Ive noticed alot of navy destroyers and cruisers have huge structures on deck, but why? Why cant they just make the hull larger and put whatever compartments and equipment that are in the deck structures inside the hull? As funny as it sounds, the only reason I can think of is looks, a ship looks more formidable with large deck housings. But really the only thing they do is raise the center of gravity and unstablize the ship.

It is not a coincidence that all images you showed with your question are AEGIS equipped ships, with massive antennea which need to be placed somewhere other than on a mast. As you may notice, new generation SPY is getting smaller, small enough to be mast mounted.

Not all cruisers and destroyers have such a big superstructure. Check for example the USN Vriginia CGN. About the same armament as Ticonderoga but larger and no AEGIS.

Wanshan , I always believe that upgrades to existing old system like SA-N-1 is just a temporary solution , At best It would be a SA-N-1 on Steroids , The upgrade looks good on paper , but the fact remains that SA-N-1 are 60’s system which is facing a 21century threat , Low RCS Supersonic/subsonic Sea Skimming Missile , PGM and advanced aircraft .The Rajput class as very well maintained by the Navy , so it should serve atleast 10 to max 15 years in the Navy.

If it is cost effective , They should think about plugging Shtil-1 system in to it , Shouldnt be a problem replacing the Head Net 3D radar with a Half or Top Plate and Orekh FCR That kind of upgrade shoud make the Rajputs/Ranvijay a potent ship for Air/Surface/Sub Surface threat for many years to come.

I already suggested VL Shtil. Still I think upgrading current missile system is best solution, esp. considering Barak as back-up. Better to save some money now to invest in brand new ships later.

If they go ahead and get the Invincible, they will have 3 within the next 3 years or so (Vikad, viraat, invincible). Add to that the ADS by 2012 (if all goes as planned), you may get 4 in the next 7 years. Why is 5 so impossible by 2020 considering they plan to build two ADS types anyway? I realize the scenario of 5 is optimistic, but 3 by 2010-12 sounds very possible (esp. if they get the invincible).

Well, consider that the Invincible class ships are OLDER (Invincible commisioned 1980, Illustrious in 1982, Ark Royal in 1985) already than the Gorshkov (commissioned in 1987). Same age group as IN Kashin destroyers. Also while Gorshkov was non-operation from 1993 onwards and is now getting a major refurbishing, the Invincible class ships have been operational all the time and probably wouldn’t get a similar refurbishment.

If and when the first ADS enters service in 2012, the Invincile will be 32 and Ark Royal 27 years old. By 2020 these ships will be between 35 and 40 years old and due replacement. Looking at Hermes/Viraat, you might still get another 10-15 years out of them if you had to, but still their usefulness for power projection would remain limited. At best I would use them – with Gorshkov – as stop gap while building up the number of larger, new ADS to the desired minimum level of 3. As more ADS become available, they could be relegated to pure ASW or heliborne assault roles.

However, in addition to the vessel age issue (and, in relation to that, the age of ship technology and wear), there is the issue of manning and escorting to consider. Manning 5 rather than 3 carriers in itself puts a drain on manpower resources. Furthermore, more carriers means more aircraft, i.e. more pilots and maintenance crews. Also, carriers need escorts and so more carriers need more escorts, which in turn translates to even greater manpower needs. Not only do all these folks need to be recruited and trained, they also need to be fed, clothed and paid for the duration. Then add the cost of operating 5 rather than 3 carrier groups (fuel, stores etc, all logistics and maintenance involved). We’re talking big big buck here.

So, it is not just a matter of “can we get some more flat topped hulls” …

“The Rafale A continued to perform test flights in support of the development program. Although not capable of carrier operations, its flight test program included approaches and “touch and go” landings on the carriers CLEMENCEAU and FOCH to see if the design had any inherent “show stoppers” for carrier operations. As it turned out, the Rafale A’s approach speed was even lower than that of the Super Etendard and the Crusader. “
Source

“In 1963, Ling-Temco-Vought went on to manufacture one more new-production model of the aircraft for a foreign buyer. This was the “F-8E(FN)”, built for the French Aeronavale (naval air arm). There was one major problem with the sale: French carriers were smaller than American carriers, and this dictated new engineering to reduce the aircraft’s landing speed. Experiments had been performed some years earlier with a modified early production Crusader to such an end, but the US Navy found the existing landing performance adequate and did not adopt the modifications. However, the experiments pointed the way towards meeting the Aeronavale requirement.

The drooping leading edge of the wing was split lengthwise, while the droop of the ailerons and flaps was also doubled, greatly increasing the camber. A “blown flaps” or “boundary layer control (BLC)” scheme was also added, in which air from the engine’s high-pressure compressor was also fed through nozzles over the wings to blow over the flaps, providing lift at low speeds. The wing incidence was reduced by two degrees and the tail was enlarged slightly. The result of the changes was to reduce approach speed by 28 KPH (15 knots). In principle, BLC would make landings the aircraft less of an adventure. The changes were first tested on a modified F-8D in late February 1964, but this aircraft crashed in April. The first production item flew in June 1964 and was used to complete the test program.

The F-8E(FN) was generally similar to the F-8E. The French aircraft had the same weapons fit as the conventional F-8E, but also had the capability to carry two Matra R.530 AAMs, and eventually would also be able to carry four Matra Magic R.550 heat-seeking missiles, in place of Sidewinders. The exhaust from the big Matra R.530 was hotter than that of the Sidewinder and required the installation of some small titanium blast deflectors to protect the aircraft. The French Crusaders were the very last new-production F-8s built.

The Crusader proved so valuable to the US Navy and Marine Corps that in 1965 a remanufacturing program was initiated to refurbish existing models and add enhancements. Improvements included stronger wings with a longer service life; stronger main landing gear derived from the Vought A-7A Corsair II strike aircraft; a longer and stronger nosewheel strut; and the double-droop leading edge and BLC scheme devised for the French Aeronavale Crusaders.

Source

So if 100 knots is for standard US machines, then the French machines had a landing speed of only 85 knots. Or else, the 100 knots is for the French machines but then the regular machines land at about 115 knots. Unless of course the upgrade to US machines eliminated the difference in landing speeds between french and US planes altogether, in which case we’re left with 100 knots for all.

INS Ranvir and/or Ranvijay.

As on the Delhi, two AK-630s and the associated Bass Tilt radars have been replaced by the Baraks and two STGRs.

As with the upgraded P15s, the Head Net gets replaced by the STAR and the Big Net by the RAWL. Have’nt seen the latter itself.

isnt INS rajput close to 25 yrs old most russian vessels in IN arsenal havent been operational longer than that?

Many of the earlier ships did show some degradation in their material state before decommissioning. There are no plans to let any Rajputs go, for now.

Ok, one of the newest pair of Rajput class, that makes sense. Was wondering about that, since the oldest Rajput – the first of class – was used as trials platform for Brahmos.

RAWL was already already mounted on the IN Kashin (053 INS Ranjit) that visited Shanghai, November 11, 2003. There was a nice thread on this over at CDF (“Indian navy visit to shanghai”)

… it almost sounds like the IN is installing different portions of an upgrade on different Kashins (Bhramos<>Rajput, RAWL<>Ranjit, Barak<> Ranvir and/or Ranvijay)…

The F-18 Hornet is based on the earlier Northrop YF-17 Cobra. The US Navy felt that Northrop’s concept offered greater potential than F-16 as a replacement for the aging A-7 Corsair attack fighter. The F-18 successfully entered service with both the Navy and Marine Corps during the mid-1980s as a replacement for the A-7 and F-4 Phantom II. You’ld think these aircraft have more or less similar landings speeds, right?

The results of a little googling:
F-4 Phantom II landing speed: 145 knots (about 167 mph)
F/A-18A Hornet landing speed: 150 mph
The Grumman F-14s landing speed: 125 knots (about 144 mph)
LTV (Vought) A-7A Corsair II landing speed: 139 mph (A-7C: 128 mph)
Douglas A-4A Skyhawk landing speed: 124 mph

Note: all have greater landing speed than 100 knots claimed for Crusader!

“Before the introduction of the ‘tri-service’ designation system this aircraft was known as the F8U. It originally was a fast dayfighter, but later models were capable of all-weather operations. The problem of putting a powerful, heavy supersonic fighter on a carrier deck was solved by giving the F-8 a variable incidence wing, and it could operate even from smaller carriers. The Crusaders sold to the French ‘Aeronavale’ had further modifications to reduce landing speed. “
Source

Q: Do all or just the French F8s have a landing speed of 100 knots (about 115 mph)?

Irrelevant. Despite their outmoded ways they haven’t had a problem developing world beating technology. Maybe we should all switch back.

In fact, afaik, the US officially adopted the metric system. In practice, however, they just never did anything about actually changing over….

:rolleyes: