WHAT????
Canada changed the requirements to allow the competition to be “fair” and the complainer won in the end…… where have I seen that before?
KC-X
Don’t underestimate illuminator technology. You don’t lock up one illuminator per missile, you time share. And each pair of illuminator can work in unison to simultaneously illuminate dozens of targets. The technology in aircraft to illuminate more targets than missiles available using a single illuminator has been around for decades. The motors and transmitters on ships aren’t anywhere near constrained for power and cooling as an aircraft.
MadRat, nastle was asking about the eighties Sea Sparrow, MK29 launcher, CW illuminators, frigates/Destroyers combos, he wasnt asking about the likes of the AEGIS, APAR, ESSM´s, etc. Until the wall went down in Berlin, a Sea Sparrow would indeed tie one CW illuminator.
“Red Flag-How would the F-22 Raptor fare against the F-35 Lightning II?”
No one here knows. The end.
I´ll get me coat
So I’m other words at a given time these ships can target only 2 incoming threats using sea sparrows?
Yep
So if that’s the case how were the pre AEGIS destroyers expected to defend themselves from cruise missile and aircraft attacks?
By having more CW illuminators than a frigate (up to four if i remember correctly), by working in groups and by having Phantoms or Tomcats flying above them. But yes, a frigate or a Destroyer equiped with only the Sea Sparrow on their own would have been not much more than target practice when facing a determined air assault.
Is the air interdiction load out actually possible? Tanks and storm shadow I got this image from target lock
http://www.targetlock.org.uk/typhoon/weapons.html
For some reason I can’t get the picture to paste on my phone so here is the link.
http://www.targetlock.org.uk/typhoon/typhoon-airint.gif
Basically it’s 3 tanks and 2 storm shadow.
I have a vague memory of typhoon having an extra 2 hard points behind the first stations on the wing. Basically where the chaff bumps are. I’m I totally wrong here or thinking of another aircraft. It looks like a bit of empty space when smaller weapons are carried. If they would actually be needed with the other points is another matter
Very, very, very old image. Both the Storm Shadow and the Taurus are being integrated in the midle pylon, the one with the wet point.
Your US vs. USSR history is a bit simplistic. For the benefit of those who are to young to recall, allow me to remind you that
in the 40s-60s, the UK did have a thriving aircraft industry with several (okay, a few) civil types that saw widespread use…The Viscount and BAC 1-11 as well as a fair number of military helicopters built by Westland (okay, mainly Sikorskys built under license). We all know the unbelievable tale of how the UK government destroyed its industry, but it certainly gave the Americans a run for their money in many international markets.The French produced the popular Caravelle jet, and the French helicopter industry did very well in civil and military markets with their turbine SUD Alouette helicopters (the basis for Airbus Helicopters).
And don’t forget the very popular and long lived Fokker F-27 and its brethren.
I am quite aware of all that, there are severall other projects that also worth mention, the Concorde and the Harrier in terms of technology “enablers”, the Mirage line, the Hawker Hunter, the BAE Hawk, the Fokker 100, etc. But for all their past history, Airbus vastly “out everything” the sum of its old parts. Untill Airbus the most sucessful European Jet airliner was the Sud Aviation Caravelle, 282 built, then we have the BAC 1-11, 244 built, the Fokker 100, 244 built, etc.
It was only when the Europeans pooled their resources that they could challenge the Americans, exactly the same happened with Helicopters (MBB and Aersopatiale by one side, Westland and Agusta by the other), PGM´s with MBDA, regional aircrafts with ATR, etc.
Thanks for correcting me
So the sea sparrow mk 29 launcher can target and guide how many missiles at a given time ?
A MK29 is only the launcher, the missiles are guided by whats called a “CW Illuminator” (a radar), a typical Frigate of the eighties would have two MK73 CW Illuminators, so that means two missiles.
More here:
https://www.natoseasparrow.org/Consortium%20Products%20Handbook%20Rev%20-1.pdf
You are aware that airbus (which is not French but a multinational clusterfneb) isn’t the manufacturer of the Rafale right?
Nic
That “clusterfneb” is arguably the best European aerospace company EVER… I am actually old enough to remember that the world Aerospace scenario was composed of two parts, the “commie” one and the rest wich was almost entirely composed of American manufacturers, today Europe gets half of the civil market and a great big chunk of the Heli market thanks to a company called Airbus.
Where does you see a cost equity b/w a Rafale and a ASH?! Modernized Rafale cost 150M$ (india) and this comes Without Conformal fuel tanks (CFT) and stealthy Weapon pod. I won’t even mention the reliability issue with a matured fleet-wide aircraft and systems on one side, and last call improvisations on the other at a time when the Fr industry doesn’t shine on the reliability front (Thank you Airbus!).
If we are going to throw random numbers based on export deals then anyone can pick this (http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/government-kuwait-fa-18ef-super-hornet-aircraft-support) and go to the conclusion that a “vanilla” Super Hornet is more expensive than a Rafale.
incredible opportunities for India with Saab’ GaN and the F16 from LM. Still, I like this (factory ready for AMCA:
Source:
http://www.livefistdefence.com/2016/11/boeing-unveils-an-amca-sweetener.html
Why would the IAF acquire the Super Hornet when they are flying the MKI and have just ordered the Dassault Rafale? Any cost problem related to building the Rafale in India will be exactly identical to the ones faced by a theoretical Super Hornet Indian assembly line.
If the IAF acquires the SH thats the final proof that the Indian acquisition policy is completely bonkers!
Well… following rhe “bonkers” line, actually, it might just happen…
Taking into account the route of the Russian fleet, the (very) slow speed that it went by and the fact that, usually, the fleets of NATO of SSK´s and SSN´s train against their fellow surface fleets, this was a unique oportunity to actually train “against” a possible OPFOR fleet i would imagine that the biggest problem of the “western” submariners was not bumping into each other! I am willing to bet that the kuz and its fleet were shadowed by the RN, by the Dutch, by the Spanish, by the Portuguese, the French, the Italians and the US Navy submarines.
How many targets can a sea sparrow launcher target at the same time ?
Are they effective against mass air attacks ?
E.g an average 80s destroyer has 2 sea sparrow launcher, can they take out an entire squadron of attacking aircraft armed with PGM ( assume the aircraft is a 80s VVS or AVMF su24 or mig27)
I dont quite remember Frigates or Destroyers with a pair of mark 29 launchers, but it might be me. The Sea Sparrow is a SARH missile, it must be guided by radar “iluminators” present in the ship, a typical “Euro” Frigate of the eighties, beggining of the nineties equiped with the Sea Sparrow (lets say, something like the MEKO 200 or the M-Class ships of the Portuguese Navy) will have two of them.
Cheers
How many targets can a sea sparrow launcher target at the same time ?
Are they effective against mass air attacks ?
E.g an average 80s destroyer has 2 sea sparrow launcher, can they take out an entire squadron of attacking aircraft armed with PGM ( assume the aircraft is a 80s VVS or AVMF su24 or mig27)
I dont quite remember Frigates or Destroyers with a pair of mark 29 launchers, but it might be me. The Sea Sparrow is SARH missile, it must be guided by radar “iluminators” present in the ship, a typical Frigate (lets say, something like the MEKO 200 or the M-Class ships of the Portuguese Navy) will have two of them.
Can you please show me the “average 80ies destroyer” with two Sea Sparrow launcher?
Nice question.