First they try chicken for fighter planes, now its rice for frigates. How low do they get?
It seems we Koreans may get million tons of Thai rice…
http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=242808&messageid=1126538982&lp=1127164172
1) Rif M is installed in bow station on Piotr Veliky CBGN. Currently it still uses the 48N6E2 missile from Favorit (S-300PMU2) and respective FCS – 30N6E1 radar, AFAIK.
Is 30N6E1 the one in the picture left?
2) Regarding Your second question, it should be long range 3D Podberiozovik radar, an intended replacement for Voshod radar in Flag radar complex, installed on 1144, 1164 and others larger units. You can read about it here:
http://www.milparade.com/catalog/pdf/572.pdf
What’s the NATO code for Podberiozovik?
Question again:, most material give the range of those single stage SM2 missile to be around 70km so I guess this is about right. So is the missile in the article a new version or they just push it to the limit?
Those “most materials” are inaccurate.
The official US Navy site gives 40-90 nautical miles (46-104 statute miles) as SM-2 Block III/IIIA/IIIB’s range and SM-2 Block III production started in FY88, more than 15 years ago.
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/missiles/wep-stnd.html
In some countries (Korea eg.) they used STIR240 to control their SM2 missile but can the STIR240 give you the maximum range of a SM2 missile. The SM2 missiles are supposed to have twice the range of the SM1 version.
KDX-II’s STIR240 guided SM-2 Block IIIA to a target 113km away in the last year’s live fire test.
http://www.korea.net/news/news/NewsView.asp?serial_no=20040802008&part=102&SearchDay=
So, who here arround plays Navyfield?
Just curious, do you like the name Navy Field?
First of all, please cite your sources that substantiate your claims below.
Well,the vandal exercises don`t take place streaming the missle right in to the ships participating in the exercise, of course,and that means the “drones” don`t take evasive manners like the real vampires and in reality they don`t get fired on stationary platforms far away,which means real supersonic missilers closes on the ship in a lo-lo mode then just climb up once to shoot and just run away outside the ships weapon evenlope,which means the ship has little time to react,and it is very possible it`ll be at least 4~5 vampires closing on the ship the same time.
The Standard is said to have a range of over 80nms,but the range won`t have any merit because all missiles these days have sea-skimming capabilities,which means the Ship`s AA rader can`t spot the missile,until it closes on the ship(roughly around 30nms?)
Before shooting those sea-skimmers you have to look over the horizon to find targets to attack. That means an MPA directing ASM-shooters must establish line-of-sight to the target. Long range SAM can deny the shadower the ability to gather information. If the shadower stays low to avoid detection, it cannot see its target either. Of course, carrierborne fighters and AEW aircraft are the ultimate solution in air defence at sea.
If sea-skimmers pop up from the sea (in other words sub-launched), then faster reaction is more important than range.
[snip]
I seriously doubt the VANDALEX took place simulating almost the real thing like by shooting mutiple drones on the ship directly and being first detected only a few tenfold miles away. Well,if there are AEW planes like the E-2C Hawkeye or E-3,they might catch the missile the instant it`s fired,but if it comes only like a solo Standard armed AA Ship Vs Supersonic missilier,the AA ship is likely to be doomed.
ASMs that does not fly in a hi-hi mode can be NEVER detected from the full range of the AA raders which renders the awesome range of the SM-2 useless. I`m pretty sure the the Lassen was backed up by any type of AWACS
Please substantiate your claim with verifiable sources.
[snip]
Well,because of the delay of the ANF/Horizon Program,the completion of the Aster system is rumored to be postponed..
Aster development program is not coupled with ANF (do you mean the supersonic SSM project, which is long dead?) or Horizon. SAAM, Systeme de defense surface-Air AntiMissile, started in the late 1980’s, several years before the start of Horizon. SAAM-FR which uses Aster15 and ARABEL is operational on the carrier Charles de Gaulle since 2001-2002. Aster30 is not operational anywhere yet.
To know more about the histories of SAAM, Horizon and PAAMS, read my article on the next issue of Military Review or here http://cafe.daum.net/NTDS.
[QUOTE==Lazz=]the SMs because missiles like that whould be fired about50~60nms away
[snip]
because of a nasty habit of gobbling up precious time igniting their engines.
Please elaborate and cite your sources.
http://www.news.navy.mil/search/print.asp?story_id=2532&VIRIN=1883&imagetype=1&page=1
“The following day, Lassen also participated in two vandal exercises (VANDALEX) involving missile launches. The exercise is designed for ships to intercept hostile missiles with their own missiles. In both exercises, shore launched, remote-controlled drones were used to simulate the hostile missiles. One of the drones closed in on the ship at a speed of Mach 2.1 (approximately 1,500 miles per hour) grazing 50 feet above the ocean’s surface. Lassen’s SM-2 surface-to-air standard missile successfully intercepted the drone six miles from the ship.”
Not that I know of, but it’s designed to do that.
Here’s the sales pitch from MBDA
http://www.mbda.net/site/FO/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?lang=EN&noeu_id=88
OK, so it’s not proven in real tests yet.
I have an interest in the history of piracy in the age of sail. Although alot of information can be found about european pirates of the Carribean, I cant find anything about piracy in the middle east and far east. Im wondering if anyone from asian nations who visits this forum can give me any info on where to find books or websites about history and folklore of piracy in your respective seafaring history.
http://www.nus.edu.sg/sup/9971-69-242-2.html
Try “Iranun and Balangingi: Globalisation, Maritime Raiding and the Birth of Ethnicity” by James F. Warren.
It will be interesting to see. If, the A-50/T-50 has much export success? For countries like Mexico………it maybe a ideal choice?
The Korean government offered the ROKAF’s old F-5A/B Freedom Fighters and A-37B Dragonflies to Mexico and Poland for free to rouse their interest in KAI T-50/A-50 Golden Eagle.
Found this in imdex 2005 gallery anyone what korean vessel this is?
That’s an export variant of KDX-II.
But don’t forget the Type 052C radar’s T/R unit works in low frequence S-band. the same as Aegis’s SPY-1. the radar works in this bandwidth is JUST not suitable for fire-controlling. The same reason, the SPY-1 can’t do SPY-2’s job. Even the next generation “Dual-band “radar on DD(X) consists SPY-3 APAR works on X-band and a S-band Volume Search Radar. It’s the SPY-3 that will absorb previous SPY-2’s fire-control job, not the S-band Volume Search Radar.
BTW, MPQ-53/HT-233 etc, none of them works in S-band
SPY-2? What is it? Can’t find anything about it on neither Lockheed Martin nor Raytheon sites. Lockheed Martin’s site shows SBAR, formerly SPY-1E though.
Y-8X (Xun, Surveillance) is PLAN’s first long-range maritime patrol aircraft (MPA)(range 5,600km). It is essentially a Y-8/An-12 transport aircraft equipped with a Litton AN/APS-504(V)3 surface search radar in an enlarged undernose radome plus western navigational systems for long range patrols over the sea.
APS-504 is a Canadian-made radar fitted to a number of aircraft used by coast guards of various countries. Interestingly, the ROCN S-2T Trackers also have this radar. It’s not up to P-3C’s APS-137 radar which has ISAR mode for ship identification.
and no comparable radar suit to go with it…
It’s a deliberate choice. Just like the USN chose the Dutch Signaal WM25 to use it with SM-1 MR on FFG-7 Oliver Hazard Perry in the early 1970’s. KDX-II is not intended to take on massed raids single-handedly. The Canadians use the Dutch Signaal LW08 2D long range radar, DA08 2D target indication radar and Northrop Grumman TMS data fusion with SM-2 Block II on their TRUMP Iroquois class. Both KDX-II and TRUMP Iroquois are to take out (or keep down) reconnaissance planes such as Y-8J or Tu-95RT ‘Bear D’ with one or two long range SM-2 shots to deny enemy’s OTH targeting.
I don’t see how it’s possible to shoot down planes at 200km plus before the PLAN planes use their 250km AShM ?
And you know nothing about the attack profile, whether or not they are to use their own sensors or depend on offboard targeting, and at what height they are supposed to launch their so-called 250km ASM.
So the PLAN Y-8 MPA is useless then…? The AWACS program is useless?
They are certainly useful. But the problem is that there are probably only two operational Y-8Js.
I never said the Kidd was a lemon, I said the Kidd were not comparable with the 052C!
Do you have any concrete information about the 052C? For a starter, at what frequency the 052C’s phased-array radar operate?
government propaganda comming form Taiwan in hopes that it will creat false hope that the ROCN can withstand an invasion. What’s the point? What would you comment on a PLAN study on the same subjects and concluded that it would only take one plane to sink the single Kidd???
It’s called phony science!
I never said I wholly believe in it either. I just posted an ‘interesting’ article from Taipei Times.
From SIGNAL magazine
[ According to a U.S. Defense Department official, China’s military modernization program focuses on two general areas. One is to build specific capabilities relevant to a potential conflict over Taiwan. The other is to generally modernize the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) so that its elements are not left behind by the advancing state of the art of military capabilities, even in areas where China does not face any particular threat in the foreseeable future.
Nonetheless, even though this buildup does not have a global reach, it does have implications for U.S. military operations in the Asia-Pacific region.
“If China develops effective open ocean/over-the-horizon surveillance capabilities, we have a problem,” the official states. China also is increasing its ability to hit bases with non-nuclear tactical ballistic missiles, which would hinder the ability of U.S. forces to project power from beyond the range of Chinese forces.
China began changing its military doctrine in 1980, and the U.S. official believes that it is halfway through a 40-year effort to modernize its military operations. The country has emphasized increased flexibility at the tactical level, more realistic training and more innovative tactics. In December 1999, near the end of its ninth five-year plan, China published its first true standardized doctrinal PLA publications. The tenth five-year plan, which began in 2001, implements that doctrine in the training program of the PLA.
Some aspects of modernization deal with threat-free areas. In a broad-based undertaking, the country is modernizing ground forces despite the lack of any ground threat, the official observes. Even though it does not face any such threat for the next 20 years, because China began its 1980 plan three generations behind other countries’ capabilities, the PLA will find itself unable to catch up if such a threat materializes. It has to close the gap well before urgency sets in, so it is modernizing now.
One of the major trends in China’s upgrades for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) is that the country has recognized its inability to find targets over the horizon (OTH) at sea, the official states. Accordingly, China “clearly is exploring options” to address that shortcoming.
Airborne early warning remains a high priority. After failing to obtain an Israeli-built Falcon radar system mounted on a Russian aircraft, China has stepped up its efforts to develop indigenous air early warning aircraft. It is leasing A-50/Mainstay surveillance aircraft from Russia, but this is just a stopgap measure until China can develop its own capability in a few years.
Helicopters that came with destroyers purchased from Russia can be used for OTH target acquisition for the ships’ cruise missiles. The congressional report notes that China has skywave medium-wave OTH radars that could be used to target aircraft carriers.
The official describes these efforts as “still at the exploratory phase of trying to decide what to do about this problem. What we don’t see yet is any serious commitment to building a comprehensive network to provide the kind of broad-area ocean coverage that is necessary for their task. And, the obvious task here is to be able to keep an opponent – the only opponent that matters to them is the United States – far enough off their shores so that it cannot strike targets of concern to them or interfere in issues such as a potential Taiwan Strait conflict.
“If they really cared, they could build a pretty good system out of components they have available to them right now – if they felt the need to do it right now,” the official continues. “What does it take – some aircraft with radars on board? That would do it – that’s how we did it in the 1960s. The most likely explanation [of why they are not building it] is that they are not yet ready to commit to large-scale implementation of a solution to this problem – probably because they are not quite satisfied with the state of their own technology in that area, and they don’t want to commit before they achieve the technology level that they want. They don’t want to be locked into something that will seem obsolete soon,” the official warrants.
The official adds that, at the moment, a mismatch exists between the range of China’s strike systems and the range of its surveillance systems to detect targets. Several programs seek to address this shortcoming. A joint program with Brazil aims to develop and launch an earth resources imagery satellite that would improve related military capabilities. China launched its first oceanological satellite last year, and the country intends to orbit a constellation of these satellites by 2010 to monitor the ocean environment. ]