crobatofollowing this argumentation would bring empar and others in front of sampson because sampson is also not a lightweight. this shows that weight is not everything.
personally i prefer the idea behind the apar/smart-l combo but it’s hard to make a rating between it and samspon. they differ in many points but in sum i see them head on head.
I am not that hot on the APAR idea. It ties itself to using X-band for the sole purpose so the emissions can also acts as illumination for the SM-2 semi active homers. However, X-band on modulated CWI simply does not have the range and volume of S-band on PRF, the latter probably having a range of 2 or 3x, although APAR delivers the superior resolution. But then of course, having Smart-L to produce an S or L-band or NATO E band for wide volume search mitigates this.
But in the future, to keep using X-band means that your AESA arrays are tied to a Gallium product, GaAs for now. GaN delivers far greater power but at the expense of great heat and so far remains unreliable despite all the research put into it. I won’t throw all my eggs on that one. But if you use S-Band, you open up your array design to use Silicon Carbide, which delivers power densities similar to GaN, but transfers heat better, so far has proven reliable, and a hell of a lot cheaper, enabling the potential to build huge arrays at low costs. Except that SiCa doesn’t do X-band. But it will be perfectly alright if your S-band AESA use SiCa, and S-band is sufficient to provide mid phase updates to any active homing missile (this array cannot do X-band illumination naturally). If you have to use X-band somehow, you have to put a separate small dedicated array, not necessarily an X-band GaAs type AESA, but even a mechanical array.
crobatoSorry but why some one could want SM-2 instead of Aster-30? The european is much better as far as i know.
ASROC: I don’t know about UK, but we use a light torpedo MU-90 delivered by a Teseo ASM missile. The system used the ASM launcher, the missile is called MILAS and it is operative in the italian navy.
It has a better range (35km instead of 28km) and it can be guided (when the missile is away you can update the solution, change the trajectory and change the releasing point).TOMAHAWK: right, is better than Scalp but, look at the spanish: they got the missile, but they are able just to press the “fire” button.
Look, you better ask the builders of the ship (Type 45 Daring Class) and the heads of the RN for this. Because they and its a fact, have an alternative proposal for the Block II ships to use the Mk. 41. The proposal adds a new AESA array for the specific purpose of SM-2 illumination. It appears this is all a serious consideration for the moment, though its not set in stone yet.
crobatoI am considering the scenario of a Navy which has its main objective as Sea Denial somebody like Soviets or chinese. they can afford large warships and might want to carry much more than 8 missiles, So that salvo launch of say 16 to 32 Subsonic Anti-ship missiles on Enemy fleet can do conisiderable damage and also considering each modern frigate/destroyer are carrying anywhere between 30 to 60 SAMs and at times many more point defence missiles, they would capable handling multiple anti-ship attacks aimed at saturating the defences.
the more SSMs launched simultaneously, the more advantage for a Sea Denial Navy trying to defend from large fleet like USN CBGs isn’t it?
I think the Indian Navy is the only Navy in the world that has a brand new design for 16 AshM destroyer.
China has stopped building 16 AshM destroyers some time ago, the last being the Type 052B series in 2003. Since then, every ship only has eight but featured much more comprehensive aerial defenses.
crobatoThe fact is that the EUR/USD rate has risen at least 15% since the closure of the deal. I guess Russians simply kicked out with hard numbers so that they have some gap for upcoming negotiations. Man, one needs a serious set of balls to propose 60% price up… 😉 In the end, if they agree on 25-30% price increase, then both sides might end up satisfied. But it could have a killer impact on the upcoming MRCA deal when the MIG does not hold the best cards even today.
Its either that, or execute a contract where you only end up losing money. Given the option, its better not to have the business. The Russians are just realistic here.
These contracts expect to last for years and thus, they have to make considerations for currency fluctuations.
A strong Euro can affect the Rafale’s financial attractiveness as well in the long run. One cannot compare quotes made from different time periods, contracts and countries. Its only the here and now concrete proposals being given directly. No one should expect buying things at yesterday’s prices. Its a cold hard fact that the costs of acquisition should be reevaluated.
crobatoThe fact is that the EUR/USD rate has risen at least 15% since the closure of the deal. I guess Russians simply kicked out with hard numbers so that they have some gap for upcoming negotiations. Man, one needs a serious set of balls to propose 60% price up… 😉 In the end, if they agree on 25-30% price increase, then both sides might end up satisfied. But it could have a killer impact on the upcoming MRCA deal when the MIG does not hold the best cards even today.
Its either that, or execute a contract where you only end up losing money. Given the option, its better not to have the business. The Russians are just realistic here.
These contracts expect to last for years and thus, they have to make considerations for currency fluctuations.
A strong Euro can affect the Rafale’s financial attractiveness as well in the long run. One cannot compare quotes made from different time periods, contracts and countries. Its only the here and now concrete proposals being given directly. No one should expect buying things at yesterday’s prices. Its a cold hard fact that the costs of acquisition should be reevaluated.
crobatoNo matter guys, PAAMS is better than AEGIS (intended as AAW system, his main role).
First of all, PAAMS doesn’t need something like the AN/SPG-62. What it means? The american use the AN/SPY-1 to track targets, and two, three or four AN/SPG-62 to guide missiles. Each AN/SPG-62 can guide one missile at the same time (it’s a mono-pulse radar); yes, you can shift from one missile to another and, with 4 radars, you can arrive up to 10 – 12 missiles at the same time. But it’s far less effective, expecally against aircrafts or missiles capable of evasive manouevres. Instead of a continuous update, the missile will be updated every two second.
The european system use a total different (and more sophisticated) approach: the main sensor (the Sampson or the Empar) can both track the target and guide up to 12 missiles at the same time.Second: the SM-2 need to be guided to the target with the AN/SPG-62, it’s a semi-active missile and cannot home on target autonomously. Aster need to be guided just up to mid-course, than can home on target with his internal radar. It’s a totally active missile. It’s also more manouvreable: it has the main propulsor and what’s called in french “pilotage en force”, some small rocket-engines used to enchance the missile turning speed.
Third: AEGIS is a 25-years old system, PAAMS is new-born and (if we will have money to do it) has far more possibilities to be upgrated.
And it’s not true that it will not have ATBM capabilites: the S-1850 is able to track ballisitic missiles, using a special operation mode that focus the radar just in one direction (bearing); it was tested, jointly with the americans, two or three years ago. And it’s on study an Aster-30 Block 2 missile, specifically designated for the ATBM role with a kinetic kill veichle instead of high explosive.
Some corrections.
SPY-1 can track multiple targets and send out mid course updates to missiles. SAMPSON does the same thing. Both are pulse S-band radars. The beauty of SAMPSON is that it is placed on top of a tall mast, even taller than even APAR which comes second place on this regard. The taller you are placed, the farther your radar horizon can reach allowing for earlier target engagement. This is the biggest advantage of the SAMPSON, all others like being AESA or using ARH missiles, should take their places behind.
The SPG-69 is not a monopulse radar. Its a simple X-band continuous wave illuminator. It by itself does not process radar returns, and therefore it does not track—its slaved to the SPY-1. So if the SPY-1 shines a target there, the SPG-69 follows. This is different from other fire control radars where only the initial track of the target is handed from the aerial search radar. These FCRs will then track the targets themselves, processing the radar returns autonomously and keeping track of the engaged targets automatically, while their beams also provide illumination for SARH missiles. Generally the latter type of FCRs uses various modulated X-band CWI. A good example of this is APAR.
For SAMPSON to support SM-2, a second illumination array is proposed for this type. This is contrast to APAR, which handles both tracking and terminal end guidance illumination at the same time.
The reason for the PAAMs to consider accommodating the SM-2, in a proposed future Type 45 is because of the issue of the Mk 41 launcher vs. the Sylver launcher. The Mk. 41 allows for other options like ASROCs to Tomahawks, whereas the Sylver currently limits to Asters, and needs to increase its missile options like getting SCALP.
crobatoPrices are not stable in the long term due to monetary fluctuations. The Russians are compensating for the double digit inflation they have on their own economy as well as the projected declines in the US dollar value. Given this, previous quotes for the Rafale can be disregarded as stable. If the Euro goes up in the long term, so will the price of the Rafale.
The real question for the Indians is how much US dollars they have in reserve US dollars cannot be converted to Rupees in large amounts without creating inflationary pressures on the local economy and thus must be spent on foreign purchases. The other is how much the planes are valued in terms of Rupees and if the Rupee will strengthen or depreciate.
crobatoPrices are not stable in the long term due to monetary fluctuations. The Russians are compensating for the double digit inflation they have on their own economy as well as the projected declines in the US dollar value. Given this, previous quotes for the Rafale can be disregarded as stable. If the Euro goes up in the long term, so will the price of the Rafale.
The real question for the Indians is how much US dollars they have in reserve US dollars cannot be converted to Rupees in large amounts without creating inflationary pressures on the local economy and thus must be spent on foreign purchases. The other is how much the planes are valued in terms of Rupees and if the Rupee will strengthen or depreciate.
crobatoYou know what they say “the louder they talk. . .”
There has been so many howooo when I left.
Sooner or later the UN will register me as WMS or Weapon of Mass Satisfaction.
crobatoYou know what they say “the louder they talk. . .”
There has been so many howooo when I left.
Sooner or later the UN will register me as WMS or Weapon of Mass Satisfaction.
crobatoWell, if the Chinese Goverment ever gives us a look at the two Carriers under construction. I would be happy to concede…………………Of course I would bet my life on that one.:(
It won’t be hard to prove or disprove. Commercial airlines overfly that shipyard on the landing approach and sooner or later, someone is going to take a shot out of the window.
crobatoROFLOL. :rolleyes: And which donkey will attest to that?
The ones I split open from the back…
crobatoROFLOL. :rolleyes: And which donkey will attest to that?
The ones I split open from the back…
crobatoI wonder what you will be remembered by………….;)
Only for my sexual prowess. 🙂
crobatoI wonder what you will be remembered by………….;)
Only for my sexual prowess. 🙂
Sign In
