WanshanWhat you actually said was:
The Legacy Hornet is out of the production lines for nine years, and what Boeing is proposing for the FX2 competition is the Super Hornet, so logic dictates that those “additional units” that you mentioned must be Super Hornets…
Meanwhile there are a whole bunch of legacy Hornets sitting in the Arizona desert, and seeing as the Brazilians operate legacy A-4 Skyhawks, and seeing as how in reporting there often isn’t made a proper distinction between Bug and Superbug (as if these were somehow the same plane …), logic might just as easily dictate Legacy Hornets (as a Super Bug deal sweetener).
WanshanAs far as the torpedo maintaining orientation, the massive computing power and inertial guidance system keeps the torpedo in the most efficient attitude. There is a lot of talk about the ADCAP’s digital computers well, before the digital computers many of the functions were analog when necessary.
The torpedo’s range safeties. Anything within this volume that is detected if the torpedo is searching for a target will be classified as ‘friendly’! Outside the these limits are treated as an enemy.I would imagine so but, either way its inertial guidance would keep it aligned properly.
Thank you for the details.
I got the photo from a book entitled, “Underwater Missile System” back in the 1970s. I came across the book once at the Stanford University library.
If you are trying to break the keel of a large carrier, focusing the energy offers greater assurance that the massive network that forms the keel will be broken. Breaking the keel of the HMAS Torrens, an 2,700 ton destroyer escort and breaking the keel of a ship that displaces more than 30,000 tons are two different things.
Going back to Kursk and the mysterious round hole. This hole was said to have been cause by a shaped charge and is in the SIDE of the sub (not in its bottom).
Here’s an explanation: http://www.bellona.no/bellona.org/english_import_area/international/russia/navy/northern_fleet/incidents/kursk/18142 (story of 2 holes of 1 x 0.7 m each)
WanshanThe first of these ships was completed in 2003 – thats 6 long years ago and the on-board systems are old hat.!!! They are fitted with a couple of one-off BAe systems ie The Nautis 2 command and control system & Ruston diesels that no other navy uses.
They were also fitted for but not with the latest block of Sea wolf missiles ( not even test fired in 2003). The ships had a crew of 76, mostly operator maintainers. The technical ability of the Brunei technicians was not good and they would have had great difficulty in maintaining the weapons & electronic systems. This is particularly so with the Sea Wolf tracker which is a nightmare for fully trained and experienced RN technicians
1) Nautis 2
The Nautis 2 system was also used in Malaysia’s Lekiu frigates and New Zealand’s HMNZS Canterbury (F421). It was also used in a variety of MCMVs: Australia’s Huon class, Japan’s Sugashima class, Saudi Arabia’s Sandown class and Spain’s Seguara class.
Source: The Naval Institute guide to world naval weapon systems (Norman Friedman)
2) Diesels
“The Nakhoda Ragam Class is powered by four MAN 20 RK270 diesel engines driving two shafts.”
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/nakhoda/
“four MAN B&W Diesel Ruston 20 cylinder RK270 engines”
http://www4.marinelink.com/en-US/News/Article/Ruston-s-RK270-Engines-Power-Offshore-Patrol-Vessels/325401.aspx
MAN Diesel (formerly MAN B&W Diesel) is the world’s leading provider of large-bore diesel engines for marine propulsion systems and power plant applications and turbochargers. MAN Diesel is a subsidiary of the German multi-national MAN AG corporation since 1980. MAN Diesel owns the former (British) diesel businesses of Mirrlees Blackstone, Paxman and Ruston. Ruston & Hornsby was a major producer of small and medium diesel engines for land and marine applications. It was a pioneer and major developer in the industrial application of small (up to 10000kW) heavy duty gas turbines from the 1950s onwards. Technically, Ruston & Hornsby Ltd existed at the Vulcan Foundry in Newton-le-Willows in Merseyside until 2002, which was known as Ruston Diesels. It was taken over by MAN B&W Diesel AG on June 12 2000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAN_B%26W
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruston_(engine_builder)#Diesels_and_gas_turbines
Incat’s 98 metre TSV-1X Spearhead, currently on charter to the US military, is powered by RK270s.
http://www.wordsthatworkuk.com/MAN%20B&W%20NEWSLETTER%2005.pdf
The UK’s River Class OPV vessel is powered by two Ruston 12 RK 270 medium speed diesel engines
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/river_class/
The Condor Express (built by Incat) is powered by four 20-cylinder Ruston RK270 diesel unit
http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/condor/
3. SeaWolf
The ship’s surface-to-air missile is the MBDA (BAE Systems) Seawolf. The 16-cell VLS (vertical launch system) is installed in the forward main gun deck between the main gun and the bridge.
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/nakhoda/
Block 2 Sea Wolf is a replenishment upgrade to the existing stocks of Sea Wolf missiles. Block 2 missiles will replace all Sea Wolf missiles … as part of normal ammunition replenishment operations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Wolf_missile
Seawolf Block 2 will be provided to the Royal Navy and export customers in both configurations conventional launch Seawolf (ramp) and VL Seawolf (VLS).
http://www.deagel.com/Surface-to-Air-Missiles/Seawolf-Block-2_a001119003.aspx
I.e. There is no ‘fitting for but not with’ going on.
4. Sea Wolf Radar director
The radar system on these OPVs includes two BAE Insyte 1802SW I/J-band radar trackers, which provide target illumination for the Seawolf missile system. Same as on the Malaysian Lekiu’s, but very different from the GEC Marconi Type 911 I/Ku-band systems used on Type 22 and 23. So, I fail to see why RN technicians -who would not have much experience with this system – are expected to have little or no problems with the 1802SW.
WanshanThe real truth wil only emerge when Tom Clancy writes a book about a similer incident !!Then you can believe it!
Clancy now rents out his name to other aspiring writers ….
WanshanHi,
Two modern frigates of roughly the same size, are the Meko A 200 (Valour class), and the Formidable class frigates.
How do these ships compare when it comes to their basic design? I have heard that some older Meko based designs (Anzac?) had some issues with top weight — would this be the case with the newer Meko A-200?
The Valour is slightly bigger than the Formidable, still I was surprised to see the big difference in range (8000 nm vs 4200 nm), how come?
The Meko A-200 looks great, but has less punch than the Formidable. I wonder if it has any growth potential? Imagine this ship with SPY-1K, NMS instead of Exocet and 32 or even 64 EMMS instead of 16 Umkhonto…
On the range issue:
Factor 1: cruise speed difference
Formidable: 4,200nm at economical speed of 18kt
Valour: 8,000 nm at economical speed of 16 kt
Factor 2: difference diesels (Valour’s are of lesser power > lesser fuel consumption)
Formidable: Propulsion = CODAD
4x diesel engines MTU 20V 8000 M90, each rated at 8200 kW (CODAD
Valour: Propulsion = CODAG WARP
2x diesel engines, 5,920 kilowatts (7,940 hp) each, 2 shafts for cruise;
1x gas turbine, 20,000 kilowatts (27,000 hp)
Factor 3: different means of putting SHP to work propelling the ship (Valour more efficient?)
Formidable: the engines drive two shafts with constant pitch propellers.
Valour: the engines drive two shafts with controllable pitch propellers + 1x waterjet
Topweight issue with A-200? Only if the customer specifies (unreasonable) requirements that make it top heavy.
Punch difference? Define punch! The basic Meko A-200 AAW frigate design was to carry a similar radar set to Dutch LCF and German F-124 as well as 3x Mk41 (possibly even 5), which could make for 16 SM2 and 32 ESSM. You can imagine a GP or specialized ASW version easily (just replace the SM2 with some land attack cruise missile or some thing like VL ASROC).
WanshanLast point 1st. Don’t care how old it is, I’ve only recently seen the photographs of the Stbd side of the hull. So I perused the forum. I don’t tend to watch the news so missed it all at the time.
Other points raised: –
a) things that happen during an underwater explosion (stuff implodes)
Yep, but the damage was to local around the hole, an implosion caused by the vacuum of the bang would have damaged an area at least between two frames as the steels and titanium folded. The only possible explanation of a hole imploding would be if there was a type of “Build Door” in the hull. A door that is used in construction then finally welded up after the finish…..but that somewhat defeats the object of a pressure hull. This practice is more normal on Surface ships or Aeroplane wings (Front Spar usually – but NOT welded)b) things that happen when a lage, heavy hull comes down onto a rocky sea bed.
Can’t buy that one, the hole is to neat. Not sure how rocky it is at that point, it looked fairly flat on the rescue attempt pictures. Also, I’m not sure of the drop speed from her depth at the time to the 500 feet bottom.c) things that happen during a rescue attempt (holes were cut to look/listen)
A look / listen hole the size of a Dustbin lid? And, they opened the hatches anyway. Holes for a shufty-scope need to be no more than 1/2 inch, more like 1/4 inch.d) things that are done during salvage (hull sawed through vertically, holes were cut to affix lifting cables)
In that case there would be several cable holes, not one. The sawing could not cause a hole.The hole size is indeed odd for a molten metal shaped charge. I don’t know about torps but yes anti “Land armour” holes are 1/2 inch or so.
I’m not suggesting a conspiracy, but it is not so outrageous to assume it could have been sunk by the act of another sub – a weapon or a collision.
I’ve lied enough for Queen and Country/defence of the realm so it’s actually possible for those higher up than me to lie. Politicians are duty bound to lie so we cannot even hope to believe them. We (Reading this) shall never know, this is probably covered by the hundred year rule.
What size is that hole anyway (and how is this size established?)
WanshanJust the opposite direction than the Bill, TOW, etc. anti-tank missiles.
Except that the ATGW launch tube can be clipped to the aiming unit in only one way (i.e. missile is ‘up right’) whereas I’m not so sure that is the case that torpedoes can be loaded into launch tubes in only one ‘way’ with correct orientation of the warhead.
There are a few pictures on the I-net showing how the warhead being a ‘keel hunter’ torpedo does not impact into the side of a ship but, explodes about 10-ft (3-m) under the keel of the ship, breaking it in half.
One such photo is of a Australian destroyer being sunk with a Mk.-48 torpedo fired from an Australian sub. The other attached photo is of the shaped charge warhead underwater.
When a torpedo explodes under the keel, the force of the explosion will lift up that portion of the ship. As the energy is expended, the remaining gases mixed with the water causes a low density area where the ship settles and because of the low density the target settles far deeper than it normally would. If the back isn’t broken by the explosion, the ship settling in the low density water will cause the keel to break completely.
Yawn. The Frigate HMAS Torrens (or ‘destroyer escort’ in aussie naval parlance) paid off in 1998, and was sunk as a target by the submarine HMAS Farncomb off Western Australia on 14 June 1999. The torpedo used was a Mk48.
http://www.military.cz/usa/navy/weapons/mark48attack/mark48attack_en.htm
Mk-48 and Mk-48 ADCAP torpedoes can be guided from a submarine by wires attached to the torpedo. They can also use their own active or passive sensors to execute programmed target searches, acquisition and attack procedures. The torpedoes are designed to detonate under the keel of a surface ship, breaking the ship’s back and destroying its structural integrity. In the event of a miss, it can circle back for another attempt.
Note it has a conventional, high-explosive unitary warhead of some 650 lbs 293 kg) of high explosive. (i.e. NOT an upward directed shaped charge warhead)
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-48.htm
The torpedo is the smartest missile used! It has re-attack capability if it misses the first time. Some anti-ship missiles have a limited ability to re-attack a target. Think about it, PC boards almost twenty inches in diameter, many of them. That is a lot of computing power.
This has nothing to do with upwardsfiring shaped charge warheads.
Just like in the movie, “Crimson Tide”…. the Mk.-48 headed for the Soviet Sierra sub. The torpedo approached from the side, then dipped down and was hit under the keel. Also very similar to the video from Iraq when some insurgents fired a Kornet anti-tank missile from inside a room, through a window at an M-1 tank about seventy-five feet from the house. The missile approached the M-1 then climb above it and exploded.
Hitting under the keel has nothing to do with warhead type. The issue is not that the torpedo could not postition itself underneath the ship hull, the issue is whether the torpedo get into and remains ‘upright’ i.e. if you picture it’s cross-section and think of it as a clock, where 12 o’clock is ‘up’ and 6 ‘down’, does a torpedo fired with 12 in the up position maintain that orientation while maneouvring towards its target? And does a torpedo fired in another orientation than with 12 up right itself? Because that is what an upwards directed shape charge warhead would require to be effective.
The Kurst displaces 16,600 tons submerged while the LA class is around 9,000 tons, in a collision of two front ends of a sub colliding, why would people think the smaller sub would fair better. A single hull versus a double hull and the double hull looses? If the USN caused a Soviet sub to sink don’t you think the Russians would have figured out some way for an American sub to have an accident? Once real common sense is injected into the argument is ceases to be a conspiracy.
In a collision scenario, the relative sizes of subs would be relevant, I agree.
WanshanThere is still no conclusion here as to what did cause the round hole in her Stbd side. The indented metal around the hole too. I’m not a submariner, but I am an engineer. The hole and the dent were caused by a hit from the outside.
How specifically (i.e. from an engineering point of view) can you tell what caused the hole and the denting and what not?
And what exactly is ‘a hit from outside’? A collision with another sub (rather small hole then, don’t you thinkg?), a torpedo explosion (suggests an ASW lightweight 324mm diameter torpedo, not a 553 mm diameter M48 heavyweight. however, Kursk is designed to withstand such lightweight torpedoes. besides the hole seems far larger than a 324mm or even a 533m shaped charge warhead would cause. considering that a 125-150mm ATGW shaped charge warhead causes a hole in tank armor of maybe 10mm, which diameter torpedo would there have had to have been to cause a hole the size of which is in the Kursk’s side), something else?
As an engineer, try e.g. thinking about
a) things that happen during an underwater explosion (stuff implodes)
b) things that happen when a lage, heavy hull comes down onto a rocky sea bed.
c) things that happen during a rescue attempt (holes were cut to look/listen)
d) things that are done during salvage (hull sawed through vertically, holes were cut to affix lifting cables)
Can you rule out all other possibly causes besides ‘a hit from outside’? I think not.
And indeed, how on earth did you drag up this 4 year old thread?
WanshanI’m assuming the sub won’t be beached or take the risk to run aground, so it will have to keep some distance to land, 1500 meter is a paltry range.
We’ve only established it has been tested out to 1500m and proven effective. We’ve not established that is the max. range or even the max. effective range. Besides, SFO not only deal with land targets, so why are you assuming that for the gun?
Wanshana ultra-short barreled 30 mm gun with no range whatsoever.
Wiesel application trial fired out to 1500m effectively, with a dispersion pattern of the rounds being 50% less that of a regular 30mm cannon at this distance. At 1.000 m precision is 1,5 mrad (= circle with radius of 1,5 m). 300 rpm. I’m pretty sure that’s not max range.
By the way, that Triple-M mast is patented
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7278347.html
Here‘s some more info on IDAS and Moraine
“Düsenkanone mit Impulskompensation ” 😀
WanshanThis is my last iteration for the day based on inputs from this article. Hope you like it.
In comparison with the illustrations above, the torpedo tubes should be in the lower hull and more on the flanks than on the bow (in which there is a spherical sonar).
WanshanRPK-8 Antisubmarine MRLS is designed for protection of the surface ships against submarines as well as for destruction of the ship attacking torpedoes and underwater saboteurs.
RPK-8 MRLS is comprised also of:
– Loading, feeding and storage device intended for storage of the rockets in the lower compartment, their transportation to the hoist, lifting and loading into the launcher. Overall conveyor capacity – 60. The launcher loading is automatic.
– Fire control equipment, comprising of:
1. Command unit with control system, computer and monitor.
2. Unit for data output and input to the Rocket Launcher.
Dangerous zones unit to ensure the locking of the acting decoys in the dangerous zones. Weight of the Fire control equipment is 180 kg.
http://www.splav.org/en/arms/rpk/index.asp#rpk1
RBU-6000 Depth Charge Rocket Launcher ensures salvo and a single-shot firing of the 90R antisubmarine rockets and RGB-60 depth rocket bombs.
http://www.splav.org/en/arms/rpk/pu.asp
90R Antisubmarine rocket is intended for the homing underwater gravitational projectile delivery to the submarine location point. It can also be used as an anti-torpedo and anti-sabotage weapon. The antisubmarine rocket consists of a propulsion section, a warhead with a separation system and a gravitational underwater projectile.
http://www.splav.org/en/arms/rpk/missiles.asp
WanshanWell go for a 100 cm just as well then. I just notice that new development are mostly 53 cm designs and i would expect the russian to soon start making universal designs and launchers for new weaponsystems, like the club system.
As for universal designs, there of course already is the Club family that can be launched from 53cm tubes. For something bigger – like Onyx or Brahmos – a tube of 70-80 cm would be needed.
There’s a limit though to the amount of upscaling that is possibly: at some point the torpedo will become too unwielding to be able to be used in scramped sub spaces (unless you use the tube like a 1 shot silo). So, 100mm might be unfeasible.
WanshanThe IDAS is based on IRIS-T. They share the same seeker head.
The German Navy will have this system from 2014 on.
Thx
Wanshan“New missile system for submarines”
http://www.tkms.ca/news/new-missile-system-for-submarines
IDAS
With the IDAS missile system, a submerged submarine can engage enemy anti-submarine warfare helicopters, small surface vessels and land targets near the coast with highest precision. The IDAS system comprises the missile, four of which are housed in a special launch canister in the torpedo tube, and the control console in the submarine’s command and control center. Main missile components are the imaging IR seeker taken over from IRIS-T, a fiber-optic data link between the control console and the missile as well as a single-stage, solid-propellant rocket motor providing IDAS with a mission range of approx. 20km.
The operator on board the submarine may intervene in the course of the mission at any time. In addition, reconnaissance results and target images obtained by means of the seeker can be evaluated in the submarine. With IDAS, a modern, conventional submarine is provided with completely new capabilities (escalation), also enabling its use in new scenarios of asymmetric warfare. IDAS is a technology demonstration program financed by BWB and the industrial working group ARGE IDAS (HDW and Diehl BGT Defence: 40% each, Kongsberg: 20%). IDAS is planned to enter the development phase soon.
http://www.diehl-bgt-defence.de/index.php?id=559&L=1
See also:
Aviation week
Sign In
