1) I am not aware of any anti-radiation missile with 300km range. Kh-31 is a ~100km range missile. The practical range of Kh-35 is roughly 130-150km..

Kh-22P has range of what, 400km?

😛

I agree that the title is meant to be a snazzy one and may miss some of the intricacies of what a surface combatant should be defined as (I’ve confirmed with the author that he meant surface combatant rather than surface warship), but even if we leave the discussion of what a surface combatant should mean for a later date, I think Jeffrey Lin is far from ignorant in using the surface combatant term to refer to ships like cruisers, destroyers, frigates, corvettes (and battleships), given that it is still a widely accepted definition of the term in many circles.

Yes. The term “surface combatant” is generally agreed to exclude aircraft carriers which, though warships, are not “combatants”. Of course it is arguable that Hyuga‘s, with their quite extensive destroyer armament and sensors are “combatants” too by this definition: OTOH, already during Cold War, Kirovs were widely agreed to have been largest post-WW2 “surface combatants” despite the existence of much larger aviation cruisers like Kievs etc. So I think that ridiculing the author is bit misdirected…

Yama, as i have explained : any optical systems : whether it is OFS, Private, AAS-42, OLS-35 or EOTS when they want to see target at maximum range they will have to focus their sensor ( zoom) thus have really small FoV, there is no way around it
Btw, since you asking about it, what is the FoV and scanning rate of OFS, OLS-35, Private, AAS-42 at maximum range?

Yes, you do want a zooming capability, however as we’re talking about optics which have to fit in very compact space, it invariably means compromises in how they are executed.

OLS-27 has three FoV’s: 60*10 degrees, 20*5, and 3*3 degrees. Scan rate is said to be 25 degrees per second. I assume OLS-35 is broadly comparable in execution.

By contrast, typical targeting pod generally has much narrower Field of View to provide better resolution and range: something like 1*1 in narrow FoV and 4*4 in wide-view. In addition they usually have 20-something degree view for navigation. This is why Targeting pods are likened to “watching through soda straw”.
As said, I haven’t seen EOTS FoVs mentioned anywhere, but I’d guess they are closer to a targeting pod rather than a2a IRST.

3) Except it has the range of a targeting pod.

Sez who? As I understand, EOTS is basically a targeting pod except in fixed, stealthy installation, which probably means it will come with all the normal tradeoffs of a targeting pod – ie. good range & resolution, poor FoV. Nowhere I have seen stated otherwise.

The key improvement of VLS over arm launchers, imo, is greater firing rate, and faster response time (which includes the ability to effectively engage targets from 360 degrees without needing the extra one or two seconds for re orienting the arm launcher)

Single arm launcher is also a complicated piece of machinery prone to breakdowns or damage…

Russian destroyer design revealed

Russia developing Shtorm supercarrier

Weren’t these shown two years ago already – just that the pics of the models were much poorer?
I like the “Sachsen meets Kirov” destroyer design. Very evil empire-y. However, the massive profile & height of the pagoda radar tower would be a nightmare in storms.
Wasn’t the design planned for Russian Navy meant to have nuclear propulsion? I echo the sentiment that this is just a private project. However, at least it’s an improvement over 21956.

Scorpion is all cool and nice, but it is not even remotely comparable to something like F-22 or F-35. I am sure F-22 development process would have been lot quicker if there had existed COTS AESA radar, and supercruising turbofans, and stealth coating and…

An ICBM exhaust is not a star, and is neither star-like in size nor brightness, unless the warheads go off. The human eye certainly can’t see rocket launches at 800nmi, nor can they see stars in the day time, nor continue to track a rocket even after burn-out based purely on residual heat. Nor do they see infra-red, which explains why their distance detection of hot objects is nowhere near as good.

Rocket launches from Plesetsk are sometimes clearly visible in Finland, 500-600 kilometres away, if the weather’s good.