France and others weapons: Pacific security?

[Drsomnath999]

It does not mean anything. Spectra is slightly ahead of the non AESA DASS(subjective since it is not ready yet) and very slightly ahead of a light fighter's ECM. Big deal.

The Americans are ahead. Spectra is just another EW kit, definitely advanced, but it does the same thing as other EW kits do.

oh ya!!
SHOW ME ANY american 4TH GEN fighter's EW SUITE

which can cue it's Air-Air-Missile & A- G-M with it's EW suite let me also see

 

[Armand2REP]

China does not provide combat troops

Wasn't that the whole point of the conversation... to show China lacks power projection?

 

[p2prada]

In that case, only the US can call them-selves an expeditionary force. You dont need to take over and hold a supply port. That is what replenishment ships are for.
It is about the ability to sustain your operations outside your comfort zone.

Replenishment ships are meant for supplying weapons and food, not fuel.

The French and the British have bases around the world. Though their military are small they are capable of expeditionary operations unlike India or China. That's why India is building up a military partnership with Singapore while China is looking for similar capability with Pakistan. That way both countries can patrol the region using common resources. Eventually both Vietnam and Singapore may provide military bases for IN and IAF operations in the South China sea in the coming years.

In the Indian Navy vs Royal Navy thread we took into account that their ships were already supplied in Middle Eastern bases before the conflict began. Otherwise they won't be able to sustain operations so far away from their home base.

Expeditionary capability don't depend only on replenishment ships. There are far too many factors involved.

 

[Ray]

Wasn't that the whole point of the conversation... to show China lacks power projection?

By entering the UN fold, they are projecting their 'soft' power.

I have not joined the debate except to correct (in my opinion) some views.

Any country that has adequate combat force can undertake power projection overseas. The only issue is that while doing so, she should not be confronted with another more powerful nation who stops her in her tracks.

China attempted to do some power projection in a sloppy way in the SCS against weaker nations, but hightailed it back as soon as China saw the Stars and Stripe over the horizon!

 

[Ray]

Expeditionary forces do not always require a base/ port close by. Though having one makes the task easier.

Having established a deep enough Beachhead or an Airhead, next phase troops and logistics can be shipped in by air/ sea as the operation inland expands from the Beachhead/ Airhead.

To amplify, an airhead is a designated area in a hostile or threatened territory which, when seized and held, allows the air landing of further troops and material via an airbridge, and provides the maneuver and preparation space necessary for projected operations,

Likewise a Beachhead.

If the expeditionary force is large enough and with all components, it will undertake further ops beyond the airhead/ beachhead and keep expanding the area as far as it can.

Then further troops of the main force would be pumped in for the final mission.

 

[Yusuf]

India can never be an blue water navy till it has bases or logistic arrangements all over. India cannot mount operations say in the Atlantic unless off course we have some sort of a base or agreement with an African nation on the Atlantic. May be Nigeria.

 

[p2prada]

oh ya!!
SHOW ME ANY american 4TH GEN fighter's EW SUITE

which can cue it's Air-Air-Missile & A- G-M with it's EW suite let me also see

Pretty much every EW kit in the American arsenal is capable of passively cueing targets.

The F-22 will also have the ability of "active cancellation" in the F-22C upgrade that's coming up. The F-35 will also come inbuilt with this capability, but it is only for American use.

The Russians have had this capability of passively detecting and tracking targets from the ground since 5 decades now. They can even engage the targets using the IADS passively. Airborne passive capability has been in existence for over 3 decades as well. Both IRST and RWR. It was only after BVR missiles came into being that we could cue missiles towards targets around the 80s.

You are just some guy who got swallowed up with all the marketing hype and talking about stuff that has existed for decades.

The MKIs Siva pod can detect and track pretty much every emission in the air, classify targets and provide coordinates to KH-31Ps for a passive ARM attack. Extremely old technology. The same is used against AWACS and other threats using the onboard RWR. The same capability has been used on fighters as well.

The Active and IR seeker on different R-77 and R-27 versions have had the capability to engage any fighter once the emissions are locked on either using the RWR or the OLS. The passive IR seeker can engage from any distance while active seekers kick in only in the last 18Km. If the target disappears by then, that's when the aircraft's radar is turned on.

This is some 3rd generation technology.

 

[Ray]

Blue water navy means capability to exercise what is said as 'sea control'.

One should understand 'sea control' and 'sea denial'

Sea Control

Sea Control is the condition in which one has freedom of action to use the sea for one's own purposes in specified areas and for specified periods of time and, where necessary, to deny or limit its use to the enemy. There is likely to be a requirement for sea control across the spectrum of conflict. At the lower end of the spectrum, maritime forces may be used to ensure freedom of navigation by a deterrent presence in areas where illegal acts or constraints are being threatened or applied to merchant shipping. At the highest end it may be necessary to use a huge array of maritime power to eliminate an enemy's ability to challenge sea control over large areas of ocean. The need for sea control is not dependent upon the existence of a substantial threat. If there is any risk to freedom of action, sea control is necessary. If the risk is small, the capabilities that will be needed can be correspondingly modest.

Early achievement and retention of the necessary level of sea control will be a component of any major maritime operation or expeditionary campaign. However, there can be no absolute guarantee of protection from attack at sea unless command of the sea has been achieved. Sea control must be related to acceptable risk. For operations to take place, a working level of sea control must be achieved to provide sufficient freedom of action within an acceptable level of risk. If sea control remains in dispute in a certain area, each side will be forced to operate in the face of considerable risk.

However, sea control is most unlikely to be an end in itself; it is essentially a necessary condition to allow use of the sea for further purposes.

Sea Denial

Sea Denial is exercised when one party denies another the ability to control a maritime area without either wishing or being able to control that area himself. Classic means of achieving it are to lay a minefield or to deploy Sea Denial.

Sea Denial is exercised when one party denies another the ability to control a maritime area without either wishing or being able to control that area himself. Classic means of achieving it are to lay a minefield or to deploy submarines to threaten enemy surface forces; a more recent method, particularly appropriate in littoral operations, is to mount surface to surface missile batteries along the coast to pose an unacceptable level of risk to enemy surface units.

Sea denial and sea control operations are not mutually exclusive. The denial of the enemy's freedom of action is a consequence of effective sea control operations. Sea denial operations in one element or area of the maritime battlespace may be necessary to achieve sea control elsewhere.

However, the concept is only applicable when full sea control is not exercised by choice or out of necessity. At the operational and tactical levels, a zone of sea denial may be used as part of the outer defence of a force or area, or as a way of containing enemy forces.

At the strategic level, sea denial can be used in a guerre de course or sustained attack upon a nation's shipping to prevent reinforcement and to sap national morale and the ability to wage war.






.

 

[Armand2REP]

Expeditionary forces do not always require a base/ port close by. Though having one makes the task easier.

Either that or it requires you to take what you need with you via assets.

Having established a deep enough Beachhead or an Airhead, next phase troops and logistics can be shipped in by air/ sea as the operation inland expands from the Beachhead/ Airhead.

You have to take it first, then you need to have resupply/reinforcements prepositioned to surge.

To amplify, an airhead is a designated area in a hostile or threatened territory which, when seized and held, allows the air landing of further troops and material via an airbridge, and provides the maneuver and preparation space necessary for projected operations,

To clarify, establishing an air-bridge requires adequate ranged aircraft with enough payload to support operations and the ability to turn a landing strip into an operational airport. The logistics of which are immense. Without refueling points, cargo aircraft would need aerial refueling for any great distance. First requirement of course is gaining constant air-superiority in order to conduct such operations.

Likewise a Beachhead.

If the expeditionary force is large enough and with all components, it will undertake further ops beyond the airhead/ beachhead and keep expanding the area as far as it can.

Of which requires adequate seaborne assets with either at-sea replenishment or ports of call to carry on to the target. Then of course requires sufficient landing craft and helicopters to get the troops and equipment to shore. If you do capture a port then you will need transport/cargo ships close to the action so as not requiring days of transit time.

Then further troops of the main force would be pumped in for the final mission.

All hoping you can mobilise faster than your land based enemy... not likely in the case of China.

I can talk logistics all day...

 

[p2prada]

Can you throw numbers on how many C-17 type aircraft are needed to move a division of French troops?

 

[Armand2REP]

Can you throw numbers on how many C-17 type aircraft are needed to move a division of French troops?

Far less than it does an American division. Our expeditionary divisions are 15,000 men made up from several units. It mix and matches depending on the threat. An example might be 300-400 VAB, 100 VBCI, 100 AMX-10 RCR and 50 Leclerc supported by 140 helicopters and 50 fighters.

C-17 at MTOW = 5 fully loaded VAB and crew

60 flights

VBCI would take 50

AMX-10 RCR = 25 flights

Leclerc = 42 flights

Helos = 30 flights

So 215 flights to move fully loaded combat equipment... another 30 for support gear. There would be 800 PVP and VBL so 20 per flight = 40 flights

____________

300 flights ought to do it.

 

[Drsomnath999]

Pretty much every EW kit in the American arsenal is capable of passively cueing targets.

The F-22 will also have the ability of "active cancellation" in the F-22C upgrade that's coming up. The F-35 will also come inbuilt with this capability, but it is only for American use.

The Russians have had this capability of passively detecting and tracking targets from the ground since 5 decades now. They can even engage the targets using the IADS passively. Airborne passive capability has been in existence for over 3 decades as well. Both IRST and RWR. It was only after BVR missiles came into being that we could cue missiles towards targets around the 80s.

You are just some guy who got swallowed up with all the marketing hype and talking about stuff that has existed for decades.

The MKIs Siva pod can detect and track pretty much every emission in the air, classify targets and provide coordinates to KH-31Ps for a passive ARM attack. Extremely old technology. The same is used against AWACS and other threats using the onboard RWR. The same capability has been used on fighters as well.

The Active and IR seeker on different R-77 and R-27 versions have had the capability to engage any fighter once the emissions are locked on either using the RWR or the OLS. The passive IR seeker can engage from any distance while active seekers kick in only in the last 18Km. If the target disappears by then, that's when the aircraft's radar is turned on.

This is some 3rd generation technology.

well i am not talking about ARM that everyone knows & also it requires far less cueing & crew input incomparision to activeradar /SEMIactiveradar /IR/air to ground precision guided missile.

i am talking about BVRAAMS (active ) like mica & AGM (precision)like AASM hammer.

U also mentioned 5th gen fighter,which is not required i had told about 4th gen fighter , ofcourse the EW suite of f35 is way ahead ,yes F22 ALR -94 system is slighly powerful & advanced to SPECTRA .

I had not swallowed any marketing B,S from anyone ,Those "marketing B.S" propaganda word which u must have seen from those STAR STREK & key pub forums which u have copy pasted here makes a jack sense as every country markets it's products aggresively like Typhoon markets it more efficient & cost effective than F22 & it could take down pakfa & j20.
But dassault has proved those "marketting B.S" capabilty in libya that too with the help of spectra using AASM hammer to take down those libyan radars '
regarding engaging air threats it can cue it's mica missiles with ease but that was not proven in libya

this is absolute garbage that RWR of any russian 4th gen fighter can cue R 77 missile without the help of plane's radar plz stop bluffing me & readers

 

[p2prada]

How many flights to move the 15000 men? I think what you gave is only for the equipment.

For those who don't know the abbreviations.

Véhicule blindé de combat d'infanterie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Véhicule de l'Avant Blindé - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Petit Véhicule Protégé - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Véhicule Blindé Léger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[p2prada]

well i am not talking about ARM that everyone knows & also it requires far less cueing & crew input incomparision to activeradar /SEMIactiveradar /IR/air to ground precision guided missile.

i am talking about BVRAAMS (active ) like mica & AGM (precision)like AASM hammer.

I talked about them all. ARM, BVR.

U also mentioned 5th gen fighter,which is not required i had told about 4th gen fighter , ofcourse the EW suite of f35 is way ahead ,yes F22 ALR -94 system is slighly powerful & advanced to SPECTRA .

F-35's EW suite and Spectra are at similar levels, just newer. Only the NGJ will be a generation ahead.

Even F-15Cs can passively track and deploy BVRs.

The Spectra is superior to the ALR-94, ALR-94 is only a RWR.

I had not swallowed any marketing B,S from anyone ,Those "marketing B.S" propaganda word which u must have seen from those STAR STREK & key pub forums which u have copy pasted here makes a jack sense as every country markets it's products aggresively like Typhoon markets it more efficient & cost effective than F22 & it could take down pakfa & j20.

I have not copy pasted anything here. You don't know much.

But dassault has proved those "marketting B.S" capabilty in libya that too with the help of spectra using AASM hammer to take down those libyan radars '
regarding engaging air threats it can cue it's mica missiles with ease but that was not proven in libya

Like I said, you have swallowed up on too much marketing BS.

this is absolute garbage that RWR can cue R 77 missile without the help of plane's radar plz stop bluffing me & readers

Can I help it if you are ignorant? Passive shots have been in existence since long. It is merely not reliable, that's all.

There is no guarantee that even new generation capability can maintain track using emissions alone.

Compared to MKI's EW suite, Spectra does all the work under one name, while MKI has the Tarang RWR for passive shots and EL/M 8222 for active ECM capability. Essentially it does what Spectra does, except that Spectra is much more newer and uses Active T/R modules.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

US, Canada and now France.

May be, it is Germany's turn.

They will announce it soon.

Asian and Pacific theatre of World War I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

German New Guinea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Siege of Tsingtao - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hercolano: German WW1 Naval Raiders

 

[Drsomnath999]

I talked about them all. ARM, BVR.

but u didnt gave the link to prove anything especially about american BVR firing from EW suite only without the help of plane's radar & what about precision guided missile???

F-35's EW suite and Spectra are at similar levels, just newer. Only the NGJ will be a generation ahead.

no they are not F35 ew suite is much advanced NGJ would make it further advanced.But SPECTRA ng is also in the cards it would catch up

Even F-15Cs can passively track and deploy BVRs.

link please

The Spectra is superior to the ALR-94, ALR-94 is only a RWR.

but it has much greater range of Passive detection than Spectra almost greater than 50-100km & it can cue BVRAAMs like spectra.Regarding jamming
Spectra has the edge

I have not copy pasted anything here. You don't know much.

lollz then WTF u know
simply bluffing without any source or link.Atleast i post link /sources to justify my pov

Like I said, you have swallowed up on too much marketing BS.

B.s is posting u not me read this
DESTROYING THE ENEMY AIR DEFENCES :

http://www.dassault-aviation.com/fileadmin/user_upload/redacteur/Defence/Rafale/FoxThree_Fox15.pdf

Can I help it if you are ignorant? Passive shots have been in existence since long. It is merely not reliable, that's all.

There is no guarantee that even new generation capability can maintain track using emissions alone.Compared to MKI's EW suite, Spectra does all the work under one name, while MKI has the Tarang RWR for passive shots and EL/M 8222 for active ECM capability. Essentially it does what Spectra does, except that Spectra is much more newer and uses Active T/R modules.

dont lecture me about ignorance.ok.Passive shots includes both (EM /IR).Ir shots have been succesful but not EM ones

well thats why pilots dont rely on RWR alone to fire BVRAAM,use the help of radar /link 16 capabilty from awacs .But Rafale's spectra has this abilty beacuse it angular accuracy in locating the threats much higher in comaprision to other ECM suites ,So it can cue it more accurately than other RWR
the same principle applies for ALR 94 also.
If tarang/any rwr can claim this accuracy it can also do it but is it????

 

[W.G.Ewald]

France commitment to Asia-Pacific? An empty slogan.

France, what France? That country has long gone here since 1960's

French Polynesia doesn't exist, or did China take it when nobody was looking?

Tahiti Tourisme - Official Web Site

 

[p2prada]

but u didnt gave the link to prove anything especially about american BVR firing from EW suite only without the help of plane's radar & what about precision guided missile???

It is like asking for a link for dropping bombs. It is ancient technology.

no they are not F35 ew suite is much advanced NGJ would make it further advanced.But SPECTRA ng is also in the cards it would catch up

They are both at the same class. F-35 will be slightly ahead as it is newer. That's all.

link please

This is not something that can be answered by a link but only by studying.

Start with Radar basics first:
http://www.stealthskater.com/Documents/ECM_02.pdf

but it has much greater range of Passive detection than Spectra almost greater than 50-100km & it can cue BVRAAMs like spectra.

How do you know that? Receiver strength is not determined by size of the airframe like radars are.

The Phalcon can detect and track targets passively from 600Km away which is quite normal for it.

lollz then WTF u know
simply bluffing without any source or link.Atleast i post link /sources to justify my pov

Your links and sources are marketing brochures.

B.s is posting u not me read this
DESTROYING THE ENEMY AIR DEFENCES :

Nothing to post here except for the fact that you are taken in on the marketing hype.

dont lecture me about ignorance.ok.Passive shots includes both (EM /IR).Ir shots have been succesful but not EM ones

Finish that Pdf I posted. Shoot questions if you don't understand anything.

How do you know IR shots have been successful? Not even a single BVR IR shot has been recorded till date.

Why should only IR shots be successful when EM shots are superior?

Have you ever heard of Home on Jam? Do you know what it does? Do you know how it does it?

After you know these, you would know what kind of capability aircraft can possess to achieve the same.

 

[Armand2REP]

How many flights to move the 15000 men? I think what you gave is only for the equipment.

You would move several thousand with the equipment, up to 5000. C-17 has 54 seating on the walls and 80 on pallets. That would be 74 flights in troop carrier but it is horribly inefficient at it. For large troop numbers you would lease commercial airliners. A330 can carry 400 and do the job in 25 flights. A380 can move 853 and move 10,000 in 12 flights.

But as we know, France will never have C-17s. The transport wing of AdA wasn't meant to airlift more than a light brigade and parachute brigade on short notice. The A400M, KC-390 and A330 MRTT will enable us to move a rapid reaction division in a few days.

 

[Neil]

How many flights to move the 15000 men? I think what you gave is only for the equipment.

For those who don't know the abbreviations.

Véhicule blindé de combat d'infanterie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Véhicule de l'Avant Blindé - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Petit Véhicule Protégé - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Véhicule Blindé Léger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

whats the difference between VBCI and VAB...? both are IFV right...??