sealordlawrenceThe amount of hard data we have on the K-500 is very limited, and going beyond these basic facts is a matter of deduction. We need to bear in mind the famous dictum of Sherlock Holmes; “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
Mr Holmes may be a fictional character, but his dictum is a useful one. I’ve seen several instances where the emergence of an inconvenient new fact has brought a ‘carefully thought out’ analysis of a Russian weapon system crashing down like a house of cards. An analysis of an item of German WW2 hardware I’ve been working at for the last decade has come crashing down more times that I’d care to remember.
So any conclusions we may reach on the K-500 can only be tentative given the small amount of hard data available.
I’m looking at the Iskander-K / K-500 problem in my professional capacity and have come to no firm conclusions, but am inclining to the theory that this is a 500 km plus range missile.
While various of the Club missiles can be carried on the Iskander TEL, the missile does not seem a very promising candidate. At MAKS 2007, CLUB-M was being described as ‘primarily for the export market’. Not a whisper of any connection with the Islander-K or R-500 was reported.
For now, the last lines from Carpenter’s 1982 version of the movie ‘The Thing’ seem to apply: “Why don’t we just wait here for a while? See what happens.”
The real R-500 will eventually emerge.
This is my point, I have taken all the data that I can find in the public domain and from that deduced what I believe is a likely answer. I would be intrigued to hear why you think that this is a 500km range missile?
sealordlawrenceXF8U-3 Crusader III. Gotta wonder what it’d have looked like in Vietnam camo and if it would have been bought by the USAF over the F-4. (At one point they were BOTH suppose to get bought by the USN but then the beancounters had to ruin the fun. )
Hell yes! The Crusader III has always been a favourite of mine, whilst the Phantom may have been the better all round aircraft but the Crusader III was easily the better fighter!
sealordlawrenceAn F-15 vs F-18E/F air combat will come down to TACTICS , availablity of SUPPORT assets and TRAINING granted equal level of Weaponry and sensors . The F-15 has an option of going in with the 63V3 which with the newer modified back end is very close to the -79 however overall the SH has some other added avionics capability giving it a much more modern sensor outload and better situational awareness..The F-15E would have to go for another sensor/avionics/system upgrade to match that which means $$$ . The F-15 is a better ENERGY PLATFORM which equates to BOTH kinematic advantage aswell as COMBAT PERSISTANCE , which in a multi ship sortie mission cannot be downplayed specially for a country which requires air space ( vast air space) to be patrolled/guarded for a long time . SImply put the strike eagle can put sensors in air and keep them in the air for longer with a more flexible aswell as greater load/range ratio . refueling will benefit both aircrafts and so will availability of AEW assets .
Even with the F-18E/F’s tanks and weaponry it is still a hard target to detect (and i have talked to F-16 drivers of the ANG who have gone up against it) and that is a good thing to have .
Interms of cost although aquisition costs are not too far apart from each other the F-18E/F is a much modern system and its MAINTAINCE plus (very important) Support infrastructure (everything from training sims , to maintaince training to repair units , to inventory liquidity , spare buildup , MTB for critical system and energizing cost etc etc) is lower so overall it is a cheaper sollution EVERYTHING FACTORED IN..and also has a lower logistical footprint .
So which is better? As a long range bombing assett nothing comes close (in the west) to the F-15E’s ability to haul heavy and diverse weaponry both smart and dumb @ long ranges and back that up with a smart sensor suite to boot . It gives you more flexibility interms of diversity of weaponry , launch-attack time etc etc and also it is favourable in low altitude tactics .
The F-18E/F is a more NETWORK CENTRIC sollution , a very mean fighter which has a lot of high end electronics , sensors , nice fusion , top notch weaponry and good Situational awareness and front office . It is a very capable sollution for a lot of problems..However it lacks the brute long range attack capability however makes up for that in other aspects of its mission paramaters..It is easy to maintain , costs less over the lifetime and looks like that going into the future would have more $$ poured into it to add newer more modern things to it to make it better .
Its all about making compromises and comming up with something that best suites your needs … the F-18E/F can and will on many occasions suite a particular potential client more as compared to the F-15E and vice versa .
Thanks for the information and analysis, an excellent post that sums up perfectly why the Strike Eagle is a better fit for Australia.:)
sealordlawrenceLet me explain it in a more simple way, they’ll fly out from secret locations, and launch their missiles from undisclosed locations, and the GreenZone will NEVER be the same again, you can joke around all you want, but in the real world, things ain’t going to look good for the oil hunters who’ve invaded Iraq.
You have obviously never heard of PAC-3, THAAD or KEI.
The oil hunter argument doe not work. If the US just wanted oil out of Iraq they would have adopted the Saudi model, it works much better, costs less and is far more subtle. Hell Iraq already had an evil, oppressive, authoritarian regime to insure order and control you would only have had to have built a few pipelines and signed a few contracts. I am not suggesting that either approach is morally justifiable but the first one is far easier and more effective.
sealordlawrenceThe question is.. how much of it is really developed? It would seem that MiG would put much of its resources to make one display model of what they would like to make.. but would require the customer to help fund the continued development of these new features.. I guess in some ways similar to the MKI. How long would it take for MiG to work them out and then get these aircraft delivered to the IAF? It certainly took the MKI quite some time. Is India willing to make the wait?
I agree with earlier sentiments here.. more Sukhois and LCAs would’ve made more sense.
The actual Mig-35 has not even flown yet, we know that becouse the latest air show model displayed is distinctly different to the aircraft that we have seen flying called the Mig-35. Add to the that the stories that both the radar and the optical system were developmental prototypes and perfroming well below the brochure advertised standard and it is apparent that the Mig-35 is no more ready and available than the Gripen-NG.
The MMRCA project made sense when it was a straight buy of 126 Mirages, if these had been ordered to Mirage 2000-5 Mk2 standard and the existing IAF fleet upgraded to the same standard it would have been a fantastic move, now it is slowly turning into a farce.
sealordlawrenceYou can see the specification of SAAM-ESD on Eurosam site as SAAM-D. ESD is the newest name wanted by the Italian Navy
From advertising of Fincantieri seems to be space for A70 but no intention to install them
Latest news gave the cutting of the first sheet of Bergamini (fremm ASW) in these days of the beginning of the year
In financial 2008 seems to have jumped off funds for other 4 ships. There is no official announcement of the MoD.
Similarly is happening for the second batch of U212A which are budgeted money (doubled from 2007 to 2008) but no announcement.
Thanks enrr.
sealordlawrenceI am persisting, in spite of the personal attacks because this issue is important and I am hoping that open minds might consider it. Please address the issue not me.
Once again you have produced a post which says nothing. You have not been attacked personally at all, just your lack of knowledge.
I have explained US defence spending to you already, had you have properly read my previous posts you would know that.
Again, tell me what threat the UK faces that requires increased defence spending, you have still failed to do this. Iran is not a threat to the UK, it is justifiably paranoid state looking for regional status and security, it is not seeking war. Its meddling in Afghanistan and Iraq is a security motivated venture and little else. Any effort by Iran to engage any western nation, or indeed any beyond its own borders with conventional force or even direct unconventional activities would result in its poorly equipped armed forces being very rapidly destroyed. You are aware that the Air Force of the UAE alone is superior to that of Iran are you not? Frankly Iraq is hardly a UK commitment at all anymore following the effective surrender of the Brown government. Afghanistan is but the UK finally seems to have adopted an effective strategy and the Taliban took a real beating this year. So again, explain what threat faces the UK that requires an increase in defence spending, until such a time as you can we will regard you and not I of being ignorant of British security matters.
So what if Russia wants six carrier groups? The USN has twelve but you are not painting them as an immediate threat are you.:rolleyes: Then we need to put this speech into its proper context, what will these carriers actually be, after all all carriers are not equal? is such a force even economically viable for Russia? Was this just political propaganda? Are there actually any real plans for these ships? If there are real plans what is the time scale? What would the actual purpose of the ships be? The Russian Navy’s situation has greatly improved recently but so far it has only consisted or new corvettes, the completion of previously abandoned submarine hulls and the refurbishment of older destroyers, absolutely nothing to dent NATO’s huge qualitative and quantitive edge and a very long way from constructing six super carriers. All you have done here is grasp at a single sentence and throw it around without giving it any context, as such it is absolutely demonstrative of all your arguing thus far. You simply say that country X represents a threat but when asked to say why and how you have no answer.
People are not often surprised by the onset of hostilities, the precise timing and reasoning may be a surprise but usually they are the result of long term tensions, already visible motivations and sustained arms races. Both world wars, the Falklands, etc are all examples of this. If the UK faced a genuine threat then it would increase its defence spending, however, as is shown by the fact that you can not provide a single example of genuine threat, the UK does not face one. Even 9/11, the threat to the US mainland and the scale of the attack was a surprise but who and why were not. AQ had been the known enemy of America for some time.
Killing a man is a very very long way from preparing for war, even you should know that, especially when that killing is for internal state security reasons rather than as offensive interstate activity. Russia is more than contained by NATO, its armed forces are a fraction of what they were in the 1980s and they are on the brink of a demographic crisis. Only in nuclear weapons does Russia have anything like superiority over Europe and the US deterrent capability is more than sufficient if Britain and Frances is not. Russia does not have anywhere near the conventional military capability of Europe and it does not have the economic potential to rectify that, this has lready been pointed out in this thread and yet you continue to ignore reality. As I have said before if you wish to know about the motivations behind Chinese military modernisation PM me and I will provide you with a reading list. In future it would be better if you could make posts which do not simply repeat already rebutted points.
As for your decision to question my nationality, well that is just petty and childish and once again illuminates how little you actually have to contribute to this thread. For all your winging about personal attacks that is just gutter level level behaviour.
sealordlawrenceSo the fact that the US maintains 5-10 times the armed forces of the UK is irrelevant although it is solely opinion, the US has genuine threat scenarios to worry about and the UK does not. Iran is fighting a cold war against us through proxies in Iraq and Afghanistan (occasionally at home), but this is not a genuine threat scenario, even though we are struggling to find resources to meet this threat. Forces built up by other states (such as China and Russia) we are assured do not need a genuine threat scenario, they are non-hostile forces. Evidence of this is irrelevant. Evidence of shortages affecting capability and casualty levels in current operations is irrelevant and doesn’t represent a genuine threat scenario.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:Ignoring a point doesn’t mean you have ‘won’ a debate, it just means you haven’t learnt anything.
The US wishes to be a global hegemonic super power and intends to maintain that status, thus having taken that decision it spends to it. Iran is handled perfectly well by existing budgets and alliance structures and it has yet to be explained why Russia and China are a threat. So yes you have yet to provide any genuine threat scenario that requires a significant increase in defence spending. I have nothing to learn from you becouse you have nothing to teach, you are unable to substantiate any of your significant arguments and have offered no viable argument. It is not a case that I have ignored you, it is that I have rebutted every single thing that you say. At the end of it you still have your wish list but no reason why it should be fulfilled.
Your post suggests that AQ is a proxy of Iran, that is simply not true and suggests that you are grossly uninformed.
The more I look at your post the less it makes sense, are you suggesting that the US is a threat to the UK? That the UK should compete with the US on defence spending? That the US is allowed to posess very powerful armed forces but China and Russia are not? On top of that you have yet to explain why either country is a threat to the UK, certainly they are both engaged in industrial espionage but that it is a matter for the Security Service and certainly not a demand for higher defence spending.:confused:
sealordlawrenceThe last information from SELEX says that EMPAR evolve in active version in 2011 (range extended) but with the same structure of the passive. Four fixed array is the third phase but date is unknow.
Italian navy request some upgrade for FREMM, but is unclear if they are for the first 2 ship
– SAAM-ESD (Extended Self Defence), half way between SAAM-it and PAAMS
– Sylver A50 instead of A43
I was under the impression that FREMM was to get the ASTER A70 cell?
If the Italian ships are to get an AESA EMPAR then they will certainly have an excellent sensor, the FREMM is building up to be a very powerful ship!
Do you have any details on what SAAM-ESD will consist of? I know that SAAM-it is basically just an ASTER-15 in a system with EMPAR.
sealordlawrencewhat diffference does it make that they’re not American? they’ve not won in any single open competition either.
You know exactly what it means, if you have to buy American then buy the best…….and snornet aint it.;)
sealordlawrenceWhy would refugees go from a not occupied peacful country to one that is engulfed in violence?:rolleyes: You do talk nonsense garry.
Oh yeah and the US has no intention of saving Iran from Islam, that is something they will have to get over themselves.:p
sealordlawrenceI base my opinion on something I read in the 80s about the cruise missile (US) getting its long range the same way most long range strike aircraft get it… by using the high low high flight model though without the high egress as it is of course a one way trip for the missile. It described the initial phase of flight being well outside enemy defence range so that period of flight was at optimum flight altitude and flight speed to minimise fuel usage. Close to the target however the low flight profile is used and the maximum thrust that will still allow the missile to make its turns on its waypoints without straying into obstacles.
Why do yuo think it needs to be highly modified? The rear area is simply a place for missiles to be held horizontally with the equipment to raise them up to a vertical position for firing. The Ballistic missiles are side by side and are raised one at a time for launch. It was developed during the cold war and was probably intended to conceal the fact that two weapons were on board each launcher so that two launches would be possible in relatively quick succession. This new pack of however is a post cold war development so all four missiles in launch tubes are raised and lowered together. The latter is probably much less complex but the basic design is an area for missiles to lie down in and a mechanism to raise them.
And without the missile being directly described jumping to that conclusion based on what is probable but not certain is premature. Whether it is a Club or a Club like missile is actually pretty irrelevant isn’t it? It is clearly a cruise missile intended to fly under ABM defences. Its performance is restricted by the ABM treaty, but if it is to be used agaisnt an ABM system and even assuming it is a Club variant then it is probably safe to assume that its warhead will likely be nuclear to clear the way for the ballistic Iskander missiles to be launched. With a nuclear warhead being rather lighter than conventional warheads range will probably exceed the 300km range of the longest ranged Club.
8.22 metres long and weighing 2.3 tons is not really compact. The airlaunched Kh-102 is supposed to be a similar weight and have a range of 5,000km.
The purpose of cruise missiles for the Iskander system is to fire them off first to defeat any ABM system that might threaten the ballistic missiles. If the Ballistic missiles have a range of 300km there is not much point in developing cruise missiles with a range of 500km.
WTF is your problem? Why would they develop a whole new type of cruise missile when they already have a weapon that can do the job?
By the look of your posts you are disappointed that this is not a brand new weapon.
They aren’t the only ones to have developed variants for anti ship missiles… look at SLAM and SLAM-ER.
WTF is your problem, I am trying to find out exactly what this is. You keep insisting that it must have a range of 500km but will not provide any evidence for it. Until such a point as some arises the only available conclusion can be that this is a 3M14 missile with a range just over 300km.
sealordlawrenceGood argument….but……your still wrong. We’re just gonna have to disagree on this.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceIt almost sounds like the taleban conceived that plan. Congrats!
Well when the US tried take a country out of tyranny and rebuild it in a democratic fashion that upset people. So from now on the reconstruction phase will be skipped.:p
sealordlawrenceput them against each other and none has one over the other..they’d detect each other at similar ranges using powerful AESA radars, use similar weapons against each other both at BVR and WVR. if you take them separately, the range of weapons they carry is similar, and the attrition record for both is good. As I said before, the only region where a F-15 is better is range and top speed, but that alone does’nt count as being a big advantage.
going by open competition victories, the Rafale and Typhoon must be whooped by F-15s too since they both lost the Singapore and Korean competitions as well.:rolleyes: fact is that any winner of a competition, wins not just on the basis of technical criteria, which are just a PART of the overall requirements.
Lots and lots of numbers and figures to chew on there.:D :rolleyes:
BTW, as I am sure you are aware, the Typhoon and Rafale are not American.:D
Sign In
