Why would the Viggen be 2nd best to the F-4 though?.

Viggen was perhaps more ‘home nation optimised’ than a 70’s F-4 but its still very well rounded set of capabilities offered by the generic airframe.

Any known examples of DACT between Viggen and the F-4?. I recall reading of F-16’s absolutely trouncing Viggens in DACT but, somehow, I’d not expect a Phantom to accomplish the same thing.

10m resolution is used to determined if object is a carrier, not for search mode. Much lower resolution is used to paint a wide swath in search mode.

Exactly the problem!.

The search strip, to get the depth of coverage, is at a resolution much lower than that required to get details sufficient to clearly identify the carrier. Using a satellite to target for an OTH missile shot directly is a gamble in any environment where other vessels the same size as a carrier could be. Off the North Cape this might not have been such a huge issue….the South China Sea is a somewhat different kettle of fish though!.

The simple fact remains though that you cant zoom in a SAR radar unless you are spot imaging and you cant spot image until you have a defined target to image!!!.

The US-A series was discontinued in the mid-80’s and was the nuclear-powered version. It was the loss of that capability that crippled the Legenda targetting system that might just have seen the P-500’s and P-700’s become viable anticarrier weapon.

The US-P (as well as the follow on US-PU/PM vehicles) wasn’t nuclear and was a pure passive ELINT bird that relied on the US group emitting on something powerful and recognisable to track it. I say was because the last one de-orbited without replacement in February!.

Satellites finding a carrier……hahahaha 😉

The better example perhaps is the Dutch Zeven Provincien class. 6000 tons with ABM, AAW potential for TLAM. again only one helicopter but 1000 tons under specs.

It was the LCF I was loosely referring to with the ‘nothing magic’ comment. With cells split off for TLAM, ABM’s and quadpack ESSM the amount left for AAW is sorely limited for anything over a modest threat level environment. Plus the range of the Zeven Provs is wholly ineadequate for RN needs, plus, as you indicate the ASW is nowhere near what we’d need!. 1000tons displacement isnt going to do much to change that.

Matt,

Indeed. The old witicism about an elephant being a horse as designed by commitee is well known. Seeing the big gray horse’s specs being laid down as a live process I never expected to see!.:D

Ed,

I fear you are thinking too conventionally here. Any structure the Georgians put in place the Russians can dismantle with shocking effectiveness. That goes for hard surface strips that can be identified and hit or conventional air defence nets based around Patriots, I-HAWKS, Rapiers or whatever. The more rigid and conventional the defences the more it will suit the Russians exisiting conventional capability to defeat it.

The only prayer that the Georgians have for keeping forces in the field is to keep them hard to find and build in as much redundancy as practical. That means passive sensors wherever possible. Forget high power SAM radars – think PCLS (Czech Tamara/Vera or LockMart Silent Sentry etc) for volume search and optronics for cueing. Lots of ground-based countermeasures systems – chaff launchers, multispectral smoke generators, decoys and mobile EW vehicles to overload and misdirect Russian targetting capability. You want the Russians tied up trying to sort out what to shoot at first so theyre not tied up blasting your assets to scrap!.

I appreciate what you are saying about the Gripen having a short field capability, but, you are still talking about a requirement for several hundred yards of flat level tarmac with no median and no streetlights etc. These are likely to have to be developed, limited in number, and will be recognisable from opfor recon. Harrier, on the other hand, needs a mere few hundred feet for a rolling jump and is little bothered by even a modest gradient – something much easier to find on most road networks without prior preparation. Remember too that the forward deployment capability for Harrier is proven under austere FOB conditions. Yes it does require maintenance, but, operationally its not done too bad so far!

MisterQ’s comment is a very sound one in general – we’re all agreed that SAM’s are a higher priority than fighters here. If they were to want to acquire a useful tacair capability, my view, is that Harrier is the only one that offers viable capability given their strategic and tactical situation!.

Echo,

This is getting a bit tedious for all concerned now. You’ve gone on record here stating that all manner of assets are available for targetting and identifying ships from the captains of tramp steamers to James Bond yet you have been able to support none of them when questioned. You havent indicated a single asset capable of providing surviveable targetting nor evidence of a successful coordinated strike on a CVBG/CVSG that was attempting evasion…not one by the Soviets, Russians or Chinese. Yet I’m in dreamland?.

On Earth, nations don’t sneak attack on other nations, well, not anymore at least – in terms of the nations we are talking about here. Any escalation would be well prepared for.

This is getting outrageous. If there is one lesson that the MC02 exercise, you cite so readily, taught its that leaving an opponents offensive infrastructure intact if you are planning to close his coast isnt very clever. Realistically this isnt a huge revelation in military thought as people have been reducing coastal defences, of one type or another, going back to the days of muzzle-loading cannon and square rigs!.

First principle of modern military doctrine is the manoeuver to gain optimal positioning for the employment of your weapons whilst minimising your vulnerability to threat systems. If that sees the USN salvoing TLAM 500km offshore they would have little compunction about it. Ask anyone living on the Falklands in 1982 if sneak attacks are still a feature of modern combat!.

Unless you are an ex-Soviet Navy captain, or in the Russian military, which you are not, your / their insights aren’t as valuable as you may think.

…and thats the last straw. You know nothing of what you are talking about, seemingly arent interested in actually learning the history of the weapons systems you so revere, and their many shortcomings, and ascribe knowledge of these inherent flaws as western naval fantasy?.

This is is obviously pointless and I’ll waste no more effort on you. I will leave you with one last ‘exercise for the student’ though. Look up the number of OTH antiship missiles that have actually been fired – starting with the Eilat sinking in 67 – then find the number that actually hit their intended target. The answer might teach you something!

So the general proposals for a country thats just found its airbases targetted, and been the recipient of TBM strikes from a neighbour liberally equipped with many different types of standoff weapon, is that it should buy a type thats dependent on a large paved, fixed, runway?. If the Goergians oppose Russia with a comprehensive fighter capability then there is no way those bases could be allowed to survive to generate a second or third sortie per airframe!.

The definition of a ‘good’ type for the Georgians would be something rough-field deployable, BVR/PGM capable and cheap. Range and performance could be considered secondary as the targets are never going to be far away!. That criteria list spits out an obvious contender – Harrier II Plus. At a pinch we still have FA2’s that could give a BVR and ARM capability probably for pocket change the way we sell stuff off!.

Get a few dozen civillian petrol stations scattered about, possessed of a short stretch of highway in front, discretely outfitted with an extra storage tank for Jet-A and have maintenance/ordnance crews mobile in standard army trucks continually driving round a ‘delivery route’. Lots of possible generation sites gives the Russians a targetting headache trying to knock them all down and could provide ‘easy’ targets for the mobile SAM batteries that would have to be the Georgians primary purchase.

On the SAM front I’d be looking at the truck-mount VLMICA system. Can cue off passive optronics and can work single-vehicle standalone or netted. Perfect SAM trap material.