sealordlawrenceConsidering Tawian is operating a large number of very old Frigates and Destroyers. I don’t think absorbing a couple of Aegis Cruisers would be a problem? Of course if Tico’s are unfit for service at all that would be another matter………….If, true funny that it hasn’t become a very public and embarrassing story for the USN? Something worth looking into……….:confused:
Not any more, most of their OHP’s are pretty young, the only old vessels they really have left are their Knox’s and that raises the issue of hull numbers versus individual capability. This is not the first time I have heard of issues with the non VLS Tico’s but getting rid of them is fairly painless. After all, no Tomahawk, no ESSM and no SM-3, probably the three most important missiles in the USN inventory.
sealordlawrenceDo you have the final details of the Mig-29K sold to India?
Considering the Russians flew a MiG-35 to AeroIndia 2007, it’s clearly their intent to sell it to the Indians. This means they can just as easily offer them the Zhuk AE radar instead of the ME variant.
Not to mention, even if the F-18E were to have the (potentially faulty) APG-79, the MiG does have, like star49 mentioned, various ECM/jamming defense measures.
Simply assuming by anyone here that the F-18E would have better electronics / radar than an upgraded MiG is just biased BS.
Provide a single source that says that the Mig-29K is going to get the Zhuk-AE anytime soon. You have a real problem with sources.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceThere are no official radars assigned to any such jet specifically, and would differ from every source and for every buyer.
LOW RCS HORNET? Yeah, right. At this rate, I could call the Mig-29K “low RCS” as well due to the new coating on the jet.
Considering that the Mig-29K has a better TWR, and better armament, the F-18E is a joke in comparison to it. In a dogfight anyone would put their money on a MiG-29K, and depending on the radar used on the MiG would determine the BVR outcome.
The APG-79 was faulty, and if they’ve fixed that finally then good for them.
APG-73 vs Zhuk ME and APG-79 vs Zhuk-AE seem pretty fair to me.
You really dolive in an uninformed fantasy land. SMT-2’s have the Zhuk-M as does the Mig-29K and the Mig-29M2 before it got turned into the Mig-35 technology demonstrator.
Unless of course you have a source for the Mig-29K having an AESA?:rolleyes:
sealordlawrencewhere i stated that MIG-29K is getting AESA. i just put link that a number of countries now offer AESA based self protection suites and every country put there own communication system based on its own net centric solutions. So electronics is not a advantage. It is the platform and weopon system that make a difference.
I will keep saying it until you get the hint, you are not welcome here because you are a racist.:mad:
sealordlawrenceI guess that is only a question of time. At present point there is no need to install AFAR Zhuk into the type when IN pilots need to learn to conduct STOBAR operations from scratch. Plenty of work for them even without AESA.
When the time comes, I think we will see Indian Naval Fulcrums with some AESA type of either (more likely) Russian or Israeli origin. Unless Indians crash 2/3rd of the fleet in the meantime, of course 😉
Well exactly, there is absolutely no reason why all the goodies developed for the new Mig-35 (or rather the converted M2 demonstrator as the actual Mig-35 has yet to fly) can not be integrated into the Mig-29K, but lets be honest, the K is no Rafale or Super Hornet equal and Mig is using it finance the Mig-35.
sealordlawrenceAll, those were the boats that where laid down in 1992 or after. Another question is that how many boats were launched and completed. Thats easy too, only the very latest (that is the Boreys and Ladas) haven’t been completed
Hardly comparable to Soviet times hey.;)
sealordlawrenceSo it comes down low RCS and AESA radar. so what do u think about ELTA self protection suite that MIG-29K is likely to carry. It will defeat any advantage that F-18E/Rafale might have in electronics at much lower price.
or they can upgrade with this one. So they have so much room for improvment. and self protection suite now also T/R modules.MIG-29K always have newer IRST incase radar is jammed.
I have told you this multiple times before, you are a racist, why you are allowed to post on this forum has long been beyond me and I will not lower myself to engage in a discussion with you the outcome of which is clear.:mad:
For the record there is no reference to the Mig-29K getting an AESA.
sealordlawrenceI don’t know what kind of medication you are on. Yet, I never said anything about transfers! I was just stating the possibility for such a ship by a number of countries! So, I gave a couple of examples! With Australia ordering new Aegis Destroyers which are many years off and leaving a considerable gap until they reach service. Tawian on the other hand wanted Aegis Destroyers from the start. But the US turned them down and forced them to except the Kidd Class DDG without Aegis. So, I don’t know what your problem is? I never stated anything of the sort and clearly am not SPREADING LIES, RUMORS, OR DISINFORMATION!
PERSONALLY, YOUR COMMENTS ARE INSULTING AND HAVE NO PLACE IN THIS DISCUSSION!!! GET A LIFE:p
If Taiwan could afford to operate, buy and find the personnel for these ships on top of the 4 Kidd class then I am sure they would have been pursued, however I have very real doubts about the financial viability of these vessels for Taiwan. That is ignoring the structural issues, the fact these ships have no place in the modern or future USN and are impractical for export. Scrapping them and thus freeing up money for other projects is the right way forward.
sealordlawrenceThe image seems to have dissapeared…
Still there for me.:confused:
sealordlawrence:confused: Too difficult? The B is complete, the M is complete, is it really that hard to combine these two into something meaningful?
I am just going by memory here and I am probably wrong but I think the issue was that it would be too difficult within the available budget, after all a Rafale C and M are two different enough aircraft.
sealordlawrenceAs opposed to your fantasy land F-18E/F models that can outdo a MiG-29K upgraded to a maximum SMT or M2 level? Or even “MiG-35” level if you want to go that far.
That is certainly no fantasy land, the Super Hornet would toast anything short of a Mig-35. The Mig-35 is a different matter but if you want to believe that the Mig-29K is as good as a AESA equipped low RCS super hornet feel free.:rolleyes:
That post shows once again that you know nothing about Russian weapons, if you did you would know that the Mig-29K is actually a better aircraft than the SMT and is roughly comparable to the Mig-29M2…….they both use the same radar, or at least they did until the M2 got the Zhuk-A.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceJust to add to this thread, this was recently posted at the excellent Secret Projects Forum by matej. It shows a model of what appears to be a blend of the two prototypes we have seen thus far and may give us some idea of where all this F-5 pimping is heading…………I dont think Raptor pilots need to be too worried quite yet:D
Heres the link: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3399.0/highlight,iran.html
sealordlawrenceSays the arm chair general. Good stuff. Go and show the Russian government what it’s all about! Your analysis doesn’t indicate much, other than take the most active shipbuilding period for the Soviet Navy in terms of advanced fighting vessels.
It shows that you are wrong and that Ivanov’s statement is rather meaningless, maybe he was referring to 1918?:rolleyes:
Oh yeah I just checked 1986 for nuclear powered submarines, at least 4 were laid down, probably more not including ships we dont have date for and that is without mentioning surface ships or SSK’s.:rolleyes: We have more nuclear powered submarines being laid down per annum in the 1980s by the Soviet Union than have been laid down in the last decade by Russia and yet you still persist with this nonsense.
sealordlawrence7 vessels that year. And are you certain that’s a bad year? Lets see a better year.
Your analysis is too simplistic to be of any use here.
Fact of the matter is, the Russians have $45bn. to spend on new ships.
To Ivanov, that’s enough to feel confident that the Russians can build lots of new ships now.
Clearly though, ignorant forum trolls like you would think they would know better than the Russian Minister of Defense.
Lol, go and check for yourself, the simplistic analysis is very useful as it clearly shows Ivanov is talking cr*p. As I pointed out in that post it was almost certainly more. The fact that the navy commissioned five nuclear powered submarines that year should give you some idea that this was a well sustained construction rate. You have been proven wrong.
Dont tell me you have a better way, other than actually counting ships, that allows us to compare at what rate the Russians are building ships.
sealordlawrenceWhy don’t we see some numbers from you now, on stuff laid down in 1981, 82, 83, etc.. . And in those specific years. Not what was still left laid down from the late 70s, etc.
And the numbers provided above, I guess, compare according to Ivanov to the USSR’s navy. 5+ subs have been laid down in the past 8 years, and some mix of project 20380 and 22350, probably about 10 in total. 15 boats laid down in 8 years? or 7 years? or 5? Hard to say.
If it turn out to be 3 or 4 boats per year now on average, and back in the 80s (or 70s, which part of the USSR’s history was he referring to?), it was say 4 or 5 or 6 boats per year, that’s still “practically” the same.
OMG, go back through the previous page, I have already provided numbers for 1987 (a nice year as its exactly 20 from last year) and if you look you will see it certainly is not ‘practically the same’.:rolleyes:
Sign In
