I told you it's on page 6. Several times. Since you do not want to look, here is link from post:
Now you're just plain LYING. Please provide a link to any of the last several posts of yours where you mention "page 6", not to mention "several times". You did not mention page 6 even one time. If you had specified page 6 instead of some general statement that there was some CCTV interview some time ago by some random PLAN officer, I would have gone straight to page 6 and confirmed the evidence for myself. As it is, if you have to lie to make a point, what does that say about your point?
I getting impression you misreading my posts on purpose. :nono:
Active, passive, sonobuoys. Three types of sonars. You may or may not know some dipping sonars have only one mode and not other. SH-60 has all three. Ka-27s has not. Holy trinity is turn of phrase, and it is in use. Maybe I was hallucinating in last 10 years when I used and heard it used, but now I know!
Sorry, I'm still calling bullsh#t on this one. You apparently have no idea that dipping sonars only come in one of two varieties, active only, and active + passive modes. I have never heard of a passive only dipping sonar. You also apparently have no idea that sonobuoys can also come in active and passive types. Otherwise you would not have given us this ludicrous trinity of "active, passive, sonobuoys" that makes zero sense. Active what? Passive what?
I never mentioned TAS, that you conjured from imagination.
No, I mentioned TAS because your trinity was so ridiculously nonsensical that I couldn't figure exactly what you were yapping about. So I covered my bases just in case you were referring to TAS, which incidentally IS a passive only sonar. Except that helos don't carry TAS.
Nor did I mention MAD. Where did you find that from? Here, I'll put some irrelevant truism here, too. AESA aren't sonars. See? I also can do it.
Again, I mentioned MAD because this is a common sensor on ASW helos, and because I thought you might be referring to MAD. Except that MAD's aren't sonars.
Anyway nobody would dream of including MAD in list of actual useful sensor for helos. Did you know that?
You are not qualified to speak for everybody and do not have the authority or knowledge to make this statement. Canada has AIMS (used by helos of Australia, Canada, Taiwan, and UK). France has DHAX (used by Italy, France, and Pakistan). Russia has the APM series. The US has ASQ-10, ASQ-21, ASQ-233, on several systems including P-3C's, SH-3's, SH-60's. In addition these American systems equip German, Dutch, Japanese, Korean, Spanish, and Taiwanese helos. All this info comes from the Naval Institute Guide (5th edition), which has an entire section on MAD. Get yourself a copy before you sound foolish again.
It is fairly important one. If you don't want to accept that there is nothing further to discuss. SH-3 has range has capacity. Too bad it is aging. Thus we have huge Merlin ASW helo and proposals for ASW V-22.
"Fairly important" is a disingenuos and nebulous term that you can twist to mean any level of importance, as needed to weasel any point you want. No doubt duration is important, but as I have said already, it is not the only one. For example, you also said this:
It is also distinctly inferior to SH-60, carrying only 1 torpedo.
Here you singularly disqualified the Ka-28 on the sole basis that it can only carry 1 torpedo compared to the SH-60, without mention of any other factors (such as duration). So let's not start playing with weasel words that do not convey any substantive meaning like "fairly important".
:roll: So, according to Mr. ZTZ99, capability of firing Kh-35 missile, Osminog-E and Izumrud system is not upgrade? Is minor variation? What's your definition of a major variation? Maybe it has deathrays and nuclear reactors?
Don't be stupid. Yeah, it's a minor variation and/or included specifically for export purposes. I could flood my next post with sites specifying that the Ka-28 is the export version of the Ka-27 (rather than a distinct evolution of capabilities for its own sake). BTW, you are also distinctly contradicting your own words from post to post. Like this one, for example:
Originally Posted by ZTZ99
Ka-28 is NOT an evolution of the Ka-27.
And where exactly did I say that? Please do not put words in my mouth.
Here you are distinctly getting uppity and upset that I "put words" in your mouth about the Ka-28 being an evolution of the Ka-27, when you are making this exact claim later on (and incidentally I am not the only person to have noticed this about you):
I already pointed out to you how Ka-27 family evolves and export versions is part of evolution.
As for this.....
ZTZ-99, I will say this once. Your twisting of my words is getting very irritating. Please do not continue to putting words in my mouth. Strawmen are not appreciated.
Don't make me laugh.
