don’t forget that the brits, french, spanish, germans, italians, dutch, aussies, americans and singaporeans are continuing to invest heavily in their SSN/K fleets! after all, the best defense against a submarine is another submarine.

there is also a general trend of improving ASW helicopter fleets.

it’s not like the Cold War times when the soviets would flood the atlantic with hordes of foxtrots charlies victors and oscars and NATO needed big ASW surface fleets to counter that.

if i were an infantryman facing down a tank and all i had was a Mistral i would desperately shoot it at the tank and be happy that it got “neutralized” and i am still alive. however if anything else was available like Eryx or Predator or Javelin or Spike i would of course use those first. and save the mistral for enemy helicopters.

generally speaking the lines between anti-tank/aircraft/ship missiles are kinda blurred. Hellfire can be used quite effectively against helicopters, AIM-4 Falcons were used against ground targets in vietnam, and USN doctrine envisages long-range HARM shots at radar-emitting enemy ships.

1. the fact that the originator of that article would not identify himself casts some serious doubt on its credibility.

2. if this deal was really going through we’d have heard more of it from official sources by now. in any case i don’t think an upgrade to Block60s figures in the RSAF’s plans; the F-16D52s are meant to do deep strike/interdiction and for that APG-68v9 with SAR and LITENING II will do very fine. the F-15SGs already provide the same airborne AESA and IRSTs that Block60s will bring will additional heavy-weapons lifting capabilities.

what are the F-15SGs for if we are going to get block 60s?

I disagree that the use of SDB will render those weapons useless. They were not aimed at fighting a war such as those which western countries engage at present (ie Yougoslavia, Iraq or Afghanistan), but it was designed for another type of mission set in a much more dense war environment. I don’t see how they could be replaced by SDB if a major conflict ever broke out.

Then the US probably would be able to hit important and very well defended targets thanks to their stealth AC/and missiles combo… for european nations it would be more difficult, and those type of missles would definately be required. Of course their price would render them reserved to high priority targets, but I’m sure there would be plenty of those to chose from if the hit was to ever hit the fan.

Nic

1. agreed – an SDB-only force would surely be inadequate.

USAF A2G doctrine for the next decade or so would involve JASSM and JSOW launched from long range to take out heavily defended radars, SAM sites, C3I installations etc. even to close to 60 miles (SDB range) with F-22/35 would place the aircraft in danger, especially given the capabilities of S-300 level opposition. once the big radars and SAMs are taken out you could mass-plink enemies with masses of SDBs.

in any case SDB lacks the warhead weight to take out larger/well-protected targets.

2. i think the JASSM vs SCALP/TAURUS debate is quite a simple one. JASSM offers less capability (shorter range, smaller warhead) for much lower cost and reduced RCS and size/drag.

i emphasise the much lower cost; you could buy 2 or 3 JASSMs for one SCALP-EG. SDB is very cheap too. american emphasis on cheap weapons in recent years is a very good choice IMO, given their large scale of operations.

Something people don’t always consider. There was an A-10 during Desert Storm that had guy-on-a-bike sillouette painted on the side as one of it’s “kills”. The caption read something to the effect of “airforce accountants would not be pleased if that cost a Maverick”.

you can’t lock on a Maverick onto a motorcyclist. TV and IIR guidance wont have the sensitivity to track and i don’t think they got a grunt to point a laser at that cyclist. probably a GAU-8 frag. not such a great waste there lol :diablo:

Is it me, or does the island look dangerously far back, i.e. very close to the landing path?

It is interesting that they claim ‘cost savings’ as a reason for the new design – the ships are predicted as ~$3-4bn more than a new Nimitz class, all to save a predicted $5bn over the 50 year life of the carrier…

the $3-4bn extra for CVN-78 factors in the R&D and new-technology costs for all the new inventions – EMCAT, electric drive, increased intraship networking etc. should be able to spread out the cost as more new carriers are built. a

and the $5bn savings is just the money – think of all the benefits the new tech brings. increased launch weights and better safety from the EMCATs and new arrestor schemes, more flexible power management from the electric drive etc.