I’d spend the entire defence budget on converting it into a Arsenal Ship with a 1000 cell VLS π
Heyt, that’s a great idea!!!
Given the current dealings with Spain for large naval vessels, and Spain’s cooperation with the Netherlands having resulted in co-development of an AOR, they may have a good product to replace the Durance class vessel.
The 170m-long tanker I’m talking about was designed under a joint initiative between Navantia (formerly Bazan, then Izar) in Spain and the Dutch Netherlands United Shipbuilding Bureau Ltd (NEVESBU) based in the Hague. The Spanish Ministry of Defence ordered the Patino fleet logistic tanker in December 1991. The Patino, which carries the pennant number A14, was built at Navantia’s Ferrol shipyard and was launched in the summer of 1994. The Netherland’s Amsterdam class fast combat support ship, of a very similar design, was built by Merwede and Royal Shelde and commissioned in 1995. Spain and the Netherlands were also pursuing a joint LPD programme which resulted in the Rotterdam for the RNlN and the Galicia for the Spanish Navy.
For info on the Spanish version, see: http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/patino/


Forget the D and the H in LHD for this baby.
Translation from portugese to englkish suggests that in 2001: “the ship was brought alongside in the Armory of Navy of Rio De Janeiro, where the inspection was submitted technique for naval engineers and technician, being later docado in the Levee Admiral RΓ©gis, similar of being converted into Ship of Logistic Support.”
So, she’ll be a logistic support ship.
It is a containership so they could equip here “Arapaho”-style or like Atlantic Conveyor and have her support transport helicopters. This would require getting rid of at least one of the two large on-board cranes. So probably she will be serving as T-AK (sea lift of cargo & vehicles, munitions and supplies). Maybe munitions and other supply tasks for long duration deployment of carrier group.
IIRC there should be a rough drawing of Gibb & Cox AWD over in the image bank of defensetalk.com and/or NCIG forum of ACIG.org …. Ah, there I have it.
It is not an exact russian Top-plate, but a Chinese reverse engineering product called “Sea Eagle”S/C radar. The “Sea Eagle”S/C radars are in mass production for 051C,052B and 054A warships.
If they are installing a russian SAM on there (Rif-M) with a Russian firecontrol radar (Tombstone) then you can bet that’s a russian search radar (Top Plate / Fregat MAE)
Also, what makes you say Sea Eagle is reversed engineered? Just because it looks like the Fregat series radars? It may well that it’s a licence produced modifed version of that russian radar. After all, why do it the hard way when you can get it the easy way: licence producing is easier (more efficient) than reverse engineering. Also, wouldn’t putting into mass production a reverse engineered modern russian radar negatively affect sino-russian arms trade relations? I don’t buy it.
Folks, this thread is about the OSA-AKM system, NOT S-400. Let’s try to stay on topic, I would be interested in more detail on the OSA upgrade. If I wanted to read about S400, I would have chosen another thread.
1: 1st 051C close up
2: i think you can spot 2 051Cs’
Close up: dang! that IS a Tombstone radar on the rear superstructure!
the USS Kearsarge looks kinda rusty…n well not so appealing…..has the US navu at least thot of giving it a paint job?
Not sure that’s a recent picture.
Below a pic from March 25, 2005.
April 19 2005
What would an AS-16 traveling at Mach 5 do to a Destroyer? π
While it is bigger and heavier than an Exocet, it has a smaller warhead. So, I expect, probably a bit but not a whole lot more than an Exocet would. Depends on which target is hit. (compare HMS Sheffield and USS Stark)
Ah, at last, someone who can make sense of it all :diablo:
f16 as replacement for dragonfly!?!? sounds like an upgrade to a different league to me.
Grads were issued with single round launchers for use by special forces. When properly used and aimed by those who know what they are doing it can be a very effective weapon. An area target like a ship would be engaged with multiple weapons from different single round launchers and the effect on target would be reasonably spectacular, if no overly effective. (Against a ship it might start a fire and cause a bit of external shrapnel damage but would be very unlikely to actually sink anything).
Exactly my point: if they had really wanted to do this right they could have, even with Grad rockets
In other words, by using Katyusha’s (or some other similar rocket), with known qualities and shortcomings, the shooters indicate that they hoped to get a lucky shot in and that they did not concern themselves with any possible collateral damage whatsoever. Also, imho, it indicates they were not really determined to do damage to USN ships, or else they would have chosen a different method of delivering explosives.
These are the ships the terrorist thankfuly missed.
USS Ashland
USS Kearsarge
And they are both HUGE!!!!! (How can you miss those??)
what is this – torpedo ?
yep