Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV60

<type>Correction</type>
<summary> HIGH LARK 1 and 2 radar used in the Mig-23 is NATO "J" band, vice "I" band</summary>
<detail> The HIGH LARK 2 radar is listed as being in the "I" band. In fact it is a 10-15 GHz radar, operating in the lower "J" band. See below <detail>
<evidence>Advanced Tactical Fighter to F-22 Raptor_ Origins of the 21st Century Air, pg. 268 - David C. Aronstein; https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/39824/this-myth-busting-walk-around-of-the-soviet-mig-23-flogger-fighter-is-a-must-watch;
...

quote:

ORIGINAL: PN79

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV60

<type>Correction</type>
<summary> HIGH LARK 1 and 2 radar used in the Mig-23 is NATO "J" band, vice "I" band</summary>
<detail> The HIGH LARK 2 radar is listed as being in the "I" band. In fact it is a 10-15 GHz radar, operating in the lower "J" band. See below <detail>
<evidence>Advanced Tactical Fighter to F-22 Raptor_ Origins of the 21st Century Air, pg. 268 - David C. Aronstein; https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/39824/this-myth-busting-walk-around-of-the-soviet-mig-23-flogger-fighter-is-a-must-watch;
...

I am not an expert in this but search for this also shows references of 9 GHz for High Lark 2:

https://books.google.cz/books?id=ff-zDgAAQBAJ&pg=PT286&lpg=PT286&dq=%22n003%22+%22high+lark%22+%22ghz%22&source=bl&ots=5CzSQCfdVy&sig=ACfU3U3Ji_7lfQVv22q0disl9XEINVhTnw&hl=cs&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjXje6PpI7zAhWvhv0HHdHbDNgQ6AF6BAgDEAM#v=onepage&q=%22n003%22%20%22high%20lark%22%20%22ghz%22&f=false

I don't know which information is correct.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV60

...

Thank you for looking at this. You have identified one of the problems I frequently run into when checking some of the databases. Frequently, there are inconsistencies in the data. I have Mladenov's book and as I write description files, I am using it as a reference for checking some of the data in the database, including the question on the High Lark radar. You are correct that he identifies High Lark 2's carrier frequency as being "I" band. However, I'm guessing that he is wrong on this, for the following reasons:
1) One of the sources I provided is quoting a US pilot who flies a Mig-23 in Florida. The article states "The MiG-23ML that we see in Florida still has its J-band radar installed. Known to NATO as High Lark 2, this operates across 10,000 to 20,000 megahertz and has a range of 53 miles, Ward says. " Because this is a first-hand source, I give it more credibility.
2) In an article on the R-23R Apex A missile SARH that is used by the Flogger G, the RGS-23 sensor is describes as operating in the J-band see "https://www.aereimilitari.org/Armamenti/R-23-Apex.htm" This is consistent with the High Lark 2 operating in the J-band. Of note, Jane's Air-Launched Weapons, "AA-7 'Apex' (R-23, R-24)" 09 November 2001 also confirms that the R-24R is a J-band missile, indicating that "High Lark 2" is a J-band radar.
3) the authors of the book that has the chart I used are aerospace engineers who worked on the F-22 project, and the book itself is a technical, vice a popular book on the subject, so presumably they had better info than Mladenov. Their CV from Amazon is as follows: Dr. David C. Aronstein is a principal aerospace engineer at ANSER in Arlington, Virginia, where he provides senior technical support to such programs as the Joint Strike Fighter and F-22 air superiority fighter. Mr. Albert C. Piccirillo is a principal aerospace engineer and a manager of the Joint Technology Division at ANSER, where he leads technical and analytical efforts on advanced weapons systems, including the Joint Strike Fighter. Michael J. Hirschberg is an aerospace engineer at ANSER, Inc. He currently supports the Propulsion Management Team for the Joint Strike Fighter Program.

Mladenov is good. As I said earlier, I use him as a source for some of the description files. But in this case I think the evidence indicates that he is incorrect on this point

quote:

ORIGINAL: De Savage

Could you please fix Gabriel V anti-surface missile. Range is too low. This missile is supposed to replace older Rb 15M Mk3 for Finnish Navy (#20) and even older missile have 200+ km range (or at least 100 km). Several Finnish navy sources say that new missile have LONGER range than older Rb 15M Mk3 missile.

<type>Correction/Update</type>
<summary> #3648 - Gabriel V Range is too short </summary>
<detail> Several sources estimates range for this weapon 150-200 km. Current range in CMO is only 28 nm (51 km). Probably real range is even much longer, this missile uses jet engine and is more like a cruise missile.
</detail>
<evidence>
https://merivoimat.fi/-/merivoimien-uusi-pintatorjuntaohjus-gabriel-5
Official Finnish Navy website
Range (fin. kantama): More than 200 km

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_(missile)
Range 200 km / 120 mi

https://www.edrmagazine.eu/finnish-navy-unveils-first-details-of-its-future-gabriel-v-anti-ship-missile

According to information and renderings released by the Finnish Navy on 13 December, the missile airframe resembles the Boeing Harpoon configuration with a rear underbelly fixed air intake with middle-airframe and rear foldable fins, together with smaller fixed rear fins. With a 5.5 meters length and a 1,250 kg weight, according to released information, the Gabriel V features a turbojet engine allowing subsonic speed and fuel tanks providing a range in excess of 200 km

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2019/12/finnish-navy-lifts-veil-on-its-future-anti-ship-missile-the-gabriel-v/

https://corporalfrisk.com/2018/07/16/a-further-look-at-the-gabriel-5/
One interesting point that stands out in the cutaway, however, is the internal component layout compared to the non-ER versions of the Harpoon. Crucially, the warhead occupies more or less exactly the same space as the 500 lbs (227 kg) warhead of the Harpoon. If the cutaway is correct, this would indicate that Finland has decided against downsizing the warhead compared to the current MTO 85M. The size of the fuel tank would also likely indicate a range in the 150 km class rather than the 200+ km ranges of the RBS 15 Gungnir, NSM, and Harpoon Block II+ ER. Crucially, as 150 km is more than “about 100 km“, this does not contradict that the PTO 2020 has longer range than the MTO 85M, one of the few capability details revealed by the Finnish authorities (this being confirmed by captain Valkamo).
</evidence>

quote:

ORIGINAL: KLAB

I took the liberty of attaching a link ref Gabriel V.
The fact it won in competitions against big hitters like the NSM and RBS-15 Mk3 both of which are 200km class weapons with land attack potential is a good indicator that Gabriel V is in the same ballpark.
Cheers for considering
K
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2019/12/finnish-navy-lifts-veil-on-its-future-anti-ship-missile-the-gabriel-vquote]
ORIGINAL: Anzu

Thank you for adding the #3186 Gabriel V for the Finnish Hamina-class FAC. There seems however to be some wrong info on both the loadout (which seems to be a direct copy of the Israeli Sa'ar 72).

The loadout should, according to open sources, be:

Sensors/EW
1 x Kongsberg ST2400 VDS
1 x CEROS 200 Tracker (9LV CMS Mk.4), like on the RCN Halifax-class #1898
1 x TRS-3D Baseline D

-4 x Gabriel V (which also should have 200+ NM (More likely 200km?)range, not 28 NM, even if there is not very much open source info about that)
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2019/12/finnish-navy-lifts-veil-on-its-future-anti-ship-missile-the-gabriel-v
-BAe Bofors 40 mm Mk 4 with 3P-ammo
-2 x Tp451 (#1595), to be upgraded to the SAAB Lightweight Torpedo (Tp 47) by 2023
-8 x Umkhonto Mk.2 (#2770)
-SAAB Trackfire RWS with 40 mm HK GMG
-2 x 12,7/50 MG
-2 x MASS


Not allowed to post links, but add world wide web at the start:
navalnews. com/naval-news/2019/12/finnish-navy-lifts-veil-on-its-future-anti-ship-missile-the-gabriel-v/
baesystems. com/en/product/40mk4-naval-gun
kongsberg. com/maritime/about-us/news-and-media/news-archive/2018/finnish-defence-forces-choose-kongsberg-naval-sonars-for-sq2000-mid-life/