TYpe 45 v F22 / F35

[Ozzy Blizzard]

V-22 has a long way to go before proving it's anything but a waste of money. Even now, I still think it's over hyped by some people. JASSM's old problems are probably worked out by now, but it seems to me a few Australian members on this board were overexcited about it before the original problems came out. Who is to say there won't be more problems like that?

You missed the point. Name a single US weapons system that failed to perform above its design goals and still entered service in decent numbers because of problems in R&D. Problems in development rarely (if ever) effect operational performance when the weapons system is actually in service in decent numbers. If it doesn't reach its performance goals then it wont enter service, it has and will, therefore you can sumise a great deal about its actuall performance from said performance goals. Problems in R&D have more impact on whether a system will be canned in the early stages. JASSM has pretty much passed that, and you an rest assured it will perform as advertised. Will there be more problems, sure. Will said problems be fatal when the system is this mature? No.

Right, if you can just use satellites to track a single destroyer in the middle of a huge ocean at any given point, why would you even need to use aircraft radar or naval radar?

Great answer. I guess you missed the whole point about intergrated information gathering and distribution systems with multiple intel sources then? Of course a satelite can track a destroyer in the open ocean, the russians could track a task force from orbit in the 80's with RORSAT through the whether, KH-XX could also quite easilly track a destroyer sized target, it can track a car. You use a cue form another source if you cant do a volume search, thats the whole point of an intergrated information gathering and distribution system, you can gather and distribute information from various sources to various users. The whole "we have capability A so great" thing doesn't work in the real world.

If USN really had a need for long range AShM and could effectively track ships from hundreds of km out, why do you think the anti-shipping version of Tomahawk got phased out.

First that was the previous gen of sensors. Second TASHM & JASSM are two different kettles of fish, i.e. 500km vs 2500km, thats two different class of weapons. TASHM was overkill in a shipbuster role because the range, contemporary sensor capability and lack of a data-link.

I don't care whether it's ER or not, you brought up 1000 km for a missile, so I'm questioning your use of 1000 km.

Why dont you actually read the thread before making comments like this? AD brought up JASSM-ER, JASSM has a 500km launch envilope which is what i was discussing. Therefore the 1000km range thing is a moot point.

did I say otherwise? I was clearly talking about ships. But yeah, even in the case of an aircraft, 1000 km away would have the Earth's curvature to worry about.

Well you said "especially something as stealthy looking as a Type-45" which would indicate you think its RCS may have an impact. That was the point i was rebutting.

And again no one is talking about 1000km missile except YOU. The discussion is on JASSM which has a 500km launch envilope.

And you can't compare look up modes in tracking an aircraft to anti-shipping mode with sea clutter and the much more powerful ECM to worry about.

Thats a valid point, but the disparity in size should make up for clutter. Anyway OHR does this on a daily basis.

 

[dHAKAPETE]

Mag issues

I don't think thats a likely detection or track device, at todays technological level anyway. In ASW the platform has to fly over the target, i think those limitations would also apply to aircraft. i.e. if you were that close, you wouldnt only see it on radar, but you'd see it out the window.[/QUOTE]

thanks. It was just a thought. I'm aware that the Oil and Gas industry uses areo mag surveys to detect magnetic differentials that occur in reservoire rocks such as sandstone compared to sandstone c/w oil present in rock structures in bands of say 50 meters starting at depths of 15,000' to 20,000' feet below the ground or seabed. Such differentials over those depths of multi layered bed rock with significant background interference are tiny. Struck me that using such technology pointing upwards and sidewards, with minimal or no background interference may present less of a challenge these days. Sure technology will catch up one day.