dark light

Wanshan

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 751 through 765 (of 3,544 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Navies news from around the world -III #2006102
    Wanshan
    Participant

    Canadian navy has wrong torpedoes for subs

    From this article:

    The country’s stock of second-hand submarines – already beleaguered with repairs and upgrades — is incapable of firing the MK-48 torpedoes they currently own.

    When Canada purchased its current fleet of four submarines from Britain in 1998, they were fitted for British torpedoes. At the time, Canada was heavily invested with the modern MK-48 torpedo system and did not want to abandon it.

    Like any shopper trying to justify a second-hand purchase in the face of an obstacle, they figured it was still a good deal. They “Canadianized” the submarines, but, 13 year later, they still haven’t got around to the “weaponization” part.

    “The Canadian Forces has always intended for the Victoria Class submarines to carry and fire the Mark 48 torpedo,” wrote Denise LaViolette, the director of navy public affairs, in an email. “Initial weapons certification will be progressed early in 2012 in HMCS Victoria for Pacific operations followed that year by HMCS Windsor for Atlantic operations.”

    I doubt the lack of certification means these subs can’t actually physically fire a Mk48 and use it effectively.

    Weapons Systems

    The submarine has six 533 mm (21 in) bow torpedo tubes equipped with two air-turbine pump discharge systems. The tubes could be used for Marconi Tigerfish Mk 24 Mod 2 or Spearfish torpedoes. sub-Harpoon missiles or mines could be used in place of torpedoes.

    In Canadian service, the sub-Harpoon missile firing and mine-laying capabilities have been removed. The torpedo room or weapons storage compartment houses racks for storing up to 18 Gould Mk 48 Mod 4 torpedoes. The torpedoes, operating at 40 knots (74 km/h) speed, are deployed against targets over a range of 50 km. The torpedo range is 38 km at speeds up to 55 knots (102 km/h). The torpedoes use active and passive homing to approach the designated target.

    Lockheed Martin Canada, Lockheed Martin Undersea Systems and Northstar Technical upgraded and installed the submarine’s Lockheed Martin Librascope Torpedo Fire-control system (TFCS) to meet the operational requirements of the Canadian Navy. Components from the fire control system of the Oberon class submarines were installed. A UHF DAMA satellite communications system has also been fitted.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upholder/Victoria_class_submarine

    The Canadian Oberons used United States Navy torpedoes throughout their career: they were initially equipped with Mark 37 torpedo, but were later upgraded for Mark 48 torpedoes

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberon_class

    in reply to: Russian Navy News & Discussion, Part III #2006107
    Wanshan
    Participant

    Regarding the talk of a naval version of the Pantsir-S1 system – I’ve never seen it. Anyone have pictures?

    Pantsir S1 is a selfcontained ‘drop in’ unit that can fit a container, shelter, armored vehicle or … ship, without modification. Whether it would cope well with the corrosive environment that naval use entails is another matter.

    in reply to: Navies news from around the world -III #2006204
    Wanshan
    Participant

    Small video of the Holland class patrol vessel undergoing sea trials.

    http://www.defensie.nl/marine/actueel/nieuws/2011/04/06/46180608/Holland_onderworpen_aan_beproevingen_video

    The plans for budget cuts at the MoD have been announced. A total of 10.000 people will be made redundant in a bid to save a billion euro. This will mean that the armed forces are no longer capable of long term missions like Uruzgan. Instead they will be forced to perform smaller missions, such as the current missions to enforce the no-fly zone near Libya and the anti-piracy missions near Africa.

    The navy will scrap four of ten minehunters. The airforce will loose all their Cougar helicopters and some F-16s. The army will loose all their tanks.

    EDITED TO ADD 08APR:
    As already rumoured earlier, of the four OPV’s under construction two of them will be put up for sale immediately upon delivery. Oman is rumoured to be interested in them, and that this is also (part of) the reason for the state visit of queen Beatrix to Oman a few weeks ago.

    Interesting, I would have expected to see the last two M’s go and all Hollands inducted … RNthN has apparently elected for scalability (4 LCF, 2 M, 2 Holland)

    in reply to: Indian Navy – News & Discussion – IV #2006205
    Wanshan
    Participant

    Nice to see IN finally getting new minehunters, but the figure of $670million for 8 mine hunters looks rather heavy. Nearly $85million per unit? 😮

    Are they ocean going mine hunters or just inshore mine hunters?

    SK-5000 type MHC called Swallow class in SK navy service. Derives from Italian Lerici class minehunters, but not built under license from Intermarine Spa. The Lerici class also served as basis for the USN Osprey class (which may help explain how the design got to SK). Six entered South Korean service 1987-94. The ships are smaller and less capable than the other Lerici-based designs. See also here

    in reply to: Australia to buy RFA Largs Bay #2006633
    Wanshan
    Participant

    Just to clarify, The Australian claims that Australia has been successful in its bid for Largs Bay.

    I should think ‘yes’ to both.

    What are the chances of Australia at some point taking over a 2nd Bay class? 2 LHD + 2 LPD isn’t too bad relative to 3 LHD.

    in reply to: Russian Navy News & Discussion, Part III #2006727
    Wanshan
    Participant

    Right

    Excellent spot for a Top Gear segment: drag race anyone?

    in reply to: Question: What´s this? #2006729
    Wanshan
    Participant

    http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/8719/050110424fz9.jpg

    in reply to: Russian Navy News & Discussion, Part III #2006746
    Wanshan
    Participant

    That display is not unique to the Kulakov btw (though it obviously received other digital screens), I have seen it on 1164 cruisers, hell even the old Kerch! Simply navigation add on.

    It’s not the uniqueness we’re interested in but its newness. 😉

    in reply to: Russian Navy News & Discussion, Part III #2006754
    Wanshan
    Participant

    Gives you a good insight what Chinese carrier’s hangar will look like 😉

    We’re looking at a turn-table, right?

    in reply to: Russian Navy News & Discussion, Part III #2006757
    Wanshan
    Participant

    Well, advertising videos like this one have shown the Klinok(export version of Kinzhal) as an option for SAMs. From this and the fact that Russia has no other naval SHORAD(9M100 is cancelled) I’d imagine it would still be ready for production.

    Yes, the missile is offered but not in the familiar round launcher and not with the familiar old fire control radar station.

    in reply to: Russian Navy News & Discussion, Part III #2006761
    Wanshan
    Participant

    http://twower.livejournal.com/520535.html

    There’s more to modernization than just weapons. Scroll down until you see the displays one of the crew is using.

    (I can’t see Gibka in front, to be honest)

    This display:
    http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/6003/elberet545.45/0_5a527_2d9127c3_XL.jpg

    There’s a frontal shot with Gibka on the centerline between the gun fire control radars atop the bridge, where the SAM fire control radar unit used to be.
    http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/5705/elberet545.45/0_5a53d_5ec4d5e8_XL.jpg
    http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/5109/elberet545.45/0_5a53b_bbff8cd8_XL.jpg
    http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/5803/elberet545.45/0_5a540_475c63d5_XL.jpg

    http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/5873/1155upgradevicealmirant.jpg

    http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/6995/gibkakulakov.jpg

    http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/9293/201m.jpg
    http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/9626/1155vicealmitantekulako.jpg

    http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/1582/11551.jpg

    in reply to: Russian Navy News & Discussion, Part III #2006762
    Wanshan
    Participant

    Ah. Oh well, I suppose its just a stop gap. The Udaloy destroyers never had a significant air-defence capability to begin with.

    True, they weren’t intended for that role, but 2x4x8=64 point defence surface to air missiles isn’t peanuts eithers.

    in reply to: Russian Navy News & Discussion, Part III #2006864
    Wanshan
    Participant

    Therein lies the dillemma for Ukraine: they can’t really offload the ship to a buyer without involving the Russians to bring (back) to service key systems? And unless you plan to do to this ship what the chinese are doing to the Varyag … who but the Russians would be interested?

    in reply to: INS Vikramaditya: Steaming towards Induction #2006871
    Wanshan
    Participant

    So, the big news is that they can now turn on the lights aboard, and that they can tie her up to an out-of-the-way pier so she is not in the way while everybody takes a 2 (or 12) month vacation.

    What a usefull and informative post :rolleyes:

    in reply to: Russian Navy News & Discussion, Part III #2006879
    Wanshan
    Participant

    http://cs5959.vkontakte.ru/u6280914/92443698/y_a4c9ace6.jpg

    Admiral Lobov, photo from 2 days ago.
    Does that look 95% done? Yeah, I thought so too.

    Same ship, february 2006. Doesn’t look much worse than 4 years ago.
    http://www.kommersant.com/photo/300/News/2007/02/07//02172007.jpg

    Pic series here: http://navsource.narod.ru/photos/02/172/index.html

    Balancer forum has vid with some interior shots
    http://forums.airbase.ru/2011/04/t53725,38–rossiya-i-ukraina-sovmestno-dostroyat-krejser-proekta-1164.8561.html
    doesn’t look bad on the inside (better than on the outside…), old systems though

    2010 interior pics here: http://balancer.ru/g/p2166475
    hi-res exterior pics here: http://balancer.ru/g/p2173339

Viewing 15 posts - 751 through 765 (of 3,544 total)