WanshanCopyright The Financial Times Limited 2009. You may share using our article tools. Please don’t cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b56de9e2-f30a-11de-a888-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1
:rolleyes:
tsk tsk tsk
WanshanThe Breguet 690 Vultur was a mixed-powerplant design incorporating an Armstrong Siddeley Mamba turboprop in the nose and a Hispano-Suiza Nene turbojet in the rear fuselage. The jet provided additional thrust for combat performance and take-off.
Experience with the Vultur, first flown on 3 August 1951, led the French navy to abandon the idea of such a powerplant for a strike aircraft. Instead, Breguet was contracted to develop a three-seat carrier-based anti-submarine aircraft from the Vultur [the Breguet 1050 Alize].
http://www.aviastar.org/air/france/breguet_vultur.php
This three-seat carrier-borne anti-submarine hunter-killer was derived from the 960 Vultur naval strike aircraft.
The first prototype [of the Breguet 1050 Alize] flew on 6 October 1956 and was followed by five pre-production aircraft. Orders for 75 production Alizes were placed by the French Navy and the first was officially delivered on 20 May 1959. Sixty-five were in service by May 1961. A further contract for Alizes was received subsequently from the Indian Navy and 12 were delivered, plus two ex-French aircraft. Two French Navy squadrons operated Alizes on board the carriers Foch and Clemenceau.
WanshanLenta.ru which is reliable give the following figures for Nerpa , Akula-2
A submerged displacement of ~ 12,770T this is a very big SSN
According to Naval Technology:
Dimensions:
Surfaced Displacement 8,140t
Displacement, Submerged 12,770t
Overall length 110m
Overall Height 11.3m
Hull Cross Section 13.6m x 9.68m
Performance:
Diving Depth 600m
Run Speed Surfaced 10kt
Run Speed Submerged 33kt
Speed with Reverse Propeller System 3kt to 4kt
Endurance 100 days
Weapon Systems:
Missile Torpedo Weapons 4 x 650mm tubes, 4 x 533mm tubes
Cruise Missiles (SLCM) 12 Granit land-attack missiles
Anti-Ship Missiles and Torpedoes 28 Stallion and Starfish missiles, mk40 torpedoes, anti-submarine missiles and torpedoes in a range of variants
Air-Defence Missiles Strela portable missile – 18 missiles
Systems:
Electronic Equipment
Automated radio communication system
Combat control information system
General-purpose radar
Active and passive sonar
Periscopes
Commander’s periscope
Air defence periscope
Propulsion:
Main Machinery Nuclear, with steam turbine power
Pressure Water Reactor 1 x 190MW
Steam Turbine 1 x 50,000hp
Auxiliary Diesels 2 x 750hp
Propulsion Motors 2 x 276kW
Reserve Propeller Systems with Motors 2 x 370kW
Single Propeller 7-bladed fixed-pitch propeller
Wanshanyou could put Davits for landing craft mid ship and more facilitates for helicopters.
That would be a step back in the evolution of amphibious warfare ships IMHO. The only way I could see that being viable is when operated as part of a system (with other vessel types) like in ‘Seabasing‘
WanshanMmmm, LPD versus T-AKE…. docking well and LCAC versus no docking well. :rolleyes:
WanshanGents, could the two of you please book a room or something?
Maar natuurlijk.
WanshanI have enough degrees to know that whatever you have (what, you majored in political-naivety?) isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.
Wah wah wah wah … sticks and stones. How old are you? Twelve? Your certainly behave as if you are.
Pot calling the kettle black.
Stop whining. You yourself started making derogatory remarks.
The US hasn’t even made a congressional notification for the first stage of the sub programme, let alone a contract that would suggest something’s going to happen. Germany won’t do anything until big money is on the table.
I’m sure you know the Germans better than anyone else here.
WanshanSays something about academic standards these days I guess……
Spoken by one without, surely. US degree at that.
The much more likely reason is that the deal was never that likely to go ahead and China should be ignored next time a threat/enticement is made concerning arms sales to Taiwan.
Sure, much much more likely … (no supporting evidence provided)
What German response? If they decide they can make lots of money from a sale to Taiwan directly or indirectly it’s for China to offer a good reason not to.
No SSK sales to Taiwan, and no blueprints to US for Taiwan so far.
WanshanI wonder what a ~750Kg impact would do to an enormous structure like a carrier though. I doubt one hit would cause enough damage to sink it.
Damaging or knocking out propulsion and/or rudder control would effectively put the carrier out of action without sinking it (the ‘Tom Clancy’-scenario).
WanshanLooks like the Russian AF isn’t having too much trouble finding those “invisible” carriers 😉
Just because that is their mission, doesn’t say anything about their succes rate at it…
WanshanDoes a logical thought process run through your head? :rolleyes:
Someone signed off on my PhD, so I guess so.
I’m saying that despite the fact Holland didn’t sell those extra submarines China still didn’t sign the deal with Fokker. Holland should have gone ahead with the submarine deal because it would have kept the Dutch sub builder going and generated loads of business.
Perhaps they were still miffed about the first two :p
You’re still not making an analysis of how this will affect a Chinese response to German assistance with submarines for Taiwan compared to how it has responded to US sales in recent years! :p
I’m not talking about the chinese response, I’m talking about the German response. They were far more
And why are you talking about the 1990s? We’re in 2009.
The examples I gave earlier were in the 1990s. So comparative numbers, past and present where possible.
Don’t quit the day job – seriously.
Never had any intention of doing so – just an x-tra buck for x-tra work
WanshanPeople quote Holland and France as to why China cannot be challenged when it comes to arms sales to Taiwan. I haven’t seen an example of China actually harming a country as a result of arms sales, and I doubt that I will.
Are your eyes open and are you not wearing dark shades? :diablo:
Fokker died because it didn’t get the Chinese order which was dangled in front of it and which would have sustained the company. That’s harm right there.
Would you mind telling me why Germany would be made to suffer when the US has not? Raw numbers alone aren’t helpful, you need to provide analysis and arguments with them.
I guess you want to be spoonfed…
As per earlier notes: With a volume of trade with China of only about 34.5% of the US trade volume, Germany is a far lesser trade partner of China (certainly in those days: 1990s). Considering the top ten of trading partners, whereas the US is in 1st place. Germany is in 6th place. The Netherlands and France aren’t even in the top ten. Of imports into China in 1999, 50% are from US, meaning that at that time China was a lot more dependent on US than on Germany.
Will charge next time.
WanshanSo why don’t go for a 1000 mm tube then? Or even bigger.. My opinion go for a common standard among all submarine classes. Storage and handling is easier. Also, if you have several types of tubes you are limited to numbers of launchers for that weapon.
Even larger sizes of torpedo tube, including 660 mm (26 inches), 762 mm (30 inches), and 916 mm (about 36 inches), have been installed on some nuclear submarines. These tubes are designed to be capable of firing large diameter munitions such as cruise missiles, as well as the standard 21 inch heavy torpedo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpedo
Standardization impies heavy weight torpedoes in both ASW and ASUW roles, as some navies have adopted (e.g. using German SST1/2/3/4/SUT series of torpedoes). Alternatively, however, nations have adopted a mix of 324mm or 400mm or 450mm lightweight ASW torpoedoes and 533mm ASuW heavyweight torpedoes for their subs. In most cases the lightweight torps are fired from the 533mm tubes, though some navies have 2 sets of tubes e.g. some Swedish subs (Gotland class) have 2x 400mm tubes for ASW and 4x 533mm for ASuW. In short, even 533m common tubes don’t mean only one type of torp is used.
There is an upperlimit for the torp diameter: consider that as you scale up diameter, you are also scaling up length and weight. And that’s more of a problem than diameter is (think how torpedo handling quickly becomes impossible, how a very substantial internal penetration of the tubes needs to be accommodates plus having enough internal room to move sparerounds into the tubes).
—– 324mm Lightweight ASW > 2-3m, and 250-350kg
US Mk 46
Length: 2.59 m (8 ft 6 in )
Weight: 231 kg (508 lb )
Diameter: 324 mm (12.75 in )
US Mk 50
Length 2.84 m (112 in )
Weight 340 kg (750 lb )
Width 0.32 m (12.75 in )
UK Stingray
Length : 2.6 m
Weight : 267 kg
Diameter : 0.34 m
Whithead A244-S
Length: 2.8 m
Maximum Mass: 244 kg
Diameter: 0.324 m
It/Fr. MU-90
Weight 304 kg
Length 2850 mm
Diameter 323.7 mm
—– Heavy weights 533mm > about 6-8m and 1,5-2,5 tons
US Mk 14
Weight 3,280 lb (1,490 kg)
Length 20 ft 6 in (6.25 m)
Diameter 21 in (530 mm)
US MK 48
Weight 3,434 lb (1,558 kg) (original), 3,695 lb (1,676 kg) (ADCAP)
Length 19 ft (5.79 m)
Diameter 21 in (533 mm)
UK Tigerfish
Weight 1550 kg (3414 lb)
Length 6.5 m (21.2 ft)
Diameter 533 mm (21 in)
UK Spearfish
Weight 1,850 kg (4,075 lb)
Length 7 m (23 ft)
Diameter 533 mm (21 in)
Russia SET 53-65
Length: 7.2 m (23.6 ft)
Weight: 2,070 kg–2,300 kg (4,563 lb–4,630 lb)
Diameter: 533 mm (21 in)
—— 650 mm > 9-11m and 4,5-5 tons
Russia Type 65
Length: 9.14m
Weigth: 4,500 kg (65-76DT), 4,750 kg (65-76DST92)
Diameter: 650 mm
Russia TT-5 (Model 1) HEAVY TARGET-SEEKING TORPEDO
Length: 11,300 mm
Weight: 4,750 kg
Caliber: 650mm
—–
By comparison
Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM)
Weight 1,440 kilograms (3,200 lb)
Length
-Without booster: 5.56 m
-With booster: 6.25 m
Diameter 0.52 m
Novator RK-55 Granat (NATO:SSC-X-4 ‘Slingshot’)
Weight 1,700 kg (3,750 lb)
Length 809 cm (26 ft 7 in)
Diameter 51 cm (20.1 in)
Novator 3M-54 Klub family (NATO: SS-N-27 ‘Sizzler’)
Diameter 0.533 m
3M-54E – length 8.22 m, 2,300 kg
3M-54E1 – length 6.2 m, 1,780 kg
3M-14E – length 6.2 m, 1,770 kg
91RE1 – length 8.0 m, 2,050 kg
91RE2 – length 6.5 m, 1300kg
Brahmos
Weight 3000 kg (2500 kg air-launched)
Length 8.4 m
Diameter 0.6 m
WanshanChina didn’t do anything to hurt Holland. It closed an embassy, consulate or something. As the website you referred to said, the deal between Fokker and China never took place despite the fact that follow-on submarines were vetoed by the Dutch government.
This only means they succeeded in bluffing a small trade nation: they effectively used the Fokker deal as bait (Fokker at that time was in financial difficulty, it ceased to exists as an independent company in 1996, when it was acquired by Stork Aerospace).
China isn’t a charity. If it wants something from Germany it will want something from Germany – selling submarine hulls/designs won’t change that. That’s why trade with the US hasn’t been disrupted despite the $billions of arms sales approved over the last couple of years to Taiwan.
There are substantial differences in trade volume between US and e.g. Germany or the Netherlands, wouldn’t you agree? And it may not be so much about what China gets from these countries as it is about what they get from China.
China’s Trade with the World in $ billion (trade with US)
1999
Imports 165.7 (81.8) < 50% US imports!
Exports 194.9 (13.1)
Total 360.6 (94.9)
2008
Imports 1,133.1 (337.8) < 30% US imports
Exports 1,428.5 (71.5)
Total 2,561.6 (409.2)
China’s Top Trade Partners 2008 ($ billion)
Rank Country/Region Volume %-Change*
1. United States 333.7 10.5
6. Germany 115.0 22.2 < only about 34.5% of the US volume
China’s Top Export Destinations 2008 ($ billion)
Rank Country/Region Volume %-Change*
1. United States 252.3 8.4
5. Germany 59.2 21.5 < only about 23.5% of the US volume
6. The Netherlands 46.0 10.8 < about 18.2% of the US volume
China’s Top Import Suppliers 2008 ($ billion)
Rank Country/Region Volume %-Change*
4. United States 81.4 17.4
5. Germany 55.8 23.0 < about 69% of US volume
10+ The Netherlands < less than 30% of US volume
Sign In
