sealordlawrenceSomeone wondered out loud whether there would be any info about PAK-FA at MAK-2007 coming up soon, I doubt it seeing as it hasn’t even flown yet and the Russians don’t seem to think of it as an export item anyway… the Russian military anyway.
I did come across a booklet that will be given out at MAKS-2007 by KNAAPO and am in the middle of downloading it… it is about Su-35, presumably the Su-35BM?
Here is the link to the page:
http://www.knaapo.com/eng/news/news.wbp?id=F8C99216-C597-4B90-A6EE-C9D63A9ADDC7
Thanks for the link Garry, the Su-35BM is now the Su-35, basically the original Su-35 has fallen of the map. I am realy looking forward to this bird, it should be at least as good as the Euro canards. There is still no trace of the rear sting mounted radar that was talked about when the type was first announced.
sealordlawrencePit
Sorry for my ignorance, but what model R-27P1/EP1 is?
As far as I know there is just R-27R/ER (SARH) and R-27T/ET (IR) isn’t it?Thanks
P/EP is a passive radar homing version. To the best of my rather limited knowledge it is basically an air to air anti radiation missile.
Correct me if I am wrong but I was under the impression that one of the reasons that the Alamo was still around was becouse it had better range than Adder? Was there ever an active radar homing version?
sealordlawrenceDuh, no one designs a system like that. But that doesn’t stop people from manipulating tests so they can get more money for R&D.
Or do you want to deny that the Yankies have ever manipulated test conditions so that their missiles would hit the target?
You had better have a worth while source for this claim.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceBecause it became Rolls Royce and RR already had a wide selection of turbofans?
BS was not taken over by RR until 1966, the BS.100 was cancelled in 1965. I have yet to find any reference to any efforts to expand the BR Turbofan family (not even proposals) from the period prior to the merger. Surely there must have been some consideration to the possibility of straight through BS.100’s and Pegasus’s??:confused:
sealordlawrenceJust a add on to what Turbinia said. In the 1950s the RN was signed up to provide 70 frigates to Nato operations- a rather substantial figure by anybodys standards.:eek:
sealordlawrenceDear friends,
It was reported yesterday that the Lebanese Air Force was using heavy 250 kg and 454 kg free fall bombs against targets in the Nahr el Bared camp. In the absence of fixed wing jets, these were being dropped by helicopters, by either the UH-1H or the AB212s.
Here’s one link of the stories:
http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/getstory?openform&61FE87FF52BC9052C225733300558363To be honest, this is the first time I hear of such a practice. I saw some footages on TV while the helicopter is hovering over a target for a few seconds and dropping two large objects followed by big explosions.
Anyone heard of such a practice before?
Vatche
There were some pictures floating around here of Hueys carrying large bombs on there hardpoints, IIRC Soviet helicopters could carry free fall bombs as well.:confused:
sealordlawrenceWell I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one:D
If thats what you want to do.;) 🙂
sealordlawrenceI don’t think the PAC-3 are intended for the ABM role, whats the point? China can field far more intermediate missiles then PAC-3 can deal with and the same goes for SM-3. Little point in filling the missile silos of any destroyer with them when they won’t make a realistic dent in China’s missile stocks but most certainly antagonise them.
It is debateable if it would push the Peoples Republic to war but they certainly have been more vocal and aggresive over Taiwans arms procurement programs, whats the point of trying to purchase a system which will have little value in a practical millitary sense but will certainly ratchet up tension in the area.
The truth is Taiwans armed forces is no longer a match for the PLA/PLAAF/PLAN/PLANAF (any more please do add), its role is to delay the peoples republic long enough to allow America to intervene.
There is no debate, the procurement of SM-3 would not cause China to go to war- period. Frankly it is an absurd suggestion.
The PAC-3’s were procured for BMD defense, and they offer the capability to greatly reduce the impact of a Chinese ballistic missile strike, thus aiding the preservation of the Taiwanese armed forces and civilian infrastructure, and the addition of SM-3 would further enhance that. It would be far from wasted VLS cells.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2005/03/21/2003247172
sealordlawrenceAside from it being unlikely that America would release SM-3 to Taiwan for various reasons any ABM system procurement would be a fruitless exercise. Firstly there is a good chance it would push the Peoples Republic over the edge and push them towards taking millitary action and at a practical level China already fields more missiles then any ABM system could deal with in a saturation attack (and can easily make more) making an ABM investment by Taiwan rather pointless.
The US has already sold Taiwan PAC-3. SM-3 would certainly not ‘push china over the edge’. The only thing that would do that is a Taiwanese declaration of independence.
Furthermore SM-3 is already in service, the versions undergoing testing at the moment are the further improved models.
sealordlawrenceYeah, my bad.
You didn’t answer my question. How many VLS cells are you going to put over to SM-3 duty and how many ships realistically do you think are going to be on station to deal with the threat?
I did answer your question, as many as are available based upon percieved threat scenario, number procured, maintenance routine, funding. How many cells? well thats dependent upon how many the ship has (KDX-3 has 128 [although 32 are not Standard capable but they could theoretically be replaced with Mk-41s] where as the spanish Aegis D ships have just 48) and what sort of balance those in charge see as suitable. To ask such a broad sweeping question without even considering the initial design of the ship is utterly flawed. On top of that one has to consider the AAW capability of other vessels in the fleet, with eight OHP’s and the 4 Kidds this is currently not a poor capability and if the La Fayettes ever get the upgrade that has been talked about for them it will be further enhanced. Taiwan will likely not just stop procuring ships once it has bought 4 Aegis ships, the current vessels will need replacing eventually in the long term (decades) it is not inconceivable that every Taiwanese warship could be BMD capable, everyone has to start some where.
sealordlawrenceHas done pretty well? That’s arguable – it’s still being tested.
I was talking about the sheer numbers of missiles that could be carried. How many would each destroyer carry and how many ships would realistically be on station to protect against attack at any one time? Maybe 2 ships if all 4 were commissioned (I doubt Taiwan would get more than 4). If I were Taiwan I would want most of the VLS space for SM-2s (maybe ESSMs as well if cleared for sale), 8 Harpoons and some ASROCs. How many cells would you have for the SM-3?
Although they’re getting better the majority are not that sophisticated.
I wasnt suggesting that SM-3 be the only solution to the BMD problem Taiwan faces merely a contribution to the over all effort. How many ships depends upon the pre determined threat level at the time. For instance if a 1996 type scenario were to occur again all 4 ships could be temporarily made available. SM-3 makes perfect sense for Taiwan, it is arguably under the greatest threat of ballistic missile strike of any country in the world and SM-3 is designed to intercept ballistic missiles. Chinas missiles are only going to get more accurate.
Harpoon is not carried in VLS cells. The fact is that Taiwan faces multiple threats, ballistic missiles, submarines and aircraft. All three need to be countered and a BMD capable DDG is one good method of doing it. Just as one does not rely solely upon surface ships for ASW operations one should also not rely solely on land based BMD systems if one can help it.
sealordlawrenceThe limited capability those destroyers would have in combating Chinese ballistic missiles wouldn’t be worth it. They’re not that accurate – chances are most of the ones shot down would be those that weren’t going to do much damage.
Better to invest the money in more SAMs for critical sites (as by the time the missiles are in range the batteries can work out which need targetting).
Source, SM-3 seems to have done pretty well thus far. Maybe you could explain how the capability would be limited, this is exactly the role SM-3 was designed for.
Reading through some of the threads here it seems that Chinese Ballistic Missiles, at least in their latest forms are accurate and there is realy no way of knowing whether you are shooting down accurate or inaccurate ones.
sealordlawrenceWell, for one thing the US might not want to sell the SM-3 et al – I don’t think it would (at least not with the initial sale). For another it might increase the unit cost too much.
Plus China has a lot of ballistic missiles – 4 AEGIS destroyers couldn’t do that much to its arsenal (it would be a waste of VLS space), whereas land-based SAMs could.
Well they have already sold Taiwan PAC-3 and Aegis could do plenty and with China deploying hundreds of ballistic missiles opposite Taiwan I would want all the ABM capability I could get if I were them.
http://www.jamestown.org/print_friendly.php?volume_id=415&issue_id=3654&article_id=2370873
sealordlawrenceI don’t think Taiwan would use its destroyers for BMD work – that would be left to land-based SAMs.
I see no reason why it would not, seeing as ballistic missiles are one of the primary threats to Taiwan.
sealordlawrenceOne thing worth noting is that the US cleared the AN/SPY-1 radar for sale a while ago, even if it was the F version. Seems to show that Washington is happy with Taiwan having the technology.
Question is whether they’ll approve a destroyer package – that’s difficult to say. I think earlier requests were deferred rather than refused. Maybe there won’t be approval this year, but it could happen in the near future. Taiwan would have to wait until the USN’s destroyers were finished, so it’s not as if a delay of a year or two in getting an order would be a problem.
But is the F version BMD capable?:confused: 😉
Sign In
