« Previous | Main | Next »

The Lustig guide to 2010

Robin Lustig | 13:10 UK time, Friday, 1 January 2010

Yes, it's time for Mystic Robin to make a fool of himself again with his predictions for the next 12 months.

But first, here's a quick tally of how I did last year. All in all, not too bad: I was right about the economy (although it didn't turn into the global banking melt-down that some commentators feared); I was right about Gordon Brown not calling an election and about growing instability in Pakistan (although I was wrong about the likelihood of more terrorist attacks in India); right about Obama on Iraq and Guantanamo; right about Obama delivering a major speech on relations with the Islamic world; wrong about growing unrest in Russia and China; more or less right about the elections in South Africa; wrong about the end of the Mugabe era in Zimbabwe; right about the outcome of the Iranian elections (although I didn't forsee the scale of the protests); and right about the outpourings of verbiage to mark the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.

I reckon that's about 7.5 out of 10, so bearing that in mind, here goes for 2010:

1. The UK general election will be on 6 May; Gordon Brown will still be Prime Minister; the entire campaign will be dominated by discussion and dissection of the TV leaders' debates, which in the end will make little difference to the outcome: a Conservative victory with a slim Commons majority of 15-30.

2. China will become the US-EU bogeyman. It'll block a package of new UN sanctions against Iran, and will be "unhelpful" on climate change. There'll be lots of talk about Beijing "flexing its muscles"; Premier Wen Jiabao will gently remind Washington that China is continuing to keep the US economy afloat by lending it squillions of dollars.

3. The US mid-term elections will see the Democrats losing control of the Senate but hanging on to the House of Representatives with a reduced majority. President Obama will say he's "heard the people's message".

4. The US will start bombing "terrorist targets" in Yemen and Somalia following the attempted Christmas Day plane attack, apparently by a would-be al-Qaeda suicide bomber trained in Yemen.

5. The Iranian authorities will crack down hard against opposition protests. There'll be hundreds more arrests, and more protests. The regime will survive.

6. The global economy will stage a slow recovery. In the main developed economies, unemployment will remain high, especially among young people. There'll be more trouble in France among unemployed young people from Arab and African backgrounds.

7. There'll be a resumption of hostilities between Israelis and Palestinians. Calls from outside for restraint will be ignored. The Israeli government will say it's determined to do whatever is necessary to defeat "Palestinian terrorism"; Hamas and the Fatah-affiliated al-Aqsa Brigades will say armed resistance to occupation is the only option available to them. The imprisoned Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti will be released as part of a prisoner swap deal; he will quickly emerge as the man everyone wants to do business with.

8. Silvio Berlusconi will stand down as Prime Minister of Italy on health grounds.

9. The extra US troops will be deployed in Afghanistan; casualties on both sides will increase dramatically during the summer, but by November (mid-term election time in the US), Obama will claim his strategy is working.

10. Climate change negotiations will splutter on, with an increasing emphasis on finding other policy options besides Kyoto-style emission reduction targets. Expect to hear more discussion from the richer countries about the need to control population growth. There'll be a furious reaction from the poorer countries.

Sorry if you find all this a bit depressing, but remember, I could be entirely wrong. Anyway, this was my advice a year ago, and I repeat it now unchanged: enjoy the company of your family and friends; admire the trees and the flowers in parks and gardens; count your blessings.


Comments

  • 1. At 9:05pm on 01 Jan 2010, Jack Hughes wrote:

    Hi Robin,

    It will become more and more obvious that there is not a problem with climate at all. The Climategate affair has only confirmed what many people already thought/felt: that there was something missing from "climate science", that it was like homeopathy, or astrology, or aromatherapy. Not a real science. The only surprise for me was how nasty the individuals were and how how little faith they had in their own work.

    Sadly this will not stop the IPCC. This has very little connection with the climate. Instead it's an alliance of greedy businessmen like Pachauri and Gore, world-government megalomaniacs like de Boer, greedy and corrupt 3rd worlders like Mugabe.

    Oh and it's propelled by eco-dupes in advanced countries who really think they are saving the planet. Nobody else does.

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 11:58pm on 01 Jan 2010, smartsceptic wrote:

    The thing that I find disturbing about the growing climate scepticism as expressed by Jack Hughes in the previous comment is the sense of futility that is hidden in the assumption that there is "nothing we can do about it even were it true." There is plenty of evidence for global warming being reported by even the irresponsible US MSM who unlike the press in Europe takes global warming only half seriously. Melting ice caps and major glaciers in every part of the global environment should alarm all of us by now. Scientists have made enough studies of CO2 to know that not only that it traps the sun's heat but that it accumulates over hundreds of years without any natural means of dissipation. And most importantly it is not as if the environmental movement has no experience with this sort of looming disaster. In the eighties and nineties a similar world wide alarm over the ozone hole brought environmentalists together to draft the Montreal Protocol (an inspiration for the Kyoto Protocol) to rid the use of CFCs in aerosols and refrigerants. After a decade results were forthcoming and we are now certain that we have succeeded. If nothing had been done according to Tim Flannery the amount of skin cancer would have exploded. So why is there a growing climate of climate scepticism in the world. As I have already noted the irresponsible MSM in the US is playing a leading role in cultivating such a self-defeating attitude. Shame on the once free press in the US.

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 09:27am on 02 Jan 2010, John_from_Hendon wrote:

    #2. smartsceptic wrote:

    "Scientists have made enough studies of CO2 to know that not only that it traps the sun's heat but that it accumulates over hundreds of years without any natural means of dissipation"

    WARNING: This above statement is NOT in accordance with climate science! There are too many scientific errors in it. Almost every phrase is scientifically wrong.

    The "studies of CO2" show that CO2 rises (in some cases only) AFTER temperatures have risen. Also see the inability of the exponential climate models to predict the lowering of temperatures combined with rising CO2 since 1999. It is also interesting to note that these "studies of CO2" require that historic ice ages are removed from the data record - see the handling of the medieval (and well document) little ice age.

    "it accumulates over hundreds of years without any natural means of dissipation" Sorry, but this is absolutely wrong - where does the writer think that plants get their CO2 to grow from? The measured mean lifetime of CO2 is only about 5 years the figures so called climate scientists use are based upon what they need to 'prove' their models and are not based on measurement.

    Please look up the science rather than citing the erroneous nonsense published in the media.

    However...

    Destroying our planet's flora and fauna and our biosphere through indiscriminate pollution is undoubtedly a very big problem and we must work strenuously to ameliorate the effect of indiscriminate economic (and population) growth and development.

    If you wish to read more of my analysis of the mechanisms of economic forces underlying Climate Change please see my recent posting to the BBC blog: Stephanonics (and Richard Black's environmental blog) on this subject - particularly note the relationship of our global weather/climate with solar wind activity, our magnetosphere, lunar position and the changes in our planet's obliquity.

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 2:25pm on 03 Jan 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    Ho hum more of the conventional popular wisdom. You could have written this one in your sleep Mr. Lustig. There will be floods here, earthquakes there and lots of people will die. Terrible storms will be blamed on global warming (as though we didn't have them before anyone ever heard of global warming) and scientits will tell us that they will be more frequent. They will continue to express alarm at the rate at which polar and glacial ice is melting and will warn that the tipping point of no return may be fast approaching.

    There will be more violence in the middle east, more saber rattling by North Korea. China will have industrial accidents that will put many lives in jeopardy (there is already a serious oil spill in a tributary of the Yellow River threatening the drinking water of millions.)

    People will continue to worry about the economy and the prices and availability of fossil fuels and food which will increase. Food and water shortages will plague poorer people around the world and the rich countries will promise to send help and money.

    So what will really make the headlines, the ones we'll remember most? In all likelihood, events which are not predictable. We don't know what they are and have no way of guessing except to spray speculations in a shotgun blast and hope at least some of them hit their targets. A war in the middle east? War between India and Pakistan? The Teleban overthowing Pakistan's government? Disasterous fires and floods in Europe? New discoveries that will revolutionize our understanding of medical sciences or astronomy? Nobody knows. But if they guess one or two right, they'll be sure to crow about it while they ignore all those others they got wrong. That's how it always seems to work. That's why this type of prediction is so silly.

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 8:43pm on 03 Jan 2010, dennisjunior1 wrote:

    Robin Lustig----

    I think that 5 & 9 are very much tried in 2010....Since, Silvio will probably retired from Italian Politics because of his health problems and other problems....

    ~Dennis Junior~

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 8:59pm on 03 Jan 2010, dennisjunior1 wrote:

    Robin:

    (3. The US mid-term elections will see the Democrats losing control of the Senate but hanging on to the House of Representatives with a reduced majority. President Obama will say he's "heard the people's message".)

    As being from the United States, I have to support that prediction...But, I hope that you are very much wrong.....

    =Dennis Junior=

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 10:11pm on 03 Jan 2010, dennisjunior1 wrote:

    Robin~Number 5; The problem is that the country has been working on that technique for a while now, and, is not going to change for a while.

    =Dennis Junior=

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 8:48pm on 07 Jan 2010, MrRoderickLouis wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 9. At 09:00am on 08 Jan 2010, MrRoderickLouis wrote:

    WILL 2010 BRING AN END TO 12-YEARS OF LABOUR GOVT POLICIES RENDERING THE ROYAL NAVY A DEFENCELESS, EMACIATED & HUGELY SHRUNKEN SERVICE??

    About 5-years ago, 6-year-old MoD plans to, upon build-completion, fit ALL of the Royal Navy's (then planned) new Type-45 Destroyers and 2 new aircraft carriers AND ALL OTHER RN surface combatants with the sensors and communications equipment required for Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) were abruptly cancelled- due to Labour govt-dictated cost saving measures:

    17_10-2000 Janes' article re CEC roll out for Royal Navy-

    http://www.janes.com/defence/naval_forces/news/jdw/jdw001017_1_n.shtml

    Last month Janes reported that a 'final' decision on whether RN surface combatants- including the integral-to-fleet-air-defence Type-45 Destroyers- will be made early in 2010:

    "UK to decide on (Cooperative Engagement Capability) CEC for Royal Navy next year..."-

    http://www.janes.com/news/defence/naval/jdw/jdw091201_1_n.shtml

    Shouldn't this type of a hugely long reaching, directly connected to UK foreign policy decision wait until after the Strategic Defence Review has been completed??

    How can the new Type-45 Destroyers be expected to provide anti airborne threat defences for most of the Royal Navy's vessels as well as civilian ships involved in future conflicts- AS IS THEIR GOVT ADVERTISED ROLE- if Type-45's (and the RN's other surface combatants/airborne assets) are not equipped with the communications and sensors equipment required for CEC??

    CEC is vital for warships to share theatre data- especially important when threats such as supersonic sea skimming anti ship cruise missiles (ASCM's) and aircraft- may be approaching from 'over the horizon' (farther out than 20 miles) flying low, and thus not detectable by a Type-45 until 'no longer over the horizon' (less than 20 miles out) and less than 1 minute away...

    If Type-45's can not detect- and take actions to deal with- airborne threats until they are closer than 20-miles out, their reaction time is very dangerously limited and ships in their squadron that are farther away than 4 or 5 miles (in the direction of the incoming threat) are, in effect, sitting ducks to foes with a modicum of common sense and only moderately up-to-date weapons…


    It would be an unheard of and suicidal strategy for RN squadrons involved in a conflict situation to have all of the squadron's vessels remaining within 4 miles of each other...

    Considering that the advertised purpose of Type-45's is to protect other RN vessels from airborne attack- without CEC this task becomes an absurd assignment...

    Possibly the most egregiously dangerous and short sighted Labour Govt cost-cutting strategyof the early 2000's: upon build-completion, Type-45's were to not be fitted with the sensors and communications equipment required for 'Cooperative Engagement Capability' (CEC).

    http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/cec-coooperative-enagagement-for-fleet-defense-updated-03120/

    ... rendering these urgently required warships close to useless in any conflict involving a foe possessing moderately up-to-date weapons...

    Type-45's- with their PAAMS anti airborne threat missile system- coupled with yet-to-be-funded 'Cooperative Engagement Capability' (CEC) sensors & communication equipment (that Type-45 architects & planners intended for instalation at build completion)- are tasked by the MoD to act as air defence for the bulk of the Royal Navy's surface combatants and any civilian vessels involved in future conflicts...

    Without CEC, Type-45's will be hard pressed to defend themselves against airborne attacks and would be unable to perform any functional AAW defensive role for other surface combatants- and accompanying civilian vessels- if adversaries have only moderately up-to-date weapons...
    ---------------------
    ---------------------

    UK probes Sea Viper missile test failures:

    http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jmr/jmr100104_1_n.shtml

    - What targets were used? (IE sub sonic or supersonic; high altitude or sea skimming?)
    --------------------
    --------------------

    http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/gqm163-ssst-a-tricky-coyote-to-match-wits-with-defenses-03155/ :

    "...March 20/07: Orbital Sciences Corp. in Chandler, AZ received a $9.2 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for the procurement of one (1) GQM-163A ‘Coyote’ Supersonic Sea Skimming Target (SSST) Vehicle, support equipment, spare parts, technical data, and technical assistance for the government of France under the Foreign Military Sales Program. The GQM-163A will support the validation of a French weapons system – exactly which system was not specified....
    ---------------------
    ---------------------

    - Were the Sea Viper missiles used the short range (14-19 mile) Aster 15's or the longer range (50-60 mile) Aster 30's?

    - How does the UK PAAMS experience contrast with France & Italy's with their (EMPAR radar-based) PAAMS systems?

    - Are the differences between the UK and France/Italy's radars potential causative factors in the UK's missile test failures?

    Now that France's 75% state owned DCNS has developed, and is actively marketing the 'VERSATILE' sylver A70 missile launcher- for use with Aster 15's & 30's and with land attack cruise missiles- and considering that the A70 is to be fitted to France's (& apparently to Italy's) under construction FREMM and Horizon Frigates:

    - could the much smaller, NOT-VERSATILE sylver A50 missile launchers that the UK's Type-45 Destroyers are having fitted be causative factors in the recent missile test failures??


    CONTINUED

    _________________
    Roderick V. Louis,
    Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 09:06am on 08 Jan 2010, MrRoderickLouis wrote:

    WILL 2010 BRING AN END TO 12-YEARS OF LABOUR GOVT POLICIES RENDERING THE ROYAL NAVY A DEFENCELESS, EMACIATED & HUGELY SHRUNKEN SERVICE??

    PART 2:


    UK's CURRENT AIRCRAFT CARRIERS HAD THEIR OBSOLESCENT ANTI AIRBORNE THREAT 'SEA DART' WEAPONS REMOVED IN THE LATE 1990's, BUT TO SAVE MONEY, NO TECHNOLOGICALLY UP-TO-DATE WEAPONS HAVE BEEN FITTED AS REPLACEMENTS...

    This despite the well-known-in-the-late-1990's (& today) egregious & increasing threat presented to surface vessels by supersonic sea skimming anti ship cruise missiles (ASCM's) such as the Russian SS-N-27 'sizzler'...

    TO SAVE MONEY, THE UK's PLANNED NEW AIRCRAFT CARRIERS ARE BEING BUILT WITHOUT ARMOUR, ARMOURED BULKHEADS, AIRCRAFT-LAUNCH CATAPULTS AND WITHOUT THE MISSILE-BASED WEAPONS & SENSORS REQUIRED FOR SHIP SELF-DEFENCE AGAINST ASCM's & AIRCRAFT:

    http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/ :

    ".... A number of protective measures such as side armour and armoured bulkheads proposed by industrial bid teams have been deleted from the design in order to comply with cost limitations...."

    Catapults are necessary for Aircraft Carriers to be able to embark, launch & recover a variety of the most versatile & capable types of fixed-wing aircraft, such as Airborne Early Warning & Control (AWACS) types:

    E-2D Hawkeye: The (U.S.) Navy’s New AWACS-

    http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/e-2d-hawkeye-the-navys-new-awacs-03443/

    The RN's new carriers will be restricted to Harrier type (short/vertical take off & land) fixed-wing aircraft & helicopters- that can not duplicate even remotely the function of modern, fixed-wing AWACS...

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1100714/The-4billion-Airfix-Kit-Behind-scenes-Britains-biggest-warships.html :

    "... Money has also been saved in side armour protection, though Knight insists this was a strategic rather than a budgetary issue.

    "'The CVF’s first line of defence is the frigates and the new Type 45 destroyers around us,' he adds. 'Our only self-defence is close-in weapons systems and small guns.

    "Instead, what you have on the ship is 36 of the most lethal aircraft* ever made.'..."


    * aircraft whose designed-capabilities DO NOT include protecting warships from incoming anti-ship missiles...

    EVERY OTHER 1st WORLD NATION WITH AIRCRAFT CARRIERS ARMS THEM COMPREHENSIVELY WITH ARMOUR & UP-TO-DATE MISSILE-BASED ASCM DEFENCES...

    The US, Italy, France and even Japan fit and are retrofitting their carriers with technologically up-to-date AAW weapons- for the UK to not be doing the same for its existing** and planned carriers is gross negligence....

    ** Illustrious and Ark Royal's obsolescent Sea Dart AAW weapons were removed in the late 1990's but, despite plenty of existing, highly capable AAW weapons systems existing then that could easily have been fitted to Lusty and Ark Royal- no replacement system was installed- to save money...

    http://www.military-today.com/navy/improved_nimitz_class.htm :

    "... These (US Navy Nimitz class supercarriers) were completed with Kevlar armour over their vital areas and have improved hull protection arrangements..."

    "The Kevlar armour has been retrofitted to the earlier carriers, as have many of the advanced systems built into the newer ships..."


    http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/uss-theodore-roosevelt-headed-into-midlife-overhaul-02810/

    http://www.news.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=400&ct=4

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/lhd-8.htm

    http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/

    http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/cvn-213.html

    http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/cvn-214.html

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cvn-78-specs.htm

    http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003686.html:

    "... The Hyuga... will carry an Aegis-type air defense system, with the U.S.-developed AN/SPY-1 multi-function radar; her principal "weapons" armament will be 64 advanced ESSM-type Sparrow missiles... "

    "... She will also be fitted with two 20-mm Phalanx (radar guided) "Gatling" guns for close-in defense against anti-ship missiles, and she will have six tubes for anti-submarine torpedoes...."


    http://www.janes.com/news/defence/naval/jni/jni090424_1_n.shtml

    http://defense-update.com/products/h/hyuga_250409.html -

    "... Hyuga is equipped with 16 Mk41 VLS (Vertical Launch System) cells (each cell carries and can launch 4 ESSM-type Sparrow missiles- rvl) for anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles and accommodates two 20mm Phalanx (radar guided) anti-missile cannon and two triple 12.75-inch torpedo mounts for self defense...."
    -----------------
    -----------------

    The new Type-45 Destroyers' missile system does not work yet,

    http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jmr/jmr100104_1_n.shtml

    http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/Royal-Navy-destroyers-at-sea.5889279.jp

    http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/Destroyers-can-be-delayed-if.5923614.jp

    & these allegedly 'world beating' warships are being built without 80% of the basic, industry standard weapons, defensive systems & sensors that- in other 1st world countries' navy's- are mandatorily fitted to their new Destroyers & Frigates...

    Holland's De Zeven Provincien Frigates are roughly the same size as Type-45's and have been built/commissioned during the last 5-years.

    Unlike Type-45's, none of the 4 De Zeven Provinciens produced so far spent years at sea after construction without an operational Anti Air Warfare missile system. Similarly, De Zeven Provinciens did not experience missile test failures similar to that recently reported to be afflicting Type-45's missile system...

    Costs for De Zeven Provinciens' construction & fitting with suites of weapons, communications and defensive systems that make Type-45's capabilities look ridiculous- were reported as less than 1/2 a billion pounds each:


    http://www.onwar.com/weapons/warships/boats/Netherlands_DeZevenProvincien.html

    http://www.netherlands-embassy.org/tromp/faq.htm

    http://www.amiinter.com/samples/netherlands/NL1301.html (price of each- $500 million?)

    http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/dezeven/

    CONTINUED


    _________________
    Roderick V. Louis,
    Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 09:15am on 08 Jan 2010, MrRoderickLouis wrote:

    WILL 2010 BRING AN END TO 12-YEARS OF LABOUR GOVT POLICIES RENDERING THE ROYAL NAVY A DEFENCELESS, EMACIATED & HUGELY SHRUNKEN SERVICE??


    PART 3:


    De Zeven Provinciens are each fitted with an ultra modern (x band) Active Phased Array Radar (APAR) type (interrupted continuous wave illumination (ICWI)) radar (not dissimilar to the UK's Type-45's) but instead of being armed for anti air warfare (AAW) with Aster 15 and Aster 30 missiles (as Type-45's are), the De Zeven Provinciens are armed for AAW with the U.S. ESSM/SM2 and SM-3 types of missiles and the Lockheed MK 41 VLS Strike missile launcher system...

    ESSMs and SM-2 missiles can be used against surface targets whereas Asters can not...

    AND, unlike Type-45's, De Zeven Provinciens are fitted with the communications and related equipment required for Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC);

    AND, unlike Type-45's, De Zeven Provinciens are fitted with Close In Weapons Systems (CIWS's);

    AND, unlike Type-45's, De Zeven Provinciens are fitted with a first rate sonar;

    AND, unlike Type-45's, De Zeven Provinciens are fitted with torpedo tubes and the equipment required to launch torpedoes from-ship;

    AND, unlike Type-45's, De Zeven Provinciens are fitted with Anti Surface Weapons- the US 'Harpoon' Anti Ship Cruise Missile;

    AND, unlike Type-45's, De Zeven Provinciens are fitted with an infra red early warning system for detecting and tracking sea skimming Anti Ship Cruise Missiles (ASCM's);

    AND De Zeven Provinciens are constructed to enable crew protection from chemical, biological and nuclear attacks whereas Type-45's are not....

    http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/raytheons-standard-missile-naval-defense-family-updated-02919/ :

    "... SM-2 Block IIIA missiles have greater capability at even lower altitudes than previous SM-2 versions, a more powerful fragmentation warhead, and can use Interrupted Continuous Wave Illumination (ICWI) to improve performance against supersonic maneuvering anti-ship missiles..."

    IF MODERN DESTROYERS & FRIGATES DON'T NEED CIWS's, WHY DO ALL 1st WORLD COUNTRIES- OTHER THAN THE UK- ARM THEIR SURFACE COMBATANTS WITH CIWS's?

    Type-45 Destroyers' peers such as the US's Burke class Destroyers, South Korea's KDX III's (Burke variant), Japan's Kongo & Atago classes of Destroyers (Burke Variants), Holland's De Zeven Provincien Frigates, Germany's F124 and F-125 classes of Frigates, Spain's Alvaro de Bazan Frigates AND France/Italy's (and, very, very likely, their export customers') Horizon and FREMM classes of Frigates have had (or will have) 'Close In Weapons Systems' (CIWS's) fitted at construction completion and commissioning...

    Other than the UK's Type-45's, ALL of the above referenced countries’ Destroyers and Frigates are having fitted:

    1) Two copies of the radar-guided 'Phalanx' machine gun-based CIWS (Burkes, Horizons, FREMMS, ATAGO's, KONGO's); or

    2) Two copies of the more capable, radar-guided 'Goalkeeper' machine gun-based CIWS (Holland's De Zeven Provinciens & S. Korea's KDX III's); or

    3) Two copies of the missile-based Raytheon RIM-116 rolling airframe missile (RAM) CIWS (Germany's F-124's and F-125's); or

    4) Two copies of the reportedly not as capable, radar guided FABA Meroka 2B machine gun-based CIWS (Spain's F-100 Alvaro de Bazans)...

    Several of the above countries are installing or have installed more than one model of CIWS to their Frigates/Destroyers...

    CIWS's are accepted by naval strategists and architects as vital for situations when a Destroyer or Frigate's main anti airborne threat weapons system, such as an AEGIS or in the UK's case, the PAAMS/Aster based system misses its targets or runs out of missiles.…

    CIWS's are also recognized in ALL developed world countries' (with global footprints) naval planners' strategy doctrine as integral to ship self-defence from recently emerged types of threats such as fast-attack suicide boats and similar surface threats;

    TYPE-45's WERE CONCEIVED AS MULTI-ROLE/MULTI-MISSION DESTROYERS- WHY HAS THIS CHANGED?

    According to the MoD in 2002 and after main gate approval, Type-45's were to be multi-role Destroyers with multi-mission capabilities (similar to the US Navy's Burkes, France & Italy's Horizons & FREMMS, S. Korea's KDX III's, Japan's Kongos & Atagos, Holland's De Zeven Provinciens, Australia's Hobarts and Anzacs, Germany's F124s & Spain's Alvaro de Bazans)...

    So,

    1) "why aren't the Type-45's rolling off of the assembly line being fitted with the weapons, communications, defensive and related equipment required to function as 'multi-mission/multi-role' Destroyers??"

    If cost is the answer from the MoD/govt, then:

    2) "is it reasonably sound and responsible logic for the govt to be directing and/or sanctioning the building and putting into service what are in reality only partially built warships??"

    3) "Would the army accept land fighting vehicles that- although fitted with engines and wheels upon delivery to the Army- were to have their guns and armour fitted at a later- NOT SPECIFIED- date??"

    4) "What would such a practice do to army service personnel morale, the country's reputation world-wide and its abilities to deter potential aggressors/defend itself in the future??"

    The MoD says that plans are when sufficient numbers of Type-42's, Type-22's and Type-23's have been decommissioned- their (20-25 year old) Phalanx systems 'may' be cannibalized in order to be fitted to Type-45's...

    Does this say 'world beater' or 'cutting edge' to the rest of the world, let alone to the British public??

    CONTINUED


    _________________
    Roderick V. Louis,
    Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 09:16am on 08 Jan 2010, MrRoderickLouis wrote:

    WILL 2010 BRING AN END TO 12-YEARS OF LABOUR GOVT POLICIES RENDERING THE ROYAL NAVY A DEFENCELESS, EMACIATED & HUGELY SHRUNKEN SERVICE??


    PART 4:


    CONTRADICTING ORIGINAL PLANS, TYPE-45's EMBARKED HELO's NOT 'WORLD BEATER' CAPABILITY TYPE

    Type-45's are not being fitted with the communications, night operations and landing hardware equipment that is required to embark the Merlin (EH 101) Helicopter. Consequently, only the vastly inferior Lynx helicopter will be embarkable on Type-45's for the foreseeable future.

    Apparently, Lynx's won't be deployable at night from Type-45's...

    TYPE-45's RECEIVING A FUNCTIONALLY LIMITED SONAR

    France and Italy’s Horizon Frigates are receiving the Thales UMS 4110 CL sonar.

    The MoD wanted this set for Type-45's but were ruled out by Labour on costs grounds.

    As a result the Type-45's are receiving the vastly less capable EDO MFS-7000 sonar....

    No other developed world country has ever chosen EDO MFS-7000 sonar for its front line warships...

    Testimony at this link:

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200001/cmselect/cmpubacc/136/1011503.htm

    .. shows that in 2001 there were indeed plans in within the MoD to commission new Type-45 Destroyers without any sonar fitted- in addition to their many other egregious lack of weapons, communications, damage control systems & capabilities' deficiencies...

    Testimony also shows how dangerously outmoded the STILL NOT REPLACED TODAY IN 2009 Sea Dart anti airborne threat system was in 2001...

    One would expect that members of the MoD that were aware of hugely serious and highly dangerous equipment capability shortfalls would have been testifying loudly for immediate rectification- not attempting to defend irresponsible govt funding and acquisition policies- by trying to double talk committee members and avoid admitting how dangerous the equipment capability shortfalls were...

    Unless things change, the new aircraft carriers won't be fitted with the sensors & communications equipment required for 'Cooperative Engagement Capability' (CEC)....

    CEC is required for surface warships to protect themselves against the 'widely acknowledged within the MoD' significant threats posed by technologically current anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCM's) & military aircraft...

    Without CEC, the UK's new aircraft carriers- similar to the under construction Type-45 Destroyers, which also aren't being fitted with CEC- will be sitting ducks in any sort of conflict situation (one off or ongoing) involving adversaries with even moderately up-to-date weaponry & a modicum of common sense...
    --------------------
    --------------------

    Why doesn't the BBC question the Labour govt false logic of their grossly under arming and under equipping the new aircraft carriers and Type-45 Destroyers and the imminent CEC decision??



    _________________
    Roderick V. Louis,
    Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 11:59am on 08 Jan 2010, MrRoderickLouis wrote:

    WILL 2010 BRING AN END TO 12-YEARS OF LABOUR GOVT POLICIES RENDERING THE ROYAL NAVY A DEFENCELESS, EMACIATED & HUGELY SHRUNKEN SERVICE??


    PART 4a:


    Even Brazil makes sure that its nearly 50-year old Aircraft Carrier is fitted with with up-to-date, missile-based anti airborne threat defence systems:


    08_01-2010 Janes article: "Refitted Sao Paulo returns to sea"

    http://www.janes.com/news/defence/naval/idr/idr100108_1_n.shtml -

    ..."(As a result of the refit, the Sao Paulo has) three new twin-Mistral surface-to-air missile launchers "...

    Is it responsible or ethical for the UK govt to not approve funding so that its existing and planned new aircraft carriers are fitted with missile-based, technologically current anti airborne threat weapons systems??

    Why doesn't the BBC report on this issue and the imminent Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) decision???



    _________________
    Roderick V. Louis,
    Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.