請問潛艇如何引導潛射的反鑑飛彈??雷達在海面下無法使用.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO:33_1貓貓 　於　2004/01/10 11:09
Re:請問潛艇如何引導潛射的反鑑飛彈

阿根廷最初好像想買6艘，但是傳出想售予我國時只剩兩艘（而且好像是先前購買的而非TR1700），是不是福島戰爭打完沒錢了導致訂單取消？

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/tupi/index.html
這玩意兒是不是209系列的？

The Flagship of U.S. 6th fleet is USS La Salle (AGF-3).

Here is a website:

我在想目前水面艦隊和僅有的兩條潛艦用的通訊密碼本除了有能把10000字的中文換成4碼數字代碼本以外
會不會密碼本是用紅色塑膠硬紙外封面,正封面印上青天白日國徽
裡面用一碰水立即吸水的紙質,而且用水性墨印字內容

[二戰U艇部隊及是用這一種,只是封面是印上國徽鷲章]

還是標準一型仍屬於點防衛??

點防空飛彈與區域型防空飛彈是以射程作區分 .
前者的射程短 , 最大約十餘公里左右 , 通常用來防衛發射艦本身 ; 後者的射程可達數十公里 , 可以提供範圍較大(包括其他友艦)的防護 .

＞關於這篇文章中所提到的高溫氣冷核聚變反應爐，是否就是指常溫核融合式的反應爐呢??
目前人類科技只可以做到短時間的核融合反應。能把核融合反應爐搬到船上就算是吹的，除非他們
在艦上設置兩套”發電系統”才有可能。

1.攔截成本比較便宜

2.最小射程比較短

3.系統購買成本比較便宜

4.系統重量比較輕巧

5.立即反應能力(旋轉式防空飛彈除外)

比較重型的反艦飛彈，主要應是指蘇俄製的反艦飛彈吧！
至於超音速的反艦飛彈遭中導引段後，仍可命中目標之因
，則是其慣性作用。

打錯了幾個字，不好意思！應該是：
我想除了重型的反艦飛彈的結構較「紮實」外，它末端也
會做出蛇行運動，甚至是高G的動作，以躲避反反艦機制
的設計，也是使得CIWS難以有效予以截擊之因吧？這個我
不太確定，有請前輩們指教囉！
謝謝！

1.克里蒙梭級上的彈射器是不是蒸氣彈射器？是哪個國家製造的？

2.據說RN正計劃為45式增強攻陸能力，請問何時會有定案？用在第二批上嗎？

3.USN換裝鷹眼2000的計劃是怎樣？計劃在哪年完成？

1.克里蒙梭級上的彈射器是不是蒸氣彈射器？是哪個國家製造的？
Ａ：是的，老美

2.據說RN正計劃為45式增強攻陸能力，請問何時會有定案？用在第二批上嗎？
Ａ：
這可分成兩方面來說，老英是有在第二批次或第三批次級45級防空艦上強化陸攻能力的考量計畫，研究中的方案有：127 mm炮 + 增加16管MK-41 VLS / 戰斧IV, 155 mm炮 + 增加16管MK-41 VLS / 戰斧IV, 127 mm炮 + 增加16管席瓦爾A70 VLS / SCALP-NAVAL, 155 mm炮 + 增加16管席瓦爾A70 VLS / SCALP-NAVAL等四種，其中據信以第一種的可能性最被看好；但是一位皇家海軍官員也評論到：”為45式增強攻陸能力當然有其價值意義存在，只是相應的曼尼神力在哪？？？”這個定案最快也是兩三年後的事，且在下並不怎麼看好其能實現．．．．．．．倒是12艘45級被砍成八艘以下的可能性更高．

另外一個就是老英預定自2018年左右起開始成軍，取代22/23級的FSC未來水面作戰艦計畫，老英迄今對此已經提出一堆多采多姿的方案，至於何時定案還不得而知，不過可能不會早於2008甚至2010年：

全新設計中大型水面戰艦：噸位從三千噸至一萬四千噸，艦型設計從單體船，三體船，乃至五體船，光是在下耳聞過的提案便不下七八種，其中似乎以九千噸型，單體或三體船的設計最被看好．

Type-45級陸攻改良型：船體設計延用現有設計，略加放大改良使其能改裝一門155 mm陸攻炮與16至32枚陸攻巡航飛彈，然而在另一方面，其取消先進高貴的SAMPSON + ASTER-30防空組合，改以自衛點防禦為主，例如ARABEL + ASTER-15等級的廉價品取代．

水面戰艦家族設計：以模組化設計原理，建造出噸位大小功能不同，但是基本設計配備一致的戰艦家族，英國目前有推出以Type-45為根基的此類提案
A. 基本防空型
B. 陸攻強化型
C. 兩棲打擊加強型：陸攻強化型＋大幅延長艦尾甲板與機庫，使其可供CH-47級的大傢伙起降作戰
D. 縮小反潛通用型：Type-45的縮小防空性能／簡化反潛性能加強版

子母船設計：讓數萬噸級的多功能運輸母艦帶著兩艘類似老美LCS概念的子船，遠渡重洋到遠方敵國近海，放下子船執行沿海多功能打擊作戰（有消息說此一構想已被放棄．．．．．．．．老英已經無力再承擔消受更多排水量破萬的大傢伙了）　

3.USN換裝鷹眼2000的計劃是怎樣？計劃在哪年完成？
ａ：
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/e-2.htm

還有Spruance 的CEC Package 因為老美已經研發好了
我們要加裝肯付錢的話 不知道老美的意願如何

E-2C / P3-C 我們也有 而且艦數比老美少 所以對ROCN 其實CEC 能力的價值
應該比老美還高

連LINK-16都還沒搞好，還談什麼CEC。
先把所有戰機與戰艦都裝上LINK-16的終端機再說吧。

＞還有Spruance 的CEC Package 因為老美已經研發好了

CEC沒有那麼簡單，等實用不知要等到何時。

＞理論上只要有兩者間詳細的相對位置
應該是可以的

面對同樣多為次音速的反艦飛彈威脅
a: 台灣海軍所面對的可是超/次音速各半的反艦飛彈威脅.

開發海基型捷羚系統MPQ-78 射控雷達+TC1+40mm gun +方陣 與RAM +方陣 相比是否有利(價格, 效能)?
Ａ：
海公羊與最新改良方陣都已有數次攔截超/次音速掠海飛彈來襲之實彈試射成功之記錄, 相較之下捷羚系統很多性能聲稱都還未經實際有力證實, 怎麼看也是RAM +方陣有利.

所以我一直認為中科院根本只是學80年代美國星戰模式 認真做做樣子 根本不會做出什麼東西來
只是要藉此引進美國先進武器系統
難怪軍方很睿智的沒跟著起舞
雄三, 雷霆2000, 雄二E, CM31, 光六....一樣市場上有現貨, 真的會量產嗎?

不知各位前輩看法如何

難怪我老闆說自製武器需要承受許多壓力,成果不能講,辛勞不為外人所知.還得常常被糟蹋, 誤會.

認真做做樣子 根本不會做出什麼東西來, 還有這種指控. 真是令人搖頭.

要藉此引進美國先進武器系統是軍方的問題, 關中科院啥事. 當你做出來, 老美就賣類似的產品給

你. 軍方要拿錢去買美國貨. 中科院又能奈何? 軍方又不是中科院管的!

>請問上面大概會有幾套的MK41 可以給Kidd 換裝用
紀德上之Mk26足夠給NTU之用, 為何還要花錢在Mk41上, 基本上有二十枚SM-2在天空也十分足夠了. 而且ROCN之SM-2庫存還未足數, 有$也先補足數先.

> CEC要解決的問題之一正好是與友軍與目標位置與軌跡不精確，而普通LINK就是因為位置與軌跡不精確，所以才要研發CEC。因此不管是什麼LINK，都比不上C波段相位陣列天線來得精確。

兩馬赫的速度被打偏一兩度對於船艦來說還不到一個艙間的偏差

另外什麼是澳洲PUP 什麼是SSDS

>偏離彈道之後應該是修不回來了吧,即便是其姿態依然穩定?

再自體穩定作用時，彈體上部份產生最大的升力是與發散方向相反的

=Progressive Upgrade Project 改進升級計劃

改良是有加了八管Mk-41 – 32發ESSM, SQS-56改成Spherion及Albatross torpedo detection towed array, Mk92 Mod 2 改成Mod 12, 雷達由原來之SPS-49(V)4 改良至SPS-49A(V)1, 增加Nulka 的數量, 可以發射SM-2, 但費用是十億澳元四艘, 這數字是不包括彈藥的 – 全數今天之數字是十四億澳元
不過SM-2是走HAW, 而所謂之ESSM多目標接戰是需要犧牲射程才可以達到的. 奇怪是不用CEA-MOUNT代替CAS以方便全射程ESSM對六個目標接戰, (又是$作怪, 又或是PUP設計時CEA-MOUNT還沒有面世?) 而RAN最需要之SQR-19 + SQQ-89卻因再沒有預算而取消.
這便是那些高呼改良成功而不需紀德之最佳樣版, 改良貴過買紀德, 而成效最多得二成.

To: 吱吱鼠

台灣的成功級,最近有無什麼改良,升級計劃?

了解，這種PCEG的裝備可以充滿彈性，所以還要再研究才能下結論。

它是安裝在Mk-13前, 那個補給方格那兒, 裝的是較短的defense length Mk-41而不是PFG-2 Flt II原本要裝的tactical length.

>SEAPAR(Self-defense ESSM compatible Active Phased Array Radar)由APAR之技術發展而來的照明雷達，將在2007年量產，主要市場與CEA-MOUNT重疊，老大如何看？

1. 短腿的海公羊居然比 SM2-MR 還貴~
2. 由AIM-9衍生開發來的RIM-166居然貴了將近六倍
3. 佰萬美金等級的天箭二真不知如何該放在何處

要看最新資料其實很簡單，去FAS上找最新FY的武器採購報告書。

2002.10.30 自由時報

湯曜明立即透過在議場兩側上方的電子資料顯示幕，出示向美國國防安全合作局網站查詢的標準二型飛彈售價資料，強調絕非一枚飛彈只賣四十餘萬美元，而是百餘萬美元；根據湯曜明引據的資料，還包括日本、南韓等國採購的飛彈單價，日本是一百五十萬美元，南韓是一百四十四萬餘美元，台灣報價則只有一百廿四萬餘美元。

老美手頭上所有的最佳貨色是SM-2MR BLOCK IIIB, 但是截止目前除老美海軍自用外, 尚未批準銷售任何其它國家海軍, 西歐日本等國海軍目前能買到的, 同樣也是SM-2MR BLOCK IIIA

嗯，問的時候忘記打問號了。

HMAS WARRAMUNGA之後都以SSCWI取代9LV435。

奇怪，那麼澳洲是否真的會買一套完整的CEA-FAR雷達與戰鬥系統組合，拆了一艘Anzac的主桅然後裝在其上？

新聞剪報沒有看仔細喔！日本是150萬美元，南韓是144萬美元，台灣採購的SM-2MR BLOCK IIIA報價則只有124萬美元。那來被坑之說，這麼便宜的飛彈，簡直是賺到了。

確實有些不同：
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-66.html

RIM-66A SM-1MR Block I-IV
RIM-66B SM-1MR Block V
RIM-66C SM-2MR Block I (Aegis)
RIM-66D SM-2MR Block I (Tartar)
RIM-66E SM-1MR Block VI (RIM-66E-1/3/7/8), VI A (RIM-66E-5), VI B (RIM-66E-6)
RIM-66G SM-2MR Block II (Aegis)
RIM-66H SM-2MR Block II (Aegis/VLS)
RIM-66J SM-2MR Block II (Tartar)
RIM-66K SM-2MR Block III (RIM-66K-1), III A (RIM-66K-2) (Tartar)
RIM-66L SM-2MR Block III (RIM-66L-1), III A (RIM-66L-2) (Aegis)
RIM-66M SM-2MR Block III (RIM-66M-1), III A (RIM-66M-2), III B (RIM-66M-5) (Aegis/VLS)

除了不能航艦起降, 不知道為何沒有再繼續發展了

其他許多美國盟國有那麼多 P-3 為何還是要屈就短腿的E-2C而不想辦法買P-3 AEW??
尤其是台灣, E-2C 數量已經夠少了還要擔負很多雜事, 改裝成長時間滯空的 P-3 AEW, 或是買二手的APS138 P-3B 分擔點工作是否可行?

請教各位大大的想法

以下為洛馬官方資料

沒錯，AN/SPY-1是被動式陣列雷達，而標準飛彈也是半主動雷達導引，但AN/SPY-1能提供上鏈，給SM-2的慣性導航系統提供資料，令自動駕駛儀能飛向目標，再交由SPG-62照明雷達接手。

SPG-62照明雷達只需在命中前數秒鐘照明目標，另外Aegis Cruiser有4具照明雷達，只要4批敵機稍有時間差，Aegis便可以輕鬆對付，況且，美軍艦隊是有航空母艦的，在敵機未抵達艦隊前，阻柵式戰鬥空巡機便攔了它們下來，況且，若真的穿透了阻柵式戰鬥空巡的阻攔，後面還有另一組戰機等待。

利用Time-Sharing Technology，每具SPG-62只面向一個象限便可。既然，SM-2不需全程由SPG-62導航，AN/SPY-1把她們導向最佳攔截點便可，再交由SPG-62作短時間的終端歸向。

我在網上是有找到一些 sub torpedo firing procedure
但並沒有詳述你說開發射管後中止發射的情況，但有取出 torpedo 程序
頂多只也介紹 dummy torpedo and life torpedo 間的差異

因為海軍的專有名詞不是很懂，所以也是有點一知半解

我也很好奇倒底是怎麼運作的

既然如此，那麼問題來了。以現時一般艦隻攜帶的反艦飛彈數量，以美系艦計，不過區區八枚魚叉；即便是俄系艦隻的超音速級飛彈的攜行數量，亦遠未能「飽和」神盾系統。現在神盾級艦隻已然擴散全球，那麼是否各國的海軍大概都可以躲起來睡大覺了？反正大家都有神盾艦，大家的海軍就是把反艦飛彈打光都動不了對方分毫，那倒不如歇歇省事。或是時空得倒退到二戰時代，大家搞到最後得來個近戰用艦炮對決？

觀乎近來海軍武器的發展，天枰似乎是向「盾」的一邊大幅傾斜。神盾系統（或其相類系統）不斷提升能力不說，RAM、海麻雀及另外一車卡的新型近迫防衛系統的服役，令擁有此等系統的艦隻及其艦隊，擁有著近乎萬無一失的防空能力，即使短時間內面對十數枚超音速反艦飛彈亦無所懼。
既然如此，那麼問題來了。以現時一般艦隻攜帶的反艦飛彈數量，以美系艦計，不過區區八枚魚叉；即便是俄系艦隻的超音速級飛彈的攜行數量，亦遠未能「飽和」神盾系統。現在神盾級艦隻已然擴散全球，那麼是否各國的海軍大概都可以躲起來睡大覺了？反正大家都有神盾艦，大家的海軍就是把反艦飛彈打光都動不了對方分毫，那倒不如歇歇省事。或是時空得倒退到二戰時代，大家搞到最後得來個近戰用艦炮對決？

是非是耶，還請這裡的前輩們指教一二。

A:
套一句軍武老話：”如果所有防空武器都有其開發廠商宣傳的那般威猛的話, 那全世界所有的戰機老早都被擊落兩次以上矣.”廠商宣傳的再理想狀態下所能達到的性能是一回事, 在高強度實戰狀況之下, 面對來自敵方海空水下多方面多方向的攻擊, 外加上敵方電子干擾, 誘敵欺敵戰術, 以及戰場上敵我識別問題等困難混亂, 以及可能的人為或機械疏失故障時, 其結果還能不能這般美好理想, 難說得很. 理論上以派里級上的硬軟殺設備, 對付單單一兩枚飛魚不太可能攔不住, 然而因為人為疏失, 當年的史塔克艦就白白吃上兩記伊拉克幻象機的飛魚, 掛掉47人.

新一代反艦飛彈的發展方向, 並非單單只有高速而已, 更強的彈體匿蹤設計, 更低伸的終端彈道, 更刁鑽的機動彈道, 在在使得新世代的反艦飛彈越難越被硬殺攔截, 以法國替北歐研發的NSM為例, 不但外型匿蹤, 終端彈道距離海面更只有1~3公尺, 而今日世上所有服役中與開發中的艦載硬殺攔截防空體系, 尚無一種宣稱其能對抗如此低空來襲目標者.

神盾之流的防空系統之全球普及化, 確實是顯著加強各國海軍的區域防空安全, 然而由於這類系統的造價奇高無比, 除了老美海軍外, 其他國家所能使用的數量大多十分有限, 性能與火力配備亦經常降級減少, 例如：

英國：
預定採購12艘TYPE-45防空驅逐艦, 號稱雷達性能級數比老美神盾更上一層樓, 但因為曼尼不足之故, 防空火力攜行量約只有老美柏克的1/2, 而且未來採購數量極可能被大砍1/3~1/2

日本：
現有四艘與老美柏克I等級相當的金剛級神盾艦, 未來預定再引進兩艘與老美柏克IIA等級相當, 能使用SM-3 ATBM的金剛神盾改

南韓：
預定2009年起陸續建造三艘防空性能等級約略與老美柏克IIA相當的KDX-3神盾艦

德國：
四艘F-124防空巡防艦, 防空火力攜行量約老美柏克的1/2

荷蘭：
四艘LCF防空巡防艦, 防空火力攜行量約老美柏克的1/2

西班牙：
四艘F-100小神盾巡防艦, 防空火力攜行量約老美柏克的1/2

挪威：
五艘F-136迷你神盾巡防艦, 防空火力攜行量約老美柏克的1/3~1/4

義大利：
預定興建六艘地平線防空巡防艦, 防空火力攜行量約老美柏克的1/2

法國：
預定興建四艘地平線防空巡防艦, 防空火力攜行量約老美柏克的1/2, 而其中兩艘的興建經費, 到現在還不知道從哪生

Ａ：
如果單從潛力比較的話, 則主動陣列MFR + 主動雷達導引SAM的設計與被動陣列MFR + 半主動雷達導引SAM相較之下, 確實是能更迅速精確的同步對抗更多空中目標, 無須多餘額外的火控雷達, 且雷達在無行波管線路設計考量問題下, 可以擺得位置更高, 看得更遠...............

8艘新購得潛艦是否能夠配置美潛射陸攻巡弋飛彈?
若可得 那型陸攻巡弋飛彈較合新潛艦?
假若佈屬在澎佳嶼北方與琉球溝邊緣是否能對北京市發動攻擊?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO:213_1toga 　於　2004/06/11 20:55
Re:新購得潛艦是否能夠配置美潛射陸攻巡弋飛彈?

拜管制條約之賜, 老美禁止出售任何有效射程超過三百公里的攻擊性武器給非五大核武強權的國家.
自兩次波斯灣戰爭以來, 老美許多一級盟國的海軍（英, 法, 德, 荷.........）都曾渴望向老美購得此一強力神兵, 但至今仍只有老美波特最親密的死黨榮恩不列顛有此殊榮, 其他國家苦求未果, 只好自行研究發展.

所以台灣新購得潛艦要想玩陸攻巡弋飛彈, 只有祈求自家研發單位能於此領域力爭上游.......

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO:213_2Ghostwolf 　於　2004/06/11 21:27
Re:新購得潛艦是否能夠配置美潛射陸攻巡弋飛彈?

IDM雖然是蠻方便的，接入現有無線電就可以通，不過戰鬥機版本就要三四公斤重。

其中LVT記得就是戰機用的小型終端，所以這個案子是博勝案的一部份，真正的問題是：為什麼這算是海軍的新聞？
因為此案係透過FMS軍售而來，而此裝備是由美國海軍統一發包給兩家公司，所以我把它歸到海軍新聞裡去。

小子彈比大子彈遠?

小弟我只要一上船, 不到10分鐘就會開始吐,
從小到大都是這樣

嚴重到連在高雄碼頭的渡輪都會有點想吐

想請問像我這種體質的人, 如果義務役時抽到鑑艇兵等等之類的
想請問會不會看你吐到不行就把你退訓

還是讓你吐幾個月, 人體就會習慣在船上了??

謝謝flak大大。

這麽說，潛艦上的聲納不能測出目標方向？印象中，通過計算聲信號到達潛艇首尾聲納陣列的時間差，可以算出目標方向的。不知道是不是我記錯了？

如果聲納不能測方向，那怎樣通過機動來得出目標方向呢？聲音的強弱？

For 39 euro

The issue of whether you have a cooperative target may not be such a big problem in real life. Must remember that TMA and stalking a target takes hours - not exactly the pace that video gamers like - but that is real life. Your opponent would also need to hold a steady course (at constant speed) for a given time period to try and do TMA on you (or find a target for that matter). The length of the leg depends on the sonar conditions (signal-to-noise ratio). One can constantly change speed to foil passive tracking but in doing so, he would not be able to accurately track where a potential adversary is ...

Some purist would say - real men do TMA manually on the NC-2 Dead Reckoning Tracer (DRT) with the motorized bug, grease pencils, speed strips and - maybe - a Texas Instrument calculator! However, having a computer do the TMA and passive ranging saves a lot of time and make much better use of the available data.

A target changing speed or heading which would introduce changes in the rate of observed change in target bearing which would definitely foil manual Ekelund ranging. However, there are now clever computer algorithms that would take these changes into account to produce reasonably accurate tracking solutions. In the past, when that happened, you had no choice but to start all over again. Now, new computer programs would be able to use discarded TMA measurement legs to help refine its estimates.

Now, new computer programs would be able to use discarded TMA measurement legs to help refine its estimates.
電腦玩猜謎遊戲總要比人算得周到些。

想請教一個問題 ,
美國為何不賣我們核動力潛艇 ?

3Q !

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO:240_3Luke-Skywalker 　於　2004/06/27 23:34
Re:T model 和軍購商售

↑請你想想核四建廠為什麼會一波三折，就可知原因在那裡了.............

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO:240_4路過 　於　2004/06/27 23:39
Re:T model 和軍購商售

神盾艦不也是核動力嗎 ?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO:240_5Luke-Skywalker 　於　2004/06/27 23:46
Re:T model 和軍購商售

↑不是，勃克級與提康德羅加級都是燃氣輪機...........

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO:240_6濱線 　於　2004/06/27 23:47
Re:T model 和軍購商售

>>>神盾艦不也是核動力嗎 ?
昏倒↑

開卷有益!OK?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO:240_7toga 　於　2004/06/27 23:49
Re:T model 和軍購商售

↑美國海軍目前除了航空母艦以外，沒有其它使用核動力的水面作戰艦艇
全世界目前使用核動力的水面作戰艦艇也只有以下幾種：美國的企業號與尼米茲級超級航艦，俄羅斯共和國的基洛夫級核動力巡洋艦，法國的戴高樂級中型航艦，數量加起來約一打上下

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO:240_8路過 　於　2004/06/27 23:50
Re:T model 和軍購商售

不好意思 ,
改進! 改進!

看 !

^^

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO:240_9toga 　於　2004/06/27 23:54
Re:T model 和軍購商售

↑發言離題，內容白目，乃是彈射之本，請留意

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO:240_10路過 　於　2004/06/27 23:55
Re:T model 和軍購商售

再請教 ,
核動力潛艇因為是美國的壟斷性絕密國寶
因而說什麼都不賣的嗎 ?

3Q !

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO:240_11toga 　於　2004/06/28 00:02
Re:T model 和軍購商售

想請教一個問題,　美國為何不賣我們核動力潛艇？？
ａ：簡而言之，一個有能耐發展部署核武，建立收容處理高濃度核武原料與高強度核廢料的核能強國，才有問鼎使用核動力潛艇的基本資格，整天高喊綠化非核，連民用電廠核廢料都拿不出辦法有效處理的島國，就不必作這等春秋大夢了．

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO:240_12toga 　於　2004/06/28 00:18
Re:T model 和軍購商售

再請教 ,
核動力潛艇因為是美國的壟斷性絕密國寶，因而說什麼都不賣的嗎 ?
3Q !
Ａ：
1. 買賣核潛基本上幾乎就和買賣核武一般敏感，這世界至今除了印度海軍曾向前蘇聯租用過中古SSN一段時間外，從未有其它外銷先例

2. 因為放射能腐蝕之故，SSN每25年左右就必須換新，老美海軍目前新一代SSN的產能，光供應自己用都來不及了，無外銷的可能；而老一代的SSN，就算真賣給台灣，軍方只怕也不敢要這等有潛在放射污染危機的舊船．

3. 核動力船艦的核燃料再添加與相關除污工作，是核能工藝中最為困難複雜，費時耗錢，污染風險性極高的一行，整天高喊綠化非核，連民用電廠核廢料都拿不出辦法有效處理的島國根本沒資格作這等春秋大夢．

4. 老美的新型SSN，一艘造價約是25~30億美金，花六七億美金買一艘SSK都在那殺豬般的嚎叫的國家政府，就省省吧．

很久以前
海龍海虎剛回來時
聽說是把高雄的海鮮餐廳大廚
給帶下海

還有別的消息嗎 ?

說真的, 就算拿菜單都來看也不準
一般軍方菜單都經過美化處理~~~(真的讓你看到菜你會嚇一跳)

Someone use a name similar to my code-name???

如果繼續發展的話
台灣拉法葉是否可以以現有配備
只要加買相關配件 (雷達射控,飛彈助昇段)即可
飛彈本體用空軍的?

若每艘裝備24枚加上備份24枚
空軍還剩672枚
還足夠56架幻象出三次任務(每架12枚, 每次掛載4枚)

會比較便宜划算嗎
也比較容易成交 (法國並非出售武器給台灣,只是提供升級服務 )

Now that it has a launch customer, VL-MICA is very much alive - see link below for photo:

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_425.shtml

The manufacturers claim that the missile can engage targets as high as 33,000ft - that is probably limited to a slow moving MPA at relatively short (slant) range. It is certainly not going to be cheap - compared to production volume expected for RAM Blk 1. It would also never get the same level of Developmental & Operational Testing that a USN-standard system would receive before acceptance into service.

Romania Set to Purchase Royal Navy Broadsword Frigates

Romania is set to acquire the former Royal Navy Type 22 Batch 2 frigates HMS Coventry and HMS London at a cost equivalent to $140 million. The Coventry was decommissioned in 2001 and the London two years earlier. The sales are subject to an intergovernmental accord. Two of three other vessels of this class, the former HMS Beaver and HMS Boxer, are scheduled to be expended as targets.

The ships will have their Marconi Type 967/968 search radars and Type 911 weapons-control radars replaced by more modern sensors during the refit, along with their Ferranti CACS 1 combat-management system and, probably, their electronic warfare systems. The Romanian Navy decided not to retain the BAE Seawolf point-defense missiles and as a replacement has selected the MBDA VL Mica, with two eight-cell launchers installed in place of the Type 911 trackers.

The two frigates also are scheduled to be armed with Oto Melara 76mm Super Rapid guns but it is unclear what surface-to-surface missile will be selected. It is understood that there has been no selection of electronic systems, but approaches have been made to AMS and Thales Naval Nederland.

As much as possible of the modernization program, including all later stages of the upgrades, will be carried out in Romania, and an agreed industrial offset package will involve Romania in a range of manufacturing programs. If the purchase goes ahead the Romanian Navy will have two modern warships with expected service lives of 20-30 years.

何?如果可行那成本會不會太高?

當然“可行”。

如果海軍官兵不介意潛艦有四分之三以上的空間是柴電動力系統、官兵必須睡在魚雷艙裡面又只能攜帶幾枚飛彈魚雷的話。

最新的海狼級吉米卡特號造價為32億美元。

是 MK 26 Guided Missile Launching System (GMLS)

或是 MK 41 Vertical Launching System (VLS)

會不會茲因紀德艦飛彈系統是MK 26 Guided Missile Launching System (GMLS)

在美方考量維修保養較一致!此種MK 26 Guided Missile Launching System (GMLS)較易勝出而售

予台灣?

而捨棄較優異的MK 41 Vertical Launching System (VLS)予台灣?

或者考量台灣已有MK 41 Vertical Launching System (VLS)相當技術才會售予台灣?

「一九七零年代末期，鄧小平再次強調海軍的角色主要作為海岸防禦之用，這項觀點一直持續到1980年代前半期。 此後海軍才不被視為陸軍的助手，海權逐漸成為國家安全戰略的重要工具。

中共沿海有不少經濟特區和軍事設施，這項因素促成了中共海軍的擴張與現代化。尤有甚者，由於中共經濟成長與財富累積，中共海軍得能獲得現代化的資源，海軍戰略亦開始朝向跳脫海岸防禦方向發展。」

我對這段有些問題 ...

1. 鄧小平當時的觀點後來似乎是被劉華清的「第一-->第二島鏈理論」與「近海防禦」方針取代。雖然鄧對劉極為賞識 , 但牽扯到這種建軍策略問題 , 鄧小平個人對此的態度如何呢 ? 沒有反對過劉華清嗎 ?

2. 為什麼中共沿海有不少經濟特區和軍事設施，就可以促成中共海軍的擴張與現代化 ?

感謝前輩不吝指正 .

>請問海軍基地的英文簡稱是........

On the internet site the San Diego Navy base I found it was referred as: SAN DIEGO NAVAL STATION (NAVSTA)

今天下午看了一部電影叫做：
「獨孤里橋之役(The Bridges At Toko-Ri )」

裡面有個場景是航空母艦靠港時
必須將螺旋槳戰鬥機(片中是F4U)固定在艦首甲板
發動引擎集體「搧風」來幫母艦微調航向
請問這是真的還是假的？

Harry Brubaker, the character played by William Holden was a WWII veteran. After the war, like so many other American servicemen, he returned to civilian life to enjoy the peace and a normal life. When the Korean War borke out, Brubaker, a reservist, returned to serve his country, leaving behind a comfortable life and a lovely wife Nancy (played by Grace Kelly ...woof-woof !!) and two daughters.

The Admiral in command of the Task Force 77 (George Tarrant played by Frederic March) had lost two sons in WWII. One of his sons would have been the age (and the rank) of Brubaker had he not been killed fighting the Japanese. That was the reason why the Admiral developed a particular sympathy for Brubaker.

Each character in the movie (except perhaps the happy-go-lucky helo pilot played by Mickey Rooney) had to deal with the stress, the feeling of despair and how senseless war could be. The Korean War was considered a side-show in the Cold War struggle between the Soviet bloc and the West. Everyone was focussed on keeping the Soviets from over-running Central Europe. Korea never had the same publicity nor the resources it deserved. The objective seemed to be just to contain the Communist forces.

Michener did a masterful job of illustrating the mood and background to the conflict. After WWII, the US had very naievely thought there was no need for a big military and undertook one of the biggest unilateral disarmament in history. Everyone was more concerned about living the good life (hence the huge economic boom following the war) than conquering the world (as Communist propaganda always tried to portray Americans). The true Imperialists were the Soviets that subjugated most of Eastern Europe and continued to try expanding their influence while threatening the Western democracies.

When the Korean War broke out, the US had to scramble to cope. Many reservists, as represented by Brubaker, made big sacrifices to, once again, serve their country. The Cold War was new type of conflict, a global one that was much longer than people expected of wars (essentially lasted 50 years). When the objective was just to contain the enemy and the fighting goes on and on with no end in sight - it is particularly stressful and demoralizing.

War is horrifying, painful and seem senseless even at the best of times. If there was a purpose such as national survival at stake, at least you feel the sacrifice might be worthwhile. However, if it was an indefinite containing action (so that the rest of the Western World could lead a relatively peaceful and normal life) - then, the fighting men could, justifiably, feel left behind. They make all the scarifices while the folks at how enjoy the good life. Prolonged combat takes a terrible toll on the mind. The Bridges at Toko-ri illustrated some of that. The tragic end of the main character was a portent of worse sacrifices and frustrations to come in Vietnam. It probably influenced the makers of the 1967 movie Sand Pebbles (filmed on the Tamshui River in Taiwan). The main character Jake Holman (played by Steve McQueen) was a tragic hero like Harry Brubaker.

(Not the most popular theme for younger viewers who expects a glorious John Wayne shoot-em up from a war movie - but trust me, it is a great one to take a date to see, girls just love these tragedies ... :(

>>the 1967 movie Sand Pebbles (filmed on the Tamshui River in Taiwan).
>>The main character Jake Holman (played by Steve McQueen)

DC 直流

雪風 : thank you for the kind comment -

I thought the Sand Pebbles treated the topic in a very balanced and intellectual manner. US public opinion over their presence in China was divided even during the period in question. Came at a time when the US was questionning whether they should have be in Vietnam and supporting a corrupt and unpopular regime.

As a egalitarian democracy that had broken free of an imperialistic colonial master (England) when it was founded, and one that had fought a bloody civil war to free the slaves, there was always a strong faction in the US that supported the concept of Liberty for All. These same people abhored 19th Century European imperialism as greedy and corrupt. However, there were also the greedy business people in the same country that pushed for Taming of the West (subjugating the Native Americans) - a domestic Imperialism/colonialism if you like.

As the US emerged as a world power at the end of the 19th Century, it was recognized that while it ran counter to the noblest national aspirations, the US had to have a presence in the colonial world in order to compete with the European powers. It was National Interest over National Conscience if you like. That was the rationale behind the US military presence in China. If anything, serious historians like Antony Preston loves to point out (including the PLAN Naval Attache in London) how wrong the Communist propaganda was about the US. Successive US administration was always supporting moves to limit European Imperialistic influence in China.

As part of the Teddy Roosevelt vision of the Manifest Destiny of the US becoming a world power - one goal of being strong was to counter or limit the influence of the despised Old World Imperialistic powers - in places including China. US public opinion was always supporting China. It should be remember that one of the Founding Fathers of modern learning in the Chinese Naval Academy, Philo McGiffin, went to China to help fight the French after their invasion of Taiwan and attack on Foochow. McGiffin fought and eventually died as an indirect result of injuries sustained in the Battle of Yalu while fighting the implacable enemy of China - the Japanese. (Robert Short, Claire Lee Chennault and the AVG was just a continuation of this pro-Chinese, anti-imperialistic tradition.)

So, after that long-winded description of the historical background - we can begin to understand the author s thinking behind the story-line of Sand Pebbles. Jake Holman was sympathetic to the oppressed Chinese. He represented the conscience of the American people. The other ignorant crew members who were racist and abusive to the Chinese (just like other imperialistic powers) represented the Darker side of American society. Most did not set out to be like the imperialists but the opportunity was there, power (and greed) corrupts. It was easier to be like one of the colonial masters with special privileges over the Chinese than to be upright and moral like Holman and the missionaries. After all, there was money to be made in the huge market in China - even back then.

One moral of the tale is that if you are part of an unjust system, you will likely end up paying for it. But often, like any war, it is the innocents who end up paying for the wrongs of others. We sympathize with the radical students because they felt they were fighting unjust treatment of China. Yet, once law and order break down, was there any choice for someone with a conscience like Lt Collins (C.O. of the San Pablo, played by the late Richard Crenna) to go try and save the innocent missionaries - (especially one as good-looking as a young Candy Bergen?)

Once the fighting started, the results were inevitable. Everyone in the tragic drama, the students, the sailors, the missionaries, all had to do what they had to do ... with inevitable consequences - people dying.

Even the long-time foes in Europe (the old imperialist powers France, Germany and the UK) seemed to have understood this and have abandoned War as a way to settle their differences. They have found the European Union to be a win-win situation - gets rich. There is even peace in Northern Ireland!

As for the rest of the world?

Thank you.fer-de-lance bro

現實社會:很多人的生活都艱苦，差別只是在「程度」；所謂：

Semper in excremente, altitudo modo mutti ...

(Always in excrement, only the depth varies ...:)

偶爾發表一下自己心裡對某些事的感受，有人願意看就很不錯了。

能幫助人練習英文，或是在苦悶的生活中給人帶來一點點的「享受」那就最好不過了;起碼字沒有百打!

rockitten:

而陽字號上的「武進三號」武控系統則將移往「濟陽級」巡防艦（即原來的美軍諾克斯級軍艦）。

It is a remarkable story of how Honeywell lost out to Sperry/Signaal for the US Navy competition for a compact shipboard fire control system (Mk 92 on the FFG-7) yet spawned the first generation of distributed combat systems (Mk 93 that became the H930 series). But there are also important lessons from this program of how to do something successfully.

Honeywell s development of H930 was certainly visionary but its success in the ROCN also required people with vision both in the ROCN and CSIST. At that time (late 1970s), the standard US Navy combat direction system (NTDS) was so complex and expensive that it posed great difficulties getting it into service with the ROCN. The H930 MCS was essentially a COTS solution with great ingenuity. The RTOS was adapted from a banking system and the color display from a commercially available system (Sony initially).

It took carefully calculated risk-taking on the part of senior commanders (including Adm Liu). There were few alternatives at the time, the USN did not make anything that met requirements - (intially, to guide an antiship missile based on the Gabriel - later on to include anti-aircraft warfare.) The ROCN could have just bought the Signaal WM-27 and met the basic requirement, but, someone had the vision of partnering with Honeywell to develop an even better system - and trained a generation of technicians and officers in combat direction system development in the process.

It is a pity that things did not progress beyond MCS - mismanagement and bad decisions almost certainly motivated by greed (and corruption) at high levels. There is still a great need for up-to-date combat direction systems (CDS) in ROCN first-line units to meet an increasing threat. While MCS is good, its direct descendent, SSDS, is much better.

SSDS has been adopted as the standard CDS in the USN in non-Aegis surface combattants - replacing the ACDS. Stringent USN OPEVAL found the SSDS capable and suitable for meeting current and projected antiship missile threats (as had a US GAO audit). The ROCN faces a similar threat as the PLAN introduces the latest Russian antiship missiles. The CSIST should partner itself with the makers of SSDS to bring inhouse all the expertise needed to maintain and adapt the system for local needs - just like with MCS.

Yes, MCS can engage 4 targets simultaneously, one with STIR guiding SM-1, one with W-160 directing a 40mm L70 mount, one with the optronic director directing the Mk 75 76mm mount and one with Phalanx. It is great to be able to do that, however, a much more likely scenario is to have the STIR / SM-1 combo shoot-look-shoot at the targets at greater range and only using the other channels to deal with leakers. Phalanx Block 1A has the ability to exchange info with and receive target designation from the CDS. That is how it operates as part of SSDS Mk1. In most trials, the Phalanx search radar provided earliest detection of the incoming missile threat - especially supersonic sea skimmers.

It would be a great improvement in performance if Phalanx Block 1A can be integrated with MCS on the retro-fit to the Knox. Adding Stingers to the 40mm L70 mounts would also be an improvement with minimal risk.

DDG/CG-49 USS VINCENNES，DDG/CG-50 USS VALLEY FORGE，CG-51 USS THOMAS S. GATES ?

船噸位和MK 26 Guided Missile Launching System (GMLS)與紀德艦相當