Lionnoisy's War against Everything Australian: Hobart DDGs
-
I think lionnoisy is seriously talking rubbish, firstly he seems to think that SSK operations means running as much as possible of your submarine force out at sea at all times to counter "anyday, anytime, anyhow" threats that will mysteriously appear in the million of square kilometers of ocean.
There are plenty of issues to this logic. First and foremost SSKs are unable to travel at speed for any extended period of time underwater due to battery limitations, even AIP does not solve this issue. The most efficent way for SSKs to travel hidden is to move along at relatively low speeds, but this means that they are little more then mobile minefields.
The other method is to use the diesel on the surface or by snorkeling, but this means that the sub itself will be extremely vulnerable and noisy, as well as being practically useless and unable to fight.
Hence lionnoisy's ideas of needing to have as many subs out at sea as possible is totally daft, the obvious wasteage of fuel, time and equipment wear aside, SSKs are unable to cover much ground due to their limitations by randomly patrolling.. The correct way to use SSKs is to know where to expect your target (or better, know where it is) and then move your sub into the area with plenty of time to spare.
This is also the reason many modern SSK designs are limited to coastal or shallow water operations while SSNs handle the blue water stuff. And all this affects our RSN submarines as well, certainly more then the RAN given our subs are far less advanced.
Hence it is no surprise that SSKs spend plenty of time in dock, and are only used as and when they are needed. lionnoisy's idea that being in dock being a bad thing is simply daft. It is truly stupid to run your subs around and wear out their batteries, and then spend millions replacing them when normal surface combatants can be used for that role.
The reason the Collins class was such an engineering marvel was that is is the world's first blue water submarine that has significant endurance and firepower, as well as being able to hold it's own against SSNs, which is quite an amazing feat for a diesel electric.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
I think lionnoisy is seriously talking rubbish, firstly he seems to think that SSK operations means running as much as possible of your submarine force out at sea at all times to counter "anyday, anytime, anyhow" threats that will mysteriously appear in the million of square kilometers of ocean.
There are plenty of issues to this logic. First and foremost SSKs are unable to travel at speed for any extended period of time underwater due to battery limitations, even AIP does not solve this issue. The most efficent way for SSKs to travel hidden is to move along at relatively low speeds, but this means that they are little more then mobile minefields.
The other method is to use the diesel on the surface or by snorkeling, but this means that the sub itself will be extremely vulnerable and noisy, as well as being practically useless and unable to fight.
Hence lionnoisy's ideas of needing to have as many subs out at sea as possible is totally daft, the obvious wasteage of fuel, time and equipment wear aside, SSKs are unable to cover much ground due to their limitations by randomly patrolling.. The correct way to use SSKs is to know where to expect your target (or better, know where it is) and then move your sub into the area with plenty of time to spare.
This is also the reason many modern SSK designs are limited to coastal or shallow water operations while SSNs handle the blue water stuff. And all this affects our RSN submarines as well, certainly more then the RAN given our subs are far less advanced.
Hence it is no surprise that SSKs spend plenty of time in dock, and are only used as and when they are needed. lionnoisy's idea that being in dock being a bad thing is simply daft. It is truly stupid to run your subs around and wear out their batteries, and then spend millions replacing them when normal surface combatants can be used for that role.
The reason the Collins class was such an engineering marvel was that is is the world's first blue water submarine that has significant endurance and firepower, as well as being able to hold it's own against SSNs, which is quite an amazing feat for a diesel electric.
The other method is to use the diesel on the surface or by snorkeling, but this means that the sub itself will be extremely vulnerable and noisy, as well as being practically useless and unable to fight.
Sounds familiar. A particular noisy person I know.
-
Tx u two great responses.
I invite all military nuts,and folks interested in project management,
ship building,democracy and corruptions to monitor
the progress of this AWD project.
Just the design costs a bomb:
Defence Capability Plan | 2006 - 2016
DOD,Australia Government
SEA 4000 Phase 1C Air Warfare Destroyer Study $10m to $20m
SEA 4000 Phase 2 Air Warfare Destroyer – Design Activity $450m to $600m2.Why the US company involve again,after the more modern
looking version dropped by Oz?
G&C AWARDED AN ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT BY NAVANTIA SUPPORTING DESIGN OF THE AUSTRALIAN AIR WARFARE DESTROYER
Navantia S.A. has awarded Gibbs & Cox, Inc. an engineering services contract to support Navantia’s design of the Australian Air Warfare Destroyer. A multidisciplinary team from our Engineering Services Group will take part in a one-year assignment as integral members of Navantia’s Engineering Delegation
http://www.gibbscox.com/news.htm?id=45
-
Wow, suddenly he shuts up about the Collins when he is cornered and exposed and goes back to AWD.
Talk about flip flopping his way around.
-
I don't know what with his hatred for Australia.
Did some Australian potong jalan (stole) his girlfriend?
-
He just feels threatened I guess because his nationalistic ego is hurt by the fact that Australia is the top destination for people leaving Singapore.
This is why he needs to find each and every opportunity to convince himself that Australia is as bad as possible to feel good about himself.
Unfortunately, this is not really true patriotism, but actually an inferiority complex. Only a person who feels inferior sees the need to constantly say why others are inferior or less to them. True patriotism means being able to be proud of your country, as well as be a friend to other nations in the spirit of our values and country, not an tactless international clown that needs to bash each and every single nation in the world to feel great.
Seriously, he's a disgrace to Singapore.
-
If he wants to criticise others, he should first look at himself in the mirror first.
-
How can he? He is so busy trawling the internet for each and every unrelated crumb of information to spin his latest posts that he has no time for self-reflection. In fact I suspect he tries to avoid self-reflection, because he'll discover a lot of unhappy things about himself.
Seriously you would think he would have learnt some lessons on humility, honesty and intergity in here after he was exposed for using clones, but apparently he has not. In fact he has till now not dared to face up to any questions asked to him about the time he tried to use clones to decieve people on this forum to make it appear as if he had more support then he did.
In fact as usual, and the pattern is well established, whenever he is exposed, cornered and taken to task, he simply pulls a vanishing act and tries his best not to talk about it and then picks up some other cause and tries to pretend that nothing happened.
But seriously, he can pretend, but all of us in here can see it.
Is it any surprise that after 3 years in here he has show virtually no improvement in anything at all?
-
i say 52 weeks Full Cycle Docking mean the sub has to spend
the whole 52 weeks in dock.
U guys dunt believe.Nvm if any body knock on Oz door,
No SAF need to help.Just pull them back.
Look at Oz budget report:
http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/08-09/pbs/index.htm
page 79 (15 of 46)
The capability of the Collins class submarine systems continues to improve. However, Australia is in a region experiencing a proliferation of submarine and anti-submarine capabilities. Retention of submariners remains a significant challenge. Submarine capability enhancements will offer major improvements to warfighting capabilities, through continued development of the combat system, improved communications, sonar integration, and the introduction into service of a new heavyweight torpedo. Personnel risks will be mitigated through workforce sustainment plans and initiatives, including lateral recruiting from other defence forces.
Cancellation of the Super Seasprite helicopter project has had a significant impact on the aviation capability, particularly in the effectiveness of the Anzac class frigate/helicopter combination. Seahawk helicopters will carry the additional tasking burden until a replacement capability is introduced under project AIR 9000 Phase 8 - Future Naval Aviation Combat System.page 80 (16 of 46)
HMA Ships Sheean and Rankin will remain in full cycle
docking for all of 2008-09. HMAS Dechaineux will be in
full cycle docking until late 2008 and HMAS Collins will
commence mid-cycle docking in late 2008, with expected
completion in early 2009.
http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/08-09/pbs/index.htm
So,if u pretend not to see.What do to?
''HMA Ships Sheean and Rankin will remain in full cycle
docking for all of 2008-09.''
read in comjunction with ASC Annual Report 2007
then u can confirm:
,,
Scheduled Performance
During 2006/07, ASC performed 13 scheduled
maintenance activities, 11 of which were
required to be completed during the year. All
maintenance activities were completed on
time and on budget. The two outstanding
activities represent full-cycle dockings (major
refits) which will span into the next financial
period and are progressing well in accordance
with the agreed plan.
HMAS Waller was delivered to the Royal
Australian Navy (RAN) during the period,
following an intensive three-year, full-cycle
docking in South Australia, which included
Replacement Combat System and
Heavyweight Torpedo capability upgrades.(see the graphs below )
HMAS Dechaineux has also been docked
at our South Australian facility as she
undergoes her full-cycle docking which
commenced in April 2006.
HMAS Sheean arrived at our facility in February
2007 to undertake a pre full-cycle docking
preparation period prior to her scheduled major
refit commencement date.In 2006,40% time in dock:
In 2004/05,60 % spent in docks.
2003/04,55 % in dock
-
But I guess the funny part is that he posts a ton of posts thinking he can overwhelm people in here by the sheer volume of data and the shallow conclusions he draws from them, and all it usually takes is one or two posts to totally destroy his case.
Which is kind of funny, the prime example in here being him making a lot of noise about SSKs being in dock and all kinds of rubbish about how torpedos cannot be fired from within the dock when he did not even know anything about the nature of SSK operations and their limitations and the like.
Could have shut him down a lot quicker, but experince has shown that usually it's funnier and more productive to let him run his mouth off for a while and starting to gain some steam before simply debunking his entire case in one post, making him realize that he had just spent a lot of time and effort for nothing, simply because he didn't bother to do his homework.
But it's really funny, given that for a person who talks so much about naval combat recently, he really knows nuts about it and keeps wasting a lot of his time and energy making useless posts that are always destroyed with one or two replies.
-
Each Oz sub just sailed 97 days in 2006/2007.
Or 1.6 Oz sub ,on average ,sailed in any day 2006/2007.
Is it a standard shall be achieved by a First World country?
I dunt want to talk this sailing days or operational readiness
any more.There is more important lesson to be learnt.
2.Aussie industry query on the structure of AWD Alliance
I am think thinking hard who will be the over all in Charge of the Alliance
or the Project.It looks like Oz DMO is the leader.
But this Oz article seem telling me
more.The Alliance is a profit or loss sharing partners.
So who will calls the shot?Besides,there is no fixed cost of the contract,
at least at this moment!!
The burning question is the overall experience of Oz ship yards
in builing naval surface combatant ship!!
In Collins Sub,the first sub was built in /www.kockums.se
Oz ASC got a example to follow.Kockums is the one to deliver
the final product.
In AWD,the losing party Gibbs and Cox,who designed the Evolved
version,was contracted to help the winning party Navantia's
in the project of Existing version!!How funny it is.
3.Aegis combat system--Engineer chosen before the sys selected
Why did Oz do this? Aegis combat system is sold by
Lockheed Martin!!Aegis is the brain of overall combat sys.
But the Combat System - Systems Engineer is
Raytheon Australia!!
I dunt follow the rationale.
Can experts here,Like Sg Ty,tell me more.
http://www.ausawd.com/overview.html
''In April 2005 the Australian Government selected Raytheon Australia Pty Ltd as the Combat System - Systems Engineer, and in May 2005 selected ASC AWD Shipbuilder Pty Ltd as the Shipbuilder.''
http://www.militaryglobal.com/forum/index.php/topic,1342.0.html
Targeting the armada
Australia is about to spend $8 billion on three new warships. The navy wants the biggest ship. John Howard wants the US model. But the winner should be a cheaper and proven performer from Spain, writes Patrick Walters
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 19, 2007Targeting the armada
Walters is The Australian 's national security editor.
Australia is about to spend $8 billion on three new warships. The navy wants the biggest ship. John Howard wants the US model. But the winner should be a cheaper and proven performer from Spain, writes Patrick Walters
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 19, 2007In addition the DMO(lion note:governement agency@@@) has moved away from traditional prime contracts involving fixed-price agreements and embraced a wholly novel alliance contract model in which it becomes one of three core partners. ...
@@@@http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/lsp/awd.cfmDefence industry experts cite the DMO's alliance contract model and the combat system integration challenge as the two biggest long-term risks facing the project. The AWD Alliance partnership remains an uneasy embrace with no one player driving the multi-billion-dollar project.
In the past this would have been the shipbuilder acting as the prime contractor.
"It's an absolute shemozzle," says one of Australia's defence industry leaders of the alliance contract arrangements. "Nobody calls the shots. You can't run a contract like this with three or four parties acting as if it's a knitting club. ASC should be put in charge."
Under the alliance system the partners agree on profit margins and overheads, and jointly bear any losses. There are differences of opinion about the capacity of the DMO to bring together all the parties in a harmonious, wholly transparent arrangement. Some industry players also continue to question the wisdom of having Raytheon as an alliance partner, especially when it has to work so closely with arch-rival and Aegis system manufacturer Lockheed Martin.Among the many risks is that ASC has never built a surface warship.
4.i am sure u will learn a lot,good or bad,from this project
from first hand news.I suggest u monitor the progress at least monthly.
Dunt rely on history.
-
Dumbass aka lionnoisy, do you check the date of your sources? Some of the sources you posted are from 2000. The Collins are undergoing continuous upgrading, check the DMO website for details. Sub technology is developing so rapidly that Aust has chosen to do this to keep up to date.
As for the AWD, Aust chose the Spanish version rather than the evolved version of Gibbs and Cox due to cost and project risk. The Gibbs version is more powerful however with the savings a 4th AWD can and will be bought. This provides greater flexibility as 2 can patrol each ocean - Indian and Pacific.
-
Each Oz sub just sailed 97 days in 2006/2007.
Or 1.6 Oz sub ,on average ,sailed in any day 2006/2007.
Is it a standard shall be achieved by a First World country?
I dunt want to talk this sailing days or operational readiness
any more.There is more important lesson to be learnt.
You are still getting pretty funny.
We just gave you a very detailed report on how SSKs actually operate and you are still harping on how many days they sailed?
Your english comprehension fail ah?
For SSKs, time in dock, or how many days sailed have no impact on actual readiness level. SSKs are not vessels that you sail around just for the heck of it given their very specialized role as well as limitations. As it stands if actually needed the RAN is more then capable of mobilizing the most deadily conventional submarine force in the region.
How much more first world you want?
Do you think our own subs are sailing around everyday and doing ops related stuff? You will be sorely mistaken.
Prehaps the more important lesson to be learnt for you here is some basic comprehension instead of thinking that rewording your old and debunked arguments here will have any effect.
What's funnier is that you are now saying that you don't want to talk about sailing days or operational readiness after trying to make a hit and run post about it and thinking that there will be no reply?
As it stands, you still haven't answered our question. Due to the nature of SSK operations how on earth can you justify nonsense like trying to calcuate sailing days?
It is no surprise you don't want to talk about it, you know that you're running up a dead end.
Among the many risks is that ASC has never built a surface warship.
LOL, you even dare to try to bring this up?
They managed to build one of the worlds largest and most advanced SSKs, in terms of technological expertise that is way beyond ST marine. And developing and building SSKs is a far greater undertaking then a variant of a surface warship.
If anything, the fact that they consider this even a risk considering what they have achieved goes to show how careful they are going about this.
-
3.Aegis combat system--Engineer chosen before the sys selected
Why did Oz do this? Aegis combat system is sold by
Lockheed Martin!!Aegis is the brain of overall combat sys.
But the Combat System - Systems Engineer is
Raytheon Australia!!
I dunt follow the rationale.
Can experts here,Like Sg Ty,tell me more.
http://www.ausawd.com/overview.html
''In April 2005 the Australian Government selected Raytheon Australia Pty Ltd as the Combat System - Systems Engineer, and in May 2005 selected ASC AWD Shipbuilder Pty Ltd as the Shipbuilder.''
Talking nonsense again, if you even try to raise this question it means that you're just blindly asking questions without even bothering to use a bit of common sense in it.
Is Aegis trademarked by Lockheed Martin? Oh wait I am not surprised, despite being able to copy and paste so many things you don't seem to have a clue how it works given your plenty of nonsensical posts about Aegis ships needing to turn off their radar to maintain stealth and the like.
The entire Aegis system is currently developed by a whole host of different contractors, in fact Raytheon itself supplies a significant part of the system in the SM-3.
The Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System is a United States Department of Defense Missile Defense Agency program developed to provide a last line of defense against ballistic missiles. Aegis BMD (also know as Sea-Based Midcourse) is designed to intercept ballistic missiles post-boost phase and prior to reentry. It builds upon the Aegis Weapon System with the AN/SPY-1 radar and Standard missile technologies. Aegis BMD equipped vessels can transmit their target detection information to the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system, and/or engage potential threats using the SM-3.
The current system uses the Lockheed-Martin Aegis Weapon System and the Raytheon RIM-161 STANDARD Missile-3 (SM-3). Notable subcontractors and technical experts include Boeing, Alliant Techsystems (ATK), Honeywell, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (JHU/APL) and The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory (Lincoln Lab).
So what makes you think Raytheon will have any issues with the Aegis?
Only in your trying to find nonsense problems that is.
The only reason you don't follow the rationale is because you are trying to invent imagnary problems when none exist.
Quite seriously, you are really making yourself a fool in here.
-
Gosh, lionnoisy is defeating himself with every post.
His latest post was simply chock full of logical errors from start to finish.
Actually the funny part is now he is attacking the Aussies for having big military projects that Singapore can only drool over, in a backhanded sort of way his desperate behavior shows that he actually feels threatened by this and wants these projects to fail.
But of course reality is quite different.
Speaking of failed military projects, eh lionnoisy, can you give us some info about the 20 year long Singapore Light Tank replacement project that came to nothing?
What about the years wasted developing things like the SAR-80 and SAR-88 that came to nothing?
What about us needing to upgrade to Bionix 2 not long after Bionix 1 was introduced? How come STK with all it's "reference customer" abilities could not foresee even 5 years into the technological future?
What about the current, multimillion dollar 3G transformation that is still suffering from reliability and bandwith problems?
What about the lack of body armour and training for our "modern" force when virtually all modern armies have body armour as the standard now?
What about the fact that our soldiers are stuck with the basic version of the SAR-21, while we sell better versions to other countries?
-
Hi I am back lahhhhhhh.
pl tell me the functions of this ship.
Specifications:
- Standard Displacement: 8,000 tonnes
- Length Overall: 131 metres
- Beam: 23.4 metres
-
noisy lion is back.
no rationale or funny argument meh ? oh please man. make my day
by the looks of it.
- has a dry well,
-large chopper landing area
-landing craft ?
-large bridge/superstructure
most probable a LHD / fleet support ship. the rather large superstructure may indicate the flexibility/ internal room to act as a medical support ship as well. no concrete evidence but looks like a highly flexible design
are you going to compare it with our endurance LSTs or say its a waste of money ? get to the point.
-
Lionnoisy is totally out of point !!! But T-rex - I do not agree with you. So what singapore light tank project failed -there are lots of failed military projects - are you going to be like lionnoisy - keep pinpoint on the few failed one ? SAR-80 and SAR-88 that came to nothing ? I disagree,the main objective is to a super cheap rifle that matches M-16 in performance which can be produced in huge qualities when needed. It was good and cheap - found buyers oversea, just because there is no war -which did not see it produce in huge qualities - does not mean it failed. It achieved its purpose. upgrade to Bionix 2 not long after Bionix 1 was introduced? Sometime a produce design start a few years before production run. Thus 20mm was indeed the choice of most at that time - till folks see the 30mm in action in war. Unfair arguement of expecting everything can be forseen. I disagree with you on body armour. May have been slower then other modern army, but why rush into it when we do not have war on. Also we our weather is too hot, and our modern soldiers run with PT wear also can drop dead ...(they not real grunt like you) rush into implement the old generation of body armour, no need to fight all drop dead !! Think the timing was good, that we waited, at least better and lighter body armour. SAR-21 - it is a good rifle, the standard version come out with its 1.5 scope which was good. Like you say - better sights have came up ... and SAR-21 did come up with version that incorporate them, too bad it is available for special units and foreign countries only. So the complain is not about the rifle itself but it is not available to the common soldiers. This is a fair point.
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
Hi I am back lahhhhhhh.
pl tell me the functions of this ship.
It's the God damn Love Boat - can't you see Captain Stubing on the bridge?
Fool.
-
Originally posted by storywolf:
Lionnoisy is totally out of point !!!
But T-rex – I do not agree with you. etc
Uhh, wolf, ST's just taking the mickey out of noisy pussy's nonsensical rants. I wouldn't take it too seriously.
-
Eh storywolf, you in here still haven't learnt anything from all my replies to lionnoisy posts ah?
They're not supposed to make much sense except to lionnoisy... because no rational answers will suffice for him, you need to reply him with his kind of twisted logic sometimes.
I disagree with you on body armour. May have been slower then other modern army, but why rush into it when we do not have war on. Also we our weather is too hot, and our modern soldiers run with PT wear also can drop dead …(they not real grunt like you) rush into implement the old generation of body armour, no need to fight all drop dead !! Think the timing was good, that we waited, at least better and lighter body armour.
Eh, this one is certainly a bad point... going by your logic we might as well lose the K-pot and use the plastic engineer hardhat, given they are not "real grunts" we're not going to war anytime soon, and the kevlar helmet is so heavy and can cause heatstroke as well.
Other armies have fought in more extreme conditions with body armour. There is no good or bad about waiting, the SAF, like with the SAR-21 fiasco is simply lazy.
But when they had to hunt the robbers in tekong, they did bother to bring out the BA for their troops going in... which did complain somewhat because they never trained in it.
Also I don't understand your logic... the basic "not a real grunt", can "drop dead in PT" SAF soldier is expected to carry anywhere up to 20-30kgs of equipment in his FBO, this includes an assault rifle that is somewhat heavier then most normal rifles of its class apparently designed for "not a real grunts", as well as a 1.5 kilo kevlar helmet that can give him heatstroke, and not to mention a LBV that many complain is a lot hotter then the old combat webbing (thou i think there's little difference), plus camelpack and what have you not in addition to all his field items like ET tool and the like.
So all this is okay for a "can drop dead in PT not a grunt" but suddenly adding 8kgs of vital, life saving armour is a bad decision? Hmmm... if anything we could lose a lot of the unnecessary weight in the FBO items for BA.
-
Eh, BA is used for jungle warfare or just Fibua?
Besides, I advocate Dragonskin. I keep seeing videos of how inba it is... stopping 7.62 steel core rounds... like wtf?! Not to mention lighter too...
-
BA is a must for FIBUA... I'll still use it in Jungle warfare thou...
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Eh storywolf, you in here still haven't learnt anything ?
it seem like the person who does not learn is you !!!
Don't understand you, we getting body armour now - you complain that should have got it sooner !!! If we got BA sooner - eariler verison one - now you be complaining it is now outdated, why we cannot get the better type in market now !!! Hello you complaining like Ah Ma !!!!Buy earlier - you complain now outdated, buy later you also complain should have got earlier !!! You complain for the joy of complaining
Did any war broke out that we have to fight with BA ? Did any soldier died shot - that could have been saved by a BA ? - Answer is no, this clearly proven the decision to buy BA now is the correct and wise choice, to hold back till better BA is available, and when the regions is more unstable which is now which we have more likely to use it. Getting the equipment - when we best and most need it is the better investment and not getting it just because - it is out in the market, there will alway be newer and better stuff all the time, you just cannot be blindly chasing after it
-
"when they had to hunt the robbers in tekong, they did bother to bring out the BA for their troops going in... which did complain somewhat because they never trained in it ? " Did SAF have any specific exercise that cater to hunting of robbers !!! No ? well there is alway the 1st time. For crying out loud ! The soldiers are deploy there to guard access point here and there , and some buildings ! The one that go try to flush them out was the Police swat team, gurhkas and the more elite forces - those have train with BA before. It is not like the ordinary soldiers are ask to put up BA and ask to charge or storm the building with it on. Look like you are right, we damn need to train for things - that why they let Selamat out - so we get more training in hunting people with BA on !!!