Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Germany's new U-Boat more silent than a SSN

Military Germany U-Boats Silent running

  • Please log in to reply
53 replies to this topic

#41 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 4,895 posts

Posted 06 November 2005 - 10:09 AM

I cited plenty of examples, guys. If you want to play dumb and ignore them, that's your business. I'm done wasting time with you.
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#42 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 06 November 2005 - 03:30 PM

Zaugur, I was posting that to show that significant new weapon systems didn't enter American service in the 1990s and so  show that the claim from another that the war in Iraq was to test new weapon systems was not supported by evidence. Although you bring up several points I'd like to address
1. The Type 90-II is not a copy of the German Leoprad II. It's shape is nothing like it, fitting into the standard old Soviet block tank shapes rather than the blocky NATO style tanks, it uses a 125mm rather than a 120mm main gun, it uses all weilded steel with reactive armour rather than layered chobhm armor, its drive train and power plant is Western but uses a British Perkins CV12-1200 diesel engine similar to that fitted on the Chalenger series tanks and the drive train is French, the same one they use on the LeClerc tank. It also uses an autoloader, which the Leopard does not. I can see no similarities in construction or design.
2. The Aircraft carrier the Russians are selling to India is the Baku of the Kiev class not  of the Kuznetsov class. It is a much smaler carrier. But your point about Russian arms sales still stands. They are quite willing to sell anything, even thier very best to gain more hard currency as thier sale of their latest Su-27 variants and Sovremony class destroyers and Kilo class submarines to China show. This worries me vastly more than any particular German export sales.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#43 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,130 posts

Posted 06 November 2005 - 04:01 PM

[Mod hat on]

gsmonks, you've completely derailed the thread--it had nothing to do with the war in Iraq until you brought it up and have been throwing out polemics from the get go.

If you want to gripe about the war in Iraq, or whatever else strikes your fancy you're welcome to do so--start a new thread or participate in an existing one that's actually about one of those topics.

This is an official warning re: 2-2 & 2-6 of the OT sticky.

[/Mod hat off]

#44 Soton

Soton
  • Islander
  • 249 posts

Posted 06 November 2005 - 07:47 PM

Lost Cause, on Nov 4 2005, 07:11 PM, said:

Quote

Q- How do you sink a Canadian sub?

A- Put it in water.

:howling:  

Never heard that one.

I did.  But then the question was, "How do you sink a Polish sub?"

#45 Enkanowen

Enkanowen
  • Islander
  • 1,533 posts

Posted 06 November 2005 - 11:03 PM

Gaheris, on Nov 5 2005, 03:16 PM, said:

*shakes head about comments in the first post here* such a thinking is retarded.

And thank you Zaugur and Enkanowen for your words. The war has been over for ages and we have become a proud and intelligent nation. And I'm sure some ppl in here still don't know that Hitler wasn't German and is actually dead!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


they always say "hey if it were another country we would be concerned the same way" but let's face it: had Great britain developed this gem, the US would have peed itself with enthusiasm. So what if germany exports to China? China threatens the US... why should Germany care about that? China has changed a lot and si becoming more open to the outside world. Even Canada is improving its relationship with China. Why? Because it is next in line for being *the* superpower on the planet.

MuseZack, on Nov 5 2005, 11:21 PM, said:

I have to say, I get really annoyed when the main justification for developing ever more advanced weapons systems is the proliferation of advanced weapons systems that we sold around the world, often to nations of dubious stability.   It would seem to suggest that better export controls might be a better long-term strategy than an ever-spiralling and hugely expensive arms race.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Yea but that wouldn't be as exciting.

#46 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 06 November 2005 - 11:30 PM

Since one of the big worries proliferation-wise is Russia, which combines a world-class arms industry with a willingness to sell to anyone who can pay hard currency, might it not be cost-effective and smart for the US and its allies to pay them off to do more socially useful things with their research and production capabilities?  Off the top of my head, I'd get Sukhoi to put all those engineers to work on the next generation SST, for example, and get the shipyards to work equipping a new multinational force (staffed by the US, Russia, NATO, Japan, and ASEAN) to keep the sea lanes clear of the growing threat of piracy.  

My proposal may be a pipe dream, but it certainly seems like a better use of the world's resources than a new arms race.
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#47 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 06 November 2005 - 11:45 PM

I'm for everything you just said. There is still a vast untapped pool of very talemted egineers and research scientists in Russia who have had some very hard times over the last 15 years and having them work on joint projects would be great as far as I'm concerned.

and to Enkanowen, the UK developing something like this would have been some trick and I'm sure the media in a lot of nation's would be all over it since they haven't built a conventionally propelled submarine since the HMS Unicorn in 1993, which are part of the same Upholder class that has been giving Canada so much trouble since the British sold them the submarines. The only two countries in the world with fully developed Air Indepedent Propulsion technology are Sweden and Germany and Sweden has some of the tightest weapons export laws in the world and has never sold a submarine to anyone. So Germany would be the one to have some measure of worry about of the two choices.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#48 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 07 November 2005 - 03:25 AM

^ Naval Rule One: Never buy second hand British subs. ;)

Quote

Enkanowen they always say "hey if it were another country we would be concerned the same way" but let's face it: had Great britain developed this gem, the US would have peed itself with enthusiasm.
I was actually concerned about how Britain failed to strongly stand in the path of Germany and France trying to drop the EU trade sanctions on China regarding military material.  On top of that Britain rarely sells weapons to potential major enemies of the US.

Quote

Enkanowen: So what if germany exports to China? China threatens the US... why should Germany care about that?
Because ultimately Germany deals with the United States a lot in the world and having an ally grump at you because they are being shot at by own of your weapons systems is not a good path for better relations.  Ultimately military cooperation with Germany including the basing of our troops in Germany brings a lot of economic perks to Germany.

Quote

Enkanowen: China has changed a lot and si becoming more open to the outside world. Even Canada is improving its relationship with China. Why?
China is still led by the same brutal government which is just trying to put a less bloody face on itself for the time being.  Ultimately they are still occupying Tibet, they still threaten Taiwan, and they still make regular bluster toward the US.  They are still arming themselves for an attempt to invade Taiwan and keep the US Seventh Fleet from stopping them.

Quote

.M1A2 Abrams,a really good tank, is neither top technology in it's field,since the Leopard 2HEl,is the by far the best tank version in the World at this moment.
That’s an extremely debatable bit.  The Leopard 2HEl tanks have an advantage with a new more enhanced gun than what the Abrams has.  Other than that the Leopard 2HEl doesn’t stand out above the Abrams.  The Abrams in its latest incarnation has in general better electronics and much better communications/command and control then the Leopard 2HEl.  The armor is pretty darn similar except the Leopard 2HEl lacks the depleted uranium armor that is included on the latest variants of the Abrams.  

So really it is a open debate about what is the superior tanks.  The general consensus though is with a better communications system, electronics, and being networked the Abrams will operate better as a unit.

Edited by CJ AEGIS, 07 November 2005 - 03:29 AM.

"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#49 Zaugur Anasazi

Zaugur Anasazi

    Defensor Selenae.

  • Islander
  • 257 posts

Posted 07 November 2005 - 07:32 AM

tennyson, on Nov 6 2005, 08:30 PM, said:

Zaugur, I was posting that to show that significant new weapon systems didn't enter American service in the 1990s and so  show that the claim from another that the war in Iraq was to test new weapon systems was not supported by evidence. Although you bring up several points I'd like to address
1. The Type 90-II is not a copy of the German Leoprad II. It's shape is nothing like it, fitting into the standard old Soviet block tank shapes rather than the blocky NATO style tanks, it uses a 125mm rather than a 120mm main gun, it uses all weilded steel with reactive armour rather than layered chobhm armor, its drive train and power plant is Western but uses a British Perkins CV12-1200 diesel engine similar to that fitted on the Chalenger series tanks and the drive train is French, the same one they use on the LeClerc tank. It also uses an autoloader, which the Leopard does not. I can see no similarities in construction or design.
2. The Aircraft carrier the Russians are selling to India is the Baku of the Kiev class not  of the Kuznetsov class. It is a much smaler carrier. But your point about Russian arms sales still stands. They are quite willing to sell anything, even thier very best to gain more hard currency as thier sale of their latest Su-27 variants and Sovremony class destroyers and Kilo class submarines to China show. This worries me vastly more than any particular German export sales.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I said that Chinese copied the ABRAMS M1A2 as the Type 90-II tank.Concerning air carriers,i referred to Kuznetsov Class as a general example,for those who do not know that Russia has "pocket" Air Carriers.
Posted Image

#50 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 07 November 2005 - 08:00 AM

^It is nothing like the Abrams either.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#51 Zaugur Anasazi

Zaugur Anasazi

    Defensor Selenae.

  • Islander
  • 257 posts

Posted 07 November 2005 - 02:02 PM

You're right.I mixed the tanks. :rolleyes:

It's the South Korean K-1A1 which was copied,in a big degree, by the Abrams.

K-1A1 Specifications
Armament:
One 120mm, M256, 32 rds
one 7.62mm co-axial machine-gun;
one 12.7mm anti-aircraft machine-gun;
12 smoke discharges (six on each turret)

Transmission:
Fully Automatic,
4 forward, 2 reverse

Ballistic Computer:
32bit Digital Computer

Combat weight:
53.2 - 54.5 tonnes

Engine :
MTU 871 Ka-501 12 cylinder water-cooled diesel engine
1,200hp

Gunner's sight:
2-axis Stabilization, Day/night thermal imaging system

Commander's sight:
2-axis Stabilization, 360-degrees Panoramic Sight Day/night thermal imaging system & Hunter-killer

Crew:4

Attached Files


Posted Image

#52 Enkanowen

Enkanowen
  • Islander
  • 1,533 posts

Posted 07 November 2005 - 02:22 PM

CJ AEGIS, on Nov 7 2005, 04:25 AM, said:

^ Naval Rule One: Never buy second hand British subs. ;)

Canada made up that rule...

Quote

Because ultimately Germany deals with the United States a lot in the world and having an ally grump at you because they are being shot at by own of your weapons systems is not a good path for better relations.  Ultimately military cooperation with Germany including the basing of our troops in Germany brings a lot of economic perks to Germany.

I don't know if continental Europe is all that intent on keeping good relations with the US and England anymore. Thereare economic perks, but they are rapidly dwindling.

Quote

China is still led by the same brutal government which is just trying to put a less bloody face on itself for the time being.  Ultimately they are still occupying Tibet, they still threaten Taiwan, and they still make regular bluster toward the US.  They are still arming themselves for an attempt to invade Taiwan and keep the US Seventh Fleet from stopping them.

so is the US with Iraq and Afghanistan only it does it under the guise of a democracy... no wait, republic and supposed freedom and peace. Assimilating countries instead of forcefully invading is still assimilation. Afterall the major motivators in the US and China are power and money. They just pursue them differently.

Edited by Enkanowen, 07 November 2005 - 02:22 PM.


#53 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 07 November 2005 - 02:36 PM

The first Abrams prototype went to trials in 1976 and production commenced in 1980. The Hyundi K1 prototype was tested in 1983  and production started in 1984. You have that backwards Zanguar. They look similar because they share the same design philosophy and some of the same technology because the South Koreans use a lot of American equipment. It was a case of convergent design evolution rather than anyone copying the other and the K1A1 didn't enter service until the late 1990s well after the M1A2 Abrams debout in 1992.

Edited by tennyson, 08 November 2005 - 01:01 PM.

"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#54 Zaugur Anasazi

Zaugur Anasazi

    Defensor Selenae.

  • Islander
  • 257 posts

Posted 08 November 2005 - 06:34 AM

You can say that the k1 tank was based to Abrams,but i myself prefer the word copied.
Posted Image



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Military, Germany, U-Boats, Silent running

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users