Combat experiences of our immediate neighbours.
-
the hangar was Hawk.Originally posted by YourFather:Innocent Malaysian was confused. What he was talking about was how 1 of their Migs was lost. However, what you all were refering to was the incident in the hangar where 1 technician made himself go ballistic by accident. The 2 incidents are totally unrelated.
i was talking about MiG crash which u guys always like to crtisize. -
Originally posted by Innocent_Malaysian:
U had already agreed that the missile system is old. As u state that it is the first operational Ship Defence Missile. UK lose 9 Ships in the Falkland , it does show how ''effective'' the seawolf are..... The new British Frigate are armed with the Seawolf Bk2 , i dun think the Malaysians are operateing now , so.........
SEAWOLF was the first operational anti-missile ship defence weapon system.
Once the surveillance radar has detected targets, the shipÂ’s command system evaluates them and prioritises the threat. Designated high threat targets are then automatically passed to the Seawolf tracker sub-system which then searches for and locks onto the target. The system automatically decides upon missile launch and guides the SEAWOLF missile up to intercept using highly accurate Command to Line of Sight (CLOS) guidance.
Vertically launched, the missile is turned over quickly using thrust vector control. Once the boost motor has separated, the missile is controlled by its rear fins, giving it high manoeuvrability. The rear-facing command aerials, mounted on the missile wings, make it extremely resistant to electronic countermeasures.
all weather, day/night system,
flexible defence capability, as it can engage both incoming missiles and aircraft with its rapid fire ability and automatic re-engagement,
full 360° azimuth coverage without any launcher blind arcs,
maximum engagement window due to its 360° coverage and fast, accurate and agile missile,
does not restrict ship manoeuvre.
resistance to ECM due to the use of Command to Line of Sight (CLOS) guidance system,
rapid reaction time due to its fully automatic launch sequence,
optimized lethality with blast fragmentation warhead and proximity fuze,
combat proven,
low risk of combat damage unavailability, due to built-in redundancy.
VL SEAWOLF is the third generation in the SEAWOLF air defence weapon system and is in service in the UK Royal Navy where it is fitted in the Type 23 frigates, with 32 missiles installed in vertical sealed canisters ready for firing. It also equips the Royal Malaysian Navy for the new light frigates built by BAE SYSTEMS.
The UK MoD has recently contracted a further tranche of the Block 2 standard of Seawolf missile and for updates to the shipÂ’s equipments.
The initial version of the SEAWOLF was successfully deployed in the Falklands war (1982).
http://www.mbda.net/eseawolf.html[/b] -
The reason it isn't impressive is the same reason a cgi video with a stupid soundtrack of a T-55 going around and shooting up pickups is.Originally posted by Innocent_Malaysian:why isnt it impressive?
biased person
Answer your questions? -
we r using the Seawolf VLSAM XL- XL for extra light.Originally posted by foxtrout8:U had already agreed that the missile system is old. As u state that it is the first operational Ship Defence Missile. UK lose 9 Ships in the Falkland , it does show how ''effective'' the seawolf are..... The new British Frigate are armed with the Seawolf Bk2 , i dun think the Malaysians are operateing now , so.........
-
at least my sig is better than urs..Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:The reason it isn't impressive is the same reason a cgi video with a stupid soundtrack of a T-55 going around and shooting up pickups is.
Answer your questions?
-
Isnt the combat system the same???? The british having a hard time protecting their ships , ur XL can??? U have a defense industry to provide technological improvements or a local logistic line to support ur missiles...?Originally posted by Innocent_Malaysian:we r using the Seawolf VLSAM XL- XL for extra light. -
Outdated, do you hear?
I dun care how good the M-1 Garand was in WW2 or korea, would you go around boasting that it's impressive if your entire army was armed with it now just becos it worked them? You'll get massacared in real life agaisnt OICWs equipped land warriors!
In short, the seawolf is showing it's age, it can be revised, but it can never match up to a younger SAM system becos fundimental design issues cannot be addressed except with a new system!
Once again, you defend your outmoded and paethetic systems blindly, believing your propandaga.
What's next, you're gonna justify horse calvary charges against panzers if it was what your country was using and touting?
please, go and fly some kite and read some books before you come in here and show off, you're not fit to. -
Brudder , u come here to compare signature ar???Originally posted by Innocent_Malaysian:at least my sig is better than urs.. -
im not sure if u r confuse of wat? we have been toking abt the hanger incident n u kept toking abt the Mig incident..u reali learn alot frm ur FM n the Iraqi info minister eh?Originally posted by Innocent_Malaysian:the hangar was Hawk.
i was talking about MiG crash which u guys always like to crtisize.
we didnt even tok abt the Mig..ur the one who just blunder it out -
See, now you digress from logic and go to infantile namecalling, true to the nature of the way your govt. operates.Originally posted by Innocent_Malaysian:at least my sig is better than urs..
I'm sorry, but by doing that you've only suceeded in making a fool of yourself.
People see my sig and have a few laffs... they see yours can shake their heads going "they just don't get it, do they?"
Logic selects the superior signature. -
That's the true blue malaysian way, when they cannot win, they change topic and try to compare something else...Originally posted by foxtrout8:Brudder , u come here to compare signature ar???
And still it does not work, I've explained why my signature is superior. -
during the falklands, the seawold was confirmed to shoot down 2 A-4BOriginally posted by foxtrout8:U had already agreed that the missile system is old. As u state that it is the first operational Ship Defence Missile. UK lose 9 Ships in the Falkland , it does show how ''effective'' the seawolf are..... The new British Frigate are armed with the Seawolf Bk2 , i dun think the Malaysians are operateing now , so.........
two more a/c, dagger A and another A-4B which crashed are said to be shot down by the seawolf too. -
u critisie my siggie first- then i only say my siggie better..if u dun talk about my siggie, i wont talk about ursOriginally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:That's the true blue malaysian way, when they cannot win, they change topic and try to compare something else...
And still it does not work, I've explained why my signature is superior. -
Old planes that wasnt really built for naval strike are they?Originally posted by Innocent_Malaysian:during the falklands, the seawold was confirmed to shoot down 2 A-4B
two more a/c, dagger A and another A-4B which crashed are said to be shot down by the seawolf too. -
i was talking about the mig bcoz:Originally posted by NathanG5:im not sure if u r confuse of wat? we have been toking abt the hanger incident n u kept toking abt the Mig incident..u reali learn alot frm ur FM n the Iraqi info minister eh?
we didnt even tok abt the Mig..ur the one who just blunder it out
CX said:wasn't there an incident where a technician ejected himself out of an RMAF MiG parked in a hanger? i think he crashed against the roof and died or something... did he get a medal for that?
i just saw the word MiG..so i typed too fast
but CX is wrongg also bcoz he said MiG parked in a hangar when it was a Hawk
-
so total up they shot down 4 planes..impressive eh...u never count the 9 sunken ship? how many UK ship where there at the Falkland war?Originally posted by |-|05|:Old planes that wasnt really built for naval strike are they? -
Brudder ( not that i wanna flame u lah ) , Ship Defence System is design to protect a ship or a fleet from air threats. It is logical to know that 'mission fail' when the ship sink, eventhough it successfully drown 10 Aircraft or Missiles during that strike.Originally posted by Innocent_Malaysian:during the falklands, the seawold was confirmed to shoot down 2 A-4B
two more a/c, dagger A and another A-4B which crashed are said to be shot down by the seawolf too.
Imagine 9 Naval ships of the British Navy fall target for the A-4s , wat will happen to the 2 Lekius??? -
if the RN lose many ships in the FL, it doesnt have to be bcoz of the seawolf.Originally posted by |-|05|:Old planes that wasnt really built for naval strike are they?
the A-4 is very agile a manoevrable lah DA
at least more agile and manoevrable than the bombcat -
Imagine 9 Naval ships of the British Navy fall target for the A-4s , wat will happen to the 2 Lekius???
dun humiliate urselflah
the RN lost many ships bcoz argentina use Exocet not A-4 to sink the ships -
Exocet fire from what??Originally posted by Innocent_Malaysian:dun humiliate urselflah
the RN lost many ships bcoz argentina use Exocet not A-4 to sink the ships
Anyway the Malaysian Mig-29 crash was due to pilot error i think not mantenince problems though that might also be the cause -
Actually the Falkland war senario is a trap....lolX. Not all ships were sunk by SSM. I hope Innocent Malaysia nv finds it out...
http://militaryhistory.about.com/library/prm/blexocetfixedontarget1.htm -
I dun wanna use strong words such as '' humiliate '' , but......Originally posted by Innocent_Malaysian:dun humiliate urselflah
the RN lost many ships bcoz argentina use Exocet not A-4 to sink the ships
http://www.naval-history.net/F62brshipslost.htm
Take a look at how many bombs were drop over head by A-4s..... -
that Site states an Air-craft Carrier call Hermes?! There was only the Ark Royal and Invicible there
-
Pls lah, go read history b4 u shoot your malaysian mouth off here and maybe you can change a little the utter disregard and slef-serving revisionist attitude for history you people seem to have.Originally posted by Innocent_Malaysian:dun humiliate urselflah
the RN lost many ships bcoz argentina use Exocet not A-4 to sink the ships
If you can get mog wrong and think you are the saviours of the american soldiers, yeah right, it'll probably do them more good to waste your guys and take over your apcs, but it was an uncharistic show of american restraint, in the face of overwhelming incompetence. "Drive this thing now soldier! Shoot back! Hey don't go without us! Come back!" were just a few of the things they had to shout at the scared malaysian soldiers who can't do anything right. It's amazing only two got killed, but maybe not, considering they were hiding all the time and taking up space.
Anyway, back to topic, your seawolf sam system is nothing to be proud about... in fact your navy should be quaking in their pants and figuring out how to put more defences against the mighty RSAF that will have little trouble overcoming this basic defence system. But no, your army have time to create nonsense videos instead. -
It is not impressive because all SAMs are meant to do that, and we have seen our share of such videos. Nothing particularly new.Originally posted by Innocent_Malaysian:why isnt it impressive?
biased person