From what I have read on Typhoon from Norman Polmar book on submarine and other
The key reasons are
1 ) Size of Missile ( a function of throw up weight ,maturity/size of electronics available then ,solid fuel technology , warhead weight/yeald , CEP )
2 ) Endurance ( she can if required stay down deep inside icy artic for 5 -6 months , which had effect on crew living requirenment like cabin for mos/allt crew, food supplies to last that period and extra comforts )
3 ) Greater Reserve byouncy , if I have read with 3 innerhulls completely flooded but still she can survive , ability to penetrate 3 m of ice requiring strengthening of sail and other areas of hull.
4 ) Redundancy needed for the above requirenment and the engineering solutions they could come up with in early 80’s
In English AND available online π
Are these replacements to the old Indian Navy missile boats that caused karnage in 1970’s?
Doubt it. Not much to cause carnage with since their armament is:
1 x CRN-91 AA (Naval 30mm Medak) gun
handheld Igla
2 x 12.7mm HMGs
some LMGs
Or maybe they could fly over Iran instead.:D
Now there’s an idea !
France’s flagship aircraft carrier looks bound for Afghanistan
France’s flagship Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier will likely be deployed in the coming months to Afghanistan, the staff officer of Parisβs armies, Admiral Christophe Prazuck, said Wednesday.
βWe are in the middle of working on a program that would involve aerial support for the military operations in Afghanistan,β Prazuck said.
The Charles de Gaulle, the pride of the French Navy, has already carried out four major military operations in the Afghan war.
Full Story
Last time I checked, Afghanistan was landlocked! Which means deployment to the Gulf or off the coast of Pakistan. Either way, a pain.
Ummm, the F35C can’t operate from STOBAR carriers. It’d need Steam Cats installed, so unless India changes it’s carrier style it’d have to go for F35B, or continue it’s purchases of the Russian birds.
Why not? Considering Su-33 and Mig-29K can.
While less “powerful” then Russian systems, maybe they are more technically “advanced”, with the russians wishing to reverse engineer the technology to use on their own new designs. π
They’ve obviously learned from their dealings with the Chinese?
There is no sense to make in that – other than as either a deliberate attempt at misdirection or as the utterings of a fool. The damage pattern is not consistent with a collision. A big ship hitting a little ship doesnt split it down the middle….it rides over the top, rips the superstructure off and capsizes it – you end up with a very clear damage signature with the impact side stoved in and lee side bowed out. IF its hit with such a speed differential to do the damage in the first place.
The comment about a lack of scorching on ship internals and bodies is indicative of the lack of comprehension by the writer here. Impact and blast effects would cause those factors to be evident. An under-the-keel detonation does not produce them.
So, scratch that alternative explanation.:diablo:
Not so sure there actually IS an SC Chin (we can all post a letter to Hillary online, if we so chose to do)
For once i’m a wee bit stumped, is that a Frelon on the Heli-deck? I’m not sure it is and then i’m having trouble IDing it….
Z-8JA/JH (The Z-8 is identical to the SA 321 Super Frelon in appearance)
http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/helicopter/z8.asp
Um… that requires me to register to see them.
Are they the Zubr class the PLAN supposedly acquired from Ukraine? How big are they?
Well just this once then π
For a medium-range SAM 40km is good. The eventual destroyers will handle long-range air defence. Now if only there was any information on the Poliment radar…:confused: I wonder if it has any relation to the C-band AESA radar that was developed by the Ukraininan Kvant Radiological Bureau a few years ago…
In 1996 Fakel announced a naval version, the Poliment system
That’s more than a few years ago and a Russian company.
Yeah, it smacks of a Chinese source which is uncomfortable with blaming NK, frankly. Where are the photos of the damaged destroyer which was involved in the collision? Radar track recordings? Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me, that SK was initially reluctant to accuse the North is very understandable for obvious reasons of Realpolitik.
Author is one Matthew Reiss, a freelance journalist based in New York and possibly also a teacher at Rutgers – State University of New Jersey (New Brunswick) at the department of Journalism.
As for SC Chin: http://www.seoprise.com/~bu/dk/Letter_to_Hillary_Clinton_US_Secretary_of_State.pdf
As for the truth of this story: no idea.
Came accros this article for something else and found it contained a relevant bit of news:
South Korean defense and intelligence officials initially said that the sinking of the Cheonan – with the loss of 46 lives – did not involve North Korea. An international investigation, however, blamed Pyongyang for the incident. It was followed by a crackdown against the report’s critics, and concerns persist that Seoul may be drifting toward rigid tendencies thought to have been abandoned when it ended one-party rule in 1987.
Civil investigator SC Shin, assigned by the Korean National Assembly to participate in the Cheonan investigation, found no evidence of damage to the interior of the ship, no burning of cable housings, nor any signs on sailors’ bodies of pressure, burns or shrapnel from the alleged torpedo explosion.
He reported that the ship radioed naval headquarters and the Coast Guard that it had been grounded. Shin also reported that four Aegis destroyers of between 6,800 and 9,600 tonnes were participating in a naval exercise 130 kilometers from the scene, and he described the 1,200 ton Cheonan being split in two as the likely result of a collision with a much larger ship. After he made his findings public, he was charged with defamation by defense officials who blamed the wreckage on a North Korean torpedo, and he was questioned by the Seoul Prosecutor’s office. A member of the National Assembly who contradicted the report’s conclusions was also charged with defamation.
Can anyone make sense of this?
No Medvedka on the 20380 corvettes, just Paket-NK and probably later on 91R in UKSK.
The medium range SAM is 9M96 and the short range is 9M100.
SAM info here
Sorry. All I see is a little black silhouette that’s more likely someone in the background.
You’re looking to low and not far enough to right and the tail end. Follow the line along the top of the engine nozzle towards the rear. Just under the yellow tailcone there is a white-ish dot. I believe that to be the tip of the hook. With comparison pic of an actual Su33 and a hookless J-11b with a much longer tail ‘stinger’.