Jump to content


Photo

Storm In A Teacup, Or Rn Vs. Iran


  • Please log in to reply
246 replies to this topic

#121 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,966 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 04 August 2019 - 1019 AM

Did they ever trial Big Wheel Ferret? Specifically the Swingfire armed Mk5?


  • 0

#122 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 04 August 2019 - 1101 AM

No. AFAIK Swingfire was never even evaluated and neither were Ferrets. Other than Abbot and Scimitar, Centurion Mk.3 was evaluated in the '50s and FV432 at unknown moment (probably mid-'60s).


  • 0

#123 Jeff

Jeff

    Godfather of Tanknet Birthday Greetings

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,027 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 August 2019 - 1835 PM

This might prove useful.
https://www.thedrive...6-adversary-jet

 

Very Top Gun (the movie).


  • 0

#124 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,966 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 09 August 2019 - 0212 AM

Yep, Mig-38 for sure. :D


  • 0

#125 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,270 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hertfordshire, England

Posted 09 August 2019 - 2050 PM

As I've mentioned before, RARDEN is an odd beast. Although it has 3 round clips, after you hand-crank the first round in, it will accept a second clip and fire without needing to crank it again provided you feed it a new clip before the last round of the previous clip is fired. Has a foot trigger, too, presumably because you have your hands full feeding it.

Bear in mind I've only played with a training system one, so can't speak for how easy it is to drive.

The 40mm CTA has its own problems - the ISD for the WCSP programme is not when it should have been by any stretch, and one should raise a very studied eyebrow at LM for that.
  • 0

#126 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,270 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hertfordshire, England

Posted 17 August 2019 - 1342 PM

Anyway. This passes for analysis.

https://www.opendemo...p-against-iran/
  • 0

#127 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,270 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hertfordshire, England

Posted 27 August 2019 - 1002 AM

I think that this was entirely expected.

https://mobile.naval...f-asia-pacific/

It assures one FFG and one DDG when Montrose and Diamond rotate out. (Kent replaces Montrose temporarily, the latter is "permanently" based in the Gulf.)

Defender is post refit. I believe that addresses the high temperature environment issue, but I'm not entirely certain of this.
  • 0

#128 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,966 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 27 August 2019 - 1005 AM

Sounds like we need a bigger navy if we are going to keep 2 on station at all times.


  • 0

#129 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,880 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted 29 August 2019 - 0016 AM

It's amazing how much you need in equipment and crew to keep one on station, 2 = about 6 hulls required and likley 5 complete crews.


  • 0

#130 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,260 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 30 August 2019 - 0529 AM

Sounds like we need a bigger navy if we are going to keep 2 on station at all times.


Keeping two on station there will severely inhibit our ability to act elsewhere. The thing is, it's really hard to come up with scenarios where we would ever need to, hence the Iranians are arguably providing a much needed boost for our beleaguered MIC.
  • 0

#131 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,966 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 30 August 2019 - 0653 AM

Well I look at it like this.

 

Really hard to justify a large fleet to fight Spain and the French. Then we have Trafalgar.

 

Difficult to justify a large fleet to fight Germany. Which we do, twice.

 

Hard to justify a large fleet in case the unlikely event we have a war with Japan. Which we do.

 

Impossible to justify a large fleet to defend the Falklands when we need to defend Western Europe.

 

 

 

The lesson im taking from the past 200 years of history is, we invariably fight wars on sea, and they usually are not the ones we envisaged. The only common lesson is that the more ships than you need ends up turning out to be less ships than you want, and thats always been true whether it was the British fleet at Trafalgar which was outnumbered by those pesky Spanish and French, or the one that lifted my Grandfather off Dunkirk beach.

 

 

It would be nice for one if we learned the lessons, but we seem as a nation to be so fucking arrogant these days we seem to be beyond remembering lessons.


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 30 August 2019 - 0653 AM.

  • 0

#132 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,260 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 31 August 2019 - 0503 AM

Stuart, I'm fully capable of reading history books and learning lessons, thanks.

You make some specific examples:

Trafalgar: This was a completely different geopolitical situation with utterly different technology than exists now.

Germany WW1: We had and enemy, on our doorstep, building a relatively large sea denial fleet. It was obviously justified to build a large surface fleet, including major combatants to counter it. We also has world wide commitments that required one. We were horribly unprepared for the submarine threat, however.

Germany, italy and Japan WW2: See above.

Japan: Do you mean China? We have pretty much covered the latter to death. You have failed to come up with any circumstance in which we we would need to use, or could viably use, a major surface fleet against China.

Falklands: If Argentina ever gets its shit together, they can start purchasing stealthy cruise missiles for a handful of combat aircraft. At that point it is all over for our ability to defend the Falklands, or for it to remain a viable place to live. Retaking them would just see the same scenario repeated. It's time we gave each inhabitant £1M and the right to relocate to the UK and handed the islands to Argentina.

To me, the Royal Navy's huge advantage over any credible conventional opponent is SSNs. I would like to see more spent on better patrol vessels at one end of the spectrum and much more on SSN/SSGN at the other. If you are worried about China, they have no counter to this and are unlikely to for the foreseeable future. In the event of things kicking off with Russia, a couple of SSN on station can bottle up what remains their Northern fleet. If we had more they could contribute to ASW efforts in mid Atlantic, although I doubt effective defence of even that trade route is viable thanks to detection issues.
  • 0

#133 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,966 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 31 August 2019 - 0542 AM

Chris, I dont mean to imply you arent capable of reading history books. But Its one more example of something I learned on Jury service. Two different people are capable of hearing and looking at precisely the same evidence, and have entirely different perspectives on what it means.

 

No, I meant Japan. We didnt get our act together fighting the Japanese till 1944, when we had broke the back of the German Fleet. We were supposed to have a 3 ocean navy, and we had 2 and a bit. It showed.

 

I will say that if anyone hasnt come out of the Gulf Tanker affair and think we dont need any more ships, they perhaps want to go back to the messaging Iran is sending. We either are determined to protect 'our' ships at sea, or we have absolutely no right registering them.


  • 0

#134 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,260 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 01 September 2019 - 1800 PM

I think we need to rely a lot less on hydrocarbons from the Gulf and hydrocarbons in general. Protecting oil and LNG shipments from the Iranians does not require us to have a lot more ships. You know as well as I do that building enough conventional warships to escort all the ships in transit would tax Chinese building capacity, let alone ours. Even doubling the size of the RN wouldn't help significantly, and it's not going to happen. What is needed is a robust response from the hyper wealthy and heavily tooled up nations in the region. They need to sell their oil much more than we need to buy it. Let them police their end of the supply chain for a change.
  • 0

#135 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,880 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted 02 September 2019 - 0106 AM

plus a post breixt deal to buy gas and oil from Canada longterm would be good for both countries.


  • 0

#136 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,966 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 02 September 2019 - 0200 AM

I think we need to rely a lot less on hydrocarbons from the Gulf and hydrocarbons in general. Protecting oil and LNG shipments from the Iranians does not require us to have a lot more ships. You know as well as I do that building enough conventional warships to escort all the ships in transit would tax Chinese building capacity, let alone ours. Even doubling the size of the RN wouldn't help significantly, and it's not going to happen. What is needed is a robust response from the hyper wealthy and heavily tooled up nations in the region. They need to sell their oil much more than we need to buy it. Let them police their end of the supply chain for a change.

 

Chris, it doesnt matter where we get our Hydrocarbons from. We are willing to register ships that sail whereever they may. Either we should be willing to protect them in harms way, or we should refuse to register anymore and tell everyone to go to Panamanian registrations so its somebody elses problem.

 

Yes, I entirely agree with the principle of having nothing to do with the gulf and let them all kill each other. Inevitably due to the global nature of things we will be involved if only because our nationals or our ships will be sunk. Free trade doesn't thrive on principles.


  • 0

#137 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,260 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 02 September 2019 - 1715 PM

 

I think we need to rely a lot less on hydrocarbons from the Gulf and hydrocarbons in general. Protecting oil and LNG shipments from the Iranians does not require us to have a lot more ships. You know as well as I do that building enough conventional warships to escort all the ships in transit would tax Chinese building capacity, let alone ours. Even doubling the size of the RN wouldn't help significantly, and it's not going to happen. What is needed is a robust response from the hyper wealthy and heavily tooled up nations in the region. They need to sell their oil much more than we need to buy it. Let them police their end of the supply chain for a change.

 

Chris, it doesnt matter where we get our Hydrocarbons from. We are willing to register ships that sail whereever they may. Either we should be willing to protect them in harms way, or we should refuse to register anymore and tell everyone to go to Panamanian registrations so its somebody elses problem.

 

Yes, I entirely agree with the principle of having nothing to do with the gulf and let them all kill each other. Inevitably due to the global nature of things we will be involved if only because our nationals or our ships will be sunk. Free trade doesn't thrive on principles.

 

 

I don't recall any guarantee to British ship owners that we will protect their ships wherever in the world they choose to go. Did we ever actually have the capability to do that? If the Iranians interdicting British flagged ships is a problem, why not have the producer nations flag their own ships and protect them on the journey to a transhipment hub a decent distance away from the Gulf?


  • 0

#138 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,966 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 03 September 2019 - 0139 AM

 

 

I think we need to rely a lot less on hydrocarbons from the Gulf and hydrocarbons in general. Protecting oil and LNG shipments from the Iranians does not require us to have a lot more ships. You know as well as I do that building enough conventional warships to escort all the ships in transit would tax Chinese building capacity, let alone ours. Even doubling the size of the RN wouldn't help significantly, and it's not going to happen. What is needed is a robust response from the hyper wealthy and heavily tooled up nations in the region. They need to sell their oil much more than we need to buy it. Let them police their end of the supply chain for a change.

 

Chris, it doesnt matter where we get our Hydrocarbons from. We are willing to register ships that sail whereever they may. Either we should be willing to protect them in harms way, or we should refuse to register anymore and tell everyone to go to Panamanian registrations so its somebody elses problem.

 

Yes, I entirely agree with the principle of having nothing to do with the gulf and let them all kill each other. Inevitably due to the global nature of things we will be involved if only because our nationals or our ships will be sunk. Free trade doesn't thrive on principles.

 

 

I don't recall any guarantee to British ship owners that we will protect their ships wherever in the world they choose to go. Did we ever actually have the capability to do that? If the Iranians interdicting British flagged ships is a problem, why not have the producer nations flag their own ships and protect them on the journey to a transhipment hub a decent distance away from the Gulf?

 

Well yes, that is pretty much what we were doing in WW2 as I recall. :) In fact the Government went so far as to underwrite Lloyds for any losses. Can you imagine anyone doing that today? There is complete apathy towards shipping, which is fairly stupid of us, considering we were twice nearly starved into submission and quite how much of our consumption comes from container ships from the far east.

 

Transhipment is going to add to the cost, which again, is going to be doing the Iranians work for them. Interfering with the freedom of navigation is a pretty serious event. It doesnt affect just us, it affects everyone. Can you imagine the effect it would have if a Government said all white people could use motorways, but not black ones? That essentially is the ethnic choicemaking Iran is undertaking, and if its allowed to stand, there is going to be a LOT more of it. China im sure is taking notes here.


  • 0

#139 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,411 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 03 September 2019 - 0658 AM

Its important to note the practical freedom of navigation was a product of US dominance at the end of WWII combined with a desire to globally integrate trade. Historically the idea is quite new and enforcement requires total naval hegemony. The US is close to lacking both the will and capacity to enforce that principle, and the view of other regional powers is more conventional (historically): they will control local bodies of water as they see fit.
  • 0

#140 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,260 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 03 September 2019 - 0703 AM

Stuart, my recollection is our ability to protect our ships in WW2, even given that our economy was on a total war footing, and heavily bankrolled by the US, proved pretty patchy. Had we chosen to run convoys directly off the German coast, things might have been even worse.
  • 0




1 user(s) are reading this topic

1 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Mistral