This is all giving me a headache.

What is the RPK-7 then? 650mm 120KM range sub launched SS-N-16?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-N-16

Is there is source that compiles all of this info?

I don’t see why a Typhoon wouldn’t have 650mm tubes anyway. The thing could have 20 of them.

FRIEDMAN: Nato missed the distinction between the two generations of the system, both of which existed in 53 and 65cm form, identifying the 53cm weapons as SS-N-15 and the 65cm weapons as SS-N-16.

Note the use of plurals (“weapons”) rather than singular (“weapon”)
RPK-7 > SS-N-16 (sub as well as surface launched)

From the online version of “The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapons Systems, 1997-1998” by Norman Friedman. Naval Institute Press, 1997. ISBN 1557502684, 9781557502681.

on page 603 (in relation to the use of Ka-27):

“However, the helicopter may also have been seen as a targeting device for RPK-6/7 (SS-N-16 with torpedo).“

on page 667:

“RPK-6/7
These 53cm (RPK-6) and 65cm (RPK-7) successors to RPK-2 entered service in 1981 and 1984. The Vodopod system (83R missile) uses a torpedo warhead (UMGT-1) and the Vodopei system (84R missile) presumably uses a nuclear depth bomb warhead. An improved version is URPK-6 (Vodopod/Vodopei-MK, using 83RN and 84RN missiles). The associated surface ship systems are Veder (86R missile, torpedo) and Vspletsk (86R missile, presumably with a nuclear depth bomb). Projected range with the Orlan (UMGT-1) torpedo was 100-120km (54-65nm). The current RPK-6 payload is APR-2E, the current RPK-7 payload is the short 53 cm torpedo.
The RPK-6 surface version arms the missile cruisers Frunze and Kalinin. In these ships, it is fired like a torpedo, dives into the water, stabilizes itself, and then ignites. In effect, it replaces SS-N-14. It may have been chosen to arm the Krivak III and modified Udaloy, although the appropriate torpedo tubes were not fitted. Neustrashimy, which has torpedo catapults like those of French ships, may have the 65cm RPK-7.“

From the online version of “The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapon Systems” by Norman Friedman. Naval Institute Press, 2006. ISBN 1557502625, 9781557502629.

on page 542:

“The Klub system embraces several differen missiles: Klub-N for surface ships and Klub-S for submarines, within each of which are 3M54E and 3M54E1 antiship cruise missiles, the 3M114 land attack cruise missile, and the 91RE1 antisubmarine missile (see RPK6/7 entry). All use common interfaces to a single fire control system; all may even be launchable from the same tube or tubes – presumably, both standard torpedo tubes and the new vertical launchers for frigates.“

on page 714:

“RPK-6/7 Vodopod/Vodopei/91RE (SS-N-15/16)

These torpedo tube launched missiles supersede RPK-2 Vyuga. Both carried nuclear depth bomb payloads. RPK-6/7 was a more sophisticated derivative with eiter a homing torpedo or a nuclear depth bomb as payload. Vodopod (83R missile) carries a torpedo, Vodopei (86R missile) a depth bomb. Veder (86R missile) and Vspletsk (86R missile) are the surface ship equivalents, fired, respectively, from a torpedo tube and from a catapult (in the new frigate Neustrashimy). The torpedo was originally UMGT-1 (40cm) for the 53cm version, and a short 53cm torpedo for the 65cm version. Projeected range with the Orlan (UMGT-1) torpedo was 100-120km (54-65nm). The current RPK-6 payload is APR-2E; the current RPK-7 payload is the short 53 cm torpedo. The surface version of RPK-6 currently arms the large cruisers Frunze, Kalinin and Pjotr Velikiy. In these ships it is fired like a torpedo, dives into the water, stabilizes itself and then ignites. In effect, it replaces SS-N-14.”

on page 715:

“Neustrashimiy, which has torpedo catapults like those of French ships, may have the 65cm RPK-7. RPK-6 range is 37km; RPK-7 range is 100km and can be fired at twice the depth of RPK-6. RPK-6 weighs 2,445kg and is 8.2m long( 53cm tube size). RPK-7 is 11m long (65cm tube size). Nato missed the distinction between the two generations of the system, both of which existed in 53 and 65cm form, identifying the 53cm weapons as SS-N-15 and the 65cm weapons as SS-N-16. It is not clear whether any RPK-2s remain in service.
The torpedo-armed version of this missile is offered for export as 91RE, as part of the Klub system in tandem with the 3M54E antiship cruise missile (see S-10 Granat entry). The submarine-launched version is 91RE1, the surface ship version 91RE2. The former is designed for launch from a 533mm (21 in) torpedo tube at a depth of up to 150m (submarine speed up to 15kt);total weight is 2,050kg. Effective range is 35km, The surface-launched91RE is described as weighing 1,200kg (which seems unlikely), with a range of 40km.
Veter and Vodopod were tested onboard two converted Romeo-class submarines (PRoject 633RV), S-49 (1973) and S-11 (1982).For these tests, the torpedo payload was a UMGT-1 lightweight torpedo, fired at a bravo-class target. Vodopod was adopted for service in 1981 as RPK-6, with both nuclear and torpedo payloads. Veter was adopted in 1984 as RPK-7, also with both payloads.“

Notes:
UMGT-1 (a.k.a. APSET-95 for export a.k.a. NATO 40-79) = an air-launched 400 mm antisubmarine torpedo used in RPK-6
APR-2E = an air-launched lightweight active/passive 350 mm anti-submarine rocket torpedo, which replaced UMGT-1 in the improved URPK-6
http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/reference/Air_Launched_Torpedoes/Russia.htm and Friedman (2006: 737)

This suggests a weapon system
a) in 2 diameters (for 2 different type of launching tubes)
b) each with 2 possible warheads (torpedo or nuclear depth charge)
b) each in two launch versions (submarine and surfaceship).

A very nice vessel but with a dated machinery set. It was orginally planned that the class would get the WR21 but it was not available at the time. There is some suggestion that the machinery space design could still accomodate such a plant.

At first it appeared that the main engines for the ships would be the new Rolls Royce WR-21, which will also be deployed on the Royal Navy`s Type 45 Destroyers. Unfortunately the WR-21 was not available in time (apparently it won`t be available until 2007), so for now the main engines will be Rolls-Royce SM-1C ‘Spey’ gas turbines, which are a good design which unfortunately is getting on in years. However, when the ships were designed the engine room was designed with the WR-21 in mind, and there is room for these turbines. It is not unlikely that the ships will recieve the WR-21 later on in their operational lives, a move which would substantially increase fuel efficiency and raise engine power.
Secondary engines have always been two Wartsila diesel engines, and the engines drive two adjustable counterrotating propellors

http://www.kitsune.addr.com/LCF/information.htm

Logistics commonality may also have played a role, both withing RNthN and in NATO. The RR SPey Gtu / Wartsila diesel combination was already being used on the Karel Doorman class M-frigates (this had Stork-Werkspoor diesels, but by the time of the LCF Stork-Werkspoor had been taken over by Wartsila). Earlier dutch ship classes (Tromp, Heemskerck, Kortenaer) had RR Tyne and Olympus Gtus. UK Type 23, Canadian Halifax, Greek Hydra and Norwegian Nansen classes also employed or would employ the Spey.

http://www.rolls-royce.com/marine/markets/naval/conventional_combatants/frigates.jsp
http://www.alacrastore.com/storecontent/Thomson_M&A/Wartsila_Oy_AB_acquires_Stork_Werkspoor_Diesel-129017040
http://www.wartsila.com/nl,en,aboutus,0,generalcontent,0588744D-3EA0-4D03-B3A5-5DAC1DAD30C6,7A521243-5A1A-4DDB-92AE-A97770842D46,,.htm

Can i ask what the F/A-18E has over the MiG-35?, seeing as the indians are already buying a whole lot of MiG-29K’s for their navy, and they already have the infrastructure set up from flying MiG-21’s and 27’s. Additionally, I can see the US being heavy on the sanctions if India ever steps out of line.

That, plus:

The MiG-29 forms three operational squadrons (No.28, No.47 and No.223) in the IAF. A fourth squadron was expected to be raised, however plans for that have been scrapped. IAF MiG-29s have had their share of technical problems, since its induction in 1986. In 1994, a joint aviation venture, the Indo-Russian Aviation Private Ltd., in maintenance & support was set up by HAL and MiG-MAPO and the technical problems were rectified to a satisfactory level. SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) reports that eight MiG-29S Fulcrum-Cs were ordered in 1994 and were delivered by 1996. Also from a SIPRI report is a 1995 order of two MiG-29UB Fulcrum-Bs, which were delivered by 1996.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Aircraft/Specs/index.html

winners

Here’s my selection

Swiss competition: Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen
Indian MRCA: Rafale, Typhoon, F-16I, F-18E, MiG-35, Gripen
Brazil FX: Rafale, Gripen, F-18
Libya (they didn’t sign anything final with Russia yet): Flanker, Rafale
Nederlands: F-35, Gripen

“The Netherlands is following Norway in recommending procurement of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and both defense ministries rank the aircraft’s mission capabilities higher and costs lower than competing multirole fighters.

“The F-35 best meets the requirements drawn up by the Netherlands for the successor to the F-16,” says the Dutch defense ministry, citing the JSF’s better operational availability, mission capability, lower price and anticipated lifecycle costs.”

:rolleyes:

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program is an Internationally oriented program consisting of partnerships with a number of countries. See below for links to the transcripts of the signing ceremonies of the official partnership of each of the programs cooperating partners:

United Kingdom (signed 17 Jan 2001 for $2B)
Italy (signed 24 Jun 2002 for $1B)
Netherlands (signed 17 Jun 2002 for $800M)
Turkey (signed 11 Jun 2002 for $175M)
Canada (signed 7 Feb 2002 for $150M)
Australia* (signed 31 Oct 2002 for $150M)
Denmark (signed 28 May 2002 for $125M)
Norway* (signed 20 Jun 2002 for $125M)

http://www.jsf.mil/program/prog_intl.htm

WHAT COMPETITION?

Weren’t there subs along with those carrier fleets that couldn’t detect that inferior Chinese sub. Shouldn’t they have been the first to detect those subs? And if I recall correctly, one wasn’t detected until it surfaced, popped its hatch and waved to the big bad mighty carrier sailing by. :diablo:

Likewise, in wartime, when it will be hiding, the sub would have to locate the carrier group in the first place, which will not be a piece of cake, compared to peacetime. Let’s not attempt to change this into a discussion about subs and/or superiority/inferiority of China’s technical capabilities. We are discussing how likely it is that 2 new carriers will enter service in 6 years. Don’t try to derail this thread!