sealordlawrenceLet me correct you again.
1. I said clearly that the integration of sensors in the AH-64 is better than with conventional helicopter. And I have also clearly said that the sensors the Apache uses are only comparable or even inferior to COTS sensors. This is because Apache uses a specialized suite with limited production numbers, unlike 10000s of common 18mm/25mm image intensifiers or uncooled microbolometers.
2. Apache’s protection has serious flaws. Generally you can describe the type as armored but you cannot depend on that even against small arms fire. Freaking laughable.
3. Netcentric capabilities of conventional helicopters only depend on hardware installed. I agree that a helo equipped with similar suite would cost closer to 10 than to $5mil. Still nowhere near what your 64 costs.
4. Attack capabilities of the AH-64 depend on weapons used. Now disregarding Apache’s issues with Hellfire plume vs tail rotor, here, every upgraded Mi-17 with Spike-R or ATAKA/Vikhr missiles can roughly do what Apache can.
To sum it up, there is nothing on the Apache than you cannot get for much less. Or vice versa, you can get far more for what an Apache costs. If not a better helo, then at least two comparable ones for the price of one 64.
Again, where is your WAH-64 equivilant?:rolleyes:
I am still waiting for your radar equipped, multi-optical sensor equipped, armoured with an integrated self defence suite, mission planning C4I suite etc etc helicopter. You have yet to provide one beyond ridiculous unfounded statements.
sealordlawrencewhat do you guys think of De Zeven Provincien?
A very nice vessel but with a dated machinery set. It was orginally planned that the class would get the WR21 but it was not available at the time. There is some suggestion that the machinery space design could still accomodate such a plant.
sealordlawrenceThere seems to be a belief here that just because the F125 is not a conventional frigate it is a poor design. Sush an idea is utter nonsense. The ship is designed to undertake a specific doctrinal role in support of foreign policy objectives. The F125 is designed to provide very long endurance and very high rates of availbaility when operating far from home. They are not intended to be hunting submarines, they are meant to undertake stabilisation missions in places like Somalia where the primary ‘threat’ will be from small boats and swimmers. For the detection of suh things, especially in the littorals, an impressive sensor suite is required. In many ways the F125 is just a larger version of the RNLN OPV’s. Just because it does not look like a 1980s ASW frigate it does not mean it is not the correct replacement for a 1980s ASW frigate.
sealordlawrenceI do believe they call it the Mi-28N 😉
When you bring me a confirmed price and some actual radar specifications I will start to believe you.
sealordlawrenceSorry Sealord, I have to disagree. The Sylver models, with the exception of only the (not in service) A70, cannot carry anything other than SAMs. The range of weapons available is limited, and, frankly, with regards to the Aster 15, a bit daft! Because of the way it was designed, the Aster 15 takes up the same space as the -30 version; same sort of range (actually a tad shorter if anything) as the ESSM. A slimline booster would have made life so much easier! The VL-MICA and VT-1 options aren’t proving all that popular; they will likely sell, but there is unlikely to be much crossover – large ships will only carry Aster, and small ships will only carry MICA/VT-1.
Swerve largely beat me to it. However I will point out that you have effectively explained that in terms of versatility the only difference between the two is ABM/ASAT and ASW. An there is an excellent slant launched European ASW torpedo carrying missile available.
My suspicion is that the UK would have been better opting for it’s own equivalent of the APAR-equipped De Zeven Provincien. In place of Aster 15/30, we could have seen the UK pushing forward active-seeker versions of the SM-2 (basically SM-6 ERAM) and ESSM. That way, the UK gets relatively straightforward access to an existing range of weapons, including short/medium/long-range SAMs, SSMs and even an ABM. As it is, we will probably never see the much mooted Aster 45, or even proper ABM capabilities for the Aster 30.
On the contrary, T45 is an exceptional vessel whose through life costs will be far lower than those of any other ship currently afloat in a her class. Not to mention her other operational charachteristics such as her range.
sealordlawrenceI’m not old fashoined just uneducated, with regard to military aviation :confused:
The reason why I mentioned a war with Russia was mainly due to the fact that NATO/EU seems wrapping around the Russian borders, but really a bit inmature political thinking on my part.
What is Taranis/Neuron, is that a continuation of the FOAS programme?
Thanks for your paitence.
FOAS is essentially dead.
Taranis is a BAE UCAV programme that will result in a flying prototype but it is seems mostly to be aimed at industry skills and design development rather than procurement at this stage.
sealordlawrenceWell, together the system incorporates a laser rangefinder, laser target designator, a thermal imager and monochrome daylight television camera. The image of these could be displayed on gunner’s DVO/ORT or on another MFD installed. Kill me but there is absolutely nothing about the system that every GOES-type or Elbit sensor ball does not include, as well. For FAR less money, of course.
I am sure the suite is more than impressive for an average Huey or Squirrel pilot but it ain’t better than today’s usual standard (the integration being the only difference)
Again, where is this fantasy $5 million helo with anywhere near the integrated sensor, proyection, network and attack capabilities of the WAH-64?
sealordlawrenceNorway is a fantastically wealthy nation. They can afford JSF at any price. If that was the only aircraft that would ‘do’ for them, they should have bought it, and not used Typhoon and Gripen as stalking horses, at massive cost to UK/German/Italian/Spanish/Swedish taxpayers.
There’s nothing wrong with the decision.
But the process is shameful!
What they can afford and what they will actually decide to be able to afford are two very different things. Just because a country generates huge sums of money it does not mean that they spend it on defence. It is remarkbly ignorant to say that Norway can aford JSF at any price when their free will may determine otherwise.
The decision is poor based on the figures given, the price qouted by Norway is from a fantasy land. $54 million for Norway compares to a US DoD estimate (2009 fiscal year planning) of $96.8 million, whilst Israels aircraft come out at over $200 million (though this apprently includes some Israel specified stuff). The price qouted to Norway has no gaurantee on it meaning that it will go up. The price for the Gripen on the other hand was underwritten by the Swedish government meaning it was fixed.
sealordlawrenceWell I don’t think they should buy the Gripen. They got the money, and if they want JSF, they should buy JSF.
But they should at least compensate Saab a bit for the afford in this “competition”.
Except when they get given the final price they are likely to find that they dont have the money.
sealordlawrenceUS Department of Defense Fiscal year 2009 budget plan calaculates an F-35A unit cost of $96.8 million. The Norwegian figures have been pulled out of someones **** and in the long run will only result in hugely embarressing project that will be lucky to survive. The Gripen figures are underwritten by the Swedish government. Norway should buy the Gripen NG and if they are left with spare money they should buy more.
sealordlawrenceI thought that as Tornados have always had arrestor hooks fitted they wouldn’t need to be hardened for carrier use.
The exisiting areestor hook is for nothing more than emergency landings using wires on land bases. in no way does itqualify the type for carrier operations.
sealordlawrenceIndeed, comgratulations Wanshan………..seriously enjoy it whilst it lasts!:)
sealordlawrenceThese two types are about as different in concept and detail as any two superficially similar ships can be. Oddly, most people don’t realize the very traditional Baltic wartime role the Absalon would have, and while the platform is very affordable, it is also very simple in construction.
The F125 has a very different operational concept, and if you ask me, it’s about time that someone took this approach. Personally, I find the upward creep in displacement to be disturbing, as well as the idea of replacing 8 general purpose frigates with 4 giant, glorified coast guard cutters.
Both ships are primarily long range long endurance power projection assets. They have very little focus on a Baltic war because there is highly unlikely to be one in the ships life times. Of course one could find a role for the type in such a scenario but it is not designed for it. Both vessels are designed for the same doctrinal purpose.
sealordlawrenceThe integrated mast is overkill for an OPV!
I think that it is interesting in concept, but it might even be too expensive for the RN’s C1 requirement.
The RNLN OPV itself looks to be a bit oversized, underarmed and underpowered. Habitability is always a good thing, and using mild grade steel cuts costs, but there is a fine line between a useful patrol ship and a defenseless surface combatant with a brilliant sensor fit, but not much else.
I keep getting the feeling that the entire point of the design was to provide a platform for the integrated mast, providing work for the shipyard while hoping for a major foreign order for the sensor suite. All I can say is that I prefer the design of the Bertholf class for the same mission.
That depends on what you are going to do with your OPV, if you intend on using it as a Littoral combat ship then it is a different matter. From a doctrinal perspective the ship is better thought of as mini F125 than as a classic OPV. Why is the ship underarmed? It is intended to provide airspace control (to friendly forces) and track small surface vessels including the likes of pirates and terrorists. For this it is very well armed. I think you will fin that the ‘missions’ are quite different.
sealordlawrenceIt’s late, horribly over-budget and the unit total has been cut in half? Did I mention the potential support issues with the already obsolete WR-21 gas turbines? What about the inflexibility of the Sylver VLS and the fact that Aster-30 probably will never be upgraded to true ABM capability?
If you ask me, either the RN should have pursued a more realistic specification, or should have gone to the Mk41 VLS and APAR or AEGIS instead of a PAAMS.
In my opinion, the F-100 is a more salable design for export markets, hence the Australian order.
Yeah those VLS cells, really inflexible only being able to carry ASTER-15, ASTER-30, VL-MICA, VT-1, Scalp, damn really inflexible.
Of course it is late, it is a bespoke solution. but the slashing of the order has as much to do with the shift in defence priorities as it does with cost overruns. As an example of a modern design the type is very near the zenith. The purpose of this exercise is to demonstrate the point of striking the right balance between technological advancement and cost and the T45 does that.
Sign In
