http://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?

Unfortunately that would be in looks only. Kuznetsov has a light-load T/O spot forward of the island – that at least gives a measure of operational flexibility. The design shown is never going to manage that unless the island is moved aways astern and then bang goes your deck park.

I sincerely hope I am wrong, but, this is starting to look a bit unsavoury.

Agreed Jonesey, that if the MKI’s were not AWACS supported, as would probably be the case with hypothetical Argentinian MKI’s, then the MKI’s would be at a disadvantage..that however would even apply if the defenders were MiG-21 Bisons and Cope India proved that.

however like Rubik said, interchange the MKI’s as being radar-off, with AWACs support (as they could be with IAF Phalcons) and there is nothing to prevent them from shooting off their R-77s first and bagging the Typhoons..just goes to show that the only thing giving major superiority to the Western types is the presence of AWACS-

I think I miss the point you are arguing here Ankush. It was stated that Argentina possessing 4 MKI/Su-35 type fighters would be able to wrest air control of the Falkland Islands off 4 Typhoons…is that fair representation?. Now you are stating that if it were 4 MiG-21 Bisons based at Mount Pleasant they’d be able to take on the MKI/Su-35’s as the Argentines do not possess AWACS capability.

Use of AWACS in the most expanded form, as Typhoon’s combat suite has, a powerful onboard radar system and a longer ranged missile than the opposition are match winning assets?. Does it denigrate the Typhoon to say this…in no way. It was designed with the intention of using those assets to tip the scales in its favour. Who wants a fair fight?. If the Argentines, or anyone else for that matter, were to acquire an expensive, advanced, fighter capability without, simultaneously, fielding AWACS I’d doubt their intelligence.

For non-stealth types the advantage, granting both sides parity in developing the air picture, is in managing the merge and gaining the NEZ shot position first. Put simply Typhoon/Meteor provides that – MKI/Meteor may do but when are Su35 or MKI going to be adapted for the weapon?. In my, non-expert, opinion from what I’ve read of the R-77’s performance and the corresponding performance from the later block AIM-120’s I’d still give the edge in this to Typhoon/AIM-120. As a poster I used to read put it ‘better bullets win’ – the aircraft that can carry them carries the fight.

Jackonicko, give the Argentinians 4 Su-30MKI’s and 4 Typhoons would struggle to defend the Malvinas, given a 1:1 exchange ratio- that would be most likely if the Argentinian pilots trained well and used their MKI’s wisely..the Typhoon has no advantage in terms of detecting and tracking the MKI earlier than the MKI does it..and although the R-77 is not quite as modern as the newest AMRAAM variants, till the time the Meteor comes in, there is no decisive advantage for the Typhoon here either..in the case of the Rafale, the MICA is even more short ranged, so the MKI would likely take the first shot even if it detected the Rafale a little late..
so I’d like to know just how the Rafale or the Typhoon “outclasses” the best developed Flanker variants. if Argentina were to go in for the Su-35, that would be something more than a handful for the Rafale or the Typhoon..:diablo:

Hmmm ok. Lets ignore the fact that the Typhoons are nose-cold, vectored in out-of-envelope of the MKI’s radar and are sharing targetting data via discrete TDL such that the first indication that the MKI’s have that they are actually under attack is seeker light-up on the inbound AIM-120’s.

I think you need to find a better 4-on-4 scenario to boast about the MKI’s superiority over Typhoon. Oh and you’d better put a timeframe limit on the boast as well as, soon as Meteor is in, MKI’s as much a dead duck as anything else barring an F-22!.

Still as for enough Destroyers and Frigates to go around? I guess we will have to disagree. Seems like the Royal Navy has already cut to the bone as it will have fewer ships (even more capable ones) in the near future and the Service already says they can meet current demands……………

Numbers do matter thats for sure Scot, but, capabilities matter even more. I am aware of the argument that says even if a vessel is three times more capable than its predecessor one vessel cant be in the same place as three. My opinion on that is that if one of your three vessels is caught in a situation where it doesnt have the capabilities it needs then its a slim comfort to the crew to know that, at least, there are two other ships steaming around happily.

We have two principle guidelines dictating the structure of the RN at present. One is our taskings and treaty commitments and one is the capability set that the last Strategic Defence Review has set out. This distills down to the need to mount successful expeditionary warfare with Carrier Strike and Amphibious Assault plus the need to cover our NATO commitments and national taskings. Currently we are not able to achieve this. We are gapping some national taskings and holding off on major systems repairs of some units deployed on low-threat stations. This isnt through a lack of ships – its due to a lack of money in the budget to keep the ships we have out and fully functional. That is the reality of the RN today. We could have more ships in the fleet, it wouldnt matter, because in today’s climate they’d be alongside at extended readiness doing nothing.

Oddly enough, now that the rules have changed, and we dont have to maintain a fleet of escorts capable of playing a major role in Transatlantic ASW convoy ops we look around and see that the French Navy have a model that fits the need for constabulary-level duties and expeditionary warfighting perfectly. For years the French Navy has always been looked down upon because of their fleets reliance on ‘2nd rate’ ‘cheap’ escorts to bolster fleet numbers while they retained a relatively small cadre of real blue-water combattants worthy of the name.

Now, in todays environment, we see that they had something all along. Several of the RN’s taskings do not call for a $30 million a year to operate Type 23 to accomplish. A simpler, cheaper, ‘2nd rate’ vessel with a more modest sensor and weapons fit, but with expanded aviation capability, could be utilised in place of the full-up warfighter. With modular capability for towed sonars, additional weaponry and air-ordnance stowage for the aviation group such a vessel could also re-role as a warfighter in more belligerent times.

You may disagree, and what you have cited about the RN’s own stated minimum hull numbers is perfectly accurate – both the outgoing AND incoming 1SL were quite clear on that score, but more than simple numbers we need to match our assets with our taskings a lot better than we do now.

Sounds like a major refit incorporating Aster 15/30’s into the T-23’s is very unlikely at this point. So, I would assume they will receive a modest upgrade and then sold off one by one to a third party. Hopefully, to be replaced by a more Modern and Stealthy Design. Which, should be sometime after all of the T-45’s come on into service……..

Thing is about the T23’s that they were never intended for a ‘full’ 25-odd year service life as is pretty much the norm for escorts these days. Originally they were designed to last about 16-18 years, by which time they would then be replaced by something appropriate to the strategic scenario at that time. At least that was the way the thinking was going.

Whats actually happened is that, thanks to the Soviet Union self-destructing, the toll of years spent dragging towed arrays around the North Atlantic hasnt happened and the 23’s are in a lot better physical condition than they were expected to be. They are now viable candidates for a SLEP and this is being looked at closely as a way to buy time to push the rebadged, but still active, Versatile Surface Combattant (formerly FSC) project back to avoid the worst of the funding crunch which has the Treasury paying for Astute, T45 and CVF simultaneously.

The upgrade I mentioned to the 996 radar, seemingly to be replaced with the derivative BAE ARTISAN-3D set, would seem to be the initial component in the pressing of extra lifespan out of the 23’s than was originally intended. That this is a fairly basic 3D TI/Surveillance set analagous to a TRS-3D rather than a true MFR is a good indicator of the potential for ever seeing Sylver VLS cells and Aster aboard a 23!.

Realistically the only issue with the current Seawolf system is the fire channel limitation. Basically GWS26 can be firing on two targets, with a pair of missiles each for high pK, simultaneously with a fast cycle time between targets. As Tiddles stated thats fine for pop-up sub-launched missiles or for a modest air-attack scenario when you figure in soft-kill and other tricks available to the T23. For a Primary-ASW/GP FFG thats not bad going. As stated if a threat appeared on the horizon that absolutely necessitated that the T23 fleet must be able to handle heavier saturation fires then the VL MICA upgrade would be the likely scenario.

Being able to fit Aster 15 doesn’t mean you can fit Aster 30. The latter needs Sylver A50, which is longer than A43, & while I don’t doubt Jonesy when he says A43 could fit, that doesn’t mean there’s space for A50. Same as the different lengths of Mk 41 VLS. I would think (Jonesy?) Aster 30 also needs more in the way of radar, etc, to use its much longer range.

Right on the money Swerve. There’s a raised deckouse already, obviously, for the GWS26 installation, so, while I’d be confident that A43 cells would fit, for the longer A50’s, I’d have to go off and do some reading!. Then as you state, really, you’d need a SAMPSON fit at least especially seeings as there’d be no room for a VSR on the hull. The simple reality is that rather than try and get Aster30 on T23 it’d make more sense to save the money and build another couple of T45’s!.

Theoretically the space exists for Sylver A43 VLS modules and the Aster 15 missile. Ripping out the GWS26 installation for Aster 15 probably wouldnt even be too much of a headache. The problem comes with the TI radar and systems integration on hulls that are already halfway through their service lives.

To get the benefit of the Aster missile the system needs to be able to ‘ping’ multiple contacts, in 3D, on a fast sweep. The current 996 radar on the 23’s does have 3D capability but the radar is already under study for an upgrade programme as its performance could use enhancement. Replacing it entirely with something like a Thales Herakles would be a costly and prolonged process. Unless we waited for the rumoured BAE (Samson-lite) Spectar array to materialise it would also mean inducting another system type at a time when we are already sending warships out on minor takings without operational primary air search radars!.

The simpler way to upgrade the AAW potential of the T23 is to complete the upgrade of the 996, rip out the GWS26 directors, and replace the Seawolf missile cannisters with ones containing VL MICA (same cannister/VLS used for both missiles). Doing so would still entail a major integration job getting the missile to work with the rest of the combat data system but would at least be a fairly simple job physically.

In reality though GWS26 Seawolf is still a pretty hot system and, served by twin directors, capable of guiding a pair of missiles at each target is one that manages a very high pK against even supersonic manoevering targets. I’d expect that the T23’s would carry it through to the end of their lives.

Scot,

The simple answer to your question is that it depends on what you require your submarine force to do.

To illustrate the RN used to use different designations for SSK’s and SSN’s when we operated both types – those being the designations of Patrol Submarines and Fleet Submarines. The names really indicating the usefulness of both types.

A Patrol sub (SSK) was great for cheaply and quietly trolling up and down the GIUK gap keeping a watch on what was passing through. The Fleet boats (SSN’s) being tasked for the long-endurance deployments ‘up north’, down in the South Atlantic or ranging out wherever necessary where its high sustained transit speed and inherent self-reliance could be leveraged to make a presence before any surface group could arrive.

If all that is required is the patrol of your coastline/SLOC’s etc then a modern SSK is quite adequate for the task. With AIP an SSK can remain very discrete, albeit at barely above steerage, for up to a couple of weeks. An SSK will never be able to match the transit or endurance of an SSN though. Plus I dont think I’d want to be on a diesel boat that had been submerged longer than a week. The propulsion may be ok but the habitability might be a bit austere by that point!.

The point must also be made that the huge amount of power generation available to the SSN also allows for much more powerful sonar and processing capability than those available to the battery-powered SSK. So while the SSK may have a discretion edge, when on its electric motors, the SSN has a very large wide area detection advantage.