Taiwan and Aegis Destroyers

Google will tell you. Or go directly to http://www.gripen.com/

Well, the article seems somewhat vague? Which, is not surprising………Yet, between the lines it appears that the Gripen is getting a slightly modified GE F-414-400 (i.e. F-414G). Which, more than likely will produce a little more power than the current USN Version. (i.e. 22,000 lbs +)

Regardless, thanks for the info.:D

I wonder which version of the F-414? The standard F-414-400 in the Super Hornet make 22,000 lbs in AB. The new and improved F-414-402 (EDE) will make more like 26,000 lbs in reheat!:diablo:
…

Google will tell you. Or go directly to http://www.gripen.com/

The Gripen NG is intended to use a version of the F414.

BTW, the RM12 is a Swedish-modified F404, of which a large part is made in Sweden.

I wonder which version of the F-414? The standard F-414-400 in the Super Hornet make 22,000 lbs in AB. The new and improved F-414-402 (EDE) will make more like 26,000 lbs in reheat!:diablo:

Note: Australia has not made public which version either in its recent order of F/A-18F’s?

You are right! My bad.

Always knew the Gripen used an American engine and somehow got the impression it was the F100 or F110. This should mean that there is much scope for improvement of the Gripen design. What engine is the Gripen N using do you know by any chance?

The Gripen NG is intended to use a version of the F414.

BTW, the RM12 is a Swedish-modified F404, of which a large part is made in Sweden.

“The Gripen would have been a better choice on account of its short take-off and landing capabilities, and there would still be a lot of spares commonality as it uses the same engine as the F16”

No, it does not!

Gripen: RM12 (license-built GE F404); 12,140 lb.s.t. (18,100 lb.s.t. with afterburner)

F-16: Pratt & Whitney F100-200/220 (A/B/C/D); 14,670 lb.s.t. (23,830 lb.s.t. with afterburner) [later models with more powerful engines, either Pratt & Whitney F100-229 or General Electric F110]

F-16/79: export model proposed in the 1980s (to kill off the F-20) General Electric J79-119; 12,050 lb.s.t. (18,725 lb.s.t. with afterburner at sea level [Full AB at Mach 2.0/35,000ft = 20,840 with “Combat Plus” engaged])

J79 is a turbojet designed in the late 1950s, F100 is a turbofan designed in the late 1960s, F404 is a turbofan designed in the late 1970s.

You are right! My bad.

Always knew the Gripen used an American engine and somehow got the impression it was the F100 or F110. This should mean that there is much scope for improvement of the Gripen design. What engine is the Gripen N using do you know by any chance?

So still no actual evidence then.:rolleyes:

To sum up Musashi is claiming that SM-3 is inaccurate and that the test results have been faked on the basis of a single seven year old news paper article, gives some idea of the lack of credibility of his claims.:mad:

Interesting……………the US and Japan are spending Billions all for nothing! With several other countries waiting in the wings to join the program.;)

I’ll stick with what swerve said, thanks.

So still no actual evidence then.:rolleyes:

To sum up Musashi is claiming that SM-3 is inaccurate and that the test results have been faked on the basis of a single seven year old news paper article, gives some idea of the lack of credibility of his claims.:mad:

Not a single seven year old news paper article.

I’ll stick with what swerve said, thanks.

What’s an acceptable source for you – the Pentagon? The White House? 😀

Not a single seven year old news paper article.:p

Since the US military has been caught rigging tests of failing weapons to make them seem to work, when trying to stop programmes being axed (e.g. the Sergeant York AA gun), I’d hesitate before dismissing an accusation that it still happens as a “tin pot conspiracy theory”.

That was two decades ago.:rolleyes:

I said decent source not tin pot conspiracy theory.:rolleyes:

Since the US military has been caught rigging tests of failing weapons to make them seem to work, when trying to stop programmes being axed (e.g. the Sergeant York AA gun), I’d hesitate before dismissing an accusation that it still happens as a “tin pot conspiracy theory”.

I said decent source not tin pot conspiracy theory.

Oh yeah, of course just dismiss anything you don’t like as a “tin pot conspiracy theory”. 😎

What’s an acceptable source for you – the Pentagon? The White House? 😀

Sorry, I don’t keep newspaper clippings from about 7 or so years ago. :p

However, there are a few articles out there.

Antimissile Testing Is Rigged to Hide a Flaw, Critics Say

So are you going to admit there was criticism of some of the original tests, or just dismiss it as “lies” or some such?

I said decent source not tin pot conspiracy theory.:rolleyes:

You had better have a worth while source for this claim.

Sorry, I don’t keep newspaper clippings from about 7 or so years ago. :p

However, there are a few articles out there.

Antimissile Testing Is Rigged to Hide a Flaw, Critics Say

Citing the Pentagon’s own plan, critics of the proposed antimissile defense and even some military experts say all flight tests of the $60 billion weapon have been rigged to hide a fundamental flaw: The system cannot distinguish between enemy warheads and decoys.

In interviews, they said that after the system failed to achieve this crucial discrimination goal against mock targets in its first two flight tests, the Pentagon substituted simpler and fewer decoys that would be easier for the antimissile weapon to recognize.

The Pentagon’s plan was obtained by Theodore A. Postol, an arms expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who opposes the weapon. It covers the four tests that have taken place as well as future tests up to the system’s projected deployment in 2005.

Other technical experts who have seen it, including both antimissile and decoy designers, concurred with his criticism, as did a senior government official who has examined the Pentagon’s testing plan.

“It is clear to me,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, “that none of the tests address the reasonable range of countermeasures,” or decoys that an enemy would use to try to outwit an antimissile weapon.

So are you going to admit there was criticism of some of the original tests, or just dismiss it as “lies” or some such?

“The Gripen would have been a better choice on account of its short take-off and landing capabilities, and there would still be a lot of spares commonality as it uses the same engine as the F16”

No, it does not!

Gripen: RM12 (license-built GE F404); 12,140 lb.s.t. (18,100 lb.s.t. with afterburner)

F-16: Pratt & Whitney F100-200/220 (A/B/C/D); 14,670 lb.s.t. (23,830 lb.s.t. with afterburner) [later models with more powerful engines, either Pratt & Whitney F100-229 or General Electric F110]

F-16/79: export model proposed in the 1980s (to kill off the F-20) General Electric J79-119; 12,050 lb.s.t. (18,725 lb.s.t. with afterburner at sea level [Full AB at Mach 2.0/35,000ft = 20,840 with “Combat Plus” engaged])

J79 is a turbojet designed in the late 1950s, F100 is a turbofan designed in the late 1960s, F404 is a turbofan designed in the late 1970s.

The new F-16s are for replacing the trouble prone F-5s now and possibly the Mirage 2000-5 in the near future. Its a logical choice given the fact that F-35 won’t be operational any time soon.

Interesting fact is Taiwan was looking into getting some Harriers so SVTOL maybe high on the list but delayed due to the lack of a suitable candidate.

A better buy for Taiwan as opposed to the Aegis would be more La fayettes en mass to reduce the per unit price. They are already familliar with the ship plus Taiwan have the choice of fitting domestic AShM as opposed to expensive imports.

The Gripen would have been a better choice on account of its short take-off and landing capabilities, and there would still be a lot of spares commonality as it uses the same engine as the F16, but that would never have been a realistic choice on account of politics.

Its the same with the La Fayettes. The French are not going to sell more arms to Taiwan anytime soon. Besides, the La Fayette would be next to useless in any war anyways. I mean what are they going to do? Sit in the middle of the straits and try to force the PLAN to come to battle?

In my view, the entire current ROCN is a waste of space. The strait is far too narrow to have any chance of the navy being about to form an additional defensive line. If any ships tries to, it will just get swamped with a $hitload of AShMs and killed in pretty quick order. There is zero scope for the navy to do anything useful unless you get some carriers for them to protect.

If Taiwan get some Aegis DDGs, then they can sit on the east side of Taiwan and help direct the air campaign. The ships radar can fill the role of AWACS to a degree, and its SM2s can help out the SAMs. If the PLA wants to kill the Aegis ships, they are either going to have to fly through Taiwan or go around it, which presents major problems either way. After that, it will have to face and best the Aegis’ defenses, making them pretty hard targets.

Something no one seem to be taking note of is the operational environment that these Aegis DDGs are supposed to be operating in.

For optimal effect, the DDGs would have to be somewhere in the straits in order to get a decent chance to intercept any SRBMs. The problem with that scenario is that PLA AShMs have ranges well in excess of the width of the straits, and its not like these DDGs are likely to be hard to spot and target at those ranges.

You place the DDGs in the straits and they are as good as dead, and they will be unlikely to have played any meaningful role before they got vaporised. You put them on the other side of the island and their missile defense capacities would be greatly reduced since they would not be able to intercept the incoming missiles at the flight stage the missiles were designed for.

If Taiwan gets the Aegis, it will not be for its SM3 capacity, but rather its radar and C&C gear, to allow them to have a powerful and surviverable sensor and command platform that could help to direct the war effort in the very likely scenario that all fixed land based sensor and command instillations would have been destroyed or badly degraded in the opening stages of a war with China.

Having a carrier, even a small one with STOVL F35s would also greatly enhance Taiwan’s defensive capabilities as it would allow them to retain an air force for longer, and could potentially force the PLA to have to come out and hunt down the carrier or risk heavy losses to the invasion force, which = delay.

Taiwan’s Achilles’ heal is its total lack of strategic depth, meaning nowhere is safe from attack. A carrier or two would give them that much needed breathing room and also make the odds of a successful PLA surprise attack longer since the PLA can’t be sure of being able to kill the carriers in the opening stages of a war.

If I was in charge of Taiwan’s defenses, a carrier or two would be high on my wish list, even higher then F16s or any other non-STOVL land based plane because those planes are worse then useless without runways to operate from.

Anyways, to recap, I think that Taiwan’s military is starting to accept the changing balance of power and are realizing that it is futile to try and match the PLA like for like. Especially in things like missile defense, as it is almost certainly going to be more expansive to defend against missiles then it is to attack with them = a hopeless situation for Taiwan.

If they are seriously considering Aegis, then it should be about long term game plan as opposed to an all-or-nothing gamble at the start of a war. The idea should be to maintain a functional defense for as long as possible and hope the US decide to get involve and can do so in time as opposed to trying to stop every single one of the PLA’s hundreds if not thousands of SRBMs that are going to be fired at Taiwan in the event of war.

The new F-16s are for replacing the trouble prone F-5s now and possibly the Mirage 2000-5 in the near future. Its a logical choice given the fact that F-35 won’t be operational any time soon.

Interesting fact is Taiwan was looking into getting some Harriers so SVTOL maybe high on the list but delayed due to the lack of a suitable candidate.

A better buy for Taiwan as opposed to the Aegis would be more La fayettes en mass to reduce the per unit price. They are already familliar with the ship plus Taiwan have the choice of fitting domestic AShM as opposed to expensive imports.

That does sort of ignore the fact that the shorter range ballistic missiles are easier to intercept with other missiles. In particular, the PAC-3, and probably SM-2s, would be used against such targets. It is not very accurate to say that this is a flaw of the SM-3 – that’s like saying that the AMRAAM is flawed because its not very effective at gun range… Different horses for different courses! :diablo:

Something no one seem to be taking note of is the operational environment that these Aegis DDGs are supposed to be operating in.

For optimal effect, the DDGs would have to be somewhere in the straits in order to get a decent chance to intercept any SRBMs. The problem with that scenario is that PLA AShMs have ranges well in excess of the width of the straits, and its not like these DDGs are likely to be hard to spot and target at those ranges.

You place the DDGs in the straits and they are as good as dead, and they will be unlikely to have played any meaningful role before they got vaporised. You put them on the other side of the island and their missile defense capacities would be greatly reduced since they would not be able to intercept the incoming missiles at the flight stage the missiles were designed for.

If Taiwan gets the Aegis, it will not be for its SM3 capacity, but rather its radar and C&C gear, to allow them to have a powerful and surviverable sensor and command platform that could help to direct the war effort in the very likely scenario that all fixed land based sensor and command instillations would have been destroyed or badly degraded in the opening stages of a war with China.

Having a carrier, even a small one with STOVL F35s would also greatly enhance Taiwan’s defensive capabilities as it would allow them to retain an air force for longer, and could potentially force the PLA to have to come out and hunt down the carrier or risk heavy losses to the invasion force, which = delay.

Taiwan’s Achilles’ heal is its total lack of strategic depth, meaning nowhere is safe from attack. A carrier or two would give them that much needed breathing room and also make the odds of a successful PLA surprise attack longer since the PLA can’t be sure of being able to kill the carriers in the opening stages of a war.

If I was in charge of Taiwan’s defenses, a carrier or two would be high on my wish list, even higher then F16s or any other non-STOVL land based plane because those planes are worse then useless without runways to operate from.

Anyways, to recap, I think that Taiwan’s military is starting to accept the changing balance of power and are realizing that it is futile to try and match the PLA like for like. Especially in things like missile defense, as it is almost certainly going to be more expansive to defend against missiles then it is to attack with them = a hopeless situation for Taiwan.

If they are seriously considering Aegis, then it should be about long term game plan as opposed to an all-or-nothing gamble at the start of a war. The idea should be to maintain a functional defense for as long as possible and hope the US decide to get involve and can do so in time as opposed to trying to stop every single one of the PLA’s hundreds if not thousands of SRBMs that are going to be fired at Taiwan in the event of war.

Duh, no one designs a system like that. But that doesn’t stop people from manipulating tests so they can get more money for R&D.

Or do you want to deny that the Yankies have ever manipulated test conditions so that their missiles would hit the target?

You had better have a worth while source for this claim.:rolleyes:

If you were designing a system to defend yourself would you make a system that only worked if you “helped” it?

Duh, no one designs a system like that. But that doesn’t stop people from manipulating tests so they can get more money for R&D.

Or do you want to deny that the Yankies have ever manipulated test conditions so that their missiles would hit the target?