I lost another complete (and long) blog post text (it only missed illustrations) because of the idiotic CTRL-Z bug in Blogger that leads to the whole draft turning blank. -.-
Now the topic (field artillery calibre choice/reasoning from Interwar Years to mid Cold War) might never be rewritten.
- - - - -
And this is why radio command-guided missiles are essentially 19th century technology!
edit: It was an embedded video about Tesla's radio-controlled boat. Here's another link: youtube.com/watch?v=oQyaI7Bt1Ig
- - - - -
 |
Most military-themed journals should follow suit.
- - - - -
twitter.com/jsrailton/status/1439545705765408771
twitter.com/ASLuhn/status/1440219181979295744
All the idiots who think Putin is a good politician should pay close attention.
- - - - -
politico.com/news/magazine/2021/09/11/9-11-america-spycraft-510880
Thanks, Captain Obvious. An intelligence service should not play air force and a military should not play diplomatic service. Such transgressions are symptoms of bureaucracies mission creeping to because they want more, more, more (!) for themselves.
- - - - -
 | ||
| It's exaggerating a bit. |
- - - - -
duffelblog.com/p/taliban-fighters-enjoy-success-with
People without military experience don't understand that armed forces don't destroy what they leave behind, they make it useless by sabotaging or removing critical parts. The TB surely took a lot of useful stuff, but the rather high tech stuff was either removed (lots of aircraft were flown to other countries) or often rendered useless.
A historical analogy is that the gun crews of (bronze barrel) artillery in 18th century field battles nailed the ignition ports of their guns to make them useless when they were about to be overrun. They did not overcharge the gun to blow up the entire barrel for dramatic effect and obvious destruction.
- - - - -
It appears that the M3 Amphibie is still a very competitive design.
- - - - -
 | |
| I don't know what's wrong with the Finns, French and Hungarians, but I suspect the hatemongering and blameshifting left a trace in Greece. |
- - - - -
I still don't understand what they want submarines for. Subs seem like a very unreliable and single mission tool, quite a mismatch to their needs.
edit:
BTW, it's completely understandable that the Aussies cancelled the submarines contract. It's not understandable that they signed it in the first place.
Even ASSUMING that having many submarines would make sense for them, the price was ludicrous from the beginning.
compare
https://defence-blog.com/south-korea-launches-new-3000-ton-class-submarine/
The South Koreans could at least produce 30 submarines instead of 12 for the original budget of that Aussie-French order. I strongly suppose that going for a known or only slightly modified design would permit 50+ submarines to fit into that original budget. The French arms industry deserved that cancellation.
And going for SSNs (which are known to cost USD 2.5...2.9 bn for the USN) is only going to fixate that excessive price tag. Plus the cost for the extra facilities and training will be extreme, too.
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/south-korea-nuclear-submarines-not-worth-cost
- - - - -
[German] heise.de/news/Spyware-Skandal-BKA-soll-Pegasus-gekauft-haben-6184180.html
[German] science.orf.at/stories/3208588/?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-de-DE
S O
An argument for the Australian submarines can be made that if part of the country gets in part occupied for resource extraction, the success of these measures can be denied by attacking the shipping. If the US and China get into their shooting contest over Taiwan and world hegemony, I would expect China to occupy parts of Southeast Asia similar to Japan during WWII. Australia would be a natural extension of such a move.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that in the EU Germany is one of the countries that would do something for the team, but many members of the team wouldn't do something for Germany.
Southeast Asia, especially the maritime part, has a geography for trade similar to Europe and the Mediterranean, but no such development of ship to ship combat such as rams, spurs that can capsize ships and heavy cannon broadsides. Their naval warfare stayed with coastal raids and boarding. Any idea why?
Good luck getting your deleted article back. If you still have everything in your head, you might even be able to improve it during the rewrite.
Air power dominates the sea's surface. Submarines have a piss-poor chance of finding other submarines unless they are in confined and crowded waters - which would be within reach of land-based ASW such as ASW helos of one party.
DeleteAustralia could make a good case for buying hundreds of anti-ship and long-range anti-radar missiles (could be launched from transport aircraft at safe distance) and long-range fighters that enable anti-shipping air strikes.
Australian submarines are toys for their admirals.
Our 8 - count them - 8 subs would need to be in the right place at the right time to be much use as hunter-killer types.
DeleteThey are a sacrifice on the altar of interoperability with the US. Just like the Abrams we stupidly bought off them that we're not allowed to do maintenance on.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSouth Korea and Australia trying to arm themselves with nuclear powered submarines also means that they have technology handling enriched uranium, which Iran is prevented from doing. Add to the mix that Germany is helping to build the new missile for the French subs and there emerges a general trend towards increased nuclear breakout capability. We no longer live in the first nuclear age, where MAD of the population was expected, but in the second nuclear age where China and India play more of a role with their second strike doctrine and a possible nuclear use on limited military targets (at sea). A possible use I found discussed in science fiction is fighting satellites via nuclear submarines that can power high energy surface weapons.
DeleteCan nuclear powered submarines serve other capability acquisition than those directed against ships?
No that's not what it means and SK explicitly does not want nuclear subs. They have a posture of 'we could get and deliver our own nukes if we need our own nuclear deterrence' to motivate the U.S. to extend its nuclear umbrella to SK.
DeleteOperating a nuclear submarine does not require anything with enriched uranium. These subs can be built to not need a refill for 30 to 40 years. In fact, even the reactor control operators might be Americans on Aussie boats for many years after commissioning. Foreign nationals (exchange officers and such) serving on warships is ordinary anyway.
There's a recurring myth about submarines as intelligence gatherers, but most intelligence they gather is only relevant to themselves and at most ASW.
I wonder in any case how much IP transfer there will be with the "Aussie Nukes" program.
DeleteTraining, spare parts, manuals - but absolutely no need for IP transfer from the American point of view. Most electronics will be black boxes to the Australians.
DeleteI see your point.
Delete"Air power dominates the sea's surface."
DeleteI hear this a lot. May I ask why? Is it because of mobility advantage of aircraft?
Single engine F-16s flew bombing missions from an airbase in Kuwait to Afghanistan in 2001/2002.
Deletehttps://www.rcinet.ca/en/2020/04/17/on-this-day-canada-history-april-17-2002-afghan-tragedy-im-rollin-in/
Look at a map of the globe and you'll see what this means regarding reach. An airbase on the Azores could dominate the North Atlantic Ocean.
Air power has the easiest job to find, classify and even identify ships on the surface. No other perspective has that good a view and such a range.
Air power can mass up to strike targets at sea. All tactical aircraft of Europe that have refuelling probes could join up in a strike package against a convoy in the North or Mid Atlantic. The time to muster such a force would be maybe two days. Submarines - even SSNs - wouldn't even be able to sprint into position if they are cruising recklessly fast.
The anti-missile defences of even anti-air destroyers are easily depleted. A destroyer costs without its munitions well over USD 1 bn, and even with a probability of kill of 1 (100%) its defences would not suffice to stop missile attacks costing USD 200 million. In practice, it would likely be defeated by missile attacks costing on the order of USD 20...50 million. AAW ships are a useful last line of defence against what penetrated an outer defence layer of fighters or against very weak attacks. The are powerless against truly powerful determined attacks.
Moreover, only the SM-6 missile offers a chance to attack some attacking aircraft (and not those with really long-ranged anti-ship missiles). Other missiles lack the range or the non-line of sight ability to defend. A merely SM-2 missile-equipped AEGIS destroyer of today would not be able to engage the 1970's tech Super Étendard aircraft in its attack profile that sank the HMS Sheffield in the Falklands conflict.
Air/sea attacks are not limited to various anti-ship missiles. Anti-radar missiles of long rnage are also important for it, and damaged or poorly defended ships get sunk even by dumb bombs.
For details, see parts III and IV here:
https://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2018/01/modern-warships-i-introduction.html
So Putin resorts to increasingly obvious measures of fraud to stay in power. He also gets older every day, creating a biological term limit for him. What are the chances for a different policy by Russia after Putin?
ReplyDeleteTesla's boat is ingenious, what prevented it being turned into a guided torpedo?
Guided torpedoes before Tesla's boat, but with cable.
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brennan_torpedo
Siemens had a wire-guided boat even a few years before the Brennan torpedo.
https://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2009/02/precision-munitions-history.html