dark light

John1964

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 29 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Royal Navy FSC #2013401
    John1964
    Participant

    8.5-inch gun????

    If prodeeded with will the 155mm variant have any anti aircraft capacity remaining?

    Regards

    in reply to: Royal Navy FSC #2013526
    John1964
    Participant

    Interesting, so it looks like they are planning to retain the Mk8, wether with a 4.5″ or 155mm barrel who knows?

    What are the opinions of the two blocks aft of the gun, can’t tell if it is SSM tubes, torpedo tubes or something else?

    Then what I assume are CAMM VLS’s.

    Wish they would change the design to a double helo hangar.

    Any idea on the dimensions.

    Regards.

    in reply to: PLAN Carrier Updates. #2013529
    John1964
    Participant

    This is Kuznetsov. Why would PLAN remove parts of the island only to rebuild it to make it exactly like it was before …. IIRC the radars on Type 52C are much different.

    Suggestions

    There was excess corrosion in those area’s and it was cheaper/easier to replace the structure?

    They wanted to replace or emplace some equipment that removing the structure made it easier?

    They wanted to see out that bit was built so took it apart to see how to put it back again?

    in reply to: Navies news from around the world -II #2014144
    John1964
    Participant

    Note that the USN Sea Control Ship (a.k.a Spain’s Principe d’Asturias) also has this step and this ship was designed with the Harrier in mind.

    Yes, but that deck couldn’t be used as a landing pad for aircraft as the above illustration show’s that the J. C. and Canberra’s can, also it was much lower.

    in reply to: Navies news from around the world -II #2014171
    John1964
    Participant

    I am intrigued as to why the Juan Carlos and the Canberra’s have the step in their flight deck aft. I can see it is large enough to be used as a landing pad, but given that the ships are due to use the Harrier (on the J. C.) and ultimately the F-35b on all that a full length flight deck would be advisable?

    in reply to: Type 45 launch website #2014175
    John1964
    Participant

    But the RN has already retired at least 4 of its T-42’s, why haven’t their Phalanxes been installed on T-45’s already?

    IMHO they should have Goalkeeper instead and reserve the Phalanxes for fitting to Amphib’s and RFA’s.

    in reply to: Sepecat Jaguar #2409993
    John1964
    Participant

    Generally it is stated that the Jaguar was underpowered with whatever variant of the Adour. What would have been the ideal power rating for the engine?

    in reply to: SeaSlug, SeaCat and others obsolete missile systems #1809269
    John1964
    Participant

    Argentinians. Tigercat had been largely if not totally replaced in British Service by 1982. Also IIRC it was only used by the RAF Regiment to protect airbases, and I do not believe any of them were deployed to the Falklands.

    Regards.

    in reply to: Sea Cat kills? #1809271
    John1964
    Participant

    IIRC post Falklands additional Sea Cat missiles were purchased with improved altimetres in order to improve performance against low flying targets.

    in reply to: Navies news from around the world -II #2014360
    John1964
    Participant

    Yes, CNS Almirante Williams (FF-19) (ex-HMS Sheffield), a batch 2 ship.

    She was decommissioned from the RN on 5 November 2002, and commissioned in the Armada de Chile on 4 September 2003.

    She began a refit in March 2008, in ASMAR Talcahuano for installation of OTO 76 mm gun, Harpoon anti-ship missile and Barak SAM instead of Sea Wolf for defence.

    She just recently was returned to service,conducting her post-refit trials last month, so she was unavailable for the photo shoot Tango III posted from.

    There are pics & discussion (in Spanish) here: http://base.mforos.com/730111/3280645-fragata-tipo-22-2-ff-19-almirante-williams/?pag=23
    Page 23 & all of page 24.

    http://fotos.subefotos.com/0a2498c89b13bb21566809638dd5b424o.jpg

    http://fotos.subefotos.com/2a7569b9f49280747377c77a8f41a1b4o.jpg

    Why do you think that the fire control radars for the Barak were set so high, when removing the Sea Wolfs f.c. equipment there must have been space for the “office” within the existing structure?

    How did they go about seperating the 967/8 radar aerials, or were they supplied with a new 967 set from the UK.

    Are the Chilean Navy planning to replace the Sea Wolf of the T23’s and the Sea Sparrow on the M’s and Heemskerck?

    in reply to: CVF Construction #2014776
    John1964
    Participant

    Aren’t the CVF’s “fitted for but not with” an additional pair of MT30’s?

    in reply to: UK Air defence (starsteak etc) #1809518
    John1964
    Participant
    in reply to: Does Russia want to keep the ex-Gorshkov??? #2014981
    John1964
    Participant

    It certainly should be, with it’s natural resources Russia should be the power house to 21st Century industry, and the standard of living should put the west to shame.

    Unfortunately, what wealth there is seems to be going to a small number of people who become extremely wealthy, and the rest are left to fend for themselves. Welcome to Victorian England.

    How long to the next revolution??

    in reply to: Nuclear Propulsion in Large Carriers? #2015533
    John1964
    Participant

    What difference; if any, to manning levels would a cvf having nuclear propulsion (other feature remaining the same)?

    in reply to: Subject Study- RAN Future OPC #2016095
    John1964
    Participant

    Slightly O/T

    I am surprised given the large patrol area’s that they have that the Armidale Patrol Boats were not designed with a helo flight deck (in the same manner as the RN Castle class OPV).

    Anyone explain this for me.

    Regards.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 29 total)