What warship?

[awa355]

Is this a destroyer, or a different class of ship? It is a still shot from this u tube clip. I love the clips of ships on wild seas. My current fad, collecting clips of ships at sea. 283255

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xx51ab2cUxA

[Rhys]

looks like a frigate to me but I am no expert

[The Reibz]

This is a destroyer. Indicated by the "D" in the pennant number D646. Frigate would be "F" and in F111 HMNZS Te Mana.
Average swell, have hit worse that this down in the southern ocean on Te Kaha. Some of the best moments in my life have been had on these ships.

F77 The Dog Pound

[98tls]

A tad off topic but if you like warships,my old lady makes a hobby of garage sales, ages ago she paid a couple of $ for some old photo albums,one of them was full of pics taken on the Hood, many of the crew all lined up in the best uniforms and many also taken at sea.Really interesting stuff and a strange thing to just be rid of at a garage sale i always thought.

[Ocean1]

A tad off topic but if you like warships,my old lady makes a hobby of garage sales, ages ago she paid a couple of $ for some old photo albums,one of them was full of pics taken on the Hood, many of the crew all lined up in the best uniforms and many also taken at sea.Really interesting stuff and a strange thing to just be rid of at a garage sale i always thought.

Sad to think there was nobody for whom it meant enough to keep.

What amazes me is that the ships of previous centuries managed the worst that nature could throw at them. Most of the time.

[pzkpfw]

You're all wrong.

I went to the youtube clip, and it was clearly a Hyundai Santa Fe.


(And Wikipedia says it's a French Frigate : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FS_Latouche_Treville_(D_646).jpg : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_frigate_Latouche-Tr%C3%A9ville_(D646) ).

[huff3r]

You're all wrong.

I went to the youtube clip, and it was clearly a Hyundai Santa Fe.


(And Wikipedia says it's a French Frigate : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FS_Latouche_Treville_(D_646).jpg : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_frigate_Latouche-Tr%C3%A9ville_(D646) ).

From said wiki article:

Note: The French navy does not use the term "destroyer" for its ships. Thus, some large ships, referred to as "frigates", are registered as destroyers

[Laava]

Sad to think there was nobody for whom it meant enough to keep.

What amazes me is that the ships of previous centuries managed the worst that nature could throw at them. Most of the time.

Yes. I have just finished yet another book about Cpt Cook, this one being his literal diaries. Fuck me they were tough guys. And tough ships. As an aside he was very impressed with the maori watercraft in general and their nav skills.

[Ocean1]

Yes. I have just finished yet another book about Cpt Cook, this one being his literal diaries. Fuck me they were tough guys. And tough ships. As an aside he was very impressed with the maori watercraft in general and their nav skills.

Aye, hard bastards indeed. Cook was a superb navigator, and that was before they had accurate timepieces, (it was all lead line and latitude), so he was very interested in all of the islanders' purely empirical methods.

[awa355]

I read somewhere that 'There is no such thing as a large ship on an angry sea' guess that would have been before the nucleur aircraft carriers.

I enjoy watching the various ships breaking through the big swells in rough seas. Probably not so much fun for the buggars on board.

[Swoop]

I read somewhere that 'There is no such thing as a large ship on an angry sea' guess that would have been before the nucleur aircraft carriers.
Not quite.
The Nimitz class can still get waves over the bow in the big seas.

Interesting to note the new carriers are fitted with active stabilizers.

[pzkpfw]

From said wiki article:

Yep. So it's French. And they don't use the term Destroyer. Thus the title saying it's a French Frigate.

[Winston001]

What saddens me is no more battleships and cruisers are being built. Not sure if any are even in service these days.

When I was a kid there was a wonderful TV series about WWI and some of it concentrated on early movie footage of the British battlefleet ships. In particular the battle with the Germans in the North Sea and around Scapa Flow.

Talk about titans of the sea. Respect for all of the sailors in them.

[awa355]

I think that with the missile system today, floating weapon platforms like the battleships are obsolete. A pity because the image of a huge battleship plowing through the waves, guns spouting flames and smoke are what gets little boys excited about the military. Same as pictures of fighter aircraft.

Somehow, looking at a row of silo domes just doesn't have the same effect.

Submarines seem to be the leading vessel of todays navys as far as effectiveness goes.

[Swoop]

What saddens me is no more battleships and cruisers are being built.
Now completely obsolete and replaced by the carrier.
Delivering ordnance onto targets at greater ranges whilst carrying the ability to defent not only itself, but the whole battlegroup.

The coming fleet deployment of drones (X-48) will enhance this strike ability by increasing the strike range from 800 miles to over 2000.


The battleship has had her day.

Interestingly, with the defence cuts biting deep, a lot of naval duties are now being performed by cruise missiles.

[Ocean1]

What saddens me is no more battleships and cruisers are being built. Not sure if any are even in service these days.

Have been on the Missouri, fuck that's impressive, the main gun spec's alone are amazing.

[Mental Trousers]

What saddens me is no more battleships and cruisers are being built. Not sure if any are even in service these days.


Now completely obsolete and replaced by the carrier.
Delivering ordnance onto targets at greater ranges whilst carrying the ability to defent not only itself, but the whole battlegroup.

The coming fleet deployment of drones (X-48) will enhance this strike ability by increasing the strike range from 800 miles to over 2000.


The battleship has had her day.

Interestingly, with the defence cuts biting deep, a lot of naval duties are now being performed by cruise missiles.


Have been on the Missouri, fuck that's impressive, the main gun spec's alone are amazing.

It's a shame the battleships have been relegated to history. There's nothing quite like 7.2tons of high explosive travelling at 700+m/s to scare the living shit out of everything within a 2k radius. Unfortunately a main armament range of 38k's isn't enough when you can put an aircraft or cruise missile on a 2m square target 500k away. Even for shore bombardment it's cheaper to put half a dozen ships firing 20 rounds a minute on the job rather than a single behemoth. Battleships are also a prick to defend as they attract all the attention and don't have the necessary maneuverability.

As for Cruisers, the yanks and Russians are the only ones to field them these days and they're literally very big destroyers rather than the traditional Cruiser.

[Flip]

I do remember reading that the grunts in Nam loved battleship fire, it was big heavy and accurate.

[awa355]

What a real gun looks like. 283293


And what a real warship looks like. 283294

and what the greenies would build. 283295

[ellipsis]

...in 80 or 81 whilst I was bobbing around in the North Sea a fair way out from Norway the Russian Fleet, (a Russian Fleet), took a whole night and part of the next day to sail south past us. Even though they were on the horizon, you could still make out the guns on some and in line astern the whole show made a fairly exciting backdrop to what was a usually mundane horizon...

[Winston001]

Have been on the Missouri, fuck that's impressive, the main gun spec's alone are amazing.

Yeah had a look years ago at the USS Alabama which is tied up in Mobile. Magnificent.

[The Reibz]

Incase anyones interested there is a armour plate at the Auckland Naval Museum from HMS New Zealand where she took a hit from a 16 inch german round. Pretty impressive that metal that thick can bend that much, makes you aware of the extreme forces at work.
Love naval gun fire support. Boom! 5 seconds later 100m high dust cloud.

[Ocean1]

Iowa class 16" main guns:

283370


What almost a ton of black powder/cordite looks like throwing some nine tons worth of projectile at almost 800m/sec.

You wouldn't want to be too close.

25 miles orta do it.

[far queue]

Iowa class 16" main guns:

What almost a ton of black powder/cordite looks like throwing some nine tons worth of projectile at almost 800m/sec.

You wouldn't want to be too close.

25 miles orta do it.

You’ll notice in that pic of the Iowa firing a broadside that the main guns don’t all fire at the same time. The guns are sequenced to fire a fraction of a second apart because if they all fire at the same instant the shock would damage the ship. Even so a broadside still pushes the ship sideways about 6 feet. The Yamato had no boats or aircraft stored above deck - they were all stored in hanger space below decks because the blast from its 18.1” main guns would have destroyed them. Even the Iowa above has its boats on the port side, behind the stern turret, presumably for the same reason. So, no, you wouldn't want to be too close.

[Laava]

Fuck! It can't be very good for your ears then!

[Winston001]

Sob...and these megaliths will never be seen to fire again. Seems a right shame to me even though I realise that air craft carriers command the sea these days.

Hell, imagine sighting the Bismark or the Sharnhorst or the Giesnau off your port quarter. Bugger.

[Ocean1]

Fuck! It can't be very good for your ears then!

Almost all of the crews of the Napoleonic war fleet that had seen any significant action were deaf as a post.

[Swoop]

You’ll notice in that pic of the Iowa firing a broadside that the main guns don’t all fire at the same time... Even so a broadside still pushes the ship sideways about 6 feet.
I thought the same, and a naval friend said up to 28feet of sideways movement.
We are all apparently wrong.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-022.htm

[MisterD]

Almost all of the crews of the Napoleonic war fleet that had seen any significant action were deaf as a post.

Given the amount of training and blockade duty they did, they were probably deaf as a post long before they fired at an enemy ship.

[HenryDorsetCase]

From said wiki article:

some might say its because the french are too busy surrendering to actually destroy anything

[awa355]

Some of the smaller guns could inflict greater damage due to a higher rate of firing, providing they were within range and the 14/16/18" guns didnt always hit the target. I guess if a 16" projectile landed close enough,, well, as the Mayor of Hiroshima would've said " OOOH, watta fuck was that?":2guns:

[HenryDorsetCase]

Sob...and these megaliths will never be seen to fire again. Seems a right shame to me even though I realise that air craft carriers command the sea these days.

Hell, imagine sighting the Bismark or the Sharnhorst or the Giesnau off your port quarter. Bugger.

I read a really interesting article recently about the utility of aircraft carriers and the economics of keeping them at sea. The argument was that in current and anticipated global conflict, your aircraft carrier and its associated carrier group becomes something of a liability because several billion dollars worth of ships are at risk from some ragheads with cruise missiles (or whatever). The counter argument of course is that a carrier group is about force projection, and particularly if you have boots on the ground in buttfuckistan its useful to have the group offshore with the capability of fucking things up big time.

I find all this stuff very interesting.

[Swoop]

The argument was that in current and anticipated global conflict, your aircraft carrier and its associated carrier group becomes something of a liability because several billion dollars worth of ships are at risk from some ragheads with cruise missiles (or whatever).

The chinese have developed an anti-carrier missile system. It appears based on a ballistic missile with targeting head.
In the Gobi desert there is a carrier-shaped target painted on the ground that is beleived used for testing this system.



Also, speaking of technology that has been withdrawn from service; I see the last A-10 has departed Europe.
Designed for exterminating the Soviet tanks crossing the European plains, the Hog is being upgraded with all the latest bells and whistles. I wonder if they remembered to put an autopilot in this time?

[HenryDorsetCase]

The chinese have developed an anti-carrier missile system. It appears based on a ballistic missile with targeting head.
In the Gobi desert there is a carrier-shaped target painted on the ground that is beleived used for testing this system.



Also, speaking of technology that has been withdrawn from service; I see the last A-10 has departed Europe.
Designed for exterminating the Soviet tanks crossing the European plains, the Hog is being upgraded with all the latest bells and whistles. I wonder if they remembered to put an autopilot in this time?

why do they even need squashy meat-sacks aka pilots. UAV's are the future. Well, until Skynet goes live then we're all rooted.

[george formby]

I enjoy watching the various ships breaking through the big swells in rough seas. Probably not so much fun for the buggars on board.

True taht. I spent 3 months on a 90 mtr ice class trawler in the Southern ocean, lattitudes south of Heard Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heard_Island_and_McDonald_Islands).

It was, erm, interesting to say the least. You can't even take a dump safely in heavy seas & we had 3 days of 30mtr average wave height. Ugh. Just my luck.

[The Reibz]

You can't even take a dump safely in heavy seas & we had 3 days of 30mtr average wave height. Ugh. Just my luck.
The old tactical shit. For a real challenge try take a piss standing up, no spillage for maximum points

[avgas]

What saddens me is no more battleships and cruisers are being built. Not sure if any are even in service these days.

When I was a kid there was a wonderful TV series about WWI and some of it concentrated on early movie footage of the British battlefleet ships. In particular the battle with the Germans in the North Sea and around Scapa Flow.

Talk about titans of the sea. Respect for all of the sailors in them.
What about the ones that never were.
I am truely saddened that no one pursued Wing-in-Ground/Water Warships
The Caspian Sea monster firing rockets would put the fear in any man on a boat.

What is the difference between destroyer and frigate? US seem to only have a clear difference - destroyers have more guns.

[MisterD]

What is the difference between destroyer and frigate? US seem to only have a clear difference - destroyers have more guns.

There's a clear size difference in the Royal Navy - a Type 23 Frigate is under 5000 tons displacement, the new Type 45 Destroyers are 8000 (although the Type 45's weren't so much bigger than the Frigates). They also have different roles, Frigates are primarily anti-submarine and the Destroyers are anti-aircraft, and have a complement of Marines as well.

[Ocean1]

What is the difference between destroyer and frigate? US seem to only have a clear difference - destroyers have more guns.

Originally frigates were general purpose support vessels, they carried a high percentage of marines and would often be dispatched alone to deal with issues that either didn't require a full capital ship or where close in-shore work was needed.

They provided martial authority in various protectorates and colonies when the local governor or an allied ruler needed a bit of clout. They were often used in coastal raids and British frigates cut many French ships out from French ports and had them away.

Almost all single ship engagements of the Napoleonic wars were frigate actions, the big men-of-war almost always engaged as a fleet.

A destroyer was originally a task-specific vessel, built and armed for escort duty, either as fleet out-riders or to escort merchant fleets.

[Winston001]

What about the ones that never were.
I am truely saddened that no one pursued Wing-in-Ground/Water Warships
The Caspian Sea monster firing rockets would put the fear in any man on a boat.



The thing is, the Caspian Sea monster plane/boat only functioned on calm waters. I agree with you that it is a fascinating concept but the USSR couldn't make it work on the ocean. The Americans got a shock when their satellites spotted it.

http://www.yurock.net/russian-tank-ship-plane/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUTWWsh6iGA

[Winston001]

The chinese have developed an anti-carrier missile system. It appears based on a ballistic missile with targeting head.
In the Gobi desert there is a carrier-shaped target painted on the ground that is beleived used for testing this system.

China despite its mind boggling population does not have the military ability to project force. For 50 years China has been focused inward on protecting its borders safe in the knowledge that it has nuclear weapons which tend to discourage other nations.

No doubt that will change but not quickly. The dominant sea power is the USA and they will be very aware of Chinese technology - and how to defeat it.




Also, speaking of technology that has been withdrawn from service; I see the last A-10 has departed Europe.
Designed for exterminating the Soviet tanks crossing the European plains, the Hog is being upgraded with all the latest bells and whistles. I wonder if they remembered to put an autopilot in this time?

Oh yeah!! The Warthog is getting an upgrade? Excellent news. A 30mm gatlting gun with an airframe built around it. Well ok, a Spectre is even more interesting but nice to see these "old" planes out there scorching battlefields.

[Swoop]

China despite its mind boggling population does not have the military ability to project force.

Oh yeah!! The Warthog is getting an upgrade?

1: China is already projecting force. The warships parked next to any rock or shoal projecting above the surface and being "claimed" by them is proof. Within 200km of the Philippines this is happening, along with hassling Japan and a few other neighbours.
Then we have their entertainment in the Indian Ocean...


2: 28 May 2013: The last American A-10 attack aircraft has left Europe. A-10s were designed during the Cold War for combat against Russian ground forces in Europe.

That war never happened, but the A-10 proved to be a formidable combat aircraft in post-Cold War conflicts, first in the 1991 liberation of Kuwait and later in Afghanistan and Iraq. During the last decade the most requested ground support aircraft in Afghanistan has been the A-10.

There was similar A-10 affection in Iraq.
Troops from all nations quickly came to appreciate the unique abilities of this 1970s era aircraft that the U.S. Air Force has several times tried to retire. Two years ago the air force did announce that it was retiring 102 A-10s, leaving 243 in service. At the same time the air force accelerated the upgrading of the remaining A-10s to the A-10C standard.

Also called the PE (for precision engagement) model, the refurbished A-10s are supposed to remain in service until 2028, meaning most A-10Cs will have served over 40 years and as many as 16,000 flight hours. The upgrade effort has been underway for over five years. The upgrades include new electronics as well as structural and engine refurbishment. The A-10C provides the pilot with the same targeting and fire control gadgets the latest fighters have. The new A-10C cockpit has all the spiffy colour displays and easy to use controls. Because it is a single-seat aircraft that flies close to the ground (something that requires a lot more concentration), all the automation in the cockpit allows the pilot to do a lot more, with less stress, exertion, and danger.

The basic A-10 is a 1960s design, so the new additions are quite spectacular in comparison. New comms gear has also been added, allowing A-10 pilots to share pix and vids with troops on the ground. The A-10 pilot also has access to the Blue Force Tracker system, so that the nearest friendly ground forces show up on the HUD (Head Up Display) when coming in low to use the 30mm cannon. The A-10 can now use smart bombs, making it a do-it-all aircraft for ground support.

A-10s are worked hard in Afghanistan. For example, an A-10 squadron has a dozen aircraft and 18 pilots. Pilots often average about a hundred hours a month in the air. That's about twenty sorties, as each sortie averages about five hours. The aircraft range all over southern Afghanistan, waiting for troops below to call for some air support. The A-10, nicknamed "Warthog" or just "hog", could always fly low and slow and was designed, and armoured, to survive a lot of ground fire. The troops trust the A-10 more than the F-16 or any other aircraft used for ground support.

The A-10 is a 23 ton, twin engine, single seat aircraft whose primary weapon is a multi-barrel 30mm cannon originally designed to fire armoured piercing shells at Russian tanks. These days the 1,174 30mm rounds are mostly high explosive. The 30mm cannon fires 363 gram (12.7 ounce) rounds at the rate of about 65 a second. The cannon usually fires in one or two second bursts. In addition, the A-10 can carry seven tons of bombs and missiles.

These days the A-10 goes out with smart bombs (GPS and laser guided) and Maverick missiles. It can also carry a targeting pod, enabling the pilot to use high magnification day/night cameras to scour the area for enemy activity. Cruising speed is 560 kilometres an hour and the A-10 can slow down to about 230 kilometres an hour. In Afghanistan two drop tanks are usually carried, to give the aircraft more fuel and maximum time over the battlefield.

If there is another major war in some place like Korea or with Iran, the A-10s will once more be one of the most popular warplane with the ground troops.

[avgas]

The thing is, the Caspian Sea monster plane/boat only functioned on calm waters. I agree with you that it is a fascinating concept but the USSR couldn't make it work on the ocean. The Americans got a shock when their satellites spotted it.

http://www.yurock.net/russian-tank-ship-plane/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUTWWsh6iGA

Yeah but neither did the hovercraft and the russian and americans still pursued that. Hell they even pursued hydrofoils, which is just a dumbed down one.
Effectively the Ekranoplans were hovercraft that used the same fuel but travelled 4 times as fast.

I put in the same class as flying sharks - not practical.......but holy fuck flying sharks!!!!!
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3fafwWB8u1rv5nvio1_500.jpg

Or as the americans put it
"A boat that travels 800kph! the size of a football field? Holy fuck"
"It fires rockets? HOLY FUCK!"
http://images.defensetech.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Ekranoplanemissile.jpg

[Swoop]

Yeah but neither did the hovercraft.

You sure on that?
England had hovercraft as transportation for a few decades.
The SRN6 and SRN4 were quite successful:
The SR.N4 was the largest hovercraft built to that date, designed to carry 254 passengers in two cabins besides a four-lane automobile bay which held up to 30 cars. Cars were driven from a bow ramp just forward of the cockpit / wheelhouse. The first design was 40 metres (131 ft) long, weighed 190 long tons (193 t), was capable of 83 knots (154 km/h) and could cruise at over 60 knots (111 km/h).

The SR.N4s operated services across the English Channel between 1968 and 2000, until the abolition of duty free made their service unprofitable.

The sea conditions had to be really bad to cancel trips, due to them riding on top of the sea.


There was also the delicious smell of jetfuel around them.:drool:

[Oscar]

You sure on that?
England had hovercraft as transportation for a few decades.
The SRN6 and SRN4 were quite successful:
The SR.N4 was the largest hovercraft built to that date, designed to carry 254 passengers in two cabins besides a four-lane automobile bay which held up to 30 cars. Cars were driven from a bow ramp just forward of the cockpit / wheelhouse. The first design was 40 metres (131 ft) long, weighed 190 long tons (193 t), was capable of 83 knots (154 km/h) and could cruise at over 60 knots (111 km/h).

The SR.N4s operated services across the English Channel between 1968 and 2000, until the abolition of duty free made their service unprofitable.

The sea conditions had to be really bad to cancel trips, due to them riding on top of the sea.


There was also the delicious smell of jetfuel around them.:drool:

If I recall correctly, the Russian, Iranian and Royal Navies and the US Marines are still using hovercraft.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/LCAC_19970620.jpg/750px-LCAC_19970620.jpg

[avgas]

Did it replace a boat? Or was it used purely because it could go on land?
Never said the h-boats were failure..........just a failed replacement for a boat.
Worked perfectly fine if you were going somewhere it could be supported..........but few made it outside that. Same problem Ekranoplan still face, fantastics for going 900kph to a destination..........provided the conditions were right.

You also have to remember that I am talking about a design 70 years ago. Hovercrafts back then were like shooting ducks in a barrell. Even the Russian Juggernaut Zubr class was a really big fish to shoot. They were big and slow, and easy to take off-line.
Not to mention the inefficiency of using gas to lift the craft, and another to move it. Ekranoplans were the opposite, it lifted itself up, due to the hydrofoil effect of wind under the wing, it keep itself low by the rebounded pressure - thus it travelled more efficiently than even a plane. But it travelled at speeds a boat (or hovercraft) could not imagine. Not only that but it did not matter if the other surface was water or earth - the operating principle remained.

But I still have a soft spot for the old H-craft. But I can see the complaints about inefficient travel means......and the complaints about steering. But they are still cool - especially the zubr
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-c552eFyt4QA/TaNF3el9pkI/AAAAAAAAEeY/WadGI3Of7Fk/s1600/Zubr+Class+01.png

[Swoop]

A great photo of what the Marines play with!
283663

[Swoop]

It's quite interesting that the NZ Navy wants to keep HMNZS Endeavour in service until 2018.
Due to be decommissioned in 2015/6 due to severe corrosion, but you get that from a commercially designed vessel. Couple that with a crew so small, even maintaining the paintwork is a challenge let alone removing areas of rust.

Then we have Canterbury's problems...

[avgas]

It's quite interesting that the NZ Navy wants to keep HMNZS Endeavour in service until 2018.
Due to be decommissioned in 2015/6 due to severe corrosion, but you get that from a commercially designed vessel. Couple that with a crew so small, even maintaining the paintwork is a challenge let alone removing areas of rust.
Then we have Canterbury's problems...
Marine Enamel is on special in comparison to frigates........

If only we had that much common sense when it came to our strike wing rather than shutting down the jets on the hope of F-15's.

An aging navy is better than none.

[Mental Trousers]

Also called the PE (for precision engagement) model, the refurbished A-10s are supposed to remain in service until 2028, meaning most A-10Cs will have served over 40 years and as many as 16,000 flight hours. The upgrade effort has been underway for over five years. The upgrades include new electronics as well as structural and engine refurbishment. The A-10C provides the pilot with the same targeting and fire control gadgets the latest fighters have. The new A-10C cockpit has all the spiffy colour displays and easy to use controls. Because it is a single-seat aircraft that flies close to the ground (something that requires a lot more concentration), all the automation in the cockpit allows the pilot to do a lot more, with less stress, exertion, and danger.

The basic A-10 is a 1960s design, so the new additions are quite spectacular in comparison. New comms gear has also been added, allowing A-10 pilots to share pix and vids with troops on the ground. The A-10 pilot also has access to the Blue Force Tracker system, so that the nearest friendly ground forces show up on the HUD (Head Up Display) when coming in low to use the 30mm cannon. The A-10 can now use smart bombs, making it a do-it-all aircraft for ground support.


I wonder if adding alot more gizmos makes the A10 more vulnerable. Originally it was designed to fly around full of bullet holes with bits missing and still be able to hit anything on the ground with the 30mm. But circuit boards don't like bullet holes.

[Swoop]

I wonder if adding alot more gizmos makes the A10 more vulnerable. Originally it was designed to fly around full of bullet holes with bits missing and still be able to hit anything on the ground with the 30mm. But circuit boards don't like bullet holes.
No, not really. There are still double and triple-redundant systems onboard.
The new electronics enable far greater capability and greatly reduces the chance of fratricide... Something the US is quite capable of doing even under the best laid set of plans.

[NighthawkNZ]

It's quite interesting that the NZ Navy wants to keep HMNZS Endeavour in service until 2018.
Due to be decommissioned in 2015/6 due to severe corrosion, but you get that from a commercially designed vessel. Couple that with a crew so small, even maintaining the paintwork is a challenge let alone removing areas of rust.

Then we have Canterbury's problems...

The Navy doesn't get a say how long they get to keep stuff... the final say is from the NZG and bean counters...

Endevour was commissioned in 1988 that will make her 28 years old in 2016 That is getting up there for any ship. The main reason that they want to replace Endeavour, is that she a single skin hull... with a temporary double hull, but no longer meets international standards and is being used at a reduced capacity. As for maintenance all the ships have regular maintenance periods, and not just done buy the crew, but she is getting on the old girl. HMNZS Endevour has had an outstanding record & career in the RNZN. She one of the nicer and easier ships to receive fuel from (this comes from the many ships and crews that she has served over her career) The Aussies call her their third tanker. (not sure if that is a good thing or not... lol)

While Canterbury has had teething problems... (most new designs do) however most have now been rectified... Many other navies have looked and taken all the good designs from the concept and put into their own designs...
She has served her function well. She has been a learning curve in the art of amphibious landings etc and with Exercise Southern Katipo, she proved that she can do it. Remember, her main role and reason for being bought was and is 'Humanitarian Aid', and then moving troops, and then as a training ship... she was never bought to face armed landings or to go into hot spots. She proved herself the 2 times she has been on the Pacific Partnership Missions, The Cyclone Relief Aid in Tonga etc even here in NZ she moved equipment for the the ChCh EQ, Southern Katipo, and the many other exercises she has been on etc... Her Command and Control systems are being upgraded soon. I believe she will be going to RIMPAC in June/July this year. Is Canterbury perfect, no... but no ship is... The all have limitations, they all have problems, they all have their quirks.

[pzkpfw]

On the A10's : sadly they're now talking about dumping them, for budget reasons.

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/24/hagel-cuts-would-reshape-military-after-longest-war/

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/dod-aims-to-scrap-a-10-to-keep-f-35-alive-in-new-budget/

[avgas]

If this continues all will be left is the predator. F35 is a dud (a very sexy dud, but still a dud). Its 5 times over budget with no deadline in sight.

I wonder if NZ can buy the warthogs - they would actually suit as a replacement for the skyhawks.

[pzkpfw]

If this continues all will be left is the predator. F35 is a dud (a very sexy dud, but still a dud). Its 5 times over budget with no deadline in sight.

I wonder if NZ can buy the warthogs - they would actually suit as a replacement for the skyhawks.

Yep. Some Canadians are apparently pushing to buy some, reckon they'd be good for us too. Fire some shots across the bows of trawlers (like one of our Skyhawks once did.)

Kiwi pilots were apparently masters of low-level Skyhawk use. Sounds right up A10 alley.

[TheDemonLord]

The A10 is one of my top 3 Aircraft of all time,

Whilst it might have looks that only a mother could love - there is something that always makes me feel gooey (in a Manly way) when you see one of those do a run on a Tank - shredding it with the Avenger cannon.

I would be surprised if they scrap - hell the B52 is still trucking and that is coming up to its 60th birthday

[MisterD]

Whilst it might have looks that only a mother could love -

It looks perfect in the way only something so perfectly functional can.

It'd be a dream to see them over the Central Plateau...

[pzkpfw]

It looks perfect in the way only something so perfectly functional can.

It'd be a dream to see them over the Central Plateau...

I don't understand people. They say the Spitfire is beautiful, but to me it's weird and blobby.

They call the Thunderbolt II a Warthog - but to me it's just as you wrote.

[TheDemonLord]

if both of them were women, I would tap them 6 ways till sunday....

Jus Sayin.....

[pzkpfw]

Yeah, nothing wrong with weird and blobby women.

[James Deuce]

The A10s will go. The major operational issue is the radioactive waste they distribute all over battlefields. The secondary issue is they don't fit with modern US operational doctrine. They're too cost effective and that fucks their future budgets up.

Couple that with napalm and cluster-bombs being banned and the A10s role has been limited somewhat.

[pzkpfw]

I think they've stopped using DU in the A10.

The claimed tactical reason is that stuff like shoulder-mounted SAM's have made slow and low flying aircraft more vulnerable *; so missiles from a faster higher flying F16 (and later F35) has become the tank buster of choice.

Dunno if that's how it will work out.

(* which make me wonder what'll happen to attack helicopters.)


Aircraft of all kinds are going to go pilotless. That'll change the whole thing.

[Mental Trousers]

One of the major problems for the A10 is the Depleted Uranium shells it uses.

Most armour piercing rounds are made of Tungsten and are high speed Discarding Sabot types but you can't use a Discarding Sabot round fired from an aircraft otherwise there's a huge risk of the discarded bits killing the aircraft itself. So the 30mm GAU8 has to use a solid projectile which is a lot slower so it has to be as dense as possible to carry momentum. Depleted Uranium is denser than Tungsten and penetrates about 20% deeper.

It won't actually kill a main battle tank cos their armour is just too thick for a 30mm low speed Depleted Uranium shell to penetrate but anything less than a MBT is fucked.

I don't think the US has a replacement for the DU round on the A10 so it's main armour piercing ammo is about to disappear.

[James Deuce]

I think they've stopped using DU in the A10.

The claimed tactical reason is that stuff like shoulder-mounted SAM's have made slow and low flying aircraft more vulnerable *; so missiles from a faster higher flying F16 (and later F35) has become the tank buster of choice.

Dunno if that's how it will work out.

(* which make me wonder what'll happen to attack helicopters.)


Aircraft of all kinds are going to go pilotless. That'll change the whole thing.
The A10s still use DU. The only Air Arm that has made effective use of attack helicopters is the British Army. Their role however has effectively been supplanted by drones. The Brits can't afford drones other than the Royal ones they put in Attack Helicopters.

The A10 is the best piece of air support ever devised. It works. Air Support on a battlefield has to be delivered from tree top height, it's the only way to avoid "friendly" fire episodes. That lesson has been learned over and over. The F35 will never enter service, and the F16 has never been effective in close air support roles. If the F35 does enter service it will be to assuage a procurement committee's ego, who will then have to watch Rafaele's, Gripens, and Typhoons completely own it in any battlefield situation you care to name. It's a big, fat, expensive lemon, designed with a lingering echo of a memory of a threat that doesn't exist.

[avgas]

Yeah, nothing wrong with weird and blobby women.
Ugly chicks are freaks in the sack. Hot chicks are generally rigid in the sack.
IMO

[Swoop]

Air Support on a battlefield has to be delivered from tree top height
The Hog was used between 12k - 20k in the Gulf wars.
Any lower and the SAM threat was heavy. Gun runs were broken off at 10k when shooting tanks.
Oddly enough they had to use the Maverick missile's optical guidance seeker to help find/identify targets.

With the recent upgrade to C version, retiring these aircraft would be a very stupid thing to do. So the obvious thing to do will be...

[James Deuce]

They're already in the process of winding the A10s down on return for overseas deployment. Lots are going straight to the boneyard.

Reported operational altitude and actual are two different things.

[avgas]

As much as I love the A10's but even I have to admit that the game is up when you think of a humble LAV-AD as being a threat is kinda scary. Never mind the latest round of SAMs/DOME/Defender combinations and LaWS. Air superiority isn't what it used to be. Basically drop bombs or don't fly (aka drone).

[Swoop]

You do know that a squadron is based at the boneyard? It's an active airbase.
"Reported" comes from the pilots, not the media.