a friend found this polish site with some explanations about the changes that will be applyed to Gorshkov
http://www.designnews.pl/programy1205.php4?art=502

Unfortunately I do not understand polish:confused:

It’s about use of CAD in designing necessary scaffolds:diablo:

Yeah, they’re great pics.

Unfortunately, the planes look like sh!t.
They could’ve at least painted them before they were delivered.:rolleyes:

Do Western nations typically deliver BRAND NEW (well maybe new) airplanes without a paint job like that?

You’d think with all the recent controversy surrounding Vikramaditya the Russians would at least throw in a decent custom paint job for the migs.

Don’t make yourself an a..hole. That’s first test flight, not delivery. When delivered they’ll be painted in Indian colours.

Kirov?

This might be a nice one too: what would today’s Flower class be like?
Four basic dimensions/areas to consider.
– hull
– propulsion
– armaments
– sensors

Project 20380:D

The class name is MAK – small artillery ship, on par with MPK and MRK (anti-sub and anti-ship). It’s designed to be the artillery/MLRS component for littoral combat (Russian term is – guarding the region of waters 🙂 ). There’s no reason to put longer ranged weapons on them as they will have to depend on their own sensors for targeting (or those of a small landing force).

Is there any Indian naval project which is on schedule or trouble-free? ADS – delayed, Gorshkov – delayed, P-17 – delayed, Scorpene – delayed (rumoured), ATV – nobody has seen the schedule, so let’s say it’s “slightly” behind, second batch of 11356 – delayed (rumoured), Il-38SD – delayed, Trishul SAM just cancelled after 20 years of development, first batch of 11356 and upgraded Kilos having integration issues between conflicting Indian and Russian systems . Talk about consistency, vile Germans selling Indian 209 sub blueprints to South Africa, Jalashva (ex USS Trenton) turning out to be an operational hazard. I’m more than sure, that if India had opted for a CV built in Italy, it would have followed this line. Perhaps something is rotten in the state of Denmark and not in all the rest of the world?

Guidance was by radar beam-riding, the beam was provided by the Type 901 fire-control radar. There were 3 flight modes;

LOSBR (Line Of Site, Beam Riding) where the missile flew up a beam that tracks the target.
CASWTD (Constant Angle of Sight With Terminal Dive) with the missile climbing at a low angle and then diving onto a low-altitude target
MICAWBER (Missile In Constant Altitude While BEam Riding), similar to CASWTD, but with a terminal low-level glide phase to, so the Mark 2 variant could be used against ships. This mode suffered from the problems associated with the surface of the water reflecting the guidance beam.

There were two main variants of Sea Slug:

Mark 1 (GWS.1)
The Sea Slug Mark 1 was powered by the NK.1 liquid sustainer rocket motor and Gosling booster motor. It had a radio proximity fuze and 200 lb (91 kg) blast warhead.

Particulars
Attack Velocity: 685 mph (1,102 km/h)
Range: 30,000 yards (27,000 m)
Ceiling: 55,000 feet (17,000 m)

Mark 2 (GWS.2)
Sea Slug Mark 2 was based on the aborted Blue Slug programme for a nuclear-armed anti-ship missile using the Sea Slug missile and guidance system. In the event the project was cancelled in favour of Green Cheese missile but other project developments were incorporated into what became the Mark 2. It had improved low altitude performance and a limited anti-ship capability and entered service in 1965. It was initially powered by the Foxhound sustainer motor, later replaced by the Deerhound, with Retriever boosters. Control was by a modified Type 901M radar and it had an improved infra-red proximity fuze and a continuous-rod warhead with a smaller, 56 lb (25 kg), explosive charge and large steel penetrator.

Particulars
Attack Velocity: 1,370 mph (2,200 km/h)
Range: 35,000 yards (32,000 m)
Ceiling: 65,000 feet (20,000 m)