紀德艦改裝建議項目
| 回應本題 | 自選底色↑ | 返 回 |
| 中台灣小紳士 於 2003/09/09 13:05 | |
| 紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
一.強烈建議裝上雄風三型反艦(攻陸)飛彈,現有的巡防艦都較小,紀(德)雄(三)配絕對是超強組合 二.希望加裝雄風及標準飛彈,ASROC共用的VLS 三.雷霆2000火箭炮 | |
NO:191_1
| jumbo 於 2003/09/09 13:11 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
雷霆2000火箭炮若能裝上紀德級應可能可使此級艦之岸轟能力大增。但前提是必須在掌握制空及制海（共軍之潛艦）之情況下，此艦才可運用此裝備對東南沿岸之共軍裝備進行岸轟作戰。 | |
NO:191_2
| 貓貓 於 2003/09/09 15:22 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
首先要確定雄風能放進Mk-41呢！若然不能，便要自行研發一種新的VLS呢！這要大量的＄＄＄ 而加裝火箭炮首先第一樣要解決的問題是防潮及防鹽侵蝕呢！！ | |
NO:191_3
| 小老闆 於 2003/09/09 19:24 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
紀德如果要裝雷霆2000火箭增加岸轟能力是完全沒有比要的 因為要用雷霆2000火箭岸轟那已經要進入解放軍火箭與地面火炮的攻擊範圍內 標準飛彈或許可以打飛機攻艦飛彈 但對付火箭彈與地面火炮的密集攻擊大概只能任人宰割 紀德裝雷霆2000火箭去岸轟達不到什麼效果反而增加被擊破的危險 | |
NO:191_4
| solid dream 於 2003/09/09 19:39 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
來kuso一下 乾脆再叫中船研發一台可搭載20架定翼機的輕型航母 與四台紀德組成航艦戰鬥群 | |
NO:191_5
| Darth Panda 於 2003/09/09 19:44 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
no kuso please this one is for real | |
NO:191_6
| 暴力熊 於 2003/09/09 20:09 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
RAM missiles to defend against saturation cruise missile attack! I bet that in the event that a conflict occurs btw. PRC and Taiwan,our Kidd class destroyers would be a primary target..... | |
NO:191_7
| 中台灣小紳士 於 2003/09/11 09:33 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
RE:貓貓 首先要確定雄風能放進Mk-41呢！若然不能，便要自行研發一種新的VLS呢！這要大量的＄＄＄ 而加裝火箭炮首先第一樣要解決的問題是防潮及防鹽侵蝕呢！！ Ans: | |
NO:191_8
| 小老闆 於 2003/09/11 10:45 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
re中台灣小紳士Ans:解放軍的火炮有超過30km以上ㄇ?(雷霆2000的射程有15,30,45,75四種)
最重要的一點紀德加裝雷霆2000增加岸轟能力要打的目標是什麼
| |
NO:191_9
| ra 於 2003/09/11 10:49 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>>>解放軍的火炮有超過30km以上ㄇ? 中國的身管炮和火箭炮射程都有超過這個範圍的，這裡可以看到很多列擧： http://www.sinodefence.com/army/artillery/artillery.asp | |
NO:191_10
| 中台灣小紳士 於 2003/09/11 11:46 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
RE小老闆&ra;: 紀德岸轟的目標不會就擺在沙灘,中國的身管炮和火箭炮與岸置對海飛彈也不會就擺在沙灘(否則紀德岸轟的目標就會是沙灘),另外如果雷霆2000可以加裝佈雷(水雷)彈頭,也會是很好的阻滯共軍登陸船隊的武器 真的要改我還認為裝攻陸巡弋飛彈還比較實際 | |
NO:191_11
| Luke-Skywalker 於 2003/09/11 11:50 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
船上的武器裝備或其他設備 不是隨隨便便加上 而是要看有沒有這個需求 對船身的重心、穩定性有沒有影響到 | |
NO:191_12
| 暴力熊 於 2003/09/11 12:40 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
What about 天劍二 as a point defence and mid range anitship missile interceptor? Equipping it on both the Kidd class and Lafayette would reduce the unit cost(i think...) | |
NO:191_13
| 中台灣小紳士 於 2003/09/11 16:37 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
標準二型飛彈的射程比海劍二長,沒必要改裝海劍二吧 | |
NO:191_14
| 暴力熊 於 2003/09/11 18:29 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
but for ASM interception purposes active radar seeker is the way to go rite? but i dunno whether 海劍二 has that capability....if it does it would be a much better system than ESSM which does not have active homing..... As for 標準二型飛彈,yeah,it has longer range...but given that its probably more expensive and difficult to obtain....and because we dont have mk41 launchers..the firing rate is not sufficient to defend against saturation attacks...(in my opinion) However,I also wonder if the radars onboard the Kidd class destroyers can detect ASMs far away enough to fully utilize 標準二型飛彈s range... | |
NO:191_15
| 小老闆 於 2003/09/11 19:00 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
re中台灣小紳士 中國的身管炮和火箭炮與岸置對海飛彈當然不會就擺在沙灘 而是散佈在多處隱密處而已會移動 如果紀德裝雷霆2000是要打這些目標 根本沒有什麼效益 雙方射程差不多~陸上的更佔優勢 一開始就把紀德就丟在不利自己的位置 而已前提還要解放軍已經完全喪失空優 否則在一波又一波攻擊 紀德將撐不了多久的 那將是現代戰爭戰術上一項非常嚴重錯誤 re:另外如果雷霆2000可以加裝佈雷(水雷)彈頭,也會是很好的阻滯共軍登陸船隊的武器>>> 也不用裝在紀德上ㄚ~在陸地發射就可以了~ | |
NO:191_16
| ra 於 2003/09/11 20:56 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>>>雙方射程差不多~陸上的更佔優勢 惹來了岸射SSM更不得了，就算有空優，臺灣也不是美國，不太可能在中國上空如入無人之境的獵殺一切可活動目標，中國那些雞零狗碎的岸防築壘更不是隨便就被清除乾淨的，誰知道從哪裏冒出一個殘餘的火力點？？？想想看當年中國海軍在渤海灣口準備對付蘇聯對山東半島進行兩栖攻擊的預想，在近岸地區飛潛快還是有點威脅的。 對中國淺近縱深目標實施火砲岸轟這種事情就是美國人也不是隨隨便便能做的，臺灣的話就更加要考慮風險控制問題………………………… | |
NO:191_17
| IMSHI 於 2003/09/12 00:02 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>>標準二型飛彈的射程比海劍二長,沒必要改裝海劍二吧.. 個人覺得加裝發射架式的海劍二...可以說是加強版的RAM...而且可以減少VLS發射中失去的能量... 而且海劍二是主動式尋標器,發射出去後可以不用用太的搜尋資源去導引... | |
NO:191_18
| 暴力熊 於 2003/09/12 00:55 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
i think that i kinda agree with IMSHI兄 coz although SM-2 has a longer range,it needs a lot of guidance from the ships radar because its semiactive homing(correct me if im wrong) so 海劍二 is actually the ideal ASM interceptor...however...i thought that 海劍二s VLS system is 冷射 so the range isnt really decreased? I heard that on this board before the 改版 some time ago....someone also said that the tech. know-how for the 冷射 system came from Russian sources??? | |
NO:191_19
| 暴力熊 於 2003/09/12 00:56 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
I hope you guys dont mind me using english....my chinese typing is extremely slow..... | |
NO:191_20
| IMSHI 於 2003/09/12 01:54 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
1.MK-41VLS system--> 魚叉八枚(沒買的話拆別級船的,抱歉那一級反潛的名字忘了),ASROC和標準二用的... 2.雄三--> 2-4枚就好了(用來獵殺現代級這類高價值目標) 不用多,而且它很重的...會影響提高重心.. 3.海劍二(發射架型)*16枚 4.LINK 11 16 | |
NO:191_21
| 暴力熊 於 2003/09/12 07:32 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
why not 雄二instead of Harpoon,in my opinion i think that its better than the Harpoon...and its MIT(made in taiwan)! I think that unless we can get SLAM-ER(is there a naval version) theres no point equipping the Harpoon when we have 雄二 | |
NO:191_22
| IMSHI 於 2003/09/12 08:36 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
雄二要先裝得進去MK-41才行...而且還要驗証雄二的VLS發射可不可行... | |
NO:191_23
| 貓貓 於 2003/09/12 09:13 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
基本上，美國海軍所用的飛彈中，只有魚叉飛彈不能放進Mk-41VLS呢！！ 看來這就成為FAQ中的一條呢！ | |
NO:191_24
| Ghostwolf 於 2003/09/12 09:42 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
雄二的進氣口是固定的, 不論是裝入Mk 26的彈倉或者Mk 41都很困難. 最好的位置應該就是放在原本安裝Mk 141魚叉發射架的地點, 安裝八枚雄二應該沒問題. 不過看照片裝魚叉的位置很狹窄, 要改裝雄三的話因彈身過長的關係最多只能裝四枚, 為了要彌補反艦能力的不足就還得在Mk 26彈倉加上4枚魚叉, Mk 41的話就不能裝魚叉. | |
NO:191_25
| october 於 2003/09/12 10:13 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/kidd.gif 我認為可把後方的5-inch艦砲拆掉,只留前方的5-inch艦砲,因我認為沒有必要留兩個5-inch艦砲,而此空間則可規劃為雄風3的發射平台,不但有足夠空間,且位於船身最後方,也比較安全.且我認為如果雄風3重量為1500kg,我認為最少可裝四枚雄風3,對於8000噸的船艦,這6000kg應該沒問題. | |
NO:191_26
| october 於 2003/09/12 10:19 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
另外,如果能引進mk41 VLS,我到覺得把前方mk26發射架改為mk41,而後方依然保持為mk26發射架,這樣都能保持擁有,這兩種發射方式的優點 | |
NO:191_27
| 貓貓 於 2003/09/12 10:21 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
要麼就兩組一起換，要麼就不換呢，何必要增加後勤的問題呢！ | |
NO:191_28
| 曾公 於 2003/09/12 10:49 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
↑或許暫時不換,待神盾成軍,紀德大概也差不多該做性能提昇時,再一併換成MK-41,因為現階段換成MK-41對紀德的整體戰力並無太大的加分作用,反而是對捉襟見肘的國防預算造成負擔,且MK-26的射速對現階段紀德的目標處理能力應以足敷所需 | |
NO:191_29
| october 於 2003/09/12 11:01 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
我所修改的紀德艦----> http://tw.img.photo.yahoo.com/hkbtom/ab/p1.jpg | |
NO:191_30
| october 於 2003/09/12 11:09 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
我的設計理念來自SPRUANCE-class 我所修改的紀德艦 | |
NO:191_31
| october 於 2003/09/12 11:12 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
曾公 待神盾成軍---->不知要等到何年何月????? | |
NO:191_32
| 布蘭妮 於 2003/09/12 11:39 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
何年何月在相逢↑ | |
NO:191_33
| WILLIAM 於 2003/09/12 11:51 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
豬哥亮曰:斯斯有兩種!一種治感冒,另一種治咳嗽........... Albert 大師曰:神盾也有兩種!!一種叫【提】字輩,另一種叫【勃】字輩..... | |
NO:191_34
| 暴力熊 於 2003/09/12 13:58 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
雄二的VLS發射...is that necessary? ASM dont really need a firing rate as fast as anti-air and anti-missile missiles rite? So whats the point?(dont mean to be rude here..) I think that we can just put 雄二 on the deck space designated for Harpoon missiles...About 雄三,lets say we manage to stuff 4 or more missile aboard the Kidd,wouldnt it affected the C.G. of the ship pretty badly? | |
NO:191_35
| 旁觀者2 於 2003/09/12 14:43 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>>我認為可把後方的5-inch艦砲拆掉,只留前方的5-inch艦砲,因我認為沒有必要留兩個5-inch艦砲, >>而此空間則可規劃為雄風3的發射平台,不但有足夠空間,且位於船身最後方,也比較安全.且我認 >>為如果雄風3重量為1500kg,我認為最少可裝四枚雄風3,對於8000噸的船艦,這6000kg應該沒問題. 拆掉後方五吋砲後 後方空間應該可放8枚雄三 還有一點 KIDD 上LAMP2和直昇機起降台是否可以支援UH-60(S-70) | |
NO:191_37
| 暴力熊 於 2003/09/12 15:05 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
如果紀德艦裝RAM又裝方陣會ㄅ會有飛去攔截 ASM ㄉRAM 被方陣幹下來ㄉ情況ㄚ? =_=? | |
NO:191_38
| IMSHI 於 2003/09/12 18:14 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
如果怕功能重複的話...那紀德艦要規劃成...長程防空(SM-2MR),長程反艦(HF-3),反潛...都是長的...中短距離就由成功和*陽艦來(抱歉還是記不起來)... 那就要組成聯合艦隊了...請問人知道海軍艦隊的編組中是這樣編的嗎??? 拉法葉和光六就用偷襲戰術了... >>至於加劍二 KIDD上已有SM-2 功能似乎有些重複 加上裝雄三後以沒多餘空間除非要拆掉後方MK26 不過還要考慮射控整合問題 不如改裝RAM划算 說得很有道理...但是為了紀德買RAM...後勤上好像不划算... | |
NO:191_39
| rockitten 於 2003/09/12 20:43 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>拆掉後方五吋砲後 後方空間應該可放8枚雄三 >至於換MK41 我認為不必了 原因是一花錢太多 二並沒大幅提高作戰能力 三ASROC可沿用現有的 >至於加劍二 KIDD上已有SM-2 功能似乎有些重複 加上裝雄三後以沒多餘空間 如果不用MK-41和垂直發射器版ASROC，ASROC發射器會佔掉一個裝MK-26的「炮位」 不過目前Kidd上也沒有拖曳式主動聲納，自然也不太用得上ASROC。 >除非要拆掉後方MK26 不過還要考慮射控整合問題 不如改裝RAM划算 | |
NO:191_40
| 旁觀者2 於 2003/09/12 23:19 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>>如果不用MK-41和垂直發射器版ASROC，ASROC發射器會佔掉一個裝MK-26的「炮位」 MK26 不就可以玩ASROC嗎 | |
NO:191_41
| rockitten 於 2003/09/13 01:05 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>MK26 不就可以玩ASROC嗎 不可以，要不然Spruence為什麼沒VLS前要用ASROC專用的發射器MK112？ 所以，以中華民國海軍已經有Knox，Kidd這麼高貴的船也不太可能會和潛艦玩 Kidd要大改？剛買回來的車沒用上五六年是不會大改裝的，一來是錢，二來是 | |
NO:191_42
| Albert 於 2003/09/13 01:44 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
Mk-26是可以發射ASROC的, 而依照美國正常之編列, Kidds上應是52枚SM-2+16枚ASROC | |
NO:191_43
| Albert 於 2003/09/13 01:50 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>要不然Spruence為什麼沒VLS前要用ASROC專用的發射器MK112？ 因它根本沒有Mk-26 >其中有一艘是LAMPSIII可support S-70，其他三艘是LAMPSII，和Knox一樣只能放SH-2 For the NTU ships, the only thing youll need to operate LAMPS III is to install the RAST not the software. | |
NO:191_45
| 中台灣小紳士 於 2003/09/13 13:09 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
雄三不裝在紀德上就只能岸射了(太浪費了,雄三可是世界上最強的反艦飛彈之一),而且魚叉的射程不見比雄二遠,那紀德能攻擊的距離不就比成功和拉法葉還近...大才小用 而且如果神盾來了(聽說美國已原則同意出售台灣四艘勃克),防空任務主要交給神盾就好了,紀德應轉行為長程反艦攻陸驅逐艦. | |
NO:191_46
| Albert 於 2003/09/13 20:30 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
至於由Mk-26改成Mk-41的問題, 有兩點要考量的 艦首之Mk-26 Mod 0是不能像史普魯恩斯一樣改成64管Mk-41的, 因體積不足, (有沒有人記起是甚麼原故), 若要硬改而要改防爆炸艙之間格, 那費用會是天文數字 | |
NO:191_47
| 旁觀者2 於 2003/09/13 22:27 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>>艦艉的Mk-26 Mod1要改成像VLS的Tico用64管Mk-41也會遇到像美國研究改CG-47-51時同樣的問題 老美最後的打算是讓他退役 台灣似乎又有好處可撈了 如果要加強KIDD的抗飽和攻擊能力 加RAM或加劍二都是方法 說到劍二裝機庫兩側 讓我想到成功級的改裝方案 | |
NO:191_48
| Steelshark 於 2003/09/14 00:58 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>>雄三不裝在紀德上就只能岸射了(太浪費了,雄三可是世界上最強的反艦飛彈之一),而且魚叉的射程不>>見比雄二遠,那紀德能攻擊的距離不就比成功和拉法葉還近...大才小用 我不認為把雄三放在陸上是一種浪費，正因為這飛彈射程長，只要放對地方，就等於直接把整個海域封鎖起來，若是放在東引馬祖一帶，什麼高價艦船都不用進來台灣海峽。當然對方也非等閒之輩，對方的新一代岸基對艦導彈，也保證台灣的高價艦船都不用接近台海中線。 另外雄二的射程的確不如Harpoon | |
NO:191_49
| 暴力熊 於 2003/09/14 02:16 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>把雄三放在陸上是一種浪費，正因為這飛彈射程長，只要放對地方，就等於直接把整個海域封鎖起來 可是這樣over the horizon的問題 怎麼辦....?The radar on the coast cant see that far right? | |
NO:191_50
| 暴力熊 於 2003/09/14 02:17 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>另外雄二的射程的確不如Harpoon 此話怎講? | |
NO:191_51
| eric 於 2003/09/14 05:08 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
個人的看法.和 十月兄看法一致.將艦首的MK26換成MK41-64管既可.艦尾的MK26不動. 從載彈量來看.紀德級原載彈量為前24管.後44管.總數68管(原為預留MK71-8吋艦砲的空間.故前方載彈量教少)如改裝一套MK41-64管.載彈量增為104管. 需要較高射速的武器裝置於MK41如標準飛彈及4合1海麻雀.反潛火箭及反艦飛彈由MK26發射既可. 單就各型飛彈數量各取一半的容量共有MK41部份標準飛彈32枚.4合1海麻雀128枚. MK26部份反潛火箭22枚.反艦飛彈22枚.總數為204枚.台版火力艦?.但有一缺點.排水量一定破萬噸 PS.紀德級諸原取材自.軍武狂人夢.海軍區. | |
NO:191_52
| 貓貓 於 2003/09/14 11:19 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
但前方的Mk-41不會是61管的呢，將因空間和＄＄的問題而變為32or29管，若堅持要61or64管，將要拆開艦題作大幅改裝，並不化算。 而且，Kidd的任務是區域防空指揮艦，若真的改用Mk-41，既然ESSM是四合一，16枚只需佔用4個發射管，剩下的25/28管全數裝上SM-2，沒有必要放太多ESSM呢！ 後面的MK-26配裝22枚ASROC，另22枚也配SM-2，把兩套CIWS也改為RAM，原本位於艦身的MK-141與以保留或改為雄蜂2/3型，再不然還嫌不夠，拆了後面的MK-45，改裝將Mk-143般的發射箱用來放雄蜂3型呢！ | |
NO:191_53
| Steelshark 於 2003/09/14 11:33 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
雄二射程的事情，似乎不能多說了 這雄三能夠發揚到最大限度是很好，但是不發揮到最大射程，還是一個具有「一擊必殺」保證的利器，這樣威脅效果就很好。其實目前放在東引的雄二就具備這樣的效果，換成雄三就更可怕了。至於over horizon的問題，我覺得以民間可以看到的有限資訊來看，是的確沒有辦法解決，這也許是不能談的機密吧 | |
NO:191_54
| 暴力熊 於 2003/09/14 12:02 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
雄三「一擊必殺」? Not exactly....because of its higher speed,it would have to fly furthur from the water surface so its actually less stealthy and more easily detected....although it has the advantage of reducing the reaction time of the enemy,close in weapon systmem like the Phalynx and RAM would still be able to intercept it.. | |
NO:191_55
| steelshark 於 2003/09/15 02:34 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
大部分「雄三」的對手沒有RAM也沒有phalanx這一類的近防系統，也許打到169-171才會遇到中共製的Gate keeper。也許該說對於目前中共海軍的水面艦，這類超音速攻船飛彈，應該是「一擊必殺」 | |
NO:191_56
| Albert 於 2003/09/16 21:57 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
AN/SSQ-108 OUTBOARD | |
NO:191_57
| Darth Panda 於 2003/09/18 00:26 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
How about upgrad to smartship?? | |
NO:191_58
| Albert 於 2003/09/18 20:39 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
Dear Brother Darth Panda I dont think ROCN will perform the Smartship, besides the Windows NT, as a matter of fact, ROCN vessels usually will have a larger crew than the same class of the other countries. BTW any information regarding to the improvement program for Hellenic Navy’s S frigates, specially the weapon suite. TKS IN ADVANCE | |
NO:191_59
| Darth Panda 於 2003/09/19 01:20 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
Windows NT.......hahahhhahahah | |
NO:191_60
| 布蘭妮 於 2003/09/19 15:52 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
可家放雄三其餘不用但方陣可多放一些因為界時紀德一定是敵人的首功目標 | |
NO:191_61
| XF 於 2003/10/02 16:03 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
我也認為可加裝海劍二，憑恃其中途慣性導引和資料鏈，終端 主動雷達導引的能力，應可有效應付飽和式攻擊。 再者，我不確定雄二是否有研發或改進出有攻陸能力的型號， 不然予以加裝載紀德艦上應也是不錯的選擇吧？ 另外在電戰系統方面，我也認為需一併更新或提升，以應付未 | |
NO:191_62
| october 於 2003/10/02 20:49 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
紀德艦身旁的小弟,光6. | |
NO:191_63
| october 於 2003/10/02 22:28 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
從光華六號的成軍,我想到一個戰術, 就是結合紀德艦,光6,光7,若克斯巡防艦形成一個聯合作戰群. 聯合作戰群: 紀德艦提供整個作戰群的防空,所以我認為要把前方mk26發射架改為射速高的mk41,並搭配雄風3,做遠程打擊能力 6艘光6提供整個作戰群的水面打擊能力,其總共24枚雄風2,至少能打掉敵水面艦8艘. 8艘光7提供整個作戰群的進迫防禦能力,每艘光7,安置1門MK 15方陣快砲. (所謂光7是我想像的快艇,是以光6為主體,而搭配1門MK 15方陣快砲,此艦可專門做進迫防禦,如打擊敵SSM及敵小型水面艦) 2艘若克斯巡防艦提供整個作戰群的水下反潛能力 | |
NO:191_64
| october 於 2003/10/02 22:42 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
忘記加一樣最重要的是聯合作戰群裡的每艘船艦的資料鏈連結整合,使每艘艦艇的情報能互相分享. 所以要是能完成我的構想,整個作戰群將非常強大.且也較便宜. | |
NO:191_65
| 貓貓 於 2003/10/02 23:00 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
一艘快艇裝上近迫防禦系統有甚麼用，協助不了艦隊空防，只是增加了目標的數目！！ 小型水面戰艦用Mk-45甚至GAU-25在遠距離外射擊更有效！！ 另外，在艦隊編組上，只有一艘紀德級，沒有其他大型戰艦作屏衛艦?!?!?!記著，紀德沒有神盾系統，射控雷達可是會被飽和的呢，裝了Mk-41而不改射控的後果是...... | |
NO:191_66
| 台灣郎 於 2003/10/02 23:42 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
有些人還以為我們是美國 裝上雄風三型反艦(攻陸)飛彈-------這東西不知道有沒有 . 更別說裝不裝了 希望加裝雄風及標準飛彈,ASROC共用的VLS------- 嗯 ... 那除了求美國幫忙設計以外.只能做做夢了. 裝火箭炮? ------- 雷霆2000能打多遠.有辦法接近大陸嗎 ? 大部分「雄三」的對手沒有RAM也沒有phalanx這一類的近防系統..是沒有...不過我國現在也沒有不是嗎? 我國海軍最強的防空是一次導引一顆SM-1..那大家覺得和中共的紅旗7以及俄系的施基利SJL比起來誰比較厲害? 對於目前中共海軍的水面艦，這類超音速攻船飛彈，應該是「一擊必殺」 沒錯.確實是一擊必殺........而以我國目前海軍防空系統一次一顆來說.中共無需使用超音速反艦飛彈. 一般的反艦飛彈對我國海軍也是一擊必殺.不如多多造光華六號. | |
NO:191_67
| 台灣郎 於 2003/10/02 23:45 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
對了 ...不要肖想美國的RAM了..... 連區區的CIWS都不太願意提供了. | |
NO:191_68
| october 於 2003/10/02 23:56 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
貓貓 於 2003/10/02 23:00 Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 一艘快艇裝上近迫防禦系統有甚麼用，協助不了艦隊空防，只是增加了目標的數目！！ 另外，在艦隊編組上，只有一艘紀德級，沒有其他大型戰艦作屏衛艦?!?!?!記著，紀德沒有神盾系統，射控雷達可是會被飽和的呢，裝了Mk-41而不改射控的後果是......
紀德艦一次能導引6枚SM2,或許少了點.但記住天上還有空軍支援及陸上飛彈部隊支援 | |
NO:191_69
| october 於 2003/10/03 00:10 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
台灣郎 於 2003/10/02 23:42 Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 大部分「雄三」的對手沒有RAM也沒有phalanx這一類的近防系統..是沒有...不過我國現在也沒有不是嗎? 我國海軍最強的防空是一次導引一顆SM-1..那大家覺得和中共的紅旗7以及俄系的施基利SJL比起來誰比較厲害? 對於目前中共海軍的水面艦，這類超音速攻船飛彈，應該是「一擊必殺」 沒錯.確實是一擊必殺........而以我國目前海軍防空系統一次一顆來說.中共無需使用超音速反艦飛彈. 一般的反艦飛彈對我國海軍也是一擊必殺.不如多多造光華六號. to 台灣郎 | |
NO:191_70
| 阿高 於 2003/10/03 08:55 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
畢竟我國玩不起太貴的武器 october兄說的似乎可行 原因無他,就便宜, 而且這個方案所需要的東西近幾年之內就幾乎可就以全得到 這個方案唯一弱點就是軍方願不願意再花錢改出光7來 如果這方案成立 那麼台灣也有小型的狼群艦隊了 | |
NO:191_71
| ryan2181 於 2003/10/03 09:03 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>>部分「雄三」的對手沒有RAM也沒有phalanx這一類的近防系統 TYPE88雙連37MM不是吃素的 | |
NO:191_72
| XF 於 2003/10/03 10:41 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
光七如只搭載方陣的話，恐力有未逮哦！ 如有可能的話，我想其能再搭配DMS、劍一甚至是劍二 不過有點疑惑的是：光六或者是光七，其艦身的原始設 | |
NO:191_73
| 台灣郎 於 2003/10/03 10:41 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
紀德的外型很差(70年代的設計)....好像江湖江衛一樣有大大的黑煙囪... 上層建築雜亂無章..完全沒有所謂匿蹤的設計...戰場生存率想必不高. 唯一的好處是填補了部份防空的缺點.加上便宜. | |
NO:191_74
| 台灣郎 於 2003/10/03 10:49 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
神盾艦排水量9217噸，紀德艦排水量9919噸，成功艦排水量4200噸. 神盾艦配備神盾戰鬥系統接戰能力小於25個目標 紀德艦接戰小於10個目標 成功艦2個目標(太扯了...) ||| 神盾艦防空武器配備標準2型飛彈(射距153公里) 紀德艦配標準2型飛彈(型號不明) 成功艦配標準1型飛彈射距40公里(堪堪和c801對決.... |||) 神盾艦制海武器配備魚叉2型飛彈 紀德艦配魚叉2型飛彈 成功艦配雄風2型飛彈 神盾艦單艦新造不合彈藥造價新台幣約340億元 紀德艦含啟封和飛彈折合新台幣約68億元 成功艦造價不含彈藥折合新台幣146億餘元 所以紀德還是得買.比成功級強卻便宜了一倍多.但也只有四艘. | |
NO:191_75
| 台灣郎 於 2003/10/03 11:05 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
國防部為加速名為「雄昇計畫」的雄風三型飛彈研發進程 ，去年特別編列兩百多億經費供中科院運用，目前中科 院已經陸續完成「雄風三型」飛彈的模擬反艦彈道飛行 、超音速自由飛行、巡航後俯衝等試飛項目，不過在測 試過程中曾發生目標脫鎖的問題。在歷經多次試射後， 「雄風三型」一度出現「衝壓引擎噴嘴矽酚絕熱層無法 通過氣密測試」的狀況，不過在中科院專案檢討後，目 前「雄風三型」已經進入最後系統測試評估階段，預計 將在兩年內完成作戰測試評估。2003/9 就是說還要兩年.... and 試射不等於服役 ~ ok ? 就是有問題才要不斷的試射和改進.不是說武器名字出現在報紙上就可以發射了. | |
NO:191_76
| WILLIAM 於 2003/10/03 11:14 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>>>神盾艦單艦新造不合彈藥造價新台幣約340億元 紀德艦含啟封和飛彈折合新台幣約68億元 成功艦造價不含彈藥折合新台幣146億餘元 所以紀德還是得買.比成功級強卻便宜了一倍多.但也只有四艘....... Albert 大師曰:別擔心!! | |
NO:191_77
| 台灣郎 於 2003/10/03 11:14 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
台灣有----> 光7? 光8? 雄三? 雄四? 青蜂2? 天戟? ...雄100 光1000 大陸有---->衛士2? C804? 紅旗16? 衛士10000 C808 所以由此可證兩岸都是同文同種.. 嘴炮程度不分上下 . 幻想武器滿天飛灑. | |
NO:191_78
| 勤務組 於 2003/10/03 11:18 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
台灣郎 | |
NO:191_80
| 無影 於 2003/10/03 11:47 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
看著光6的照片小弟有幾點疑問想請教板上的專家請不吝賜教 謝謝 1 看起來光六似乎沒有雄2的射控雷達(好像也沒必要)那漢光19表演時他是如何導控的ㄋ? ,我的意四是誰提供他目標資料及中途導引? 另外--若光6沒有這些複雜的戰鬥系統那奇怪的是艦橋卻大的離譜,與艦身看來相當不成比例,(不作長途航行的船似乎沒有必要太大的乘員艙ㄅ),以致要把雄2裝到艦橋的上面不僅減低了載彈量,更造成全艇重心大幅的上揚,更無助於提昇匿蹤性,對此船的設計上讓人百思不解,(若設計上是將飛彈裝載隱藏在後段艦橋內部一來降低全船重心,二來可增加載彈量,三可降低雷達反射波這不是較合理ㄇ)?一艘簡單的小船要那麼大的艦橋來幹麻真是不懂耶?我記的瑞典有設計一款功能相近匿蹤性極佳的艦艇船身設計相當簡潔,採用匿蹤炮塔(好像預計裝配30-40mm口徑的快砲),該艇艦橋也沒有像光6那麼誇張ㄚ,而且比光6還早下水,難道我們的海軍連依樣畫葫蘆都不會的ㄇ!講難聽一點沒吃過豬肉也看過豬走路ㄇ對不! 2 他的自慰武裝是聯勤的20雞炮,會不會太單薄?而且看起來是簡易版的20雞炮,沒炮塔更別說加裝陀螺儀如此將射手暴露在外,考量到快艇戰術經常是處在高速運動狀態下,再加上台灣海峽的海象一般風浪較大(東北季風強),在這種戰場環境下自慰雞炮是否還能發揮火力?個人實在懷疑!莫要射手一站上甲板就被船拋入海中才好,就算沒有那海浪澗起的大量水花不會干擾雞炮射手的觀瞄ㄇ,船身搖晃的程度還能讓射手射擊ㄇ? 如果有人說雞炮用到的機會很少或根本沒用那何不乾脆拆了?如果還有用--那裝兩門打不中目標的機炮是真的要自慰還是要陷害艇員ㄋ? 希望接下來的光6 能改進原型艇(國防部說的)的這些毛病才好,要不然看到對岸造的054再看我們的光6 | |
NO:191_81
| Luke-Skywalker 於 2003/10/03 11:56 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
＞紀德的外型很差(70年代的設計)....好像江湖江衛一樣有大大的黑煙囪... 上層建築雜亂無章..完全沒有所謂匿蹤的設計...戰場生存率想必不高. 唯一的好處是填補了部份防空的缺點.加上便宜. 哇咧...... | |
NO:191_82
| 無影 於 2003/10/03 12:01 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>>聯合作戰群: 紀德艦 x1 光6 x6 光7 x8 若克斯巡防艦 x2 ---意試是把獵狗綁上鐵鍊,用來看家? | |
NO:191_83
| 無蹤 於 2003/10/03 13:29 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
＞紀德的外型很差(70年代的設計)....好像江湖江衛一樣有大大的黑煙囪... 上層建築雜亂無章..完全沒有所謂匿蹤的設計...戰場生存率想必不高. 唯一的好處是填補了部份防空的缺點.加上便宜. 哇咧...... 到底有沒有看過紀德級的照片呀！在這裡胡謅！紀德級和史恩普魯斯級一樣，上層構築都是一塊塊的，那來的雜亂無章之說.......
| |
NO:191_84
| Luke-Skywalker 於 2003/10/03 13:45 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
↑拿張照片給你看吧！照片來源來自MDC海軍版 http://mbox.hchs.hc.edu.tw/~military/navy/usanavy/ddg-993-dvic137.jpg | |
NO:191_85
| Luke-Skywalker 於 2003/10/03 13:47 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
此外 要研究紀德級驅逐艦如何改裝 請先將這篇文章看完 同樣來自MDC海軍版的文章 http://mbox.hchs.hc.edu.tw/~military/navy/usanavy/DDG993.htm | |
NO:191_86
| Albert 於 2003/10/03 14:33 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
天行老兄 您勞氣幹怎麼, 這位台灣郎了解大陸的武器多過臺灣的. 我們的勤務組老哥應一早知是怎麼一回事. >大部分「雄三」的對手沒有RAM也沒有phalanx這一類的近防系統..是沒有...不過我國現在也沒有不是嗎? 我國海軍最強的防空是一次導引一顆SM-1..那大家覺得和中共的紅旗7以及俄系的施基利SJL比起來誰比較厲害? & 對了 ...不要肖想美國的RAM了..... 連區區的CIWS都不太願意提供了. 臺灣的很少人會知施基利而是用SA-N-7, 而用海紅七比SM-1也只是在大陸才有比討論, 因完全是兩個層次的東西. 要比美系的, 海麻雀還差不多 在這項上的確有很多學生哥有一些天馬行空之想法, 但經一些資深網友指導下定會進步, 總比一些只會寫靠, 又或用PS來做武器的強 光華七 – 是指紀德艦, 光華八是SSK, 至於雄三, 它可不是你口中的嘴砲, 但把它整合在紀德的NTU上便要很多錢, 不若岸置實際一點. 而艦用火箭, 不是沒可能, 只不過成本效益低, 沒有人考量, 洛馬便有一種叫POLAR的東西(GPS導引的MLRS), 四處求售 – 包括臺灣在內(可以從MK-41以四合一裝載), 但多年也沒有顧客. 而Mk-45 Mod 4艦砲郤大賣, 其中原因自可明白 | |
NO:191_87
| Ghostwolf 於 2003/10/03 15:50 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>>紀德的外型很差(70年代的設計)....好像江湖江衛一樣有大大的黑煙囪... 上層建築雜亂無章.. 一開始思考邏輯就錯誤,拿驅逐艦來跟防衛艦比? 就好像拿蘋果來比橘子一樣. 沒看過 江湖, 江衛真正的長相如何, 就少來批評紀德艦的外觀. | |
NO:191_88
| 旁觀者2 於 2003/10/03 18:20 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>>部分「雄三」的對手沒有RAM也沒有phalanx這一類的近防系統 TYPE88雙連37MM對飛彈還是有一定程度的攔截能力 >>紀德的外型很差(70年代的設計)....好像江湖江衛一樣有大大的黑煙囪... 上層建築雜亂無章.. >>完全沒有所謂匿蹤的設計...戰場生存率想必不高. | |
NO:191_89
| 無蹤 於 2003/10/03 21:31 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
phalanx? 目前好像還是第一代的, 新型美國並不提供不是嗎? 紀德艦看到了, 雖說是有點模組化的概念, 但是比起美國日本的神盾看來還是差了一點 | |
NO:191_91
| 無蹤 於 2003/10/03 21:39 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
海紅7的資料上GOOGLE查了一下 原來是陸上FM-90的海上版 | |
NO:191_92
| Albert 於 2003/10/03 23:48 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>phalanx? 目前好像還是第一代的, 新型美國並不提供不是嗎? 誰說的, 第二批濟陽也是Block 1B | |
NO:191_93
| razor 於 2003/10/04 06:57 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
wnat to know more about Phalanx Block 1B? http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/ammo/martin.pdf http://www.thalesgroup-optronics.com/dos/products/naval/details/phalanx.shtml | |
NO:191_94
| october 於 2003/10/04 14:19 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
Albert 於 2003/10/03 23:48 Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 >phalanx? 目前好像還是第一代的, 新型美國並不提供不是嗎?
| |
NO:191_95
| october 於 2003/10/04 14:37 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
前幾年國防部兵棋推演?發現紀德艦若遭受ssm飽和攻擊時,沒有足夠的防禦能力,而被擊沉. 所以我認為有必要發展以配置方陣快砲的快艇.部署在以紀德艦為中心聯合作戰群的周圍,以保護聯合作戰群受到SSM的威脅. 此方陣快砲快艇(此暫稱為光7),以目前光六為藍本,把雄風2拿掉,改配置一座方陣快砲.方陣快砲系統重6,120 kg,以目前光六160頓,相信安裝不會有問題. 但我自己也發現一問題,因快艇船身較低矮,安置方陣快砲若不夠高時,是否會影響其射界???. | |
NO:191_96
| SK2 於 2003/10/04 16:11 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>海紅7的資料上GOOGLE查了一下 原來是陸上FM-90的海上版 can you provide us source or link? Most source nowaday claim that HHQ-7 is navalised FM-80, not FM-90 | |
NO:191_97
| Eagle 於 2003/10/04 17:11 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
由於方陣的高射速, 施加在船體上的後座力相當大, 而小船裝後座力強的艦砲並不是 好事. 清朝已經試用過類似的『 蚊砲船』 , 即是由英國進口的小船裝大砲, 結果 發現並不實用. 兩江總督劉坤一因此要求『國艦國造』, 搭配較小的艦砲：“蚊 砲船購自外洋，費鉅而砲位過重。請由粵自造木殼船...... (詳見清史稿 http://www. guoxue.com/shibu/24shi/qingshigao/qsg_136.htm) 其實這設計在英國是當作浮動砲臺, 在港內作定點防禦用的, 無法跟隨艦隊出海. 蚊砲船詳細規格見中國軍艦博物館 | |
NO:191_98
| Albert 於 2003/10/04 21:18 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>方陣快砲Block 1B 邊邊有加上一個紅外線 Radar (FLIR),你確定第二批濟陽也是Block 1B ???? 第二批濟陽裝的方陣正式名稱是Mk-15 mod 11, 是甚麼東西自己去查是否1B | |
NO:191_99
| october 於 2003/10/04 22:14 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/mk-15.htm MK 15 Phalanx Close-In Weapons System Equipment type: 請問Mk-15 mod 11在哪裡? | |
NO:191_100
| 伊雲 於 2003/10/04 22:24 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
前幾年國防部兵棋推演?發現紀德艦若遭受ssm飽和攻擊時,沒有足夠的防禦能力,而被擊沉. 所以我認為有必要發展以配置方陣快砲的快艇.部署在以紀德艦為中心聯合作戰群的周圍,以保護聯合作戰群受到SSM的威脅. 此方陣快砲快艇(此暫稱為光7),以目前光六為藍本,把雄風2拿掉,改配置一座方陣快砲.方陣快砲系統重6,120 kg,以目前光六160頓,相信安裝不會有問題. 可能狀況一： 可能狀況二： 可能狀況三： 可能狀況四： | |
NO:191_101
| 99 於 2003/10/05 00:37 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>>can you provide us source or link? Most source nowaday claim that HHQ-7 is navalised FM-80, not FM-90 換裝90/90N http://www.kanwa.com/free/2003/01/c0130b.htm | |
NO:191_102
| 99 於 2003/10/05 00:46 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>>請問Mk-15 mod 11在哪裡? 好像沒有這種型號 成功級:舊式MK-15方陣快砲Block 1 + SM1 型號是1 非1A非1B | |
NO:191_103
| Albert 於 2003/10/05 01:22 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
問製造商or自已上網找 | |
NO:191_104
| 濱線 於 2003/10/05 01:57 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>>請問Mk-15 mod 11在哪裡? 好像沒有這種型號 連google都不會用 | |
NO:191_105
| rockitten 於 2003/10/05 12:16 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>可能狀況四： 立委發現此案的預算直逼光二計劃兩倍，且效果只有不到一半，國防部長下台 可能狀況五： | |
NO:191_106
| CatCat 於 2003/10/05 13:12 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
Equipment type and version Availability ratea Impediments to availability FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 Phalanx Close-in Weapon System Please notice the column of VERSION!!! Block 1 Bl1/2/1A 0.72 0.77 0.73 | |
NO:191_107
| CatCat 於 2003/10/05 13:13 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
↑ From http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/mk-15.htm | |
NO:191_108
| CatCat 於 2003/10/05 22:55 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
According to Y2K國軍武裝報告書 P.46 採用MK-15 Mod 11 Block 1B的是 蘭陽，海陽，淮陽三艘 | |
NO:191_109
| Albert 於 2003/10/05 23:49 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
濱線兄 咱倆所見相同, 這只是有人居然連自己軍艦上有怎麼也不知道, 又不做功課, 以令有心人可以入位. A/ 蘭陽成軍時不像寧陽, 海軍是有新聞發報會的, 而不論DIIC或DTM也圖文並茂報導的, 想假也假不來. 是怎麼, 去查一查便知 | |
NO:191_110
| 濱線 於 2003/10/06 01:56 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>>咱倆所見相同, 這只是有人居然連自己軍艦上有怎麼也不知道, 又不做功課, 以令 有心人可以入位. 不僅如此 只是可惜Albert兄所寫的常識﹐可能還是會沒有人看﹐ 是真的沒看到﹐還是看了會 不過Albert兄所寫的常識﹐功德無量﹐只看有人願否渡化自己﹐由正智以遠離無顛 | |
NO:191_112
| Pikachuu 於 2003/10/06 16:49 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>>我記的瑞典有設計一款功能相近匿蹤性極佳的艦艇船身設計相當簡潔,採用匿蹤炮塔(好像預計裝配30-40mm口徑的快砲),該艇艦橋也沒有像光6那麼誇張ㄚ,而且比光6還早下水,難道我們的海軍連依樣畫葫蘆都不會的ㄇ!講難聽一點沒吃過豬肉也看過豬走路ㄇ對不! 瑞典Visby可是人家經過多年實驗還造實驗艦精心設計的，匿蹤能力目前是全球第一，各方面都有周延考慮，所以沒有簡單到毫無經驗的我國第一次就能達到類似水平的，就好像說中共170一出手就能跟神盾Baseline7並駕齊驅一樣讓人難以相信。 >>此外 哈！這麼說實在太抬舉我這篇了，事實上只有一點最基本的介紹而已，這學期才打算擴充（但是昨天我心愛的貓被車撞死了，遭受重大打擊，不知道還有沒有餘力寫。嗚嗚！） | |
NO:191_113
| Pikachuu 於 2003/10/06 16:51 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
此外，Kidd的時代根本還沒有人講求降低RCS或紅外線訊號，這樣比根本不公平。不過據說美國有在這幾種船艦的上層結構上安裝一種RAM材料，可以大幅降低RCS。 | |
NO:191_114
| Pikachuu 於 2003/10/06 16:54 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
我們真的裝了MK15 Block 1B！？難道我落伍了？我只看到砲管支架，但是光電套件則未曾發現 。 | |
NO:191_115
| 貓貓 於 2003/10/06 20:16 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
一個很簡單的辨認方法，看Mk-15的砲座！！ | |
NO:191_116
| 無影 於 2003/10/11 10:22 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>>瑞典Visby可是人家經過多年實驗還造實驗艦精心設計的，匿蹤能力目前是全球第一，各方面都有周延考慮，所以沒有簡單到毫無經驗的我國第一次就能達到類似水平的，就好像說中共170一出手就能跟神盾Baseline7並駕齊驅一樣讓人難以相信。 小弟雖然同意您的觀點,但是卻認為光六的設計還是有相當大的改善空間,或許我們不能一步登天,但是以台灣的造船水準而言,目前光六的設計只要海軍再用點心要求應該可以更好,不是有一句話說成功的人找方法,失敗的人找藉口ㄇ 不知您是否同意! | |
NO:191_117
| Pikachuu 於 2003/10/11 13:11 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>>但是卻認為光六的設計還是有相當大的改善空間,或許我們不能一步登天,但是以台灣的造船水準而言,目前光六的設計只要海軍再用點心要求應該可以更好, 沒錯！例如可以使用可拆式欄杆，一些雜七雜八的裝備隱藏起來....等等。其實艦島的確太高了，但是不知是否有辦法縮小。 至於Visby超豪華的匿蹤材料、FSS材料、噴水推進器或隱藏在水線下的排氣口....就不是我們一步登天可以辦到的 | |
NO:191_118
| kidd 於 2003/10/13 09:36 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
http://www.destroyersonline.com/usndd/classkidd.htm IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT FOR ALL 993 SAILORS Breathing Life Back Into the KIDDs The Taiwan Navy has recently signed a Foreign Military Sales (FMS) agreement with the US Navy to transfer and reactivate the four KIDD-Class DDGs. These great warships, removed from active service in 1998 and 1999, will be returned to full capability and transferred to the Taiwan Navy over the next 4 years. The ships, currently berthed in Philadelphia and Bremerton, will be towed to Charleston, South Carolina, where the reactivation industrial availabilities will be conducted. During the maintenance periods, the Taiwan crews will be trained in operation and maintenance of the ships. After completion of the reactivation, the crews receive intensive underway training to ensure their proficiency in operations before sailing the ships home to Taiwan. Jerry Cook, KIDD Reactivation Project Manager at VSE Corporation in Alexandria, Virginia says, I have spoken with many KIDD sailors recently, and repeatedly hear the same thoughts: They should have never decommissioned these ships. Everyone who sailed on or supported these powerful combat systems is eager to see them back in operation. BAV Division of VSE Corporation was awarded the contract for reactivating retired USN ships for foreign customers in 1995. Since then, they have supported Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) in the transfer of 30 ships to navies around the world. KIDD, CHANDLER, SCOTT, and CALLAHAN were originally built for the Shah of Iran. Shortly before the ships were to be delivered, the Shah was overthrown, and the succeeding government chose to not take delivery. The ships served for nearly 20 years of service in the US Navy, providing support in the Gulf War, before being retired. This will be the single largest FMS ship transfer and reactivation project that BAV and NAVSEA have undertaken, says Cook. Reactivating four very complex ships, training nearly 1200 foreign sailors, and integrating these ships into the Taiwan Naval force will be an exciting and challenging effort. Having been in mothballs for over four years, the ships have suffered varying levels of corrosion and degradation. The US Navy does not invest much money in the maintenance of retired ships not being held as reserve assets for the US. As part of the decommissioning process, ship systems are placed in long-term lay-up. This provides the best environment for the equipment and systems to prevent damage. As these ships were offered to Greece, and subsequently, Australia, during the period they were being decommissioned, not all lay-up steps were completed, to preclude additional work to reactivate them. Both Greece and Australia declined the offer of the ships. The lay-ups were left in varying stages of completion, adding to the challenge, says Cook, a retired Navy LDO engineer. But, the conditions inside the ship are surprisingly good. Many of the spaces look like the crew just walked off the ship yesterday. That is a good indication that the sailors were proud of these ships and took good care of them. The transfer and training efforts require the coordinated teamwork of Navy and industry to deliver the ships to their new home, fully mission capable, outfitted and stocked, with well-trained crews. USN schools provide some of the training, and other Navy field activities provide training while working on selected systems. Where training is required that the US Navy no longer supports, equipment and system manufacturers, often the best source of expertise, provides OJT. Industrial training is also provided to the receiving navys maintenance organization. Crew training is conducted at the reactivation site by a staff of technical experts, many of whom operated these very ships. In a hot turnover, where the ship has not been deactivated, the incumbent US Navy crew often provides the bulk of the foreign crew training during the decommissioning process. However, if the ship has been laid up, and the USN crews have long since been reassigned, foreign crew training in ship operations is the responsibility of BAV. We devote a great deal of effort to finding the right mix of personnel to staff our waterfront operations. We always look for past experience on the platform as a primary requirement. But just having served on that ship isnt enough. Not every operator makes a good trainer, particularly when training a foreign crew who relies heavily on translators to understand the material. It can be very rewarding, or very frustrating, depending on the temperament of the staff. The rewards are experienced throughout the process, as equipment is brought back to life successfully, systems are integrated, and the testing programs prove that mission capabilities have been re-established. The biggest reward is at the end of the project, when the foreign crew takes the ship out and demonstrates their capability in operating their new ships. A lot of blood and sweat goes into these projects, and the tears are fought back when saying goodbye to friends and fellow sailors as the ships sail home to their new port. For more information about the KIDD reactivation for Taiwan, you can contact Jerry Cook at [email protected]. | |
NO:191_119
| Mr. Anderson 於 2003/11/09 00:25 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
類似光榮級的配置也不錯. 拿掉艦尾MK-26發射器,改放一座長白雷達(配上旋轉的底座) ,其功能類似光榮級Top Dome,前Mk-26就改成垂直發射的TK2 X 64 ,其他則不變, NTU若發 現目標,則指派給長白雷達接戰(在120度方位角內可同時接戰24個目標).這個提案的好處是 ,NTU,長白雷達跟TK2都是現成的.而且有進一步發展成ATBM的能力,而改裝後的戰力也可以和 共匪的光榮級逞兇鬥狠了:P. Mk26+44枚SM2改成長白雷達應該不致造成太大的重心問題,因為Mk26 mod1本身不含飛彈 就重達200噸,拿掉後應該可以cover長白雷達增加的重心高度.此外也省了三具射控雷達( 主動雷達飛彈好棒啊..XD). | |
NO:191_120
| fer-de-lance 於 2003/11/09 04:22 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
NATO designation Top Dome refers to Mineral (on the Sovremenniy and other large ships) and the Titanit (on missile corvettes like the Tarantul III). It is a target designation radar (with some over-the-horizon capabilities) for antiship missiles and NOT an air defense system. NTU on the Kidds can simultaneously control 20 SM-2 on a time-shared basis. Think about absorbing and mastering this level of capability before fantasizing about crazy upgrades. The Kidds are very heavy, they displace more than the first CG-47s. Having the SPS-48E higher than the SPY-1 for a greater radar horizon comes with a price in metacentric height. Before thinking about any modifications on these ships, you would have to think like a lady ... and lose some weight. The technology is already available to accomplish a significant weight loss in the computers and cabling. It is rehosting the ACDS and WDS Mk 14 software in modern, lightweight computer equipment. The USN is already doing this for the Re-architectured NATO Sea Sparrow Missile System and the ROKN KDX-II is using the WDS Mk14 software rehosted in an all-new combat direction system. After rehosting in up-to-date UYQ-70 consoled linked by a SAFENET databus, then there is an upgrade path to new software and new capabilities like SSDS which is becoming the new standard CDS software for USN aircraft carriers. With the weight loss, the Kidds can then upgrade the SPQ-9A radar to the heavier SPQ-9B with vastly improved sea skimmer detection capabilities and add RAM Block 1. The key is to get the ROCN to think seriously about following the USN lead and modernize their shipboard computing infrastructure through rehosting. That is easier said than done ... BTW, currently the most modern Phalanx version in the ROCN is Block 1A not 1B. The Y2K report got it wrong. The editors confused the gun mount designation with the system Block designation. All of the latest Phalanx mounts transferred to the ROCN were sent to a depot Kentucky for refurbishment and upgrade with things like the barrel brace and the HOL fire control computer use on Phalanx Block 1A. Block 1B is only just coming into service on the CORT FFG-7s in the USN. Apart from the EO director, it has an elongated EGB barrel and fires the ELC which is not compatible with the guns on the earlier Blocks. | |
NO:191_121
| Mr. Anderson 於 2003/11/09 14:38 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
Dear fer-de-lance: First of all, tks for ur information..:P 1.So far as I knom, TOP DOME is a fire control radar for SA-N-6. Plz cfm again. 2.NTU在理想上可導控20枚 ＳＭ２對抗＂遠距離中高空目標＂,應付掠海目標時,則可控制６枚. 3.由於缺乏一些數據,所以無法精算是否過重,但初估一下,兩套mk26(mod0,mod1各ｘ1)重約 4.美國的改裝案(SSDS..)也不錯,但你不提ATBM,就很難跟國會騙錢..XDD,而且還要老美同意,之前好 5.我很同意這個主意只適合列入好孩子的空想教室,因為最大的阻力很可能正是地球儀旁邊的那四個
| |
NO:191_122
| flak 於 2003/11/09 15:18 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>1.So far as I knom, TOP DOME is a fire control radar for SA-N-6. Plz cfm again. 他說的target designation radar與fire control radar的意思一般應該是一樣的。 有趣的是air defense system與target designation radar的差別在哪裡？ 我想應該是SPS-48E是具有搜索、預警與射控的完整能力。而Top Dome是只有射控能力，與STIR一樣。雖然Top Dome是相陣天線，所以掃瞄速度比STIR快得多，有較好的「搜索」能力，但畢竟它並不具有360度掃瞄能力，所以仍然只是用在「目獲」用途，而裝備Top Dome的戰艦另外會再配備360度掃瞄的預警雷達以作為搜索之用。 反過來說，NTU艦上原本就有STIR射控雷達，所以加個Top Dome有脫褲子放屁之嫌。倒是有錢有管道買到相陣型STIR-like雷達的話（記得有廠商提過這類產品），倒可以考慮一下。 | |
NO:191_123
| Mr. Anderson 於 2003/11/09 16:31 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
Dear flak 1.fer-de-lance說Top Dome是antiship missile用的...@@ 2.SPS-48E並不能提供射控的服務,這方面NTU依賴由SPG60,SPG-51D所組成的MK86 & MK74 4.一般說來,SM2終端需要數秒的照明,再加上NTU艦SPG60/51D還要兼飛彈上鏈&搜索目標,所
| |
NO:191_124
| 伊雲 於 2003/11/09 17:24 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
長白雷達發射天弓一型時，一樣是把目標交給頭上的照明雷達來導控 SPY-1沒有的功能，長白也不會有 | |
NO:191_125
| flak 於 2003/11/09 17:39 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>1.fer-de-lance說Top Dome是antiship missile用的...@@ 咦？我沒注意到。fer-de-lance提到的Mineral 的北約代號應該是Band Stand >2.SPS-48E並不能提供射控的服務,這方面NTU依賴由SPG60,SPG-51D所組成的MK86 & MK74 >射控系統,有錯請指正. 它還是有提供中段更新目標資料，經由另一組天線傳給飛彈的服務，這仍然是一種射控。 SPG60,SPG-51D所組成的MK86 & MK74提供的是末端導引。 >4.一般說來,SM2終端需要數秒的照明,再加上NTU艦SPG60/51D還要兼飛彈上鏈&搜索目標 飛彈上鍵好像是從另外一組天線吧？！否則中段導引的20枚飛彈亂飛階段，SPG60如何同時負擔上鍵與末端導引任務？ 由於3D雷達的關係，SPG-60在目獲階段可以得到完整的3維資訊提示，所以速度會比派里級快很多。 | |
NO:191_126
| Mr. Anderson 於 2003/11/09 18:57 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
Dear Flak Plz c the information below (from FMS) The MK-74 Tartar Fire Control System has been continually upgraded to meet current threats, and Mod 14/15 systems are deployed CGN-36,-37,-40,-41, and DDG-993 class ships. The MK-74 target tracking illuminating system supports Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) guidance to the maximum range of SM-2. The integrated X-Band Continuous Wave Illumination (CWI) function supports terminal illumination, rear reference, and uplink requirements of SM-2. The Mk74 is deployed on a number of ship types and in various configurations around the world. The Mod 15 adds X-Band Continuous Wave Acquisition and Track (CWAT) capability through a new 5-channel receiver, receiver antenna, and advanced signal processor. | |
NO:191_127
| Mr. Anderson 於 2003/11/09 19:02 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
抱歉,上文是從FAS剪下來的.特此更正..^^
| |
NO:191_128
| flak 於 2003/11/09 19:39 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>and uplink requirements of SM-2. 咦？真的是耶。下鍵才走STR-1的相陣天線，這樣子Mk-74不知道會不會太忙？ 難道進入射控階段之後，就是由Mk-74掌控而不再是SPS-48？ 紀德級飛彈驅逐艦戰鬥系統研析 | |
NO:191_129
| fer-de-lance 於 2003/11/10 12:18 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
Mr. Anderson: My apologies, Top Dome is the radar for SA-N-6. Russian designation Volna - an X-band phased array illuminated with a feed from the front hence the nipple like device at the front of the dome that earned the radar its nick-name of Dolly Parton in the USN. Was writing something about Mineral (Band Stand) and Pozitiv (Cross Dome) and made a Freudian slip. Too many late nights ... Top Dome technology is outdated. The new kid on the block is the planar phased array NATO: Tombstone. A Tombstone replaced the forward Top Dome on the Piotr Veliky to control the improved Rif-M missile system. The WDS Mk 14 on the Kidds is very capable already. It would not be cost-effective to mess with it. Target tracks are generated using the SYS-2 upgraded with a PowerPC processor (commercially known as TMS). This system correlates data from all the onboard radars to generate and update tracks. Using data from multiple radars increases detection probability and reduces false alarms. TMS is said to use tracking algorithms from Aegis. In a sense, it gives you the best of both world, earlier detection with the SPS-49 and accurate height-finding with the SPS-48E. The SPS-48E will be able to provide accurate enough target data to support 20 engagements by SM-2 on a time-shared basis. Would SPY-1/Aegis do a better job? Sure. The data refresh rates for the fixed phased arrays are faster than a rotating antenna. But, the WDS Mk 14 with SPS-48E is already extremely good. Certainly has advantages over the KDX-II and the TRUMP which do not have long range 3D radars. The only way on the Kidds to provide the command uplink is using the Mk 74 dish. The SYR-1 only tracks the downlink from the missile. The SPS-48E rotates too slowly to accurately track the outbound SM-2, so, you need the SYR-1 to provide accurate positions for each outbound SM-2 missile. Obviously, you would need accurate positional information for both the target AND the SM-2 to enable the WDS Mk 14 to compute the intercept course. The computed course corrections are transmitted to each of the (up to 20) missiles via the uplink using the Mk 74 on a time-shared basis. These course correction messages are short, the dish just has to point briefly at the direction of an outbound missile to transmit before switching to the next one. Thats how the system juggles up to 20 SM-2 in the air at the same time. In the terminal homing phase, the Mk 74 will also provide Continuous Wave (CW) target illumination on a time-shared basis for each SM-2 missile to complete its intercept - switching illumination rapidly from one target to another. Saw details of the Mk 74 mod 15 in Washington DC last year - it is a very exciting new development. CWAT uses a large orange-peel shaped auxillary antenna added next to the dish to allow Continuous Wave (CW) operations. With two directors covering fore and aft hemispheres (eg using sector scan), the probability of early detection (and lock-on) of incoming missiles - especially sea skimmers is greatly improved. Since these directors can elevate and provide 3D data, the inputs would be very valuable to the WDS Mk 14. The SPY-3 X-band multi-function phased array radar is probably the only viable candidate for fitting to the Kidds. It is light enough to put on a mast head like the Dutch APAR and will be used on the DD-21 and CVN-77. So, thats way in the future ... | |
NO:191_130
| Mr. Anderson 於 2003/11/10 16:56 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
Dear fer-de-lance 1.Top Dome technology is outdated. The new kid on the block is the planar phased array NATO: Tombstone. A Tombstone replaced the forward Top Dome on the Piotr Veliky to control the improved Rif-M missile system. A:如果你有留意的話,我說得一直都是長白雷達&弓二系統,TOP DOME只是拿來比喻用的..:P,考慮改裝案時有個很重要考量,那就是可獲得性,否則我們很可能會看到縮退爐,曲速引擎,中華加農..等等紛紛出籠..XDD, 歐美的確有很多21世紀的新設計,但考慮台灣軍購處境,你預計如何獲得這些裝備呢?獲得後又準備裝在哪段艦體呢?是否會浪費了原來NTU很有效率的搜索預警功能呢? 2.The SPS-48E will be able to provide accurate enough target data to support 20 engagements by SM-2 on a time-shared basis. A:如果你注意到我跟flak兄的這幾篇討論,你應該會同意SPS-48E跟SM2是沒話可說的..:P,真正控制 | |
NO:191_131
| flak 於 2003/11/10 18:08 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>所以只能同時替3枚飛彈作最後數秒的照明目標,此時其他在空中的飛彈都必須等待,因此你應該可以想>像若是20枚飛彈同時要求終端照明時,將有17枚飛彈得不到回應而錯失目標 不會的，3具射控雷達會用分時多工的方式輪流替飛彈終端照明，即使神盾艦也是用同樣的方式。 當然，如果在很極端的情況下，20個目標分別從從360度的不同高度攻擊，目標的向量差異達到多大的時候，分時照明機制還能兼顧到每枚飛彈的要求，自然是需要計算與確認。 但由於Mk-26的射速有限，要有20枚飛彈同時進入照明階段還蠻難的...：P >我說得一直都是長白雷達&弓二系統, | |
NO:191_132
| 施主 於 2003/11/10 20:10 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
我不明白 弓二不是主動的嗎? 何需終端照明呢 | |
NO:191_133
| flak 於 2003/11/10 20:25 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>我不明白 弓二不是主動的嗎? 何需終端照明呢 對喔！貧僧又搞錯了。 以上提到的應該是弓一 要提升到弓二水準的話應該是弄個主動的標準二SM5來玩玩。 | |
NO:191_134
| Jerry 於 2003/11/10 21:59 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>>我記的瑞典有設計一款功能相近匿蹤性極佳的艦艇船身設計相當簡潔,採用匿蹤炮塔(好像預計裝配30-40mm口徑的快砲),該艇艦橋也沒有像光6那麼誇張ㄚ,而且比光6還早下水,難道我們的海軍連依樣畫葫蘆都不會的ㄇ!講難聽一點沒吃過豬肉也看過豬走路ㄇ對不! 光六為長34.5m,排水量約180tons的快艇(fast attack craft),VISBY為長約72m排水量600tons以上的輕武裝快艦(corvette),兩者根本不是一個等級的艦艇,這樣的比較並不公平.合理的作法應以其它先進國家類似噸位(200tons左右同時配備四枚雄二等級飛彈)而又有匿蹤設計的快艇作為改進參考. 如果有看過本月份的全防即可知道光六的雄二是安裝在主甲板上並非在艦橋,雄二長4.84米,visby之RSB-15長約3.5m,以較小的船身(僅1/3噸位)安裝較大的飛彈,這樣的外型是無可避免的. | |
NO:191_135
| fer-de-lance 於 2003/11/10 22:13 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
Mr. Anderson: 我有留意的話 I was not ignoring what you asked about ADAR-1 長白. My final answer is still: >The WDS Mk 14 on the Kidds is very capable already. It would not be cost-effective to mess with it. Add SSDS, SPQ-9B and RAM Block 1 to it if you want to improve its close-in antiship missile defense capabilties (rapid fire-and-forget ... anti-saturation ...) I just didnt have the heart to go over the whole sorry tale about how and why ADAR-2N and navalized TK-1 never got off the ground. To this day, there is a certain someone from the makers of the Mk 41 VLS that remind us of the money (their own) they spent, nay, wasted, on studying integrating a folding fin version of TK-1 into their launcher. An order that never came about! An indigenous naval missile is just not going to happen for development/integration costs reasons. Besides, as Flak mentions, there is an active radar homing version of Standard - using the K-band seeker from AMRAAM. That should be backwards compatible with WDS Mk 14 (and have ATBM capabilities). But if Flak complained about the costs of ESSM - then he would have a fit over the cost of this one! | |
NO:191_136
| Mr. Anderson 於 2003/11/11 01:56 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
Dear flak 就我的認知,在終端照明那幾秒,SPG51D/60應該是必須持續鎖定目標,也就是在這個摸們特,SPG51D是被綁死的, SPG51D有time可以shar應該是在飛彈中途慣導階段,不知你有無這方面相關資料...^^a Dear fer-de-lanc >The WDS Mk 14 on the Kidds is very capable already. It would not be cost-effective to >mess with it. A:我完全同意,但WDS Mk14下游的Mk74卻是交通瓶頸,在面對多枚超音速反艦飛彈攻擊時,這個瓶頸會很 要命,用SSDS,RAM正可以補強這個弱點.BTW,TK2是主動導引飛彈並且已在台灣服役好幾年了.
| |
NO:191_137
| fer-de-lance 於 2003/11/11 03:13 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>就我的認知,在終端照明那幾秒,SPG51D/60應該是必須持續鎖定目標,也就是在這個摸們特,SPG51D是被綁死的, SPG51D有time可以shar應該是在飛彈中途慣導階段,不知你有無這方面相關資料...^^a The same need for time-shared terminal illumination applies to Aegis and the Mk99 slaved iluminators (and TK1 with its slaved illuminator MPG-24 or -25?) So, I dont see how the Mk 74 is the bottle-neck. It is the WDS Mk 14 or Aegis that tracks all the targets simultaneously and direct the Mk 74 or Mk 99 to provide illumination on a time-shared basis. The illuminators just does what they are told by the WDS Mk 14 or Aegis. The whole point about this mode of engagement is that the SM-2 is flying out towards the target on autopilot with intermittent command guidance updates. Because of this, it can fly an energy-efficient flight path (up-and-over to approach the target in a dive) and achieve much longer range than a homing-all-the-way lead pursuit flight path. The long range allows you to shoot earlier which gives you the most important commodity in combat: TIME (or battle space). Since the WDS Mk 14 tracks the target in 3D, the Mk 74 can slew to the 3D position of the target for the brief period (a few seconds) when it needs to put CW energy on target before slewing to another target. With the auxillary CW antenna in Mk 74 mod 15, there may even be other beam options, eg. wider fan beam to illuminate targets over a wider area. Notice the orange-peel antenna is wider in vertical plane than the horizontal. That means it will be able to focus a narrower beam in elevation (important for low angle, sea skimmer detection tracking) but have a wider beam in azimuth. At shorter ranges where there is only a short time to deal with saturation attacks, a fan beam will provide enough energy on target for missiles to home. This floodlight illumination mode is in use on HAWK PIP III with a modified HPI radar. (The Sparrowhawk version was proposed to take advantage of this simultaneous engagement capability - many Sparrows replacing 3 HAWKs on the same launcher.) This floodlight illumination was also proposed for use with Improved Sea Sparrow in NAAWS (now cancelled and replaced by ESSM). There is no reason why ESSM cannot be supported by this type of wide area illumination. If you cannot get APAR, SPY-3 or SEAPAR, this mode of operation is a very good alternative. So yes, if you can afford it, you can get ESSM for these ships ... | |
NO:191_138
| flak 於 2003/11/11 09:17 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>在終端照明那幾秒,SPG51D/60應該是必須持續鎖定目標,也就是在這個摸們特,SPG51D是被綁死的, >SPG51D有time可以shar應該是在飛彈中途慣導階段,不知你有無這方面相關資料...^^a 在最後這幾秒，當然是被綁死的。但是1.SPG-51不只一具，2.Mk-26的射速根本沒到幾秒內塞入十幾枚的地步。所以SPG-51照明幾秒後，自然還來得及照明其他飛彈。 要忙到SPG-51顧此失彼，神盾艦的Mk-41反而更可能。 | |
NO:191_139
| fer-de-lance 於 2003/11/11 12:15 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>在最後這幾秒，當然是被綁死的。但是1.SPG-51不只一具，2.Mk-26的射速根本沒到幾秒內塞入十幾枚的地步。所以SPG-51照明幾秒後，自然還來得及照明其他飛彈。 Yes, the whole set-up is orientated towards long range engagements, long range radars (SPS-48E, SPS-49) and a missile (SM-2) with the long kinematic because of an energy efficient flight path. Long range means longer flight time and longer intervals between SM-2 missiles needing brief periods of terminal illumination. Fast sea skimmers would be the most challenging threat. >這種用廣波束作多目標接戰的方法真的蠻好用的。但我一直很好奇單一照明雷達提供的單一頻率訊號如何解決多枚飛彈攻擊同一目標的問題。 That is a really good question. I have wondered that myself. With CEC, there is real-time computer management of missile operating frequencies - both command channels and the terminal CW signal. Units within the CEC network can hand missiles off to each other for guidance. Before that was available, there were some interesting mishaps where two Aegis cruisers happened to pick the same command guidance frequencies and ended up with one ship interfering with the missile launched by another ship. So, if you only have one CW frequency being used in floodlight illumination, how do you avoid multiple missiles concentrating on one target and potentially ignoring others? The key, I think, is the initial inertia and command guidance. SM-2 or ESSM has an onboard autopilot that is fed the targets data. This enables the missile (SM-2 or ESSM) to fly out on an intercept course towards the target. With updates transmitted via the uplink, the SM-2 or ESSM would be steered to within a relatively narrow acquisition basket of the target. Once the missile is that close to the target, it would most likely only see its own target within the Field of View (FOV) of its seeker. If the seeker does not see another target, having the same frequency reflected off the intended target and other adjacent targets would not really matter. Thats why floodlight illumination would work (for SM-2 and ESSM). What you dont see wont bother you ... or an SM-2. | |
NO:191_140
| flak 於 2003/11/11 13:46 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>Thats why floodlight illumination would work (for SM-2 and ESSM). What you dont see wont >bother you ... or an SM-2. 沒錯，這些有中程慣導的飛彈最後的分辨機率高些，但像HAWK是全程半主動的如何避免一開始就鎖錯就令人匪夷所思了。 還是說一開始就控制飛彈去鎖不同目標，如果飛彈從頭到尾不斷鎖的話，自然就不用考慮這種問題。相反地，中途導引的飛彈是最終階段才鎖定的，如果目標集中在同一個FOV的話（ex:編隊飛行），反而重複攻擊的機率更大。 | |
NO:191_141
| Mr. Anderson 於 2003/11/11 21:30 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
The same need for time-shared terminal illumination applies to Aegis and the Mk99 slaved iluminators (and TK1 with its slaved illuminator MPG-24 or -25?) So, I dont see how the Mk 74 is the bottle-neck. A:Aegis是用SPY-1來上鏈,這解決了一些擁塞情形,其次,SP1-1對目標的掌握比SPS-48E更加精準快速,再加上上鏈快,所以中途指揮SM2也比NTU更有效率,可以等飛彈非常接近目標時再照射目標.這也進一步減低了照明雷達的負荷. | |
NO:191_142
| flak 於 2003/11/11 22:15 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>Aegis是用SPY-1來上鏈,這解決了一些擁塞情形,其次,SP1-1對目標的掌握比SPS-48E更加精準快速,再 真正發生壅塞的時候是終端照明，上鍵階段其實飛彈是以最佳效率的彈道飛行，根本不需要精確的目標方位。甚至，太常更新目標方位其實會讓飛彈不斷修正方向而浪費能量。 >加上上鏈快,所以中途指揮SM2也比NTU更有效率,可以等飛彈非常接近目標時再照射目標.這也進一步減>低了照明雷達的負荷. 在上鍵階段SPY-1的好處是持續追蹤目標，所以目標不容易脫鎖。但此時的目標方位是有必要才需要更新，而不是要不停去修正的。而且上鍵的更新很快，不像照射一樣持續，最後進入照明階段的時候雷達一定是優先照明，把上鍵中的飛彈擱著不管，在空隙時間快照一下它們即可。 真正惡劣的情況是所有飛彈的照明時間接近，但目標卻相隔甚遠。每個目標真的能確保得到足夠的照明時間？Mk-41更容易製造這種Mission Impossible，但神盾都不擔心了，Mk-26也沒什麼好擔心了。 | |
NO:191_143
| Mr. Anderson 於 2003/11/11 23:10 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
真正發生壅塞的時候是終端照明，上鍵階段其實飛彈是以最佳效率的彈道飛行，根本不需要精確的目標方位。甚至，太常更新目標方位其實會讓飛彈不斷修正方向而浪費能量。 A:面對超音速反艦飛彈的攻擊,飛彈攔截點應該不遠,我倒是不擔心此時SM2的剩餘能量.反而我擔心目標 | |
NO:191_144
| flak 於 2003/11/11 23:54 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>NTU可導控20枚SM2對抗中遠距離目標,但面對掠海目標,則只能導控6枚飛彈... 參考fer-de-lance老大的說法，由於掠海飛彈彈道低，SM2的最大射程無法發揮。另一方面，SM2的導引特性使其最短射程也大，兩者一相減，真正有效的射擊空間有限，的確讓火力縮減。 但只要使用SM2，就算是神盾系統也會有同樣的問題，加上垂直發射系統的話，情況可能更慘。唯一解決之道就是使用ESSM與RAM之類專職的中短程反飛彈殺手，配合X波道相陣射控雷達（本身同時提供偵測與導引功能）才可以（即使美軍的神盾艦也是打算這樣玩）。 | |
NO:191_145
| fer-de-lance 於 2003/11/12 05:01 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>A:Aegis是用SPY-1來上鏈,這解決了一些擁塞情形,其次,SPY-1對目標的掌握比SPS-48E更加精準快速,再加上上鏈快,所以中途指揮SM2也比NTU更有效率,可以等飛彈非常接近目標時再照射目標.這也進一步減低了照明雷達的負荷. What you said were correct. 1. SPY-1 gives better tracking than SPS-48E : ergo Aegis performs better (higher raid handling capacity) than NTU; 2. Phased array beam steering for the uplink is more efficient than pointing dishes. But that does not prove whether < I stated my case that that was not true for time-shared terminal illumination. It is also not true for uplinking mid-course updates. The current arrangements on the Kidds for the provision of uplink to SM-2 has been judged adequate and suitable for meeting US operational requirements in Operational Testing. It should be remembered that the projected threat for these ships was a regimental strength attack of Soviet aircraft using supersonic antiship missiles. Can Aegis and SPY-1 do better, absolutely. Could the arrangements for uplink on the NTU ships be inadequate to support Aegis - possibly (but possibly not given the short duration of the midcourse update commands). What it boils down to is that the bottle neck for performance in NTU is the lower data rate of SPS-48E compared to SPY-1 in Aegis - not the uplink capabilities. If a Kidd can be supplied with Aegis-quality target data, it will do very well directing SM-2 engagements. This was actually demonstrated on two Kidds in the first Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) Developmental Test with the Eisenhower Battle Group. Even that aside, being able to control 20 SM-2 class missiles in the air at the same time is already very impressive. How many scenarios would you need to use such a capability and how many navies in the region has even that capability? | |
NO:191_146
| Reinherd提督 於 2003/11/12 20:06 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
我很好奇, 請問長白雷達上kidd技術上可行嗎? 如果可以,那有沒有神盾的能力? ps因為我之前曾聽說長白雷達是神盾上陸,不知這是不是真的. | |
NO:191_147
| fer-de-lance 於 2003/11/12 21:49 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
Looks like this system does not like me cutting and pasting Chinese into < > brackets. Just so we dont cause confusion heres what I meant to say ... >What you said were correct. >1. SPY-1 gives better tracking than SPS-48E : ergo Aegis performs better (higher raid >handling capacity) than NTU; >2. Phased array beam steering for the uplink is more efficient than pointing dishes. >But that does not prove whether - Mk 74 is the bottle neck for WDS Mk 14 - (Besides, looking back - Mr. Anderson was arguing that the terminal illumination was the bottle neck. I think I have adequately addressed that.) >ps因為我之前曾聽說長白雷達是神盾上陸,不知這是不是真的. 長白 = ADAR-1 S-band phased array ... produced by RCA ... who developed SPY-1 However, (ADAR-1) having the same concept of operations as SPY-1 does not make it the same system adapted to land-basing. There were a few critical items that the US would not release for export. ADAR-1 control of TK-1 also used the same concept of operations as Aegis - autopilot fly-out with midcourse course corrections via command uplink followed by target illumination using slaved illuminators for terminal semi-active radar homing - but ... that does not make it ... et seq.
TK-1 uses SM-2-type guidance ... but ... okay - it smells like a land-based SM-2 wearing something sexier.
So, it is true that ADAR-1 / TK-1 is based on or uses the same concept of operations as SPY-1 / Aegis / SM-2. | |
NO:191_148
| flak 於 2003/11/13 09:54 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
與其想把天弓與長白擺上紀德，不如把天劍二與其陣列雷達擺上去。 紀德的NTU系統與標準二是為長程防空設計的，硬要比對其短程飽和接戰能力確實有所不足，但不管是標準或是天弓二這種大型防空飛彈都一樣會有問題。所以美國人搞ESSM與RAM，台灣要搞的話當然也是搞相對應的天劍二計畫。天劍二根本沒有終端照明問題，來幾個打幾個，而且全天候能力比RAM好。（當然價格也是不可小看） 天弓二真要弄上艦的話，看有沒有攻陸型比較實際，這才是標準無法提供的。不過整合Mk-26會是個問題。 | |
NO:191_149
| TG2000 於 2003/11/13 10:58 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
擁有應付飽和攻擊能力才是最迫切的,所以......先裝海公羊吧..... | |
NO:191_150
| 衡臣 於 2003/11/13 13:41 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>>方陣快砲快艇(此暫稱為光7),以目前光六為藍本,把雄風2拿掉,改配置一座方陣快砲.方陣快砲系 重 6,120 kg,以目前光六160頓,相信安裝不會有問題 當反艦飛彈突破標準飛彈的攔截後， | |
NO:191_151
| 衡臣 於 2003/11/13 13:44 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
光華七號：紀德級驅逐艦租借計畫 光華八號：八艘SSK | |
NO:191_152
| WILLIAM 於 2003/11/13 13:57 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
2006 之後海軍若有興趣的話還可把提康德羅加 CG-48~51 編成【光華九號】! | |
NO:191_153
| 伊雲 於 2003/11/13 14:21 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
光六和紀德互相編組，會使得光六無法發揮飛彈快艇的特性（打帶跑）。 雄二射程達100公里以上，要跑給誰追？？？？？幽靈船？ 光六需要仰賴艦隊提供目標資料，艦隊看不到目標光六也沒法打，不呆在艦隊看的到的地方難道自己去摸瞎？ | |
NO:191_154
| 衡臣 於 2003/11/13 16:07 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
雄二射程達100公里以上，要跑給誰追？？？？？幽靈船？ 雄二的有效射程，國外資料為九十公里， | |
NO:191_155
| Reinherd提督 於 2003/11/13 16:53 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
我對船艦不是很了解,請問光六這種150ton的小船能搭配kidd這種遠洋艦作戰(方陣砲艇)嗎? 不過我有一個想法,能不能讓光六產生一種新的版本,就是可以裝防空飛彈,也可以裝反艦飛彈,但不能 同時裝(使用相同空間).防空飛彈光六是用來為光六船團提供防空能力. ps我方能不能用海軍的艦載直昇機(或uav)來導引雄風飛彈,攻擊地平線外的目標? | |
NO:191_156
| 伊雲 於 2003/11/13 18:18 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
雄二的有效射程，國外資料為九十公里， 同樣是國外的資料也有到120公里之譜，但是不管是90還是120，一個可顯的事實就是.......部屬在澎湖的快艇群和海峰的射擊範圍根本就涵蓋整個台灣海峽，不管光六快不快，匿不匿蹤，只要在台海峽之內都一樣，這反而突顯出欲使用與海鷗相同的運用方法所產生的矛盾。小艇的特性使得他無法伴雖主艦隊遠洋航行，但是反過來說，當主艦隊執行屏衛本島阻絕共軍由太平洋進攻時，小艇對於保衛艦隊有著極大意義，幫助艦隊提升火力投射的數量，又海軍的大成系統無法與E-2T直接連線，海軍在遠洋上的偵搜也還仰賴艦隊雷達，岸基系統涵蓋範圍也有限，也同時限制的光六的投射區域，光六並沒有直接和艦隊混編的可能，但是在任務上卻是伴隨著艦隊的一舉一動而決定，當成是近岸版的火力艦會比較像 其實飛彈射完了也沒有那麼多備彈可用，光六一次銷耗姓的色彩蠻重的 | |
NO:191_157
| 伊雲 於 2003/11/13 18:25 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
能不能讓光六產生一種新的版本,就是可以裝防空飛彈,也可以裝反艦飛彈,但不能 同時裝(使用相同空間).防空飛彈光六是用來為光六船團提供防空能力 ..........................誰來導引這些防空飛彈？？？ 如果是RAM的話，星爺就要出來說話了：「RAM是很貴的，趕快搶劫火星去吧」 | |
NO:191_158
| 衡臣 於 2003/11/13 20:50 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
難不成真的只有艦隊能當光六的眼睛？ 軍方準備建置的C4SI系統，便是準備能將海空資料整合，使資料可共享， 光六逆蹤設計，可以使得敵方較難偵測到，有偷襲的效果， 也減少自己被對方發現的機會，飛彈快艇本來就是以狼群戰術為主， 不論最後飛彈剩下多少，剩下多少艘快艇。 能有多一艘快艇存活，便有多一次重創敵艦的機會。 光六應該是先讓敵方艦隊耗損部分兵力， 雄二飛彈的射程，真是眾說紛紜， 在艦隊遠洋方面，不僅僅是靠艦隊雷達， | |
NO:191_159
| fer-de-lance 於 2003/11/14 00:32 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
Kwang Hua (KH6) 6 is a direct replacement for the Hai Ou FABG. The ROCN is clearly aware of the lessons from FAC actions in the Middle East. Small boats with poor sea-keeping and poor radar performance are only suited to coastal defense or littoral warfare. FACs sit low down in the water (radars cannot see very far) and they have poor seakeeping (further degrading radar performance). The Gulf of Sirte and the Desert Storm actions confirmed that these boast have trouble finding targets on their own. Further, it was shown that FAC cannot take care of themselves in a high air threat environment. Using its own search radars only gives away the position of the FAC. (Putting a good commercial navigation radar on the Hai Ou is a smart move as it gives good performance and gives the signature associated with a fishing boat.) Having a stealthy hull and superstructure, KH6 minimizes the chances of being detected by active measures such as radar - especially if it is hiding in inshore waters. Using the Ta Cheng datalink to receive target indication from external sources (and maintaining radio silence or EMCON), the KH6 minimizes exposure to detection by passive means such ESM. Under this concept of operations, it would not be smart to try and add defense weapons to deal with a missile attack. Any such measures would be limited in effectiveness (actually next to useless) and compromises stealth. BTW, the Kidds will be transferred with a complete ship set of LINK 16. Other ROCN units will also receive the system under the Bo Sheng program - greatly enhancing the ability of these units to coordinate actions with other friendly units. Some platforms can become relay platforms or gateways for sharing LINK 16 data with other units fitted with Ta Cheng - just like the Royal Navy in 1980s with gateway ships to relay data from the LINK 11 net to ships fitted with the older LINK X. Finally, the latest Phalanx with the improved High Order Language (HOL) computer has demonstrated greatly improved performance. The Block 1A - first with the HOL computer - has shot down stream attacks of supersonic sea skimming drones (Vandal). The HOL uses new tracking algorithms that improves tracking of maneuvring targets, it (and improvements in the radar) also allows targets to be engaged at a longer range. In a more recent test where Phalanx Block 1B shot down a supersonic seaskimmer (Vandal EER) pulling high G terminal maneuvres similar to SS-N-22. So, have a little more confidence in the latest Phalanx. I have seen videos of the trials, the warhead-kill mechanism actually works. Exocets warshots hit by Phalanx all tend to blow, the APDS shots penetrates the missiles semi-armor piercing warhead and sets it off. Supersonic drones without warheads break up after being hit by Phalanx (probably because of the high aerodynamic stress of flying so low so fast). Or else the fuel explodes. | |
NO:191_161
| 旁觀者2 於 2003/11/24 02:46 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>>Hai Ou is a smart move as it gives good performance and gives the signature >>associated with a fishing boat 這點我到認為有問題 再戰爭時 對岸很有可能實施封鎖 我認為 其實光華六號的設計目標 >>Using the Ta Cheng datalink to receive target indication from external sources 我對戰爭時台灣的DATALINK能有效操作 不受對岸干擾抱持很大的疑問 | |
NO:191_163
| fer-de-lance 於 2003/11/24 06:01 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>共諜會不會上來看看,然後列入作戰想定呀 Try not to place too much importance on the trivial discussions here ... ChiCOM intel types would not need to look at this board for useful info, they have better access to the real materials through their HUMINT channels - just as ROC forces have access to theirs ... via their HUMINT channels! >我對戰爭時台灣的DATALINK能有效操作 不受對岸干擾抱持很大的疑問 Jamming of datalinks tend not to be very effective because of the use of some very well-known techniques such as frequency hopping, burst transmissions. LINK-T or Ta Cheng is very robust. Back-ups are useful but the HF-2 does not need a tracking radar like the HR-76 on the Hai Ou. A good ESM kit with good angular resolution and a nav radar to give range would be quite sufficient. | |
NO:191_165
| 旁觀者2 於 2003/11/24 09:15 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>>A good ESM kit with good angular resolution and a nav radar to give range would >>be quite sufficient 忘了雄二前段慣導 多謝指導 | |
NO:191_166
| 中台灣小紳士 於 2003/12/27 15:37 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
如果台灣真的買到神盾,紀德應該要改成對地攻擊艦艇,因為防空任務主要已被神盾取代,以紀德的噸位,裝上大型的長程飛彈沒問題,所以要裝上長程對地飛彈--雄二雄三雄二E的對地攻擊型. | |
NO:191_167
| Vincent 於 2003/12/27 15:44 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
>如果台灣真的買到神盾,紀德應該要改成對地攻擊艦艇,因為防空任務主要已被神盾取代,以紀德的噸位,裝上大型的長程飛彈沒問題,所以要裝上長程對地飛彈--雄二雄三雄二E的對地攻擊型. Mission Impossible. | |
NO:191_168
| Vincent 於 2003/12/27 15:46 | |
| Re:紀德艦改裝建議項目 | |
Please be realistic | |
歡迎前往茶黨2005年新論壇TaiwanBBS.ORG參與討論。 以下表格僅供管理人員整理資料輸入之用
