Wanshankashtan each have 2 FC systems one IR/Optical the other being radar.
Yes, but that doesn’t mean each fighting module can use its 2 FC systems simultaneously on 2 different targets does it? Most radar tracker-illiminator radars these days also have IR/Optical equipment on the same mount. But use of a single mount means you can’t point radar one way and IR/optical components another so effectively you have one integrated sensor.
WanshanWhich wouldn’t rule out influence on R-33S or R-37 for later version Mig31.
Anyway, all you had to do is provide a single credible source in support of your point of view. Since you don’t, I will help you:
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_371.shtml
Of course, its just another website and there are many which give a different view. But like I said, neither of use can provide definitive proof either way.
WanshanWan,
I’m assuming you’re incorporating the missile rounds employed by the CIWS mount there for your 88 total?. Fair comment and its illustrative of the one meaningful advantage the Krivak-III has over the 23 – one extra missile fire channel close in!.
As I alluded to earlier though there are more subtle ways of negating the ARH missile threat than just hardkill. The T23’s design makes it a very difficult target, for an active seeker, for reasons which are nothing to do with ‘conventional’ angled-bulkhead stealth treatment. On top of this the Outfit DLH and Racal Scorpion installations add to a very comprehensive softkill defensive suite!.
As I said earlier I know which ship I’d be serving on in a missile attack had I the choice and it’d not be the Russian ship even with its extra fire-channel and impressive SAM complement!.
I’ld probably make the same choice 😉 Nonetheless, doesn’t the Talwar have more than 3 channels? I mean, there are 4 Front Dome directors associated with the Shtil missile system alone. Together with 2 Kashtans with integral radars, that make 6 radar fire control channels for SAMs IMHO. As compared to just 2 in type 23. Or were you referring to the Neustrashimy (2 Kashtan + 1 Cross Dome associated with Klinok)?
WanshanOk but this still leaves Type 23 with only 32 SAMs versus 88 on Talwar. This might give Talwar a better fighting chance (more missiles per target, able to defend against longer sustained attack or a series of attacks). Or it could mean a Talwar would be sunk just as quick as a Duke but with more missiles remaining on board. For last ditch defense, you can’t really compare the firepower of 2×2 6-barrel gatlings with that of 2x single 30mm Oerlikon, even if the latter fires a more powerfull round, can you?
WanshanWhat I originally posted was:
“… It is widely belived that an undisclosed number of F-14s and Phoenix missiles were traded with the Soviet Uniion in exchange for other military hardware. This allowed the Soviets access not only to the Phoenix but also to the Tomcat’s AWG-9 wepons system and this is thought to have played a major part in the development of the MIG-31 Foxhound and AA-9 Amos missile, as well as helping to develop countermeasures to American systems…”
An AirForces special monthly/ F-14 & F/A-18.
When you commented: Except the radar in the Mig-31 is nothing like the radar in the F-14 and the R-33 is nothing like the Phoenix. The R-33 is SAR.
I replied: Nobody said they were similar. Besides, even if dissimilar, that doesn’t mean the Russians couldn’t have learned from taking a look at those choice items of equipment.
I also made this quote from http://www.airtoaircombat.com/background.asp?id=14&bg=5 :
“Despite the Iranian regime’s official anti-Communist stance (the Communist Party is officially banned in Iran), there are persistent rumors that one or perhaps several IRIAF F-14A were delivered to the Soviet Union in exchange for other arms assistance. At least one Iranian F-14A crew has reportedly defected to the Soviet Union. There is every reason to believe that the F-14A, its AWG-9 fire control system, and its Phoenix missiles were completely compromised at this time. An examination of the Phoenix supposedly helped the Soviets to build the Vympel R-33 (known in the West as AA-9 Amos) long-range missiles which arm the MiG-31 Foxhound. However, Gennadiy Sokolovskiy of the Vympel Design Bureau denies that the R-33 was based on the AIM-54 Phoenix, maintaining that he has never actually seen a live Phoenix. “
You maintain I make unsubstantiated statements that I represent as fact? The fact is that neither of us can definitively prove our point of view on the basis of the non-classified material that is available in the public domain and that was presented in this thread. In fact, I have yet to see you provide sources for your point of view.
Here is another one of your misrepresentations of my post:
Wanshan: By 1960 the development of a trio of Mach 3 aircraft, the A-12, YF-12 and SR-71, was under way. The MiG-25 was originally designed as a counter for the this trio, and not the XB-70A Valkyrie as is commonly believed. Relatively recent revelations by the MiG OKB (notably by R.A. Belyakov, the OKB’s current head) have dispelled this myth. Now, does the Mig 25 look anything like the A-11/A12/SR-71 or XB-70A?
GarryB: So now you are saying the mig-25 is a copy of the A11,A12,SR-71 or XB-70A?
I think you are mainly having at me because of a post I made in another forum which you didn’t like. I also think that this discussion has gone on long enough and is messing up this thread for other people that were interested in it. Which is why I will refrain from any further comments.
WanshanWeapons fit, on paper, seems to favour the Indian ship. In reality though I think the circumstances where the advantages would tell are quite limited. Shtil has little real cross range ability and is, effectively, ‘just’ a PDMS. Against inbound missiles its range, again from memory, is on the order of 10km or so. The difference between that and GWS26 Sea Wolf being a mere few kms and, essentially, irrelevent in any practical terms.
The range of 9M38M1 missile SA-N-7 (Shtil) is up to 25km against targets with speeds up to 830m/s. Range against aircraft targets at altitudes above 1,000 metres 3.5 to 25 kilometres, range against aircraft targets at altitudes below 1,000 metres 3.5 to 18 kilometres, range against incoming antiship missiles 3.5 to 12 kilometres. Improved 9M38M2 SA-N-12 has a range of at least 32km and maximum range of 45 km
WanshanIMHO Talwar does not surpass Duke as easily as was suggested. Nonetheless, comparison between Type 23 and Neustrashimy may be more appropriate. Main differences between Neustrashimy and Talwar are main SAM (Klinok v. Shtil), AShM (Vodopad/Starfish v. Klub-N) and torpedo launch systems (2×3 fixed v. 2×2 trainable)
Type 23 Duke
Key Statistics
Displacement: 4,900 tonnes
Length: 133m / 436ft
Beam: 16.1m / 52.9ft
Complement: 185
Armament:
2 x Quad Harpoon Missile launchers
Vertical Launch Sea Wolf anti-missile system (32 missiles)
1x 4.5in (114mm) MK 8 gun
2 x Oerlikon/DES 30mm Close range guns
2 x Magazine launched lightweight anti-submarine torpedo tubes (Stingray)
NATO Seagnat and DLF3 Decoy Launchers
Sensors:
Type 1007 navigation radar
Type 996 air/surface surveillance radar
2 x Type 911 Sea Wolf tracking radars
UAT Electronic Surveillance System
Type 2050 active sonar
Aircraft: MK 8 Lynx or EH-101 Merlin helicopter:
Armament:
Sea Skua anti-ship missiles
Stingray anti-submarine torpedoes
Mk 11 depth charges
Machine guns
Propulsion: CODLAG (Combined Diesel and Gas) –
Turbines: 2 x Rolls Royce Spey gas boost
Diesels: 4 x GEC-Alsthom Paxman Valenta
Electric: 2 x GEC motors
Project 11540 Neustrashimy
Key Statistics
Displacement: 4,400 tons full load
Length: 129.6m
Beam: 15.6m
Complement: 210
Armament:
1x RBU-6000 rocket launcher
4x Kinzhal VLS systems (32 9M-330 Klinok /SA-N-9 Gauntlet SAM)
1x 3.9 in (100mm) /70cal DP gun
2x CADS-N-1/Kortik CIWS systems (2×2 30mm gatling, 2×32 9M-311/SA-N-11 Grison SAM)
2×3 Magazine launched heavyweight torpedo tubes (ASW/ASuW torpedos, SS-N-15 (Starfish) AShM)
PK-10 and PK-16 decoy launchers
Sensors:
1 MR-760 Fregat-MA/Top Plate 3-D air search Radar
1 MR-352 Pozitiv/Cross Dome SSM targeting
1 MR-360 Podkat/Cross Sword SAM control
1 Zvezda-1 Sonar suite
1 MGK-345 Bronza/Ox Yoke hull mounted LF Sonar
1 Ox Tail LF VDS Sonar
Aircraft: 1 Ka 27/28 series helicopters:
Armament:
homing torpedo,
torpedo rocket,
PLAB 250-120 bombs
OMAB bombs
Propulsion: COGAG (Combined Gas and Gas) –
Cruise Turbines: 2 cruise gas turbines 20,000 shp
Boost Turbines: 2 boost gas turbines 37,000 shp
Electric: 5 diesel generators, 3 generating 600 kW each and 2 generating 800 kW each
WanshanMany of the older boats in the Saar series were scrapped or have been passed on to other navy’s e.g. Chili (Casma class = Sa’ar 4 type), Mexico (Aliya class = Sa’ar 4.5 type). So, you might be able to find a few pics of these boats with other Nation’s navies. Also search on “cherbourg boats” as the first boats were were built there and there’s a whole interesting story connected with that.
WanshanWanshan: As for the F-14, the Shah had wanted an interceptor that could deal with intrusions by Soviet MiG-25 reconnaissance aircraft over Iran’s northern border. The Tomcat and its Phoenix missile seemed to fit the bill. It is known that the Soviet Union obtained both the F-14 and the Phoenix missile for reverse-engineering from Iran.
GarryB: Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha… what did you just say!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Shah spent hundreds of millions on an aircraft and missile and then handed that missile and aircraft over to the country it was going to use them against!!!!! Iran has NEVER been that friendly to the Soviet Union.
Wanshan: Iran under the Shah ordered F14/Phoenix, Iran under the Mullahs passed F14/Phoenix on to the Soviets. Different regime, different international relations. I’m sure that the Iran of the Mullahs got something in exchange.
GarryB: Except the Soviets were a major supplier of Iraqi weapons and of course being athiest infidels were never actually friends of Iran. They might have bought some Soviet products but they were never anything close to buddies. The Iranians had no guarantee that any shared F-14 technology wouldn’t be sold to Iraq… even if it was just a SAM upgrade or AAM upgrade to defeat F-14s rather than a whole new weapon system to counter it.
Did I say the Shah passed anything on? No. I said Russia apparently obtained respective items from Iran.
Did I say the Mullahs were big friends with the soviet russia? No, I said that Russia got the items after the revolution.
This is just one example…
Draw whatever conclusions you want. And point out what mistake you are talking about, cause I don’t think I made one.
WanshanI saw this. On some other forum people were insisting the MC130 had been shot down, they couldn’t believe something like this could happen by accident. They went as far as to suggest the pit was dug after the plane crashlanded after it had been hit … :rolleyes:
WanshanRe-engining your Trackers doesn’t mean they are reborn. The Taiwanese S-2T aren’t really flying the tiles of the roof, you know…
Airframes age, I know. So what else is new?
ps. sorry about that terrible disabled hotlink (removed)
WanshanGarry, you’re continuosly putting words and conclusion in my mouth that I didn’t say. Besides, I have neither the time nor the desire and energy to debade every single sentence with you. I’m merely putting foreward information on a topic as I have found it on the internet and as I summarize and interpret that information. Frankly, I don’t give a hoot what was based on what and what wasn’t. You need to have the last word? Fine with me.
WanshanI doubt Iran was ever pro-USSR. After the revolution they had to turn to the small satan for weapons. That doesn’t necessarily mean they buddied up.
WanshanSo you’re asking to prove a negative? A bit cheeky, i think. But perhaps you will be satisfied in knowing that the MiG-31 actually flew before any F-14s had been delivered to Iran. Also, the PESA radar of the -31 is quite different from the AWG-9 which is pretty much a traditional (yet highly effective) radar.
I’m not asking any proof, I am just curious.
“Designed as a long-range, extended-endurance PVO interceptor to replace the Tu-128 ad MiG-25. Development began in 1967 and the S-155MP avionics complex was ordered for the Ye-155MP interceptor in 1968. First flown, as Ye-155MP (originally Type 83 MiG-25MP) “831”, 16 September 1975; second prototype (“832″), with radar, first flew 22 April 1976. Two preproduction aircraft (011 and 012) built by Sokol and flown 13 July and 30 June 1977; six development aircraft (201 to 203 and 301 to 303). Full production (of about 450) started 1979; first of 11 regiments operational 1983, replacing MiG-23s and Su-15s; production has ceased at Sokol Aircraft Building Plant (formerly GAZ-21), Nizhny Novgorod, though the Sokol plant has stated its willingness to reinstate production to meet even small orders.”
“The first of 80 Tomcats arrived in Iran in January of 1976. By May of 1977, when Iran celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Royal House, 12 had been delivered. The last of 79 Tomcats were delivered to Iran in 1978.”
“Despite the Iranian regime’s official anti-Communist stance (the Communist Party is officially banned in Iran), there are persistent rumors that one or perhaps several IRIAF F-14A were delivered to the Soviet Union in exchange for other arms assistance. At least one Iranian F-14A crew has reportedly defected to the Soviet Union. There is every reason to believe that the F-14A, its AWG-9 fire control system, and its Phoenix missiles were completely compromised at this time. An examination of the Phoenix supposedly helped the Soviets to build the Vympel R-33 (known in the West as AA-9 Amos) long-range missiles which arm the MiG-31 Foxhound. However, Gennadiy Sokolovskiy of the Vympel Design Bureau denies that the R-33 was based on the AIM-54 Phoenix, maintaining that he has never actually seen a live Phoenix. “
source page
If F14/Phoenix went to Russia, it was after 1979 during the 1980s so any info gained would not be employed on initial produciton aircraft, if at all as this source suggests only the missile technology may have been of use. Stil, this does not rule out influence on later model Mig31 aircraft (B, BM, E and M) , does it? I’m not saying this was the case, just that you can’t rule the possibility out off-hand.
WanshanMaintaining the old Wright Cyclones is becoming increasingly difficult, and so “Turbo Tracker” conversions are becoming popular. The engines of choice are the Garrett TPE331 or the Pratt & Whitney Canada (PWC) PT6A turboprop, both typically rated at 1,227 kW (1,645 SHP), and conversions have been performed by a number of companies:
Retrofitting the S-2 with new turboprop engines had the effect of increasing the payload, economy and airspeed. In addition, these new powerplants have the capability of reversing upon landing to slow the aircraft safely at short airstrips and can also provide air conditioning in the cabin.
Brazil planned to perform a turbo upgrade on their Trackers, working with IMP of Halifax, Nova Scotia, to upgrade an initial machine as a prototype using Pratt & Whitney Canada (PWC) PT6A engines rather than the Garrett TPE331 use e.g. by Argentina on its Trackers.
The upgrade was not regarded as satisfactory, the turboprops lacking adequate performance to get the aircraft back up into the air after a “bolter” on carrier deck landing, and the program was cancelled. The Brazilian Trackers were then retired, one being donated to the Brazilian Air Force (FAB) museum in Rio de Janiero, and the others were mothballed. Although the Trackers were operated off the Brazilian Navy carrier MINAS GERAIS (named after a Brazilian state), they were flown and maintained by FAB crews.
However, the Brazilian Navy has considered pulling them out of storage and converting them to an AEW configuration, using a compact radar like the Brazilian Searchwater 2000 that could fit into the original Tracker belly radome.
Sign In
