JMSDF Mogami (30ffm) Class Frigate

It would save quite a bit of money. Both systems can be used as is, with the accuracy to be mainly from the ship's fire control systems itself, not the guns.

no more fantasy fleets? okay, respect your decision. would be happy to discuss more with you.

TB2 is a close air support vehicle
It's is big and thus relatively expensive due to a need to carry bomb.
What we need is surveilant drone to cari pati & submarine.
So too big of a surveilant drone to small of a sub hunters drone.
U buy a squadron of TB2 also useless because it's not what it design to do.

If people do invade MY they would come by sea not a parade of tanks,s400,ifv etc etc. TB2 don't carry bomb big enough to sink LPD size ship. Not to mention the landing party is technologically competent, TB2 good enough to bomb the Armenian but useless against the Russian in Syria. We also not flying in contested airspace thus TB2 which cost more than a helo is not exactly the best buy either
https://internationalaviationhq.com/2020/09...st-helicopters/

TB2 is more of something Philippines should buy to bomb Abu Sayyaf Rather then us.

So what u want is 2 type of drone, 1 is technologically superior, another just commercial off the shelf cheap drone which we wrote the AI for surveilant purposes.



A Corvette or in RMN case a MCM + Corvette is something common these days







https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/f...ure-vessel.html

No one going to do the good old day of buying plenty of small ship then put themselves in harm way to detonate mines rather than get a big ship full of drones.

So please list out your

1) 1 that is technologically superior than TB2

2) just commercial off the shelf cheap drone that has the range and endurance of the TB2 (300km datalink range and 25 hours endurance)

3) Total cost of both. Can both of them be cheaper than 70 million dollars for 13 TB2?

is a corvette carrying drones fits your definition a big ship full of drones?

my plans for small ships is to carry USVs and UUVs that has MDC (mine disposal charges)

multiple small ships can operate at multiple points of the minefield at once. those ships not going to enter the minefield, just the USV and UUV.

1 OSV as mothership

2-4 alexLMS to carry USV and UUV to multiple points of the minefield. Also to reload the MDC of the UUVs. So UUVs don't need to swim far to go back to a mothership.

What does a list of the cheapest helicopter in the world has to do with TB2?

Can any of those helicopters be in the air to do surveillance for 25 hours?

Are helicopter flying costs as cheap as the TB2, which just have a 100hp engine?

Isn't that what you always wanted?

A sovereign self design self invent weapon systems
If you want that then Just go throw the money at aerodyne

https://vulcanpost.com/763444/aerodyne-mala...providers-2021/

Go ask them wherever it's possible to wrote an AI to limit the amount of human operators and run automatically and only allert if something suspicious happened on something cheap like the fullmar.


TB2 are not technological superior at all.
It's just a normal drone operated remotely by human not an AI drone.
You ain't going to do a swarmed attack with it nor it's resistance towards jammers. Good enough to hunt down technological inferior insurgent or Armenian. You ain't going to fight Russian backed group with it nor ain't going to be a loyal wingman. Doesn't really help us find PATI nor help us fight Chinese. What do you propose we bought it for?

Aerodyne is a drone service provider company.

I am asking about the Hardware. If TB2 not technologically superior, then tell me what is, with similar or cheaper cost.

Tell me why TB2 cannot help us find PATI nor help us fight Chinese. Then tell me what UAV that can do both that meets your requirements?





What TB2 can be used for?
- long range surveillance of illegal immigrants.
- long range surveillance of IUU fishing
- long range surveillance of foreign naval forces
- over water and over land SAR support
- over the horizon targeting support for TLDM ships
- laser target designation for TUDM fighter jets
- armed overwatch of ground and naval forces of ESSCOM area
- monitoring the patterns of life over a surveillance area.
- GMTI (ground movement target indication)
- plus many others.

This post has been edited by alexz23: Oct 12 2021, 02:38 PM

I wanted TB2 from the beginning (can go seach all my posting here) and now you put things in my mouth and say i wanted something else?

Just consider i am not agreeing to anything that you say, even if you don't have a better plan than what you disagreed with me.

Have I? What did I self invent?

even my alexLMS

- dutch designed ship. The performance of the ship, the speed, the endurance is what i am interested in. Have low costs. Have a big deck space when compared to the size. Can run with the gowinds if needed to, and have long range similar to OPVs. Current LMS 68 and even Kedah Class does not have the speed to run with the gowinds.
- british sourced towed array sonar for ASW (kraitarray). The ship to be used as wingman to the gowinds with Thales active CAPTAS2 sonars.
- off the shelf 30mm gun (british, turkish or even chinese)
- off the shelf missiles on modular ISO platform.
- off the shelf modular mine contermesure system from europe. alexLMS just the platform to carry them.


For CN-235 MPA ASW upgrade

- lightweight MAD sensor from canada. MAD tailboom already designed for turkey.
- miniature sonobuoys and podded launcher from UK
- sonar signal processor from italy that is already integrated with the sonobuoys.
- stub wing from PTDI Indonesia that has already been fully developed for Jordan.


all are about getting the best off the shelf designs for our needs and our budget.

This post has been edited by alexz23: Oct 12 2021, 02:18 PM

Why bothered reinventing the wheel?
Reinventing the wheel in order to safe money doesn't always turn out good. Just look at the F35 program. It's main objective is to safe money but the end result is anything but.

Damen,DCNS, Saab all has a proven MCM mothership design. MCMV nowdays are around 1000 -3000 tons The UUV drone are design to be small enough to carry on rigid inflatable boat to FIC size while the mothership need to be big enough to carry everything as well as a deck for VTOL UAV. If anything probably sinki LMV is too small as it's can't carry the FIC size USV on board which is probably why the dutch go for a 3000 tons design

Again steel are cheap, equipment are not. The MCM equipment are going to cost the same no matter what size vessel. But splitting the equipment up into multiple vessel has the drawback of duplicate the radars, captain & crew as well as CMS & navigation. Might as well use the personel to run the drone to increase the number of drone deployed and increase sweeping speed.

Since the ship are already big, some take advantage and just put missiles on it, (1 ship with missiles is alot better than 10 gunboat isn't it?) most take advantage and put an actual helipad rather than just for VTOL UAV to facilitate personel transfer & resuppliers allowing it to be at sea longer (when you so far out at sea spending 2 hours to go back to base then 2 hours more to be back where you are is a waste of time & Money) & it's big enough to act as a patrol boat for the sea lines of communication as well. Coastal domestic security is CG concerned not the navy, thus why the last last navy chief want to get out of FAC bussiness.

So i don't really see what the the problem about. It's a typical cookie cutter thus safe approach. OF course it's still far away, with just A RFI for now, and tender by 2022, which mean actually construction won't start at least until 2024/5 & actually delivery by 2030s. The 8 Corvette was in the wish list from 2015. It's take at least 5 years of pre studies to set a criteria with multiple yards then tender then award, then details design for another 5 years before a 5 years period of construction.

MRSS preplanning had started few years back & contract by 2024 mean construction only start by 2029/30, which is the same time frame as JMMV. Probably cheaper to just work with them then to do it alone. Again steel are cheap, equipment are not. Just skim down on the equipment if we can't afford it. 3GPV don't even get an approval for even a preplanning. If they approved today, tenders won't be out before 2027 & actually construction by 2032/3. But since nothing guess it's only would start construction by 2035 & delivery by 2040.

So if anything this MCM + Corvette is the replacement for all 8 of RMN current surface combatants & the Kedah would be with us for another 20-25 years.

.

Great plans if you what you have a Lego set and every equipment run windows & connect with USB C with plug & play. Then run McFee antivirus software to keep the Chinese out


Take note that

1)putting the Ceaser gun on a new truck double the price up.

2) f35 overall software cost $10 bil & block 4 upgraded software cost $1.3 billion.

3) Saab global eyes with is basically moving errie eyes equipment + off the shelf MPA equipment into a new jet body cost $1 billion each to UAE, 300 to 400% more then a wedgetail for RAF.

You can only plug & play if someone else had pay the intergration cost like ESSM + gowind, AESA + hornet, 737 + aew antenna, atr72 + mpa equipment.

What you can't do is add $100 mil for aew radar + existing A320 = $100 mil A320 AEWC. What you can do is add $100 mil to existing 737 + $50 mil upgrade cost or get an existing A330 & pay $50 mil to get A330 MRTT. If it's that simple RAF would not buy wedgetail nor German would buy the Poseidon since they are shareholders of airbuses ain't they? If they do they can expect to pay $1 billion each like the UAE did with global eyes.

Similarly, can't just add $2 mil AESA radar + $30 mil FA/50 = $32 mil AESA capable FA/50. If it's that simple Ph won't be looking at F16 & Gripen C rather than pay for software upgraded on the FA/50 won't they? Saab is offering Gripen c to pH at $60 mil a pop btw.
https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1153692

As for the LCA, RMAF has a budget of about $1.7 billion to buy 36 LCA. Thus the budget for a BVR capable LCA is around $50 mil a pop.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nst.com.my...cquire-lca-jets

It's mean the software upgrade cost for FA-50 amount to $720 mil to $1 billions. (Off course LM did promise to upgrade the F35 software for $712 mil though it's now cost more than $1.3 billion)

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/549490-f...million-overrun

not to mention the risk of delayed like the 6 years delay for our new varient of little bird.

So again. Your gravely miscalculated on the complexity & cost also the risk of delayed of weapon intergration and thus come with a misleading conclusion that ATM general is not bright.


How is paying $1.7 billion ($700 mil is R&D for software development) for upgraded FA50, to achieve the whole BVR capable LCA who also a LIFt that can do interceptors program better then Just get a normal LIFT then $300 mil to retrofitted 2 existing 737 into a wedgetail then spend the rest upgrading Kuwaiti hornet or instead of wedgetail buy some amraam for NASAMs & $100 mil for ground radar.

Just wait for someone else desperate enough to pay the intergration cost of AESA into a lift like turkeministan paid for the M346FA. Or just get M346FA and forget about it ever being an interceptors. It's pretty much risk free solutions.

Seriously the amount of misinformation this person spews out is toxic. This is coming from someone who has no technical inclinations and understanding, but commenting on technical details.


No it does not.

Original 6x6 variant for Morocco 239 million euro for 30 units
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_new..._howitzers.html

New 8x8 variant for czech 333.3 million euro for 52 units
https://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-...4334m-deal.html



F-35 is a platform of 3 different aircraft with different software control parameters (1. conventional takeoff, 2. vertical takeoff and landing, 3. carrier version with bigger wings). When all you see is the cost but not the amount of work done. Block 4 is a compilation of 54 improvements, not just 1 like adding a BVR missile software to the FA-50. 1.3 billion dollars to change 54 very complex software parameters of 3 different aircraft variants is cheap.






Nobody is suggesting A320 AWACs.

UAE Globaleye does not cost 1 billion dollars each. Where did that number came from???

Someone else has done integrating the Erieye Radar with Bombardier Global 6000 aircraft. That is UAE.

A single UAE Globaleye without support costs, is priced at 234 million dollars
https://www.arabianaerospace.aero/idex-saab...eye-to-uae.html

Pakistan ordered 3 extra Erieye 2000 for 152 million dollars. So a single Erieye mounted on Saab 2000 aircraft is about 51 million dollars.
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/air-warf...-aewc-aircraft/

A Bombardier Global 6000 with just Erieye radar system (not the complex globaleye system) can cost less than 100 million each.
.




I would not comment on the rest of what he writes. They are not based on any facts!

Because you don't understand how tenders work.

http://maxdefense.blogspot.com/p/multi-rol...cquisition.html

The Philippines MRF tender does not include FA-50, as it is considered as a light fighter. Aircraft shortlisted in the MRF is the Gripen C/D and F-16V.

There are calls in the Philippines for the airforce to drop the MRF tender and buy a 2nd batch of FA-50 instead.

https://p-upload.facebook.com/MaxDefense/po...642413295929321

KAI has offered Philippines 12 FA-50 Block 20 with BVRAAM capability at half the price of Saab Gripen C/D offer.





Also BVR does not need AESA radar to work. FA-50 Block 20 is BVRAAM capable with the existing radar.

TUDM SU-30MKM is BVRAAM capable and has a PESA (passive electronically scanned array) radar.

TUDM F/A-18D is also BVRAAM capable and has a mechanically scanned array radar.

This post has been edited by alexz23: Oct 12 2021, 11:06 PM

Let me repeat.

*Chech republic do pay twice the price of Denmark for the Ceaser.
*UAE do pay twice for global eyes then RAF pays for wedgetail

Like i said, real equipment aren't Lego set that you can just plug & play.

Your post on how global eyes cost half by the third order proof that. You only comes to a conclusion that you can plug & play because you never bother that they did infact pays more for global eyes compared to wedgetail on the initial order.

It's pretty much proof the first idiot who commission an intergration pays for the cost of intergration & people afterwards just pays for the equipment.

If ATM by your claim don't have money how is it commissioning new weapons & pays for intergration help them do that? If anything they shouldn't go around commissioning new things.

If ambik Lego block & cantum are cheaper then just buying complete thing. Why do you think army around the world doesn't do it already? You really think you the only.smart.alex that had figured those out?😂

Imiginasi is great and all but do base it on reality if you want to compared to real world stuff. As it is you are bitter at reality because you compared it to fantasy that weapon are Lego blocks.

darth5zaft the nerve

Seem to me you the one don't understand how tenders works
Tenders are they to acquired equipment to fullfil a certain requirements.

Requirements are platforms agnostic. Platforms be it LCA,MRCA,single engine nor double engine doesn't matter as long a platform can do it's stated requirements. A dual engine doesnt guranteed higher speed or longer range, m346 are slow & f35 has similar range to legacy hornet. M346 despite 'light' have AESA radar better than some MRCA out there

So NO, a tender is not out there because of 'platforms' The tender are out to fulfill a requirement. Afterall Gripen C in itself a LCA with a good radar. Doesn't really stop them from competing in our last MRCA tenders.



Pinoy only have $400 mil to spend.
That's why they say the can only afford 2 F16 or 6 Gripen C.
Obviously the budget are enough to buy 12 FA-50.

So it very likely the whole budget are there for another batch of FA50 but They are the one that rules FA50 out be it due to politics (the pro US AFP want to jilat US, while wumao Duterte. Don't Want it) or technical limitations of FA50 making it unable to do what they wanted out of a platform. Obviously they are free to remove some requirements and get 12 FA-50. Or add more money to it & get a Gripen or f16.

If for example the FA50 still cannot do BVR & maritime strike & bvr & maritime strike is what they wanted out of a platform to have a capabilities to pew pew Chinese plane & Chinese ship then they are buying 12 useless turkey. One can also summarize the whole MRCA tender are just them trying to force the Korean hand on offering a better deal an upgraded FA50 at the same price as before or american for some loan.

So obviously this tender are just a political ploy. It's highly unrealistic, they wanted 12 MRCA capable jet at the cost of 12 LCA. it's just there to push other people hand, afterall A tender can always be cancelled & new tender issues. Similarly RMAF had gone from MRCA tender to LCA tender to LCA tender + Direct nego MRCA. UK themselves had gone from boxer then left create FRES program which piranha 5 win then cancelled and create MIV program & reentered boxer program again.

The Korean can upgrade the FA50 and absorbed the cost of upgrade themselves & charge a low price.to Philippines, the Swedish can accept less profit margin or transfer some soon to be retired Gripen C from SAF or american can offered some used f16, or some loan or some foreign military assistance.

Wonder if I can give him my old kembara, a tgdi engine, DCT gearbox, some camera and a PC & get meself a discount X50 with auto drive.

Shouldn't cost more than 10k & it would work flawlessly right?

When you have POLITIKUS and SONGLAP gang governing the Country - ALL THOSE TALKS TALKS ARE - NATO ONLY. AND WORST STILL THE AVERAGE CITIZENS STILL VOTE THEM BACK !!!

Denmark and Czech republic uses the same tatra 8x8 chassis. Your statement of changing chassis is wrong. Czech buy also includes a lot of extra equipments. Denmark price is just for the howitzer only.

UAE cost for globaleye. This includes extensive support costs. First 2, including development costs are 1.27 billion dollars. A third aircraft 234 million dollars. Fourth and fifth aircraft, plus further support contracts 1.08 billion dollars.
A total cost of 2.584 billion dollars including maintenance support.
https://www.arabianaerospace.aero/idex-saab...eye-to-uae.html

UK cost for 5 Wedgetail, 3 of the aircraft would be used airliners. Total 1.98 billion dollars. Each Wedgetail 396 million dollars. Cost of aircraft only.
https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/uk...-aewc-aircraft/
If consider support costs, 2.16 billion pounds, or 2.94 billion dollars.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-cutting-...edgetail-order/

So your statement UAE pay twice for globaleyes than RAF pays for Wedgetail is totally false