Su-30MK/Su-27SM can carry 6 Kh-31AD or 4 klubir/Kh-59MK. All can have greater than 300Km range. Those straight shooter Kh-31 belong to 1980s.
It can practically saturate the airdefences. And slow moving Aster-30 can be shot down by newer R-77. And since airpower can be reloaded several times in a day with thousands sorties with satellites/AWACS keeping constant watch.. Naval ships are theoretically sitting ducks as they will run out of munitions within 24 to 48 hrs of war. U cannot occupy a place with ships. those days are gone. Ships cannot move more than 1500km in 48 hr period from there location. Well within the range of longer legs aircraft.
I am not going into bigger Su-34/Backfires. that can potentially carry dozens. The solution is investment in more airpower.

In order to utilise that range you need to track the target with a bear that will be a sitting duck to any defending fighters. To what range can Flankers carry 6 anti-ship missiles? probably not far. What the hell is an Su-34?

I hope it wasn’t a recent pic???

2007 according to the date under the thumbnail, though i have to admit the 2008 ones look bad enough.

Jonesy, what’s bad with TVM/SACG guidance that you remarks it?

Obviously, PAAMS, AEGIS are on a different (higher) category than Fort/Fort-M, but, why the criticisms towards TVM?, in land scenarios, doesn’t sounds a bad alternative in no ways (Patriot/S-300 and they way it would not told you you’re under CW lock-on according to the complexity of your EP system)

IMHO, main disadvantage of Fort is the limited FoV, is not anti-saturation system, Volna/Flap Lip FCR onboard russian ships have only +/-60° azimuth FoV, so if you have 2 FCR that’s only +/- 120° of azimuth coverage…but against concentrated attacks along similar (not so wide attack axis) attack axis, it doesn’t sounds that bad…5V55RUD and 48N6 warhead should do a good job on Harpies and similars, even if they are “triggered” to explode maximum 20 meters ASL…

There is something I also don’t like on Aster-30, with 120 Km (better range, better aspect of the engagement, better signature target profile, bla bla bla), that doesn’t allow you to give AAW area defense against newer longer range AShM, granted, JSF’s CAW could extent that, but neither F-35 is your best air defense asset anyway…

In a litoral environment when you use your AAW ships as air space blocks (don’t know the correct english word for this), you again can’t not deny air space as good as per example…SM-2 Block IIIB that have much longer range (or SM-6 in CEC environment)

I don’t know, i’m not a believer of Aster-30, so if you think I’m wrong, try to convence me otherwise 😀

P.S: Interesting russians consider MGK-540 Skat-3, a similar system to BSY-1…well at least it looks pretty advanced and have BIGS flank array 😉

Considering you have to track the long range sea skimming AShM in order to shoot it, the Aster 30 has plenty long enough range (fairly sure T45 doesnt have CEC).

No, more orders for machinery have been placed in the last week (not much left to order now), & work is progressing. Speaking of “imaginary” ships, do you want to place a bet on whether IAC or the first CVF will hit the water first? :diablo:

Especially considering construction of the IAC supposedly started in 2005, but that claim to only be building the blocks now. :dev2:

Yip, been thinking about these. Plus an arresting system.

Kind of hard to estimate the power requirements for EMALS. Works with a generator wheel, so you need just the power to spin it up. This here talks about 6MW per generator.
http://carcamal.ele.cie.uva.es/CEM/articulos/Catapult.pdf
Way too high for my thinking. How much do you need to spin up a wheel to 6500rpm? Depends mostly on the launch frequency, I guess.

Quite easily considering a generator wheel is the exact same thing that they currently have hooked up to the gas turbines to generate electricity. It might be possible to add a second generating coil onto the same shaft attached to each turbine i suppose. :confused:

Physics isn’t my strong point. I’m more interested in Chemistry.

Am I the only one thinking that CVF might be a little – underpowered?
100MW total with 80MW shaft for a 65.000ts ship?
The Kuznetsov is about the same weight and has 150MW total.
Not commenting on the machinery concept, and how its characteristics might go together with the Daring escorts, but I think it’s a gamble.

I remember an early document about the Nimitz class, estimating max hotel load at around 6MW. With all the improved creature comfort and electronic toys I bet the CVF will not need less, but let’s say 5MW (QE2’s is 16MW). That leaves just 15MW for combat systems. A SPY-1 has about 4MW of output, heaven only knows what the input is, but let’s say 66% efficiency, which results in another 6MW. Will the CVF radars be less hungry? That would leave, say, 10MW as reserve. Enough?

Plus in the early 2030’s they will probably need to be fitted with EMALs which will provide a massive drain. 😉

Out of curiousity, other then a bunch of decommissioned T42 destroyers in portmouth harbour (3-6?), what other decommissioned ships do the RN actually have lying around? For example there are 3 LSL’s that as far as i know are unaccounted for, two hunt class minehunters, plus the two castle class OPV’s.

Not to mention all the SSN’s that are sitting around, though probably stripped of parts since the Trafalgar’s and remaining Swiftsure’s use the same reactor systems.

Were those ships scrapped? sold? or are they rusting away in one of the Naval Bases? Similarly, are there other ships that are sitting around gathering rust?

Edit: and while i’m at it, and i’m afraid to ask this, were the ships that were recently mothballed placed in extended readiness in order to free up the sailors that went to afghanistan to drive trucks and stuff?