YourFatherIndeed it is strange but the rate of PLA modernisation is amazing! The 051 Luda will be gone in a year or so as well, as I said they are smaller and easier to maintain due to the entirely local content. The PLAN have been using them close into the coast anyway rather then in true bluewater ops.
They still have 13 or so Ludas. Not likely they’d retire all within the next year or so. The 052 may be undergoing scrapping (who’s to say for certain, right?), but that’s unlikely given that the PLAN keeps ships in service for quite some time. I understand and agree that currently, their parts source makes them an upkeep problem, but that is also an argument for the ship undergoing a major overhaul to have the parts swapped with components of Chinese manufacture.
YourFatherShort takeoffs? Hah. This plane beats all. :diablo:
YourFatherAs I mentioned, the US performed a kinetic kill against an ICBM warhead in 1984 (And an F-15 ASAT kill in 1985). Does that mean they had a deployed capability fielded? Not even close.
Of course not. You can put me last on the list of those who will confuse a demonstration with that of a fielded capability. Only China rah-rahs will believe that one demonstration equals a fielded capability to take out all satellites in all orbits, or one demonstration meaning that they have a fielded missile defense system. 😀 But, having demonstrated that they could intercept a satellite means that they have already demonstrated the technology required to intercept a ballistic missile. That is, of course, a long way off from saying they have the technology to field a national missile defense system, considering that the fielding and integration of all the sensors required for a workable missile defense system has not been demonstrated at all.
YourFatherWhy so negative, Sferrin? As far as I’m concerned, China demonstrated its inherent capability to intercept ballistic missiles when it intercepted its satellite in orbit. Both are essentially the same thing – the intercept of an object in a predictable trajectory. If this was a successful test, and I think there is a good likelihood it was, China now joins the ranks of America, Russia and India as countries which have conducted successful missile defense tests.
Should anybody be worried? Frankly, I think only one country has reason to be worried, and it’s India with its limited nuclear warhead inventory. Neither the US nor Russia will find their overwhelming nuclear inventory threatened with a chinese NMD. That is particularly true for America. Russia might feel a bit more concerned because its military superiority rests more on its nuclear inventory than conventional weapons. But for America, China investing in a NMD means money diverted from enhancing its conventional weaponry or from expanding its nuclear stockpile. It’s a defensive capability (however much China itself disagrees with that viewpoint, ironically. Or should I say, hypocritically? :rolleyes:) which threatens none of America’s allies which feature few ballistic missiles in their armoury, if any. And unless China invests very heavily in its NMD, its NMD is not going to be as effective against the US as the US version is against China’s inventory. The simple reason being that the principal advantage that ballistic missiles have is that it gives a very short reaction time for the adversary’s defenses to respond – hence the onus is on the defender to detect the launch as early as possible to give the defense system the greatest amount of time for an appropriate response. The US has DSP/SBIRS, SBX, a large AEGIS fleet that’s soon to be BMD capable and on top of that, allies just off China whose sensors tie in with the US NMD system. And from what I heard, even JORN sensor data is being investigated as a data source for the NMD system. China has none of that. So you see? It’s actually a pretty good thing for the US.
YourFatherIf the CVBG is EMCON out of fear of being found by enemy ESM, the BAMS could fly orbits around it and remain undetected
E-2D?
YourFatherAnd one issue which lies in favour to the US with respect to SEI/HULTEC is the need to build up, and maintain the library of emitter characteristics over time. Few have the required asset numbers to do so. And if I recall correctly, the Legenda’s US-P sats didn’t have SEI capability, making the proliferation of SPS-49s on ships a viable counter targeting technique then.
Only if they sail in a recognisable group out in open water. They do that sort of thing for photo opportunities….not under operational or exercise conditions!.
Considering the USN has adopted dispersed formations for more than 4 decades, it’s quite amazing how people still think they travel around in bulleye formations! 😀
YourFatherNo satellite can really ‘track’ a ship closely. The Legenda system is able to ‘track’ the target by having two sats pass by in rapid succession, thus getting 2 plots and so extrapolating its course and speed to determine the coordinates for a future attack.
If one really wants to track a ship continuously in real time then the best means is a radar sat with MTI mode. But if it is in LEO, it’d pass over the horizon too quickly, so in order to hold the track, another similar satellite would need to make a pass soon after the earlier one goes out of sensor range so that the track isn’t lost. So to continuously track a ship would require a large and very expensive satellite constellation. Something like the now dead Space Based Radar concept.
YourFatherAn old 2002 article from Naval Forces, “Two of a Kind, New Dutch and German Frigates Compared” specifically states that the LCF used tactical length modules. It could be wrong, or it might just be outdated info.
YourFatherLCF VLS modules when it was built originally are tactical length, and would have required upgrading if Tomahawks were ordered. I’m not sure if they have been upgraded, which they might do since they are looking to get into the BMD game.
YourFatherUAVs are still pretty much cheap, capable and easy to develop.
Pick any two.
Sorry, cheap and capable are quite exclusive as far as unit costs go. Once a UAV is made capable, cost increases. Not that hard to see why. Take a normal jet. What makes it capable? The sensors. It is these sensors which are costly, not the life support equipment which a UAV does away with. Put these same sensors on a UAV and cost increases proportionately. What a UAV brings is endurance, that is its true value.
YourFatherUnfortunately, no. I’ll paste the section of the article here, only small part so I don’t think copyright sensitivities will be tripped. The article title is “Picture perfect: system integration is the prime enabler for Dutch LCF frigate” IDR May Issue, if you want to find the article.
Software certification
Commander Oscar Boot, the ship’s weapon engineering officer, noted: “Ownership is very important, because without certified software you don’t have a ship anymore. Also, it is better for us, through CAMS-Force Vision, to bear the development and integration risk. Otherwise you must pay for it from industry, and that is not cheap.”
As might be expected from such an advanced and relatively new-to-service ship, there are still some fragilities in the combat system.
“We do still experience some problems, these in the main being associated with specific equipment interfaces,” Cdr Boot said.
“But stability is generally good, functionality is close to 100 per cent, and with each successive release of CMS operational software it gets more reliable.
“As for the radars, the reliability of SMART-L matches its outstanding performance. We rarely have issues.”
The picture on APAR is not as straightforward. “It is a very complex radar to maintain and operate, and is not yet as reliable as we would like it,” said Cdr Boot.
“What we have seen though is evidence of APAR’s huge potential, not just against air threats but also in its ability to detect very small surface targets.”
YourFatherApparently the Dutch are also facing problems with their CMS too, or rather, some of their equipment interfaces. This is separate from the problems they are having regarding the reliability of the APAR. These came from a Jane’s interview with the Provincien’s Weapon Engineering officer as recently as this May, so they are probably still facing this problem at this moment. SMART-L seems to be working very well though.
YourFathergoing off onto a diffrent subject but why did Australia go with the F100 over the German F124.. i dont blame them for not going American but the F124 seems like it would of been very competitive and it would probably have more commonality with the Anzacs
Well, even now the APAR seems to still be sufferring from reliability problems. That might have been a serious factor in the Aussies selecting the AEGIS/SPY combi over the APAR then.
YourFather$290 million would include the development costs spread over 40 airframes. Development cost includess to the money needed to make sure the electronics are made temper proof, and sensitive features removed. The F-22 wasn’t designed with export in mind, so now these anti-tamper features have to be fitted whereas the F-35 comes with them. Getting a LO aircraft of the same level of performance as the F-22 on their first try isn’t going to come any cheaper, so if they really want the F-22 level of performance, they’ll just have to stomach the cost. Or else it’s the Typhoon or the F-35, more likely the latter.
YourFatherI’m not sure why this is a huge surprise. 1. Everybody knows that RCS reduction is dependant on structural itegrity/continuity and repairs of any nature are rarely exactly the same as the original, particularly when it comes to non-isotropic materials. 2. It was “uncovered” during EMD. Where’s the so called “fraud”? Not only that “fraud” implies they tried to cover it up where in fact this has been known since EMD so again, where’s the fraud? Sounds like a disgruntled LM employee with a hardon for revenge and the media are more than willing to dogpile on. Hopefully they’ll throw the book at this idiot and let him foot the bill for the lawyers as well.
well, there isn’t any need to get so worked up. Let justice take its course, and if it is found that this is just one disgruntled worker, he will be saddled with a lot more crap then before. If not, then LM will have to get its act together. Win, either way. Of course, to some, if this employee is found to be talking crap, then the US judicial system is ‘in on it’ too. One big effin’ conspiracy it must be if the damn F-22 works. :rolleyes: 😀
Sign In
