|
quote:Royal Navy warship HMS Richmond has decisively flexed her warfighting muscle with the successful firing of two Sea Wolf surface-to-air missiles during a training exercise. Immensely powerful and capable, the firings prove the Portsmouth-based frigate’s ability to track and destroy a sea-skimming target the size of a cricket ball travelling at supersonic speeds. Thank the Queen it can hit a cricket ball, in case a vigorous test with the Pakis gets out of hand and their bowlers start hurling googlies the Brits won't get caught on a sticky wicket Range of 6 kilometers, woo. I remember back from playing Strike Fleet on the old ][e how the Brit ships never seemed to have any viable anti-air defense, guess that's not changing any time soon. Makes you wonder how we rope half the world into buying the F-35 when it doesn't at all suit their needs, but we can't get anyone but the Japs and the Koreans to buy Aegis ships and SM2s.
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 03:38 |
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Thank the Queen it can hit a cricket ball, in case a vigorous test with the Pakis gets out of hand and their bowlers start hurling googlies the Brits won't get caught on a sticky wicket The big thing is radar cross section, proximity to the ship, and speed. All of which are things that ASCM's excel at, and which Ship board self defense is geared around. Successful engagement of things that exist that can blow up large ships is a pretty big deal.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 00:43
|
|
|
SquirrelyPSU posted:The big thing is radar cross section, proximity to the ship, and speed. All of which are things that ASCM's excel at, and which Ship board self defense is geared around. Successful engagement of things that exist that can blow up large ships is a pretty big deal. The cricket ball thing was a joke, and your statement is correct. Nevertheless it means the ship's anti-air capabilities are essentially point-defense. It's a heck of a lot nicer to have a more standoff capability to threaten aircraft before they're able to launch ASCMs, or at least shoot them down after launch so they don't just rearm and come back. The Brit naval losses to air strikes in the Falklands you would think would have lit a fire under their rear end about air defense, and the Type 45 destroyer is definitely a step in the right direction, but the Brits are only building 6 of them. Their frigates are far more likely to be operating outside of air cover than an American equivalent, and even the next-gen Global Combat Ship / Common Anti-Air Modular Missile still doesn't have the reach to threaten incoming attack aircraft.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:The cricket ball thing was a joke, and your statement is correct. Nevertheless it means the ship's anti-air capabilities are essentially point-defense. It's a heck of a lot nicer to have a more standoff capability to threaten aircraft before they're able to launch ASCMs, or at least shoot them down after launch so they don't just rearm and come back. The Brit naval losses to air strikes in the Falklands you would think would have lit a fire under their rear end about air defense, and the Type 45 destroyer is definitely a step in the right direction, but the Brits are only building 6 of them. Their frigates are far more likely to be operating outside of air cover than an American equivalent, and even the next-gen Global Combat Ship / Common Anti-Air Modular Missile still doesn't have the reach to threaten incoming attack aircraft. Just count that up to joke over head I suppose.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 01:06
|
|
|
SquirrelyPSU posted:Just count that up to joke over head I suppose. It's ok it had a really narrow cross-section
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 01:07
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Range of 6 kilometers, woo. I remember back from playing Strike Fleet on the old ][e how the Brit ships never seemed to have any viable anti-air defense, guess that's not changing any time soon. Makes you wonder how we rope half the world into buying the F-35 when it doesn't at all suit their needs, but we can't get anyone but the Japs and the Koreans to buy Aegis ships and SM2s. I think the Type 45 is a pretty capable fleet air defence solution.  e: ah i see you mentioned it after i started typing this
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 01:09
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:The cricket ball thing was a joke, and your statement is correct. Nevertheless it means the ship's anti-air capabilities are essentially point-defense. It's a heck of a lot nicer to have a more standoff capability to threaten aircraft before they're able to launch ASCMs, or at least shoot them down after launch so they don't just rearm and come back. The Brit naval losses to air strikes in the Falklands you would think would have lit a fire under their rear end about air defense, and the Type 45 destroyer is definitely a step in the right direction, but the Brits are only building 6 of them. Their frigates are far more likely to be operating outside of air cover than an American equivalent, and even the next-gen Global Combat Ship / Common Anti-Air Modular Missile still doesn't have the reach to threaten incoming attack aircraft. I think the main issue is that we (pretty much all non-US NATO) can't rely on having AWACS coverage, and you can't engage what you can't see. Then it makes more sense to have smaller, shorter ranged, but presumably more noumerous and manouverable missiles so you have the best possible chance of shooting down what you can engage. I had this discussion regarding the Norwegian Fridtjof Nansen class FFGs and the decission to go with ESSM instead of SM-2. It has an 8-cell Mk 41 VLS with room in the design to retrofit another. With ESSM you can fit 4 missiles in each cell, so it carries 32 ESSM where it could only fit 8 SM-2s. I argued that the ship is useless in the air defence role for anything but convoy escort and self defense, and an easy fix would be to install the other mk 41 and put SM-2s in it, but was met with the argument that ESSM has an efective engagement envelope pretty much to the radar horizon of its mothership, and as such any more range is useless. So gently caress all the Links, we're not even pretending to be able to shoot at something sombody else can see. Unless of course we're talking about the new Naval Strike Missile, then the 120 nm range is all cool. 
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
Am I ridiculously late to the party by saying that the trailer for Stalingrad looks loving awesome? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Da3EgZUA0Y
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 03:05
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:Am I ridiculously late to the party by saying that the trailer for Stalingrad looks loving awesome? I came.
|
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 03:57
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:Am I ridiculously late to the party by saying that the trailer for Stalingrad looks loving awesome? 
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 04:00
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 05:00
|
|
|
Is that airsoft or what?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 05:02
|
|
Godholio posted:Is that airsoft or what? I was about to agree with you, but the trailers in the background + the hands in the pocket make me think its just a faggy SF dude trying to be funny or even worse not be funny.
|
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 05:12
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEs8j4_hrUY
|
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 05:13
|
|
|
Just looks like a regular dude. Trailers in the back, lovely paint pen number on the buttstock, and the bird cage on the stryker/bradley all point to legit to me. I don't know who would get to use sweet mags like that though.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 05:14
|
|
rockamiclikeavandal posted:Just looks like a regular dude. Trailers in the back, lovely paint pen number on the buttstock, and the bird cage on the stryker/bradley all point to legit to me. I don't know who would get to use sweet mags like that though. anyone who buys sweet mags like that?
|
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 05:16
|
|
|
Yeah that or someone who had a cooler platoon sergeant than me. So pretty much everyone.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 05:17
|
|
|
rockamiclikeavandal posted:Just looks like a regular dude. Trailers in the back, lovely paint pen number on the buttstock, and the bird cage on the stryker/bradley all point to legit to me. I don't know who would get to use sweet mags like that though. Clean uniform, windowed PMAGs, rifle that's not covered in wear marks...just seemed too nice. What's with the glowsticks, is that a thing?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 05:18
|
|
Godholio posted:Clean uniform, windowed PMAGs, rifle that's not covered in wear marks...just seemed too nice. Judging by the ID holder on his left forearm I'd say he's trying to be funny. Impersonating fobbits maybe? I dunno, the haircut looked SF as gently caress to me at first but maybe not.
|
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 05:19
|
|
|
Getting a strong ranger vibe from that one. I would say around 08 time frame.Godholio posted:
Marking things. 8lbsofanalsex fucked around with this message at 05:25 on May 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 05:21
|
|
|
His sleeves confuse me. Also, TWO watches?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 05:23
|
|
|
Yo that guy was KIA show some loving respect you pogues.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 05:24
|
|
|
8lbsofanalsex posted:Getting a strong ranger vibe from that one What, like throwing them at something?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 05:24
|
|
|
Sleeves are so it's easier to put on gloves plus it gets some air up there plus it looks cool. Second watch could be a gps. I always wore one of those garmin wrist gps units.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 05:26
|
|
Godholio posted:What, like throwing them at something? marking poo poo for various reasons vains fucked around with this message at 05:37 on May 13, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 05:27
|
|
|
Carteret posted:His sleeves confuse me. Also, TWO watches? One could be a GPS. I knew I had seen that somewhere before and knowing that I'm pretty sure it somewhere on facebook. Godholio posted:What, like throwing them at something? Yeah, used for marking things on objective. Not sure if it's opsec so I'm not gonna any further than that.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 05:30
|
|
|
8lbsofanalsex posted:One could be a GPS. There's some guy who was pretending to be a ranger or something that used that pic, that's where I know it from. The real dudes that knew the guy in the pic found out about it or something http://www.thesandgram.com/2012/07/19/tito-rodriguez-and-his-fake-johnson/
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 05:33
|
|
|
That sounds really familiar so that was probably it.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 05:43
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:Am I ridiculously late to the party by saying that the trailer for Stalingrad looks loving awesome? Music is awful, can't wait to see how the politics are handled, but man, that vid's comments section is a goldmine Caconym posted:I think the main issue is that we (pretty much all non-US NATO) can't rely on having AWACS coverage, and you can't engage what you can't see. Then it makes more sense to have smaller, shorter ranged, but presumably more noumerous and manouverable missiles so you have the best possible chance of shooting down what you can engage. The obvious difference here is that outside of a NATO operation the Norwegians have no meaningful reason to project sea power far from home, whereas the English have interests outside the NATO/EU sphere. This includes potentially having to re-fight the Falklands War, and lord knows whether they'll have air cover or not. The Type 45 destroyer + Aster 30 becomes their fleet anti-air defense; as stated before they're only building six so at best maybe 4 will be deployable, and as in the first Falklands War you can bet they'll be top of the targets list. They need to operate in a hostile environment far from resupply for extended periods (the Brits had a bitch of a time with logistics back in '82 and a future war would likely be worse) and only 4 ships with middling magazines are going to struggle. The shorter your missile range is, the closer to the threat you have to position your AA destroyers, and the more likely you'll have to burst fire against incoming targets in case of a miss, which consumes your magazine faster. It would really help the destroyers out if the frigates had more firepower to assist. The Norwegians, I'm really not sure what their contemporary naval threats are, but regarding the NSM it's not a physically large missile, and for anti-ship / surface strike any unused fuel essentially adds to the warhead - anti-air doesn't really work that way.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 05:48
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 07:04
|
|
|
^^^^^ What's with the red tip? It wasn't quite phallic enough already? Snowdens Secret posted:[Sensible stuff] Threat is still Russia. The Kuznetsov CVBG sailed right through the oil fields while carying out air ops close enough that all helicopter ops to and from the platforms had to be canceled a couple of years ago, and bears and backfires have begun making dummy attack runs on Bodø air base from international airspace again. Nansens primary role is AA/ASW to allow safe passage for you lot when you deploy from the forward depots in Trøndelag to the front in the north. ASUW is a secondary concern for them really. We have the Skjold class for that (and possibly F-35s with JSMs).
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 07:35
|
|
|
Caconym posted:^^^^^ Matched their hats
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 07:39
|
|
|
Dear countries, please have national colors that are not Red/White/Blue and Red/Green/White/Black. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 08:04
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:Am I ridiculously late to the party by saying that the trailer for Stalingrad looks loving awesome? Thomas Kretschmann  But cardboard tank mockups, cheesy love-story and non-stop masturbatory 3D cinematography? Stalingrad depictions need to be harrowing, gritty and grimy as all gently caress. So much so that you start gnawing on your seatneighbor's frostbitten flesh for sustenance mid-movie without noticing and never go to the restroom lest the usher shoot you in the back on the way out. poo poo needs to be so traumatizing that teenagers tell their grandkids about watching it in 60 years with quivering lips and shaking hands. And there's already a good Stalingrad movie that stars Kretschmann.  Basically, when it comes to Stalingrad movies, let germans show you how it's done:  Okay, it's a russian production and I'm a retard. Duzzy Funlop fucked around with this message at 08:15 on May 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 08:05
|
|
|
Vasudus posted:Dear countries, please have national colors that are not Red/White/Blue and Red/Green/White/Black. Thanks. In the case of India it's actually orange/white/green. I think that photog just got carried away with the red saturation boost. Also found on the Indian flag wiki page: quote:The flag, by law, is to be made of khadi, a special type of hand-spun cloth of cotton or silk made popular by Mahatma Gandhi. The manufacturing process and specifications for the flag are laid out by the Bureau of Indian Standards. The right to manufacture the flag is held by the Khadi Development and Village Industries Commission, who allocate it to the regional groups. As of 2009, the Karnataka Khadi Gramodyoga Samyukta Sangha was the sole manufacturer of the flag. Man, even the flag in India is a product of bureaucracy and graft
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 08:14
|
|
|
Duzzy Funlop posted:And there's already a good Stalingrad movie that stars Kretschmann. That was an over-hyped piece of crap. I don't know why people praise it so much. Here's the bosch raising their flag over... Winnipeg? 
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 14:07
|
|
|
 Just chillin'.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 17:50
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:This includes potentially having to re-fight the Falklands War, and lord knows whether they'll have air cover or not. There are Eurofighters stationed on the Falklands. Unless we are talking about decades down the line, Argentina is in no shape currently or the near future to fight over the Falklands again.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
But I mean what were they thinking the first time? That they'd win?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 03:38 |
|
|
Christoff posted:But I mean what were they thinking the first time? That they'd win? They were ruled by an unpopular and bellicose military junta and not a representative democracy?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 21:19
|
|