broncepulido

In short, only a total of 8+1 FREMM ASM (ASW) frigates commanded, the 9 FREMM AVT (Action vers la terre/land strike) cancelled, and in the near future a new air defence variant FREMM FREDA (FRégates de Défense Aérienne, 2 ships?), with 16 ASTER 30 added: http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=108427 (in french)

The mast height (Mast ht: value in the database) is a constated variant in the visual and active radar detection. Also infludes in the ship ECM jam range versus a sea level radar (installation or ship based). I think the maximum visual and radar detection range for a "Large Ship (40m)" height mast is 27 n.m. radar, less range for visual detection (18 n.m. for visual detection, I remember).

I see as normal these type of attitudes, like in the A400M development, project initiated in 1982, a "simple" subsonic aircraft whitout innovative technologies, first flight postposed, another time, to 2009.

Looking for data about japanese planes, I've find these pages (in japanese !!!), where we can read the actual name of the F-2 radar (J/APG-1, range 100 n.m. I guess in the text !) and his internal ECM suite (IEWS/AIBU ???): http://www2.odn.ne.jp/~flip-around/military-aircraft/f2.htm And this one, with names and uses of radar and other ECM and electronic systems of the japanese planes: http://homepage1.nifty.com/jagaimo/west_nest/s_jecs.html And some nice photoshopped pictures of hypotetical F-3?: http://www.hudong.com/wiki/%E6%97%A5%E6%9C...%96%97%E6%9C%BA

From the very interesting Mer et Marine site: http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=108535 And nice pictures of Forbin.

Thanks for the explanations. I was thinking the last days in the purchase of the new rule books and db, but I use Smart Radars rules from some years ago, I dowload the data from the errata in the clash of arms site (my old books are of near 1990, yes, I'm an old harpooner !!!). Now, to wait for the post.

I remember now this site (full of information and data, in portuguese language !!), when the author, "a là" Carlo Kopp, demands some time ago the Su-32FN as future brazilian fighter, also with ASW capacities ! : http://sistemadearmas.sites.uol.com.br/ Indigenous or multinational FX-2 propost (including F-104 with AL-31F engine !): http://sistemadearmas.sites.uol.com.br/fx/fxbr.html Su-32FN propost (with phased array radar, capable of detection of submerges subs in the surface waves pattern!): http://sistemadearmas.sites.uol.com.br/ca/su32-01.html And don't forget the last news of the future brazilian SSN: http://www.yournuclearnews.com/news_item.php?newsID=11323 But is a very old story ...... http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/brazil/nuke/ "The completion date for the navy's nuclear-powered submarine was postponed several times, from 1995 to 2010" I remember a very similar story in the Indian SSN program.

We all can read about this controversy in the "tendencious" pages of ausiarpower.net, as: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-JSF-Analysis.html (and, of course, I'm pro-F-111 !!!)

For a romance language speaker is easy to understand another romance language (a little more difficult is the romanian, historically isolated, but the romanian inmigrants learn spanish very fast), without previous preparation or learning ..... but only reading and writing. But speaking, there are some paradoxes: An spanish speaker understand italian, but for a italian speaker is difficult understand spanish !!! With the portuguese language, is the same thing, a portuguesian speaker understands an spanish speaker, but for the spanish speaker is difficult to understand the portuguesian speaker !! (It's only a question of sounds and entonation, the words and grammar structures are very similar). And for the old people is ever more difficult. And I always see "bona fide" in the other people, if you're good attitude. One time I questioned a Teniente Coronel de Infantería de Marina/Tercio de Armada (spanish marines), with active duty in NATO headquarters, near Bruxells (about 2003), what language they use in meeting in NATO, and he says me: "Everyone her language, spanish, french, italian, portuguese, only if ther'e somebody of USA, UK, or a minor country with an odd language, we speak english". But I doubt it's true, he says me that after our third gin-tonic (I remember well the event, was in a summer meeting, in Avila).

Don't look for me in the forum, you can look for me in Sintra, Portugal, hehehe, I return circa 8 September. Some ideas about the place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sintra My new, temporary home: http://pwp.netcabo.pt/0151457301/

For me the ship wrecked in the picture is clearly Tbilisi. The picture in Jane's of Giorgi Toreli (with the numeral P 21 in the hull) is of a almost disarmed vessel, painted white with coast guard stripes and name ("Coast Guard", in english), and only a 37mm gun, unprotected, in the bow. Jane's says: "Acquired in a disarmed state from commercial sources in Ukraine". The picture of Tbilisi in Jane's is that of a usual Matka, navy grey colour, with a protected 76mm gun in the bow, and 2 x Styx containers aft (Pennant number 302).

In the Jane's Fighting Ships 2004-2005 we can see as Georgian Navy ships a list of patrol gunboats and some LCUs, with the exception of the single Matka (clearly destroyed): 1 x PG Turk class, name Tukaisi, ex turkish ship, like a Lurssen Type 143 1 x PTM Matka class, name Tbilisi (the same ship burned in http://www.wargamer.com/forums/tm.aspx?&am...514&mpage=2 ). 1 x PG Stenka class, name Batumi. 1 x PG Poluchat 1 class, name Akhmeta. 1 x PG Project 360 class, name Tskaltubo. 2 x PG Dilos class, names Iveria, Mestia, ex greek. 2 x LCU Vydra class (Project 106K), names Guria, Atia. 1 x LCU Ondatra class (Project 1176), name MDK 01. Coast Guard: 1 x PG Lindau, name Ayeti, ex german minehunter. 2 x PG Point class, names Tsotne Dadiani, General Mazniashvili, ex USCG. 1 x PG Stenka/Tarantul class, Giorgi Toreli, adquired disarmed from Ukraine. 2 x PG Dauntless class, P 106, P 209, ex US. 8 x Zhuk class, P 102-104, P 203-207, ex Ukraine.

I was also thinking this days in the clear difference between a 1st and 3rd Generation Decoy, after the observation of this poor Su-25 launching flares: http://www.wargamer.com/forums/tm.aspx?&am...514&mpage=1 And the dispersion of decoys of systems like ALE-47: http://www.miltech.gr/downloads/brochures/ALE_47_BAE.pdf http://www.globemaster.de/c-17/flare.html http://www.dzkk.tsk.mil.tr/TURKCE/moderniz...LR100EHProg.asp (no, no, I don't understand Turkish, but the picture is good ). But we can't forget the decoy response is also a consequence of aircraft's warning sensors and the controller program.

Pretty pictures, but I don't have the same impression of smoothness in her surfaces than in other stealthy designs: La Fayette and derived designs: http://www.netmarine.net/bat/flf/lafayet/photos.htm http://www.netmarine.net/bat/flf/lafayet/monde/index.htm Forbin/Horizon: http://www.netmarine.net/bat/fregates/forbin/photos.htm Daring: http://www.clydeconnections.com/ Visby: http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/visby/ http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/wor.../visby-pics.htm

I've do another test. The range of the active radar ECM sembles ever 210 n.m. If the ECM is installed in a surface ship or similar, the range is affected also by the radar horizon (circa 26 n.m., sensible to the height of the ships' masts, I supposse), if the victim/jammee is also at sea level, if the victim is airborne, his height also matter (i.e: with a ship ECM you can jamm a plane flying at High at 210 n.m., but no if the plane is flying at Low a 210 n.m.).

I was unaware of the necesity of an active radar to activate the ECM to jamm enemy radars, mea culpa !. After, I was testing the range of ECM vs. jammed radar, and I see the range of ECM, if listed as >1 (I've tested the same APQ-161A only with 10, 50, 100 and 200 n.m. ranges, but the results are clear), is in the game EVER 200 n.m. It's true my observation ?

In my "Sub Forms", by Marc Miller, GDW 1989 (paper rules), I can read: "Red October: Typhoon Mod Unit "Red October" has 26 vice 20 SS-N-20 and special caterpillar drive (-10% passive detection chance when in use). Any torpedo hit has a 50% chance of disabling the caterpillar drive. At 10-15 knots on caterpillar, any turn of more than 10º has a 1 in 6 chance of causing a rudder casualty. Special caterpillar drive speed breakdown: 15/11/8/4/0". I.e., as game effects we can assign for the caterpillar drive a 15 knots speed as creep speed to Red October.

Another good site about F-8 Crusader: http://www.vectorsite.net/avcrus.html

Another consideration, I think the external load of Harpoon make the F-35 unstealthly.

It's a candy, and near my home, but I'm too old !!

Yes, I like very much the old, faithful and big ships, but thincking in real terms my choice is the Álvaro de Bazán/F100 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81lvaro_d...n_class_frigate http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/f100/ http://www.deagel.com/Frigates/F100-Alvaro...a000423001.aspx Cheaper, an export success, fitted for the new UAVs as Fire Scout, sturdier and only a little small than Burkes, and almost with the same punch (Do you know spanish navy is waiting in near term for Tomahawks ?). On the other side, very dependable of US systems, exception of some indigenous electronic warfare systems. I think US Navy should try her low end derivative, the Fridtjof Nansen class for Norway, and forget the dream about the LCS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fridtjof_Nansen_class_frigate

Every time I read something like this article, I can't avoid think in the "Jeune Ecole" and her late failure : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeune_%C3%89cole But I see I'm not the only one thinking so. Some excerpts from the article referencied in the Wikipedia (old link in the Wikipedia): http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JI...ag=artBody;col1 History repeating itself ?!

I remember in Tom Clancy's "Debt of Honor"(1994) a issue about voluntary faked TV images of dry docked USN CVs in Pearl Harbor, to divert the japanese war effort (and the US and Japanese governments occulting the open war situation for sake of the stock exchanges !!!).

I'm doing fast re-reading of "On Yankee Station. The Naval Air War over Vietnam", John B. Nichols and Barrett Tillman, for my own personal library . If I find some useful data, I'll send it here. The appendix is full of downed aircraft interchange data.

Great post-strike pictures