Dumpster fire thread

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by HippoCrushEverything, Jan 8, 2017.

  1. The forward tower is the bridge, which controls ship operations and navigation. The aft tower is for air control. Separating the towers allows the bridge to have a better view of the sea, and the control tower to have a better view of the flight deck. The drawbacks are worse coordination between the ship and air-wing, but the hope was that modern communications would alleviate that.
     
    SEABEE likes this.
  2. I was going to ask the same thing.

    From articles I had read a long time ago, one is for navigating the ship, the other for giving orders to aircrafts. Making a single tower like Ford and de Gaulle actually requires more complex systems.

    Anyone have better explanation?
     
  3. Having a single tower would obviously simplify many things; I have no idea how you'd come to the idea that one tower would be more complex. But having a single tower means either you place the structure far aft, optimized for controlling aircraft (as in the Nimitz or Ford), or far forward optimizing ship operations (as in the Charles De Gaulle). Indeed, whereas the aft tower (the air control tower) is amidship in the QEII, its way back behind the aft elevator in the Ford.

    The Ford, however, needs this focus on air operations, given the huge sortie rate that is possible given its four catapults and its angled flight deck, launching and recovering aircraft simultaneously. The De Gaulle struck a different balance, as it only has two catapults (one forward and one waist), and usually carries about a third the number aircraft, although the French later later decided that this was a poor balance.

    When the Anglo-French decided to collaborate on a new platform, they needed a configuration that could accommodate both a ski-jump (as the British were undecided on their configuration), and an angled flight deck (as the French never considered operating anything except for the Rafale). This allowance for an angled deck becomes more obvious from above:
    [​IMG]


    However, given the cancellation of the French project, and the decision to axe the CATOBAR system on the Prince of Wales, the only advantage the QEII has over an LHD or the Harrier-Carriers the UK used to operate will be in size. AEW&C underway cargo will still be provided by helicopter, as they were on the HMS Invincible. The P&W F135 engine can fit in an MV-22, but the Royal Navy has no plans to procure the type, so spares would either need to be carried on-board or they would have to rely on the US for help. Altogether, I would still view the Charles De Gaulle as the premiere European carrier, lower displacement or otherwise, although the UK will have much more flexibility with two examples. The QEII will also easily be overshadowed by the future Indian and Chinese CATOBAR carriers that are in the works.

    Basically, the Royal Navy gets to pay for a hell of a lot of extra boat with nothing to show for it. There was some awful path dependency at play from multiple directions here, with the French connection requiring amenities amenable to CATOBAR operations, and the Fleet Air Arm far too invested in the F-35B to ever select anything else.

    Remember, the F-35 program began as Harrier-replacement project for the Royal Navy / USMC, and only later evolved into the Navy and Air Force versions. I am a huge fan of the F-35B, and when someone says there only ever should have been an F-35A and the B-model canned, I would flip it right around and say the Air Force should have got something else. The F-35B is the only one of the three that is truly necessary. It at once transforms all the European Harrier-carriers from CAS and interdiction support of ground operations into true first-day-of-war vessels, and moves that capability from just the United States and France to include Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, and in the future probably more (with the future of flat-tops in the Australian and Canadian Navies being very much in flux). First-day-of-war carrier operations in NATO grows from 11 to 24 overnight. But this whole project, instead of moving the UK into the same capability class as the US and France, instead just grows the Italian and Spanish side of this transformation.

    To summarize my thoughts on the QEII in one word: unfortunate.
     
  4. Somehow I recall holding a similar view some time ago and getting fact nuked by.... Vanilla Ice.

    U hoer
     
  5. im recommending it to you
     
  6. why not just stack the towers if they need a ton of space

    and how much of a view do the guys driving the ship really need? arent they in the wide open 99.9% of the time
     
  7. Its not really about space, it's about vantage point. While the number of people it takes to run a ship might be huge, the number that need to see outside is quite small; we could probably make the islands smaller if we really wanted.

    You also have to remember that the island will not only accommodate flight and ship operations, but also the flag bridge, from which the commander of a task-group or battle-group would direct an entire fleet. A carrier battle group may be as few as 3-4 ships for some European powers, up to as many as 20 or more in multi-national shows-of-force (and photo ops, can't forget those). You're not just floating out at sea; you need to be able to see out for port operations and formations (which can be pretty closely-spaced for replenishment, for instance).
     
  8. This one? :p
     
  9. Godverdomme my memory sucks

    Early onset alzheimers' probably
     
  10. Honestly, I expected something worse than capping dead guys and being too trigger-happy. What really surprises me about this article is the apparent lack of professionalism and discipline within the unit. One would think that a member of the most elite team of an elite force would understand why it's not a good idea to mutilate high-profile targets. Or that the reasons they are used on a specific mission, instead of AGM-something, in a war like this are mostly:

    1. Avoiding collateral damage
    2. Capturing enemy combatants alive for intelligence purposes
    3. Being able to reliably identify enemy leaders

    Shooting everyone in sight and mutilating their bodies kind of negates the purpose of using special forces in the first place.

    That being said, Soviet/Russian spec ops in Afghanistan/Chechnya make these guys look like friendly teletubbies. And I'm much more worried about the development where individual accountability for killing non-combatants just disappears under the layers of bureucracy when using air strikes, often by UAVs. The whole wedding party massacre that reportedly ruined some of these SEALs was initiated by air strikes.
     
    SEABEE likes this.
  11. It was said in the article that "you can send me to live with pigs, but you can't expect me to live with pigs and not become dirty". This is very true. A shitty environment does corrupt. Brutalizing non-combatants, surrendering enemy combatants or POWs was commonplace in both World Wars, by all sides. The West is generally well aware of Nazi war crimes (because ****, they really won the world championship of war crime. Also they were on the losing side). Soviet and Japanese war crimes are much less well documented, but still many people know about them. But there exists a number of "historians" who get butthurt if someone even slightly suggest that not all of the Allied combatants were the stern but righteous heroes they were made out to be.

    There used to be a video on youtube where sailors/marines aboard a US destroyer(?) were shooting survivors of a sunk Japanese fishing boat with .50cal machine guns at point blank range and casually laughing about it. I have a hard time finding the link, don't even know if it exists anymore. Videos where US marines do what the modern Navy DevGru does are aplenty:



    Speaking of WW2 videos, there are a few good youtube channels with raw colour footage. Forget your censored boring black-and-white videos from history class, this shit is better than any war film. Unknown WW2 in color by Romano Archives is the best one imo.

    Here's a really good video from Okinawa:



    The US soldiers look pretty much like modern ones, except whiter. But look at those Japanese civilians! They look worse than plague-ridden medieval peasants for ****'s sake!
     
  12. I was in Singapore for a couple days. Noticed that they have f15's. Why
     
  13. "Why does a tiny city-state in Southeast Asia worry about its territorial integrity?"
    "Why does a small country without a formal defense pact with a large country have a large military?"
    "Why does the former 'Gibraltar of the East' has a militaristic culture?"
     
  14. Also, to be in those kinds of special ops kind of groups, you have to be bat shit crazy. No person with a normal way of thinking would put themselves through that kind of crazy shit willingly.
     
    SEABEE likes this.
  15. Because the Strike Eagle has a considerable range and payload advantage over the F-16.

    Edit: Also not a poor country.
     
  16. yes
    this kind of work attracts and only tolerates hyper macho type a borderline sociopaths

    honestly a military needs these people, and this is the dark side. maybe a little more supervision from less insane people could help tone down the war crimes
    im glad theyre out there and not cops or something
     
  17. #43 Vanilla Ice, Jan 16, 2017
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2017
    I'm not sure that's so universal. Many of the world's most elite counter-terrorism units (which is the core mandate of both Seal Team 6 and Delta Force, remember; other roles are considered ancillary) are police. GSG-9 in Germany, for instance, or the RCMP's SERT force in Canada up until 1993. (JTF-2, which is considered a 1st tier special forces group with Delta, the SAS, et al., was not formed new in 1993. It was basically a transfer of authority over counter-terrorism forces from the police to the military, complete with facilities, equipment, employees, and quite a few of the operators).

    While killing terrorists (A.K.A. "direct action") is part of the counter-terrorism mandate, there's a lot of other stuff too. Counter-intelligence, special-reconnaissance, and target-hardening are all major components. Moreover, when direct action does occur, hostage rescue (for example) will be very different from targeted killing. Modern use of these special forces also put a heavy weight on embedding a small number of operators into a larger group of lesser-trained individuals, to act as instructors, guides, and subject-matter experts, and as deniable liaison officers between indigenous forces and that operator's home government. They've been used as a manner of combat-diplomat in Afghanistan, where local irregular forces, local elders, and so forth communicate to governments of major powers through these special forces.

    This is why the prototypical operator is a college-educated enlisted man, something that is otherwise quite rare. These people need to be smart, diplomatic communicators - something not so amenable to a sociopath. And they're often tasked with the not-so-macho task of empathizing with the plight of locals from an isolated culture half a world away from home. What I really think we're seeing is a limit in the American philosophy of special forces, where not only does the unit have independence from the broader military (which seems to be universal) but the enlisted have independence from the officers (which seems uniquely American) when the unit is overtasked and disproportionately so to direct action. Violence is a very common response to stress disorders, but if the enlisted men can effectively hide problems from their officers, then the officers are essentially powerless to discipline their men if needed, or send them home for help if that's more appropriate. Part of what made these forces 'special' was not just their type of activities, but the frequency of their use, and normalcy (it seems) is very upsetting to their whole mode of operation.
     
  18. As if a small army is gonna stop China, Malaysia or Indonesia
     
  19. 2016 was all about the (IDF) soldier that shot an under control "terrorist" (he stabbed some soldiers). He was put on a fairly public trial and was found guilty in manslaughter.
    There was/is an aggressive public debate about whether it's OK to shoot a terrorist (they're all terrorist in the local jargon, which is a problem too) who tried to kill you. Interestingly, most of the country is right-wing-minded and think he's innocent and that the law system is broken.
    Facts are that kid came from a far-right family, had no proven reason to believe that the attacker still posed danger and that he didn't act as should be expected.
    It does, however, have an effect on other soldiers on the field, who may be more reluctant to engage when needed (hasn't really happened yet).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebron_shooting_incident
     
  20. Well not so much sociopathic as psychopathic. The one Navy SEAL I knew personally was friendly, but got off on doing crazy shit for the adrenaline.
     
  21. Well at least on paper the Singaporean Air Force looks more capable than the Malaysian or Indonesian ones.

    Having no defense at all, or a subpar defense force increases the chance of getting invaded, as it gives a potential opportunistic enemies a chance to blackmail or invade with minimal losses. It's not like most countries in the world could realistically hold their own against a mass onslaught by a major power, but still almost every country that's not a quasi-irrelevant island nation has some sort of military. There's a reason for that.
     
  22. *disbands the Finnish defense forces because Russia could just nuke us anyway so we could save some money for healthcare and shit*

    *2 days later Putin decides that the rights of Sudeten-Russians in Finland need to be protected*

    There are several possible outcomes but two things are certain:

    1. There will be even less money available for healthcare and shit, while the need for healthcare is likely to be increased

    2. Pacifists that pursue this kind of policies will not take responsibility for whatever national disaster that might ensue.
     
    SEABEE likes this.
  23. To be fair, throwing money into any technology program will generate success, regardless of its purpose. Eight Nobel Prizes (seven in physics and one in chemistry) have been awarded for research related to improving the telephone, along the way inventing the transistor, laser and CCD, inventing the field of radio astronomy, and the development of Unix and the C programming language.

    This has little to do with the 'richness' of telephones as a field of research, and everything to do with the fact that AT&T was an enormous company and could afford to spend a lot money on research.
     
    HippoCrushEverything likes this.

Share This Page