danrhMix: Mate what about Greenland and the Fareos??? They are Danish territory, should these come under threat what’s going to be left to protect them?
Ja look at a map mate. Those territories extend to the other side of the North Atlantic and as was mentioned the Greenland coastline is about equal to the distance around the equator. Two small submarines are not going to ‘protect’ those territories (you won’t even have two operational for a good portion of thier service lives). Small nations just can’t afford to have every capability these days. The Danes have the luxury of NATO and also some EU interaction. The Only real dispute over thier territories is with Canada and I just don’t see that one going hot. More sealift allows much better visible support for the territories and is much more useful in the activities other than war that most militaries find themselves participating in today.
Daniel
danrhFairly obviously he is refering to vectoring thrust in flight to improve manouver capability in a fighter aircraft. The Harrier has never done that in combat to my knowledge.
VIFFing (Vetcoring In Forward Flight) was developed by the USMC as a valid air combat maneuver for the Harrier.
Russia is the enemy, always has been and always will be. Many replies here show that to be true. I think secretly they like to be proven wrong… how else can you justify buying an aircraft that costs quarter of a billion dollars per plane after the cold war has finished for use in this so called war on terror.
Well I think the PRC is the enemy of choice for justifying the F/A-22A 🙂
The money spent goes into your own economy to improve your market chances for export. I’d say it was money well spent. Or should they spend nothing on development and just buy some F-16s from Boeing?
Unfortunately there is uncertainty about that export market. The two best customers are hard at it developing their own industries and while they might participate in collaborative efforts such programs have a tendency to drag out even longer than in house ones.
And the Soviets have had their heads in the sand for 25 years. :rolleyes:
Actually I think wasting money on stealth fighters is a waste of money. They should just build IRBMs and ICBMs, especially the truck mounted models that the US can’t seem to counter effectively till they launch their payload and then just make money by selling them to anyone who wants one.
Unfortunately those BMs have a poor record when it comes to actually detering the other guy from invading and taking your country from you. Sure they are nuisance but not exactly the basket I’d be wanting to put all my eggs into. Unless you are advocating the complete abandonment of the ethos of Nuclear Non-Proliferation and nuke warheads fro all? How much yellowcake from our newly fedralised uranium mines can we put New Zealand down for?
[QUOTE=GarryB]
So you get your information from television?
[/quote[
As opposed to any unaccountable website that happens suit our own particular pre-conceptions?
Money was getting short in 1985, which was before most of the Su-27s and Mig-29s entered operational service… Compared to a carrier group or an SSN or SSBN an aircraft is a relatively cheap item.
Thats nice, of course the development costs of the The MiG-29 and Su-27 programs had been cover by then. As you point out the cost minus the development is relatively small.
The Su-47 and Mig 1.42 aircraft flew just like the F-22 is currently doing. Both are at the flying stage. It is not like the Russians are starting from a clean sheet of paper and the F-22 is shooting down suicide bombers.
Garry mate, come on. S-47 and the MiG 1.42/44 are comparable to the YF-22/23. They are TDs, how does the Typhoon compare to the EAP? Where are the systems that will go into these aircraft? Hell the S-47 is a *******, borrowing bits and pieces from various other aircraft to get the FSW into the air. Its as much an operational aircraft as the X-29.
Now I’m not saying that the Russians can’t build a 5th generation fighter. Of course they can, the Soviets/Russians have consistently produced systems that were confidently predicted as being beyond them. The problem as I see it is that the current line is ageing. The types are still some of the most potent airrcaft available but development has been paid for by the export customers and realistically only the Indians and Chinese have had the funds for the serious improvements with the minor customers (eg Indonesia and Malaysia) following on with just a few minor tweaks. The major buyers now are looking to move on though. China has the J-10, they have been increasing the indigenous content in their J-11s including such important systems as the radars and they supposedly have the new J-XX program. India has the LCA which they hope to leverage into the MCA in future. India is also getting much more chummy with the US and who knows where this could lead as China’s power continues to grow? Yes the Russian economy is growing but there are many hands out for the money and can they really afford the billions it would take to bring a new 5th generation fighter to market is a fair question. How many of these things could the Russian Air Force realistically expect to get for itself? The saga of the Mil-28 and the Ka-50/52 are a useful example here I think. These are first rate aircraft, certainly comparable to Western designs and probably even a little cheaper. However they keep failing to win orders. The Russians can’t make up their minds which one they will buy and they don’t have the money for the orders anyway. Most buyers can get by with upgraded Hinds while those who want something better (eg the Turks) don’t want to risk buying a platfrom that might not get the nod, leaving them as the sole operator. In the absence of large sales to India or China any future 5th gen Russian fighter could be in the same boat. Most countries will be able to get by with upgraded Flankers and those who want something more will be faced the prospect of a platfrom that does not have the support of the home air force leaving them instead to cover all the costs of teething problems, upgrades etc.
Daniel
danrhWhich, makes be wonder how complex it would be to retrofit podded electric motors. To a former conventional ship? (i.e. shafts, props, etc.) :rolleyes:
Well its always going to be a complex job. The power generators still have to go in, the cabling to carry the electricty run and the mountings for the pods fitted. The hull will still be carrying all the protuberances associated with conventional shafts etcs plus the new drag coming from the pods so there will be some penalty involved with that. Still it might be a simpler prospect than coming up with engines etc that can interface with the original shaft design. Pretty hard to know anything for sure. Unless you have a friend on the Politburo 🙂
Daniel
danrhWell did they not make the flanker when they did not have money? or the mig 29? or the mig 25/31.
You’re kidding right? All of those aircraft are the result of the Soviet era. The Russians have been peddling these legacy items for the last fifteen years but very little of the promised new generation has yet come to pass because the Russians cannot fund thier own procurements and so export customers who want new kit have to cough up for the development money.
Daniel
danrhPodded electric motors currently I think only have commercial applications where they are installed on small tugs and as large as the queen mary 2. They are still being investigated though by the USN for military applications.
As Scooter mentioned they are the envisaged propulsive solution for the CVF
Daniel
danrhI wonder if it is possible to use podded electric motors as on the QE2 or upcoming CVF’s. Does anyone know how many countries currently produce podded electrical motors for naval application? Further, just because the Varyag engines were removed before being shipped to China. Doesn’t mean they couldn’t be replaced……………………Regardless, I don’t think anyone here. Truely, believes China bought the ex-Russian Carrier for a Tourist Attraction. 😮
Those are only podded MOTORS, you still need to fit the generators (ie diesels or gas turbines etc) in the hull to supply the electricity. Yeah personally as far this shipp going into service I’ll believe it when I see it.
Daniel
danrhStrategic deterance, why does the USN send their SSBN’s out?
What kill a sub full of people during a peacefull voyage? Remember the Chinese would deploy their Sub before any hostilities commenced, thus they can make the US out to be bad guys.
Well given the very small number of chinese SSBNs (one Xia officially a few more and maybe a 093 or two if any of the rumours flying around are true) then one would expect any Chinese SSBN deployment to be watch for very carefully and probably tracked by US, Japanese and or Taiwanese subs. If they headed towards the US they would quite likely have a tail all the way. This deployment would probaly act as a warning in itself for the US to get ships underway in fact making it almost impossible for the PRC to succeed. Unless you suggest that the PRC will launch a pre-emptive strike on the US (sheer madness) then I think any US adminstration would feel quite justified in ordering its submarine to sink said SSBN as soon as they had decided to commit to Taiwans defence. In short sending a PRC SSBN to sit of the US West Coast would be the height of stupidity and totally unecessary, the new JL-2 SLBM is supposed to give the range to hit the US from Chinese waters while its ICBM force can do the same. exposing the SSBN in this way only weakens any Chinese play.
Daniel
danrhYou know, it’d be interesting to see if they could refit the SS-N-19 launch bays to fit the S-300FM or a navalized HQ-9. It’d have good air defense capability at least.
Then what are these for then?
Make up your mind, do you want an aircraft carrier or an aircraft carrying cruiser? If the former then you forget about long range SSMs and SAMs and give the ship point defences and maximise your hangar and stores/munitions capacity.
Daniel
danrhHmm, it does sound logical if you think this way. The R-73 off-boresight angle is 45 degree which is less than the N-019 radar scan limits (azimuth ±60, +57degree in elevation), then the HMS caged with the N-019 could provide an initial launch data to the R-73 seeker. After the missile is launched it has to turn quickly to the target sector according to data loaded when on pylon. The missile should be able to acquire the target with its own IR seeker. Actually the combat manual doesnt mention such a feature, or whether it is possible for R-73 to achieve lock-on after launch. The benefit would be an increased off-boresight to 60 degree which is fact the limit of the Mig-29 HMS.
what do you think?
Well it did sound logical when I said it 😀 But I had rather overlooked the IRST or the idea of the HMS just telling the missile sensor where to look rather than the missile where to go.
Daniel
danrhMy thoughts turn to Who is using them, what their local threat situation is and what they pack in to the platform to counter the threat.
Yes it would be nice if the instigators of these threads occaisionally addressed these issues.
Daniel
danrhActually I think you’ll find its a function of a high off boresite shot with the missile being cued by the HMS. The missile is launched while the target is outside the missile seekers own field of view. Target information is provided by the HMS. Until the missile can bring its own seeker to bear on the target the pilot must maintain contact with the target via the HMS to continue cueing the missile onto the target. Once the missile seeker has accquired the target then the missile can be left to its own devices.
Daniel
danrhdanrhSM2MR and VL Asroc, maybe. By the way, I don’t think Mk41 VLU is used to launch Harpoon missiles. These are typically fired from deck mounted launch racks.
Doubtful. SM2 is no good without another vessel to provide the guidance and the VLA was only built in very limited numbers for the USN. One would think that the best vessels for the export market would be the few not fitted with the VLS since the Mk116 can employ the standard ASROC and Harpoons. If you have to have a VLS model then I guess most of the cells will be empty save for a few ESSMs perhaps.
Daniel
danrhIs Barak combat proven ?
Do you ask because a good many Israeli systems have been “combat proven”? If not then as has been pointed out the question is a little silly since most of the latest systems have not been “combat proven”.
Daniel
danrhWell if graphics are important to you then the Harpoon series probably isn’t for you. The series is based on the tabletop rules created by Larry Bond (Military author in his own right and a contributor to Clancy’s RSR). The point of view is from the CIC so your displays mirror this. Find out about the seiries at Advanced Gamings Systems Inc and the links in my sig.
Sign In
