By: minmiester
- 14th December 2000 at 12:35Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: You are still joking, surely?
Your nice big half billion dollar Type 23 isn't looking too good once it's faced with, say, $4m in harpoon missiles (that's about 8 rounds yeh?)
Worse if it's facing a russian threat like Sunburn.
MinMiester
By: Jonesy
- 14th December 2000 at 13:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: You are still joking, surely?
My nice big Type23 (costing about half of what you quoted for the later boats!) has some very interesting characteristics which I'm not sure are totally public domain yet.
Suffice it to say that between those "facilities", the 32 missiles of the GWS.26 VL SeaWolf system (THE best naval SHORADS afloat period) and the ridiculous procedure required for the lockon and guidance of a 3M80 Moskit I'd take those odds quite happily!
Dont believe all you read about Russian "wonder-missiles" Min, sometimes they have big glaring holes in 'em!
Regs,
Steve
New
Posts: 343
By: stormrider
- 15th December 2000 at 02:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: You are still joking, surely?
Steady Jonesy ,who say wonder missiles?,then again there is no holes! basicly our friend here (min) didn't realise the importance/roles of navies .Anyway Type 23 is good for its mission,ASW,commerce protection,close in AAW escort...etc but not quite suited for other missions as you know ,surface combatants(destroyer size and below) ain't exactly multi role.
By: Jonesy
- 15th December 2000 at 09:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: You are still joking, surely?
Storm,
I didnt think I was being nasty?! If my post came across that way I sincerely apologise, especially to you Min, it certainly wasnt intended that way.
The term "wonder-missiles" comes from a slight issue of mine with the manner in which the Russians can immediately develop a missile to counter any platform NATO comes out with!
The AWACS comes out and bosh we have an anti-AWACS missile. AEGIS comes out and alakazam we have an anti-AEGIS missile. It would seem that Private John Smith from Sheffield could join the Army and out will come an "anti-John Smith from Sheffield" missile!!!. I'm overstating the point deliberately.
The fact that people generally, not aimed at you Min honest!, just seem to take this hype and noise as gospel truly staggers me too. The number of times I've heard people say that a Sunburn attack would just murder any fleet in its path is unreal and its simply not the case.
"Anyway Type 23 is good for its mission,ASW,commerce protection,close in AAW escort...etc but not quite suited for other missions as you know ,surface combatants(destroyer size and below) ain't exactly multi role."
I disagree a fair bit there really Storm, fitted with the excellent Mk8 4.5" gun mount and Block2 Harpoon missiles the ship will have a credible land attack capability; it is superb at ASW; the gun, Harpoon and the Lynx's Sea Skua's give it a fair ASuW ability and its Sea Wolf can adequately cover it for AAW. I think theyre also very attractive ships - which isnt bad for recruitment. How much more multirole could you expect from an FFG!
But this discussion is REALLY getting naval and I'm going to get asked to leave soon for attempting to subvert all these Air-heads so perhaps we can leave it there? :-)
B.Regs,
Steve
New
Posts: 839
By: Rosco
- 15th December 2000 at 11:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: FCBA
The Rafale will get an uprated version of its M88 engines in a few years time that will match the thrust of the EJ200.
By: Arthur
- 15th December 2000 at 11:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: You are still joking, surely?
Minmiesters arguments sound similar - wasn't there a similar uproar in the US in the late 40s, declaring the Navy obsolete? IIRC, Admiral Nimitz even committed suicide because of this.
And then Korea came, where the USN proved its right to existance again. Also, it remains a nice topic for debate if the Argentinians had invaded the Falklands/liberated the Malvinas if the Brits hadn't retired their conventional carriers. I presume Phantom FG1 and Buccaneers were a more serious deterrant than those brandnew light SHars at that time.
By: torpedo
- 15th December 2000 at 14:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: FCBA
But, how long will it takes ? And EJ200 is to have more powerful version too.
It seems that the armée de l'air is not happy with the M88-2 (TBO related).
There is a M88-4 project with more thrust than M88-3 and TVC
New
Posts: 343
By: stormrider
- 16th December 2000 at 11:52Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: You are still joking, surely?
LAST EDITED ON 16-Dec-00 AT 11:54 AM (GMT)[p]Jonesy before we turn this into a naval thing:),I was thinking full capability for a surface combatant in all arenas is more like a Tico cruiser,or a Kirov battlecruiser. ok we leave it here:)
New
Posts: 839
By: Rosco
- 16th December 2000 at 13:21Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: FCBA
The Armee de l'Air doesn't really have to worry about the M88-2 as they will get their first Rafales much later than the Navy {~2004}, by which time the M88-3 will be available. The M88 series will probably always be less powerful that the EJ200 series but this is partially offset by the fact that the M88s are pushing at least 1800 kgs less weight around. A navalized Typhoon would be even heavier.
By: ink
- 16th December 2000 at 15:21Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: FCBA
'Nuther argument in favour of Navies (sorry Min):
During the bombing campaign vs. Yug. Italy nearly declined the use of its airfields to NATO, Austria denied over-flights and Greece was thinking about it. This would have (not seriously perhaps, there's always Turkey) hampered NATO's operations but they could easily keep them going because of the US carriers (the HMS Invincible failled to contribute, in my opinion). Anyway, things could be much worse next time, as NATO and the US called in a lot of favours and expended much energy to get the level of cooperation that they did.
Carriers are for power projection, they don't contribute to your nations defense, they contribute to the defense of your nations interests abroad. If they UK was worried about just the defense of the Isles then the government could half the defense budget and still have no probs.
New
By: Anonymous
- 16th December 2000 at 15:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: minmiester, what are you smoking?
No offence min, but your points about carriers and the demise of maritime trade are way off base. As Jonesy has explained, carriers cannot be replaced by long range strike aircraft or inflight refueling. Impossible.
Carriers have unique abilities of power projection unmatched by aircraft stationed thousands of miles away. Believe me, as fearsome as the prospect of knowing that a few B52s are only 12 hours away is, the prospect of having a carrier battle group off your shores is even more so. Long range missions lasting 12 hours or so cannot be flown contiously for long. If that were not true, then the US would not forward base Buffs in Diego or England during times of crisis. Keep in mind that the a carrier group is usually kept close to hot spots all the time, so one is never more than a few days away. This is probably just long enough to sustain "global power" missions from halfway around the globe. From then on, the carrier group can deliver a steady around the clock pounding, at least for awhile until another arrives to ease the burden on the crews.
As for your contention that carriers are far too hard to supply- Tell that to the US Navy. They did it just fine in WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm. I'm sure they would love to hear how impossible it is.
And lastly, the prospect of aircraft taking over the "cargo carrier" role from ships is pure fantasy. Its not going to happen anytime in the near future.
New
By: Anonymous
- 17th December 2000 at 05:35Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: FCBA
Yeah, I'm with Ink on this one. Defense? Who cares if you have a carrier. They are the major power projection tool we have. The old saw about what the president says in a crisis. "Where is the nearest carrier?" Ain't far off. Having said that. The ones we have are very potent. The Navy forgets in one day more on how to operate a carrier battle group correctly than anyone else will learn in years. The big carrier works, it is just really, really, really expensive. As long as we are in the business of putting our nose into other peoples business, its one of the best tools in the bag.
elp
usa
New
Posts: 839
By: Rosco
- 17th December 2000 at 05:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: FCBA
Torpedo, the M88-4 is the would-be MLU powerplant, I'm not even sure it has been demonstrated yet, whereas the M88-3 has been undergoing testing for a half decade and should easily be ready by 2004. Really, all Rafales should have gotten the M88-3 but the French Navy badly needed fighters on deck so corners were cut.
Regarding carriers, I'm a fan of carrier aviation but I think that a carrier's number one job is sea control, and that carrier based airstrikes on land targets are pinpricks {and costly to perform at that} compared to what land based aircraft can bring to bear, though with amphibious landings being an obvious exception.
New
By: Anonymous
- 17th December 2000 at 06:01Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: FCBA
Well, in our case if they insure complete air domination (no threat from enemy aircraft) then they have done the most important job.
By: torpedo
- 18th December 2000 at 09:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: FCBA
Rosco I'm sure the M88-3 is the planed mid-life update (with 20% increase in thrust over the M88-2), M88-4 is only a SNECMA project.
M88-3 demonstrator was tested in 1996 but what was done on it since , I have no idea.
Time isn't the only parameter when assessing the stage of the project : funding is equally important. Since there is no more funding for Rafale for a couple of year all development work has been stopped on the Rafale F2 standard. It could be the same for M88-3.
Posts: 1,400
By: minmiester - 14th December 2000 at 12:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: You are still joking, surely?
Your nice big half billion dollar Type 23 isn't looking too good once it's faced with, say, $4m in harpoon missiles (that's about 8 rounds yeh?)
Worse if it's facing a russian threat like Sunburn.
MinMiester
Posts: 327
By: torpedo - 14th December 2000 at 12:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: FCBA
What of an EJ200 powered Rafale M ?
Posts: 1,400
By: minmiester - 14th December 2000 at 12:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: FCBA
I don't think the EJ200 fits in the Rafale M does it?
MinMiester
Posts: 4,875
By: Jonesy - 14th December 2000 at 13:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: You are still joking, surely?
My nice big Type23 (costing about half of what you quoted for the later boats!) has some very interesting characteristics which I'm not sure are totally public domain yet.
Suffice it to say that between those "facilities", the 32 missiles of the GWS.26 VL SeaWolf system (THE best naval SHORADS afloat period) and the ridiculous procedure required for the lockon and guidance of a 3M80 Moskit I'd take those odds quite happily!
Dont believe all you read about Russian "wonder-missiles" Min, sometimes they have big glaring holes in 'em!
Regs,
Steve
Posts: 343
By: stormrider - 15th December 2000 at 02:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: You are still joking, surely?
Steady Jonesy ,who say wonder missiles?,then again there is no holes! basicly our friend here (min) didn't realise the importance/roles of navies .Anyway Type 23 is good for its mission,ASW,commerce protection,close in AAW escort...etc but not quite suited for other missions as you know ,surface combatants(destroyer size and below) ain't exactly multi role.
Posts: 327
By: torpedo - 15th December 2000 at 08:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: FCBA
Don't know
But they have almost the same weight so they should have almost the same size.
Posts: 4,875
By: Jonesy - 15th December 2000 at 09:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: You are still joking, surely?
Storm,
I didnt think I was being nasty?! If my post came across that way I sincerely apologise, especially to you Min, it certainly wasnt intended that way.
The term "wonder-missiles" comes from a slight issue of mine with the manner in which the Russians can immediately develop a missile to counter any platform NATO comes out with!
The AWACS comes out and bosh we have an anti-AWACS missile. AEGIS comes out and alakazam we have an anti-AEGIS missile. It would seem that Private John Smith from Sheffield could join the Army and out will come an "anti-John Smith from Sheffield" missile!!!. I'm overstating the point deliberately.
The fact that people generally, not aimed at you Min honest!, just seem to take this hype and noise as gospel truly staggers me too. The number of times I've heard people say that a Sunburn attack would just murder any fleet in its path is unreal and its simply not the case.
"Anyway Type 23 is good for its mission,ASW,commerce protection,close in AAW escort...etc but not quite suited for other missions as you know ,surface combatants(destroyer size and below) ain't exactly multi role."
I disagree a fair bit there really Storm, fitted with the excellent Mk8 4.5" gun mount and Block2 Harpoon missiles the ship will have a credible land attack capability; it is superb at ASW; the gun, Harpoon and the Lynx's Sea Skua's give it a fair ASuW ability and its Sea Wolf can adequately cover it for AAW. I think theyre also very attractive ships - which isnt bad for recruitment. How much more multirole could you expect from an FFG!
But this discussion is REALLY getting naval and I'm going to get asked to leave soon for attempting to subvert all these Air-heads so perhaps we can leave it there? :-)
B.Regs,
Steve
Posts: 839
By: Rosco - 15th December 2000 at 11:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: FCBA
The Rafale will get an uprated version of its M88 engines in a few years time that will match the thrust of the EJ200.
Posts: 7,877
By: Arthur - 15th December 2000 at 11:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: You are still joking, surely?
Minmiesters arguments sound similar - wasn't there a similar uproar in the US in the late 40s, declaring the Navy obsolete? IIRC, Admiral Nimitz even committed suicide because of this.
And then Korea came, where the USN proved its right to existance again. Also, it remains a nice topic for debate if the Argentinians had invaded the Falklands/liberated the Malvinas if the Brits hadn't retired their conventional carriers. I presume Phantom FG1 and Buccaneers were a more serious deterrant than those brandnew light SHars at that time.
Regards,
Arthur
Posts: 327
By: torpedo - 15th December 2000 at 14:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: FCBA
But, how long will it takes ? And EJ200 is to have more powerful version too.
It seems that the armée de l'air is not happy with the M88-2 (TBO related).
There is a M88-4 project with more thrust than M88-3 and TVC
Posts: 343
By: stormrider - 16th December 2000 at 11:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: You are still joking, surely?
LAST EDITED ON 16-Dec-00 AT 11:54 AM (GMT)[p]Jonesy before we turn this into a naval thing:),I was thinking full capability for a surface combatant in all arenas is more like a Tico cruiser,or a Kirov battlecruiser. ok we leave it here:)
Posts: 839
By: Rosco - 16th December 2000 at 13:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: FCBA
The Armee de l'Air doesn't really have to worry about the M88-2 as they will get their first Rafales much later than the Navy {~2004}, by which time the M88-3 will be available. The M88 series will probably always be less powerful that the EJ200 series but this is partially offset by the fact that the M88s are pushing at least 1800 kgs less weight around. A navalized Typhoon would be even heavier.
Posts: 327
By: torpedo - 16th December 2000 at 13:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: FCBA
Not quite sure : M88-3 could be waited for decades since it is intended as a mid-life update for the Rafale whose service will last at least 40 years.
Posts: 3,269
By: ink - 16th December 2000 at 15:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: FCBA
'Nuther argument in favour of Navies (sorry Min):
During the bombing campaign vs. Yug. Italy nearly declined the use of its airfields to NATO, Austria denied over-flights and Greece was thinking about it. This would have (not seriously perhaps, there's always Turkey) hampered NATO's operations but they could easily keep them going because of the US carriers (the HMS Invincible failled to contribute, in my opinion). Anyway, things could be much worse next time, as NATO and the US called in a lot of favours and expended much energy to get the level of cooperation that they did.
Carriers are for power projection, they don't contribute to your nations defense, they contribute to the defense of your nations interests abroad. If they UK was worried about just the defense of the Isles then the government could half the defense budget and still have no probs.
By: Anonymous - 16th December 2000 at 15:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: minmiester, what are you smoking?
No offence min, but your points about carriers and the demise of maritime trade are way off base. As Jonesy has explained, carriers cannot be replaced by long range strike aircraft or inflight refueling. Impossible.
Carriers have unique abilities of power projection unmatched by aircraft stationed thousands of miles away. Believe me, as fearsome as the prospect of knowing that a few B52s are only 12 hours away is, the prospect of having a carrier battle group off your shores is even more so. Long range missions lasting 12 hours or so cannot be flown contiously for long. If that were not true, then the US would not forward base Buffs in Diego or England during times of crisis. Keep in mind that the a carrier group is usually kept close to hot spots all the time, so one is never more than a few days away. This is probably just long enough to sustain "global power" missions from halfway around the globe. From then on, the carrier group can deliver a steady around the clock pounding, at least for awhile until another arrives to ease the burden on the crews.
As for your contention that carriers are far too hard to supply- Tell that to the US Navy. They did it just fine in WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm. I'm sure they would love to hear how impossible it is.
And lastly, the prospect of aircraft taking over the "cargo carrier" role from ships is pure fantasy. Its not going to happen anytime in the near future.
By: Anonymous - 17th December 2000 at 05:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: FCBA
Yeah, I'm with Ink on this one. Defense? Who cares if you have a carrier. They are the major power projection tool we have. The old saw about what the president says in a crisis. "Where is the nearest carrier?" Ain't far off. Having said that. The ones we have are very potent. The Navy forgets in one day more on how to operate a carrier battle group correctly than anyone else will learn in years. The big carrier works, it is just really, really, really expensive. As long as we are in the business of putting our nose into other peoples business, its one of the best tools in the bag.
elp
usa
Posts: 839
By: Rosco - 17th December 2000 at 05:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: FCBA
Torpedo, the M88-4 is the would-be MLU powerplant, I'm not even sure it has been demonstrated yet, whereas the M88-3 has been undergoing testing for a half decade and should easily be ready by 2004. Really, all Rafales should have gotten the M88-3 but the French Navy badly needed fighters on deck so corners were cut.
Regarding carriers, I'm a fan of carrier aviation but I think that a carrier's number one job is sea control, and that carrier based airstrikes on land targets are pinpricks {and costly to perform at that} compared to what land based aircraft can bring to bear, though with amphibious landings being an obvious exception.
By: Anonymous - 17th December 2000 at 06:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: FCBA
Well, in our case if they insure complete air domination (no threat from enemy aircraft) then they have done the most important job.
elp
usa
Posts: 327
By: torpedo - 18th December 2000 at 09:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: FCBA
Rosco I'm sure the M88-3 is the planed mid-life update (with 20% increase in thrust over the M88-2), M88-4 is only a SNECMA project.
M88-3 demonstrator was tested in 1996 but what was done on it since , I have no idea.
Time isn't the only parameter when assessing the stage of the project : funding is equally important. Since there is no more funding for Rafale for a couple of year all development work has been stopped on the Rafale F2 standard. It could be the same for M88-3.