shoudn’t they use a steel model of the ship, painted with the same paint as the real Ticos? the difference in materials and the lack of paint would make a difference to RCS woudnt it?

is it true that the bombs had to go through the hole made by the first one in order to destroy the reactor through all its containment/shielding? heard this from somewhere. sounds incredible for iron bombs…

and that F-16s were chosen for the accuracy of their bombing computers?

how would they test a full-size ship, say a DDX, at the RCS measurement range i wonder? would they have to build a drydock-size RCS range at the port?

the keymags.co.uk link doesn’t work.

but anyway, yes i’ve heard of the MACK before. i stand corrected.

looking forward to seeing EA-18Gs working together with F-16CJs.

here’s an aerial pic of changi east AB. got it from one of the singapore forums. it’s on the left, Changi International is on the right. for a military airfield it’s frightfully easy to eyeball from the air.

the next time you fly to singapore, get a window seat on the right side of the airliner if it’s towards the end of the year, or on the left side if it’s the middle of the year. (this is due to the prevailing monsoon winds affecting the landing direction). chances are you’ll get a magnificent view as the plane descends into changi. i just came home yesterday from NZ and the cabin crew even told us to keep the window shades UP for the landing. got a good view.

boy i hope i’m not a traitor by doing this 😎

does killing an innocent airliner with hundreds of passengers make AEGIS battle tested?

im sorry, i think AEGIS is an excellent system too, but i’m not sure it can be called “battle-tested” in the usual sense of the word.

What I Still don’t understand completely is the differnce in capabilities.
It seems the smaller ships cover with their SM-2 missiles (range ~70/80 Nm) a larger area than the larger ships with the Aster 30 (range ~50 Nm).

In comparison: Daring/Sachsen

Daring: 48 cells Aster 30/15 (Sylver launcher)

Sachsen:32 cells SM2 IIIA or ESSM in Mk41 launchers + 2 RAM Mk 31 launchers (21 rockets)

So got the Asters’s a better ECM resistance or why are they acknowledged as the more modern system ?

the 70/80nm range u mention for SM-2 is for SM-2 block IV with the extra booster stage, which only the USN has. the european SM-2 ships have SM-2MR instead whose range is closer to 30/40nm. ESSM range is about 25nm.

another good thing abt Aster is it has active terminal radar homing like an AMRAAM. it does not require separate illumination radars (eg APAR, Mk99 for the burkes and F100) which SM-2 and ESSM need. this allows virtually unlimited simultaneous engagements. whereas burkes with 3 illuminators can only handle up to 3 SM-2s/ESSMs in terminal homing stage. so advantages in this area are twofold:
1)no illuminators needed
2)no limits on number of missile/target engagements

active radar homing also enables engaging low-flying missiles that are over the horizon of illuminator radars.

in a sense Aster places the illumination radar in the missile rather than the ship, giving much more flexibility.

a disadvantage however is the tiny active radars in the Asters are more prone to jamming than the much more powerful shipboard illuminators.

PS: F100s have 2 illuminators.