Indeed lots more. What has to be factored in with Varyag is the Chinese were prepared to burn a vast amount of money to get her going. Then again Dalian shipyard is better equipped then Sevmash for the refit work as it has proper dry dock facilities and gantry cranes.

… and, compared to India, their (the Chinese) intent was also different i.e. study her and her plan and use the information in development of a domestic carrier design.

What is this obsession with quad packing?

Quad packing has great value when you already have a large VLS silo, designed & used for a large missile, & you would like to supplement your large, long-range missile with something smaller & shorter range. Quad-packing the small missiles into the large silos has the advantage of flexibility.

If the main or only VL weapon aboard is the aforementioned smaller, shorter range missile, then there’s no point in having the big silos. Why not just fit shorter, slimmer tubes for your shorter, slimmer missiles? Less weight, less space taken up on the ship, probably cheaper to build than big silos + canisters to pack multiple missiles in them.

The only point of quad packing in such circumstances is if you build a shortened version of your big silo, especially for the smaller missiles. The cost savings of commonality of parts & simplified development may outweigh the disadvantages of a non-optimised VLS launcher.

There is no obsession with anything, not in my mind at least. But talk of a supersonic anti ship cruise missile for these ships pretty much automatically brings you to a very limited range of missiles, all of which VL from large VLUs. And also come in land-attack variant though only family also includes an ASROC-like missile. So, I don’t see the problem.

Besides, even in the presence of large VLUs, it is not a necessity these will also be used for SAM: there can also be additional smaller VLU’s. Or a Kashtan or Palma like system.

Of course, you could also park a bunch of quad Uran launchers or a couple of DLU’s for Brahmos/Onyx… and yadayada…

I was just looking for a few places that would not interphere (much) with deck and hangar.
[roll eyes]

http://www.armstass.su/?page=article&aid=104085&cid=24

Russian Mistrals, unlike the French Navy ones, will have stronger anti-air, anti missile, and anti-submarine defenses.

Much in line with the Russian/USSR naval tradition/doctrine/philosophy of comparatively heavier arming of landing ships & craft and auxiliaries, I would think.

The latest Russian weapons systems and the impact of a defensive purpose, including supersonic cruise missile will be installed on all four landing ships, helicopter-dock (DVKD) type “Mistral”, built for the Navy as in France, and Russia.

“It is planned that the first two” Mistral “French-built, and the next two DVKD built already in Russia will be equipped with the latest domestic weapons systems, including launchers supersonic cruise missiles, the latest anti-missile systems and complexes, antiaircraft and antisubmarine warfare , “- said the source.

“DVKD our Navy must not only control the actions of the various branches of the naval groups (surface ships, submarines, naval aviation), or even acts of interspecies gangs on the sea and ocean theaters of war, not only deliver and disembark the Marines on armored vehicles to using helicopters and landing craft, but must themselves have sufficient firepower and punch to be complete intrinsically safe multifunction warships in these groups, “- he stressed.

“That is why Russian DVKD will be equipped with cruise missiles with increased range shooting, the latest anti-aircraft missile, and the PLO”, – concluded the source of the General Staff.

(google translation)

Forrestal (AVT 59, ex-CV 59), Saratoga (CV 60), Ranger (CV 61), Independence (CV 62), Kitty Hawk (CV 63), Constellation (CV 64) and John F. Kennedy (CV 67).

Carrier disposal proves a challenge for Navy

Dismantling of ex-FORRESTAL (AVT 59), ex-INDEPENDENCE (CV 62) and ex-CONSTELLATION (CV 64)

1/26/2012 – The Navy has released a pre-solicitation announcement in FedBizOpps.gov for the dismantling of ex-FORRESTAL (AVT 59), ex-INDEPENDENCE (CV 62) and ex-CONSTELLATION (CV 64). Further information is available at FedBizOps

http://www.navsea.navy.mil/teamships/Inactiveships/Inactiveships_News.aspx

Towing and complete dismantlement of multiple CV-59/CV-63 Class Aircraft Carriers in the United States

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=ce6de50e17d6f1e16841b33603f8ee26&tab=core&_cview=0

Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for the proposed dismantling of ex-FORRESTAL (AVT 59)

08/09/2011 – The Department of the Navy (DON) announces that an Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) have been completed for the dismantling of ex-FORRESTAL (AVT 59). This was required because ex-FORRESTAL was determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Ex-FORRESTAL had been available for donation between May 1997 and December 2003.

http://www.navsea.navy.mil/teamships/Inactiveships/Inactiveships_News.aspx

Disposition of Inactive Aircraft Carriers

10/4/2010 – The Navy is currently soliciting ex-SARATOGA (CV 60) for dismantling. The Navy’s priority order for the disposal of remaining inactive aircraft carriers is ex-FORRESTAL (AVT 59), ex-INDEPENDENCE (CV 62) and ex-CONSTELLATION (CV 64). The following inactive aircraft carriers are not designated for disposal: Ex-KITTY HAWK (CV 63) is a retention asset for possible future reactivation, and ex-RANGER (CV 61) and ex-JOHN F KENNEDY (CV 67) are on donation hold for possible future donation as museums/memorials.

http://www.navsea.navy.mil/teamships/Inactiveships/Inactiveships_News.aspx

Ex-SARATOGA and ex-FORREST SHERMAN Available for Dismantling

4/2/2010 – The Secretary of the Navy Provided notification to Congress that ex-SARATOGA (CV 60) and ex-FORREST SHERMAN (DD 931) have been removed from donation hold and have been re-designated for dismantling. On April 8, 2010, NAVSEA released a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the dismantling of ex-SARATOGA. On April 9, 2010, SUPSHIP Bath, ME released an RFP for the dismantling of ex-FORREST SHERMAN.

http://www.navsea.navy.mil/teamships/Inactiveships/Inactiveships_News.aspx

Availability of the Aircraft Carrier ex-JOHN F KENNEDY (CV 67) for Donation as a Ship Museum/Memorial

2/2/2010 – Following the November 23, 2009 Federal Register notice advertising the availability of ex-JFK for donation, three responses were received by the January 22, 2010 deadline for Phase I application documentation, consisting of letters of intent and executive summaries of their proposals. Two of the organizations provided acceptable Phase I documentation and have been authorized to proceed with development of their Phase II documentation, consisting of business/financial and environmental plans. Phase II documentation is due to the Navy by February 2, 2011.

@ Wanshan, yes quite true, but the small ASW corvettes are much smaller than the Kamorta. Just found it curious for an ASW specific ship, for example 20380 and 22350 have huge bulbs on the front bow.

Dagestan also does not have it (at all), but it is smaller and not ASW oriented by any means.
Talwar is quite a bit bigger than Kamorta, and it has a more substantial sonar emplacement on the front, though not the size of the ships previously mentioned.
The Vietnamese ordered two more Gepards, supposedly these will be for the purpose of ASW rather than surface warfare (as opposed to 1st two) so it will be interesting to see what sonar arrangement they go for.

Anyways, just musing. Thanks for the info!

Kashin class

Displacement: 3950 tons standard, 4974 tons full load.

Sonar: Originally fitted with a hull mounted Vycheda MG 311 sonar with active search & attack with medium frequency. Also has a ‘Mare Tail’ variable depth sonar in active search with medium frequency. Since replaced with HUMSA during course of refits.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Ships/Active/181-Rajput-Class.html

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Galleries/Art/Grotnik/Rajput.jpg.html

Delhi class model (I think this is similar to Kashin: underhull sonar)

Sonar: The first two vessels in the series – INS Delhi and INS Mysore – have a Bharat APSOH (Advanced Panoramic Sonar Hull) hull-mounted sonar, which provides active search with medium frequency and a Garden Reach Model 15-750 variable depth sonar, also known as HUMVAAD, which is mounted in a Canadian Indal-designed ‘fish’ deployed from a ramp in the transom. INS Mumbai features more advanced sonar systems, namely a Thales ATAS (Advanced Towed Array Sonar) system and a Bharat HUMSA (Hull Mounted Sonar Array) system.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Ships/Active/182-Delhi-Class.html

More from Grotnik’s page on BR:

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Galleries/Art/Grotnik/Mumbai.jpg.html

Project 16A Brahmaputra class model (courtesy of the late B. Harry at ACIG.org)

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_419.shtml

Type 16A (Brahmaputra Class) and Type 16 (Godavari Class) frigates

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Galleries/Art/Grotnik/Brahmaputra.jpg.html

G-class:

Sonar: The Bharat APSOH; hull mounted and provides active panoramic search & attack with medium frequency. The vessels also have a Fathoms Oceanic VDS (Variable Depth Sonar) and Type 162M sonar, which provides bottom classification with high frequency. INS Ganga has a Thomson Sintra DSBV 62; passive towed array sonar with very low frequency.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Ships/Active/178-Godavari-Class.html

B-class:

Sonar: Bharat HUMSA (Hull Mounted Sonar Array), active panoramic search and attack; medium frequency. Also has Thales (Thomson Marconi Sonar) Sintra towed array sonar. No VDS (Variable Depth Sonar).

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Ships/Active/179-Brahmaputra-Class.html

Project 1143 Vikramaditya (formerly Admiral Gorskhov)

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Galleries/Art/Grotnik/Gorshkov_001.jpg.html

sonar MGK-335 «Platina», sonar MG-342 «Orion» (Novorossiysk – sonar MGK-355 «Polinom»), sonar MGS-407K

http://russian-ships.info/eng/warships/project_1143.htm
Detail discussion of sonar fits here.

I think that settles the size issue …. 😉

This was not posted earlier…

https://www.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/20120209_03.html

There was few posts in an earlier thread which talked about the A-50 endurance….in which I also replied. If I remember correctly, the talk likely came up with the “huge” 9hrs endurance (one way) of Israeli G550 AEW and the comparatively “low” endurance of the A-50.

I had pointed out then that, the patrol endurance of the A-50 on station is over 4hrs@1000km from the base and the overall endurance of the A-50 is likely to be over 9hrs if we take the two way trip to the patrol area and back.

Berive quotes an endurance figure (on station) of over 4hours without refueling and 7hours with refueling from the base, which they say can be changed upon customers request. The recent patrol near the Japanese coast have given us a confirmation that the endurance for A-50 on station is over 9 hours.

I don’t know which model it is, but my guess is it has to be the old D-30KP (?) powered A-50. If this is indeed the old model, it is likely that the new models (or upgraded A-50, incl A-50EI) installed with the more fuel-efficient PS-90A engines is going to have a better performance figure.

But the missing link (for me) in the whole stuffs is the Japanese have not reported the presence of any tanker in or during the patrol and the 9hours reported for the A-50 on station is without the tanker support….. and that endurance is truly amazing. more info & theory on the A-50 endurance considering this recent patrol would be very welcome.

tohoku region

The Chugoku Region (中国地方, Chūgoku Chihō, literally “central country”) makes up the western part of Japan’s main island Honshu. It is commonly subdivided into the heavily urbanized and industrialized Sanyo region along the Seto Inland Sea coast and the much less developed, rural Sanin region along the Sea of Japan coast.

http://www.en.rian.ru/world/20120209/171225017.html

Antonov An-12 & Shaanxi Y-8
Powerplants
An-12 – Four 2490kW (3495shp) Ivchenko AI-20K turboprops driving AV68 four blade constant speed propellers.
Y-8A – Four 3170kW (4250shp) Zhuzhou WJ-6 turboprops driving four blade constant speed propellers.
Performance
An-12 – Max speed 777km/h (420kt), max cruising speed 670km/h (361kt). Range with max payload 3600km (1940nm), range with full fuel load 5700km (3075nm).
Y-8A – Max speed 660km/h (357kt), economical cruising speed 530km/h (286kt). Range with max fuel load 5615km (3030nm), range with max payload 1275km (690nm).

http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=35
(wonder what was considered the max payload for An-12 and Y8A, in view of the rather substantial dif in max range with max payload…)

The Y-8 MPA can conduct day or night operations during all weather conditions. The aircraft can fly at a maximum speed of 662km/h. It has a range of 5,620km and service ceiling of 10,400m. The flight endurance is 10.5 hours.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/y8xmaritimepatrolair/

Range: Ferry range 5,620km

http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/specialaircraft/y8mpa.asp

By comparison Il76:

Range: 4,300 km (Il-76)[nb 4] () with 50 tonne max payload

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Il-76

Performance

Il-76T – Max speed 850km/h (460kt), cruising speed 750 to 800km/h (405 to 430kt). Max range with reserves 6700km (3615nm), range with 40 tonne (88,185lb) payload 5000km (2700nm). Il-76TD – Speeds same. Range with max payload 3650km (1970nm), with 20 tonne (44,090lb) payload 7300km (3940nm).
Il-76MF – Cruising speed range 750 to 780km/h (405 to 420kt). Range with 40 tonne (88,185lb) payload 5200km (2805nm).

http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=251

Il-78

Range: 7,300 km (3,942 nmi, 4,551 mi)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Il-78

Beriev A-50

Range: 6,400 km (3,977 mi)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beriev_A-50

I think the conclusion from comparison of these numbers should be that A-50 endurance is at least 10,5 hrs and probably more. Endurance A-50 slight less than Il76 without PS90. Surpricingly, range difference between Il-76 with/without PS90 appears relatively small.

These are conclusions under assumtion quoted data is correct (which need not be the case)

Shaping up quite nicely! Any more pics which give a better view or different aspect?

Refresh my memory: this does get Barak vl-sam but no SSM/AShM (i.e. that role picked up by ship helicopter)?