2012-09-25, 08:31 | Link #23901 | |
Valkyrie pilot
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Rouen, France
Age: 40
|
Quote:
Unfortunately the decision was postponed, and with the economic crisis, we'll have to make with only the Charles de Gaulle for quite a few years. |
|
2012-09-25, 08:45 | Link #23903 |
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
France doesn't necessarily need more then 1 functional Aircraft Carrier. The key thing is that it has one that is fully functional, and they know how to use it. That means that if the world becomes more tense, and less peaceful, they don't need to do any design or testing work to build more. They can simply duplicate their current designs. Overall this is a cheap way to maintain potential military power.
The same is true with Japan and nuclear weapons. Japan does not have any, but they could easily build them if they needed to within a few months. They have all the missiles ready to launch them with, and a large amount of Nuclear expertise. |
2012-09-25, 08:59 | Link #23907 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dai Korai Teikoku
|
You have no idea how difficult it is. That's the kind of civilian knowledge which is actually incorrect. The fact is that ballistic missiles, especially of the ICBM type we're talking about, would require much more planning and mechanics than just firing something into space.
|
2012-09-25, 09:05 | Link #23908 | |
今宵の虎徹は血に飢えている
Join Date: Jan 2009
|
Quote:
You are better off building a dedicated ICBM than converting a simple payload bus
__________________
|
|
2012-09-25, 09:05 | Link #23909 | |||
Nyaaan~~
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 40
|
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/su...pagewanted=all Did you pay attention to the debacle that was Libya? The British and the French were the ones that were most gung-ho about going in, but were slow to react and required the U.S. to start the campaign and take the dangerous missions of knocking out the anti-aircraft defenses. Even after the U.S. backed off, they still flew ~25% of all air sorties even though it was a NATO operation. Most of the NATO nations also ran out of ammo, fuel and repair parts and had to purchase them from the U.S. Quote:
Quote:
What kind of missiles are you referring to? Simple long-range nuclear missiles? ICBMs? Submarine mounted? They're all pretty different and the first are vulnerable to counter-measures. |
|||
2012-09-25, 10:53 | Link #23910 | |
Valkyrie pilot
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Rouen, France
Age: 40
|
Quote:
Also France have the 2nd largest exclusive economic zone in the world, so we need to show off a bit. The real problem is that our current carrier is nuclear-powered, and as such, is only available half of the year, the other half is for maintenance. So the Navy need another carrier to project air power when good ol' Charles is unavailable. |
|
2012-09-25, 10:58 | Link #23911 |
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
RE Japan and Nuclear weapons: Rockets are of the same mechanism as ICBMs. If they can launch rockets into space, they can launch a rocket to hit an enemy city. Furthermore, they don't need the range that the US or UK might need in their ICBMs. The main hypothetical threats Japanese ICBMs would need to deal with would be North Korea and China, who are fairly close by.
Also, while it is difficult to control a rocket enough to hit a precise target, Japan only needs an ICBM to hit a large city like Beijing. The thing doesn't even need much in the way of computer controls. You just need to know the local weather and terrain, and launch it with dead reckoning(like the V2 rocket). It's a lot more difficult to miss Beijing then a missile silo in Siberia. And all Japan really needs is a deterrent. Not only that, but Japan doesn't even absolutely need ICBMs. They can still drop a theoretical warhead from a bomber. In terms of Nuclear materials, they have all the materials to make fuel in their nuclear reactors already. They'd just need to retool their centrifuges a bit to run longer. I believe I heard somewhere that if Japan wanted to, they could have weapons grade Uranium in 6 months, if they want to. And as far as technical knowledge is concerned, let's not forget that Japan is one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world (if not the most advanced), it has all the expertise it could possibly ever need to build a bomb. In fact, it's entirely possible that the government has plans secreted away somewhere to do just that, should the need arise. |
2012-09-25, 11:02 | Link #23912 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
However what was being discussed was missiles to take out a warship. Something far smaller than a city and is a moving target.
Maybe something a little more old school. Modernized Long Lance torpedoes?
__________________
|
2012-09-25, 11:20 | Link #23914 | |
今宵の虎徹は血に飢えている
Join Date: Jan 2009
|
Quote:
You can't take a civilian rocket and convert it like that. You really want something practical, you buy Tomahawks from the US and then tip with nukes
__________________
|
|
2012-09-25, 11:23 | Link #23915 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
I'm just going to say that getting from rocket A to rocket B is almost as much rocket science as building rocket A in the first place .... -_-
__________________
|
2012-09-25, 12:23 | Link #23916 | |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
With regards to ballistic missiles of intercontinential and medium range series, they are NOT your typical missiles because they travel to close-orbital altitude, meaning their guidance system must have an accurate mechanics to fire those re-entry boosters. And that is only one issue, we also need hardening, more stages.....
__________________
|
|
2012-09-25, 12:59 | Link #23917 | ||||||
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
2012-09-25, 12:59 | Link #23918 |
Underweight Food Hoarder
|
Damn it SaintessHeart, why did you have to troll me like that?
Don't forget military-use missiles derived from anything like what Japan currently has (at least publicly been known to have) can be so easily intercepted by any nation that invested into a substantial military. It's almost a complete overhaul when it comes to armed warheads. This all changes in the scenario that USA decides to share something from their extravagant military repertoire, which I doubt. The US has no incentive to support Japan past the capability of keeping China in check and conflicted. |
2012-09-25, 13:09 | Link #23919 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dai Korai Teikoku
|
Quote:
Quote:
Frankly, everything you say can be summarized like this: It's just a average person's line of thinking which is not applicable to actual weapon research and development. If things were that simple, quite a few countries would have ICBMs right now. They don't because a ballistic missile of practical use requires much engineering skill and time. |
||
Tags |
current affairs, discussion, international |
Thread Tools | |
|
|