The airshow is over but the debate continues, one of the Russian aerospace journalist have such observation which really stirred hot debate in many forums:

 

 http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/11/dispatch-from-zhuhai-chinas-j1.html

...Now everyone I trust says the Chinese pulled it off, and the J-10 has proven a tremendously successful program.

I watched how the J-10 flew over Zhuhai, in 30 degree Celsius temperatures and high humidity.

The pilot did none of the show tricks like post-stall or tail slide or pitch-back, but turns were very tight, initial rate of turn very high. It was clear there is a lot of potential in this airplane to achieve the same maneuvers more quickly.

The pilot rarely used afterburner and the degrees of canard deflection were small. Still, the airplane flew very well. I reckon it will beat F-16C or MiG-29/SMT easily.

To accomplish the comments, here are some videos of J-10 performing in the Airshow.

Yes, it did climbs like a rocket :

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB90zVT7AOs

 

http://www.alert5.com/2008/11/j-10-taxi-and-take-off-at-zhuhai.html

 

Courtesy of Alert5 for the last footage. 

 

Originally posted by cheeze:

...leaving one or two remaining salvoes of BVR missiles on his rails, and the same Flanker driver will have modern DRFM monopulse jammers capable of causing likely much more than a 50 percent degradation of AIM-120 kill probability. With a thrust vectoring engine capability (TVC), the Flanker driver has the option of making himself into a very difficult endgame target for the AIM-120 regardless of  the capability of his jamming equipment. Since all of the AIM-120s fired are identical in kinematic performance and seeker jam resistance, any measure applied by the Flanker driver which is effective against one AIM-120 round in the salvo is apt to produce the same effect against all AIM-120 rounds

 

 

Jamming resistance is greatly improved by using monopulse radar seeker. Monopulse radar seeker usually form several polarized beams at one pulse. Filters can be inserted to remove any signal that is either unpolarized, or polarized only in one direction. In order to confuse such a system, the jamming signal would have to duplicate the polarization of the signal as well as the timing, but since the aircraft with DRFM jammer receives only one lobe, determining the precise polarization of the signal is difficult. Especially the active radar seeker on AAM works only in terminal stage and the light up of the active seeker is pretty short in less than 1 min, in such a short time frame, the Assie funboy thinks the target plane’s RWR can locate the direction of the incoming AAM and then DRFM got enough dwell time to form exactly the same signal to jam the active radar seeker at a “50 percent degradation of AIM-120 kill probability?”  He must got the result after a wet dream instead of any serious job. The beauty of monopulse radar seeker is not only to be difficult to jam but also, in case of successful jamming , it can seamlessly switch to “Home on jam” mode, which means the jammer itself will provide illumination for the AAM to home in if its own signal being jammed.

Malaysian Helo Deal Falls Apart

Taipei - Malaysia has canceled the procurement of 12 Eurocopter EC725 Cougar medium-lift transport helicopters to replace its aging Sikorsky S-61A4 Nuri helicopters.

Malaysia's Air Force has been struggling to replace its remaining 30 Nuris, which were procured during the 1960s and '70s. Plans called for phasing out the Nuri by 2012.

On Sept. 26, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, also the countyr's defense minister, announced that a letter of intent had been signed with Eurocopter Malaysia to buy 12 EC725 helicopters for $650 million.

The EC725 beat the AgustaWestland EH101, Boeing CH-47F, Kazan Mil Mi-17 and Sikorsky H-92 in a tender issued during the Langkawi International Maritime and Air Show (LIMA) last December.

Abdullah announced the cancellation of the Eurocopter deal Oct. 28, citing the growing economic crisis and lost oil revenues.

"We had decided during the National Economic Council meeting on Oct. 13 not to purchase the helicopters at the moment because we need the allocation for other projects, and saving is very important for us now to face an economic situation caused by the world economic crisis," Abdullah said in a news release.

Political opposition leaders have attacked the Eurocopter deal as lacking transparency and protections. The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and Anti-Corruption Agency are investigating allegations of corruption in the deal.

"Most of the current controversy was due to the lack of public relations," a Malaysian defense analyst said. "They [MINDEF] could have avoided the bad press if they had done their homework. They could have explained better the decision behind the selection of the Cougar.

"Furthermore, defense procurement policies inherited from the previous administration lacked transparency and checks, which will allow endless speculation and conspiracy theories," he said. "With the current political hangover, anything and everything will be politicized of which the current government yet again failed to appreciate. In the end, the services suffer."

The analyst noted that there were also calls to shelve the deal in view of the current global economic crisis.

Not everyone is convinced the deal is dead. One defense industry source in Malaysia said the "deal is still on" and the Malaysian "government is just going through a process of getting the ACA and PAC to issue reports saying all was fair and no corruption involved.

"These reports will be issued soon, allowing the government to quash all the speculation and allowing the contract to be signed," he said.

F-16’s internal fuel max is 3100kg, the empty weight of F16 is 8300kg

Fuel to weight ratio is 3150/(3150 + 8300)=0.275

Yankee’s Airforce is tasked to be attacking orientated, which requests the fuel to weight ratio the higher the better. As a matter of fact, American made fighter’s such ratio indeed the best among others. I doubt Chinese can make J10’s such figure better than what Yanks got. Let use the same ratio, assuming J-10’s empty weight is 8500kg, if the ratio is 0.275 at same level of F16, then 3230/(3230 +8500)=0.275, so the J-10’s internal fuel is around 3250kg(7220ibs)

The range: 3-3.5 tons depending on the ratio and empty weight of J10

 

I’d rather believe commonsense than some other enthusiast’s website. As I said, EF2000 features larger delta wing, smaller canard and most import of all, 2 powerplants instead of J10’s 1, it only can have 10000ibs/4500kg max internal fuel, how come J10 matches that?

 

If I were the PLAAF procurer, why I need a light fighter having so much internal fuel, yet every time the same fighter still carrying at least 1 external fuel tank? Why I need a long haul light fighter, when I have almost double the J10’s number of heavy Su27/30 to accomplish the same mission?

 

Taking a look at J10’s sister fighter, the FC-1/JF-17 is produced in the same factory but only for export, the FC-1/JF-17’s official internal fuel numer is 2300kgs/5110ibs, the J-10 is only slightly larger than FC-1/JF17, but holding almost twice the internal fuel at 4050/4500 kgs? No way.

 

FC-1 with J-10

 

To Shotgun:

J-10 may be longer than F-16, but it also slimmer, make it the overall size similar to F-16:

The F-16C’s empty weight is 8300kg, so it’s reasonable to assume J-10 is around 8500kg instead of 9000kg you estimate.

For the internal fuel, let’s benchmark J10 against the other fighters, Israeli Lavi can contain 2650kg ( 5900 ibs) max internal fuel, European Typhoon can have 4500kg(10000ibs) max. F16 is around 7000ibs(3150kg), You put J-10’s internal fuel at 9000ibs(4050kg), which put it in the same class of a heavier, twin engine fighter instead of closer design single engine fighters.

So it’s not strange to see you underestimate J-10’s combat loading, let the pics make the talking, see it’s really 2000ibs of AAMs or not:

 

Originally posted by Shotgun:

Well, I don't see how they surpass the Su-27 benchmark unless the Su-27 was using some cheap knockoff Chinese engine.

The Su-27 exceeds the 1:1 t/w ratio with reheat easily in an air to air combat load.  The J-10's single AL-31F doesn't push its overweight body past 1:1 at all even w/ reheat.  With that kinda t/w ratio, flying at high angles of attack is just gonna get it really slow, really quick.  Canard or no canard, it generally shouldn't surpass the Su-27 at all considering it doesnt have TVC. I don't see how much more manueverable the J-10 can be against a Su-27... 

With all this in consideration, I'm really gonna take their "hit the benchmark" with a pinch of salt.  Did it surpass the real deal Su-27 benchmark or their knockoff J-11?

 

In a BVR fight, the aircraft with better acceleration has a range advantage (f-pole).  Being able to break mach 1. for the missile allows its missile to hit further.  Hence, in theory, the Su-27 with a higher than 1:1 thrust / weight ratio should be able to out shoot the J-10.  Unless someone claims that the J-10's design is so drag efficient that it out accelerates the Su-27 with a lower t/w ratio... but from the Looks of it, it doesnt seem so.  Otherwise, the Chengdu would be claiming that the J-10s can supercruise... and I'll be falling off my chair.

 

 

Lol. Seems a lot of homework before becoming a China military expert.

First of all, tell us which Su27 carries TVC?

2ndly, one reference I would recommend is Jane’s report on J11B, which is the mentioned “Su27 using cheap knockoff Chinese engine”

Details emerge of China’s J-11B heavy fighter

Details have emerged of China’snext-generation
J-11B heavy air superiority fighter aircraft:
a further development of Sukhoi’s Su-27SK (Chinese
designation J-11) that ended production in 2004 ahead of its
planned run.

Shenyang Aviation Corporation assembled 95 J-11 fighters from
imported Russian components, although the original project had
called for 200 aircraft, and it is likely production was stopped in
anticipation of the improved J-11B.

Although based on the Su-27SK, the latest incarnation has
substantial improvements including a reduced radar cross-section
(RCS), a strengthened airframe and an improved fire-control radar, as
well as a new flight-control system, glass cockpit and engine.

The improvements are planned to take the aircraft to a fourth generation
platform. It is known that theYanliang FlightTest Center
currently has three J-11B aircraft under testing.

The most significant change for the aircraft is the reduced RCS;
sources claim that this brings the RCS from the 15 m2 of the Su-27 to
less than 5 m2 and possibly as low as 3 m2, but it is unlikely that the
minimal changes proposed could achieve this.

The change is not to the shape of the aircraft but involves modification
of the air-intake lip with a radar wave shield and installation
of radar-absorbing materials on the intake interior. The RCS will be
reduced with Chinese-made signature-reduction paint.

The strengthening of the airframe – a key aspect since the life
expectancy of the aircraft has been criticised by the People’s Liberation
Army Air Force – has been achieved through wind-tunnel tests
of the weapons carriage.

Additionally, the empty weight of the aircraft has been reduced by
about 700 kg through the use of composite materials. It is believed
a further 10,000 hours have been added to the life of the aircraft compared
with the Su-27SK.

The radar installed on the J-11B is believed to be more powerful
than the Type 1473 installed on the J-10; it is estimated to be able to
track 20 targets and simultaneously lock onto six.

I would also recommend this article on J11B from Aviationweek, another reputed American magazine:

Chinese J-11B Presages Quiet Military Revolution

 http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw110606p2.xml

 IMO, if J10 had been fighting with the J11B with improved slot array radar and FBW, it would have found a much hard time.

Talking about overweighed J10, the UK’s Airforce monthly reports J10’s empty weight of 8500kg, which represents my own estimation, so, by simply putting of you “overweigh”, what do you think the weight is? On the contrary, Su27 can’t carry drop tank, which means it need carry much more amount of internal fuel for 2 engines.

 

Originally posted by bloodsucker:

The J-10 has its design partially copied from the F-16 right? The air intake seems to be copied from them, except the typical Chinese copycats must mod it abit so they make it rectangular.

I’m not sure how you get this weird impression even though the 2 air intakes are different in at 1st glance.

F-16 features a fixed geometry pitot tube for air intake, the benefit of pitot tube is its light weight, satisfactory performance in transonic and subsonic region where most dog fights occur.

J-10  adopts an adjustable, binary air intake, the upper portion of the air intake is incorporated with an intake ramp designed to generate a rearward leaning oblique shock wave to aid the inlet compression process, which is valuable when the fighter jets need perform in not only subsonic but also supersonic region. The only short comings of this binary, shock wave air intake are its complexity and adding more die weight. However, air fight starts from BVR, and where speed is life. If you want sth matching up the heavy fighters like Su27 or F-15 which can easily accelerate to over M2, you need your fighter to have features that work fine in that area. J-10 by initial design, clearly set mind on performance vs heavy fighters on most flight envelops.  
 

Well, I’m not sure you can understand Chinese or not, here’s one such report in Chinese:

 

 http://news.163.com/07/0104/11/3406IMBG00011232_2.html

 

 Chinese started importing Su27 as early as 1992. PLA directly imported 78 Su27sks from Russia, then in 1998,  Shenyang aircraft company( SAC) started to assemble the Su27 kits supplied from Russia, the local assembled Su27 is called J11, after that, SAC gradually increased the Chinese made components in local assembled J11, the J-11 with Chinese radar, avionics is called J11A. Till 2007, Chinese has successfully developed its own turbofan engine for military fighter jets, the J-11 with almost 100% Chinese made components including Radar, Avionics, weapon, and powerplant( which is WS-10A “tiahang” turbofan engine you mentioned) is called J-11B, the J-11B’s appearance makes Russians much uneasy that not longer ago, some Russian media accused Chinese pirated their beloved Flanker, until the Sukhoi itself came out and clarified that it has sold Chinese the Flanker airframe design long ago.

 

The J-10 vs Su27 exercise is an interesting one. The outcome directly leaded to PLA’s decision to haul all Su27 kits import from Russia. Initially, China signed contract with Suhkoi to import up to 200 Su27 kits, but after the J-10 ‘s landside victory over Su27, the PLA stopped all su27 kits import, so SAC only locally assembled 95 kits from Russia instead of 200. Now, SAC is manufacturing J11B which is believed not included in the initial 200 kits quota,

Originally posted by Shotgun:

 

HARM :  You need them for "shoot outs."  RWR yells at you, missiles in the air, SHOOT the HARM. (Those over the shoulder launches bring a tear to my eye....)

JDAM :  RWR Naked, you get information from ELINT / SIGINT / COMMINT ppl that there's a StraightFlush radar at the mentioned coordinates.   Fly high and fast, and drop the JDAM.

 

Different weapon, different purpose.  Apply them wrongly, and you have a dead pilot.

Nobody knows what other devious plans the ADA ppl have up their sleeves in real life, no need to say online discussion.

In USAF terms:

HARM: cued by RWR or other means-- Suppress Enemy Air Defense-SEAD.

JDAM: cued by Elint/Sigint/Commint by means of VLBI or LBI to geo-locate the hostile SAM's radar---Destruct Enemy Air Defense--DEAD

Yankees are evil enough to  upgrade the current SEAD version of HARM to DEAD version of Harm by adopting the technologies used widely by PGMs.

 

 

 

Originally posted by kotay:

 

 

 Like I said previously, various DoDs and project teams, with tons of money at their disposal have endorsed it.  If you really feel that you are that much of a genius that you know something they don’t, why don’t you go apply to work for them and show them their errors?  For that matter, keep you talent at home, apply to work for ST.  We could certainly use someone of your talent in ST.

....

With your knowledge of weapon system selection and your powerful logical acumen, please tell us why the Mk 110 was chosen?

If the SM-2/ESSM 2-layer is deemed good enough to handle all anti-air and anti-missile threats, than why select the 57mm Bofors for the role of a non-CIWS close protection gun? 

If the CIGS is only for surface targets, than why, of all the choices available, do they choose an expensive, deck penetrating gun mount?  There are many other non-penetrating gun mounts, of lower caliber, that can offer a more gradated response to asymmetric threat environments.  57mm can be a bit of an overkill in some instances. 

 Could it be that despite all your fluff about the Zumwalt’s integrated defense network, the USN selected the Mk 110 because it has CIWS (CIGS) capabilities and will actually give them a 3-layer hard kill anti-missile defense.

 

 

 

....

Since the thread is still much alive…

The MK110 system in USN is still basically an ASuW against hostile small speed boat or the likes. The DDG1000 is a new era destroyer countering new type of threats, the terrorist. The DDG1000 is designed to accomplish missions in littoral water. So MK110 gun system is primarily tasked to do the job mentioned above. Not the mission of CIWS closely associated with anti-ASCM.

Look at another vessel designed for littoral water—the LCS, set to replace FFG7. LCS features both MK110 and SEA-RAM, the MK110 is mainly for engaging speedboats pop up in littoral terrain. While the RIM-116 SEA-RAM on board is for what we have discussed so long here—CIWS:

 http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/littoral/

MAIN GUN
Both General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin vessels are armed with BAE Systems Land and Armaments (formerly United Defense) mk110 57mm naval gun system. The mk110 fires mk295 ammunition at a rate of 220 rounds a minute to a range of 14km (nine miles).
GENERAL DYNAMICS TRIMARAN

The slender stabilised trimaran monohull proposed by the General Dynamics team has an overall length of 127.8m, maximum beam of 28.4m and full load displacement of 2,637t. The seaframe is based on Austal's design for the Benchijigua Express passenger / car ferry.

A naval forward looking infrared is fitted above the bridge. The Raytheon SeaRAM anti-ship missile defence system is installed on the hangar roof. SeaRAM combines the sensors of the Phalanx 1B close-in weapon system but replaces the 20 mm gun with an 11-missile launcher for the Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM). 50-calibre machine gun mounts are installed port and starboard on the walkway on either side of the hangar and at the stern just below the level of the stern helicopter deck.

Originally posted by kotay:

 

Abrams firing an APFSDS at 55 degree elevation, achieved using a berm or incline, will achieve a theoretical max altitude of about 40km and a range about 110km

U should only ask urself one thing: an atitude of 40km is the same situation at the sea level or not?

 

An F-15 can reach max speed of mach 2 over at high altitude but barely over speed of sound at sea level when its engine pulls out  the same full thrust at the same load.

 

When an OTO 76mm SR gun engaging a seam skimming missile, what most likely elevation it will use?!

 

 

In addition, no matter how , MK110 doesn’t use any outdated CLOS guided round for Anti ASHCM, it still much works in the same principle that Phalanx does but only in a smart way to build “curtain explosion” that we are used to associate with Gun CIWS:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtOgY8L3Jy0

 

  

That's why I don't understand when I said the "eyeless, brainless gun rounds" can't compared to primary missile systems then somebody jumped out and asked me to read but till the end of the day, someone failed to prove his "brain smart" dart round got any future in CIWS.

Originally posted by kotay:

 

Found what I was looking for ... a 2004 press release from United Defense stated that the USN had selected the Mark 110 (Bofors 57/70 Mk. 3) ...

"as the Close-In Gun System (CIGS) for the baseline design of the new DD(X) Destroyer program . . . The function of the Mk 110 Naval Gun is to provide key ship self-protection and attack capabilities. "

The Mk 100 has also been selected for the USCG NS Cutter and OP Cutter.  It has also been baselined for the LCS Flight 0.

Like I said, USN major enough power for you?  Ask and ye shall receive ...

 

  Which yet again shows u lacking in depth  understanding of how a DDG-1000 integrated ADS works.

Yes, u don’t see SEA-RAM because there’s more capable ESSM in place of that.

Of course I can expect you will ask why DDG-51 features both ESSM and SEA-RAM but DDG-1000 doesn’t?

DDG-51’s anti-air fire channels are limited by only 3 AN/SPG-62 Fire control radars.   SPG-62 not only has to provide terminal guidance to ESSM but also SM-2. any leaking Sea skimming ASHCM from the most formable SM-2/ESSM interception could only be the fire channels are saturated, so that’s why a standalone, fire-n-forget SEA-RAM comes into play to make up the fire channel discrepancy.

However, DDG-1000 features an AESA SPY-3 to provide all kinds of fire control needs for all AAW missiles. Because it’s AESA, it can provide numerous fire channels by DBF. So the limitation only comes to the launch speed of ESSM, but MK57 VLS is more capable than a SEA-RAM’s slope launch box. At least provide better 360 degree coverage. So what u see is the primary close-in weapon system seamless built in with the theater air defense system. Don’t forget RIM-162 ESSM outperforms or at least matches the RIM-116’s every envelope.  From close to far. From low to high. Of course a SEA-RAM CIWS appears in other form cam mislead the mass.

Think Yanks will trust an unproven gun system to be the primary CIWS? Yet another no clue about how the world only superpower with half of world war chest comes into weapon system selection.

Even comes into apple to apple comparison, I don’t understand a DDG-1000 features 2 X57mm guns at a speed almost double that of OTO SR 76mm gun can be similar to a single gunned frigate for CIWS need? A sheer rate of fire comparison is MK110 on board DDG-1000 is almost 4 times greater than Formidable class.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by kotay:

Since you're so appreciative ... here's more details ;)

 

M829 Range Safety Data

Elev (Deg)  Range (m)  Ordinate(m)

5                    21,956             695

10                  29,698          2,145

15                  35,770          4,083

30                  59,447        13,086

35                  72,374        17,577

45                  99,966        29,377

55                 111,945       44,072

 

As I said previously, the above represent theoretical maximums under perfect conditions.  Wind speed, Air density, Barrel wear etc all play a part to vary the figures.

Info from PRODAS (Projectile Rocket Ordanance Design & Analysis System)

A picture is worthy 1000 words. See a time-speed relation of a typical dog fight AAM:

 

 

Any maneuvering projectile with controlling surface will be identical to the AAM, although the curve shape will be somewhat different but won’t be different in magnitude.

 

From the curve, the missile reaches its max speed around 2.3-2.4 second when its propellant burnt out. However, it loses speed sharply when it’s in supersonic region, for a mere 4-5 second it has dropped back into subsonic region and hardly has any sheer speed to catch near sound speed cruise-missile. 

 

Which speaks out a dart round only lose some 6% speed from the initial speed of Mach 3 over 4-5kms is aerodynamic impossible.

 

Actually this curve is also a good explanation why a high off boresight AAM + HMS is not what a “what you can see is what you can shoot” kind of myth.

 

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by kotay:

 

 

 You sound like you are under some kind of impression that AAMs and SAMs boost continuously up till their max range.  If you thought so, you couldn’t be further from the truth.  All solid propellant Missiles boost for only the first few seconds of their flight profile.  The larger the missile, the longer it will boost for, but invariably, by mid-phase, almost all of them are unpowered missiles.  This is why they all have a variable range engagement envelope that is highly dependant on their launch altitude, launch speed since these 2 factors impart more energy to missile then the booster alone can.

  SEA-RAM is based on the rocket motor and body of the AIM-9 Sidewinder AAM.  The SEA-RAM missile is also about 2.8m long.  Do you have any idea what the rocket motor burn time of a ~2.8m AIM-9 is?  Let me clue you in … 2.2 seconds.

  What this boils down to is that the SEA-RAM, at about 2,000m, becomes an unpowered missile, like the Strales DART.  Even worse, it actually has a a lower velocity at the 2km mark compared to the Strales DART, which implies it actually has a lower energy state compared to the Strales DART.  The SEA-RAM has one saving grace, it has bigger control surfaces which gives it a better angle of turn rate than the DART.

  

one final reply today, keep it short: I don't know? obviously u don't know I talked this with YF more than a years ago:

http://militarynuts.com/index.php?showtopic=1237&st=30

If you fully understand how a air drag can bring down the speed in supersonic region in my last several replies, the biggest difference between a powered and unpowered round is its best energy state appears totally different, a best energy state later is much more in advantage than the one appears at the beginning because interception always happening near terminal stage, 2 kms can make the whole wolrd different, considering the SEA-RAm's max intercetion range is up to 10kms. effect range will be much shorter than max range. that's why YF then think AIM-9X can be effect near BVR, but actual kills all happen very shortly, for AIM-9X, 2-3kms, real WVR.

 

Talk later

 

Originally posted by kotay:

 

  Of course we have no combat record to prove the effectiveness of the Strales DART, that’s because it’s in the operational test phase.  But then again, is there any real field or combat review for the SEA-RAM?

 

SEA-RAM has a tracked record of intercepting many types of AshCM simulating rounds including sopersonic ones. the plain fact is it's now adopted and going to be adopted by all major western navies as a standard CIWS, yet you want to equal it to the Dart round which till now so far only managed to keep the pace with a guidance beam in a matter of "5kms". nice mindset. but here do got capable people can fully understand what a crap logic behind the comparison

 

Today again time is up. will catch if got another integrated time tomorrow. too many craps, I even not anwsering fully till page 3

Originally posted by kotay:

 

 

I honestly have no idea why you think the Strales DART has a range of only 5km.  The actual operational parameter is not open domain but I’ve read that the capability extends to as far as 10km.

 

Sorry guys, somebody kept too many craps in asingle post, I have to boil down to anwser them otherwise viewers will totally lost yet let his high DB noise in prevail"

 

I quote what I have said" Because of this, the Strales Dart so far only managed to keep the dart round in line of sight for a maximum 5kms, repeatability and real field performance is somewhat questionable." apparantly I refer to OTO so far only can keep the Dart round following the guidance beam around 5 +kms. so you can understand the range is only 5kms?!

 

Originally posted by kotay:

 

First up, this thread is about "Does Formidable need CIWS".  For this, there are 2 rather simple answers -

 

a) Yes, it needs one.

b) No, it does not need one. 

It is not about what CIWS is the best.   Did I or anyone in this thread mention that CIGS is superior to Close in Missile Systems (CIMS) like SEA-RAM?  Since you cannot be bothered to read other people's post, I'll summarise my postings in this thread for you.

 

i) Traditional small calibre CIWS, like Phalanx, are fast becoming ineffective against modern AShM threats.

ii) The current trend for inner-layer final protection against missiles is starting to tend towards medium calibre CIGS or Missile systems (which I will hereafter call Close in Missile Systems or CIMS) ;)

iii) The Oto Melera 76SR mounted by the Formidables is actually a very effective CIGS.

iv) As such, the Formidable does not need to mount a CIWS as it already has one in the form of the 76SR CIGS.

If you wish to start your own argument that a CIMS is the best solution than kindly start your own thread.

 

If you wish to question whether the Oto Melara 76/62 is an effective CIGS, as advertised, than I'll be more than happy to discuss this further since it will relate directly to the question of "Does Formidable need CIWS". 

So now to a point by point answer to your above diatribe

 

How laughable, name me a single major navy power in the world that ever adopted your so called CIGS to replace any gun CIWS. Yet you call it a future trend but using now mostly obsolete CLOS guided eyeless, brainless gun shell??!

 

Lol, majority people around the world still call Kashtan still a CIWS even it features Anti-air missile. The reality is people just using more capable CIWS to replace earlier generation CIWS. But what? Not follow your nonsense CIGS a replacement of gun CIWS then not related to the topic?!

 

Simple reply will be “What a BS.”

 

Originally posted by kotay:

 

POINT 3 – ENERGY STATE

 

Sigh …. Where do I start?

 

“ Basic physics … don’t believe me? 2 words for you to google … “Centripetal Acceleration”. 

Second thing about this statement.  The DART round is effectively a Fin Stablised Discarding Sabot (FSDS) round.  Go google up a ballistics calculator and figure out how much a 15:1 dart with an ogive nose loses in air speed over 5km … only about 6%.  The DART round actually has an unguided range of up to 38km against other targets ,,, this gives you an indication that the ballistics degradation is not as severe as you imply it to be.

 

...

 

The statement of a mach 3 unpowered projectile near sea level only lost 6% of its initial speed over 5kms really showcase you have no clue about aerodynamics yet want to talk like expert.

Air drag coefficient Cx considered almost constant when the projectile flies at low speed ( generally below 250m/s), and increases near exponentially along with the increase of speed which is near or over speed of the sound.

http://www.answers.com/topic/sonic-barrier?cat=technology

Sharp rise in aerodynamic drag that occurs as an aircraft approaches the speed of sound. At sea level the speed of sound is about 750

 

When the projectile’s speed is in the supersonic region. Because of the sharp rise in Cx, the projectile approaching sound speed will have to break sound barrier. Actually any unpowered supersonic projectile lost speed exponentially faster during its flight in supersonic region than it does in low speed region. Remember, it lost speed exponentially, 6% is not a exponential result considering the dart round already flied 5kms. 

  

Obviously your lack of knowledge leads to your totally incompetent to talk something you really don’t understand.

 

So it’s totally unsurprised you don’t understand what I have quoted from OTO’s website: “the DART projectiles have correctly entered and followed the guidance beam manoeuvring with the required and expected accuracy beyond a range of 5 Km.”

 

Why it’s so difficult to achieve a Dart round to just entering the guidance beam in just 5+kms distance? Because the Dart round has already lost most of its speed during supersonic flight ( from m3 inital speed to sub-sonic), and when it's in sub-sonic, the sharp drop in air drag still allows it fly much longer, that’s why it still can achieve a 38kms range, but the sharp drop in speed doesn’t allow the round to have enough kinematic to perform manoeuvring that required to keep the round in the beam.

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by kotay:

 

Doh! ... slipped my mind and totally forgot to mention this ... Sea Wolf.

Sea Wolf is a CLOS guided SAM designed for point defense against aerial targets in the 1970's.  Let me say again .. 1970's.  It performed admirably well in the Falklands in 1982, shooting down low flying, maneuvering aircrafts.  It recorded 2 confirmed + 3 probables from 8 launches.  Mind you, this was a 70's tech missile, around the same time when AAMs in Vietnam were recording single digit percentile success.

...

Lol, another no clue!

 

Sea wolf is a beam rider similar to SM-1, the difference is it got eyes(seekers" and brains like any normal anti-air missile),  totally different from the Dart round without any eyes or poor brain(no drain if u consider the RF reciever a non-AI unit)

 

Originally posted by kotay:

 

POINT 3 – ENERGY STATE

 

Sigh …. Where do I start?

 

“Your max 20-25g maneuver only happens at the very beginning when the round has the highest initial speed …blah blah blah” 

First things first, since when is a G-of-maneuver measured solely on speed alone? 

G-m relies on 2 components – speed and angle of turn.  Actually there are other factors that affect this, such as aerodynamic, structural, and buffet limits, but let’s keep it simple for now.

 

What I'm trying to get at is that you can pull a 9g at 450knots just as you can pull a 9g turn at 750knots … the only difference will be the turn radius.

 

Basic physics … don’t believe me? 2 words for you to google … “Centripetal Acceleration”. 

Second thing about this statement.  The DART round is effectively a Fin Stablised Discarding Sabot (FSDS) round.  Go google up a ballistics calculator and figure out how much a 15:1 dart with an ogive nose loses in air speed over 5km … only about 6%.  The DART round actually has an unguided range of up to 38km against other targets ,,, this gives you an indication that the ballistics degradation is not as severe as you imply it to be.

 

38kms, yap, areodynamic matter can be calculated by a geunis like u, quote a source from OTO to put someone's foot into his mouth, wondering why OTO till now now achieve the Dart round of guidable distance of 5km +, source from OTO website, only don't be disturbed by the word"beyond" as one wonder why don't put 6/7kms "beyond"

http://www.otobreda.it/news/news.asp?id=22

29th November 2005 – Within the Strales program, Oto Melara, a Finmeccanica company, has successfully performed some important firing trials in PISQ (Poligono Interforze Salto di Quirra), an Italian interservice firing range located in Sardinia.

The Strales system, currently in full scale engineering development under the funding of the Italian Navy, is based on the installation on the 76 SR Oto Melara gun of a Radio Frequency (RF) guidance beam capable to steer a burst of sub-calibre DART projectiles against subsonic and supersonic antiship missiles with excellent manoeuvre capability.

During the firing trials, the DART projectiles have correctly entered and followed the guidance beam manoeuvring with the required and expected accuracy beyond a range of 5 Km.

This important result is a decisive milestone since it has experimentally proved the capability of a high speed subcalibre projectile to be guided with the highest accuracy.

The end of the development is foreseen in 2007.

Got something on, will revert tomorrow for the rest