toanSimply speaking,
KEPD350:
1. Slightly better low-level maneuverability.
2. Equal or better maximal range and effectve range (350 km ~ 500 km+) than STORM SHADOW / SCALP-EG (250 km ~ 400 km).
3. GPS Independent.
4. Better warhead with Programmable Intelligent Multi-Purpose Fuze (PIMPF).
5. Cheaper (around 1.21 million USDs per missile for GAF) than STORM SHADOW (around 1.52 million USDs per missile for RAF).
STORM SHADOW:
1. Better stealthy design + RAM
2. More productional numbers and customers.
3. Excellent real combat records and proof.
toanBtw How does Storm Shadow compare to the Taurus ?
http://www.taurus-systems.de/html/kepd350.html
KEPD 350 v.s STORM SHADOW
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/spain-orders-taurus-missiles-01356/
1. Slightly more low-level maneuverability on the Taurus.
2. Moderate stealth design features but no expensive, heavy, and R&D intensive radar-absorbing materials on the Taurus.
3. More space for fuel on the Taurus to extend effective range to around 350km/ 210 miles, vs. 250km/ 150 miles for the Storm Shadow. Note that the Taurus’ “paper range” is about 500km/ 350 miles, but cruise missiles fly like small airplanes and take programmed terrain-hugging, indirect routes to their target. This eats up between 20-50% of the total range in real-life scenarios.
4. GPS Independent due to the TRI-TEC Navigation system (Worldwide only system achieving high precision over large distances without GPS).
5. An EADS/TDW MEPHISTO (Multi-Effect Penetrator High Sophisticated and Target Optimized) 480kg/ 1,050 pound tandem warhead rather than the Storm Shadow’s BAE Systems BROACH (Bomb Royal Ordnance Augmenting CHarge) used on the Storm Shadow and AGM-154 JSOW-C, and tested on the Tomahawk CALCM.
6. Today’s one and only Programmable Intelligent Multi-Purpose Fuze (PIMPF) enables detonation of the TAURUS KEPD 350 Penetrator at pre-selected floors within the target through layer counting and void sensing technology.
toanAIR International, 2011, Oct
MAKS 2011：
* RVV-BD：
1. The newest derivative of K-73／K-73M family that can be used by Su-35 and MIG-35.
2. Missile weight: 510 kg.
3. Warhead weight: 60 kg.
4. Effective range: up to 200 km for the large-sized and lowly-maneuverable target.
5. Effective intercepting altitude: from 15 m to 25,000 m.
6. Effective to intercept the target with up to 8g maneuverability.
7. 9B-1103M-350 Shayba X and Ku band seeker with +/-60 degrees scanning angle.
8. Locking the RCS = 5m2 target at the range of more than 40 km away.
* RVV-SD（K-77-1）：missile weight 190 kg and effective range 110 km
* RVV-MD（K-74M）：missile weight 106 kg and effective range 0.3 ~ 40 km.
* The ramjet powered R-77M (Meteor-ski) and the K-74M2 shall be ready for entering service at the time of 2014~2015.
* The real next generation Russian BVRAAM and WVRAAM that are designed for the internal carriage of PAK-FA are at the beginning stage of R&D.
toanAFAIK the DMO/RAAF IS paying $63m per F-35A. That is the number they were quoted a number of years ago and it is what we are paying for the first fourteen airframes. Hope that helps some.
Well, you can insist that the unit cost of F-35A today is still 63 million USDs per fighter, but Australia still has to pay around 3.2 billion USDs (or around 228 million USDs per F-35A) for its initial 14 F-35A………:D
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-05-20/us-says-joint-strike-fighter-is-unaffordable/2722102
A spokesman for Defence Minister Stephen Smith says the US senate review is “standard stuff” and the cost per unit will be lower as the program goes on.
But he said the cost of the initial 14 planes, at a cost of $3.2 billion or $228 million per aircraft, was a necessary cost to buy early-build units so pilots could be trained on the advanced fighter-bomber.
toan1. The main problem for F-35 to win the Japanese F-X project now is its schedule. Japan has already delayed the F-X schedule for 2 years (time for entering service: 2012 –> 2014) in order to let LM join the competition. However, it seems that Japan will have to delay the schedule for at least another 4 years (time for entering service: 2014 –> 2018) if it wants to choose F-35 as the final winner.
2. Dassault simply refused to joined the Japanese F-X competition ~ After the experiences of Southern Korean F-X competition in 2002 and Singaporian F-X competition in 2007, it has believed that joining the F-X competition of American colonies in Asia is nothing more than wasting time and money.
3. Forget the possibility of producing more F-2A/B ~ Japan Air Self-Defense Force has even decided to give up refurbishing the 12 F-2B that were damaged by the tsunami in the March this year, not to mention re-opening the productional line and producing more F-2A/B……
toanhttp://http://www.responsivespace.com/Papers/RS7/SESSIONS/Session%20I/1005_Talbot/1005P.pdf
Video for the concept of MLA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpiR0SqdUPM
It seems that Rafale has to use all its three heavy-load pylons to carry the MLA, so each pylon’s load for carrying MLA should be: 4,000 / 3 = 1,333 kg ~ which is lighter than carrying a SCALP-EG (1,360 kg) or a full 2,000 L external fuel tank (1,850 kg), not to mention a Brahmos (2,500 kg).
toanThe weight of air-launched Brahmos is 2,500 kg class, which is only suitable for the fighter and bomber that are no less than Su-30MKI class.
An ASMP-A / ANF class cruise missile, on the other hand, is suitable for any fighter that are no less than Mirage 2000 class, and it is even possible for Rafale and Su-30MKI to carry two or more missiles in one striking mission.
toanTo complement EELighting’s post, let me remind all that all
This being said, the ASMP-A will NOT be sold to India……
ASMP-A won’t be sold to India, right; but I think it is possible for France to sell VESTA / ANF techonology to India if IAF adopts Rafale finally, and tells India what spec of warhead is suitable for a VESTA-family missile.
And if Indian can design and build its own Indian ASMP-A for IAF’s Rafale from these techonology and information, then it will be Indian business, not France:D
toanA national air force chief that publically declared: “Buy my country’s fighter, and my country will be more than happy to develop the fighter’s nuclear-capable potential for your country…..” is really something new to me:rolleyes:
toanFrench Air Force chief General Jean-Paul Palomeros spoke with Rajat Pandit on expanding ties……
“…..I must also stress Rafale is nuclear-capable. It has real growth potential. France will be more than happy to develop it with India. It is, of course, up to India to now select the best platform it needs……”
😮
toanUSAF hasn’t directly bombed Libya anymore since April.
The number of fighters that RAF deploys for bombing Libya is about half of the size of the number of fighters that FAF and French Navy deploy for bombing Libya.
France is the main airpower for striking mission since April, which realizes about 35% of the whole NATO’s air strikes.
toanVery restrictive ROEs. And where did you get that French CAS sortie figure? Can you provide more information?
http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/2011/08/lybia-sortie-rate-decreases.html
But as Mr.HK said above, it should be 100 to 125 CAS sorites per week, not per day, during the past five months.
However, considering Rafale can attack at least six targets with six GBU-12 or AASMs during one sortie, I still think that the combat achievement of destroying 2,500 ground targets (which may be a tank, a vehicle, a mortar site, or even just a gunman in a building…..) during 2,400 strike sorties is not that extraordinary…..
toanDestroying 2,500 targets in the past five months = Around destroying 500 targets per month = Around destroying 16 to 17 targets per day.
Considering the CAS sortie rates of FAF and French Navy in Lybia is around 100 to 125 sorties per day during the past five months, I think such kind of combat achievement is not awfully high.
toanhttp://www.defencemanagement.com/feature_story.asp?id=17236
Typhoon: The last hurrah for the UK aerospace industry?
22 August 2011
Outgoing GKN plc Chief Executive Sir Kevin Smith tellls DMJ editor Anthony Hall what the UK aerospace industry must do to secure its future in tough economic times…
However, Smith strongly believes that what is required now is an entirely new development programme in Europe, which would have a positive long-term impact on the sector. The UK, he says, has “no aircraft that we own, develop and build”. Its real strength has been in systems integration. “We also have a very good reputation for building military aircraft for various roles, but that continues to diminish. If the European governments don’t order new platforms,” he asserts, “there’s no way that the UK industry can continue to compete at home or abroad.”
When asked how easy it would be in his opinion to raise technology in the UK back up to the highest level, Smith is less than optimistic: “I think we have lost a lot. When I worked in the Military Aircraft Division at British Aerospace in the 1990s, we were producing the two variants of the Tornado – the IDS and the ADB – in collaboration. We had Sea Harrier incorporated in production and we had the AV8 in collaboration with the US Marine Corps, which then went back into the Royal Air Force for the GR7 and the Harrier TMK10. We had the 60, 100 and 200 series Hawk and the T45 Hawk collaboration for the US Navy, and we were doing the early phases of development of Eurofighter. Then in the latter part of the 1990s, we moved into the Nimrod programme. A lot of the capability to do that has gone, and continues to disappear. We don’t make a whole aircraft anymore and have probably lost that capability as a nation.”
Once again, the Eurofighter/Typhoon provides a pertinent example. Launched in the late 80s and early 90s, it is viewed today by most of those outside the UK aerospace industry as its defining aircraft. However, this owes little to current practices, Smith explains: “The industry we have today is not a product of what’s happened over the last two or five years. It’s a product of what happened 10 years ago. The decisions we take or don’t take now affect the ability to sustain the industry in the next 10-15 years. The Typhoon could be the last hurrah.”
This is why a new European aircraft programme is so important, he says. “In the US, you have the JSF Programme, which is just starting to come into production, and behind that, they have programmes that they’re demonstrating technology on today, which are going to be the production programmes in 10 or 15 years’ time.” The concern, he says, is that the UK isn’t developing a demonstration phase.
“I know it’s very difficult to commit to major procurement programmes at this point, but to have a long-term understanding of how to develop a defence capability and the industry to support it, and therefore what sort of technologies we should be working on today, I think a demonstration phase is important.” Only through collaboration, he says, can this be achieved, adding: “I believe our collaborative homeland has been Europe.”
toanI can’t see why India have to wait for a number of years ? If Russia is letting India in on the PAK FA why not the Su 35 ?
Or is it a matter of not having enough production facilities ?
Apparently, IAF believes that most (if not all) new equipments for Su-35 can also be used to upgrading Su-30MKI, so it just needs to procure more upgrading Su-30MKI, not another different subtypes of Flanker family….
MOSCOW — India’s air superiority Sukhoi-30MKI fighters will soon be converted into ‘Super Sukhois’ by upgrading them with fifth generation combat jet features, the Russian original equipment manufacturer Irkut Corporation has announced.
The upgrade will include a new cockpit, an upgraded radar and advanced stealth characteristics to make the plane less visible to enemy radar than the existing Indian Air Force (IAF) Sukhoi-30 fleet, Irkut’s president and chairman Alexy Fedorov said at the Moscow Air Show here.
The IAF currently has five operational Sukhoi 30MKI squadrons numbering around 100 aircraft. It will ultimately have over 230 Sukhoi-30MKIs or 13 squadrons in its fleet.
The fleet is under licenced production at the Bangalore-based Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) and the entire fleet will be upgraded to the ‘Super Sukhoi’ configuration.
“The upgrade will apply not only to the aircraft in service with the Indian Air Force (IAF) but also to those yet to be delivered to India and to be licence-manufactured by HAL,” Fedorov said.
Most significantly, the aircraft will be able to carry a heavier weapon load, including the airborne version of the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile, he added.
Fedorov said the ‘Super Sukhoi’ will be a potent aircraft similar in features to a fifth generation aircraft. However, he refused to provide specific details of the upgrade, stating that the exact nature of this was still to be decided between the Indian and Russian sides.
Discussions are currently on regarding various aspects of the proposed upgrade, he said.
The Irkut chief did not provide any indication of the cost of the upgrade project. However, going by the general cost trends of similar upgrades, the price could run close to $1 billion.
Sign In
