FBWMy understanding is that NG-Selex partnership was for more than offering the OpenPod for the 2018 contract. I believe they were eying jointly developed IRST. I’ll have to look at the announcement again. Certainly the partnership makes sense for the F-15 poded IRST contract, but NG has a impressive portfolio of infrared targeting sensors in it’s own right.
FBWFor both, range is similar based on anecdotal evidence – in both cases, the only real evidence available. For PIRATE, the number of targets tracked is quoted to be in the triple digits with no indication that AAS-42 comes anywhere close. ), so why would PIRATE NOT be better?
Probably the best indicator that Pirate is most likely the gold standard IRST is that NG looked to partner with Selex to being their expertise from PIRATE to future U.S. Market.
EOTS has IRST functionality, but is much more than an IRST, and likely not quite the equal of a dedicated system like PIRATE in terms of scanning rate, FoV, sensitivity.
FBWA
As obligatory mentions, survivability may be arguable, thanks to the F-35’s stealth characteristics – but detection, tracking and launching?! Assuming we are talking about a CAPTOR-E equipped Typhoon, there seems to be little going in favour of the F-35 with respect to offensive sensors (we’re not pitting the two against each other but both separately against a common notional opponent, so stealth doesn’t really enter into the aforementioned aspects).
CAPTOR-E should have similar array size (aperture & module count) as well as TRM technology to the APG-81, with the added advantage of a swash plate mounting for better range at high off-boresight angles (during target tracking for missile datalink guidance). Furthermore, PIRATE is probably the best IRST out there (the A/G-biased EOTS is based on AAS-42 & Sniper hardware, neither of which match PIRATE), about the only area where the F-35 might have an edge in detection/tracking is ESM (though given that DASS is a thoroughly decent package, .
We start by discarding the notion that radar or IRST are the longest range by which an adversary can be detected. That has not been true for greater than a decade. T/R modules may count the power of the array but the software behind it counts for how agile the sensor is, not to mention the computing power. Second, the advanced IDAS of current aircraft can detect the radar and datalinks at far greater range than the radar can ID the target.
The operators of the F-35 are not counting on just the onboard sensors of the single aircraft but the synergy of all sensors in the battle space. So long as datalinks like link 16 dominate, the F-35 has a huge advantage in the collection of data from awacs, drones, ships, other F-35’s, allied aircraft, without giving away it’s position:
FBWNic, Natops has the operational weight-compare that to max carrier landing weight. It is that simple. What you were looking at were limitations at certain flap CoG settings.
I don’t know where you read it, all I know is that there are literally dozens of references to the max weapon configuration for cat-trap landings. They are all unanimous on max bring back in regard to the aim-54 (4). What you read may have been in reference to typical loadout. Four aim-54 would have been exceptionally rare in peacetime for the reasons I stated. There were only roughly 2,500 Aim-54C produced.
FBWNope it was 2 Aim-54. If you are suggesting it could land with 4, then I’d love to see a picture of the feat (by an operational plane).
Nic
Could and did: refer to figure 4-18 of natops for max weight for carrier landing:
https://info.publicintelligence.net/F14AAD-1.pdf
The standard configuration was one aim-54 with 2 each of sparrow and sidwinder. One reason was the expense of the Aim-54 and the limited supply. Every missile only has so many captive carry hours and so many cats and traps. The other was stress on airframe from landing with so much weight in fuel and weapons. In wartime, it could takeoff and land with 4 aim-54, but certainly it was not practiced in peacetime.
FBWSo the shape is no more decisive as once claimed..
Shape will probably always be critical determinant so long as RF observability is a factor. There is a limit of how thick RAM can be applied to certain areas and thermal considerations to boot.
FBWYeah and the Tomcat could brick back only 2 Phoenixes which combined are more than 300kg less than a single Scalp.
Nic
4 aim-54 was the limit. For the -D bring back weight was 9,000 lbs fuel and weapons.
FBWFinal piece, article written by the director of shipbuilding, JSC. in Arms defense and techology review:
(350 m long, 36 m wide, 15,000 ton capacity) – page 21
https://issuu.com/airfleet/docs/arms-2010-5-site
Rest my case, let others decide who is full of it. School is out.
(honest apology for those coming to read in the Syria thread. I don’t like being called a liar, etc, when my information is correct and Wilhelm’s was B.S. and wishful thinking. As all the FACTS prove him wrong, I’m not going to post anymore about this)
FBWSorry, when I see that someone starts selectively quoting parts of a person’s post, as to twist meaning, that is the last gasp of a desperate poster. You were/are wrong about the shipyards:
Baltiysky Shipyard St.-Petersburg 5500 250×36
http://splanet.ru/referat9/referat-1507854.php (again note the width mentioned)
ungonkoontialustaa: ”A” max 343 x 36 m ja ”B” 249 x 33 m laivoille.
http://laradi.fi/images/files/syyspaivat_2012/gustafsson_syyspaivat2012.pdf
Not mention these:
http://www.ship2yard.com/yard.php?idy=8242
http://worldmaritimenews.com/archives/111442/russia-baltic-shipyard-lays-keel-for-fourth-oil-tanker-of-project-2734/
http://www.transport-research.info/sites/default/files/project/documents/20120315_101541_76592_ENCOMAR_%20Annexes-D-1.1_final%20version%2007-02-02.pdf
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/0627_mistral_ppt.pdf
I’m using sources from everywhere including Russia, Finland- yours is a dated reference from a us site. Nice try, how much further you want to go with embarrasing yourself is up to you.
And so, you’ve done nothing to disprove what I said. I am ending this as it has degraded into an arguement with words instead of a debate with facts (as you have presented none).
I leave you with this, all information about the revamping of shipyards to prep for building the new carrier. Obviously MoD does not share your view of a suitable yard as yet existing:
https://sputniknews.com/military/201601161033234012-russia-aircraft-carrier/
http://www.matthewaid.com/post/135771890796/russia-has-begun-building-a-new-state-of-the-art
FBWWilhelm, two questions:
1. What is the max beam of ships that can be launced at Balsky Zavod? How many more sources you want that you are wrong? I have three more listing the dimensions. Yours is from FAS (they and global security got the incorrect measurement from a book about the soviet navy)
2. What yard has a graving drydock wider than 35 m?
You can twist my words all you want. I stated that there was “NO DRYDOCK” wide enough to build and service a ship wider than 35 M, We then went on to slipways. You obviously know nothing about shipbuilding and the drawbacks of a slipway (especially one with 80 ton cranes). I amended the Kuznetzov at the same time I was writing post (btw, the o.a. beam is twice that of the Veliky ).
Basically, you got angry because you though you knew what you were talking about, got a smackdown, cried and insulted (ran to the whole, “he’s from the U.S. so he must be trolling” excuse), then came back with this tripe. Still waiting for you to present anything substatial that I was wrong……
FBWLast page… wow! How desperate attempts to show that Russia doesn’t have yards or facility to build large carriers. Little do the experts understand that the only stuff in the way of building carriers is Finance!
Btw, people never really try to understand stuffs…..and goes not repeating what some “expert” pulled out his backside.
.
Hopefully you have more sense than Wilhelm. First off, Russia could theoretically build a carrier roughly the size of Kuznetsov in Russian ports (I exclude Zaliv for a few reasons- including black sea nuke rules). But, the dry dock issue is real. Look into it yourself. There is no place to build a ship the size of the Shtorm projects yet. Currently, the plan is to combine two existing dry docks together at Severnaya Verf. The dry docks are to be upgraded as will the cranes. Unless Russia uses the dated and very time consuming process of building a large carrier from the keel up, you need cranes with a large lifting capacity. I was not able to find a clear timetable of when this modernization was to be completed, the article dated from last year said 2018, but I don’t know if the work started yet.
Sevmash has been mentioned, but Admiral Nakhimov eats up a lot of space and Kuznetsov is due for it’s 2017 refit. I doubt that they would use Zvezda (whenever it is completed 2022-?) as you want to have the facilities near where the ship is based (long way to sail if you have an issue). Even Kuznetzov is a challenge to find a suitable berth for, as for maintenance, the PD-50 floating dry dock was used for last refit.
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/year-2015-news/december-2015-navy-naval-forces-defense-industry-technology-maritime-security-global-news/3393-following-modernization-severnaya-verf-shipyard-will-build-project-23560-leader-class-destroyers.html
The other poster starting blabbering nonsense about various shipyards, he was wrong. I was correct about the dimensions of Baltiysky Zavod, not to mention it is a slipway with 80 ton cranes and (Russian officials have stated) 60,000 ton displacement limit {I said 40,000-45,0000 tons I will cop to being off on that}. None of this was to criticize Russia. I was pointing out the potential bottlenecks that need to be worked through before a carrier the size of the Shturm could be built that is all.
FBWNice footage.
Previously, Baltic Shipyard had the largest slipway, at 375m (usable length of 350m if I remember correctly) with a width of 40,5m. I have a copy of a document that specified the width, but am disinclined now to bother to scan and post it due to some sorry-assed trolling by the usual elsewhere. Either way, the US government, via the report below, agrees with that official figure.?
Who’s a troll? The FAS figure was taken out of a cold war book about Soviet naval yards, here are the actual measurements:
350×36 meters. Like I said Wilhelm there are people you can B.S., and people who know what they are talking about. Perhaps it’s time to return to fairy tales at Russia defense.net
http://www.ship2yard.com/yard.php?idy=8242
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/0627_mistral_ppt.pdf
http://worldmaritimenews.com/archives/111442/russia-baltic-shipyard-lays-keel-for-fourth-oil-tanker-of-project-2734/
http://www.transport-research.info/sites/default/files/project/documents/20120315_101541_76592_ENCOMAR_%20Annexes-D-1.1_final%20version%2007-02-02.pdf
FBWupdate
Suqur al-Sahara is deployed in aleppo, i wonder how this will help SAA
I may be aging myself, but does anyone else get the Robert H. Heinlein effect after watching these YouTube reports from Syria? Welcome to the new global age of media.
FBWAir Force Defends Decision to Award B-21 Contract Based on Lowest Cost
You have to love GAO, if a system has a cost overrun suddenly it is deemed “high risk” and alternatives begin to be pushed forward. Here cost was a key component in contract award and GAO is questioning if the USAF should have awarded the contract based on cost.
New cost saving idea, get rid of the “government afterthought obvious” agency and have private oversight of defense programs through RAND and FAS.
FBWI gave you the benefit of the doubt, but it appears you truly are exactly what you described yourself as.
the last thing that thread needs is any posts from a self described “Russian hating ignoramus” , your words not mine and duly demonstrated, to stink up the thread like you’ve done here by plucking stuff out of your backside and presenting it as fact, even when others have shown up your errors.
No thanks.
Ah, so. When asked to defend your crap, you cant and fall back on insults. Everything I posted was accurate. Please, please post your link on Baltic slipway- you can’t cause your lying. I have the dimensions right from them. You couldn’t present any factual information to refute what I said about width of slipway or DWT limit. So sad, the typical Sputnik poster, prone to chest puffing, short on knowledge.
Btw, I am far from a Russia hater. I dislike those who pose fantasy as fact and get caught up in nationalistic b.s. over real information -be they Russian or US. You and JSR can live in your dream world without those nasty little details like the truth bother you. Good for you.
I almost posted the two sites listing baltiysky zavod’s slipway dimensions, but i’ll let you flounder along in your obvious discomfort of being caught lying.
Edit- addition- Wilhelm still waiting for you to post one single piece of factual information showing I am wrong about none of the yards having a slipway or drockdock capable of building a ship wider that 35m (PD-50 floating drydock can be used for refit, but it is not a graving dock that can be used for construction).
Zalyv, obviously, is the exception, but that is a hot issue (Political fallout of building a major warship in a former Ukrainian yard, in the Black sea. Not to mention, workforce).
Sign In
