The ROCN had no choice when it came to the systems fit of their LaFayette, they were delivered lacking much of the standard electronics fit forcing them to cobble together a mutant hybrid fit of French, American and local systems. Hence the rather odd choice of Chaparral among other things.

On the other hand even with the procurement scandal surrounding the frigate purchase beggers can’t be choosy and the deal did tie in with the real prize which was the Dassault Mirage 2000 which was delivered with a comprehensive systems and missile fit.

The entire procurement was a complete shambles. The initial plan was for 16 corvette size vessels but the French managed to bribe the much larger LaFayette into the contract. That resulted in the program being far more expensive than initially planned. The initial deal was for 6 ships with 10 more as options, not unsurprisingly the 10 options were cancelled after the true insanity of what happened (including a dead body IIRC) became known.

I am actually quite a fan of the original LaFayette’s they have the ability to upgrade to carry 16 Aster-15s in addition to the 24 crotales. (if anybody knows what radar is envisaged for such upgrade I would be very thankful?) Giving them a reasonable AAW capability. Frankly the Kang Dings are very poorly equipped vessels by comparison. My point being that if the Taiwanese really did want Lafayettes they should have just bought the basic version and bought into the Aster program to ensure delivery of the weapon for a later upgrade.

Nice Info, Dont the Su-35 carry tail mounted radar , I remember PB write up on Su-35 from Janes mentioned something to that effect.

The RCS reduction work on Su-35 has goe much beyond paint job and materials have been taken into consideration.

When the Su-35BM was first announced it was claimed that it would have a tail mounted radar (Osa IIRC), however all mention of it has vanished from all the recent reports and brochures suggesting that it has been dropped.

Thanks for the link Deino.

Ahh but for advanced nit-pickery DDH16 will also be the proud possessor, apparently, of an extensive VLS farm and will be armed and capable, modestly, for area air defence. Soooo, in true terms, the CVH designator cannot apply to the vessel.

Technically she should be a CVHG! :diablo:

Sealord,

Never a truer word spoken…am currently standing on my chair applauding loudly!.

Jonesy, do you have a source for the VLS carriage? It is pretty difficult to find stuff out about Japanese defence programs but I thought that the ships would only be getting a 16 cell mk41, which is really only for self defence. Of course with the massive advances being made in the performance of radars and missiles further confusion is added. For instance the CVN-21 is to get SPY-3 which means theoretically she could use the standard series and engage ballistic missiles if she was given the right VLS cells!:eek:

Ps, thanks for the kind words.:o

Except for one minor linguistic point, I think this is well said. The minor point is that although, of course, helicopters are just as much aircraft as aeroplanes are, it is conventional to use “aircraft carrier” to mean fixed-wing – or at least capable of carrying them. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be any fixed terminology for dedicated helicopter carrying ships, such as the DDH16. I”d be content with “helicopter carrier”, or “helicopter cruiser”. The CVH TLA seems reasonable.

I am of the opinion that the DDH16 is unique at the moment, it is a dedicated Helicopter Carrier, whereas previous vessels have been Hybrid DDG/CG designs. Compare DDH16, with Jean De Arc, Tiger and Blake after their last reconstruction, the Italian ships, and the Japanese vessels of the cold war. That is why I like the CVH designation for the DDH16, whereas the other vessels I mentioned fit nicely with the existing DD/CGH designation.

With all due respect Scooter ESSM isnt really a good fit here. Firstly I dont think the US has a lightweight X-band director it can provide to handle the fire control and I dont see Thales being too eager to provide SEAPAR or the Aussies to come through with CEA Mount to accomplish the task.

I dont think that any of the lightweight mechanically-trained directors associated with ESSM currently would be sufficient in capability to offer a practical solution in Taiwans threat environment so I wouldnt even investigate that option.

To be honest in the ROCN’s position I’d want an active missile from the gitgo and would be strongly encouraging of them going down the TC-2 route. So much so in fact, in their shoes, I might be looking at some kind of booster/missile combination with TC-2 for an Aster-style area defence weapon to replace SM-2 on the Kidds. If they can knock together a VLS that could quadpack Naval TC-2’s and accomodate an ER version retrofitting the Kidds would enhance their capabilities by several orders of magnitude.

I think I would go down the TC-2 route too. It would be a boost for the indigenous industry as well. IIRC the land based Sky Bow 1 & 2 missiles have pretty impressive rang but I dont know much about their size or accuracy?:confused:

A quick google search reveals that Sky Bow 2 is huge, 2.5 metres longer than an SM-3!!!:eek:

Man what you just looking to start a flame war? Go back and quote my original post if you like! I stated a small Aircraft Carrier followed by “Amphibious Ship”! Further, I hate to tell you but a naval warship with a flight deck design to carrier aircraft is in fact a “Aircraft Carrier”. Sorry, but if you didn’t know. Helocopters are consider “Aircraft”. You know a machine design to fly……..That said, they may operate STOVL at some future date. Just as the Indian Navy currently does with its Sea Harriers. So, take off the Harriers and the INS Viraat in no longer a Aircraft Carrier? Sounds like you are spliting hairs and just looking for a arguement………….instead of a construct of debate.:mad:

Looks like Swerve is at it again, just being deliberately argumentative aggressive and combative for no apparent reason.:mad:

Personally I think that the Dok Dos and the 116 DDG’s can be called aircraft carriers as there primary function is to carry aircraft and just as fixed wing carriers do they orientate the largest part of the design to that purpose. Unlike the the older helicopter cruisers which were split role. I would certainly regard the new Japanese and South Korean vessels as seperate to the cold war era helicopter cruisers of Italy, France, Britain and of course Japan. However, with them being Helicopter only vessels at the moment they are also seperate from the Harrier carriers and CTOL carriers, which is why as I have said in another thread here I like the suggested CVH designation.

I would be cautious about saying that the Korean vessels might eventually operate F-35’s, I am not saying that they wont, but it has already been shown that despite all the appearences of being able to operate fixed wing aircraft the DDH 116’s cant becouse of the flight deck design and the SK ships might be the same.:confused:

The Su-35 and Su-27IB will share the same engine.

Do you have a source for that becouse I have seen nothing about the Su-34 getting the 117S. I have seen one report saying that it might get the AL-31FM1?:confused: