dark light

Wanshan

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 286 through 300 (of 3,544 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: INS Vikramaditya: Steaming towards Induction #2011281
    Wanshan
    Participant

    That would be INS Ardha Matanga or INS Airavat and acquires a totally opposite meaning than what it implies in english 😉

    Uhm, no, she commonly referred to as INS Matanga. INS Airavat is not a tug of any kind but a landing ship.

    in reply to: PLAN News Thread #4 #2011285
    Wanshan
    Participant

    Nobody mentioning the J-15 in the hangar ???

    Ken

    mock up

    in reply to: PLAN News Thread #4 #2011287
    Wanshan
    Participant

    You missed my later comment 😉

    right :p

    in reply to: PLAN News Thread #4 #2011366
    Wanshan
    Participant

    She has a very handsome level of interior fit out, and to think people here on this forum said with such certainty that it wouldn’t even be able to move out under its own power!

    I agree she’s given a nice interior. As for the rest of your statement: seeing as she was delivered without functioning propulsion (not nececcarily without engines!), whether or not this was reinstated (or possible to reinstate) was a legitimate issue. Especially since propulsion is internal, and for a long time there was no visual evidence of any changes in propulsion. Prior to sailing, only exhaust plumes suggested there was (we’ve seen no pics of machine room etc.)

    in reply to: INS Vikramaditya: Steaming towards Induction #2011368
    Wanshan
    Participant

    That’s true, but a duplicate can always be made.

    ——

    No need to be mad Wanshan. Vikram is a lemon and no one can change that.

    IN is going to waste a considerable amount of resources on that lemon.

    1. India has INS Matanga.
    2. You are entitled to your opinion. Afaik, it has yet to be determined whether she is a lemon (and, basically, to do that she needs to be in service first). You appear to be confusing the performance of the contractor(s) with that of the ship itself.

    http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XNDUxNDU1NTE2.html

    in reply to: Carrier OR Refund? #2011378
    Wanshan
    Participant

    Refitting the Kennedy would have cost less than they’ve paid for this CV.

    No fleet carrier or nuke carrier has ever been given over to a foreign navy. Most have been scrapped or sunk. A few remain on ‘museum hold’. Only 3 CVL ever transferred and served in foreign navies (Langley, Belleau Wood > France: Cabbot > Spain). Eventually these too were returned to the US and scrapped.

    in reply to: INS Vikramaditya: Steaming towards Induction #2011381
    Wanshan
    Participant

    Was that before or after the accident?

    Obviously, the mishap occurred during the trial run (not the other way around)

    in reply to: INS Vikramaditya: Steaming towards Induction #2011452
    Wanshan
    Participant

    Looks like IN will have to buy Nicholas Chiker tugboat and keep her in Vikram battle group at all times.

    oh please…:mad:

    in reply to: Carrier OR Refund? #2011529
    Wanshan
    Participant

    a discarded european CVS like Principe de Austrias f

    In May 2012 rumours emerged that the Príncipe de Asturias could be withdrawn from active service and placed in a state of “restrictive standby” along with two of the F-80 Santa Maria class frigates due to the financial pressures on the Spanish government. Any decision on the fate of the vessel would have to be taken at the highest possible level due to the status of the ship as the flagship of Spanish Navy.

    NO such decision has been taken yet…. the operant term is ‘considering’

    PdA aside (which only apparently became an option in may 2012), which other Euro CVS’ would have been or are available at the time the Indian’s need to decide? The Invincible class remained in service or went to the breakers when retired. Foch went to Brazil, with Clemenceau providing spares. Garibaldi remains in service. There WERE no available discarded Euro CVS’ and there MAY be 1 in the forseeable future.

    OTherwise, agree

    in reply to: PLAN News Thread #4 #2011704
    Wanshan
    Participant

    Conceivably this is a universal launcher for DH-10,YJ-62,HQ-9,HQ-16,CY-1(anti submarine rocket).

    Well, in that case, given 64 cells on 052D and no deck launchers, I would assume 48 are for SAMs, 8 for YJ-62 AShM and the remaining 8 for DH-10/CJ10, HQ-9 and/or CY-1.

    in reply to: PLAN News Thread #4 #2011707
    Wanshan
    Participant

    Its just a scientific-research vessel :p

    …floating casino, you mean!

    in reply to: Goalkeeper CIWS out of service by 2015 for RN #2011716
    Wanshan
    Participant

    Phalanx, Goalkeeper and Millenium use different approaches to combat their target.

    Phalanx throws a stream of either 60 or 100 penetrator slugs (15mm DU AP, sabotted) at the target in about 1.2 seconds.

    Goalkeeper fires about 15 penetrator slugs (the same 15mm long-rod penetrators as Phalanx, in DU or tungsten, but with more power and speed) at the target in only 0.2 second long bursts, unlike Phalanx with automatic kill assessment after each such burst. This is different from Phalanx in so far as it truely enables combatting multiple targets.

    Millenium places typically 18 small penetrator clouds in its path (total ~2700 55-grain tungsten AP bullets per burst) within 1.0 seconds.

    USN tested Goalkeeper in 1990 as a possible successor to Phalanx (CIWS-2000 tender). Goalkeeper did not show sufficiently higher performance than Phalanx in these tests. Hence the whole CIWS-2000 program was cancelled in favour of upgrading Phalanx. This coincided with Philips selling Signaal to Thomson-CSF, adding a political angle. The CIWS-2000 tests with Goalkeeper involved 12 different targets (Harpoons, Exocets, target drones), all shot down by GK.

    We need also consider reliability (mtbf, stoppages + duration)

    in reply to: Goalkeeper CIWS out of service by 2015 for RN #2011733
    Wanshan
    Participant

    To be honest I am fairly supportive of this plan, any advantages Goalkeeper had over Phalanx have been eroded over the years. The ballistic end performance against a missile of the tungsten darts are similar. The advantage of being able to accept off platform data from the ships FCS that Goalkeeper had is mute as later Phalanx blocks can do the same thing. Phalanx had a couple of interesting upgrade paths with the SeaRAM/RIM116 and LaWS. The cost savings through streamlining of logistics and training can’t be ignored.

    Selling the mounts, spares, logistics equipment and even the ammunition brings good value to the tax payer.

    METRIC DESIGNATION 20 x 102
    RIM DIAMETER 29.5
    NATIONALITY USA
    PROJECTILE HEI / 102
    VELOCITY 1,030
    NAME / WEAPONS 1950s M39, M61, M197 GIAT 20M621

    METRIC DESIGNATION 30 x 173
    RIM DIAMETER 44.0
    NATIONALITY CH / USA
    PROJECTILE HE / 360
    VELOCITY 1,080
    NAME / WEAPONS 1960s (steel) Oe KCA; (alloy) GAU-8/A a/c / CIWS, MK 30, Bushmaster AFV

    http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ammotables.htm

    Just to give an idea of the difference…
    http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/RNpostwar.jpg

    In recent years, the Vulcan 20 mm gun that is the heart of this weapon has increasingly been seen as not being effective enough against modern missile threats. For example, the planned DD(X) destroyers of the USS Zumwalt (DD-1000) class will use the Bofors 57 mm Mark 110 for last-ditch defense and other warships are using the Sea RAM (RIM-116) anti-missile system.

    Phalanx Ammunition

    Type: Fixed
    Weight of Complete Round:
    Mark 149: 0.58 lbs. (0.263 kg)
    Mark 244: N/A
    Projectile Types and Weights
    (see Note 2) APDS Mark 149 – 0.22 lbs. (0.10 kg)
    APDS Mark149-2 – 0.22 lbs. (0.10 kg)
    APDS Mark 149-4 – 0.22 lbs. (0.10 kg)
    APDS ELC Mark 244-0 – 0.33 lbs. (0.15 kg)
    Bursting Charge N/A – Solid Tungsten Penetrator
    Projectile Length 6.62 in (16.8 cm)
    Propellant Charge N/A
    Cartridge 20 x 102 mm
    Muzzle Velocity Mark 149: 3,650 fps (1,113 mps)
    Working Pressure N/A
    Approximate Barrel Life N/A
    Ammunition stowage per gun Block 0: 989 rounds per magazine
    Block 1: 1,550 rounds per magazine

    Range
    Elevation With 0.22 lbs. (0.11 kg) Mark 149-4 APDS
    Range @ 45 degrees 6,000 yards (5,500 m)
    Maximum effective range 1,625 yards (1,490 m)

    Weight Early models: 12,500 pounds (5,625 kg)
    Later models: 13,600 pounds (6,120 kg)

    http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_Phalanx.htm

    GOALKEEPER

    Ammunition
    .
    Type Fixed
    Weight of Complete Round
    PGU-14/B API: 1.62 lbs. (0.735 kg)
    PGU-13/B HE-I: 1.48 lbs. (0.671 kg)
    APDS-T: 1.23 lbs. (0.560 kg)
    FMPDS: 1.37 lbs. (0.620 kg)
    Projectile Types and Weights API: 0.94 lbs. (0.425 kg)
    HE-I: 0.79 lbs. (0.360 kg)
    APDS-T: 0.50 lbs. (0.225 kg)
    FMPDS: 0.52 lbs. (0.234 kg)
    Bursting Charge HE-I: 0.12 lbs. (0.056 kg) HE/Incendiary
    Projectile Length N/A
    Complete Round – 11.4 in (29 cm)
    Propellant Charge 0.33 to 0.34 lbs. (0.150 to 0.156 kg) RP1313 single base propellant
    Cartridge 30 x 173 mm
    Muzzle Velocity API – 3,225 fps (983 mps)
    HE-I: 3,350 fps (1,021 mps)
    APDS-T: 4,019 fps (1,225 mps)
    MPDS: 3,773 fps (1,150 mps)
    Working Pressure N/A
    Approximate Barrel Life N/A
    Ammunition Stowage per gun 1,190 rounds on mounting

    Range.
    Elevation With 0.94 lbs. (0.425 kg) API Penetrator
    Maximum Effective Range about 2,200 yards (2,000 m)
    Min/Max Range 160 to 3,300 yards (150 to 3,000 m)

    Weight On Mount: 14,018 lbs. (6,358 kg) (incl. 1,190 rounds of ammunition)
    Off Mount: 7,766 lbs. (3,523 kg)
    Total: 21,784 lbs. (9,881 kg)

    http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNNeth_30mm_Goalkeeper.htm

    in reply to: Navies news from around the world -IV #2011840
    Wanshan
    Participant
    in reply to: International Talk Like a Pirate Day #2011843
    Wanshan
    Participant

    Dood en duivel. Enteren!
    😎 < pirate with 2 patches

Viewing 15 posts - 286 through 300 (of 3,544 total)