The Tor-M is a piece of multi-layered air-defence. Its purpose to defend the object against PGM of all kinds and low flying planes. HIGH flying targets could be shot down by S-125 and S-200, the latter is still VERY capable system and i would be very high pressed to choose between HI and Lo profile in USA/Israel place knowing there are some S-200 around.

Not a hard choice. It would be high profile.

How many SA-15 can Tor-M1 keep flying, or more precise how many targets can it engage at the same time? Propaganda says “multiple”, but looking at the system outlay I’d say only one, probably with two or three missiles engaging the same target or maybe targets that are very close together.
It might be capable of engaging AGM-86 style targets, but I doubt smaller ones.
Another question would be can it automatically detect a HARM launch and shut down (and alert the crew to change the location)?
Vehicle has a very distinguished optical profile, btw – nice target for weapons like Spice.

Still a very capable weapon against helicopters. Like Tunguska and Pantsyr able to fire on the move.

Against some U.S. PGM onslaught it is hopeless. Block 6 of the HARM would negate any set being turned off.
It’s out of it’s league for keeping the mail at that level from getting through ( as already mentioned by it’s lack of engagement envelope ).
It would however be a grim reaper against A-10, Apache and most things that get close to it. It is a seriously dangerous trick piece of hardware.
It could probably pick off some PGMs. Tomahawk and SLAM-ER aren’t especially stealthy… compared to JASSM or JSOW which have L.O. qualities and might reduce it’s radar engagement range. SAMs are yet to stop us from getting most of the mail through.

If the Rhino replaces the Pig at roughly a one for one ratio then the RAAF will immediately lose approx 50% of its strike capability. .

In what way?

I have been flicking through a book called “Navies in the Nuclear Age by Conways” In the section about naval radars and command systems it mentions that in the Kongo the Japanese use their own fully distributed command management system called OYQ-6. The section goes onto say that European designers regard this system as being superior to its US counterpart whilst US sources feel it was just a job creation exercise for the Japanese electronics industry. Does anybody have any idea which perspective is correct or is it a mix of both?

Furthermore (and seperate from the above mentioned book) I am intrigued as to whether there has ever been any consideration given to the idea of upgrading the AEGIS system by fitting it with AESA antennaes or would this provide insufficient enhancment to justifie the expense?

Also how does this http://www.cea.com.au/products/cwi/ceamount.html compare to the SPG-62 directors currently used bu AEGIS ships?

Thanks in advance sealordlawrence.

I think you may agree also that it is software and newer/faster computers that are really making sensors live up to the promise. Do some research on what the Super Hornet ( AESA air to air and air to ground ) is doing and where the Aussie Wedgetail ( AESA/MESA ) is going. Where we are still discovering what AESA can do and how new faster computers allow for more progress. AESA tech just isn’t a sensor. One would think especially with a larger number of sets that can be on a destroyer or larger class ship that with it’s power generation ability available, you will see soft kill at range and hard kill in close becoming a reality someday. Not to mention AESA for example will be a high bandwidth transceiver for full motion images between platforms when needed and a jammer. One would think if the advances go well, todays legacy anti-ship missiles would have a hard time performing their mission after having their sensor burned up/suppressed-jammed or the airframe itself destroyed close in a la Phalanx. All with a concept that started out to be just a sensor.

Photoshoped pictures of x planes from your last special duty assignment don’t count. 😮
😀

I played Alto and Tenor saxophones for some years ( both Yamahas).

Boeing ( and maybe others ) have outsourced some software work to Russia.

Nice shots.