Author Topic: Arms to Taiwan  (Read 581 times)

Sandman_SBM

  • Guest
Arms to Taiwan
« on: April 24, 2001, 06:50:00 AM »
 http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010424/ts/china_usa_taiwan_dc_7.html

 
Quote
Under the deal, Washington would sell Taiwan four Kidd class destroyers, a dozen anti-submarine P-3 ``Orion'' submarine hunter aircraft and eight diesel submarines built in Europe.

Hah! Kidd class destroyers! These ships are 20 years old... the bastard step-children of the Spruance class originally intended for the Shaw of Iran.

 

I wonder just how old the Orions are... and the subs?

------------------
cheers,
sand
screamin blue messiahs
The SBM's are hiring!

Offline blur

  • Parolee
  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 154
Arms to Taiwan
« Reply #1 on: April 24, 2001, 08:03:00 AM »
I can sleep soundly now knowing that my tax money is helping to keep the world armed to the teeth.

Offline miko2d

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3177
Arms to Taiwan
« Reply #2 on: April 24, 2001, 09:23:00 AM »
 You don't know much about military technology - which is OK unless you are in the military yourself.  

 The hull of a ship can serve for 50 years easily and there were no significant advances in the hull design since before WWII.
 The engines are changed when they work through their resourse, so do not worry about that.
 There was no major improvement is cannons and shells for a while, nor in missle launchers (which can easily be swapped if need be). Even radar emitters are pretty stable by now.
 The most important part of the ships (and planes and tanks) equipment are fire control (computers), communications, radar software, missle warhead firmware.
 Those are constantly kept up to date if needed.
 20 years old is nothing for a ship.

 I am sure we do not sell the latest generation systems, but it must be quite capable.

 Even in russian army my T-72 tank was sent to be refurbished every few months (the engine resourse is only 500 hours) and it came back with only armor and cannon intact - everything else was the latest model.

 miko

[This message has been edited by miko2d (edited 04-24-2001).]

Offline streakeagle

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1024
      • Streak Eagle - Stephen's Website
Arms to Taiwan
« Reply #3 on: April 24, 2001, 12:57:00 PM »
The only major differences between the early Ticonderoga "Aegis" cruisers (still first rate front line ships in our own fleet) and the Kidd class destroyers are the Aegis radar/fire control system (and the superstructure to hold it), the sonar systems, and the awesome air conditioning provided for the Shah's Kidd class boats.

I was a submarine sonar technician for 8 years, but I got to spend a week on USS Chandler DDG-996. Its sonar was about useless for detecting submarines (though with helicopter/sonobuoy support, more than adequate), but its anti-air capabilities were great. Of course I loved the air conditioning too.

Not too many ships in the entire world outclass the Kidd class beyond our own Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke classes.

Nuff said,
Stephen the Eagle
i5(4690K) MAXIMUS VII HERO(32 Gb RAM) GTX1080(8 Gb RAM) Win10 Home (64-bit)
OUR MISSION: PROTECT THE FORCE, GET THE PICTURES, ...AND KILL MIGS!

Sturm

  • Guest
Arms to Taiwan
« Reply #4 on: April 24, 2001, 01:08:00 PM »
Miko if you ever have the time I would like to chat with you about the T-72 and other Soviet vehicles.  

------------------
Sturm6 StaffelKapitän
JV44 Platzschutzstaffel
Airfield Defense Squadron
"Did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl harbor?"  Famous quote from Animal House, John Belushi.

Offline miko2d

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3177
Arms to Taiwan
« Reply #5 on: April 24, 2001, 01:15:00 PM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by Sturm:
Miko if you ever have the time I would like to chat with you about the T-72 and other Soviet vehicles.  

  Sure,
 Fire away. I suggest a separate thread. I do not know much about other vehicles though - some limited experience with BMP-1 and BMP-2.
 I served in 1984-1986, so my information  may not be entirely up to date.

 miko

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Arms to Taiwan
« Reply #6 on: April 24, 2001, 03:00:00 PM »
The question is if the Kidd-class are a match for what the mainland Chinese are fielding.

The Taiwanese don't need an all out, first line blue-water navy.

...and the Aegis decision gets a review depending on how things go in the region.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Sturm

  • Guest
Arms to Taiwan
« Reply #7 on: April 24, 2001, 03:04:00 PM »
Miko, would have to be either on RW or email.  Have lots of questions to ask used to study the soviet military heavily in the 80's.  

------------------
Sturm6 StaffelKapitän
JV44 Platzschutzstaffel
Airfield Defense Squadron
"Did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl harbor?"  Famous quote from Animal House, John Belushi.

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Arms to Taiwan
« Reply #8 on: April 25, 2001, 06:21:00 AM »
Well, I guess they don't need anything more than Kidd-class after this statement:
 http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/04/24/bush.taiwan.abc/index.html

If anyone has a subscription to Wall Street Journal Online, could you post the article called "the fire next time" from yesterday's (4/24) editorial page?
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline Tac

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4085
Arms to Taiwan
« Reply #9 on: April 25, 2001, 05:50:00 PM »
AHAHAHAHAH this is almost poetical!

Now Taiwan has an almost assured military defense promise from the US, Japan joins in the chi-com bashing and Taiwan got its armament.

Wong Wei indeed!            

Offline miko2d

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3177
Arms to Taiwan
« Reply #10 on: April 26, 2001, 08:27:00 AM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by Sturm:
Miko, would have to be either on RW or email.  Have lots of questions to ask used to study the soviet military heavily in the 80's.  

 Use mikeko_ny@yahoo.com.
 You should not expect many technical specs from me. Either because of the need to now or most likely because of the general sloppiness of the soviet military, we were not taught lot of things that you can find in a good book (in a US store) - like exact armor thickness and composition, etc. I did know more about it then an average grunt and I had read the manual, but I could not obviously have taken the notes even if I wanted to   Most of the details I knew I forgot over 15 years.

 So I cannot be relied on for exact specs for every system or component (which changed constantly, BTW - even the armor thickness and shape).

 I could tell you plenty how it felt, though. I took that baby through all it's paces - night, day, summer, winter, swamps, snow, underwater, self-entrenching, self-extracting, shooting for speed, etc.
 T-72 is an outstanding piece of equipment. In the hands of a professional crew it would have been the deadliest weapon ever. Fortunately, the Soviet Army was the sorriest example of forced draft system and inept staffing practices.

 miko

[This message has been edited by miko2d (edited 04-26-2001).]

Sandman_SBM

  • Guest
Arms to Taiwan
« Reply #11 on: April 26, 2001, 09:39:00 AM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by miko2d:
The hull of a ship can serve for 50 years easily and there were no significant advances in the hull design since before WWII... 20 years old is nothing for a ship.

I can't think of a single U.S. Navy warship that has served 50 years other than (possibly) the battleships that were brought out of mothball.

My first ship was the Leahy. When I got to it, it was 26 years old and had already been through significant upgrades even before NTU. So, sure... your point is valid... 20 year old hulls are not uncommon. When you start looking for 30 and older hulls... then the pickings get slim.

I can remember seeing the Kidd destroyers at North Island. At the time, I wanted to be assigned to one, but now I wonder. If the ship was so capable, why was it build for export? Of course, NTU changes everything.

Being one of the last of the "old school" radarmen, I prefered the NTU over Aegis. Call me old fashioned, but I had trouble trusting radars that did not display raw radar returns.

WRT to hull design, wasn't the Spruance considered significant? The Navy liked it so much, they put the Tico cruisers on it.

------------------
cheers,
sand
screamin blue messiahs
The SBM's are hiring!