| Welcome to World's Armed Forces Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Best Cruiser | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 12 2004, 08:37 AM (1,253 Views) | |
| pressureoverload | Jun 12 2004, 08:37 AM Post #1 |
|
Ex-Moderator
|
What is the best cruiser in the world? |
![]() |
|
| Mogz | Jun 12 2004, 08:49 PM Post #2 |
|
Knowledgeable Member
|
U.S. Ticonderoga Class |
| |
![]() |
|
| PLA1021 | Jun 12 2004, 09:52 PM Post #3 |
|
Champion Poster
|
No idea. but i'll go for the US Ships. |
![]() |
|
| RBTiger | Jun 13 2004, 04:29 PM Post #4 |
![]()
Field Marshal
![]()
|
No idea. As Mogz says, the same name :-) |
![]() World's Armed Forces Forum-The best Forum around… World's Military Forces “In order to win a war, one must be ready to lose battles” “A country has no permanent friends, only permanent interests” | |
![]() |
|
| Mogz | Jun 20 2004, 07:15 AM Post #5 |
|
Knowledgeable Member
|
Um guys, before you start claiming something is a Swedish invention, you might want to do your homework: I'll give you a punch in the head if you can guess who first came out with the first stealth technology? Can you guess? Northrop Grumman. An American company. So the U.S. will obviously be getting either this stealth boat, or some variation there of. Thanks for coming out. |
| |
![]() |
|
| RBTiger | Jun 20 2004, 12:51 PM Post #6 |
![]()
Field Marshal
![]()
|
lol! Why don't you swedes register? |
![]() World's Armed Forces Forum-The best Forum around… World's Military Forces “In order to win a war, one must be ready to lose battles” “A country has no permanent friends, only permanent interests” | |
![]() |
|
| bop_040 | Jun 20 2004, 07:07 PM Post #7 |
|
Informative Member
|
mogz while you are correct that the stealth is invented in US the guest has given u a credible arguement that the visby is the best cruiser. who cares if US invented stealth they have not incorporated it to this extent in the cruiser class ship. So you have not proven that any US cruiser is better than the Visby? |
![]() |
|
| Mogz | Jun 20 2004, 08:32 PM Post #8 |
|
Knowledgeable Member
|
The Visby isn't a cruiser, it's an experimental stealth boat. What do you want to bet that the U.S. has a whole host of naval projects the general public knows nothing about? The question for this thread is "What is the best cruiser in the world". That would be the U.S. Ticonderoga Class Verticle Launch System Guided Missle Cruiser. |
| |
![]() |
|
| bop_040 | Jun 21 2004, 12:38 AM Post #9 |
|
Informative Member
|
while they may have designs i am fairly confindent that no one can find actual ships that are in service that are as advanced as the visby, which can be easily described as a small cruiser with minor modifications, being honest dont know a great deal about the US ship or its cabibilities or many cruisers for that matter as i have never researched them but what about the new type 45 destroyer which has been described as a cruiser many times? |
![]() |
|
| bop_040 | Jun 21 2004, 12:55 AM Post #10 |
|
Informative Member
|
General Characteristics, Ticonderoga Class Builders: Ingalls Shipbuilding: CG 47-50, CG 52-57, 59, 62, 65-66, 68-69, 71-73 Bath Iron Works: CG 51, 58, 60-61, 63-64, 67, 70. Power Plant:4 General Electric LM 2500 gas turbine engines; 2 shafts, 80,000 shaft horsepower total. SPY-1 Radar and Combat System Integrator: Lockheed Martin. Length: 567 feet Beam: 55 feet Displacement: 9,600 tons (9,754.06 metric tons) full load Speed: 30 plus knots Aircraft: Two SH-2 Seasprite (LAMPS) in CG 47-48; Two SH-60 Sea Hawk (LAMPS III) Cost: About $1 billion each Ships: USS Ticonderoga (CG 47), Pascagoula, Miss. USS Yorktown (CG 48), Pascagoula, Miss. USS Vincennes (CG 49), Yokosuka, Japan USS Valley Forge (CG 50), San Diego, Calif. USS Thomas S. Gates (CG 51), Pascagoula, Miss. USS Bunker Hill (CG 52), San Diego, Calif. USS Mobile Bay (CG 53), San Diego, Calif. USS Antietam (CG 54), San Diego, Calif. USS Leyte Gulf (CG 55), Norfolk, Va. USS San Jacinto (CG 56), Norfolk, Va. USS Lake Champlain (CG 57), San Diego, Calif. USS Philippine Sea (CG 58), Mayport, Fla. USS Princeton (CG 59), San Diego, Calif. USS Normandy (CG 60), Norfolk, Va. USS Monterey (CG 61), Norfolk, Va. USS Chancellorsville (CG 62), Yokosuka, Japan USS Cowpens (CG 63), Yokosuka, Japan USS Gettysburg (CG 64), Mayport, Fla. USS Chosin (CG 65), Pearl Harbor, HI USS Hue City (CG 66), Mayport, Fla. USS Shiloh (CG 67), San Diego, Calif. USS Anzio (CG 68), Norfolk, Va. USS Vicksburg (CG 69), Mayport, Fla. USS Lake Erie (CG 70), Pearl Harbor, HI USS Cape St. George (CG 71), Norfolk, Va. USS Vella Gulf (CG 72), Norfolk, Va. USS Port Royal (CG 73), Pearl Harbor, HI Crew: 24 Officers, 340 Enlisted Armament: MK26 missile launcher (CG 47 thru CG 51) Standard Missile (MR) or MK41 vertical launching system (CG 52 thru CG 73) Standard Missile (MR); Vertical Launch ASROC (VLA) Missile; Tomahawk Cruise Missile; Six MK-46 torpedoes (from two triple mounts); Two MK 45 5-inch/54 caliber lightweight guns; Two Phalanx close-in-weapons systems Date Deployed: 22 January 1983 (USS Ticonderoga) http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfi...s/ship-cru.html |
![]() |
|
| Mogz | Jun 21 2004, 01:07 AM Post #11 |
|
Knowledgeable Member
|
First off, the type 45 hasn't even entered service yet. Secondly it's a destroyer, or more specifically an; Area Air Defense Destroyer. It's chief role will be to provided anti-air support to a U.K. taskgroup. Anyone that has refered to the type 45 has a cruiser is unequivocally wrong. |
| |
![]() |
|
| bop_040 | Jun 21 2004, 01:14 AM Post #12 |
|
Informative Member
|
I quite like the Russian Kirov Class Heavy Cruiser. -Class : KIROV -In service : 3, one in development ADMIRAL USHAKOV ADMIRAL LAZAREV ADMIRAL NAKHIMOV PYOTR VELIKIY DIMENSIONS -Displacement : 24,300.0 (Tons) (Fully Loaded) -Length : 252.0 (Metres) -Beam : 28.5 (Metres) -Draught : 9.1 (Metres) -Speed : 30.0 (Knots) -Range : 14,000 (miles) at 30 kts -Endurance : 60 days -Complement : 692 (82 officers) PROPULSION -Nuclear reactors : 4 -Oil fired auxiliary boilers : 2 -Steam turbines : 4 x 7,000 horsepower -Shafts : 2 shafts driving 5-bladed fixed pitch propellers |
![]() |
|
| Sudd | Jun 21 2004, 04:28 AM Post #13 |
|
Captain
|
First of all: The HMS Visby isn't a experimental ship nor a prototype! It's developed out of the experimental ship HMS Smyge wich was the first ship with stealth tech. The HMS Visby is a fully developed ship! Second of all: The stealth tech. was developed by a Swedish company (not sure if it was Kuckums) in cooperation with Northrop Grumman, (i'm all aware of that Northrop Grumman earns a bit of the cake, and i'm sorry that i forgot about it before) therefore you can say that both the US and Sweden were first with the tech. Because Kockums was so much ahead using the the technology on SHIPS, the US and Sweden began a cooperation wich would end up in the HMS Visby.. In fact, the US navy is for the moment testing the HMS Smyge to build their own stealthships and i'm sure they've already begun... All of it is true! And why the hell should a ship be so expensive anyway? The HMS Visby carries the same firepower but it only needs about 1/15 of the manpower that is needed on a crusier.... And all that for the price of 200 milion dollars... You can get 5 HMS Visby out of 1 USS Ticonderoga class... +It's a stealthship, so the USS Ticonderoga stands no chance against 5, or even 1 HMS Visby! However, concerning conventional ships without stealthtech. I would say that the Russian Kirov Class Heavy Cruiser rocks! But the USS Ticonderoga would kick its ***... Despite it's so ugly! |
![]() |
|
| Sudd | Jun 21 2004, 04:32 AM Post #14 |
|
Captain
|
Remember! The picture said: Enhanced cooperation with Northrop Grumman... Enhanced... Cooperation.... It doesn't mean that Northrop Grumman have made all of the research as you would like it to be, does it? |
![]() |
|
| Sudd | Jun 21 2004, 04:35 AM Post #15 |
|
Captain
|
Quote from Kockums.... |
![]() |
|
| Sudd | Jun 21 2004, 04:39 AM Post #16 |
|
Captain
|
Quote from another site... |
![]() |
|
| Sudd | Jun 21 2004, 04:41 AM Post #17 |
|
Captain
|
Just for the protocol... When did the US begun stealth researching? Sweden begun in 1984... That's before the F-117... |
![]() |
|
| Sudd | Jun 21 2004, 04:49 AM Post #18 |
|
Captain
|
In fact, i've just heard about that the US i currently researching on the possibilitys to manufacture a completly new kind of vessle... A 200m long catamaran aircraft carrier... It will be fitted with the stealth tech. and the US navy has already launched a prototype that's about 45 m long... I thought that was amazing! Building a stealth carrier... However, of course the company was cooperating with a Swedish company, and therefore is not building the ship all by themselves... Unfortunately the carrier won't be ready for launch for a decade-15 years.... But still it's amazing! |
![]() |
|
| Mogz | Jun 21 2004, 12:49 PM Post #19 |
|
Knowledgeable Member
|
You know, I actually forgot about the Kirov Class. I really don't know much about them. I should have a look and see what type of armament they have. I might have to reconsider the Ticonderoga :-) |
| |
![]() |
|
| bop_040 | Jun 21 2004, 02:07 PM Post #20 |
|
Informative Member
|
kirov is a fine ship but sudd has made a good point about the catarmaran, however its actually the brits that lead the field in this area of design! the brits are developing a new frigate on this design and are conducting sea trials now, results are supposed to be excellent so far in fact so good that the US has now involved itself in the project |
![]() |
|
| Sudd | Jun 21 2004, 05:56 PM Post #21 |
|
Captain
|
Hmmm, aren't we discussing ships that do exist?The catamaran and the british frigate is on developement while the HMS Visby is a fully developed frigate with as much firepower as any crusier in the world for 1/5 of the price and 1/5 of the manpower that's needed on a crusier... The ship is on fully manufaturing and the Swedish navy will have about 7 of the HMS Visby until 2007, after 2007 a lot more of them is planned to be built for the navy.... How could the brits be leading in the area? The US and Sweden have been cooperating as long as stealth have existed... So how could the brits be leading in the area? I think that statement was weird.... When does the US build anything by themselves anyway? They must be cooperating with all the countries in the world since nothing they are building seems to be built without help... |
![]() |
|
| bop_040 | Jun 21 2004, 06:14 PM Post #22 |
|
Informative Member
|
no offense mate but some of your posts between the best world armies, swedish special forces and navies are a joke! Yes sweden does play a leading role but to my knowledge their catamaran reasearch is nowere near that of the uks, i have read many websites and it has been detailed in books that the current Uk designs and prototypes are years aheah of any other, you dont even provide us with any specs for the visby and i was defending it earlier because i do know a little about it and it is a good ship just like ur gripens are good planes but u are so ignorant of the real facts! As long as its swedish you believe it is the best, and what has cost got to do with it? were talking about the best not the cheapest! U must remember that you have a small military budjet so you cannot lead the field in all future rearch and development in military equipment! The us does not go into partnership with other countries its usually the opposite, wot about their nimitz! suppose sweden designed them and america watched and then produced them, and i suppose it was th US who asked norway to if it could join them and UK in the JSF project! dont be stupid the US collaborates no more than any other country, and it is other countries that join them not vice versa! |
![]() |
|
| Mogz | Jun 21 2004, 11:55 PM Post #23 |
|
Knowledgeable Member
|
Well said. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Sudd | Jun 22 2004, 04:21 AM Post #24 |
|
Captain
|
And i'm talking about the best for less... Did you know that Ericsson have developed a radar as powerful as the AWACS but costs 1/10 as much? All i'm trying to tell you is that the US and other well finaced armies is just wasting money because they have so much of it... They are the ones that's ignorant because of their economical situation.. I'm aware of that Sweden has a much smaller defense budget, and much less soldiers, therefore we have much less men to spread the money out on.... This doesn't mean we cannot afford to equip our men with the best, does it? The catamaran is a US project in cooperation with a Swedish company, Sweden ain't gonna by or build one... I haven't heard about that UK frigate so can you please send me a link? You're right, we're talking of an existing ship.. So why do you keep refeering to a project that's still on the table? Once and for all, the HMS Visby already exist and is fully developed.... Last but not least: I'm not jokeing about anything... Everything i've said here is the truth...
Ok, I exaggerated a little... Take it easy man! I did only say that it SEEMED like they were cooperating with every country in the world... Doesn't this sound at least a little as an exaggeration to you? Of course they built the carriers by themselves, they have been doing so for about 65-70 years... |
![]() |
|
| Sudd | Jun 22 2004, 04:32 AM Post #25 |
|
Captain
|
It's just that i'm so interested in technology that when Sweden is creating something marvelous, i'm getting all excited and I feel much pride... I feel this way because Sweden creates the most inventors and scientists in the world in comparision to the population, but most of them moves to Japan or the US or such... So, when Sweden invents something marvelous, i'm getting hard to convince there's better.... But now i know i'm right until the UK frigate is finished... P.S. Sweden has been working on stealth tech since 1984 and began the HMS Visby project 1986 as HMS Smyge was built... We have been working with stealth tech. and the HMS Visby ever since then... So don't tell me that the UK is leeding on the area.... |
![]() |
|
| RBTiger | Jun 22 2004, 04:21 PM Post #26 |
![]()
Field Marshal
![]()
|
Sudd, can you enlighten us on everything that Sweden has made or is researching upon in a new thread? I know about your Gripens (one of the best in the world) and some ships, but nothing more. Can you inform me please? (I'm really interested, because it has less populations, like 4mn , doesn't it? So I wanna know what else it can make) I'm sure it doesn't need anything else with 4 mn people. Any disputes with anyone? |
![]() World's Armed Forces Forum-The best Forum around… World's Military Forces “In order to win a war, one must be ready to lose battles” “A country has no permanent friends, only permanent interests” | |
![]() |
|
| bop_040 | Jun 22 2004, 05:24 PM Post #27 |
|
Informative Member
|
Sweden pop is 8.7mill. Sudd heres some facts about the trimaran [http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/trimaran/index.html] Frigate is actually finished and built and doing trials and tests, just is not armed and in full production, should enter production in a couple of years, possibly 4 years. You have shown us nothing of the visby apart from ur "opinions" which are clearly documented as you belive that anything swedish is the best! also can you inform me of all the names of these great swedish inventors and scientists who have left the country in the past say 10 years to japan and US and what exactly have they invented? AM very curious!!!? |
![]() |
|
| bop_040 | Jun 22 2004, 05:33 PM Post #28 |
|
Informative Member
|
HAVE GOT YOU NOW SUDD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE VISBY CLASS IS NOT EVEN IN SERVICE YET! also the visby class is a corvette, and is not going to be initialy fitted with an air defense missle system! here is the website The first ship wont be entering service until january 2005! Also please awnser my last thread if you can. |
![]() |
|
| Sudd | Jun 24 2004, 03:11 AM Post #29 |
|
Captain
|
6ships of the HMS Visby is going to be built and there's a option on a 7th... The HMS Visby has 2 months to go on it's sea trials and a 2nd one in the class is already built, The HMS Helsingborg was finished Friday 27th June 2003, http://www.marinen.mil.se/photo.php?id=51786&nid=15859 ; http://www.marinen.mil.se/index.php?lang=sve&c=news&id=15859, the 3rd one in the class HMS Härnösand is going to be finished during 2005. The fact that the SHIP, not the CLASS HMS Visby is still beeing tested and is under trial is because it's going to be a platform for the upcoming 3 versions (of the 6) that's going to be fitted with a SAM system and is going to be slightly longer... The first 3 versions of the HMS Visby is not going to be fitted with as powerful antiaircraft missles as the next 3 versions, but will have a Bofors MK III 57mm antiaircraft cannon and probably some antiaircraft missles, but it's uncertain... The upcoming 3 version is just going to be concentraded at the SAM system... The class is during full manufacturing. The site you've read those facts that tells the opposite is not up to date....
4 years you say? The Swedish navy already has its hands on the class, they are just testing it for upcoming versions that will be fitted with a air defense missle system, it's sea trials was finished last winter... The first ship wont be entering service until 2005 because it's a platform as said... The inventors are still young when they move from Sweden and I have no clue of what they might have or might going to invent/-ed... As said before, Sweden make birth to the most inventors in the world in comparision to the population according a investigation i've heard of. That doesn't have to be people who's going to invent something great or will contribute something to the world as greate as stealth or such, they can be just regular people who like to invent stuff... I never said thay had to be great inventors. Last of all, i belive you've missed all the links i've sent that I might have beeing reffering some facts to... |
![]() |
|
| Sudd | Jun 24 2004, 03:28 AM Post #30 |
|
Captain
|
I could start a new thread about our RBS 15 cruising missle that destroys a crusier in 1 direct hit (SAAB) or wich company in the world makes the best artillery and antiaircraft cannons ... (Bofors) Or the HMS Orion (classified signal spying ship wich take control over a countrys tele net).. Or the system in JA 37 Viggen that links all the intelligence data from other freindly aircrafts, the HQ, satellites, radar and is more powerful than the one in F/A 18 Super Hornet and F-16 and probably as great as anyother system fitted in US fighters... Tell you more and start a thread about Swedish tech. later sometime, not sure if I will handle this forum anymore, it makes me stay up to late at night... So fun I stay up until 4 o'clock at night almost everyday.... I think it's strange to that we're spending as much on the military as we do... During the 60's -70's we had the 3rd most powerful airforce in the world after the US and Israel... We did also had the 3rd best (if not the bst) fighters during that time, Swedish developed, next after Russia and the US... We did also had a extensive nuclear weapon program because our generals went mad as the US and Russia had nuclear weapons! |
![]() |
|
| Mogz | Jun 24 2004, 07:45 AM Post #31 |
|
Knowledgeable Member
|
Are you insane? The 3rd most powerful air force in the 60's and 70's after The U.S. and Israel? Hello? Remember that nation called Russia? Or remember China? Or India? Or the United Kingdom? Or France? Hell i'm pretty sure Canada had a better air force during the cold war than Sweden did, considering the four most powerful NATO air nations had advanced air bases in Germany; the United States, Britain, France, and Canada.
The hell? I know for a fact Canada alone fielded some of the best fighers the world had to offer in the 60's and 70's:
Yeah, most cold war nations did, welcome to the club. From the 50's to the 80's my country had 87 bomarc nuclear-tipped missile silo's in the Canadian Artic, all aimed at Russia. You seriously live in a bubble man, seriously. |
| |
![]() |
|
| RBTiger | Jun 24 2004, 05:39 PM Post #32 |
![]()
Field Marshal
![]()
|
I have great respect for the Swedish Armed Forces but to say things like "3rd best in the world" is utter rubbish. |
![]() World's Armed Forces Forum-The best Forum around… World's Military Forces “In order to win a war, one must be ready to lose battles” “A country has no permanent friends, only permanent interests” | |
![]() |
|
| PLA1021 | Jun 25 2004, 03:54 AM Post #33 |
|
Champion Poster
|
Any thoughts abt the USS Virginia class? |
![]() |
|
| Mogz | Jun 25 2004, 04:19 AM Post #34 |
|
Knowledgeable Member
|
Isn't the Virginia Class an attack submarine? |
| |
![]() |
|
| PLA1021 | Jun 27 2004, 01:34 AM Post #35 |
|
Champion Poster
|
VIRGINIA CLASS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Country Of Origin: USA Designation: Cruiser Class: VIRGINIA (CGN) In Service: 2 Pennant Number Ships Name (CGN 40) MISSISSIPPI (CGN 41) ARKANSAS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DIMENSIONS Displacement: 11,300.0 (Tons) (Fully Loaded) Length: 178.3 (Metres) Beam: 19.2 (Metres) Draught: 9.6 (Metres) Speed: 30.0 + (Knots) Range: Unknown (Miles) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DETECTION SYSTEMS Radar System: Air Search: ITT SPS 48C or 48D/E, 3D Lockheed SPS 40B or Raytheon SPS 49(V) 5 Surface: SC Cardion SPS 55 Navigation: Raytheon SPS 64(V) 9 Fire Control: 2 SPG 5 1D SPG 60 D SPQ 9A Sonar System: EDO/GE SOS 53A (Bow Mounted) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ARMAMENT Missiles: SLCM/SSM - 8 GDC Tomahawk (2 quad) 8 McDonnell Douglas Harpoon (2 quad) SAM - GDC Standard SM-2MR A/S - Honeywell ASROC, payload Mk 46 / Mk 50 Torpedoes SAM & A/S fired from 2 twin GMLS Mk 26 Launchers Guns: 2 FMC 5 in (127 mm) /54 Mk 45 Mod 0 2 GE / GD 20 mm Vulcan Phalanx 6-barrelled Mk 15 4 - 12.7 mm MGs Torpedoes: 6 - 324 mm Mk 32 (2 triple) tubes Honeywell Mk 46 Mod 5 Decoys: 4 Loral Hycor SRBOC 6-barrelled Mk 36 oops.....there are only two of them.......... my bad |
![]() |
|
| Mogz | Jun 27 2004, 03:08 AM Post #36 |
|
Knowledgeable Member
|
Well I decided to look in to this, so I went to the U.S. Navys website and found out that the Virginia Class is a Nuclear Attack Submarine. You guys should have pointed out that the FOUR Virginia Class Cruisers were decommissioned in:
That would have made my life a lot easier ;-) |
| |
![]() |
|
| RBTiger | Jun 27 2004, 03:00 PM Post #37 |
![]()
Field Marshal
![]()
|
lol... |
![]() World's Armed Forces Forum-The best Forum around… World's Military Forces “In order to win a war, one must be ready to lose battles” “A country has no permanent friends, only permanent interests” | |
![]() |
|
| Sudd | Jun 28 2004, 03:03 AM Post #38 |
|
Captain
|
Have you heard about SAAB J 29 Tunnan? It was the fastest aircraft a long time back then, in class with the Russian Mig 15 and was also faster than it... We had almost as much of state of the art aircrafts as USA or Israel who was the only countries wich had a more powerful airforce back then.... This is one of the things i know for sertain! Nowadays we have a more powerful stationary airforce than England... England have about 250 stationary fighters while we have about as much stationary JAS + about 30 SAAB JA 37 Viggen (wich is faster)... Englands fighters is spread to defend about 60 milion ppl, while our 250 is spread to defend about 9 milion, doesn't that sound as a wonderful example on how Sweden still is in the game? Now we'll continue this thread somewhere else.... |
![]() |
|
| Sudd | Jun 28 2004, 03:11 AM Post #39 |
|
Captain
|
Correction: We had the third greatest airforce during the 50's-60's.... After that we began to close down the defense bit by bit and still are... |
![]() |
|
| Sudd | Jun 28 2004, 03:20 AM Post #40 |
|
Captain
|
Hey Mogz? I don't think you've heard about the cooperation between the UK, US and Sweden during the cold war... Sweden had several squadrons of fighters and signal spying planes and such inofficially ready 24/7 somehow under order from the prime ministers of Sweden and UK, and probably through the UK - US.... Did you know why? Because we had such a powerful airforce, they asked us to cooperate with them, the didn't insisted, they pleaded! |
![]() |
|
| Sudd | Jun 28 2004, 03:22 AM Post #41 |
|
Captain
|
Anyway, let's continue this thread about the 50's-60's somewhere else... |
![]() |
|
| Mogz | Jun 28 2004, 12:38 PM Post #42 |
|
Knowledgeable Member
|
No actually lets not do this somewhere else. I've already exposed you as a liar, and that you know nothing about the Army. Now i'm going to shoot you down in regards to your lack of knowledge about the Air Force. At this rate, you've become my new hobby: Just a fore-warning to anyone else reading this. This post will be long, get a sandwich.
No i'd never heard of it, so I busted out a book and had a read. I decided to focus primarily on your claim that it was the fastest aircraft for its time (1960's). Well I have some not-so shocking news, you're wrong: Top Speeds of the following aircraft:
That right there is a direct comparrison of 4 fighter aircraft from the 1960s. Amazingly the Swedish aircraft is slower, contradictory to your claims.
I thought I covered this. No you didn't, it's in your head. The Russian Air Force was superior to the Swedish, by far. In fact Canada (i'm using this nation for a comparison because I have extensive knowledge of it's Air Force) had a better Air Force than Sweden. Following World War II we had the 4th largest air force in the world. We maintained that record well in to the 50's, then dropped to 5th where we remained until the 70's, before massive budget cuts slashed our manpower and available planes, thus knocking us down significantly. That said, throughout the Cold War we worked in close concert with the U.S. Air Force. Ever hear of a nifty thing called the North American Aerospace Defense (NorAD) pact? In 1958 the U.S. and Canadian governments signed a pact for mutal aerospace defense against the U.S.S.R and any other foreign or domestic enemy. This pact enabled the Canadian and American Air Forces to work together to design, build, field, and maintain a superior air force defense screen over the North American continent. One advantage to this pact was the ability to share research and development of air craft. In 1961, Canada purchased 196 CF-101 Voodoo supersonic all-weather interceptors from the United States. By the end of 1964 Canada had received it's full compliment of 386 Voodoo's. The Voodoo is said to be "one of the world's most formidable fighter aircraft for its period". The U.S. made excellent use of this air craft, building around 500 for itself. Next Canada also fielded the CF-104 Starfighter, which in 1959 Canada bought the plans from Lockheed and Canadair began building the aircraft. By 1962 Canada had 288 CF-104 Starfighters in the Air Force. The Starfighter still holds the altitude record of 91,243 feet, made on a test flight in May of 1958, also it was, are you watching, THE FASTEST AIR COMBAT AIRCRAFT OF THE 1960s. Able to do an astounding mach 2.21 and sport a whole host of armaments, this aircraft deserved its nickname; "The Widowmaker". Lastly Canada designed and built one of the best tactical fighters of the 60's and 70's, the CF-5 Freedom Fighter. This badboy was one of the smallest supersonic fighters of the era and proved deadly in a dog fight. Canada built 130 Freedom Fighters and exported hundreds. From 1960-1970, Canada had the following fighter aircraft in service:
Did Sweden field 1500 fighters in the 60's? I think not. Excuse me, I need a sandwich, i'll be right back. Hmm, ham...mmmm Anyway, where were we? Oh yes, I was blowing away your Ikea claims. NEXT!
More powerful Air Force than England. Wrong. I happen to have an extensive knowledge of the Royal Air Force, so your claim is quite easy to blow apart. Where to begin, ah ok, numbers: Royal Air Force Figher/Interceptors:
Now if we cruch those numbers we get 344 offensive air craft. Also keep in mind these numbers do not include the British Air Stations at; RAFS Falkland Island, RAFS Cyprus, RAFS Incirlik Turkey, and RAFS Goosebay Canada. This number is just the operation interceptors on the British mainland. Somewhat more than you said existed hey Ikea-boy? Next I looked up the Swedish Air Force, and to prove I did my homework I'll break the numbers down by air bases: Swedish Air Force Fighter/Interceptors:
So that's the break down of ALL Swedish attack and interceptor aircraft as of 2004. That makes for 172 aircraft, well short of your claimed 250. Also it should be pointed out that the JA37s are due to be retired by 2006 and only two of the current squadrons are to be replaced with 39s. So the Swedish Air Force will be losing in the ballpark of 36 aircraft. That said, i'd like to address your somewhat absurd claim that the Swedish Air Force is better because of the proportial fighters to poppulation ratio. How does that have to do with anything? All that counts is for an Air Force to be able to respond, not provide an aircraft for every person on the ground. I'd love to see the Swedish Air Force get anywhere NEAR Britain, let alone be able to attack it. As a last remark, the Province of British Columbia Canada has a population of about 4 million. The only fighter base in British Columbia is at CFB Comox, which is home to two squadrons of CF-18A Hornets. Those 28 fighters are responsible for the Canadian coastline from Alaska to Washingston State, and inland to the Province of Alberta. Seems like a large task no? Not really, seeing as those aircraft can do about Mach 1.87. Numbers don't matter when compared to population, only the ability to defend the territory.
No, wrong, no, NO! The top three largest Air Forces during the 1950's and 1960's were the U.S. Air Force, the British Air Force, and the Russian Air Force.
Ugh, you may have worked with the U.S. and U.K., but you weren't in the loop dude, because you weren't part of NATO. NATO controlled the skies over Europe, and as I said the four largest NATO Air Forces at the time all had forward bases in Germany; The United States, Britain, France, and Canada. Your Air Force was nonessential as NATO had excellent air power in the region. Laslty you never would have had anything to do with the Cold War because your nation has opted for a neutral stance since the 1800's, which yes included the cold war right up to the present day. So there, i'm done, and i've shot you down yet again. You know nothing about the military dude, nothing. I suggest you take your fantasys of being in the SSG and leave these boards so the people here that actually know something can discuss the military and do so without having to read your tripe. [size=4]MOGZ TAKES THE WIN![/size] |
| |
![]() |
|
| PLA1021 | Jun 29 2004, 03:36 AM Post #43 |
|
Champion Poster
|
Darn Mogz! what's your job? |
![]() |
|
| Mogz | Jun 29 2004, 09:42 AM Post #44 |
|
Knowledgeable Member
|
I currently have two. I work for an Internet Service Provider as a junior network administrator. And i'm in the Army Reserve. This fall i'll be transfering to the Regular Force and quiting my job at the ISP. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Sudd | Jun 30 2004, 12:34 AM Post #45 |
|
Captain
|
I don't care what you say Mogz... Everything I say is true... |
![]() |
|
| Sudd | Jun 30 2004, 12:47 AM Post #46 |
|
Captain
|
First of all, Tunnan was stationed during the 50's, so you're all wrong... It was the fastest plane during a while back then! No, the Russian Airforce wasn't superior to Sweden during the 50's onto the 60's! Sweden had about 1800 aircrafts during the 50's! I don't know where you'd get all the incorrect info about the Swedish airforce... First of all, Luleå don't have a single Viggen at the base... (AJ 37 nor JA 37) Second of all, Frösön does only have a single JAS until this autumn , the rest of the fighters is JA 37... (All of AJ 37 has been on the dump since 3 years) Third of all, all the Ronneby JAS are to be restationed at Frösön and all the JAS you said already are stationed at Frösön is stationed at Ronneby... Last of all, the airforce has it's hands on 204 JAS and about 50 JA 37 Viggen I live here in Östersund-Frösön and my father is a technician at the airbase at Frösön so i kinda know about what planes the Swedish airforce have and don't have... All I say is true... I don't have the energy to argue anymore at this forum cause you don't belive my true words so you won't be reading any threads sent from me anytime soon... |
![]() |
|
| Sudd | Jun 30 2004, 12:53 AM Post #47 |
|
Captain
|
The Tunnan wasn't the only aircraft the airforce used stupid! It didn't made the Swedish airforce the 3rd most poweful one onto the sixties, a lot of other Swedish developed planes made it one of the finest in the world... I feel sorry for you Mogz, all you know is based around facts you've read, you did just try to argue against me with something you've copied from the net... All i know is based on true and relyable sources! |
![]() |
|
| Sudd | Jun 30 2004, 01:00 AM Post #48 |
|
Captain
|
And even if the Swedish airforce haven't been the 3rd most powerful airforce in the world, Sweden has to be one of the most powerful nations in the world in comparision to the population... 8.9 milion ppl... Last of all, i didn't had the energy to read all of what you tried to argue against me about, cause i know everything i've said is true... You can't change my opinion! P.S. I feel sorry for you Mogz, all you know is based around facts you've read, you did just try to argue against me with something you've copied from the net... All i know is based on true and relyable sources! I don't have the energy to argue anymore at this forum cause you don't belive my true words so you won't be reading any threads sent from me anytime soon... |
![]() |
|
| Sudd | Jun 30 2004, 01:03 AM Post #49 |
|
Captain
|
Absolute last of all, all Eurofighters the UK have ordered have been reduced from 250 to around 80-100 |
![]() |
|
| Sudd | Jun 30 2004, 01:06 AM Post #50 |
|
Captain
|
[size=14]MOGZ YOU CAN'T TAKE THE WIN, CAUSE YOU DON'T SEEM TO BASE ALL YOUR CLAIMS AROUND THE TRUE FACTS! IF I HAD THE ENERGY TO ARGUE 4 O'Clock IN THE MORNING, I WOULD HAVE CRUSHED YOU LIKE THE LITTLE BUG YOU ARE! STUPID MOTHER ****ER![/size] |
![]() |
|
| Mogz | Jun 30 2004, 02:17 AM Post #51 |
|
Knowledgeable Member
|
Man, you just don't give up do you? Fine, i'll shoot you down again:
Just like you being in the SSG was true right? Liar.
I'm well aware of when the Tunnan first flew, but Sweden continued to use it well in to the 60's. Just like Canada first fielded the Starfighter in the 50's but used it well in to the 70's. That said your claim was that the Tunnan was the fastest aircraft for it's time, it's time being the 50's and 60's (the focus of our discussion). I proved to you that the Tunnan had a top speed of just over Mach 1, while the starfighter had a top speed of just over Mach 2, hence making the starfighter faster. However just for fun, lets discount the starfighter, if I do that does that make the Tunnan the fastest aircraft for its era? Nope, because the following are still faster: Just for those that don't know, the Tunnan was built in 1952, a full year after the CF-100 Cancuck, yet it only had a top speed of Mach 1.06. Which sinks your Claim Sudd that the Tunnann was the fastest aircraft even in the early 50's.
Well, considering that post World War II, the Russian Air Force was the second largest, behind the United States, you're wrong. After World War II, the Russians having seen how effective an Air Force was, put a lot of money in to building up it's air power. By the Mid-50's the Russian Air Force was the largest in the world; being trailed by the United States, Britain, and Canada. The Russians remained in the foreground until the down-swing of the Cold War.
I highly doubt you had 1800 aircraft in the 50's, but lets say for a moment you did. Look at my list of 1500 Canadian aircraft during the 50's and 60's. Those are just fighters. That doens't count our helicopters, transports, electronic warefare, bombers, coastal patrol, etc, etc. So even if Sweden did have 1800 aircraft, you'd still have been smaller than Canada, which was already smaller than Russia, the United States, and Britan. So there goes your claim you had the 3rd largest Air Force.
Having a membership to Janes Defense Weekly helps. I brought up the Swedish Air Force as of 2004, and I posted the info. You don't have over 200 fighter aircraft. Just because you live on an Air Force base doesn't mean you have a clue as to what your country has or doens't have. You claim right here that Sweden has over 200 fighters, yet Janes, the most respected Military information database on the planet says you don't. Who am I to believe? Speaking of believing, you claimed to be in the SSG. Yet in this post you say you live with your father. So which is it? Are you a member of a special operations group, or live at home and mooch off dad? You obviously lie, so i'm inclined to think you're lying about the struture of the Swedish Air Force just to inflate your feelings for your Country.
In other words i've caught you in so many lies, you've become confused right?
I've said it before, and i'll say it again. You were never the third most powerful Air Force, not by a long shot. You were never one of the finest in the World. Why? Because your isolationism, just like Switzerland, didn't make it nesseccary for you to field a complex military. Yes I base my FACTs on reliable sources. Janes is the military lovers bible. Furthermore I actually have indepth knowledge learned firsthand, on the military. You however, make up lies and clearly just come up with stuff on the spot. Your reliable sources (as you put it), is living on a Air Force base. Well great, when I was a kid I lived on both a Fighter Base (CFB Cold Lake), and an Air Movements Base (CFB Winnipeg). So does that mean if I say Canada has the largest air force today, and the strongest, I should be believed? Don't answer that, it was a rhetorical question.
I can too take the win, because I have proved you wrong in everything you've said, both in the previous post and this one. I put up speeds of aircraft, the layout of the Royal Air Force, and a layout of the Swedish one. My info comes from a concrete source which myself (or anyone that knows Janes) would favor over your fantasys any day. [size=4]MOGZ TAKES ANOTHER WIN![/size] |
| |
![]() |
|
| PLA1021 | Jun 30 2004, 03:57 AM Post #52 |
|
Champion Poster
|
Better not be my drill sergant when i join the army. |
![]() |
|
| Mogz | Jun 30 2004, 03:37 PM Post #53 |
|
Knowledgeable Member
|
We don't have drill sergeants in Canada. |
| |
![]() |
|
| RBTiger | Jun 30 2004, 08:42 PM Post #54 |
![]()
Field Marshal
![]()
|
Excellent debating skills Mogz. I must commend you and Sudd, I warn you for using derogatory language and not respecting another forumer. |
![]() World's Armed Forces Forum-The best Forum around… World's Military Forces “In order to win a war, one must be ready to lose battles” “A country has no permanent friends, only permanent interests” | |
![]() |
|
| pressureoverload | Jun 30 2004, 10:33 PM Post #55 |
|
Ex-Moderator
|
What do you guys have? |
![]() |
|
| PLA1021 | Jul 1 2004, 03:23 AM Post #56 |
|
Champion Poster
|
Ok i'll do some research first, mean while i'll shut up. |
![]() |
|
| Mogz | Jul 1 2004, 03:52 AM Post #57 |
|
Knowledgeable Member
|
Our basic training (or boot camp) is kind of a messed up process. In the U.S., each branch conducts its own training, to their own standards. In Canada, in the 70's we unified our military; so instead of having the Royal Canadian Army, Royal Canadian Air Force, and Royal Canadian Navy, they lumped together to become the Canadian Forces. All recruits from the three branches (Army, Navy, Air) undergo basic training together at St. Jean sur Richelieu, Quebec. Basic training lasts 10 weeks, and is considered to be one of the most demanding basic instructional courses in NATO. The insructors are a myriad from the three branches. For example when I was in St. Jean, my platoon leader (a drill sergeant in the U.S.) was a Chief Petty Officer. Her two subordinanats were an Air Force Warrant Officer and an Army Sergeant. So in my case I had instructors from all three branches. Once basic is completed then specialization training is conducted by the branch you'll be going in to. In my case I did basic infantry training at CFB Wainwright Alberta, an Army base. The weird thing about the Canadian Forces is that we don't segregate our personnel. Some trades are able to have personel from any of the three branches. Therefore it is possible for a medic attached to a infantry battalions unit medical section (UMS) to be in the Navy. For example my father is the Commanding Officer of the 1st Military Police Platoon which is attached to the 1st Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group. This unit has military police officers that wear Navy, Air Force, and Army dress uniforms. However in the field they all wear combats. This has been a useless knowledge session about the Canadian Forces with Mogz. |
| |
![]() |
|
| bop_040 | Jul 1 2004, 04:27 PM Post #58 |
|
Informative Member
|
The inventors are still young when they move from Sweden and I have no clue of what they might have or might going to invent/-ed... As said before, Sweden make birth to the most inventors in the world in comparision to the population according a investigation i've heard of. SWEDEN has no inventors and you cant give me any names because you have plucked another quote from the air! There has been no mention of the UK only getting 80 - 100 u are a LIAR, AND A PATHETIC ONE AT THAT!!!! Sudd u aint got a clue mate! Uk still has its orders for tyfoon in 3 batches, please prove me otherwise, because the defense review aint out for another couple of moths and unless u and ur SSG mates has infiltrated whitehaLL U CANT DISPROVE ME! |
![]() |
|
| EFA | Jul 1 2004, 09:28 PM Post #59 |
|
Dire Patriot
|
RIght Sudd, now you are really playing the idiot. I don't like to mention this too often on the net (even though you constantly claim it) But I am in the RAF, and a flight Operations Officer, who works for the Tornado F3. And let me tell you, the number of Eurofighters ordered has not gone down. I assure you... |
| [size=1]<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>England Expects[/size] that every man will do his duty.</span></span> | |
![]() |
|
| EFA | Jul 1 2004, 09:32 PM Post #60 |
|
Dire Patriot
|
Another Lie.... Can we get anything done about this guy? Lik
Just me then?... |
| [size=1]<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>England Expects[/size] that every man will do his duty.</span></span> | |
![]() |
|
| RBTiger | Jul 3 2004, 10:25 AM Post #61 |
![]()
Field Marshal
![]()
|
I've given him a warning and he isn't coming back anymore... |
![]() World's Armed Forces Forum-The best Forum around… World's Military Forces “In order to win a war, one must be ready to lose battles” “A country has no permanent friends, only permanent interests” | |
![]() |
|
| Mogz | Jul 5 2004, 12:37 AM Post #62 |
|
Knowledgeable Member
|
Good, we don't need people like that here. There is nothing wrong with having pride in your nations military capabilites, however don't over-step your bounds and make outrageous claims. I personally, being Canadian, think the Canadian Military is great in a lot of areas, but would never blatantly come out and make stuff up, especially things that most people on these forums know. I'm not going to say the Canadian Air Force could over power the RAF, or that the Canadian Army would own the U.S. Army. Spouting off stuff like that is just a waste of everyones time. With that said i'm happy that the majority of members here are well informed and have a robust wealth of knowledge. I've learned a lot being here and hope to continue to do so. |
| |
![]() |
|
| PLA1021 | Jul 5 2004, 09:14 AM Post #63 |
|
Champion Poster
|
Wow wow wow.... I see a lot of army guy in Ottawa here....o well duh, its the capital. Weird thing is i saw more army guy in this little town called Deep River which is 200 mile up north of Ottawa. is there a military base around or something? n Thanks for all dat imformation Mogz. Looking forward of seeing you u da army someday. |
![]() |
|
| Mogz | Jul 5 2004, 11:26 AM Post #64 |
|
Knowledgeable Member
|
Well yeah, Ottawa is the home of National Defense Headquarters (NDHQ) :-D. With that said, Deep River is near Petawawa is it not? Canadian Forces Base Petawawa Ontario is home to the 2nd Canadian Mechanized Brigade, there's why you see so many troops ;-D |
| |
![]() |
|
| PLA1021 | Jul 5 2004, 11:59 AM Post #65 |
|
Champion Poster
|
i used to think its becuz of that nuclear power plant. nice nice...hope i can get based there. n thx 4 the imformation! |
![]() |
|
| RBTiger | Jul 7 2004, 04:03 PM Post #66 |
![]()
Field Marshal
![]()
|
I hope to go there one day and meet you guys. BTW: I'm trying to take up a job in Canada for 3 years, tired of being in the US! |
![]() World's Armed Forces Forum-The best Forum around… World's Military Forces “In order to win a war, one must be ready to lose battles” “A country has no permanent friends, only permanent interests” | |
![]() |
|
| Mogz | Jul 8 2004, 05:16 AM Post #67 |
|
Knowledgeable Member
|
Where abouts? |
| |
![]() |
|
| RBTiger | Jul 10 2004, 10:53 AM Post #68 |
![]()
Field Marshal
![]()
|
Not settled, tho I'd like Montreal or Toronto. |
![]() World's Armed Forces Forum-The best Forum around… World's Military Forces “In order to win a war, one must be ready to lose battles” “A country has no permanent friends, only permanent interests” | |
![]() |
|
| PLA1021 | Jul 19 2004, 03:51 AM Post #69 |
|
Champion Poster
|
Hey i just saw this article about the Kirov Class. So my opinion, if the cruiser serves as a excort for a carrier group the best one is Ticonderoga, but if it serves as a main ship in a fleet, it should be Kirov class. Make sense? |
![]() |
|
| KJlost | Jul 25 2004, 11:24 PM Post #70 |
|
Lieutenant
|
"much firepower as any crusier " Visby? It doesn't even have air defense missiles yet! Kirov belongs in the battle-cruiser section, which had no other comparison. In cruiser aspect I'll agree Ticos are the most advanced and powerful warship out right now. But wait a few years, and KDX-3 will overpower it
|
![]() |
|
| RBTiger | Jul 26 2004, 08:01 PM Post #71 |
![]()
Field Marshal
![]()
|
This is the 2nd largest thread of this forum, and I honestly thought it was a dull topic! |
![]() World's Armed Forces Forum-The best Forum around… World's Military Forces “In order to win a war, one must be ready to lose battles” “A country has no permanent friends, only permanent interests” | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| « Previous Topic · Navy · Next Topic » |











1:42 PM Jul 11