Lionnoisy's War against Everything Australian: Hobart DDGs
-
Originally posted by storywolf:
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 If we got BA sooner - eariler verison one - now you be complaining it is now outdated, why we cannot get the better type in market now !!!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Buy earlier - you complain now outdated, buy later you also complain should have got earlier !!!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
eh ?
i m missing your point. dont get your point
SGTY is saying, BA is good, should have gotten earlier. and you are saying he's complaining NO BA = bad, got BA = bad. wth ? dont get it.
define "new and better" BA. if i m not mistaken. SAF body armour requirement is a class IIIA body armour. capable of stopping 7.62mm round from 50m away. its the same requirements as the current ones we have. dragonskin is a class5 body armour i think. SAF dosent always stay at the top of the tech curve.
simple reason, equipping thousands of conscripts each year, upkeep and maintainence of BA is troublesome. with our hot and humid weather, fungus will be a big trouble. ceramite plates will occasionally shatter and break in training as well. all these cost money le. maybe thats why we are only procuring it now with a 10 billion annual budget.
-
sgstars pretty much said what I was about to say... I think he's reading too much into my posts that he's seeing arguments that are not there and then more or less wasted his energy typing a monolouge that is totally out of point that could have been avoided with basic comprehension skills.
oh wells... once the lion stops being noisy there's the wolf with his stories... beware :)
-
Its okay to have very different and polarized views, really. To me, you really can't find the middle ground until you've seen where the extreme ends are. =D
-
above :HMNZ Canterbury
above: Ben-My-Chree--- the model platform of the Naval ship
are u still remember this?
When a navy ship cannot perform functions of military tasks,
what do u think?
The Tenix Australia proposed this commercial ship platform to New
Zealand Navy as a military transport ship,but
Canterbury’s design is based on a commercial “roll-on, roll-off” ship, Ben-My-Chree in operation in the Irish Sea.Roll-on, roll-off ships carry wheeled cargo using built-in ramps allowing the cargo to be "rolled on" and "rolled off" the vessel.
The Ben-My-Chree is designed operating near coastal waters.
But NZ Navy need a platform operates in ocean!
This causes the first in class ship operates 40% of the time!!
Not to mention one of the Fast Ctaft was wiped out in rough sea.
I am always accused underestimating Oz naval ships designs and buildings.
No need to argue.Just read how NZ navy cope with using this civilian
use ships as military use!!
I salute to drivers who drive vehicle from the deck of HMNZ Canterbury
via the aft ramp to the Landing craft on rough sea.
FYI.It is advised that the aft ramp cannot be used above Sea State
3!!
NZ navy needs combatant platform more than transport ships
http://www.navy.mil.nz/visit-the-fleet/default.htm
http://www.airforce.mil.nz/
NZ currently get 2 combatant ships.
i cant understand why she needs 7 multi--role vessels.
Besides,NZ dunt have any fighers/attack planes!!
mmm
references:\
http://christchurchcitylibraries.com/Reference/Backgrounders/HMNZSCanterbury/
--> http://www.defence.govt.nz/pdfs/independent-review-safety-hmnzs-canterbury.pdf
REPORT OF THE REVIEW OF THE SAFETY AND FUNCTIONALITY OF HMNZS CANTERBURY
<
http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/news/media-releases/20070612-hccis.htm
-> http://www.rnzncomms.org/navy/documents/Canterbury%20article%20for%20HSB%20magazine%20.pdf
dunt let our navy become like this!!
http://www.gavinsblog.com/2008/10/07/what-happened-to-the-georgian-navy/
What happened to the Georgian navy?
-
Why did NZ navy accept the design even though they knew
the design is wrong?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10525585
Equipment issues stop new Navy ship going to sea
11:09AM Wednesday Aug 06, 2008
Equipment troubles have kept the Navy's newest ship alongside for 65 of the 160 days it was programmed to be at sea since it was delivered, Defence Minister Phil Goff has revealed.
The multi-role ship HMNZS Canterbury was commissioned last year but Mr Goff said since delivery "equipment issues" meant it could not go to sea for more than 40 percent of its programme.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4332824a6479.html
Design fault known before ship delivered
HANK SCHOUTEN - The Dominion Post | Saturday, 22 December 2007
The navy's problem-plagued new ship, HMNZS Canterbury, lost one of its rescue boats overboard because of a design problem that was apparent before the ship was built, an inquiry has found.
But the navy was not told of the risk till just three weeks before it took delivery of the 9000-tonne multi-role ship.
....
-
duuuuuuuuude!
for a country thats located near antartica.
where sheeps are > than humans.what do you seriouslly need aircraft for ? bomb the attacking penguins ? repel penguin invasion ? fight the whales ?
its a major hole in the defence. no contest. absolutely right. but when u need to project force into NZ. its so far away that anyone's supply chain would probably be overstretched. with the exception of australia.
and i doubt australia will be mounting any mission of conquest anytime soon.
there's no viable threat to new zealand at the moment, and its unlikely to be a very sought after territory or of any strategic value even in the event of a war.
i know too little about the state of new zealand naval / maritime forces so i m not going to comment. all i can say is. new zealand is a pretty nice place. i love christchurch and i think they ought to spend some serious thought on how to defend it properly.
-
lionnoisy is a lion. He needs to eat sheeps and cows and hence NZ is of a strategic importance.
Remember! Context, context, CONTEXT!
-
NZ Navy is a joke, NZ Air force is non existent. NZ doesn't care about their defence, why should you care lionnoisy?
If lionnoisy care so much about the sheep why doesn't he try to convince SG to invade NZ? According to him, NZ has no defence at all, so should be an easy job, shouldn't it dumb lion?
It's good to see you back so you can entertain us too.
-
LOL, I didn't even bother to read his post the moment I saw him using all his typical keywords, the result is the same.
Eh mod, should change the name of this thread to another lionnoisy thread or something, skarly pple coming in think he's actually trying to raise serious discussion leh...
-
ha! I usually don't get pass 3 sentences of his...
-
thread title sounds cool
maybe we can make it into a series
hehe
-
Tell me when you are entertained enough
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
thread title sounds cool
maybe we can make it into a series
hehe
And maybe turn Lionnoisy into a youtube celebrity while we're at it?
We gotta feature sg-trex in that case... hmm
-
eh guys.. come on la..
Later Lionnoisy dont come back permanantly and go some other defence forum then we will be uber bored.
dont pwn him for nothing. at least let him carry on with his usual stuff before you pwn him.
you cant go against custom can you ?
-
Originally posted by sgstars:
eh guys.. come on la..
Later Lionnoisy dont come back permanantly and go some other defence forum then we will be uber bored.
dont pwn him for nothing. at least let him carry on with his usual stuff before you pwn him.
you cant go against custom can you ?
Sure. So just enjoy yourself...
-
Originally posted by sgstars:
eh ?
i m missing your point. dont get your point
SGTY is saying, BA is good, should have gotten earlier. and you are saying he's complaining NO BA = bad, got BA = bad. wth ? dont get it.
define "new and better" BA. if i m not mistaken. SAF body armour requirement is a class IIIA body armour. capable of stopping 7.62mm round from 50m away. its the same requirements as the current ones we have. dragonskin is a class5 body armour i think. SAF dosent always stay at the top of the tech curve.
simple reason, equipping thousands of conscripts each year, upkeep and maintainence of BA is troublesome. with our hot and humid weather, fungus will be a big trouble. ceramite plates will occasionally shatter and break in training as well. all these cost money le. maybe thats why we are only procuring it now with a 10 billion annual budget.
First let correct you since you are basically arguing with the wrong information. So far in the world Body Armour classification - is I, II , IIIA, III & IV only .... I am not sure how you get mislead to think that Dragon skin is class V ?
As for you so call dragon skin ? The armor is available in two basic protection levels: SOV-2000, which was certified as Level III protection (this certification was withdrawn, and Pinnacle is suing to force the NIJ to reinstate on the basis of its own private retesting[2][3]) and SOV-3000, which is advertised as Level IV but has not yet been certified as such.[3] Pinnacle Armor's website also identifies a "Level V" variant, which does not correspond to any body armor standard and is not available to the general public .
Hello III level certification withdrawn ? level IV not certified , then so call level V - does not correspond to and body armour standard ? - a lot of questionable on how effective dragon skin is ?
Dragon Skin is good - that is as far as the company keep telling everyone. If it is that great every military will be running to get it, if not frankly there is alternative in the market. Just because we not jumping to get dragon skin - does not mean we getting anything inferior.
We also must get a balance of armour protection and mobility of the soldier ! Of course higher level IV is better in protection but make the soldier less mobile.
As for SGTY is saying, BA is good, should have gotten earlier ? That i already answer in my eariler post - i disagree and i think the timing is just right. Just because you and T-rex cannot accept other people view and blindly just follow manufactorer claims !!!
-
Double post
-
I've seen Dragonskin on future weapons... dude go search out Dragonskin on youtube. The stuff that thing can stop is unbelieveable.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vetyGCqJ_rU&feature=related
The US Army general claimed that 13/48 shots penetrated dragon skin. Independent testing revealed ZERO. LOL!
Even the designer of Interceptor BA says Dragonskin wins hands down.
I tihnk the US Army shot at it with 120mm Sabot rounds...
-
As for SGTY is saying, BA is good, should have gotten earlier ? That i already answer in my eariler post - i disagree and i think the timing is just right. Just because you and T-rex cannot accept other people view and blindly just follow manufactorer claims !!!
How is the timing "just right" now? Beyond vauge statements
So for some reason the timing was "not right" to settle the SAR-21 M203 issues?
I find it bizzare that when it comes to the case of the SAR-21 you seem to "blindly just follow manufactorer claims !!!" in ST and Janes and disregard whatever the common solider practially experiences with the rifle in the field and how it stacks up against developments in small arms worldwide and then mysteriously now when it comes to BA your opponents are "view and blindly just follow manufactorer claims !!!"
Wow, your lionnoisyness is getting better by the minute.
Yes indeed, your view is your own and we can disagree, but it seems to be an apparent fact that you have shown a poor ability to argue your views out.
-
Lionnoisy's War against Everything Australian: Hobart DDGs
Who edited the name of my thread?
Under terms and conditions of this forum,can MOD edit forumers thread?
If the thread is not edited by MOD or his authorized persons,
then is it a hacking?
If it is a hacking,shall the criminal to be prosecuted under SG laws or
under the laws of the site of the server?
-
NZ navy just accept a commercial ship platform as a naval ship.
Consequences is cannot go to ocean!!\
Ha ha another dream country for migrations.
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
If it is a hacking,shall the criminal to be prosecuted under SG laws
Quick, quick! Call the mata and Yong Pung How! Someone must be put to death for hacking!
Actually, such a vicious criminal calls for much more than even the Singapore criminal system - call in the ski-jump carriers to project power with their men on roller skates!
As for "dream country for migrations", yup, keep dreaming - you know you'll never pass a migration test. Hell, count yourself damned lucky that you don't need a test to be a Singaporean - the rest of you would end up as displaced as the bullshit you spew.
Come to think of it, your parents must be relieved that Section 377 was repealed last year - at least your existence doesn't mean prison for them anymore.
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
Lionnoisy's War against Everything Australian: Hobart DDGs
Who edited the name of my thread?
Under terms and conditions of this forum,can MOD edit forumers thread?
If the thread is not edited by MOD or his authorized persons,
then is it a hacking?
If it is a hacking,shall the criminal to be prosecuted under SG laws or
under the laws of the site of the server?
Lionnoisy, a moderator (namely me) edited the name of your thread.
Your content was not moderated, however the title was changed to more accurately describe your series of criticism on everything Australian.
The purpose for doing so is such that Australians viewing this thread will know that these are strictly your views, and do not belong all sgForums users on this board nor Singaporeans. If they get pissed off with anyone, it'll be just you.
Seriously, have you considered making youtube videos for this series of yours? I mean, I'm sure the aussie oppositions will got nuts over it.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Lionnoisy, a moderator (namely me) edited the name of your thread.
Your content was not moderated, however the title was changed to more accurately describe your series of criticism on everything Australian.
The purpose for doing so is such that Australians viewing this thread will know that these are strictly your views, and do not belong all sgForums users on this board nor Singaporeans. If they get pissed off with anyone, it'll be just you.
Seriously, have you considered making youtube videos for this series of yours? I mean, I'm sure the aussie oppositions will got nuts over it.
*clap clap clap*good job.
all his threads are anti-australian.
i have nothing against Australia.