http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/indon...issiles-amraams

Nope. 2 different class of ships. Different design.

KCR-40 (40 meters):




KCR-60 (60 meters):



This post has been edited by azriel: Mar 11 2016, 10:34 AM

if you have to ask.... the Falklands War witnessed the sinking of HMS Sheffield by Exocet launched by Argies.

Sinking[edit]
Sheffield was first detected by an Argentine Naval Aviation patrol aircraft Lockheed SP-2H Neptune (2-P-112) at 7:50 AM on 4 May 1982. The Neptune kept the British ships under surveillance, verifying Sheffield's position again at 8:14 and 8:43. Two Argentine Navy Super Étendards (3-A-202 and 3-A-203) both armed with Exocets took off from Río Grande, Tierra del Fuego at 9:45 and met with an Argentine Air Force tanker KC-130H Hercules at 10:00 hours.

At 10:35, the Neptune climbed to 1,170 metres (3,840 ft) and detected a large and two medium-sized contacts at the coordinates 52°33′55″S, 57°40′55″W map. A few minutes later, the Neptune contacted both Super Étendards with this information. Flying at very low altitude, around 10:50, both Super Étendards climbed to 160 metres (520 ft) to verify these contacts, but, not finding any, decided to continue. 25 miles (40 km) later they climbed again and, after a few seconds of scanning, the targets appeared on their radar screens.[4][5]

Both pilots loaded the coordinates in their weapons systems, returned to low level, and after last minute checks, launched their AM39 Exocets at 11:04 from 20 to 30 miles (32 to 48 km) away from their targets. The Super Étendards did not need to refuel from the KC-130 again, which had been waiting, and landed at Rio Grande at 12:04. Supporting the mission were an Argentine Air Force Learjet 35 as a decoy and two IAI Daggers as the KC-130 escorts[4][5]

At approximately 10 a.m. on 4 May, Sheffield was at defence watches, second degree readiness, as part of the British Task Force dispatched to the Falkland Islands during the Falklands War. Sheffield had relieved her sister Coventry as the latter was having technical trouble with her Type 965 radar.[6] Sheffield and Coventry were chatting over UHF. Communications ceased until an unidentified message was heard flatly stating "Sheffield is hit".[6]

The flagship, Hermes dispatched the escorts Arrow and Yarmouth to investigate, and a helicopter was launched. Confusion reigned until Sheffield's Lynx helicopter unexpectedly landed aboard Hermes carrying the air operations officer and operations officer,[6] confirming the strike.

Sheffield picked up the incoming missiles on her Type 965 radar (an interim fitting until the Type 1022 set was available), and the operations officer informed the missile director, who queried the contacts in the ADAWS 4 fire control system.[6] The launch aircraft had not been detected as the British had expected, and it was not until smoke was sighted that the target was confirmed as sea skimming missiles. Five seconds later, an Exocet hit Sheffield amidships, approximately 8 feet (2.4 m) above the waterline on deck 2, tearing a gash in the hull.[6] The other missile splashed into the sea half a mile off her port beam.[7]

Damage caused by the missile impact severed the high-pressure fire main on board. The resultant fire caused by burning propellant ignited diesel oil from the ready-use tanks in the engine room, and other inflammable materials used in the ship's construction. These fires burned unchecked for a number of days after the ship was abandoned.

The MOD Board of Inquiry on the sinking of the Sheffield concluded that: "Evidence indicates that the warhead did not detonate".[10] Some of the crew and members of the Task Force believe that the missile's 165 kilogram warhead had detonated.[6] This was supported by a MOD re-assessment of the loss of the 'Sheffield' which reported in Summer 2015. In a paper delivered to the RINA Warship Conference in Bath in June 2015 it was concluded that the Exocet warhead did detonate inside 'Sheffield', with the conclusion supported by analysis using modern damage analysis tools not available in 1982 and evidence from weapon hits and trials conducted since the end of the Falklands Campaign.[11]

This post has been edited by TechSuper: Mar 11 2016, 01:53 PM

And USAF wants f35 doing CAS

Firing test of Rheinmetall's QIMEK RCWS from a Pindad Anoa 2 6x6. Credit to eko.051.



This post has been edited by azriel: Mar 11 2016, 12:53 PM

I find the HMS Sheffield case very bizarre. A warship in an active warzone should not have been that caught unaware by a strike like that. In fact they should have anticipated any attack and all measures should have been in place 24/7 from day 1 of hostilities, especially after the Argentine Navy cruiser General Belgrano was sunk by a RN sub just 2 days earlier.

Also HMS Sheffield wasn't even alone at the time. She was part of an forward patrol squadron with 2 other Type 42 Destroyers , her sister ships HMS Edinburgh and HMS Coventry which were, ironically, ordered to act as an air defense screen to protect the carrier HMS Invincible from any air attacks. None of them could detect the Argentine missiles or the aircraft launching them?

How all 3 (at the time) modern warships can be caught totally by a surprise anti ship strike is puzzling. An air defense Destroyer which has the Sea Dart SAM as its main weapon, no less!

This post has been edited by MilitaryMadness: Mar 11 2016, 01:11 PM

complacency... under estimating their opponent and being over confident of themselves.. just like how malaya fell... people tend to judge a military force by numbers... but certain qualities cant be quantified

*cough* ISIS *cough*

what so bizarre abt the sinking of HSM Sheffield..... Argentinian fighters too sunk HMS Coventry which equipped with Mid range Sea Dart SAM and paired with HMS Broadsword which equipped with short range Sea Wolf missile.. this duo has best short and mid range protection against missile or jets..

2 Argentinian skyhawk failed to sink but damaged HSM Broadsword in first run and the skyhawks returned to finish off HSM Conventry in 2nd run... they did fired Sear Dart which failed to hit the skyhawks because Argentinian pilots knew the tactic to defeat them.... if the lady luck was with the Skyhawk.. they alread sunk both Frigate and Destroyer

This post has been edited by sukhoi35mk: Mar 11 2016, 02:09 PM

Both HMS Coventry and HMS Broadsword was under the disadvantage of being inside San Carlos Water, a very narrow bay in which the surrounding landmass was playing havoc with their Naval search radars. In the battle itself the HMS Coventry and HMS Broadsword had lost their radar missile locks on the Argentine Skyhawks multiple times. The attacking planes came in very low, mostly from the landward side where ground clutter helped hide them from radar.


Dramatic picture of attacking Argentine A4 Skyhawks skimming the waves during the attack on San Carlos Water, picture taken from HMS Broadsword

HMS Broadsword also had a major FCS system malfunction that day. Remember by then they were already under heavy daily air attack for the preceding 4 days, during the Royal Marines' landings in San Carlos before the HMS Coventry was sunk on 25.5.1982. During that period the Royal Navy also lost the Frigates HMS Ardent, HMS Antelope and the container shipMV Atlantic Conveyor from Argentine air attacks during that time period, so you can probably imagine the intensity of the air attacks.

Also, at the moment of the hit, it was reported that the HMS Coventry was maneuvering erratically to avoid the Skyhawks that it inadvertently crossed into the HMS Broadsword's line of fire, forcing to abort the launch its short-range Sea Wolf SAMs at the Skyhawks. That's when the Argentines hit.

From what I learn the Argentine fighters also had it lucky. One of the two bombs bomb they hit the HMS Coventry just caused some minor internal damage, but one lucky bomb struck and exploded in exactly the largest non-partitioned bulkhead in the entire ship, just between its two engines. This immediately had a very disastrous effect of flooding and disabling both engines while water filled into the engine space. After that the ship went down fairly quickly, in less than 20 minutes. Marine experts say if the bomb hit anywhere else, the ship would have survived.

This post has been edited by MilitaryMadness: Mar 11 2016, 04:33 PM

i saw on documentary

the plane flew so low and follow surface, trying to evade radar

The battle was ridiculous, the bay was really, really narrow, like 2-3 km wide only at the most. And all those RN ships were all bunched up, unable to maneuver. It was probably like shooting fish in a barrel for the Argentine planes. The Brits called the bay 'Bomb Alley'.



The very low altitude attack had one flaw though, the Argentine bombs were dropped so low that 13 bombs that hit british ships didn't have time to arm their fuses properly before impacting their targets unexploded, leaving only impact damage. Lord Craig, the retired Marshal of the Royal Air Force, is said to have remarked: "Six better fuses and we would have lost the war"

This post has been edited by MilitaryMadness: Mar 11 2016, 04:54 PM

Falklands War has already been extensively analysed, there's a public report that details all the points stacked against HMS Sheffield that day.

On top of all the points already stated above, Sheffield was apparently making a 1 minute long satellite communication which interfered with her radar at the exact time of the attack. Furthermore the Argentines also possessed a same type destroyer with Sea Dart and the radar they had bought from the Brits, and practised on this extensively to know exactly how to defeat the radar; flying at x height and y speed in z weather etc etc which was actually lower than their Super Etendard radar could track, they had an AEW aircraft vectoring them in... which again was missed by the Harriers on CAP patrol for some reason I forget.

Bottom line, the Argentines fought well and got very lucky a couple of times. But well, so did the British. That is just war.

So? apa titik Daily Wail? B52 also Vietnam War era what... and as has been pointed out, fighting ISIS with OV-10s and even A-10s is nothing like flying in a modern AA/AD zone.
Kirov reporting! My god, what year is it anyway?! 2016 or 1976?!
Still a very strong refutal to that 'consultant' who said USN can't hit anything over 70 miles... Some abilities kept quiet only, and besides Tomahawk ASM and LRASM coming soon. And with SM-6 an Arleigh Burke could launch saturation attacks like crazy, the weakness of the Russisn type supersonic missiles is that they're so big there's only so many shots they can carry.

This post has been edited by KLboy92: Mar 11 2016, 06:23 PM

Why worry when they have the biggest missile destroyer in the world

Indian Army chopper crash lands in Hoshiarpur’s Maili village; crew safe





[sos]

The oddest fighter plane you've ever seen: Radical low cost twin tailed design is so manoeuverable it '









Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/art...l#ixzz42bLOZIvv
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Russia to Start Mass Production of Advanced Radio Sets for Army in 2017





http://sputniknews.com/military/20160311/1...ssian-army.html