Well there's only three of 'em, so whatever power they had will be very limited.
I suppose in reality if the Railguns are added, they can simply be seen as sniper units but for the sea, thus far more important job of hitting strategic targets.
USS Zumwalt - Are they worth it?
- Thread starter Greebo
- Start date
Well there's only three of 'em, so whatever power they had will be very limited.
I suppose in reality if the Railguns are added, they can simply be seen as sniper units but for the sea, thus far more important job of hitting strategic targets.
Ummmm nope that's not really true. Crusader SPG, Sgt York mobile AA gun, Seawolf SSN, Zumwalt DDG... all programs either defunded or cancelled outright due to lack of performance or cost overruns. Even America has finite budgets.
Whilst that's true, we had to make do with the best we had which was fairly poor even by the standards of the day, and mainly due to budget cuts. With no real carriers and therefore no Airbourne Early Warning, the Argentine aircraft were able to get very close by flying extremely low. The Sea Dart missiles carried by the Type 42s were not designed to counter this. Sea Wolf on the Type 22s was, but was brand new and still effectively being developed - plus we only had two ships that carried it. No RN ship had a CIWS for point defence then either.
It's easy with hindsight of course, but had we spent the large funds on real carriers to replace Ark Royal and Eagle and invested in CIWS the outcome would have been quite different.
Indeed, that's the nature of military evolution. To clarify I'm not saying that no ships would have been sunk/damaged in 82, but almost certainly less would have been. But you're absolutely right, no technology or strategy can guarantee survival. Sinking more funding into something will generally improve the odds but that's all.
Recall watching a documentary on some of this. Wasn't there one incident where two British ships being hit simply down to human error?
One of them had the incoming aircraft/missiles locked onto when suddenly the 2nd ship sailed right across her los and broke their targeting solution. Ship in front took a hit and the 2nd got hit even harder?
There was further human error with HMS Sheffield too, she was using her satellite communication gear which was known to interfere with the search radar. She never picked up the attacking aircraft and for unknown reasons ignored warnings radioed in by other ships.
Who needs a missile, crazies and a dingy will do the trick, just look at USS Cole bombing
This is completely false, all Trump was saying is that NATO needs to contribute more than they are, which is a fair point really. Why should America pay for the defence of Europe?
Because Europe shares a land border with the USA's greatest enemy, Russia, therefore it's in the USA best interest to protect Europe.
The idea of NATO is that it's an alliance, not the US defending everyone. All NATO countries pledged to spend 2% of their GDP on Defence in order to maintain the necessary readiness in case of enemy aggression. What's wrong with expecting NATO countries (including the UK) to deliver on what they've agreed on?
Well they do, but we should also contribute. Europe is pathetic when it comes to military spending, especially Germany. It would be so easy for Russia to roll it's tanks through Western Europe right now
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Whilst I agree that other nations should be spending 2% as per their commitment, going in ham-fisted and making ultimatums about leaving NATO isn't going to get the result that is desired.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 5,252
- Location
- Southampton
Trump on Nato is like saying someone isn't paying their taxes, so we just wont bother with having anything at all
at least the US can go back to building 32 Zumwalts because Trumps going to double the defense budget...
at least the US can go back to building 32 Zumwalts because Trumps going to double the defense budget...
My guess is that Trump will prefer to spend more on the traditional elements of the armed forces - mechanised cavalry, infantry, helicopters etc. rather than on expensive experimental technology like the Zumwalt.
He actually said either Europe pull their weight and pay up more and put more men,equipment into it or US leaves.
Cant see Europe coughing up more or putting more men/equipment into it.
