CV32

From Armed Forces Journal, November 2011 issue [excerpt]

Hard to say, as it might boost the chances of a considerably cheaper F-16E/F (or G).

From Flight Global's DEW Line blog [excerpt]

Good point.

(Leaving aside the argument of whether an F-35B does in fact have the "hands down" range, loadout, etc ...) I'm asking why can't a conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) aircraft perform any and all of these roles? Why does it have to be STOVL?

Huh, wut?

Btw, since we're talking 1983, the Tico must make do with the Block I version of the SM-2MR, with range 37.5 nm. (The Block II version, with range 60 nm, did not appear until 1984). That puts its reach at a couple nautical miles less than the SA-N-6a (at 40.5 nm). The effect of even small changes to weapons values can have large consequences.

The Somalia mission failed for a number of reasons, none of which I think had to do with a lack of VSTOL fighter jets. Attack helicopters and UAVs would filled the bill nicely.

Here they are: Nice shot of the old PK-2 decoy dispensers too. But the most important weapon system is seen here:

Not sure Somalia is a great example for the argument in favour of VSTOL. Mogadishu airport (with a nice long runway) was one of the first things the UN forces secured and, iirc, maintained control of, during the whole affair.

Enrique, can you put your post re Knox up on Admiralty Trilogy and see what response you get from Carlson, Grining et al? If there are errors in HT, it would benefit everyone to have them rectified. Please and thanks.

From RIA Novosti [excerpt]

Great pics. Thanks!

From DefenseNews [excerpt] CV32: Hunting for a better bargain or otherwise, this deals yet another body blow to Rafale's chances at export success.

Btw, recent pics of the Project 1164 Atlant (NATO Slava) class RFS Varyag on a port visit to Vancouver. Link

There are some elements of the H4 data that have changed over the years, and may or may not affect your analysis. By way of example, Project 1164 Atlant (NATO Slava) DP value is now given as 242, widening the gap between it and the Tico. Weapon DP values and range values have also changed in some respects. Also, while it is a relatively simple exercise to compare sensors and weapons, you need to dig a little deeper to find how they might really perform. For example, the heart of the Tico is its Aegis combat system. The number of targets it can track and engage is not easily reflected in the H4 values (though you can take a look at the SPG-62 directors as a place to start). The Slava, on the other hand, has a high rate of fire for the SA-N-6 but a single director. A major handicap. But then you look at the SS-N-12 Sandbox. Yes, sea skimmers are formidable, but a monster missile traveling at 1,650 knots and at 23,000 feet, with a nuclear warhead option and its own built in ECM, is a different kind of scary. Moreover, there are sixteen of them, and it has been suggested that the missiles can communicate with one another! In other words, one or more missiles can fly at high altitude, with its radar active and searching, while the others fly at lower altitude and remain passive. In the terminal phase, the high flyer could allocate targets and transmit the data to the remainder, who then energize their seekers and attack. You might also want to consider the probable outcome if a lone Tico were pitted against a lone Slava. I noticed that you disregarded the helicopters, but I think that is a mistake. The Tico's Seasprites (two of em) make for a powerful and flexible ASW capability (though not quite as useful as an SH-60B). That's their raison d'etre. The Slava, however, carries one Hormone B. Its sole purpose is to provide targeting for the ship's main armament of SS-N-12. Finally, don't forget to consider the purpose for which each ship was intended. The Tico is the penultimate carrier escort of its time, with emphasis on anti-air warfare. Its ASuW and ASW capabilities, while impressive, are secondary. The Slava, meanwhile, was designed for the ASuW role, perhaps as an escort to a Kuznetsov CV. Its AAW and ASW capabilities are secondary.

One of the drawbacks of being unable to model the varying capabilities among 'generations' of ESM, sensors, etc. Ok, I'll toss in the AAA-4 as an IRST and hopefully it'll work out just fine.

Yeah, I'm aware. I haven't added it to the F-4C (or for that matter, to the F-4B) because I'm not sure whether the AAA-4 IR sensor set is sufficiently useful to merit the IRST flag. There appears to be evidence that it was deleted from later models, in fact, because it wasn't particularly effective. Thoughts and comments welcome.

I did much of the HC Gold database work, but your memory might be better than mine on what has changed, heh. In any event, just back from a few days' moose hunting, and I will take a look at your notes and suggestions. Thanks as usual.

Read the IAEA report here (PDF). From the report: (emphasis mine)

Given the subject matter of the thread, I was wondering about a modern day scenario where the use of a STOVL jet in the expeditionary role might be critical to success. (Or, in other words, is the F-35B absolutely necessary?)

A few links that I hope will be saved in perpetuity ... ENN (Electronic News Network) report BLUFOR Joint Command North REDFOR Northern Theater Command

From RIA Novosti [excerpt]

On a related note, see link.

From Aviation Week [excerpt]