star49You overstate the time needed to assemble a task force b a significant margin.
The used a total of 113 Ships during the falkland islands conflict, of which 44 belonged to the RN, 2 belonged to the RMAS and 22 belonged to the RFA. The rest of the ships involved were STUFT. The majority of the naval ships set sail from the UK within days of the invasion and the task force was assembled in the south atlantic by early may, with some earlier arriving ships taking part in the recapture of South Georgia.
I’d also like to point out that a forward operating base with Phantom’s, Vulcans and Tankers was also in operation on Ascension Island by mid april.
The whole conflict was over within 3 months, so it hardly take “months” to assemble a Naval task force.
Actually i underestimatd the time for assembling Naval flotilla. First so many supply ships were barely supplying two of squardons of Sea Harriers. There was no doctrine of premption. A dominant power with high powered AWACS and Satellites will not allow assembly of ships. It will pick one by one ahead of time thousands of kms from shore through fast use of airpower. So question does not arise of 113 ships appearing at same point with all logistics and three month is petty short conflict.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_naval_forces_in_the_Falklands_War
The whole point is keep the longest, fastest and high altitude fighters/bombers with longest range weopons in inventory with airrefuelling. With deep fuel tanks they can be refuelled in safety of thousands of km from battlfield. Dominant power can hit logistic ships and make replenshiment almost impossible at sea. Whole aircraft carrier concept is to provide aircover to land based bombers, submarines etc not to fight land war by themselves against major power.
star49I think you will find that the East German Mig 29’s were full spec ‘A’ models, as were the weapons (Luftwaffe wouldn’t have kept them if they hadn’t been). The radar was fully serviceable and the pilot was very good (Called Judy exactly at the range figure given in the Wiki entry on the Mig 29 A) . Fights was at same altitude and around 0.9 Mach. Tornado didn’t mix it close in (No surprise there as it would have lost). Yes your right that it would have most likely different had the Mig 29 been a later model with later version of the R-27, however as I stated on the last post the Tornado F3 of today is a completely different beast in regards of SA, BVR, WVR and ECM systems to the one I sat in at the time. As regards Typhoon, from what I’ve heard from people in the know, Its pretty much well kicked the asses off most of what its taken on in exercises and PI’s since IOC was reached, though not seen it with my own eyes.
Even in full specification MIG-29A was very low end. it terms of engine life(which effect its acceleration), radar performance and most probably missile. How do u think 1600 were built in less than a decade time under severe funding cuts. If it was in 70s. It would have reached 10,000 figure. There was nothing wrong with fighter design. MIG-29M of late 80s solved most of problems when uprated 2000 hr life engine introduced. MIG-29K of today has much more range than Tornado so it can chose to refuse to fight. Radar can see further, missile can fire further, latest IRST, full multirole. All at fraction of cost of Tornado upgrade. U cannot compare longtivity of Russian designs. If MIG-35 price is raised to EF level. Expect 30K lbs engines with supercruise upto Mach 2. The whole point is there is nothing special in EF that makes it better than other 4th generation fighters. heck it cannot fly from aircraft carrier without substantial investment. can u put time frame of R-27 vs Skyflash?. In soviet system things were moving very slowly. It is highly possible that missile designed in 70s were produced a decade later with 1950s era industrial machine precision. Thats why R-27 in 21st century are still selling along with R-77 because upgrade potential is there with minimum cost.
star49What a load of utter nonsense.
The German MiG-29s lacked little compared to frontline Russian MiG-29s, though they had a downgraded jammer and some differences in the IFF system.
They drew their AA-10s and AA-11s from 16th Air Army stocks.
They were highly regarded when they were still East German (giving the Polish-based Su-27s a hard time on exercise) and when they moved over under Luftwaffe command.
The German MiG-29 was a pretty capable aircraft – good aerodynamically, very good at low speeds/post stall manoeuvring, and with a good helmet mounted sight. Play them at their own game, and they’d win against an F-15, F-16 or F/A-18, exploit their weaknesses, and they’d do badly against any of the US trio, and even occasionally against an F.Mk 3.
Drawing from Soviet Stocks does not mean it is substandard stuff of what can be produced under proper funding for all units at same time. Funding cuts were severe from early 80s.
This MIG-29 missile is more likely R-27R. and claim is mostly related to hear say. No can come in public and say Skyflash is longer range than R-27. R-27 even in 21st century are still selling. How good the upgrade potential for this missile is while Skyflash is by now almost history. The same short life is for EF. Not a sound investment.
star49Look at it…the targetting system had to work and be surviveable – which it never was, the logistics setup had to have huge numbers of aircraft generated and ready to go on the shortest of notice periods, specialist support aircraft had to be ready simultaneously, as did long-range fighter cover.
It is far easy to assemble fighter force than assemble Naval tast force. look how many months it takes for even small carrier force to assemble at one place where it can effectively operates? Russian are easily exercising with 40 to 60 aircrafts at one place all the time. and we are not living in 1950s era Scud where CEP was half a km. Now it is for export is less than 30m for IRBM. which is pretty sufficient for direct hit on ships considering the warhead size and power today. carrier aircraft has very low sortie generations with low payload, compromised low speed design, need airrefuelling, without land based Radar cover so needs AEW all the time which is big blip on radar screen as it has to operate at certain height. I dont see any need for those things. It takes investment for real things which make a difference. I would rather have 200 supersonic bomber ready to strike anywhere in world with ultra long range weopons than part time operational carriers. Things have moved on pretty fast. Imagine 10000 T/R module AESA in BlackJack/Backfire nose. It will fry most of incoming sensors from missiles.
star49Good Post that Jackonicko.
Yes Typhoon has had a troubled development, but as told to me by a former RAF Typhoon project officer, a lot of the delays were caused by certian goverments in the program defaulting on development costs and slowing the project down. Also just happened to talk to a pilot who was involved in JOUST standing next to him, though I was more interested finding out what driving a car at Mach 1 was like.
For all the Mig/Su fanboy’s out there, I’ve actaully seen a German Mig 29 fight a RAF Tornado F3 in a 1v1 on an air combat range from the controlling ground radar……
and the Tornado F3 won every time!!!
Why, beacause the F3 was flown to its strengths, namely
miles better SA and longer legged weapons (and this was in the days before Link 16, AIM-132 and the full AIM-120 fit as Skyflash did out range the missile in the attached photo I took after getting the chance to sit in the cockpits of both a few days later. (Its not a dummy (Telemetry fit sans warhead and live rocket motor), Germans were firing them off at Jindavik drones during the detachment).
Real air to air combat, even in training is nothing like you see at an airshow.
Very good comparision. Ur comparing a fighter which was sold at scrap prices to Tornado. Even IAF MIG-29 which were the best export were priced at $2m. I am not saying there wont be 20 times combative effectiveness between $40m MIG-29K and $2m MIG-29A. Missile range depends more on speed and altitude of fighter than missile itself. There is also element of downgrade in export missile performance.
or ur claiming they are at 100% same height and range with all MIG-29 missiles have the same range for all the customers.
star49Problems required to be overcome before your ‘hundreds of missiles’ fly (IF Russia has hundreds of such antiship missiles left in the inventory in serviceable condition in the first place):
1, Find the opponent. (dont know how Russian forces would do that more than 200km or so off their coast)
2, Develop a track and ID contacts. (dont know how they do that either)
3, Launch 40 ‘ready status’ Tu-22M’s…presuming 40 are ready to go…and assemble strike packages.
4, Launch a couple of dozen Flankers for bomber escort and join on strike package
5, Hold track on the target force for long enough for Backfire strike packages to transit to target and coordinate strike. (dont know how they do this either)
6, Get Backfires, unmolested, in to 150nm (Kh-15 range?) from a multiple carrier group.Then you are shooting into a defined MEZ optimised for defeating precisely the targets that you are throwing in. You have a USN fleet with a dozen Burkes and half a dozen Tico’s and, combined, your looking at 60 fire channels and upwards of a thousand area SAM’s, not counting ESSM.
This is the point. Attacking an alerted enemy in precisely the fashion that they expect you to attack is just dumb.
How many day this assemble force can be supplied? The point is land based force has the choice to wait it out which Sea based force has none. They need to be supplied for fuel/food/weopons on large scale which needs freindly ports and huge amount of money. A dominant/Competent land force can never be defeated by Sea force. Sea force takes months to assemble in the mean time u can accelerate Billistic/antiship production missiles on war footing. and airlift to coastal regions. u cannot resupply ships through strategic airlift u need land bases and but if u need land bases than why not make all investment in theatre/strategic bomber fleet? whats the point of sea based force.
this is the precisely the reason that Chinese has 1000 IRBM on Taiwnaes coast. The whole point is to empty high profile SAMs like PAC-2/PAC-3 on those and leave fighters for second wave attack. The same stragtegy is done is for coastal antiship missiles that can attack hundreds of kms.
Different point at work. The AEGIS system was designed specifically to handle one air attack profile – that found when going SIOP on the Kola Peninsula!. Precisely the one Echo is clinging to thats at least 30 years old. Ground-based SAMs have all the problems associated with being ground-based…easier to terain mask from a ground-based SAM than a naval one in the middle of the Barents Sea!. You cant draw easy parallels.
As stated, simple fact is that if you present the defender with the attack he expects to see you cannot be suprised if he defends it!.
Russian Antiship missiles are specifically designed for Aegis system and is constantly improved.. So what new revealations are u bringing to the table.
star49There is no way Yakhont can be used at 1000KM.
Yakhont is 120-300KM depending on launch altitude according to the original specs. Which is plenty.
These ranges are for Kh-31AD now. Even Kh-59M went from 115Km to about 300km.
I am pretty sure upgraded Oniks/Brahmos from Su-30MKI/Su-34 will be in 1000km class. Its size and speed allow it more increase flexibility over Club.
star49But Typhoon hasn’t been eliminated in India. :p
It is in competing against aircrafts that are 2nd or 3rd tier of certain countries with far lower cost of investment and unit cost. If EF was in Class of PAK-FA or F-22 there wont be need of competition. so a litte better than 4th generation fighters is correct characterizaiton.
star49I think that is even more so true with flanker fanatics, like yourself. There is fanatical rhetoric from proponents of all aircraft and countries; however the flanker/Soviet fanatics seem to have the largest proportion (and most extreme) delusional and dishonest rhetoric.
.
Dishonest and delusional? go to press section of http://www.npo-saturn.ru or http://www.sukhoi.org or ktrv.ru(TMC site). Every thing is right there from designer interviews to various publication for past 10 years almost.. Not a single claim is made up by internet poster.
but no one can show any claim related to EF from Industry . If RAF is so confident about EF that have said right infront of IAF with MKI exercises. Why keep mum?. Russian industry didnot keep mum over Cope India exercises. They got the result and interpreted it. And result against M2K/F-16/Tornada/ is not a big deal for 49 to 1(If it is not hyperbole because of fuel and weopons quantity limitations). Any competent pilot in Flanker will achieve the same result. Infact EF is entering in 21st century while all others are atleast two decades old technolgy. RDY in M2K-5 is 1989 product.
It is really funny to make claims of EF MMI better than Rafale. All new Airbus/Sukhoi Superjet, Su-30MKI/MKM/MKA has thales designed cockpit with sagem navigation system. Infact 20% of MIG-29K avionics cost is with Sagem.
star49think about how the range of su-34 will decrease with 3 missiles of Yakhont size. And then think about where the su-34’s airbases are and how far they can venture off.
I anticipate star49 is about to join the conversation at any time now.
Surely u know the range of Su-34. Sukhoi is boldly advertizing range of Su-27SM and Su-35. It is between 4000 to 4500km. Su-34 has more than 10 MTOW and there is no super maneuverability or high speed/high altitude g requirements. only 1.4 ton titanium cockpit. and is built with same advanced technolgy and materials as Su-35/PAK-FA.
Range will sure be much more with 3 Onyx than any other mulitrole figher. and Onyx range is much more than 300km in ground launched. Airluanch ur looking at 1000km+. So essentiall strike at more than 3000km into sea from land bases without airrefueling.
star49You should be knowing Jack, why Typhoon don’t cut past initial query in serious competition. If Korea, Singapore did not alert you, then am sure you would find Typhoon being eliminated in first round of Indian MMRCA contract, come as another shock to you.
The success you are talking about came you know how. Misrepresentation by BAE in austria and Blackmailing the Saudis. Yes Blackmailing, by raising the bogey of corruption and tarnishing the image of the royal family. If you don’t give the order we will initiate proceeding, BBC being the first lapdog let loose.
If this is what you call success, then it say a lot about British as well as Typhoon. But how many sales can you achieve via these channells, but ther is always one other… you know what.
Typhoon deal with Saudis is much more than Bribery. It led to essentially surrender infront of Taliban. (Saudi Want to save there loyal pets).Only heavy lifting from US is forcing UK to fight them. Second is withdrawl from Basra due to Iraki government. It is basically selling weopons from position of weakness. It is not a commerical or technical success by any standard of measure. I cannot believe that Typhoon supporters are living in such delusions that they can predict Flanker capabilities in decades to come and create such super flanker from there simulations. with such little contribution to Space and aviaition technologies they have to make beleive stuff. Sukhoi folks have accurately judge them by making videa of Su-35 superiorty over EF+AWACS.
star49[QUOTE=StevoJH;1311553]In regards to the S-300, they launch 2 missiles at each target, with ~10 missiles controlable at any one time, no system in the world as of today can control 36 missiles simultaneously.
how many missiles are simultaneoulsy guided for export purpose?. They have done exercises where several S-300 interconnected with more than 400 targets destroyed in one salvo. and that is decades old ability
All means of system “triumph” are developed on the basis of the newest scientific and technical achievements, with the application of promising element base and advanced technologies. All processes of combat work – detection; route tracking; the distribution of the purposes between [ZRK]; their seizure, tracking and identification; a selection of the type of rockets; their preparation for the launching; launching, seizure and the guidance of rockets to the target; the evaluation of the results of shooting – they are automated. The control center of system “triumph” can ensure integration [ZRS] into the structure of control of any air defense system. Each [ZRK] ensures firing to 10 purposes with the guidance on them to 20 rockets.
The thing about SAM sights, is that while they are theoretically mobile, they tend to either stay in one place, or operate from a group of specific presurveyed sites which they would practice on in peace time. Satellites watch these units and see where they set up, in a war situation it would be easy enough to check each of these recorded sites to cue in the locations for cruise missile strikes.
crusie missiles takes hours to reach targets. and it light up the ships from where it is launched. with fighters ordinance can be delivered further and faster. Mobile Shorads can easily destroy subonic missile. Pantsyir/Tor are now can destroy several 2 sq cm targets at 18km distance.
Bunker busters are for after SEAD has been carried out, and SAM batteries are not hardened targets as they are designed to be mobile, at most the command structures would be armoured vehicles, not that this would help the actual missile carriers.
provided that u can succeed in SEAD. Against SEAD or Antiship do the same role. So in one action ur doing two things.
A mix of a dozen Burke destroyers and Ticonderoga cruisers would have over 1000 VLS tubes between them (96 for the burke, 122 for the tico). Fortunately for the ships, your flankers would not get 3-4 sorties per day even if the airframes themselves could theoretically withstand it, because between each sortie, the aircraft would have to be rearmed, and that takes time, plus the pilots are not superhuman and *do* need sleep occasionally.
Supply chain of dozen ships and if they run out of missiles by swarm of dummy targets. 3 to 4 sorties not big deal. Flanker does not have turn around of 10 minutes like Gripen but it is in service for two decades now so plenty of trained ground crew and pilots.
star49Companies such as that let their products do the talking
Products do there talking? Thats why every two cent Middleastern leader goes to Moscow to prevent offensive arms sell to Iran. Fact of matter is there little confidence in EF ability by customer like RSAF even if it is backed by AWACS. thats why Sukhoi video is clearly showing Su-35 beating EF+AWACS and can do the antiship role in the same sortie. True Multifunctional fighter.
star49Why couldn’t they(EADS)? Sukhoi has offered no evidence of their claim, so any other manufacturer could make the same claim, if they’re not required to back those claims up.
Fact of matter is EADS or other manufacturer hasnt made any claim like Sukhoi. When they make such claims than we can discuss merits of those claims.
star49If the SU-34 is immune to missiles, why would the RuAF buy anything else? They should buy a few thousand of those and replace every other tactical aircraft in their inventory. They could even save the money they’re spending, developing the Su-35 and PAK-FA.:rolleyes:
They are not buying anything else new. Su-34 is Strike aircraft. It is claimed that it can destroy hardened structures at 250Km. lifting pretty heavy punch but is slow for Airsuperiority role. PAK-FA is Airdominance fighter. Su-35 was started as Sukhoi internal project for testing fifth generation avionics and export. Su-27SM is upgrades of existing fighters.
Sign In
