would be out of commission. Basic tactics on large vessels is to disable propulsion / rudder, then underhull sensors, then just keep shootin' for fun. Aye...the RIM-191 SM-3 comes to mind. Now thar be a hittin' stick. Aye....an Iranian airliner already got a taste of the older SM-2R from the USS Vincennes. Edited November 26, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Gabriel Posted November 26, 2009 Report Posted November 26, 2009 I'm hardly a military expert, although I had a casual interest when I was much younger in military technology, but I gotta just call it like I see it - wyly, you are ridiculous to suggest that there is any superiority held by Russia in any engineering or technological field over the USA. The USA isn't just a little ahead in every single element of the knowledge economy, it ECLIPSES the rest of the world. Whether it's military technology, medical research, or anything else - for you to even suggest that the USA is 'playing catch up' is absurd. Why do you say so many silly things so often? It's baffling. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 26, 2009 Report Posted November 26, 2009 No..no...Russians are the best in the world. They are so good, they even managed to sink themselves (Kursk) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_submarine_Kursk_explosion Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted November 26, 2009 Report Posted November 26, 2009 I know you remember this one BC-2004...but others might not. The old Nike Sprint ABM from the 1960s...same job...different day. This sucker was fast. It partnered-up with the Spartan missile for an early US ABM system. The Russians had a similar single tier system which was fairly effective against single warheads. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
wyly Posted November 26, 2009 Report Posted November 26, 2009 http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=114686 nice of you to post a link proving my point, two carriers sunk by surface ships the rest air or submarine, the day of the battleship ended with their first real encounter with carriers dec 7th '41 New or old....pick your war...none sunk. Ever been to the Strait of Hormuz? the US has not faced an opponent with these cruise missiles nothing close, they did nearly lose a ship the Stark to an Iraqi exocet which pales in comparison to the latest technology...str of Hormuz 50 miles tops, range of cruise missiles 150-200 and they're portable so forget about locating land based launches...Hence SeaRam....see above.RAM system has never been tested against anything this fast or with it's evasive maneuverability, estimated time from detection of missile flying on the deck at M 2.5-3 to impact ships will only have only 2.5 seconds to detect and calculate a fire solution...the Chinese already have ships designed around this system which are nuclear tipped... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Gabriel Posted November 26, 2009 Report Posted November 26, 2009 (edited) No..no...Russians are the best in the world. They are so good, they even managed to sink themselves (Kursk) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_submarine_Kursk_explosion I have a soft spot for Russia in some ways, all of my family are Russian immigrants. There are some good and reputable educational and research institutions in Russia (my father was fortunate enough to obtain a degree from a Russian university prior to his immigration to Canada, and was recognized as having an education equivalent to a Canadian's Master's degree in engineering), and have been for many decades. But still, at the end of the day, the USA is a research and education behemoth. Nobody even comes close. I'm only half-kidding when I say this, but Russia suffered a major brain-drain when much of its Jewish population fled persecution and ended up in the West (mostly the USA, of course). Russia's never recovered from that major loss of talent. :-) Edited November 26, 2009 by Gabriel Quote
wyly Posted November 26, 2009 Report Posted November 26, 2009 No..no...Russians are the best in the world. They are so good, they even managed to sink themselves (Kursk) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_submarine_Kursk_explosion even the US military admits the Russians are ten yrs ahead in cruise missile technology Kursk-just as the US managed to sink themselves, USS Thresher and USS Scorpion Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.