JonesyJonesy, the newer dancers- Russian ones that is, with terminal supersonic – are damn expensive. In that case, it makes sense to go for a supersonic anyways.
And the nation that is currently standardising on the Brahmos, India, is also implementing the ISTAR assets required for it, from boosting up its MPA fleet and giving them proper sensors, to networking them and all its ships together, plus acquiring some decent LR sensors in terms of the KA-31 and other programs.
Nick,
The 3M-54E variant of Club, the supersonic kill dart version, is not a system that comes under the heading of ‘dancer’. It doesnt do terminal phase evasive maneuvers….its terminal phase evasion technique is the high speed. No-one has ever been able to give a good source (preferably a Russian one) that it is actually a mature weapon (in 3M-54E variant) yet though so, for me, the jury is still out on that one!.
India may be in the process of developing an ISTAR system to support the BrahMos weapon, and I’ve said here before frequently that they are definitely on the right road and far further down it than anyone else in the regional superpower league. They are not, however, there yet – they still have to get the system rolled out and mature and make it surviveable.
Then the only thing they need for BrahMos to be a great system is a target set worth firing the bloody missiles against!!!. Let me edit that slightly – a target set worth firing the bloody missiles against that doesnt fly the stars and stripes!!!.
At the moment India is in the position of possessing a powerful antiship missile that is not required to successfully engage any of its in-theatre current or projected threats and one that it cant reliably target against the one naval force that it would be required to engage. You tell me if you think thats very smart. Personally I think India would have been a bit sharper to develop the ISTAR system first then get the missile in and present the USN with the fait accompli straight up!!!.
Dont get me started on the marvellous capabilities of the Kamov Ka-31. The IN knew it needed the E-2 from the outset. They know perfectly well that a few choppers with bolt-on radars do not constitute equal capability.
JonesyProblem here lads is that you are comparing a single missile to single missile case. That, as has very efficiently been described, tilts the field in favour of the supersonic. The correct comparison between dancers and streakers is in the effects and cost to deploy criteria.
As I’ve said before on these boards, in the most facile way possible, the most useless thing in the world is a weapon that cannot be used. Long ranged supersonic skimmers for the most part fall in to this category right now as the ISTAR support needed to employ, under real-world RoE conditions, these weapons successfully is currently beyond every nation that possess them *against the kind of targets that would require such a weapon to be employed*. The cost of that ISTAR ‘backend’ is huge. The medium-weight dancers like Uran, Exocet, Harpoon et al just dont require that kind of support and they still offer the advantage of keeping the firing platform out of range of the great majority of warships found in the worlds fleets.
Its true that few nations, at this moment, possess deployed technology suitable for assured interception of skimming supersonics at sea. Its is also true, though, to say that even fewer nations have the ability to prosecute a successful attack using air launched skimming supersonics!.
It must also be pointed out that with the advent of Aster/PAAMS and ESSM the naval services capable of coping with a supersonic missile attack are going to increase at a far faster rate than that of those able to press them!.
Bring it on stated ‘yet to meet a sailor ( atleast in the USN) who’s rather defend against a supersonic sea skimmer as compared to a sub sonic one..’
As far as that statement goes you have to agree with it. I’d qualify it with the comment that I’ve yet to meet a Warfare Officer who’d rather defend against three dancers as compared to one supersonic!!!.As there’s one thing for certain….the tactical aircraft that can carry one Yakhont/BrahMos type weapon is certainly capable of lofting a trio of AM39’s!.
JonesyWhich, given your location, sort of answers the question really!.
Forget the S-300’s buy a bunch of SA-15’s for point defence of sensitive sites – if the desire is to move away from the Rolands to Russian kit and spend the money on the Flankers.
Jonesy“3000 mph at sea level with a turbine engine”
Back in 1967 the original engine for Granit was designed for M4 speed,later with the use of KR-93 engine redused to M2,2.But all this speeds are in medium cruise altitude,in sea level with KR-93 the speed is M1,5.
Spot on that man. This looks a lot like a vague hotchpotch of facts muddled together for flashy journalistic copy. RATTLRS was originally being designed as a hypersonic areoballistic profile weapon intended to hit short-duration ground targets before they could move off i.e it was pure land attack and fixed target.
Now because it looks like a P700 there seems to be an assumption that it is one?
The LockMart article suggests no such thing it says:
As a component of the hypersonic “pillar,” RATTLRS has an initial goal of testing a flight demonstration vehicle at Mach 3, and plans call for a second flight demonstration that will reach speeds greater than Mach 4 — or more than 3,000 m.p.h. at sea level.
…which means that M4 IS about 3000mph at sea level NOT that the missile will DO 3000mph at sea level. Have to read closely guys!
It seems an interesting capability to have. Certainly a short transit precision land-attack missile with 600nm of range is going to be useful in certain conditions but I dont see it as replacing the SSN/Mk48 combination as the USN’s premier shipkillers in anyway!!!!
JonesyPotentially more important than a few Flankers thats for certain…however, obviously, S300 needs to function as a component of a whole package IADS. Does anyone know the status of the current air defence environment in Venezuela?.
What is their surveillance infrastucture like?. Do they have distributed, hardened SOC’s?. What capabilities do they have in terms of comms infrastructure to tie the batteries into the rest of the system etc?
If these kinds of questions can be answered then the value of the S-300 can be properly assessed.
JonesyThe truly impressive feat managed by the Super Bug IMO is this figure of 5-10 man hrs maintenance per flight hour. Compared to an early generation jet like the Crusader – 60 to 70hrs per flight hour or the SHAR which was in the high 50’s (if memory serves) this is a revolution in shipboard air ops!.
Does anyone have a comparable figures for the Rafale-M?, I did read somewhere that the AdlA variant reduces maintenance hrs compared to M2K by about 30%?. Can anyone confirm this?
JonesyIn general the capability argument here is a very difficult one to disagree with. In fact I think Dassault, BAE/Eurofighter consortium, SAAB, Sukhoi et al would probably offer to sponsor you gentlemen, Sean and Eric, on a first-class, expenses paid, world tour to repeat exactly what you’ve said here in front of as many airforces as Seans uniform will get them in front of.
I’d be a bit careful in Italy and Spain as those countries respective naval services are likely to swing the pair of you from whatever yardarm may be readily available – seeings as ones gone and built a carrier thats kind of dependent on F-35B coming to fruition and the other is planning on the same.
Fitting an auxilliary steam plant to the Adaptable CVF design is not prohibitively difficult as the steam head required to drive two cats will not be excessive when compared to that of a propulsion/cat steam budget. Plus modern boilers can be suprisingly compact and could be sited reasonably close to the cats at the pointy end/midships to cut down on the expensive and maintenance intensive pipeworkery. The EMALS rig is obviously the far superior option for an IFEP/GT ship though but steam is no show-stopper!.
For UK getting out of JSF would be a blindingly good idea. Our partners (and I know this from personal experience seen in BAE Wharton) have been quite a let down on the project – I’ve never seen more petty beaurocracy than in the JSF project team up there in Preston and some of their datacomms have to be seen to be believed, firewalls everywhere in order to prevent inadvertent crossover of data from peered systems!. They have taken the investment and wriggled and squirmed on the workshare from day 1 and, finally, the whole mess with the source codes etc should have seen us finally walk away from the table – we learned that dealing with the French!.
Still I guess the cousins do like to lean on their special relationship with us!. So we’re stuck with the heap STOVL and all!.
Shame really was quite enjoying the idea of dispensing with the whole JFH/JCA structure and getting back to seeing 800 and 801 flying a real fighter type again!.
JonesyDubya,
I can see your point but dont necessarily agree with it. The F-22/F-35 split may offer the best future-proofing and longevity to the RAAF but I think the JSF is a poor choice for the strike optimised role that it would take in partnership with the F-22. IMO you need something bigger, two-seated and with far superior payload/range figures.
As has been said, something like the Su-34 would be ideal but its never going to happen, next best is a variant of -15E. This is because your priincipal threats are aerial and naval – the aerial threat the F-22 will cope with happily any day of the week – I personally think that a combined air-dominance team of Raptors and (perhaps) Meteor-equipped Strike Ozgles could be extremely effective in conjunction with OTH, AWACS and LINK16.
The Naval threat requires range, endurance, a bloody great SAR-moded radar and competent EO fit (plus a guy-in-back to push the buttons, read the map etc), and a heavy payload carrying capability for as many medium antiship missiles as the airframe will take. The reasons for this are obvious so I wont insult you by stating them!.
Suffice it to say, with that description, the first aircraft fitting it into your mind is never going to be F-35 is it?!
The -15E on the other hand has all those qualities and is in theatre, with other nations, for the projected timespan of the F111 replacement requirement. Other nations possessing similar aircraft could also mean a local maintenance facility in Australia, or very much cheaper deployments to US, Singapore, SKorea or Israel -15E bases!.
Lastly the age of the airframe design would not be an issue for me – the MiG-21 is a 50 year old design and, anecdotally, the latest upgrades to the type like the IAF’s Bison have kept the package competent. Likewise the F-4, nearly 50 years since first flight yet still dangerous in the BVR arena air-air and as capable of hauling large amounts of ordnance as it ever was.
JonesySounds like Slavophobic propaganda to me.
Why?
The Soviet Union where the major arms suppliers to the declared enemies of a country rushing to acquire a nuclear arsenal. I think it emminently prudent of them to have some plans in place should the eventuality of a direct nuclear threat arise.
Imagine if the Israeli’s, wishing to send a message to Moscow, decided to strike at an Egyptian port full of arms laden Soviet merchantmen with a nuclear weapon. The Soviets would have to make a response…or at least appear to be ready to mount a response.
How is this Slavophobic? If it WASNT true I’d think less of the Soviet regime of the day!. It also does lend an ironic twist to the Osirak story too!
JonesyConcur absolutely with everything Neptune says.
Bet you the propulsion fits are all aimed at high endurance and modest speed outputs. This is an OPV and, novel and interesting as it is, its in a highly competetive market. I cant see for example what this vessel will offer that could compare to a Mexican Sierra Class and those vessels were not exactly hugely expensive or requiring state-of-the-art yards to license build in.
Dont see this one as a winner really I’m afraid Ja
JonesyWell seeing as Arabel is considered inferior to Sampson, it is quite possible. The gun arrangement is ridiculous, it dosnt allow for the future fitting of a large calibre gun, unlike the T-45 which could take one of the new 5 inchs or a 39 calibre 155mm.
SLL,
If memory serves the Franco Italian PAAMS uses EMPAR (analgous to a turbo-Arabel…sort of!) not ARABEL. ARABEL is used by the Aster15 shooters only and is essentially a self-defence suite….albeit with a pretty good, local, crossing target ability.
Irrespective of said nitpickery EMPAR is still inferior to the UKPAAMS setup because of the UK requirement for a higher capability level than that deemed necessary by our European neighbours.
Essentially all the Forbin and Italian-Forbin are required to do is area goalie duty on the carriers of their respective services. Yep you need a powerful system to defeat modern AShMs but the actual threat scenarios are quite simple.
T45 is required to perform as AAWC over amphib debarkation areas inshore and operate independant of a big, flattop, consort etc, etc. Its therefore specified to a higher degree in its weapons system, comms systems etc. As anyone in the boat-floating game will tell you – ship steel is cheap….its the gadgetry you bolt onto them that’ll make you wince!!!
JonesyAustin,
I wont be suprised if the Forbin turns out to be the stealthest ship of Europe outclassing even the Type 45
You may be right…it may be the most stealthy ship in Europe. Does sort of beg the question as to why seeings there will only be one deployed most of the time and it will be consorting the duty MN carrier. So if an opponent finds said carrier he’ll know that the Forbin will be around somewhere nearby – so any strange ‘weak’ returns plotted around the carrier would be assessed as a probable AAW destroyer regardless.
The asymmetric superstructure upperworks will probably mess around with the ships profile to a missile seeker which will be a massive boost to the effectiveness of onboard and offboard softkill. Other than that though there is no excuse for designing a ship deliberately that ugly!!!!
JonesyThats like saying Great Britain can’t claim territorial rights over Cornwall for Heavens sake.
More like saying that the Falklanders had no right to self determination in their home islands because they were extracted from British citizenry?.
They, the Taiwanese, haven’t just nipped over to an offshore island yesterday, decided to set up on their own and stuck a middle finger up at Beijing have they?.
No – they retreated off a Civil War to a region that was not under established Chinese authority (having only been handed back to China by Japan some 4 years previously) and established a viable and prosperous state there. Hard to see really where PRC’s strong territorial claim comes from when compared to the successful state that the Taiwanese have made for themselves. Looking objectively of course – which I’m assuming is not going to be possible for you Worthyone? 😉
As to Taiwanese territorial claims on Mongolia well…there you go. I think the point underlying this, which is indisputable, is that only one of the regimes involved talks of invasions and drops TBM’s in the water off the others coasts!.
This is also a digression from the point of the thread so I’m happy to leave this alone now.
Vortex,
It was a long time ago in a thread far, far away and it was all in the best possible humour at the time! 😀
JonesyKhazaria,
Not a problem!. Guess what you’ve written there proves Gollevainens point about it looking sort of ok from some angles!. If I could find a beam shot you’d see Neptunes point a lot clearer – the thing looks like a housing estate built on a very unexciting hull!. Rather uninspiring!.
This is what Andrew Toppan says bout the design (which I think is a touch harsh – but probably accurate)
Marasesti patrol destroyer
Displacement: 5,790 tons full load
Dimensions: 144.6 x 14.80 x 4.90 meters/474.4 x 48.5 x 16 feet
Propulsion: 4 diesels, 4 shafts, 32,000 bhp, 27 knots
Crew: 270
Radar: MR-302 Strut Curve air/surf search
Sonar: MF hull
Fire Control: Harpun/Plank Shave missile targeting
EW: 2 PK-16 decoy
Aviation: aft flight deck and hangar for 2 Aloutte-III helicopters
Armament: 8 SS-N-2C SSM, 2 dual 76.2mm/59cal DP, 2 dual 30 mm AA, 2 SA-N-5 SAM positions, 2 RBU-6000 ASW RL
Concept/Program: A completely Romanian design. Was laid up almost immediately after commissioning as she was found to be extremely unstable due to excess topweight. Extensively modified 1988-1992 to partially correct topweight problems. Of limited combat value, as she lacks effective SAMs & modern SSMs, and has no centralized combat system. A limited modernization is planned, for completion in 2006.
Builders: Santierul 2 Mai, Mangalia.
Number Name Year FLT Homeport Notes
11 Marasesti 1985/92 BLK Mangalia ex-Muntenia
JonesyProblem is worthyone that whilst you might wish to ignore the Shaiwan/Taiwan issue most of the rest of us take it more seriously.
Like it or not the perception, for many, of Taiwan is of a distinct and seperate entity from the PRC and the PRC has a defined and stated criteria for launching a military invasion of that seperate entity for the purpose of forcing a governmental system on it that is not the will of the populace.
You must realise that the image that paints is not good!.
India, by comparison, has been attacked by China in the latter part of the last century and has made strides towards bringing the dispute with Pakistan into calmer water. It may have dark machiavellian designs on its neighbours (never did trust that Harry bloke after he threatened to kill me!!) but theyre certainly ahead in the PR stakes!!
Edit: Apologies to Impi for the near duplicate post and abject jealousy that I didnt think of the aircraft fire extinguisher analogy….excellent stuff!
Sign In
