Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

🇺🇸🇯🇵 •US Interest: The US Navy is studying the Mogami-class under an expansive manufacturing review in the Fiscal Year 2027 budget, exploring it as a potential alternative to the current FFX frigate, which is based on the Legend-class Cutter. •Key Features: The Mogami-class (30FFM) is a highly automated (crew...

141,770 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Notice how the Trump class battleship announcement stresses the "best looking warship"? Because Trump was personally involved in designing how it looked.🤣 As comical as it may be, the Trump class battleship actually looks more realistic, and achievable within budget than the ill-fated Zumwalt class destroyer. For one thing, it's correctly framed as a missile launching arsenal ship with what it looks like 192 vertical launch systems. The primary gun is claimed to be a railgun, but the issue with those is that the wear and tear on the barrel was the deal breaker. and material science doesn't move fast enough for us to have a solution within the near future. But if the US copies China's coilgun technology, they may get around the wear and tear issue at the cost of a slower muzzle velocity. A final issue is the name. According to US navy naming convention, usually ship class names (Trump class, Nimitz Class) is the name of the first ship of the class. So if the ship is named USS Defiant, then it should be the Defiant Class battleship, not Trump Class. Usually, it's the aircraft carriers that are named after US presidents, but that honor is usually reserved for presidents that have served in the military. On the naming hierarchy, battleships in the US navy outranks carriers, as it was established before the age of carriers. But that has been taken by the nuclear ballistic missile submarines in the US fleet.

Zhao DaShuai 东北进修🇨🇳 Commentary

291,643 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Here, I completely disagree with this reductionist perspective of Mr Mbeki on geopolitics and the conduct of states. In this interview, he narrowly and in a very myopic way imagines a battle ring with SA and US as fighters to the dead end. The inherent dynamics in contemporary geopolitics are more complex than this simplistic articulation. SA is not interested in a fight with the US but is unapologetically in the fold of global anti-imperialist efforts that find expression in different platforms like BRICS+ to marginalise the imperialist agenda. The belly of imperialism is the US. The global anti-imperialist efforts are gaining significant momentum that threatens the post WWII configuration and spread of global balance of power, which was later punctuated by the collapse of the USSR. The beginning of the 21st century marked the incremental and gradual decline of the US's global influence. Hence, the nervousness that gave birth to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN (MAGA) policy. MAGA is an attempt to crudely and erratically reassert the US as an unrival global hegemon. With how contemporary global politics are shaped, this agenda is doomed, and it will definitely fail. The US and its fragmented West allies are the axis of imperialism, and the geopraphic location of the anti-imperialist agenda is mainly in the South. The South is not South Africa, but countries located in the Southern Hemisphere. Closely monitoring the development and the relentless anti-imperialist efforts in the South, on all fronts - economics, politics, technology , and diplomacy it is quite apparent that the US is confronted with a strategic dilemma and challenge unlike the bipolar period. Here, victory is certain for the anti-imperialist forces, which South Africa is unapologetically part of.

Dr. Zamani Saul

17,897 просмотров • 1 год назад

AUKUS, Mistakes and Opportunities In 2016, Japan offered Australia state-of-the-art, diesel-electric, ultra-quiet submarines with the option of local production at the Henderson shipyard. The Australian government rejected the proposal, claiming its goal was always nuclear-powered submarines. Instead, Australia decided to spend roughly A$4-5 billion extending the life of its ageing Collins-class fleet until the 2040s . enough money to have bought seven-eight Japanese Taigei-class submarines outright. If that’s really what the government wanted, the Americans and British certainly sent them the bill for AUKUS. Australia is footing almost the entire cost: A$368 billion over three decades. - The United States receives US$3 billion from Australia to expand its industrial base, build more Virginia-class submarines, and then sells 3–5 second-hand boats back to Canberra. - The United Kingdom receives around £2.4 billion from Australia for design and infrastructure work, shares some development costs, and ends up using the exact same SSN-AUKUS design for its own future fleet at essentially no extra cost. I’m genuinely intrigued by how they managed to sell the Australians on this deal. I’d love to meet and congratulate the American and British negotiators – true sales geniuses. Nuclear submarines must have been a childhood dream of that Australian government; there’s no other explanation. But the problems don’t end there. Just as the Americans have cancelled over 300 programmes and thrown away more than US$200 billion in the last 20 years, the British have serious and very recent issues with their own naval projects. It feels like a structural disease in the Western defence industry. - The Astute programme is more than a decade late, costs have tripled, only 5 of the planned 7 boats have been delivered, and engineering problems keep cropping up. - The Dreadnought class (replacement for the Vanguard ballistic-missile submarines) has ballooned by billions and is now delayed well beyond 2030 because of failures integrating propulsion systems and Trident missiles. - And the crown jewels – the Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales aircraft carriers – are operational but chronically short of compatible F-35s and cost a staggering £10 billion in overruns. - The Type 45 destroyers suffered catastrophic electrical failures that left them inoperable for years, and the Type 26 frigate programme has been repeatedly cut back, reflecting completely misplaced priorities. And a programme that is supposed to deliver eight submarines to Australia sometime around 2050–2060 is extremely unlikely to proceed as planned, not only because of budgets and operational complications, but because underwater drones are evolving fast and China is leading that race. The Americans and British have a long naval history, but they are also visionaries who understand perfectly well that the future lies in decentralisation: swarms of UUVs, lithium or solid battery submarines, or even small nuclear-powered ones using micro-reactors. These platforms cost 10–20 % of today’s conventional SSNs to maintain, are lighter, and leave far more internal volume for weapons – meaning smaller, cheaper, and more heavily armed submarines. And what does Australia get left with? Far more than just a submarine partnership with Japan – an entire security ecosystem. By 2026-2028, Japan plans to have the HVPG hypersonic glide vehicles fully operational with ranges up to 2,000 km. Their upgraded Type 12 missiles will reach 1,000–1,500 km and can be launched from ships, aircraft, and land batteries. This is enough to cover and protect the entire Australian coastline for thousands of kilometers. And finally, a 3,000 km-range hypersonic missile is being integrated into the Taigei-class and its successor. That arsenal is far beyond anything currently fielded by any Western nation and only Russia and China have comparable systems.

Patricia Marins

86,380 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад