Guest aevans Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 It's hardly surprising Tony, I was applying your definition to a phrase I've only ever heard you use shane It's kind of an anachronism these days.
Guest pfcem Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 Yes, Yes, Yes. It seems like you suffer from one or more of three problems. 1. Short Memory.2. Delusions.3. Lying If you actually believe any of the first sentence of yours that is.No that would be you. You're either delusional or lacking long term memory... Any 8" Thread, or even the Type 45 thread show consistently so how you debate, by simply repeating yourself until you're blue in the face, ignoring everything which counters your 'statements', and thinking that if you ONLY get the last word, and you can CAPITALISE and over EMPHASISE every SINGLE word, you'll WIN!!!!! The obligitory similies notwithstanding of course...Just a couple of GREAT examples of how I have to keep repeating myself to correct the childish ignoranus people like you keep trying to twist what I post into something else or post some BS that ignors what I had previously posted debunks. Pcefm, have you noticed how people who replying to you are have dwindled to an all mighty low number. People got tired at your first hissy fit, and every subsquent screaming match, you've either been placed on ignore, or just regarded as an annoying teenage fan boy.Are you going to cry now? Who cares Pcefm? Stop disrupting an interesting topic, YET AGAIN. Go a post a topic in FFZ about the injustice that the vast majority people on this forum don't think you're even worthwhile member of this forum if you really want to deal with your 'tarnished' (being polite) reputation. As it stands, you and every other reply to your Matyr type posts in this thread just waste bandwidth.I am not the one disrupting threads, you & your kind are. This just happens to be one where I decided I had had enough of it & decided to respond to it. THIS one was started by swerve.
TDHM Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 *Yawn* Yet another case of 'I know you but what am I?' from Tank-Net's MAP. "I'm not the one disrupting threads" Despite not having a single thing to say on topic... Oh well. Bye Bye Teenage Fan Boi...
nigelfe Posted July 6, 2007 Posted July 6, 2007 Ski jumps (again) methinks some clutching at straws is going on. Aust has no need of a ship with ski jumps, the only conceivable rationale one is that the RAN has carrier delusions and having got their hands on something with carrier capability will then seek the aircraft to make it so. Bye bye transports for the serious work of transporting troops in the 'arc of instability'. A role for which there are better options, almost certainly at less cost (Incidentally I may have forgotten to mention that I'm an Aust taxpayer and have strong objections to this inappropriate and wasteful use of my money). Apart from marketing bs there is nothing to indicate any particular naval competance in Spain, not the least being a marked lack of experience. Of course lower labour costs make construction costs lower than elsewhere and this will always be attractive. Ex US LST and a LPD in service for a few years, basically a Dutch design. Aust got 2 such LSTs, extensively reworked, but not a very good buy (although cheap) it turned out the purchaser's survey failed to find a heap of expensive defects. An indication of how 'modern' (ha ha) Spanish defence thinking is is that they continue to use 155mm towed field arty for coast defence. They are either on some other world or have spotted something missed by the rest of NATO (no prizes for guessing my view). This doesn't exactly encourage the notion that they might know something about amph warfare.
sunday Posted July 6, 2007 Posted July 6, 2007 (edited) (...)Apart from marketing bs there is nothing to indicate any particular naval competance in Spain, not the least being a marked lack of experience. Of course lower labour costs make construction costs lower than elsewhere and this will always be attractive. Ex US LST and a LPD in service for a few years, basically a Dutch design. Aust got 2 such LSTs, extensively reworked, but not a very good buy (although cheap) it turned out the purchaser's survey failed to find a heap of expensive defects. Well, you may ask the Thais their opinion about their aircraft carrier, CHAKRI NARUEBET (and not, PRINCIPE DE ASTURIAS was not a Gibbs&Cox design-what arrived to Spain was little more than a Spring Style). You can also consider how many countries are buiding submarines now. Or ask our "worthy" Tiornu for his opinions about CANARIAS. Yes, maybe her fate would have been be the same as CANBERRA in Savo, but fortunately she wasn't there. About the Dutch design of GALICIA&CASTILLA, there are a few words to say, but I decline. Spain was builiding war fleets in the Middle Ages, see the taking of Seville by the Marina de Castilla under the king Ferdinand III. And for quite a time it was said that in order to swim the Mediterranean, ever the fishes had to bear in their backs the bars of Aragon. Or, maybe Australia should have bought in South Korea, as Japan doesn't export warships. An indication of how 'modern' (ha ha) Spanish defence thinking is is that they continue to use 155mm towed field arty for coast defence. They are either on some other world or have spotted something missed by the rest of NATO (no prizes for guessing my view). This doesn't exactly encourage the notion that they might know something about amph warfare. Towed artillery for coast defence? Well, yes. But you should have cited our Vickers guns, calibers 15"/45, and 6"/50 in some fixed emplacements. Look for GRUPO DE ARTILLERIA DE COSTA II/4 here. But with the traffic in Gibraltar Strait, you couldn't risk firing a Harpoon, and hitting a peaceful, neutral oiler. OTH, there is a nice, comfy base for the USN nearby, so if anyone want to try an air raid, it could be amusing. Anything missed by NATO? Well, what about a possible Islamist regime in Morocco? And with the puny 5" that everybody dares to embark in their warships now, big, traditional guns are quite invulnerable. They say the firing exercises of the 15" guns are quite a show. Tourism, you know... [edited to add some afterthoughts] Edited July 6, 2007 by sunday
sunday Posted July 6, 2007 Posted July 6, 2007 FLAME WAR INCOMING Nah, more like clubbing baby seals...
BansheeOne Posted July 6, 2007 Posted July 6, 2007 (edited) But you should have cited our Vickers guns, calibers 15"/45, and 6"/50 in some fixed emplacements. Look for GRUPO DE ARTILLERIA DE COSTA II/4 here. Bloody cool. I didn't know anybody still employed capital coastal defense guns. Otherwise I think the debate on Spanish amphibious competency should be in the happy little place of vanilla skies where people talk about 8" NGFS, the yankee occupation of Dixie, the sinister ways of Airbus and self-selected slut diseases all day. Edited July 6, 2007 by BansheeOne
Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo Posted July 6, 2007 Posted July 6, 2007 Bloody cool. I didn't know anybody still employed capital coastal defense guns. Yup, and despite what they appear, experience (1991 Gulf war for one) show fixed coastal defences are quite hard to knock out. In the case of the "obsolete" towed 155 guns, they are designed for quick fire missions and move away and are fitted with the equipment necessary to operate on their own (GPS and FCS). Of course, all the coastal defence fire missions are controlled from a specific C&C system which employs radar, IR and datalink to observe, locate and direct fire...... Data can be linked from AEW planes, other ships and other detection assests. On what NATO has been thinking, only the Turks have a waterway with similar characteristics to the Gibraltar straits. It is clear France, Germany or even Italy have little use for such a military asset........
Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo Posted July 6, 2007 Posted July 6, 2007 (edited) Apart from marketing bs there is nothing to indicate any particular naval competance in Spain, not the least being a marked lack of experience. Of course lower labour costs make construction costs lower than elsewhere and this will always be attractive. Unfortunately labor costs aren`t what they used to be in the 70s when Spain was in the top five of naval construction (oh, maybe you should have a look for the figures because I think you were not aware of rthis fact) After cheap Korean shipbuilding broke the spine of local naval construction in the early 80s, naval construction moved to quality. To show the utter lack of experience and quality you can simply check how many Aegis warships have been exported by those pathetic Spaniards comparing to great Anglo nations.... And another field which clearly shows the utter lack of quality and expertise of local shipbuilding is the SSK market, Scorpene anyone? Edited July 6, 2007 by Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo
Sailor Lars Posted July 6, 2007 Posted July 6, 2007 FLAME WAR INCOMING There are no flame wars without marines screaming for 8" support!
RETAC21 Posted July 6, 2007 Posted July 6, 2007 Apart from marketing bs there is nothing to indicate any particular naval competance in Spain, not the least being a marked lack of experience... Yeah, sure, let's see, we exported 3 "Descubierta" corvettes (1 to Morocco, 2 to Egypt), 7 "Joao Coutinho" corvettes (to Portugal), 1 light carrier (to Thailand) and 4 "Nansen" class frigates. All large combatants for the last 40 years have been built locally (1 light carrier, 15 frigates, 6 corvettes and 2 more ordered/building, plus 8 submarines and 2 LPDs), all of them by the same company, so I guess that settles the experience part. Moreover, you keep insisting on the "Dutch" LPDs, but the design was a joint venture between Nevesbu and Bazan, so that makes the Bay class jointly designed by Bazan, nowadays Navantia. In contrast, Swan Hunter has been unable to finish "Lyme Bay" in time and costs and the ship had to be towed to Gowan for completion, HMS Daring entry into service has been delayed until late 2009 by ongoing technical problems, a delay of TWO YEARS, in addition to the other delays getting them in the building ways, for the Astute class, the comment is: "Astute programme has unfortunately become one of the most troubled UK defence projects since the 1980's, matched only by the Nimrod 2000 programme. Due to serious delays and problems encountered by the prime contractor BAE Systems, the first unit, HMS Astute, is now not expected to be delivered until November 2008 and will become fully operational in 2009 - four years later than forecast when ordered", Not to speak about the submarines sold to the Canadians, the unhappiness of the Romanians with their second hand frigates, etc. And when was the last time a first hand warship larger than a patrol boat was sold abroad by a UK builder?... 1972!
JOE BRENNAN Posted July 6, 2007 Posted July 6, 2007 (edited) And when was the last time a first hand warship larger than a patrol boat was sold abroad by a UK builder?... 1972!Well, to be picky I can think offhand of Malaysia's frigates built in the '90's and Brunei's supposed 'offshore patrol vessels' that are also really more like frigates (albeit rejected by Brunei so far, last I heard). However I agree with your basic viewpoint, and the opposing viewpoint really does seem a baby seal asking to be clubbed. The image of UK shipbuilding (naval, commercial has basically disappeared altogether) as the 'experienced first string' is sadly out of date at this point. This is not to ignore the glorious history of British shipbuilding of all kinds, and the baby seal attitude would have been realistic decades ago, but now it's touch and go whether that industry can maintain the ability to build the RN's warships. Export opportunities will be non-existent, and it's a real question whether the order flow from one customer can maintain the necessary expertise across the board. Expertise is not an imperishable commodity stored in a national vault, but the cumulative experience of particular people over finite careers working on real projects. While the US shipbuilding situation is not directly comparable, the same basic issue faces it too. I used to work in that industry (pretty long ago) and one sad and frustrating thing I used to see and hear, and still do following the industry, is all the things "we have the expertise in", that in fact hadn't been done in US yards in a long time and the expertise had actually walked out the door to retirement or greener pastures long ago. Then, *suprise*, big problems getting certain stuff built at reasonable cost. However, the sole customer for US naval building is a lot bigger than the RN, and the US has protectionist policies that require some merchant shipbuilding in the US regardless of cost. In fact it applies to most Western countries' naval shipbuilding. Even recent deals by the three countries with most of the recent export success (France, Spain and Germany) illustrate the limitations of modern export warship building to support an industrial base: often lead units only, or just design, is exported. And while Japan won't export warships, Korea will. For the timebeing though, the Spanish industry is in a relatively favorable position in this niche of shipbuilding. Joe Edited July 6, 2007 by JOE BRENNAN
Ken Estes Posted July 6, 2007 Posted July 6, 2007 Who TF would be using a BARV these days? Nobody is operating attack transports anymore, launching dozens of LCVPs to broach and clog up beaches. In the USN/USMC, the LC are almost all air cushion craft. When one of them goes down, you call in the civilian scrapper and make a quick deal. There is no recovery if the thing cannot be revived on a beach. No, with dozers, AAV-7R and M88A2 vehicles, there is plenty of heavy equipment to handle the occasional LCM-8 or rare LCU in trouble. I have been in the field with Spanish naval infantry and Spanish legionairres. This was in the early 90s when the former were 15 month conscripts and the latter only 50% volunteers. In each case, the training and tactical abilities matched what we were [inter]operating side by side with them, the USMC infantry battalions. The Spanish naval infantry have the same experience with amphibious vehicles as the USMC [also tanks] in the amphibious operation for the last 45 years, helicopterborne since the mid-80s. The Sp Legion has operated light AFV and helicopterborne infantry since the 50s & 80s. Both these organizations qualify as shock troops capable of executing assault landings in the face of any level of opposition. If you doubt it, spend some time with them; you will see. Spanish towed 155mm in coast defense? Since they have operated modern CD weapons of all calibers since the late 1890s and continue to have a professional CD branch in their artillery arm, I'd bet that these long barrel 155mm guns are highly suited for quick movement into positions, coupled with the latest radar-directed automatic fire direction, integrated with the SSM they are also fielding to replace their vintage fixed CD fortifications. If one is looking for experience, they have it. One could learn much from them. All this talk of fighting serious opponents in the past 50 years leaves me a little cold. Outside of the US vs. No Vietnam, I see no conventional conflicts in which both sides managed a standup fight for more than several days. The issue was usually decided earlier [when one side collapsed]. Insurgencies, of course, are a totally different fight. There, the Spanish, French, Portugese, So. Africans & Russians had most of the experience, until the US fell into Iraq. Most forces had some police work to do during that period, of course, but these cannot be considered serious military opponents or even [perhaps] operations.
swerve Posted July 6, 2007 Posted July 6, 2007 And when was the last time a first hand warship larger than a patrol boat was sold abroad by a UK builder?... 1972! Not quite that bad, but not good. VT is doing OK in the market for small warships & coastguard patrol vessels, though it can't build anything big. As well as some FAC for Greece (design: building in Greece, IIRC) & 3 3 real OPVs (90 metres, not little patrol boats) for Trinidad, it has an order for 3 "offshore patrol vessels"/small frigates for Oman at the moment, & Govan is still building frigates for Malaysia, & built the famously rejected Brunei so-called OPVs. At least that seems to have been a Brunei cock-up rather than Govans: Brunei has accepted the court ruling that it must pay in full. Otherwise Govan, like Barrow, has built for the RN only for a while now. Swan Hunter closed down because it proved itself no longer capable of building ships, with its last incomplete ship having to be towed to Govan for remedial work & finishing. Barrow had to re-learn (expensively) how to build submarines for Astute. Only one firm, with two yards, capable of building ships bigger than a small frigate. Depressing.
sunday Posted July 6, 2007 Posted July 6, 2007 Bloody cool. I didn't know anybody still employed capital coastal defense guns. Well, so you could imagine how did I feel when a coworker of mine said to me that he had served his conscripted service in one of the batteries operating those monsters. As I known of the decommissioning of similar units in Cartagena and Minorca, I thought the Tarifa ones were also decommed, but not. In fact that was a ironic jab showing some critics don't research enough to base their arguments properly. Anyway, It could be an idea for an European I&I in Southern Spain. But knowing when the firing exercises happen won't be easy. Otherwise I think the debate on Spanish amphibious competency should be in the happy little place of vanilla skies where people talk about 8" NGFS, the yankee occupation of Dixie, the sinister ways of Airbus and self-selected slut diseases all day. Well, it's better than the nth thread about Iowa vs. Bismarck, Tomcat vs. Super Hornet, or Sherman vs. whatever, perhaps. And positively better than dog flatulence
Jim Martin Posted July 7, 2007 Posted July 7, 2007 Well, so you could imagine how did I feel when a coworker of mine said to me that he had served his conscripted service in one of the batteries operating those monsters. As I known of the decommissioning of similar units in Cartagena and Minorca, I thought the Tarifa ones were also decommed, but not. In fact that was a ironic jab showing some critics don't research enough to base their arguments properly. I would pay good money for a plane ticket to Spain in order to see 16" guns fire....
RETAC21 Posted July 7, 2007 Posted July 7, 2007 I would pay good money for a plane ticket to Spain in order to see 16" guns fire.... not so Mr. Picky: 15" guns... IIRC Ken mentioned the last battery was decomm this spring.
seahawk Posted July 7, 2007 Posted July 7, 2007 not so Mr. Picky: 15" guns... IIRC Ken mentioned the last battery was decomm this spring. Can those emplacements been visited and where in Spain are they exactly ? Might be a thing to put on my "to do in Spain" list.
Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo Posted July 7, 2007 Posted July 7, 2007 Can those emplacements been visited and where in Spain are they exactly ? Might be a thing to put on my "to do in Spain" list. The operational ones in the Gibraltar Straits area MAY be visited if the Spanish MoD is asked politey..... There`s a decomm battery part of a public park near La Coruña where two Vickers 15/45in guns can be visited. The area around Cartagena is worth visiting too, while there`s a small coastal defence arty museum in the Balearic Islands which IIRC includes a twin 12in turret
RETAC21 Posted July 7, 2007 Posted July 7, 2007 Can those emplacements been visited and where in Spain are they exactly ? Might be a thing to put on my "to do in Spain" list. I don't think you can visit the active ones, but there's one in Menorca that is part of the military museum and another in Ferrol that can be visited. Those in Mallorca and Cartagena are accesible but may have been scrapped totally or partially: http://personales.ya.com/amonio/canon_381_45.htm In Palma de Mallorca there's a coastal artillery museum that is worthy of visiting. Sadly I missed it the times I have been there. At Algeciras, the former installations are being used as illegal immigrant housings so some of the pieces there would probably be available for visits.
seahawk Posted July 7, 2007 Posted July 7, 2007 Thx for the info about Palm de Mallorca, that should be easy to make possible for a German.
nigelfe Posted July 9, 2007 Posted July 9, 2007 Amusingly Swan Hunter was/is owned by Kvaerner, a Norwgian coy who have a good record in bulding seriously large and complex maritime structures. The Straits of Gibralter can be secured by only one nation, the one that legally occuppies Gibralter, although they seem to have withdrawn their ASMs a while ago and the heavy guns were removed 50 years ago. Still that fact that Spain is only 50 years behind the times is reassuring :-) , actually I believe the Spanish heavy coast btys are open to visitors and well worth a look to find out what the old world was like (I read a piece a few years ago by an old coast gunner who waxed nostalga over them). In fairness the Swedes use mobile coast guns but they had good reason in the Baltic (and during the Cold War the Norwegians maintained ex German very heavy btys in the deep north), but in Spain - in the 21st C - where's the threat? As I previously said Spanish military thinking must be light years in the past. The Spanish navy also needs lessons from the RAN in dealing with economic refugees in boats. Of course the problem with naval shipbuilding is that its old heavy industry and something modern economies should really be getting out of. Unfortunately all too often they are in constituencies held by the political left and we all know how conservative they are. Aust defence policy has 3 parts: Defence of Aust - basically dominating the sea-air gap to the north andmopping up anything that gets ashore. No much use for landing ships(particularly big ones) and AWDs are probably not good value for money(more submarines and longer range AA msls, even somthing Patriot like, would be better). However, ABM potential may have been the decider. The Arc of Instability - really only heavy policing, but alwayswith the consent of the local govt (or UN in extremis). Of courseintelligence will always hedge their bets with the possibility of 'rogueelements'. Basically a sea and air transport job, generally throughexisting ports/airfields, heavy equipment (if any - MBTs are not needed)may have to go ashore by landing craft. In essence these are logisticlanding operations close to population centres, requirement is logisticshipping able to deliver over the beach or temporary heavy jetty ifunavoidable and something from which to fly helis. AWDs are irrelevant. Operations with Allies - on past and present form these will be lowrisk for Aust forces, force protection and casualty minimisation willrule. High risk ops such as amphibious assaults are not on this agenda. AWDs might be useful tokenism. Equipment (vehs, containers) transportsinto a secured port needed to complement airlift. Commercial Ro-Rowould be the most cost effective solution. As I said wayback, the Spanish ships are fancy transports, which sumsthem up. Unnecessary features for logistic ships (eg ski jump). At theother extreme insufficient heli and LC for the number of troops andvehicles to disembark in anything like a respectable time for an amphassault. Also grave doubts about Spanish competence to design goodoperating amph ships due to lack of experience, of course adequate may be sufficient and limited heli and LC mean internal efficiency may not be too important. To suggest otherwisepins hope on a lot of positive assumptions. Positive assumptions alltoo often result in distress. The RAN's problem is that they decided on 2 identical large ships, thereasons are unclear but probably based on crew numbers and whole lifecosts. The problem is there isn't much (any?) affordable choice. Ofcourse their other problem is not having a fleet auxiliary and having totreat logistic ships as 'warships' operated by expensive 'real' sailors.
swerve Posted July 9, 2007 Posted July 9, 2007 ... At theother extreme insufficient heli and LC for the number of troops andvehicles to disembark in anything like a respectable time for an amphassault. ... As has been pointed out to you a few times already, if this is true of the BPE then it is also true of all the RN amphibious ships, which you have previously stated as being the models to be emulated. The BPE matches them in offload capability in relation to troops & vehicles carried.
Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo Posted July 9, 2007 Posted July 9, 2007 Nigel, please stop putting your face into the mud once again. Be sure nobody will react to your childish insults against Spain and his soverignty over the Gibraltar straits area. Besides, looks like your are starting to contradict yourself in your clueless attempt to denigrate the Australian option buying Spanish ships
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now