|
|
Kfir mishap averted
Full News Article
Sandman
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1720
Member Profile
|
 9 Dec 2006 17:04:53 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Sena:
That strategy is somewhat defunct, since any aim that does not take world realities and direction into consideration, (like the eealamist demand) is bound to lose, irrespective of the lvel of focus.
Commitment will help in winning battles, but the overall war can be won only if the means and the cause both are in alignment with an increasingly integrated world's needs and even more importantly, unthreatening to its beliefs about existance.
Your writing is from the SLG's perspective, and does not really apply to what the tigers have sacrificed the future of the sri lankan tamil culture and lost.
The very unwavering aim and consistency in approach of an unrealistic goal has put the Sri lankan taml culture at the threashold of disapprance. Within the next twenty or so years it will become totally absorbed by the indian estate tamils, as the remnants of a once proud 'race' continue to degenerate to the level of worshiping psychopaths and killers in a frenzy of political ambition reaching pseudo religiosity.
Someday the remaining few tamils will blame the sinhalese for what eventually they ended doing to themselves. By then, we may also have liberals among ourselves who'd agree with them. But the hard truth would be it is the venomous antagonism towards others in this particular group of people who got wiped out by their own hand. |
GreyFox
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1339
Member Profile
|
9 Dec 2006 17:41:31 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Saervek
The reason I say we need to build or buy OPVs instead of a few real warships is because OPVs gives our navy real control of the seas. Lanka is an island and all the weapons the blood thirsty LTTE receive come VIA the sea.
The first job of an OPV is to carry out surveillance of our seas and not fight LTTE boats. That?s why it is most important for any OPV to have a top class maritime surveillance radar. This is the most important part of an OPV. In the last months the navy managed to sink a few LTTE weapons trawlers but just imagine all the ones that still managed to travel under our noses undetected. So we need more OPVs to seriously hamper LTTE sea lanes.
If the 101m long Sukanya OPV from India costs about $20 million, then an OPV made in Lanka about the size of a fearless class patrol ship(55m long) must cost lower. Lets just say the whole project might cost $200 million to build 10 OPVs, but the thing is that we do not have to pay all $200 million in one year because the ship builders can't construct 10 OPVs in one year. It might take somewhere between 7-10 years to build all 10 ships. I am pretty sure our Navy budget can shell out $20-$30 million per year.
Our shipbuilders might not be able to build a 100m long vessel but we can definitely build a 55m-60m long vessel if we try. Plus I also heard that the Colombo harbor was going to be expanded. I hope this includes the shipbuilding sector too.
I found an interesting article regarding the navy published only 2 days ago: http://www.dailynews.lk/2006/12/08/
after you reach this page, click on the editorial tab on the top left verticle column. Once you reach the editorial page you will see three additional stories apart from the main story. These three additional stories are located on the right side of the page, go ahead and click on the one titiled 'Navy achieves superior firepower and manoeuvrability with in-house technology'.
Edited By - GreyFox - 9 Dec 2006 18:31:09 GMT |
Saervek
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 102
Member Profile
|
 10 Dec 2006 06:33:05 GMT Report for Abuse
|
GreyFox,
Nice link there.. It looks like what they've done is replace main cannons (fore definitely, aft probably) with what looks like a 20mm Oerlikon... It'd be interesting to know if they built that under license in Sri Lanka or imported it. If you look at the given map though, I think it illustrates my point pretty well.
http://www.dailynews.lk/2006/12/08/z_p07-Navy1.jpg
All of the interceptions except the one off Kalmunai (17th Sept) have happened on the western seaboard, and most of them are basically in or close to the Palk Straits, and that area as far as I know is too shallow for the OPVs to patrol satisfactorily, and the job can be done better by FACs anyway. The OPVs are mostly used for Kalmunai-type interceptions and as you can see there are only one of those this year, compared to the rest.
No doubt the Kalmunai vessel carries more munitions/equipment than any one other vessel, but overall, you have to ask yourself what exactly these OPVs will be doing while the FACs are doing all the fighting. The only thing they will be capable of doing while waiting for another ltte merchantman is basically either fisheries protection, or sitting at harbour. Fisheries protection is no doubt an important job, but it's the job for a peacetime Navy, and not something we should be concentrating on right now. All we really need are 1-2 more large vessels, so that we can have one vessel out on patrol at any time, and a large increase in our intelligence capabilities and FAC squadrons, which can seal off our coastline. |
GreyFox
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1339
Member Profile
|
10 Dec 2006 15:49:04 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Saervek
So you are telling me that the Palk straits area might be too shallow for OPVs to patrol effectively but you want 1 or 2 big vessels to patrol instead? Won't they run into the same problems around this area?
I know that FACs don't really have a good surveillance radar or the endurance of a OPV to survey the Palk straits effectively. OPVs are also employed for coast guard duties in many nations which pretty much means that they can operate in fairly shallow water levels as well.
OPVs are cheapest and most economical ship-vessels to operate. Instead of spending money on operating 1 warship at a time to patrol the seas we can use the same amount of money to operated 2 or 3 OPVs at sea at the same time, plus this also give the navy more surveillance coverage.
Even a 40mm Bofors cannon is sufficient enough to shred LTTE ships from as far as 7km away. The LTTE boats have to get into closer range to fire their smaller caliber guns, by this time the surveillance radar of the OPV would have already pick them up on the radar screen.
Saervek, why would you want to build tank manufacturing plant in lanka? You yourself said that building good quality OPVs in Lanka won't be easy because we don't have the necessary machinery to build the more sophisticated parts of the ships. Now you want Lanka to shell out money to buy the blue prints and industrial machinery to establish a factory that manufactures T-55 tanks locally? Besides our tanks are prone to getting bogged down in the mud during the rainy season.
It will be less costly to fit our existing T-55 tanks with imported Kontakt ERA armour. Besides a T-55am2 tank only cost about $100,000. Even when fitted with ERA armor it will still be cheap.
Instead of spending money to establish a tank producing factory, we can use that money to propel our country's shipbuilding capability to the next level. Our Naval shipbuilding skills have come a long long way since the 'Jayasagara OPV era' of 1983, and with a little bit more investment I think we can make a quantum leap.
Edited By - GreyFox - 10 Dec 2006 17:56:45 GMT |
SenaM
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1908
Member Profile
|
 10 Dec 2006 18:18:22 GMT Report for Abuse
|
We do need to be more resource-ful in producing those essential items needed by our armed services; however, I cannot see tank-production as one of them, just now.
We should start with those items we 'consume' in large-volume, and for which we expend large amounts in foreign exchange. Artillery shells, and heavy calibre cannon shells are good examples .. these are very expensive to buy. We should standardise on calibre (reduce variety, as much as possible), and try to manufacture them locally. Also, focus on producing (or even purchasing), 'fool-proof' initiators/ fuses for bombs - which we may be assembling, already. (We cannot afford to drop a single bomb, which does not explode; as the LTTE knows how to extract the explosive material from un-exploded bombs, and then utilise it in their own 'home-made' bombs .. like claymore mines/bombs, suicide packs/'waist-coat' bombs etc).
The MBRL and associated rockets have come in for praise, as highly effective against massed formations .. also for comment, re- price. We should seriously think of producing these 'missiles' locally - and at the next stage develop the associated Chemical industries - for the raw product (rocket propellant).
Edited By - SenaM - 11 Dec 2006 18:26:39 GMT |
Saervek
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 102
Member Profile
|
11 Dec 2006 02:22:06 GMT Report for Abuse
|
GreyFox,
Actually I was suggesting keeping larger vessels on permanent station off the eastern coasts, which appears to be where the larger ltte vessels come in from, and using the smaller ones to block off Palk and our coastal waters, which is something they can do. For an OPV, depth is one problem, and the other of course are the ltte suicide boats. They'd be close to shore, and within range of those boats, and unable to outrun them, and would probably therefore require a flotilla of FACs to guard them anyway.
I don't think endurance would be a problem in the Palk Straits, because it's really in our coastal waters. If they have problems with radar, it might be an idea to increase our coastal radar capability instead, and use them to direct the FACs to target. Your right, if we were to use Sayura offensively, it would outrange the ltte boats, but the problem is that an ltte boat moving at 45 kts could cross the area of engagement in around 5 minutes, and reach weapons range in around 3 min. Sayura isn't capable of outrunning these boats, and probably isn't capable of sinking a ltte flotilla of around 20 boats in 3 minutes. Don't get me wrong, as I said all along, we need more large ships, I just don't think we need as many as 15-20 vessels, because our most urgent requirement is keeping control of our coastal waters, which these OPVs can't or at least haven't been doing.
With the tanks, I should have been clearer. I was suggesting first acquiring a rebuild capability, and then acquiring a low level production capability to replace losses. I agree that the tanks themselves are quite cheap, but the T-55 is (especially by todays standards) quite a simple tank to produce, and it would give invaluable experience to the local engineers in terms of armoured vehicle production. Most of the metalwork could be done locally with the right equipment, and the FCS and electronics, most of which are pretty old could probably be reverse-engineered, like the mineblocker.
The engine and perhaps the drivetrain etc would have to be imported, but I'm sure you'll agree it's a vast improvement for local arms manufacture. There is little requirement in the Russian Armed Forces for this vehicle, so I doubt that they would object to selling the required machinery for a reasonable price. A production capacity of around 5 vehicles per year (which is sufficient for our needs) would probably cost less than a Dvora or two. With the ERA, I was suggesting that the surviving vehicles should be given a ERA package. |
GreyFox
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1339
Member Profile
|
11 Dec 2006 15:16:00 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Saervek
Trust me, a well armed OPV is capable of defending itself from LTTE boats. Its not like we are facing the Indian navy's frigates in battle. If a 40mm bofors cannon is not enough, then replace it with a 76mm cannon that fires 6kg shells at 120 rounds per minute. Those automated cannon systems are very accurate even at a distance.
An OPV doesn't have to outrun the LTTE boats, all it has to do is outgun the fiberglass boats. In a sea battle 3 minutes is an eternity and an automated 76mm cannon can quickly and accurately destroy one target after the other. Besides the OPVs won't be doing coastal duties most of the time, they will be out in the deep sea(where small boats don't have the endurance to go) scouting for LTTE arms trawlers.
Even if we brought real warships, we still would be mainly using the cannon systems in those ships, because the use of missiles and torpedos is still very expensive for our navy.
It will be a waste of money to build T-55 tanks at home even if they do come out with ERA armor attached. We should just import tanks and fit them with imported ERA.
In the future we should try to build an formidable IFV similar to the Stryker used by the USA or the Russian BMP-3 or like the chinese 'WHEELED ARMOURED PERSONNEL CARRIER'. Those types of vehicles are very effective in patroling our areas in the frontlines and also capable in taking the fight to the enemy.
Styker pictures:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/iav-pics.htm
Chinese 'WHEELED ARMOURED PERSONNEL CARRIER':
http://www.sinodefence.com/army/armour/wheeledapc.asp
BMP-3 site:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/bmp-3-pics.htm
Right now Lankan manufactures Unibuffel IFVs that can be fitted with a 12.7mm gun. But a vehicle similar to a stryker can be fitted with 100mm gun if it wants to. Plus add-on slat armour is a cheaper and effective way counter the rpg threat.
Edited By - GreyFox - 11 Dec 2006 17:31:23 GMT |
GreyFox
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1339
Member Profile
|
11 Dec 2006 15:24:53 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Sena
I agree with you, we must reduce the variety of differnt caliber ammo used. Making our own artillery ammo, rockets and small arms ammo will save us a ton of money.
I hope we start to make our own ammo soon. Establishing an ammo factory is a good idea, we will have to import the heavy industrial machinery needed though, but that will only be a small price to pay for the plentiful and cheaper ammo that will be available for our brave forces.
One 122mm rocket fired by a MBRL costs $900 each. We can probably make the same rocket for about half the price at home. |
snake2
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1035
Member Profile
|
11 Dec 2006 15:48:14 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Greyfox,
A lot of the heavy industrial machinery needed for the manufacture of ammo are already locally available at several government owned locations.
However these places are not utilized for some reason or another (probably political)
As I recall, armoured personnal carriers were also being manufactured in Sri Lanka.
Apparently the late General Denzil Kobbakaduwa was the initiator of that project.
As far I know, that project also was cancelled after his demise.
Maybe someone else can confirm.
Sean M,
I also support your point of using the Pucaras or the Siai Marchettis. A-1 Sky Raider prop planes and other Prop driven aircraft (Including C-47's converted to Gun Platforms the same way as the C-130 Gunship)were used by the US during the Vietnam war.
The VC and the NVA also had anti aircraft guns and SAMs. Yet these prop aircraft still played a key role.
Edited By - snake2 - 11 Dec 2006 15:55:13 GMT |
|
Search All News and Discussions