Why would I compare the weight of a missile launcher to the weight of a missile?

Sylver’s wieght problems are well-documented and resulted rather famously in a reduction in the number of cells carried by certain European warships. The fact that a Mk 41 can quad-pack ESSM where Sylver can not quad-pack Aster compounds the issue by at least a factor of 4.

Of course VL MICA does IIRC use the VL Sea Wolf launcher, not Sylver which is at the very least no better.

So post some of these documents so the judgement can be made here, without evidence your statement is meaningless.

Then there is of course the already well established support infrastructure for Mk 41 and its fully proven flexibility – advantages Sylver does not enjoy.

The same problem with Mica.

Been on the market for over a decade – plenty of time to compete yet not even the original air-to-air version has been a huge success.

And for that entire timeframe the market has been dominated by ESSM, and AMRAAM, second to a market already won by the US almost guarantees a lack of success. If you feel there is a problem with MICA provide some sources.

I understand the threat just fine. I’m responding to this idea that a guy standing in a motorboat bouncing along at 25 knots letting loose with an AK47 is somehow a real threat. 57mm and 12.7mm automatic fire and Block 2 RAM are far more than adequate for dealing with the explosive laden boghammer or whaleboat. Hell, 1 sailor with an M14 and a proper ROE could have stopped the attack on USS Cole. And I’m not talking about running away, I’m talking about keeping up. In anything but a glass-smooth sea these little boats don’t have a prayer of doing that. High burst speed and superior seakeeping allow LCS to set the tone.

Knowone said anything about guys with AK’s so you are responding to a point that was never even made? You do realise that by their very nature Littorals are confined spaces in which rapid bursts of speed are far from always possible?:rolleyes:

The Royal Navy showed the world how to deal with the missile/torpedo FAC threat as far back as 1970. Bubiyan Channel in 1991 proved the point. Ever wonder why the once so lively FAC market has all but dried up?

We all no that and it has already been discussed in this thread, however small craft with either torpedos, suicide packages, or other small weapons still proliferate and still represent a viable threat in tight waters.

You need to start providing some sources.

3. VL MICA.

Of course not a U.S. weapon and no requirement for such a weapon. I doubt very much that in the real world it can handle so many more threats than ESSM and it seems unlikely to have the inherent anti-surface capability that would arguably be more important with ESSM anyway. The threat of multiple inbounds is rather less today than it has been in decades and the USN is currently very top-heavy in ships designed to counter exactly this threat. Besides, the Sylver VLS is a rather bulky, heavy, inefficient beast. The finest in French engineering. The lack of success in the international market for VL MICA is probably telling.

This comment requires you too provide comparative weight and dimensions figures for Mark-41 and ASTER.

VL MICAS lack of success on the export market is demonstrative of the fact that it is entering a market that is already cornered by Sea Sparrow and ESSM and othing else unless you can provide information to suggest some sort of defective charachteristics.

Before I finish I have to say that all this nonsense about a couple of goons in a speedboat taking out Bushmaster (not KBA) gunners with AK47’s is just that – nonsense. First off, these little speedboats can’t even keep pace with LCS in anything but a glass-smooth sea. Secondly, an AK47 is not exactly an accurate weapon. Hitting anything beyond 300 meters is a task even sitting still on solid ground with a bench rest. Now try firing this pig from the shoulder while standing or kneeling in a small boat moving at high speed over the open sea. If this guy can hit a carrier, let alone and individual gunner I’ll give him a million dollars. If he can do it at a range from which his boat won’t be turned into toothpicks by the 12.7mm and 25mm guns of the big ship (which can hit at over 1,000 meters) then I’ll double it. Let us deal with reality, not fantasy nonsense shall we?

You do not understand the threat, it is not guys with AK’s but guys in boats loaded with explosives, carrying RPG’s or states using FAC’s with AShM’s, Torpedos or other weapons such as the underwater rocket the Iranians claim to have, again the Gulf Wra example. And running away is not an effective way of ensuring Littoral dominance anyway.

Otherwise thank you for just repeating my previous post in this thread.

Nope In fact it never used them In Darfur for example (only A-5s, Antonovs and Mi-35s) The only reason was that it was a panic situationa and there was the risk of General Bashir government being toppled. And please compare it with other African militaries and not Ethiopia and Egypt which have a much larger population or Eritrea which is a complete exception. Fixed Wing combat aircraft, compare
Chad: 1 PC-7 a few SF-260s
Centra African Republic: 0
Mali: about half a dozen operational MiG-21 perhaps less
Burkina Faso: 0
Mauritania: a few armed SF-260s
DRC Congo: 1 Su-25
Congo Brazzaville: 0
Uganda about 5 operational Mig-21s
Tanzania: 2 F-6 (MiG-19) 3 FT-5
Guinea: 0
Gabon 2 Mirage F.1
Equatorial Guinea 2 Su-25UB
Cote d’Ivoire 4 Su-25 1 Strikemaster
Ghana 4 K-8 Karakorums some MB-326s and MB-339s and L-39s
Liberia: 0
Togo: Alpha Jets probably no more than four or so operational
Mozambique: 0
Senegal: Some Socata Guerriers
Rwanda: 0
Malawi: 0
Namibia 12 F-7s, 4 K-8s

Now please tell me that 24 Mig-29s are the usual equipment of an African airforce.

Another valueless post, you have deliberately ignored Angola, Ethiopia and Eritrea (exmples I gave earlier) because they show that you are wrong.:mad:

Notwithstanding individual manufacturers or platforms, would anyone be willing to go out on a limb and argue that the future of Naval Aviation is unmanned?

There does appear to be at least some merit to the argument that the SH may be the last new manned combat aircraft the USN ever buys.

No, the USN will get F-35C’s, theproposed date for the introduction of UCAV’s onto carriers is 2020 and thats avague approximation of the sort that have a habit of slipping.

Another new missile, from Thales UK (ex-Shorts). LMM – proposed for FASGW (light). Small enough for UAVs, & has been test fired from the Schiebel Camcopter, which looks a handy capability to have –

Link

Now the Camcopter integration is potentially very interesting. If the logistical footprint can be kept low enough and the system robust enough (2 very big IF’s) this could be a very effective way of providing long range (in artillery terms) precision strike and CAS to ground units, that is to say deployed with the front line units.

And the deeper sense about that claim?

At least it is enough for the needs of Sudan.
When the Sudanese may get the feeling, it is not so, there is at least no shortage of money to change that in short notice.

A useless post that says absolutely nothing.

Regardless of weather the AF gets KC-45 or not……its probably safe to say that because of this, non US aircraft will be effectivly excluded from all future AF contracts.

Which in the long term is a disaster. There will be more expensive but less capable systems procured because of ignorant nationalist pork consuming politicos and Boeings childish winging.

Internal security situation has nothing to do with the flow of cash, why pay expenisve military operation in an uninteresting desert? Using Antonovs and Militias is way cheaper.
Overall economic performance: have you seen Khartoum and how it looks like when compared 15 years ago?
Social well, being has nothing and really nothing to do with availability of cash, when the central government isn’t interested in huge parts of its population it simply doesn’t spend any money on them.
A full inventory of the Sudanese Air Force? Well why not, 24 Mig-29 9-13 Fulcrums, 12 brand new Karakorums, about a dozen Mi-24P and Mi-24V helicopters purchased directly form Russia (the donations from Libya were all phased out), and some other stuff. May I reminbd you that the Sudanese have a local repair plant in which they refurbish part of their Chinese built aircraft? May I remind you that they build the Chinese Type-85 tank, upgraded T-55s and Gvodzdikas in license? Whether the Sudanese army is a professional service may be another question but cash wouldn’t be a problem when it comes to the purchase of rather cheap mud-movers. Do you know why MiG-29s were purchased? Because of tensions with Eritrea. Now that tells a tale, if the Sudanese government buys highly expenisve planes just because of a limited threat of war with Eritrea but hasn’t purchase a single Su-25 during years of civil war then the only reason is, that winning the war in places like Darfur simply wasn’t a priority till now. Why spend gigantic amounts of money on military operations, when you get zero in return?

Damn your ignorant, internal security situation has everything to do with cash flow.:rolleyes:

Mig-29s in Sudanese service are not highly expensive, they are very basic versions and Ethiopia and Eritrea have both bought Flankers and Fulcrums of the same tech level despite being amongst the poorest countries in the world.:rolleyes:

The numbers speak for themselves, paltry, and thus prove my point.:rolleyes:

Now stop typing nonsense and go away.