123 replies to this topic

[partyzanpaulzy]

All the Chinese Army needs to defeat any country on the Earth are caps...

[tank50us]

try all they need is simple cash, according to 60min, they have more money then just about everybody right now. However all I have to say is that I'm not for sale.

[The Wandering Jew]

Wizard, on 14 Jan 2009, 18:04, said:

JB you are a very scary person. I often wonder what you really do in RL, do you fly over Russia in AWAC everyday or something?

There'll come a time where American president Barack Obama and Russian president Dimitriy Medvedev will join their heads and wonder: "What the hell shall we do with this CommanderJB guy? He'll blow both of our countries to smithereens!"

[Pav:3d]

Wizard, on 14 Jan 2009, 10:04, said:

JB you are a very scary person. I often wonder what you really do in RL, do you fly over Russia in AWAC everyday or something?

!
Ever applied for a job being an arms dealer?

[CommanderJB]

No, and nor would I want to. Not the most ethically appealing business I have to say.

[TehKiller]

But then again the almighty words of Yuri Orlov to the question why does he sell weapons: "Im just good at it".

For those who dont know watch the movie "Lord of War" (very good one)

[Razven]

tank50us, on 15 Jan 2009, 9:24, said:

try all they need is simple cash, according to 60min, they have more money then just about everybody right now. However all I have to say is that I'm not for sale.

Actually, this opens up a whole different can of worms. Given that China has their hands in quite literally everyone's pockets, it could be seen as an act of war if they "incite" a economic crises if they pull back all investments and funds from a certain countrie's Treasury, stocks and bonds...since that'd completely ruin a country's economy, cost less than a conventional warefare while leaving millions devestated.

[tank50us]

and I thought a deadly virus was bad (V for Vendetta reference guys), heck, everything seems to be playing out the same way it's mentioned in the Movie

Edited by tank50us, 17 January 2009 - 18:15.

[Razven]

how so?

[tank50us]

War, terror, all we need is desease, and another American Civil War, and some test facility at some place called Larkhill, and boom, V for Vendetta

[Razven]

tank50us, on 21 Jan 2009, 0:17, said:

War, terror, all we need is desease, and another American Civil War, and some test facility at some place called Larkhill, and boom, V for Vendetta

Large Scale War = No
Terror = No
Disease = No
American Civil War = No
Larkhill Test Facility = None found

Chances of V for Vendetta? About 0%

The chances for a full scale war between 2 first world countries so most of them would go nuclear the moment the first strike against the capital and leadership positions hit. The only 'full scale' wars we get now are in Africa and possibly South America.

[CommanderJB]

*Ahem.*
Whatever the chances of Hugo Weaving turning up in a mask and spouting copious amounts of alliteration to Natalie Portman, let's get back to military technology, shall we?

Today's update, it has been decided by a totally random browse through my files, shall be on the Boeing EA-18G Growler.

As is patently obvious, the EA-18G is an evolution of the F/A-18E (single seat version) and F/A-18F (twin seat version, direct basis for EA-18G) 'Super Hornet' naval fighter, which is the US Navy's current/future mainline fighter and the subject of no small amount of heated debate. It's been derided by proponents of the F-14 Tomcat as too small, too limited and with too short a range, and alleged to be un-competitive in beyond-visual-range combat with designs like the Su-27SM/30/35 Flanker fighters which it faces in the Pacific in particular, though it offers a virtually unmatched amount of weapons versatility and is robust, if not spectacular, in all key roles of air defence, tactical strike and maritime strike.

The EA-18G is specifically built, as its lumpy airframe probably betrays, as a jamming aircraft, supporting the F/A-18E/F by filling the airways with electronic noise, degrading enemy radar performance, confusing missile seekers and generally making life hard for gadgetry, as well as carrying a pair of AGM-88E HARM (High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile) weapons for busting the very radars it confuses. It's the only modern jamming aircraft in the world, with the EA-6B Prowler it replaces having entered service many decades ago, and no comparable platform exists in the service of other nations. Unfortunately it's not without its drawbacks; its main 'weapon', the next-generation jammer (or NGJ) pod, hasn't actually been built yet, making it rely on pods already used by the EA-6B and other aircraft, so it's a bit toothless in the mean time. It also has half the crew of the EA-6B, making for a much higher work load, but this is intended to be handled by better automation, human interfaces and artificial intelligence programs to handle the menial work. It's also a genuinely capable fighter in its own right with its advanced Active Electronically Scanned Array radar (actually capable of jamming all by itself thanks to the advanced technology used in the specialised design of an AESA) and while all the electronics make it a bit more delicate than the average Super Hornet it can, in theory at least, pull all the same manoeuvres and carry all the same weapons.

The US Air Force, though, say the Growler is an outdated and flawed design, are getting more into a separate jamming solution known as the Miniature Air Launched Decoy - Jammer, or MALD-J. MALD is a small missile which simulates being an aircraft, and has a flight time of around twenty minutes, and is designed to confuse enemy radars and hopefully draw attention away from the launch aircraft. MALD-J would take the core components of the NGJ and be fired in barrages where they would silently enter into enemy airspace before lighting up all their radars with waves of electronic attack from well inside their perimeter, hopefully totally confusing anything and everything about. Unfortunately it's a long way back in development, and some fear it'll be cancelled by the new administration, which would pretty much leave the USAF with no jamming whatsoever since the cancellation of a airliner conversion into a huge stand-off jammer design. Regardless, it remains to be seen which will be the better platform, but the EA-18G is an important and noteworthy aircraft either way because it stands virtually alone in the realm of modern airborne electronic warfare.

Edited by CommanderJB, 21 January 2009 - 13:17.

[tank50us]

Personally I feel that the Navy better stop investing in the concept of "one airframe to do everything" mindset, something happens that Boeing didn't plan for (say...[hypothetical!] several brand new FA-18Fs breaking up in midair for example) then the entire fleet will be grounded until the problem is found and fixed in all planes. At which point the carriers will become very expensive row-boats.

The F-18 design is under protected (damage to one engine will FOD the other), under powered (both in the electronics and the engines), it "flies you, not the other way around".

Also it was built as a niche, to support dedicated escort fighters (like the Tomcat) when in turn-and-burn dogfights, and to assist in SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defense) when working with dedicated bombers (like the A-6Es). In order to perform the same mission that 6 A-6s are able to do, you need twice as many hornets, and another 6 to fly top-cover when you only needed maybe two Tomcats (the Radar is enough to scare off enemy pilots). Ntm, both aircraft are built by Grumman, which has put planes on carrier decks allot longer then Boeing has, they know what it takes to have a good carrier fighter. you need long range, VERY powerful engines, a heavy weapon load (your base is a bit more vulnerable to attack, it's a good idea to be able to stay in the fight longer), heavy armor (I'd rather pay 63million for a plane that will bring its pilot home then 30million for plane that won't), and the ability to 'recover' from heavy damage (there are many Tomcats and Intruders that have returned to service when they had to take the net, an F-18 would likely be totaled)

that was my 2 cents

[DerKrieger]

Well, a major reason for the retiring of the Tomcat was that it was very expensive and time consuming to maintain both it and the Phoenix missiles that it used. The Super Hornet is a much improved version of the legacy Hornet design. Plus, newer variants of the AIM-120 missile will have increased range that will hopefully offset the range problems that came about with the retiring of the Phoenix.

[CommanderJB]

Today, moving from the sky to the waves, I'll cover the brand-new Royal Navy Type 45 Daring-class Air Warfare Destroyers.


The Daring-class is by almost any measure the world's newest and deadliest air defence ship. Its makers are calling it the most capable destroyer ever built for the RN and it's the largest escort type (i.e. not an aircraft carrier, cruiser or battleship) that Britain has ever built. In a rare case of a British defence project turning out with exactly the results everyone was after at a reasonable cost, the Daring-class will provide the core of the RN's fleet air defence for the next several decades.
The primary weapon of the Type 45 is the Principal Anti-Air Missile System, or PAAMS for short. PAAMS uses two different types of missile, the Aster 15 and the Aster 30, designed and built by MBDA. The difference between the two is range; in fact the Aster 30 is simply an Aster 15 with a first-stage booster underneath. The 48 Aster missiles carried in the SYLVER vertical launch system can be fired at a rate of eight every ten seconds and are designed to combat all flying targets, from a fighter to a bomber to a sea-skimming supersonic anti-ship missile. She also equips a towed decoy for distracting torpedoes, the Seagnat missile countermeasures systems, twin Phalanx 20mm anti-missile CIWS guns and a pair of manned Oerlikon 30mm autocannon stations for use against light craft and any particularly lucky aircraft.
All this firepower, in addition to the 4.5 inch rapid-fire dual-purpose gun (technically triple-purpose as it can be targeted at land, sea and air targets - a British destroyer shot down an Argentine Skyhawk with its gun in the Falklands war and they've been valued for this purpose ever since) is hooked up to the highest technology combat information system on any warship in the world. The ship utilises the brand-new SAMPSON radar to provide precise fire control reportedly on objects the size of a cricket ball travelling three times the speed of sound, and its S1850M search radar can track up to 1000 separate low-observable targets at ranges of up to 400km. For finding the other major threat to a warship, sub-surface targets, the Daring-class equips the MFS-7000 sonar, the latest in the Royal Navy's line of renownedly sharp-eared systems. Type 45s are powered by a pair of Rolls-Royce gas turbines that propel her at sustained speeds of well in excess of 30 knots, though her actual top speed is, as usual, not public information. They also have two electric motors of almost equal power to the turbines, which are used to improve fuel economy. In this latter realm they're among the most efficient destroyers ever constructed too - a Type 45 could make it to the Falklands Islands, or New York and back, without any stops to refuel.
The Daring-class embarks a Merlin HM1 marine helicopter for dedicated anti-submarine work and other miscellaneous tasks. The HM1 carries its own dipping sonar, a stock of sonobuoys and a pair of Stingray light torpedoes for dealing with whatever the sonar picks up. Its three engines make it more reliable than other helicopter types and it's also considerably larger than most of its contemporaries, with plenty of lifting power and a large cabin for SAR work. The Merlin also has a comprehensive suite of countermeasures and sensors of its own.
The Type 45 was originally meant to be a cooperative design with France and Italy under the Horizon programme, but like most projects with France they decided they wanted different things and Britain went it alone. Italy and France have continued to develop the Horizon and have built four ships of the class. Britain originally wanted 12 Type 45s, but this was revised to eight and subsequently again downsized to the current six ships. The programme is well underway and has gone without any appreciable hitches, with the fourth hull, Duncan, launched a short while back and Daring about to formally commission.

I find the Daring-class to be exceptional ships. Their capabilities are second to none, their systems are modern, and they're big, long-ranging and the perfect choice to escort the RN's coming Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers. In many ways it's a shame that they didn't exercise the options for more Type 45s but since every Type 45 is worth at least two of the Type 42s it replaces, they'll still provide a perfect core for task forces and air defence unmatched by any fleet in the world. The clean profile and radar cross-section reducing measures even mean that it appears no larger to an enemy targeting radar than a largish fishing boat. The only drawback of the Type 45 is that it has no anti-ship missile capability and its land attack power is limited to its gun. While there are a couple of possible solutions - the SYLVER could theoretically be modified to fire Storm Shadow cruise missiles and Sea Skua AShMs could theoretically be fitted to the Merlin helicopter - in reality it relies entirely on other vessels to do this for it, particularly the aircraft carriers, which can do the job so many times better the idea is that it makes such capabilities entirely redundant on the Daring-class. As such they're pure escort vessels, but fitting snugly into this role, in my opinion there's none better anywhere. They're even rather handsome vessels as modern warships go.

Edited by CommanderJB, 28 January 2009 - 13:08.

[Colonel of the Cones]

Yeah the Type 45 is a little limited in it's mulitrole capability at the moment. But as you said, it could be fitted for cruise missiles (though the Tactical Tomahwak would require different launchers, and there is a definite gap behind the VLS where a pair of quad Harpoon launchers could be fitted. The Navy are desperately trying to save money at the moment (to pay for the Carriers and to keep try and stop additional cuts to the surface fleet), so expect the Harpoons only to be fitted when it's absolutely necessarily.

[partyzanpaulzy]

This reminds me American San Antonio class ship (F-35 in back, few tomahawk silos, torpedos, missiles, front cannon turret).

[ultimentra]

Hey JB can you do the next featured unit on whatever you can find out about the new Russian T-95? I can't seem to find much apart from a wikipedia article.

[CommanderJB]

I'll have a look but I think the reason you can't find much on the T-95 is because there isn't much to find. There's a lot of speculation around it, and we know it will likely include new ordnance, retain the ability to fire ATGMs from the main gun, have an autoloader, most likely three crew, probably a diesel engine, be better protected than the T-90, have the ability to mount hard and soft-kill missile defence systems such as those on the T-90, probably have ERA by default, and may have a new design with an unmanned, low-profile turret. Most of that is just guessing, and and anything more tend to be just shots in the dark. I might do an article on the T-90 which makes references, and there are persistent rumours of the T-95 having a day in the sun soon, but until then I don't think I'll be able to help any more than your Google searches.

[D.K.]

Hey JB mate, why don't you snoop for some things that come from smaller countries and aren't so known to people? That would be more interesting, because any fool (no offense to anyone) can find things about american/russian/british stuff.

[Razven]

Because most small countries don't have much interesting stuff, they operate things that Russia/US/NATO-bloc/Israel countries sold to them. Most of the more original concepts from smaller are upgrades and improvements for existing things sold to them earlier by above mentioned countries.

North Korea has some relatively original concepts, but none of their stats are really open for public viewing.

[CommanderJB]

While I appreciate the sentiment, and will try to put up things less likely for people to have heard about, my main aim with my posts is to provide detailed information which makes it easy to understand each design, and a bit of background. This is very hard with obscure test weapons or designs from smaller nations which do not see export or world-wide usage, and while I can certainly post pictures I find if I think they're interesting, unless it poses intriguing what-ifs or has a major role somewhere I can't really be bothered delving into all the variants of the Type 88 used across Africa (which might be none for all I know) or something. Another point is that given my preference for brand-new technology, relatively few nations maintain the industrial and skills base needed to produce and design indigenous weaponry which is likely to see any success in export, meaning there aren't as many of these more obscure but properly indigenous types of weaponry examples actually being produced relative to twenty or thirty years ago.
Basically if people are interested in military affairs then yes, they may have heard of the stuff I post here, though I hope to give them more information anyway by going into depth; and if they hold only a passing interest I want to cover things which are interesting, current, and have a major role to play somewhere to keep it relevant even if they are otherwise well-known. As I said I will steer away from the 'common' types when I feel like it, but as these are the ones I can best explain to others and have the greatest role to play in the real world, they'll probably still comprise the majority of this thread.

Edited by CommanderJB, 19 February 2009 - 11:59.

[ultimentra]

How about an article on your favorite assault rifle JB?

[CommanderJB]

While I don't have a 'favourite' necessarily, I'll do another article shortly, and I'll probably do a rifle eventually. While I do know something of rifles and infantry weapons I typically find them a less interesting topic than more complex weapons systems. Nevertheless I'll see what I can do.

[CommanderJB]

Here's an interesting development recently; the Boeing F-15SE Silent Eagle:

The latest update to the venerable F-15 Eagle that's scared the pants off frontal aviation since the 70s, the Silent Eagle is a derivative of the F-15E Strike Eagle multirole variant and its main claim to fame are new 'reduced observable' design features. By canting the tails outward, adding radar-absorbent material, and with the option to add radar blockers to the engine intakes, the F-15SE is claimed to have as low a frontal RCS signature as the F-35 Lightning II. This particular claim is widely viewed by just about everyone I've seen talking about it as a steaming pile of horse manure. The F-15A started off with an RCS of about ten or fifteen square metres. The F-15E, with composite materials that are less reflective to radar and some RAM treatment, brought it down to about five or ten square metres. The Eurofighter and Rafale, designed from the start to be less visible to radar than conventional fighters, have radar signatures of about 0.1m^2. Just to get there would require a fifty-fold or better reduction in RCS. But the F-35 is widely estimated to be about 0.001m^2 or lower - thousands of times smaller on radar than the F-15. With no edge alignment, no angular surfaces, and no changes to the engine inlet, there's blatantly no way Boeing have created anything like the RCS of the Lighting II in the frontal aspect.
What it does have in its favour however is internal weapons bays, as the more astute of you have probably noticed.

The positioning of these bays is very interesting indeed. They're not actually in the side of the aircraft; instead, they're integrated into the conformal fuel tank, an additional fuel pod that is shaped to match the side of the aircraft, that's been a staple feature since the F-15E. Inside each tank, a pair of AMRAAMs or other small ordnance such as a 1000lb JDAM or a pack of four Small Diameter Bombs (SDBs) that have become all the rage lately, can be fitted. Obviously the space taken up by the missiles can't be used for fuel simultaneously, so in order to carry the missiles inside (and thus reduce radar clutter on the outside of the aeroplane and make significant cuts to the RCS) it has to sacrifice two thirds of the fuel from the CFTs; they will now only each carry 500 gallons of fuel and not 1500 gallons. This translates to a roughly 200 nautical mile range penalty, which is actually rather huge. However, when this decrease in RCS is not needed (i.e. when you're on a CAS mission after air superiority and DEAD has already been accomplished), regular CFTs with no internal bays can be fitted in a couple of hours, bringing it back up to full range. It also gets a nice new APG-63(v)4 AESA radar, which is not likely to be a shoddy performer given the huge nose aperture it has to fit in (and thus resultant size of the antenna), and a powerful new EW suite called DEWS (Digital Electronic Warfare System) which is likely to be one of its main advantages.
While all these interesting new bits and bobs are fine and dandy, I really do question just what Boeing expects from the Silent Eagle. I personally doubt it'll do much more than match (if that) the RCS of the Typhoon, and given that it still can't supercruise and isn't really a great dogfighter it's very difficult to see what advantage, if any, it holds over contemporaries already in service. It's going to be competing with the F-35 in almost every last one of its prospective markets, and even though I have my misgivings about the Lighting II, it's going to be far stealthier and much more modern than a knock-off of a now roughly forty year old design. What do you reckon? Is it just a last doomed gasp by Boeing seeking to claw back a bit of market share from Lockheed Martin, or is there some life in the old Eagle yet?

Also, on an unrelated note, Scope sent me a highly interesting link about the 3P programmable ammunition for the Swedish CV9040 IFV:
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=-3hC0vsZ5-8
So thanks to him for that. It's certainly a very unique weapon, though I would take claims that the APFSDS-T rounds can disable MBTs with a grain or two of salt given that identical shells of three times the calibre have at times failed to do their job very well, this type of ammunition having proven particularly vulnerable to well-designed ERA. Nevertheless it's easily the nastiest light artillery piece I've seen fitted to an armoured fighting vehicle. In fact the most impressive thing I find from that video is the exceptional fire control and stabilisation of the gun. That's serious accuracy, especially on the move.

Edited by CommanderJB, 19 March 2009 - 07:41.