WanshanDoes anyone know what those things circled in red are? The image is taken from BR and shows the brahmaputra.
http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_STORAGE/FILES/4/824.pdf
WanshanKewl pics, Eagle, thx.
WanshanAnyone got a pic of Nimrod carrying Sidewinder?
WanshanCavour is a realy great looking boat!:eek:
Boat?! That’s a great looking ship.
WanshanС Новым годом. С Новым годом к вам слишком.
Wanshanwell I suspect that that pic I posted has nothing to do with reality, someone just made a picture of Sverldov’s linedrwing and placed a Scrubber launcher there, as all sources speaking of Nakhimov speaks of different missile than Scrubber…
10KhM, a pre-scrubber development of the V1
WanshanHey, I remember seeing that one before …
SS-N-1 ‘Scrubber’
Type: Anti-ship cruise missile
Soviet designation: P-1A, P-1B Shchuka
Designer: Chelomey
Lenght: 7.6 m
Diameter: 0.9 m
Span: 4.6 m
Launch weight: 3,100 kg
Maximum range: 185 km
Maximum speed: Mach 0.9
Propulsion: Solid-propellant rocket booster + turbojet sustainer
Guidance: Command + active radar terminal homing
Fire Control: Top Bow (Zalp)
Warhead: 500 kg HE or nuclear
Operational: Entered service in 1959, phased out in the late 1960s
Platforms: Kildin, Krupny
The development of the P-1 missile began in the mid-1950s, and a prototype launcher was installed aboard the Sverdlov-class cruiser Admiral Nakhimov in the late 1950s. One launcher with a magazine of 4-6 missiles was installed on the quarterdeck of the four Kildin-class rocket ships completed in 1959-1960. Whereas the Kildins were based on Kotlin-class destroyers, their successor, the Krupny-class, was based on the Kruplin-class. Eight Krupny-class ships were completed in 1960-1961. They were fitted with two launchers, one forward and aft, each having a magazine of 8-10 missiles.
The P-1 missile was a derivation of the German Fi 103 flying bomb. Its range was restricted by the acquisition range of the ship’s surveillance radars against surface targets, a maximum of about 40 kilometers. Before launch, the missile had to be run out on to the missile launcher from its armoured hangar and warmed up. The performance of the missile was unreliable and reloading the launcher was difficult, or in heavy seas even impossible. The P-1A needed guidance until impact, whereas the P-1B had its own active radar terminal seeker. At one time it was envisionaged to use a Ka-10M helicopter to increase the range of the missile. The helicopter transmitted a television picture of the target to a missile controller aboard the launch ship. However, the system was not deployed operationally.
http://personal.inet.fi/cool/foxfour/sovmis/sovmis-ss-n.html
Both the United States and the Soviet Union “exported” Fi 103 missiles for duplication and further development. The US Navy developed a version called JB-2 Loon, which was designed to be launched from submarine. (216) In the USSR, Vladimir Chelomei, who experimented with pulsating engines himself, later developed a Soviet version of the Fi 103 missile, known as 10 KhN.
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/fi103.html
Later, Chelomei proposed the Soviet Air Force new versions of his cruise missiles — 14Kh and 16Kh — designed for launch in midair from long-range bombers like Pe-8 and Tu-4. Ground based and navy versions of the same cruise missiles, known as 10 KhN and 10KhM, were also under development.
WanshanAdmiral Nakhimov:
Admiral Nakhimov was completed to the standard design. In 1955 she was modified under Project 67EP for use in SSM tests. A twin arm launcher was added forward and 24 test launches were made in 1956. She was decommissioned on 29th August 1960 and scrapped at Sevastopol between 1961 and 1962.
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/aj.cashmore/russia/cruisers/sverdlov/history.html
Project 70E modified Sverdlov class cruiser Dzerzhinsky in the Mediterranean on 3 April 1970. Completed in 1952 as a light cruiser (Project 68bis), she was rebuilt with in the early 1960’s with an M-2 Volkhov SAM system (NATO SA-N-2 ‘Guideline’) replacing her aft turrets. She was an active unit of the Black Sea Fleet until her 1987 decommissioning, frequently deploying to the Mediterranean.
http://www.hazegray.org/features/russia/guncru.htm
WanshanThe main reasson was that it was to dangerous to fly heavily loaded fighter aircraft on wet runways and the idea was dropped……
They did fly Pucaras, MB339A, T-34 Mentor, F-28, L-133 and C-130 in and out. Apparently, the problem was mainly runway length being too short for the faster jetfighters, and threat of surprise air attack. Stanley’s main runway was about 918m-1,250m (depending on source). Even though Argentina laid metal plates at the run way ends, the length was still below the minimum braking distance for wet weather, so no Argentine fast jets operated from Stanley. Looking at the data, and knowing delta winged Daggers have a long take-off run, since flaps are not practical, you would think they could still have flown Hotrods or Etendards with just 2 sidewinders (and possibly a fuel tank)?! Possibly using e.g. JATO bottles during take of and arrester cables during landing?
A-4 Skyhawk
Empty weight: 10,450 lb (4,750 kg)
Loaded weight: 18,300 lb (8,318 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 24,500 lb (11,136 kg)
T-O run (at 10,433 kg; 23,000 lb T-O weight):
F: 1,030 m (3,380 ft)
M: 832 m (2,730 ft)
http://www.geocities.com/usarmyaviationdigest/fighterinabox.htm
WanshanOperational Sea Cat SAM and some land-based Roland SAM and twin 35mm AAA nearby would make air attack more challenging. If the Argentinians had immediately based some jetfighters on the islands as well….
WanshanAnd remember the chinese turret is bit different than the russian one. The chinese one is more angluar and edgy(??)
It is more angular but judging from pics on previous page not any wider, and possibly slightly taller than the original.
WanshanI wondered what your reactions are. How would the Harriers (presumably GR3s) be tasked with taking the Belgrano out of action? Would the Vulcans have had a chance of a hit? Is the author correct in assuming that all of the guns were actually serviceable? Were they acurate enough to represent a threat to individual frigates of the taskforce?
She was built as USS Phoenix (CL-46), the sixth of the Brooklyn-class light cruisers, in New Jersey by the New York Shipbuilding Corporation starting in 1935, and launched in March 1938. She survived the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. USS Phoenix (CL-46) was decommissioned on 3 July 1946, and remained at Philadelphia until sold to Argentina, 9 April 1951. She was commissioned in the Argentine Navy as Diecisiete de Octubre (C-4) on 17 October 1951, renamed General Belgrano in 1956. In the 1970’s she was modernised and equipped with British Seacat short-range missiles, and Dutch radar, although she retained her original battery of fifteen 6-inch guns as her “main” armament. She was to have been fitted with French Exocet sea-skimming surface-to-surface missiles, but these were in the event never installed. Armament:
15 x 6 in (152 mm) guns,
8 x 5 in (127 mm) AA guns,
40 mm and 20 mm anti-aircraft guns,
2 British Sea Cat missile AA systems (added 1968)
2 helicopters
IN respons to the last question: yes! Consider this from WW2:
“In the battle of Leyte Gulf, Phoenix was a unit of Admiral Jesse Oldendorf’s group which annihilated the Japanese Southern Force in the battle of Surigao Strait. Phoenix fired four spotting salvoes, and when the fourth hit, opened up with all of her 6 inch (152 mm) batteries. The target later proved to be the Japanese battleship Yamashiro, which sank after 27 minutes of concentrated fire from the American fleet.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Phoenix_(CL-46)
In the book “Triumph in the Pacific” by Chester Nimitz it says on p.119:
“In 18 minutes, Oldendorfs 6 battleships and 8 cruisers (4 heavy, 4 light) fired nearly 300 14″ and 16″ rounds and 4000 6″ and 8″ projectiles.” The latter guns being on cruisers. Heavy cruisers had 9x 8″ guns in 3 turrets of 3 and lighter cruisers had 15x 6″ guns in 5 turrets of 3 guns. So, assuming an equal rate of fire for 6″and 8″ guns, and a total of 96 main guns on cruisers, this means 42 rounds per available gun in 18 minutes or about 2.3 rounds per gun per minute. Considering 15x 6″ guns on board Belgrano, thats 35 (and probably more) 6″ rounds per minute that she can deliver. And radars did improve since WW2 so I would assume accuracy did not deteriorate.
As for servicability, USS Boise was sold to Argentina 11 January 1951 along with her sister USS Phoenix, where she was commissioned as the ARA Nueve de Julio (“9 July”, Argentina’s Independence Day). During her years as an Argentinian warship she took part of the so called Revolución Libertadora, shelling some oil depots and other targets around the coastal city of Mar del Plata, on September 19, 1955. She remained in service with the Argentine Navy until 1978, when she was decommissioned and towed to Japan for scrapping. I would assume this yielded parts to keep Belgrano in service. There is no a priori reason to assume her guns and firecontrol were not functional, or is there? Iowa class main guns remained in proper service for at least as long.
As for being taken out by air assets, remember that while Brooklyn survived damaged by fire from coastal guns, Philadelphia and Savannah both survived a hit by a German Fritz-X glide bomb, Nashville survived a hit by a kamikaze, Boise survived hits by Japanese cruiser fire and Honollulu survived a hit in the bow by an air-dropped torpedo.
WanshanFor anybody who’s interested in doing a bit of calculating of the dimensions of that LPD (shouldn’t it be LSD “landing ship dock” if its main role is to dock and transport 4 LCACs? LPD is “amphibious transport, dock” carries fewer LCAC and more troops/cargo), the over all length of the russian AK-176 76mm naval gun is 4.484 m. Mind you, that’s just the gun, you need to add some length to the turret rear. It’s 76,2/59.
WanshanBTW, for all those Americans out there hung up on coastguards – I don’t think that’s appropriate. Jonesy made it clear he’s not thinking solely of local waters, & coastguards can’t really be deployed around the world.
No? What’s the USCG doing in the Persian Gulf then? Fishing?
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/natres/oil/2004/0630protector.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/29/gulf.coast.guard/index.html
http://www.uscg.mil/history/PersianGulfChron.html
WanshanI read that the RAN wants a Sealift Ship to back-up the LHD’s as a replacement of the Tobruk. And it wants to replace the AORs. Why not replace these ship with one type. The Dutch and the Canadian are doing this. The Dutch designs differs slightly from the Canadian, but it is a Joint Support Ship in all aspects. And probably really capable of supporting the Naval ships, Naval air assets and Marines in the theatre of operations:
Joint Support Ship
In fact a combination of the Enforcer design with the Amsterdam AOR design.
Uhm, you mean to say this is already the definitive Dutch JLSS/JLOS design? I thought these were preliminary drawings?
Sign In
