Given the reference to aerodynamics in the article, the implication is that it is not as formidable a dogfighter as SU27 and derivaties. Which does not mean it won’t be able to defeat it e.g. as in when the Su27 cannot get a lock on the F-35 or when the F-35 has superior radar/missile combo allowing it to engage sooner, before it itself can be engaged. So, IMHO the statements are a bit misleading.

ummm
so it means Dutch can not fight alone without Help from other countires!!

Sure they can, but only with limited means. Heck the whole armed forces comprise just 57,180 troops (Institute for Strategic Studies 1997. Military Balance 1997/98. ISS, London, UK.)

The current catapults are able to push a plane up to 2o.oookg and the S-2 is around that weight bracket…

empty weight 12,090 kilograms 26,650 pounds
loaded weight 23,830 kilograms 52,540 pounds

The A-4M from which our A-4KU are deived has a MAX TOW of 10,465kg …24,500lbs. Well inside the Sao Paulo’s catapult envelope. 😉

Regards

Hammer

These are for the F-8 Crusader that used to fly of this ship and which she should be able to handle:

Empty weight: 16,483 lb (7,477 kg)
Loaded weight: 24,475 lb (11,100 kg)
Maximum gross takeoff weight: 27,938 lb (12,672 kg)

By comparison:

A-4F Skyhawk
Empty weight: 10,450 lb (4,750 kg)
Loaded weight: 18,300 lb (8,318 kg)
Maximum gross takeoff weight: 24,500 lb (11,136 kg)

A-7D Corsair II:
Empty weight: 19,915 lb (9,033 kg)
Loaded weight: 29,040 lb (13,200 kg)
Maximum gross takeoff weight: 42,000 lb (19,050 kg)

I’m thinking the third is a chinese AOR and the fifth a russian ship. The first may be an LSL of some kind and the second a diving support vessel. But which!?!?!?

Schelde Shipbuilding of the Royal Schelde Company, based in Vlissingen in the Netherlands, has built the Rotterdam class Landing Platform Dock (LPD) ship for the Royal Netherlands Navy. The Royal Schelde Company were awarded the contract to build Hr Ms Rotterdam in April 1993 and the ship was launched in 1997. The Royal Netherlands Navy has plans to order a second Rotterdam Class LPD, Hr Ms Johan de Witt, to enter service in 2007. The new vessel will be equipped with command and control facilities for a Combined Joint Task Force.

The Rotterdam LPD was the result of a joint design project between the Netherlands and Spain. Two ships, the Galicia (commissioned in 1998) and the Castilia (2001), were built for the Spanish Navy by Bazan (now Navantia).

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/rotterdam/

The winning Swan Hunter LSD(A) design was based on Royal Schelde’s Enforcer family, a tailored variant of the Royal Netherlands Navy landing platform dock HrMs Rotterdam. Swan Hunter was to be the lead yard and construction and final assembly would be undertaken at Wallsend (Govan for the BAE Marine ships), but Royal Schelde would provide design and naval architecture services.

Due to capacity limitations, Swan Hunters have subcontracted some steel fabrication work (the bow section) to the Dutch yard Schelde Shipbuilding, this is much to BAE’s annoyance – they claim that they could have done the work just as cheaply at their Govan yard and that this would have reduced recent redundancies.

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/lsda.htm

OK this point is now being taken out of context.

This has crossed over from the Type124 thread whereby the point questioned was how necessary ESSM was on a Saschen when it was restricted to a ‘mere’ 32 cells.

As observed above there can be little objection to a few, perhaps as many as 4, cells being given up to ESSM, for 16 missiles tops, as a backup to the SM-2s, but, the primary mission of that vessel is AREA AAW and it absolutely MUST devote the furthest extent of its resources to that effect. Cleaving off a whole 25% of your available VLS cells for what is basically a PDMS designed for ownship defence is absurd in my opinion.

For that vessel, again IMO, you need as many of those cells loaded with SM-2’s as possible because even 28 might not go far in a serious attack if your set for shoot-shoot-look-shoot!. Hell they always have two full RAM launchers to cope with leakers!.

IN the absolute, you have a point. However, you must consider relatives too. I.e. where these ships come from.

The older generation German AAW vessel had 32 Tartar/SM1 (40 if not carrying Harpoon in the MK 13) and eventually also 2x 21 round RAM launchers. Compared to this, an F124 with 24-28 SM2 and 16-32 ESSM is a step up both in missile load, missile range/capability and sensors/control.

The Dutch Tromp class had 1 x Mk13 launcher for Tartar/SM1 SAM (40 rounds) and 1 x Mk29 launcher for Sea Sparrow SAM (8+8 rounds in total), plus 1 Goalkeeper. As had the similarly armed L class air defense frigates. Compared to this the new LCF / Zeven Provincien, with 2 Goalkeepers, and 5 mk41 for 32 SM2 and 32 ESSM (minus any cells used for Tomahawks, because a sixth MK41 will not be installed any time soom – economy measure) is similarly a big step up from previous AAW capability, even if a maximum of 32 SM2 may still be on the low side.

The Spanish lineage is from Knox>Baleares to Perry>Santa Maria to F-100. They are all oriented towards general purpose carrier escort role, not necessarily intended as dedicated AAW ships. They are therefore larger and differently armed than dutch and germans GP frigates, making them more similar to those navies’ few dedicated AAW ships.

The spanish approach differs from that of other Euro-carrier-navies UK, France, Italy, in that the latter navies all do employ more of a split of roles between dedicated AAW (Type 42, Suffren/Cassard, Audace/Durand de la Penne) and ASW/GP ships.

🙂

The Fridtjof Nansen class is short on VLS cells though. As delivered it will have only 8. It is fitted-for-but-not-width 16 cells and the structure below deck is supposedly prepared for 32. I would have prefered if it was increased to 32 as soon as possible.

8 cells, that’s still 32 ESSM!

Damn… Why must they insist in the first place???

Logic: It’s quite a natural response my opinion. I mean as
humanoids, mankind just can’t afford to let the black sheeps of the
family pilfer, deplete, or destroy the family’s assets or its resources. No one
can! Not even democratically true societies in the west. So…

“Why make the Chinese an exception to this fact?”

I mean – BE REASONABLE!!!!

Facts: Try split Ireland from the UK and see how Mr. Blair will respond to
that. Or, maybe, try and split one of the main Islands from Japan and see what the
results would be… Or, alternatively still – try and break the province of Punjab away from
New Dehli and see what will be flying in the skies of that Himalayas province or Quebec
from Canada and see the craps that Canucks as myself will be facing…

Or, try and see what happens if for examples that Latino America
insists that they deserves to be freed from their long lost independence
from America; which in fact is what they had been insisting on recent demonstrations
against the recent backlashs mainstream America have against them???

So please!!! Chinese are humans too — just like you and me!
.

In fact, Ireland is THE example for Taiwan as the 26 counties became independent as the country Ireland in 1921 (and 6 remained under British control as Northern Ireland). Big difference is that Ireland was initially invaded, whereas Taiwan is more of the last refuge of the chinese nationalists

The examples of Japan, Canada and India don’t fly IMHO as none of these countries experienced a civil war, like China did. Latin-america may be the USA’s backyard and hence in the US’s sphere of influence but it was never part of it and so that’s not a comparison either.

IMHO maybe more comparable are West- and East Germany, Noth- and South Korea, North- and South Yemen.