verbatimIf the italians elongated their FREMM frigates to correct an heavy unbalance of masses, the germans could at least in theory stretch their F125. With 18 meters beam, even a little more than two meters longer hull would enable at least a couple of Mk.51 modules, with a possible mix of 12 SM-2 for medium range defense and 4×4 ESSM for short range defense, not bad after all.
The problem is how to make german politicians willing to spend even more in their navy, given the long existing requirement of the german Navy for a full fledged amphibious fleet and a boost of its naval troops to a real landing force.
It’s an ambitious program that if will get the green light, will cost many billions euro in upfront costs only, and will require a boost on sailors numbers with again larger expenses.
verbatimThe modification to the hulls was disclosed to be performed in late 2012, and at the time it was still not performed in any hull.
The problem with hydrodynamic properties of the hull and location of center of gravity was disclosed during Bergamini sea trial (launched mid 2011).
When the problem was admitted, the second hull was already almost complete but it was possible to modify it while still in the slipways.
The only source I found at the moment is in italian language, but some online translator will do the trick: http://www.analisidifesa.it/2012/11/modifiche-e-qualche-ritocco-per-le-fremm/
Please note that italian navy is really very secretive and ambiguous about just everything, with no exemption.
Whatever problem they admit it is just one of to chances: they are whining exaggerating things to get more stuff, or they screwed up and are admitting only the bare minimum they are forced to admit.
verbatimThe italians had to modify their FREMM frigates, because they discovered only after having built them to be far too bow heavy.
verbatimArgentina tragic accident with sub can happen to anybody and anytime nothing to do with their economy , Indian sub blew at pier when it’s economy was doing good, subs are just metal filled with explosive weapon and batteries a small trigger is enough to blow it up even though safety standards are highest, shows the risk and danger of being a submariner
Whatever the causes of the tragedy occurred to the SSK, operating 40 years old ships, subs or aircrafts is not the best, safety wise.
Adding paucity of funds available for maintenance and training makes it a recipe for a disaster, it become hust a matter of when.
Moreover, in such a state any force would be only a symbolic one, not being considerable as a credible deterrent.
The moment could be ripe to try to engage Argentine, offering an affordable and effective way to recapitalize some of its military assets, together with a chance to provide additional workload to its only aereonautic factory.
An argument always popular between argentinean politicians.
verbatimGoing partially off topic, the tragedy of the argentinean Type 209 SSK has reminded me of the poor state of the argentinean armed forces.
My thought is the following: would it be feasible and politically usefull to try to engage the argentinean government with some favourable agreement?
As an example, offering some deal involving FMA (the State owned aircraft’s company) to locally assemble let’s say armed Yak-130 to replace the od A-4AR they are using for makeshift fighters, and offering some updated Il-78 and, why not?, a couple of A-50M?
Something involving bartering agricultural goods and anything else Argentine produces and Russia could need to import.
Offering them some real bargain, could overcome the traditional hostility the Argentine military staff has against anything russian.
Maybe providing FMA full autonomous maintenance capability on any aircraft purchased from Russia, and adding an agreement to provide them with a partially westernized Su-35 version to assemble locally if they would choose so in the future.
verbatimVertical take off is pure madness, no aircraft able to take off vertically could be more than a stunt.
Short take off, on other hand, could have a meaning if carefully designed.
With carefully meaning pouring all availabe advanced technologies to grant top notch performances.
Only slighty different is speaking of vertical landing.
Its mainly an handicap performance wise.
Again, it would more smart to explore some short landing tecnique, like the rolling landing the british are experimenting with their F-35B.
The most safe approach would be a short take off airplane, capable of conventional landing and or some short landing without the penalties of vertical take off or landing.
If such aircraft would require an aircraft carrier displacing twice of an old Moskva and costing four times as well, that would be well spent money.
No dwarf pocket carrier has a meaning for Russia.
verbatimMaybe you meant 50 Billion rubles?
25 or 50 millions would pay barely to repaint hull and interiors!
verbatimDidn’t know Japan is a NATO member, LOL.))
In the hypothesis of a war between Russia and NATO, given the bases and weapons the USA has on the japanese islands, given the role as SSBN’s bastion played by Okhotsk Sea and the likes, how many hours long would Japan stand still and neutral?
Better to say: How long couldJapan be able to mantain his neutrality, provided but not granted it would have any will at all to stay neutral?
verbatimThe Pacific and Northern fleet have direct access to sea , only the baltic is like a bastion and caspian sea
But bastion is like a two way street if it does not help you it does not help your enemy either.
In case of open war between NATO and Russia, the Pacific Fleet would have zero chances confronting the VII Fleet and Japanese Navy. Actually the japanese Navy would suffice to blockade the russian pacific bases.
Almost the same is valid for the Northern Fleet, it has a better chance because with ice melting and northern route opening, it will have a greater freedom of movement.
Black Sea Fleet is two time locked, first inside Black Sea, the inside the Mediterranean Sea.
It is not only a matters of vessels and technology, its a matter of bases and free routes.
A german Admiral said post WWII: in the first World War we had the Navy (i.e. one on par with opponents) and had not bases. In the second World War we had the bases but we had no Navy.
So clearly 21631 and the likes are what Soyuz wrote.
My reference to FAC was not related to their intended role, but to the viability of their deployment on open seas.
About the usefullness of a russian blu water’s Navy, I am of the opposite opinion: short of an open war, NATO can not blockade russian bases.
Having a strong blu water’s Navy would enable Russia to play a relevant security broker role worldwide.
From control of boundaries and resources disputes, to assistance on training and capability’s building, up to direct protection of allies.
verbatimObviously, you missed the “small” part of history where Post Soviet Russia had no chance in hell to pick or prioritize. They had to opt for one over the other. It was the heavy Interceptor Flanker.
What a shocker! Everyone with a brain would have done the same.
It would not have made any difference what kind of Light design jet it would be. Even if NATO would offer Russia to buy your F-16 during the 90’s they could only afford one type, again the Flanker would be the wise choice.Would you rather scrap the Flanker over an F-16!?:confused::stupid:
It is as clear as daylight that you are showing your true colors here. You are not interesting in debating if the Mig-29 design was/is a good and effective one.
The Mig-35 is a more capable design over the F-16 if we look at radar size, fuel fraction, ordinance, hell the Mig-29 is even a Carrier bird at this stage! What an awful bad concept and design!!!1! SAD..
What you try to push here is that Soviet/Russia opted for the Light fighter with twin podded engines and blended wing body with large LERX as if is a flawed design just as the Heavy Flanker also was a twin engine podded wing/body LERX jet:eagerness:
And the the only effective and correct judge of things is which side produced and exported the most.If you can’t see the fallacy of this mindset..
Please?
Mig-29 ways developed as a very specialized aircraft.
Even giving it a decent internal fuel capacity took several iterations in the 90ies.
But, again and again, what’s the point having a supposedly “light” fighter that is almost as complex as an heavy one?
Point is, as somebody else said, Flankers can do everything a Mig-29 could, better and at a fraction greater cost.
Be happy with Mig-29M or Mig-35 it you like so, I would still buy Flankers only, forever.
verbatimThat is one sorry opinion..
So the NATO study was just so much STRONKER with regards to F-16’s.. :stupid:Wtf does NATO have to do with F-16 in the first place!? It was a US design last time i checked.
Why do i get the one engine high-tech two engine low-tech vibe all over again..
So Soviet had limited resources.. well first time i ever heard that.
The problem of Soviet Union> They pumped TOO MUCH resources into the arms race. Try to read a history book if you will.Both the Mig-29 and Su-27 was a massive undertaking of programs, by any standard.
You can’t just blame the Mig-29 concept and design for the fall of of Soviet Union, like its the Mig-29 program fault that Soviet went bankruptcy. You just want to smear the Mig-29 design with politics.
Like i said. If the 90’s hadn’t happen like it did, and Mig-29M had been realized, then the Mig-29 linage today would have look much more Relevant.
Because Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact had to face an Arms race against NATO, not against US only.
And anyway, yes F-16 was developed along the lines of the “Fighter Mafia”, encompassing some inherently versatility in its design, allowing it to evolve seamlessy for around 30 years.
Again, what’s the point on fielding a fighter barely on the same class of a F-16 and with the costs and complexities of a Rafale or a F-18, when you can get a Flanker for a little more?
Most today’s users inherited their Mig-29 fleets form the 80ies or early 90ies.
If you look at 2Ks procurements, Flankers have largely outperformed Mig-29s.
Isn’t it enough to raise some question about Mig-29’s future?
verbatimJesus.. this isn’t complex, even though many here seems to miss it.
At a very early stage of the Mig-29 and Su-27 program its was decided the Mig-29 was to fill the light tactical fighter role and Su-27 the heavy Frontline interceptor role.Soviet had resources aviable for a light Twin engine fighter. And that’s what happen. The thing would certainly stayed more relevant if Mig-29M would have been. But there is no point arguing with history. Break-up of S U screwed up everything. Mig-29 was certainly no exeption.
It doesn’t matter what people want to compare Mig-29 with.. its completely moot. Its the fighter Soviet designed for THEIR OWN airforce and their own requirements at the time.
What it exported or how many produced means squat.
I would say the opposite: because USSR had limited resources compared to NATO, the same engineering study way applyed both to a “light” fighter and to the frontline interceptor one.
Still, nothing but the Will and need of optimization dictated a very narrow set of performance that proved themselves toublesome on the years following the end of Warsaw Pact.
In the end, it has been a project that grew old early.
verbatim1155/1 modernisation indeed going to happen is a very pleasant surprise. I always felt the 1155/1 were lightly armed for its size but had good growth potential with a proper modernisation. Same goes for 956, I wish they carry out a modernisation for 956 as well.
I don’t know if there is a need for Kalibr on all ships. I would rather have the bigges like 1155/1, 956 and 11356 to have an increased load of AD missiles in addition to the ASW and anti-ship assets. Its better to have 4-6 x 21631 deputed to any of the above combatants to do the long range shots under its protective cover. That would be like 32-48 Kalibrs at the disposal.
The amount of weapons on a vessel is in no way a sign of his usefulness.
Nor a weapon has always a rationale on a vessel, even if easily accomodated.
Projet 1155 has been a really successfull project.
Shame is, it was not exploited in last years to launch a few new built vessels adapted to AAW warfare, the most critical weak point of the russian Fleet.
About pr. 21631 and the likes, they are nothing more than modern FAC, are you seriously suggesting to deploy them in open sea?
FAC have always proved to be a total failure when just few miles away from shore.
There is no trick to escape the need for a superb Electric suite, full fledged CIWS and SHORAD, only to HOPE to survive the encounter with an opponent in open sea.
Nothing short of, maybe, a pr. 20380 could survive on open sea, nor should under any circumstances join major combatants.
21631 are just very mobile launching platform, doomed to move always and only under a strong air support (AWACS, interceptors and so on).
Their meaning is distributed letality, i.e. multiple and dispersed on home waters cuise missile launching platforms, not being a shortcut to capabilities that only fregates and destroyers could provide.
Not to speak of the not existent endurance of boats the size of a fishing one.
verbatimTo Havarlaa:
I do not support neither of the two propositions.
My humble opinion is that Mig-29 found itself outclassed in the changing 90ies operational environment.
Obviously, VVS was right in those dire times to keep whatever was flying and not totay obsolete.
The point is not if the project was a failure, obviously it was not, and not if VVS was wrong keeping it in its inventory.
The point is if tomorrow it would have sense to invest in it (i.e. purchasing new airframes), and if it has any real chance on the export market of tomorrow.
The first point, IMHO is moot: the operating costs are not so cheaper than those of the Flanker family, so keep buying whatever version of the Flankers and quietely phase-out the Mig.
The second point has been answered by the market itself: everybody and his aunt are choosing more and more Sukhois,, and less and less Migs.
And that’s a fact.
Nor I’msuggesting to develop a new single engined fighter: I’m suggesting just that, if Mig-29 would have been designed from day zero with different and more flexible performances in mind, and possibly single engined, it could have offered some real cost savings along with better performances, and securing this way more interests in the export markets.
verbatimMiG-29 – in its final form, this is the “average fighter”. Same as F/A-18A, Eurofighter or Rafale. I agree that instead of a twin-engine fighter, it was necessary to do with one AL-31F engine.
It’s strange that Pogosyan thinks AL-31F is not reliable enough for a single-engine aircraft :stupid:[ATTACH=CONFIG]255350[/ATTACH]
I agree, Mig-29 is a “medium” fighter, with the original sin of being conceived as a point defence fighter.
I.e. a highly specialized tool developed for a very narrow set of requirements born in the 70ies.
Fast forward to 90ies and such a fighter become a strange beast: neither a cheap one, nor a top class one.
Hell, even some cash strapped third world country has preferred to purchase refurbished Su-27s instead of any Mig-29 variant.
Again, a fighter with costs and complexities of an heavy fighter, without at least similar performances has little to hope from the export market.
VVS too is still supporting Mig only on a political ground, this is my belief.
So, what kind of “medium” fighter could make sense?
My two cents: one offering savings on selected and costly items, but sporting electronics on par with heavy fighters.
Trading a little operating range for a smaller and lighter airframe, but with enough electric power generation, thermal dissipation capacity and internal volumes to employ the same full fledged electronic suites (radar, FCS, EW, ECM, IRST, datalink) of a top class fighter.
Think of a Saab 37 Viggen on steroids, with a little larger operating range (let’s say 40% more then vanilla Mig-29A on internal fuel only) radar and electronics on the same class of Su-27, and a ridicully enormous dry thrust, enough to compete on higly subsonivc regimes with any other aircraft employing afterburners.
So I’m here speaking to have a single engine’s dry thrust far exceeding a couple of Klimov RD-33, and a electrical power generating capability close or eequal to a couple of Al-31F.
Then, it would means maybe just a couple of potential candidates, an NK-32 derivative or a Soyuz R-79V-300 derivative as engine of choice.
Sign In
