JonesyDoesn’t it look bizarre that every time a western navy boat was touched by an antiship missile, the electronic defenses systems were said to be switched off ? Hanit system on stand by, USS Stark same claim, Sheffield systems were supposedly shut down to prevent jamming the satellite communication 😮
Am I the only one who find that strange ? :diablo:
Its an interesting observation Torpedo….nothing more than coincidence and verification of what Unicorn says in that even the worlds finest defensive systems are prone to failure if no-one remembers to switch them on!.
Another interesting observation is that no vessel, in the Falklands conflict, that commenced defensive softkill procedures was hit by an AM39. We have the anecdotal evidence therefore that 3 vessels have been hit that took no countermeasures and, at least, 2 vessels that did employ defensive measures that have defeated similar missiles.
Pattern emerging perhaps?:)
JonesyChristmas cards heading to Oz this year then!. Let me have an address by roughly October and I’ll make sure of it :). Sincere thanks Tiddles and Unicorn – if either of you gentlemen see or hear anything else I, for one, would be obliged….?!.:cool:
Wan,
Phalanx might fit up there in place of the GWS26 directors, but, no chance on Goalkeeper unless they built up a deckhouse to mount it. The deck penetration requirement is significant for Goalkeeper.
There is meant to be a bit of margin in the design in topweight terms, I would think enough for the mountings themselves, but not much more. The boats were not really designed, initially, for major weapons upgrades as they expected the class lifespan to be only 16-18 years or so.
I heard something the other day, from an unameable source, that the RN were in the process of drawing down the Goalkeeper system in favour of Phalanx anyway. The thinking being that, pretty soon, we will have Aster and SeaWolf for any big supersonic bruisers that come our way and that Phalanx is quite sufficient for the Harpoon/AM39 threat for the immediate future.
JonesySickening to think that some little oik could’ve done this deliberately. Took my daughter over the boat last year and was suprised at how very solid she felt for all her years. Difficult to imagine the privations of a transoceanic journey on her though!.
The good news is that it seems the damage done has been limited by the fortunate happenstance that the masts, upperworks and large parts of the planking had already been stripped off for renovation. They’re saying that much of the existing planking has survived pretty well intact too.
God awful images of the ship ablaze but, thankfully, here they dont seem to tell the full story.
JonesyUnless something went very amiss the first contact with a picket line of SSK’s in blue water should be from USN SURTASS!. First contact for the SSK’s should be from an alerted USN or Allied SSN!.:diablo:
Seriously, identifying such picket lines is part of the whole raison d’etre for SURTASS and its a system that I can not praise too highly. Often under-rated and overlooked bizarrely enough – seeings the accepted wisdom of AWACS in the aerial arena – one suspects that its the way the USN and JMSDF quite like it though!. If I had to face either of those services the SURTASS boats would be top of my want-to-kill list and I’d expend many assets to achieve the goal.
The Japanese and Aussie boats I mentioned would stand a better chance because of their near-SSN sensor fits. The AIP alleged to be on the new Oyashios would help a bit too, but, the disadvantages are ever-present. SSK’s just aren’t great at long submerged transits with any discretion. The UK O’class boat that went down to the Falklands in 82, for example, travelled on the surface a great part of the way – quicker but obviously not very discrete either!.
IF the surface group happened to tramp along straight at an SSK, IF the group commander lost all his marbles and decided not to zigzag, IF the SSK happened to have a good battery charge and could get away without snorting for a bit, IF it had sensors acute enough to catch an SSN after it dropped off the sprint THEN the SSK has a fighting chance at achieving something. Otherwise the smart SSK skipper stays in the shallows were he can hide in the flow noise.
JonesyWith Carrier Battle Groups (CVBG) operating in the deep blue waters (and at speed) far from shore. Is it even practical for a SSK to attack one unless they just so happen to be in the right place at the right time?
With the notable exceptions of the Aussie Collins and the Japanese Oyashio’s I’d doubt that a solo SSK would even get a detect on a US CVBG, that it hadn’t previously been steered in on, unless they happened to get within about 2 Convergence Zones of the battlegroups line of advance.
What you have to do with SSK’s is set a picket line with a number of boats and hope that something crosses the line to be detected – just the same as the Kriegsmarine employed U-Boats in WW2. Problem with this is that if the surface group is running at 20 knots or more it may be impossible for your picket line to redeploy in time to get position for the shot. A second picket line could be set behind the first but suddenly you are deploying a LOT of boats!.
JonesyHow would a SSN screen a USN Carrier Battle Group? Would it place itself in front of a Carrier Battle Groups project path or would it just run in concert?
They already do, in a loose sense, and have been components of USN CVBG/CVSG’s for a very long time. If they operate anything like the RN does they do not chop to the command of the CVSG Flag, but, are detailed to stay loosely with the group, racing ahead and then drifting, on rough line of advance for an additional ASW/ASuW layer.
JonesyPhixer,
However whether or not diesel sub’s can keep up very much depends upon the nature of the military task under way and the type of waters in which it is being carried out including the distances from which the opposition is operating.
Yup cant argue with that. SSK’s can be part of fleet operations once that fleet has arrived at its destination sure enough – Onyx did that in 82 perfectly well. The point I was making was that, in reference to the Pagean contention, its going to be plainly unfair asking a diesel boat skipper to try and keep up with a 25knot carrier group…let alone screen for it. that is the job of a Fleet submarine!.
Arguably with a larger airgroup based on more than one carrier (what used to be considered the bare minimum for secure operations) enabling sufficient numbers of a wider mix of aircraft types (avoiding the hideous expense and compromises of too many roles in one airframe) then ASW and AEW could be effective in most weathers that any opposing submarine could operate in
Hopefully this is answered to some extent by the pic below taken from an Ula class SSK as it ‘sank’ HMS Albion!. In fairness to your point about the escorts taking a weather impact, during this exercise, a Type 23 (albeit minus 2087 sonar) was consorting Albion and she got sunk too!. The point is that in the conditions indicated the Merlins are not going to get off the deck so an escort towing an active array might be the only chance of keeping your airgroup on the top of the oggin instead of beneath it. Classic screening duties!
JonesyI could not agree more, what the hell is the point in a V/STOL super carrier?:confused:
Two words….Carrier Strike.
In many ways this is the antithesis of the Russian Air Defence Ship concept. For that type of vessel high sortie rates are less important than the ability to put up a few powerful air defence types supported by a powerful shipboard radar suite. STOBAR works, Su-33 works, shame about Mars-Passat but two out of three aint bad for a service who’s naval air is still on training wheels!.
For the carrier strike role sortie generation is all important as you could be the sole tacair support provider to deployed forces ashore. Put simply you need to be able to keep up a high tempo of launches and recoveries to keep the ordnance going down-range. STOVL offers the best way to keep up high optempo strike operations without getting into the 100,000ton supercarrier territory.
Essentially this is not a vessel that is optimised for the Red Storm Rising scenario of fending off the Backfire regiments on its way around the North Cape to Murmansk to fly off SIOP strikes against the ‘evil empire’!. Luckily the mission CVF will, initially, be tasked for bears very little relation to any scenario Messrs Clancy and Bond wrote about though. That is the operation of up to three F-35B squadrons in addition to squadrons of ASW and assault choppers in support of missions ashore.
Its size and layout give it the option to be reconfigured, later in its life, should a powerful blue water threat re-emerge to provide EMCATs and an arresting engine for conventional CATOBAR. If, by that time, DEW’s havent rendered manned aircraft obsolescent and UCAV’s haven’t scaled down in size (or scaled up in power output) to obviate the need for cats.
JonesyThe Bars DID achieve that range versus a Su-27. Not exactly the smallest fighter RCS available, but a fighter nonetheless and a far cry from something like a heavy multi-engine transport.
Ok there is truly nothing magical about getting a hit on a 20 sq.m air target at 300km. Traditionally you need a converted airliner to carry the generators and processing capability necessary to provide that much power and to be able to make sense of the huge number of returns you get from operating a radar at that kind of output. Yes I’m sure that Foxhound/Zaslon can do the same thing but that is hardly an agile, supermanoeverable, multirole fighter is it?.
At any rate, Bars is a *very* heavy radar (probably the heaviest on any modern fighter by quite a margin) that only a Su-30MKI-class airframe could get away with and not experience significant performance degradation, so these capabilities come at a price.
By any standards this a powerful PESA radar, so, it is going to be heavy and power-hungry. The tradeoff Flanker has made in order to be able to carry an AI set like this is that it is big and has the corresponding RCS. As addressed earlier there is still no verifiable source evidence provided to say that BARS is capable of a 330km detect against a circa 15-20 sq.m target under normal operating conditions. Until such a time as that is proven the Flanker, by virtue of its size, is still at a disadvantage against CAPTOR Typhoon and more so against CAPTOR Typhoon/Meteor.
JonesyNow a battle group of carriers with a balanced air-group and subs (mix of diesel and nuc’s) could offset the need for many escorts which TBH can barely look after themselves with their weapon fits alone. See Lewis Page e.g.
The mistake you make there is taking what Lewis Page, fine gentleman that he is, seriously. Escorts screen aircraft carriers and are more than capable of defending themselves if designed to the task. Remove the screen and the carrier is a dead duck as soon as the ASW air screen is deck-bound through bad weather!
Relying on SSN’s completely for an ASW screen is lunacy owing to the fact that most of the time you cant talk to them! Diesel subs dont do fleet operations either – they cant keep up.
JonesyStar
I am sure they were not tracking An-124 for tests. this will be hilarious. and too costly
The point being though that the article does not state the RCS value for the air target tracked at that range. Therefore it is hardly something to quote in support of a claim that the Russian set tracks enemy fighters at 330km – which is what we were discussing.
Since it is Sukhoi testing area (Irkut) so possiblity of smaller MIG is less. MIG-31 is bigger but tech is essentially the same.
So the MiG-31’s onboard power generation capability, to drive a monster array like Zaslon, is identical to that on a Flanker?. The Foxhounds processing capability is no different to Flankers?. Afer all its no good having all that radar power and identifying every offset flock of birds as a Rafale 300km off is it?!
You’ll excuse me if I think that the many gaps in the available information make this concept of a 300km fighter detect off Bars a bit clouded!.
what is ur opinion about latest APG-73/79?.
Dont really have one to be honest. Heard that they are hitting capability limits on the modes that their AESA’s are set up with now and there’s not much room for growth adding further modes down the track.
JonesyStar,
The export variant can track over 10 targets and shoot at four, but these numbers will grow with new software releases, the company says, adding that, in flight-testing,the radar detected an air target at 330km (180nm)
That doesnt say a fighter sized target at 330km though does it?. It says an air target at 330km. I am quite willing to believe that a high powered PESA like this will pick out a C-5 Galaxy at that range. I have a harder time with accepting it would pick up a Rafale at the same range!. The MiG-31 and its Zaslon radar are, as far as I am aware, a very different setup than Bars so saying that Zaslon can detect an x sq.m target at y range really doesnt prove much for Bars does it?!.
JonesyStar
Strange that you put the range for the Russian radar set so high. JED actually says the following about Bars-M:
The Bars M can track up to 15 targets simultaneously, while still searching for other ones. It has range of 120-130 km against fighter-type targets head-on and a range of 60 km in chase.
Which is in the same ballpark as what Blue Vixen can achieve. The figure of 330km for a 15-20 sq.m target is closer to APY-1/2 performance than any fighter set I’ve ever heard of!. Is there a source for the 300km claim?.
JonesyStar
why would be R-77 range shorter than comparable size western missile. Russian missiles usually have longer ranges than Western counterpart.
Russian BVR missiles usually have very poor pK’s too so case by case might be good rather than generalisation. As I stated the information I read, some years ago, was that there was no loft profile for R-77 and, because of this, frontal aspect shot range was a ways down on that achieveable by AIM-120. As I said to Ankush I’d appreciate correction on that if I’m wrong – lets see your source for the loft-trajectory being incorporated.
the only open source information is this. and there was no BARS-MK3 for Malaysian to evaluate in 2001-2002 period. and I doubt Captor has more range than latest APG-73 let alone APG-79. Typhoon nose is too small.
Net trawl over multiple sites gives a general indication of 150-160km for a ‘fighter RCS-sized’ target for the Russian set and circa 160km for CAPTOR. You may think that the Typhoons nose is ‘too small’ if you wish – it doesnt really have all that much bearing on the issue. What I will tell you is that the listed range is not unreasonable given the performance I know its predecessor was capable of.
I dont think so. Infact EF is generation behind MKI. The IRST that unveiled for export during MAKS-2003 has alteast 50kM range in frontal and 90KM in back. Current IRST systems are alteast two generations newer than this. So i dont think typhoon has any RCS advantage if it is using ET otherwise it is too short range for any meaningful fight.
Not too sure where your going with IRST’s and RCS but I was actually referring to the track handoff capabilities, the pilot interface etc, etc when I mentioned ‘battle management’ systems. As Ankush notes having a Guy In the Back is also an effective method of keeping situational awareness up. Does tend to makes ones aircraft a bit larger though and that does increase the RCS.
Jonesyhttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7503638729249272041
not the version with the music.
Enjoy
That version may not have music but bloody hell what a soundtrack!. The guy may have been bordering on homicidal, obviously not something that could be condoned, but his skills were utterly astounding…was it ever leaked who the driver was?
Sign In
