danrhSunburn is said to be capable of making a 15G terminal manoeuver. If true, how much distance would the missile move from target axis while making this 15G turn?
Chreers,
Sunho
I wonder just how much manoeuvring does a Mach two missile need to do to generate a 15g loading.
Daniel
danrhNor has the Sub evolution remained static since WW2, If the ASW capability evolved so did the subs . As I have siad before SOSUS were good and effective in certain areas mostly the Choke Point the so called GreenLand Iceland Gap , It is just impossible to bug the entire Ocean Floor as it is made out to be.
SOSUS certainly acquired Larger than Life Figure. It certainly looked strong on paper.
If the SOSUS were so good and Western ASW were that effective , How is that many a times the USN was suprised by the presence of Soviet/Russian Sub tracking their Ships in friendly water one never knows how many went undetected.
By what SOSUS is made out to be , They should have known where each Soviet/Russian subs were isnt it , The odds are one can easily bypass the SOSUS network if the Soviet had wished too
As you say SOSUS arrays cover chokepoints.Its a trip wire system. It can only detect subs in its vicinity. If the contact is not prosecuted promptly then it will be lost as the contact moves away. Unless you can actually sink the contacts or have enough resources to localise and shadow everyone then of course there is ample opportunity to some subs to slip out into the open ocean to turn up unannounced where they aren’t wanted.
During periods of low tensions the forces available to prosecute the contacts generated by SOSUS is reduced. If tensions increased NATO would reinforce the line with more MPAs, surface ASW groups and SSN/SSKs and seek to track or sink the contacts quickly depending on the actual state of hostilities.
Daniel
danrhFirst, submariners are as famous storytellers as fishermen :p
Second, no doubt You have heard of multiple facts of sub collisions during Col War era. What makes You think that sub captains will not use dangerous manouvering if they had to in order to trail an enemy sub?
Who told You that Alpha’s Okean sonar suit was crappy? It was quite powerful and accurate in active mode and that was the mode to be most often by Alphas.
Regarding the agility of Alphas I have only the word of Russian captains, it’s Your choice whether You believe them or not :dev2: According to them Alpha was more agile than LA. I don’t know at what speed LA had the turn rate You cited but Alpha was able to make a U turn in 42 seconds at full speed and it was able to go at full power in one minute after full stop.
Snake, at what range are you assuming the Alfa will be commencing its interception run? Indications are that the Alfa’s were noisy enough to be detected out out to at least one or two CZ’s. The subs powerful active set has no use at these ranges, in fact it only serve to further broadcast the boats position. Unless the Alfa is within a few nm’s to start with then its likely in a world of hurt.
Similarly maneuverability is immaterial at these ranges. Try working out just how fast the boat would need to move to stay in the baffles of an opponent at ranges of multiple nm’s.
Lastly the argy-bargy of Cold War sub maneuvering has little bearing on actual hot war engagements. Ramming went out of fashion many,many years ago as a method for sinking an opponent.
Daniel
danrhI thought Pakistan was co-developing the Darter series with S.Africa :confused:
South Africa has a training arrangement with India for its submariners. While that doesn’t automatically disquallify any cooperation with Pakistan it is something to consider.
Daniel
danrh😮
And fellas! Please don’t tick yourselves off over this silly stuff…
http://www.wforum.com/wmf/posts/1115204786.html because,
I mean the might Gertz has not yet sounded the alarm just yet…I dare them put their money where their mouth is 😮 !!!
.
Its not Chinese, its the Russian AMUR 1650 sub.
Daniel
danrhIf you believe the trade magazines, the 787 due to it being all composite has serious restrictions that limit its use as a tanker aircraft.
The 737-900 (42.11m) is almost as long as a B-707-300 (46.61m) with a significant difference though, their weights. Max Take off 737-900: 155,500lb (just for the sake of reference the Boeing P-8A maritime patrol aircraft derived from the Boeing 737-800 has a maximum taxi weight of 184,700 lbs) 707-300: MTOW 333,600lb.
But at the same time the 737 has a much more economical engine (CFM56-7B with 27000lbs each) compared with the B707s JT-3 first generation turbofans and this should equate with less fuel spent by the tanker aircraft when flying the same mission time and distance…
Let’s not forget that the KC-130Hs max take off weight is also 155.000lbs…
Regards,
Hammer
Of course the C-135 is based on the shorter 720 fuselage not the 707 and most of the USAFs KC-135s have already been reengined with CFM-56’s of their own. Still one of the IGW model 737s does seem a good partner for the 777 in a high-low mix. Lets face it folks, the US will go a long way to avoid buying outside of US industry. Wonder how many folks another line might employ. Given all the layoffs in the US auto industry I’ll bet the administration would love to be able to take credit for the Aerospace industry hiring a few thousand new workers.
Daniel
danrhit is so obvious, so cleaver and so economical, that noboddy within the Mod will ever start to think about it 🙁
Its only more economical for the UK if Dassault is prepared to sign over the entire Rafale production to BAe Systems.
Daniel
danrhWhat was that vulnerability again?
Oh, right, just spray the sky with missiles and maybe you’ll get lucky. :rolleyes:
Oh don’t forget the part about letting the enemy aircraft fly all over your country bombing things at will while your AD hides until they can figure out an appropriate place for an ambush.
Daniel
danrhSounds reasonable then. I just seems odd on a ship that cuts corners to save cost in many respects.
What do you mean? The Lafayette class is primarily a patrol vessel that in war will perform escort duties. For those roles it is equipped just fine. The class does have the space set aside for more systems at a later date but for now its just not affordable for every vessel in a fleet to cruise around with 16 AShMs, hulking great VLS’s with dozens of AA and LAC missiles and an artillery battallion’s worth of NGFS capability. Consequently those systems are not on board and thats fine since they don’t fit the vessels role. However something that improves your chances against submarines, now thats something that fits the role and is therefore a perfectly reasonable inclusion.
Daniel
danrhI had no idea there had been foreign interest for the Mirage IV. This leaves to wonder what could have been if the Mirage IV had been purchased by Australia instead of the F-111!
Bluuuurkk 😀
Daniel
danrhHow does a lack of supersonic targets equate to lack of capability to shoot down said targets? I’d think if RIM-7 was that bad they’d be getting them off CVNs ASAP. As it is they aren’t even installing ESSM on CVN-77. Won’t come on board until CVN-21 in some ten years.
Mate, settle. Read the original question again.
Daniel
danrhGarryB has. In post #6. 🙂
Oops. Busted skimming Garry’s posts 🙂
Daniel
danrhsurprised no one has mentioned ADATS yet but I suppose the discussion has been confined to MANPADS so I’m upping the ante somewhat 🙂
Daniel
danrhare there differences in capability between the following ? does the US delete
some goldstd-modes when exporting to the rest ?(a) USAF E-3
(b) NATO E-3
(c) French E-3 (if any)
(d) Japan E-3
(e) Saudi E-3I am talking of the radar and mission avionics.
Also, in the OTAN pool, does each country’s AF get a set of dedicated E-3 to play with or the planes rotate to each user as needed ? I mean in first case, there is chance of UK getting some “special” gear but not the FrAF :diablo:
Japan has E-2C and E-767 not E-3. The UK does have its own E-3Ds. I think the NATO E-3s were initially US standard but they may not be anymore.
Daniel
danrhRussia To Buy British Robot Rescue Sub
By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, MoscowRussia said Jan. 17 it was buying a British robot submarine of the type that last year helped rescue seven of its sailors stranded on the seabed.
“We are going to order this year a British Scorpio craft to carry out crew rescue missions and also various civilian missions,” Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said, according to Russian news agencies.
Moscow will base the transportable version, which can be carried by cargo aircraft, at St. Petersburg in northwest Russia.
The usefulness of the Scorpio — and the failings of the Russian military — were highlighted last August when seven Russian sailors in the AS-28 “Priz” mini-submarine were trapped 625 feet under water in the Pacific Ocean for more than 75 hours.
They were finally brought to the surface after a remote-controlled British Scorpio-45 vessel flown from Scotland cut through the cables and nets ensnaring the Russian submarine.
The incident, following the loss of the Kursk submarine and its 118 crew in the Barents Sea in August 2000, highlighted the Russian military’s lack of transparency and resources.
This is good to see. They could probably have spent millions more to improve/replace indigenous systems and the perosonnel would probably have doubted it. This system obviously has history with Russian submariners and its not like a rescue system is a critical national security project. Good to see sense rule over national pride.
Daniel
Sign In
