sealordlawrence” think the only reason for the RN still fitting it to new ships is money. They have systems taken off retired ships, that they can refurbish & install for much less than the price of a new gun.”
No doubt that “cost” is one of the amin reasons the USN still uses it.
But whats the “cost” if it doesnt work the way you want when you want?
Sometimes the compromises seem illogical to me but then having served in submarines most compromises are inherently anathema to me.
As they usually end up getting getting equipment damaged/destroyed and people injured/killed.
Which for some strange reason always annoys me without fail.
Thats why Im not seen as compromising or diplomatic by anybody I dont think.
I just dont see the logic or efficacy of such approaches.
And Murphy is no stranger to me although I wish he would more often find someone else to make his point because I was converted at birh. LOL
I think another factor is that Phalanx is a very compact system and a lot of USN ships, if not most, would simply lack the space (without major modification) to take a larger more capable system. It is worth noting that DDG1000 is to get a pair of Bofors 57mm as CIWS.
sealordlawrenceAccording to Ken Delve in ‘English Electric Canberra’ there were 25 B6(BS) conversions by Boulton Paul,most of these ultimately converted to B16 by Marshalls and that one of the rear crew ejection seats was removed to make space available for the BS gear!
Because of the way that the book is laid out it is difficult to say how many a/c were fitted with BS.
The first squadron to have BS fitted was 109 ,sending a/c to TRE Defford in jan 1953,the first a/c returned to 109 in june.The overall conclusion seemed to be that it was of limited value and should only be used for ‘target marking’.
However KD goes on to say that this good advice was ignored and that most of the later period bomber sqdns had BS fitted.
Thanks bazv, I was wondering whether this was the same radar that was initially planned for the B.1, I was under the impression that the addition of the radar reduced the crew to two, indeed the original requirement called for a two seat fast bomber with a radar bombing sight.
sealordlawrenceIt is interesting to note that the Russian P.1000 Vulkan AShM has its warhead armored against CIWS rounds, I have never seen any specified figures for this but one can only assume that the 20mm Phalanx was the target threat.
sealordlawrencePerhaps it was because they were high-altitude bombers. After all, what radar would be useful apart from weather radar?
By the way, most of them did have radar – just a different type called Doppler which was used for navigation. Green Satin at first, then Blue Silk later.
Bri đ
The radar I am looking for information on was a radar bombing sight. They are fairly common on high altitude bombers.
sealordlawrenceSimple answer, have close friends die as a result of it.
sealordlawrenceSimple answer, have close friends die as a result of it.
sealordlawrenceF-35 has âtragically only one seatâ and is too expensive to operate with only an inexperience young pilot under stress. You canât be flying into a well defended airspace lonely, even if you are using a stealth >$122 Mill aircraft in the 5th generation â itâs a stupid risk.
My advice to F-35A dreamer – get off the project as soon as possibly and save money! Instead collaborate Europeans and interoperate manned and unmanned systems. You even need support by unmanned aerial “fighter” vehicles linked to an operator in a two seater near the frontline. Look at the reality and not only in very expensive “one seat” aircrafts and all promises as only ends with a little little thumb. F-35 also is consisted of shelf articles, electronics, screws and nuts like in other aircrafts.
A F 4 Phantom can for example be equipped with an AESA (about 1500 TR elements), HMD, IRST and be classed as a 4.5 Generation aircraft – it happily has an extra seat for a very experienced senior radar operator discovering stealthy aircraft very early in the fight. Some of the AESA elements can be used with frequencies as easily can track stealth aircraft. You very seldom need to do very advanced manoeuvre in 9 g` in future fight. Pilot eyes, their HMD and very manoeuvrable air-to-air missiles are instead doing the hard job. Why use a very advanced manoeuvrable and very expensive F-35 or F-22A to identify a Cessna in 9 g` turns over your home country?
I canât be silent – F-35 is doing me more and more doubtful â sorry for an otherwise excellent but a misleading idea! I survived the miss when SAAB came with their rival JAS 39 D and N.
The only development I can understand is the STOVL F-35B version. BUT FOR WHAT A PRICE and why didnât Lockheed Martin build a version with an extra comfortable soft armchair for an old very experienced radar operator in an aircraft with such a radar power as in the Lightning II’s advanced APG-81 AESA? Of course – it should have been reaching the price for every copy â to higher levels in the sky you never belief!
The F-35 has long been my own and many others favourite to win all competitions in the world, but for some time now, the new version of the Gripen-N and D has been emerging as an increasingly formidable rival in, for example, Norway and Denmark. I agree despite many misleaders and those as using blind sticks and canât ever change to look at the price and what they really are buying for moneys!
Well that is entertaining if nothing else.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceNew stuff always has its critics.
If STOVL was as useless as some say, then I doubt the Harrier series would’ve had the long, successful career it has had. Say what you will about its faults, and the Harrier has more than one or two of them, but it has still proven its useful capabilities countless times over. I have no doubt the F-35B will do the same.
Let’s just wait and see shall we?
I have said this before on this forum and I will happily say it again. In my opinion the F-35B is one for the most important long term projects the DoD has at the monet, the reason being the flexibility that it will give to LHA/LHD fleet. If neccesary they type will allow the the USN/USMC to surge to 20+ carriers not to mention the other benefits this will give.
sealordlawrenceI am curious why “Pyotr Veliki” didn’t participate in this mission. Has any problem with the reactor? Note that in the naval mission of 2004 she participated, but now they picked only “Mosckva” of Slava class.
Also what happens with the modernization of “Admiral Nakhimov”, why is so delayed? Do we know what will be the new missiles that will replace Granits?
Also I want to ask about the first of the class the “Admiral Ushakov”, I ve seen some photos of 1998, at the naval base with Ushakov and Pyotr Veliki at the same port and Ushakov to be operational, so why they decommicioned it?
Finally what will happen with “Admiral Lazarev” the second of the class?
Are the Granits going to be replaced? Do they need to be replaced? Seeing as the only analogues they have are Russian it seems a rather pointless exercise. A few electronic upgrades might be worthwhile but not a lot else.
sealordlawrenceRemember that all those missiles are only useful if the sensors and electronics system can intercept multiple targets at a time. Something like PAAMS is expensive – the carriers would have a less sophisticated package that would only be able to take on a few missiles at a time, so it’s questionable whether 48 cells would be needed.
Whats the multi-target engagement capability of something like Herakles?
sealordlawrencekinda doubt it, s-300s are not as easy to acquire since they werent so widespread in 3rd nations as the sa-3,6,8 were. eg after the egyptians turned to the us, many of the above were just available for inspection by the us.
even nellis, uses threat simulators for the s-300 series since the real systems arent available.
That is exactly what I was saying, there may well be equipment there providing replication of later generation AD systems.
sealordlawrencewith china, india has a stable equilibrium. both countries while they have disputes with each other do sit down and talk and neither is currently sponsoring third party extremists to hit within the other so war is not at all likely. and then both have deterrence viz each other with irbms etc. if china uses its icbms to bypass the abm india has the agnis to retaliate with. a conflict if it does break out, will be conventional imo, as both countries have the conventional means to have a slug fest.
besides, those df-31s and jl-2s are meant for deterrence against the us iirc. the coming decade may change things somewhat, but most accounts available china is going for a limited icbm pool to target the us, and india is facing the irbm threat for most part.
by 2010, the abm system is supposed to begin its next phase if things go according to plan. even so, china will have some delivery mechanism to bypass this or might surge irbms.
its pakistan, as we discussed which is the biggest issue at present.
its what an abm system with a non infinite pool of interceptors, is meant for.
with pakistan, even managing to remove its threat of n-warfare might make its junta behave more responsibly.
That is precisely my point, I was really speaking to Abhimanyu.;)
sealordlawrenceLOL the F16’s really put on the fat in its old age! It doesn’t taxi, it waddles!
F-16 Fighting Goose.:D
sealordlawrencearound 3000 km or even more if we go by what this current system is stated to be capable of, once operationalized. the current tests have got it to around 2000 km.
the 2000 km range represents what they could squeeze out of the special target missile based on the prithvi and whats its capable of. so they are saying that the 2 tests have already shown that a defence against missiles upto 2000 km is possible.
all in all, some 4 more tests of the pad and aad are planned over the next 3-4years. after that longer ranged missiles and radars will be fielded for the next phase of coverage to include icbms and the like.
while they are keeping mum about it, there is evidence to suggest that satellite based sensors might also be considered for longer warning time.
Still not even close to the 8000km range of a DF-31 or JL-2. Nonetheless an impressive first step.
sealordlawrenceSelf-defence not area defence?
Thats the one.:)
Sign In
