Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Contributing Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Alzoc

  1. This shall be the general dump thread for anything related to common EU defense. I found this 2017 document of the European Commission on general reflections on the future of the common European defense, and realized that we had no thread where it seemed relevant. Contains some interesting figures on military spending put in perspective with the US Although I don't know how the hell they come with a number of 4 different destroyers/frigates for the US (and the pictures show aircraft carriers, and everything but MBTs for both the EU and the US) Also if it seem apparent that EU citizens ask for more security and military spending than ever, I personally find it's shame that it's mostly because of immigration and terrorism rather than a will for more EU influence in the world although I guess it was supposed to be expected (especially when respondents were asked to pick their two main concern among the list). The document finally propose 3 different scenari (a, b and c) with increasing cooperation between member state. I hope that we will at least manage to achieve the goals of the b scenario and it seem reasonable to do so within the next decade or so. C scenario would be ideal but seem unachievable yet within the current institution (The EU doesn't have enough power for that and can be too easily blocked by a minority of member states). Anyway it seems to be the perfect time to build up European defense now that the UK is out (they were always opposed to it afraid that it would collide with NATO) and that some major member states are pushing for more integration (Germany, Italy, France and Belgium among others). On the other hand several country have major governance problems like Germany and Italy which will have a weak government due to inconclusive elections (basically they have to form coalition governments without a large majority). Also European elections are coming in 2019 and depending on the results it could strengthen the current dynamic or completely put it to a halt.
  2. @Xoon Could you tell us if the following exchange seem legit to you? Sorry, for the little mix up, couldn't remember if you were from Norway, Finland or Sweden (It's Norway right?)
  3. Alzoc

    European Union common defense thread

    Well I agree that a memorial on the end of WW1 wasn't the best moment to do politics and that Macron could have "chosen" his words more carefully but Boi Trump was triggered xD: Those 4 tweets are an absolute gold mine for meme material^^
  4. Sure but raising it for scrapping and raising it to repair the damages and get it back into service won't be the same cost wise. Raising it should be easy (especially since it's in very shallow water), but depending on the extent of the damages, it's not impossible that the refit might cost more than a new build ship.
  5. Alzoc

    Bash the F-35 thred.

    Yeah the Typhoon is a mess. It's a good interceptor and that's about it. If you want it to do anything else (latest tranches) the cost goes up a lot, because you need to add new capability on an aircraft that wasn't designed for it initially. Same story as usual, too much country wanted to have a say on the capability the aircraft should have so obviously they didn't managed to settle for something that made sense. Then they ordered much more than they really needed to make sure that they could manufacture a part of it in their country which mean that some unqualified company ended up producing some key components. Finally they cut down their order driving the per unit price up. I expect that the countries that bought it will try to get rid of it pretty soon (Austria almost did). It's the same problem to an extent with the A-400M (though on this case I actually expect it to be working in the end, even if the cost will have increased quite a bit). That's the reason why the SCAF program must stay firmly in Dassault's hand and with a minimum of country at the driving wheel, Airbus have accumulated a shitload blunder to various degree of gravity on various international program (NH-90, Tiger, Eurofighter, A-400M). As for the Canadian bid, Dassault had often implied that if they feel that they are here only to force LM to drive it's price down without having a real chance to actually get the contract they would pull-out and stop wasting money, so it's really no surprise.
  6. It's really getting worse: https://www.defesaaereanaval.com.br/situacao-da-fragata-hnoms-helge-ingstad-f313-se-agrava/
  7. CdG CVN officially back into active service after it's mid-life upgrade and refit. Mostly obsolescence on the CMS, new radar and miscellaneous stuff like new landing lights or removing stuff used for the Super Etendards
  8. I guess they propose it as an upgrade on the Scorpène (possibly as a retrofit?) drawing from the experience they've got on the Barracuda: Old Scorpène: Barracuda/Shortfin-Barracuda: Though that does raise the question of why they didn't directly copied the new propeller. Supposedly this shape is hydrodynamically more efficient and thus stealthier: But DCNS/Naval group does have a habit of proposing weird concepts every few years: SMX-25: Concept of a high speed patrol/recon sub (38 knots surfaced - 10 knts underwater) SMX-26: Sort of special forces and infiltration optimized concept
  9. Alzoc

    French flair

    Well it's more general principles than exact diagrams. Guy who wrote the article was in charge of the R&D on the Leclerc program for some time, and is basically the only reputable French author on AFV. Though he does have a tendency for chauvinism and I don't think he really had access to foreign designs. Unless proven otherwise, consider it as an educated guess of someone who worked in the AFV industry and tank design for years, have an engineering background and have a great deal of contact on the international market. He most likely was around during the Swedish tank trial. The series of RAID articles have been compiled into those two books if you can read French: Both books are interesting and do very well as an introduction on MBT design while containing interesting tidbit of information. The only problem with them is that you have the feeling that nobody ever proof-read them (grammar, syntax, etc).
  10. Basically the design study just started. The questions asked are nuclear propulsion or conventional and electromagnetic or steam catapult? Conventional and steam catapult are obviously extremely unlikely. It's worth noting that the CdG use two K15 reactor which were designed for subs, if the new design end up being significantly larger, a new, more powerful reactor may be needed. The tricky part will be making sure that a wide range of aircraft can operate from it. It will have to be able to launch the Rafale (which will be near the end of it's service life in 2040 but still not completely phased out), as well as the future jet and UAV from the Franco-German SCAF program. On top of that Parly, said that the carrier should be interoperable with our European allies, which most likely mean Italy and the UK with their F-35B. Now I guess that we could reinforce the deck so that they can land vertically, but to launch from it mean we would have to add a ski-jump on top of the catapults and I don't really know how one would do that (a ski-jump that could be raised and lowered at the end of catapult?). The other possibility would be that they'll try to sell the naval versions for the SCAF and that anybody who will buy either the fighter-bomber or the UAV will be promised a right to operate them from the future carrier. That however would exclude both Italy and the UK since they would need F-35C rather than the F-35B they have and those two country are the only ones which have a capable navy (beside France) in Europe :/ Parly ended her speech by saying that "With those study we will determine how many units will be needed for both France and Europe" so it might hint that if several carriers are built they could become the core of European naval groups. All in all, both the new carrier and the SCAF are extremely ambitious program which will have an impact on each other. So I'm really crossing finger that both will succeed, because if one of the two fail we will be left with no carrier group for a long time.
  11. Alzoc

    Aerospace and Ordnance discussion/news.

    A rough Mock-up of the NGV part of the SCAF program on Dassault's stand at Euronaval: No change that I can see compared to the CAD model we've seen 3 month ago
  12. Following the successful test of the MMP fired from a Zodiac, MBDA intend to build a naval version of the missile for patrol and landing vessel. Personally I think that with a range of only 4-5 km right now, it's not particularly interesting to use it as a support weapon for landing operations. Once they develop a long range version it could be a valuable asset.
  13. Not surprised it will be costly though. Australia chose conventional subs using a SSN hull, which are to be built with transfer of technology on installations that never built something of that scale. Add on top of that the cost needed to adapt the combat system to American weapons, and it's no wonder that the thing is expensive. I don't know where they found that the subs would lack "modern" battery or AIP system though, that would be beyond stupid (or that was a massive procurement failure).
  14. Alzoc


    True, but ammunitions for the BMPT being much less bulkier than 125mm rounds, I guess that some of the space liberated could be put to good use.
  15. NH-90 crash when taking off the Dixmude While the BPC Dixmude was on it's way to the Trident Juncture 18 exercise, an NH-90 of the ground forces "hard landed" on the deck shortly after take-off. The crew is safe but four sailors were wounded, one gravely who was evacuated back to shore (the ship was only 130 km away from Dunkerque). The rotor and the cell of the helicopter are damaged, as well as the ship (not much details, but apparently rather light damages) The ship was rerouted to Brest naval base for initial investigations. Chance are the ship won't be able to participate to the exercise.
  16. MBDA's MMP have been successfully launched from a semi-rigid boat (1 sea-land and 1 sea-sea test, both hit their target):
  17. Alzoc

    Documents for the Documents God

    Not exactly the best place to dump it but I don't think it mandated creating a topic in the computer section. Report of the GAO on weapon systems cybersecurity (vast subject that all modern army have to face): https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/694913.pdf Didn't read through it but though it might interest somebody anyway.
  18. Alzoc

    French flair

    The first VT-4 have been delivered to the army: Aimed at replacing (together with the PVP) the Peugeot P4 (which was starting to get prohibitively old) the VT-4 is based on the Ford Everest militarized by ARQUUS. In 2019 730 vehicles (out of 4380 ordered) should in service and among them 430 should be standard 2 version (airlift capable, night-vision equipment and add-on armor kits). It can carry 4 soldier with the FELIN kit (or 5 soldiers with minimal gear) and is compatible with both the CONTACT and SIC-S (Scorpion program BMS) softwares. It is per-equipped to house PR4G radios. Weights 3,5 metric ton for 160 hp.
  19. Alzoc

    What are we playing?

    Well it's the complexity and depth of the game which makes it both frustrating in the beginning and rewarding once you start mastering it (although I'm just at the phase where I start really enjoying it and still far from "mastery"). Breaking the back of an armored assault with a few concealed ATGM teams, spotters, AA cover and tanks to acts as pivots and mobile defense is much fun.
  20. Alzoc

    What are we playing?

    It's true that it needs a significant time investment to start getting into it. Was the same for me, retried several times over the course of a few years before sticking to it and enjoying it. One of the most frustrating thing in the beginning was to understand which units you really needed in your deck and not wasting points on units which would be useless (and not having enough point any more to unlock the really useful ones)
  21. Alzoc

    What are we playing?

    Ever tried the Wargame series @LoooSeR? If you didn't I think you would like it. As far as solo campaign goes, European escalation is nice and Red Dragon is alright. As for Airland battle if you intend to play the solo only stay away from it. MP is good like any Wargame but the solo is extremely frustrating due to poor design and dumb AI.
  22. Alzoc

    General news thread

    There is no certainty on what will happen exactly, but that the energy demand will be growing while having to deal with rarefaction/increase of price of resources is a given. So might as well start thinking about taking mitigation actions, the hard part is finding a balance between how much must be done and the social acceptability of those changes. Since we don't really know when things will start getting too hot (although it's getting hotter every year) the question is where to place the cursor. Too much radical changes and you end up with a "green" authoritarian society, too much procrastinations and we'll burn ourselves more than we needed to. I personally like to think that our generation ought to pile up as much small cushions as possible in front of us so that when we'll hit the wall it will hurt the least possible. One thing is certain we'll need much more energy and in particular electricity. Nuclear and hydro being the only one able to supply large amount of electricity with a minimal impact on the environment. Though they obviously won't be enough so there is also a need to optimize the yield and reduce the impact of both gas and coal power-plant (thinking that we could get rid of fossil fuel in this century is nothing but a pipe dream). That's why I lobby for nuclear energy through the SFEN (French Society for Nuclear Energy) (and that's pretty much my sole associative engagement).
  23. Alzoc

    General news thread

    No indeed^^ Wasn't talking about those urban farms utopia that I agree won't scale well. I was more thinking of having a sort of large agricultural ring around each urban area which can provide for a (hopefully significant) fraction of the needs of it's attached metropolitan area, instead of having it scattered all around the place (though it may be possible to do that if we manage to have largely automatized agriculture idk) Well population projections indicate that we will have about 10 billions Humans on the planet by the mid-century. Most of those people won't have access to our level of life and we have no moral right to deny it to them should they strive for it. To achieve that they'll need to spend energy: The graph above is just an example but you can literally take any kind of energy consumption per capita on abscissa and any development indicator (literacy rate, lifespan, etc) on ordinate and you'll see the same pattern: A sharp increase as soon as you start spending some energy and then a plateau meaning that any supplementary energy you'll spend is just wasted (bar for a few case where the environment is just too harsh and you have to compensate). Now the people who haven't reached the plateau yet are much more numerous than us so when they'll get there the worldwide need for energy will have exploded, hence why we need to use energy as efficiently as possible if we want to avoid conflict for as long as possible. There is no way to know exactly how bad a global scale war for energy would be but there is also no guarantee that our liberal societies would survive it (I don't fancy living in a world resembling the way China is nowadays).
  24. Alzoc

    General news thread

    Simply because the higher the density of population is, the more efficient it is to sustain a set number of people. It mostly comes from economy of scale. That is if the objective we are talking about is to make room for a growing population while the resources are shrinking.
  25. Alzoc

    General news thread

    Wasn't really thinking about agriculture, with the yields we have nowadays we can have a high output while being at an historical low on cultivated area. You can just cultivate the area around the city and moving them as it expand. I was more thinking about historical buildings, nice little postcard villages, old churches that kind of thing. Attempting a large scale reorganization in a democratic society is indeed pretty much impossible without stopping being a liberal democracy. As I said urbanization is an ongoing process anyway so we can only encourage it while making sure that the growing urban area are well though out.