The Walrus-class. Although it is a smaller boat, it is a semi-double hull meaning that compared to its submerged displacement it can carry relatively more fuel than a single hull submarine like the Collins [source Gabler; Submarine Design]. That confirms that Jane’s reports an equal range for the Walrus and the Collins. The endurance of both subs is set at 50 days. Another possibility could be the Kilo-class.
In response to the photo with 2 Collins from a few weeks ago here 2 pictures with 3 out of 4 Walrus-class subs at sea at once. The personnel shortages are almost solved!
The yard that produced these subs in the first half of the 1990s (RDM) no longer is in business. Of the remains of that yard, RDM submarines BV soldiered on for a while untill it went bankrupt in 2004. It was active only in trying to sell old Zwaardvis/Swordfish boats to Malaysia (similar to Taiwan’s Hai Lung) and marketing a new type called Moray. The design and engineering bureaus (Nevesbu, Verebus), still exist however.
http://www.dutchsubmarines.com/classes/class_walrus2.htm
http://www.dutchsubmarines.com/export/export_malaysia.htm
http://www.dutchsubmarines.com/export/export_moray.htm
Look at the fighter on the left in below image, isnāt there clearly a āfull-span leading-edge slatsā as well? So itās also without āfoldableā wings according to your observation, but the plane on the left is a real Su-33 and we know itās with foldable wing.
Conclusion simply can’t be drawn in such a way.
I can’t find the tailhoook on the left plane …. (ok, maybe it has been lowered and is obscured from view, but still š
Ticonderoga use the AN/SPY-1A/B
Arleigh Burke use the AN/SPY-1D
F100 use the AN/SPY-1D
Fridtjof Nansen use the AN/SPY-1F
THe F100 being significantly smaller than AB and Tico (NOT the radar)
Getting back to9 the L-29’s, it seems the US is running out of money in a fast way if they are having to contract private firms to fulfill military training requirements.
The two L-29’s
N179EP
N5959LAre privately owned planes who rent out their services in a similar fashion to many other “Week End Warrior” companies over there in the US.
I know the USN are scratching around for $$$ but would this actually be an option that saves money? Most private ventures I know actually charge more. IMHO it would have been cheaper for the USN to use some of their T-45’s which better simulate the characteristics of modern day skimmer missiles, this evident by the RAAF using their Hawk Mk127’s in the same way during their regular excercises!
Rather than blaming them for spending more (too much) money, you are now blaming them for spending less (not enough) money?
Sign In
