WanshanWhy does it have to be a modern submarine or a particularly modern torpedo to defeat one small, austere, surface combattant operating on its own?. North Korea’s submarine service has no shortage of old Romeo class boats that are capable, in Chinese service at least, of deploying Yu-3/4 type torpedoes which would fit the profile of the weapon that killed this ship. North Korea has, allegedly, been confirmed as having taken delivery of Yu-3G torpedoes for the submarine fleet.
North Korea also has a lot of torpedo boats (some 200). North Korea is also known to have various submersible boats, which it uses for infiltration of spies into South Korea, and in times of open war for special forces operations. While the N’Korean’s are not thought to arm these craft with torpedoes, it can’t be ruled out. Has the possibility been considered of a (semi)submersible torpedo boat, like Iran has but with heavyweight rather than lightweight torpedos?
WanshanAs for finite and scarce resources, your advice is more suited to certain other countries living beyond their means.
Mmm, yes, I would agree it suites them too. It applies basically to all decaying empires.
WanshanThis is why I excluded it, I know it was being retired, though I thought that was at the end of this year, as for the Chinese Z-8’s, would China export them and if so, would Russia buy them- simple answer- NO!
Just used for height comparison, not suggesting it would actually be adopted by the russians. 🙂
Well ok they can fit in there, but ask a mechanic to change a rotor hub or gear box and don’t be surprised when they hit you in the head with a spanner!
The point is that Ka-29, while tallar than NH90, is more than 1 meter shorter (5.50m versus 6.66m) than Super Frelon. 😀
Speaking of which- you haven’t given me mine lately Wan 🙁 I feel left out!p.
Awe chucks, come here you big lug. :p
Yes you can make the EH-101 fold down, but you can’t make it reduce height- this is my point that everyone is skipping over!
Agree and I don’t skip over it, but the Ka-29 is already less tall so should fit.
WanshanYou’re missing the point…..it’s all about increasing production capacity (by adding Ukr. shipyards). That would translate in quicker production of smaller vessels down the line as well.
No, I’m not.
They can also involve Ukrainian yards by sending the Kuznetsov to Nikolayev South Shipyard (where it was built) for its planned and necessary refurbishment and modernization (heck, they can even involve them in building a Mistral!), rather than employing them to fix the Slava cruiser Ukrainia. Nikolayev North – which specialized in smaller combattants – could be involved directly by them for getting additional Project 20380 or 22350 ships built there new. Irrespective of the Slava Ukrainia.
they just essentially decided to bankroll an entire country with “scarce” resources
Perhaps, but that doesn’t mean the Russian navy’s resources won’t be scarce. Also, as the story of the USSR shows, you can ignore the scarcity or finiteness of your resources only for so long (they may have plenty of gas, but they may not have plenty of funds for the military).
WanshanPetty ship, but, I still wince every time I see all those magazine fed weapons on the foredeck.
The OTO, the SAM, two RBU’s add to that the VLS all constitute great capability in a smallish ship. One ASW rocket misfiring or a missile strike anywhere forward though and you aren’t, surely, going to find anything left forward of the hangar door!!!.
Well, you could easily have a version with just the OTO and one large 40 round VLS farm (or a cluster of several smaller, seperated farmr). Would this lessen some of your concerns?
Wondering how that risk is perceived for e.g. Spruance/Kidd/Tico, as well as Burke and derivative ships. KD2 has a set of 4 Mk41s (plus space/weight reserved for 4 more) and the main gun forward of the bridge as well.
WanshanCan you shut up already with your bull****.
No one has accused anyone of doing anything at this point. It’s all speculation and theory. But one day it will be resolved.
But you are being disrespectful to 46 sailors who died for no good reason.
You don’t know anything about the situation, so just stop commenting on it.
I beg to differ on your first point, seeing a how some here have advocated the nuking of NK, which would result in massive collateral damages (scores of dead NK civilians). That does suggest an accusation, doesn’t it?
I’ld like you very much to point out where and how I have been disrespectfull to the 46 sailors. Meanwhile, you – a newb with 2 posts and no established credentials on this forum – see fit to start namecalling.
As for my knowledge of the situation, you would have no way of telling. And if you are apparently in a better position to know, why don’t you share that knowledge with the rest of the forum?
WanshanIt all depends on how much money.
-If it will cost the Russians just the installation of the remaining equipment (part and labour) plus a coat of fresh paint, it is a bargain.
-If they have to pay for the whole vessel, but at it’s 1990 price level, it is still a good deal.
-But if they have to pay for the whole vessel at 2010 prices. Then it is better to spend the money for something else.
Having said that, I believe the decision will not be made on money/finances/value/price basis, but more on political basis.
My two kopeks.
In all these price variants, they’ld still be buying 1980 era designed ship with 1980s equipment in all key areas (i.e. no modifications). In reality, you’ld be looking at a combination of finishing unfinished parts + refurbish finished parts + modernizing the vessel. That price tag will have little to do with the original price tag, in whole or in part, indexed or not. And then you have to consider if that money isn’t better to use towards building a number of smaller, new ships, given the state and needs of the fleet overall. What good will it do to raise the number of (relatively old) cruisers by 1 to 6 in the next 5 years (or keep it at 5 by getting this Slava to replace a retiring Kara cruiser), if during that time the number of destroyers and especially frigates continues to dwindle, leaving the fleet with 6-7 ‘capital’ ships (including the Kuz) but likely less than 20 ocean going escort ships to screen them. (And then I’m not even factoring in the possible arrival of new large ships such as LPDs or additional carriers, which would make for an even more lobsided fleet composition)
WanshanPHOTOS: More Top Shots of Shivalik
She’s a looker all right 😉
Wanshan(Rough translation from Russian)
Russia intends to buy the missile cruiser “Ukraine”?
Russia is interested in buying the missile cruiser Ukraine, said State Duma Deputy, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Military-Technical Cooperation Mikhail Nenashev.
“This ship is 70% ready. This ship can be accepted into the Navy of Russia. We need this ship,” – said Nenashev. The MP noted that the cruiser’s weapons and navigation systems need installing.
He stressed that the agreement on the prolongation of the Black Sea Fleet in Ukraine opens the way to achieve concrete agreements on the issue of the purchase of the cruiser. Nenashev said that the cruiser can be used on any of the four fleets of Russia.
“Within months we will check the position on the ship, and at the end of May, I’m willing to talk specifics,” – he added.
According to the deputy, the former leadership of Ukraine showed an “inability” to settle the issue. He also stressed that cooperation with Ukraine on shipbuilding and ship repair involves precisely full co-production of vessels, not just spraying the paint.
Nenashev also reported that the tender with the Kherson Shipyard is almost ready, which is necessary to the Russian side to restart the nuclear reactors, and we are ready to take it for the Navy for use in a system of naval transport. “
He stressed that in the case of preparedness of Ukrainian authorities, Russia is ready to place other orders, including aircraft carriers, in Ukrainian shipyards.
Hate to say I told you so (but see post 514)
As for Ukraina … that would be a waste of money IMHO but see for yourself: http://flot.sevastopol.info/eng/ship/ukrainian/ukraina.htm
http://navsource.narod.ru/photos/02/172/index.html
WanshanExcuses, excuses. So you think the ship sank in NK waters? Then the salvage team that brought the ship up were violating NK territory as well since the ship sank right where the explosion happened.
So you want diplomacy to take its course? So do we have to wait another 50 years before we see progress. Diplomacy really did a bang up job on getting rid of NK nuke program in the 90’s….NOT:rolleyes: IMAO “letting diplomacy runs its course” is code word for we don’t have the balls to go to war so ol’ Kimmy stays in power and gives the world the middle finger.
Is it the body count that bothers you about going to war? I guess you are ok with the thousands of NK’s who slowly starved to death over the last few years because you don’t see the piles of skin and bones plastered all over CNN or the BBC.
People die everyday. Somedays a lot of people die at once. About 300,000 Haitians died in less than 20 minutes in an earthquake. How many died in that China quake last week?
How many massacres occured in Africa say…in the last 72 hours. Sorry those didn’t happen since it wasn’t on CNN.
… and you expect to be taken seriously? :rolleyes:
WanshanThank you for the warm welcome 🙂
Didn’t you know, we do a group hug regularly :);)
WanshanThe Super Frelon is actually being retired in less than a month. Since the NH-90 isn’t ready yet, the French Navy has bought 2 EC-225s in SAR configuration as stop gaps.
Pics of Super Frelon aboard Mistral and Tonnerre:
Well, that settles the height issue then?
Wanshantoo bad the Yak-38 is now retired, i would like to see it fly off the Mistral :diablo:
Yak 141?
Length: 18.36 m (60 ft 2 1/4 in)
Wingspan: 10.105 m (33 ft 1 1/2 in)
Height: 5.00 m (16 ft 5 in)
WanshanWan:I had honestly forgotten about the Mi-38 (or the NH ninetski :D), yes a naval version has been on then books for a while now- especially for deployment aboard the Kuznetsov, but money has been tight (not getting into it as requested by Zil and out of respect).
As for the others listed, The Super Frelon is actually a non contender as it’s no longer produced (actually i don’t know of anyone still using it- though I could be wrong on that). The EH-101 is out as I doubt the Russians would but it especially if they won’t buy American! The Tiger is out since the Russians are more interested in the Mi-28’s and Ka-52’s (for good reason). The Kasatka is out as it’s too small- it’s more of a plane guard type helo just like the French Dauphan it holds it’s origins to. The Ka-29 is out as mentioned by out friend above- too wide (mode would definately be needed! and as I mentioned the Mi-17 is just too long (I doubt they’d introduce a folding tail version since the Mi-38 is coming on line. The final aircraft mentioned- the NH-90, is what I was thinking they might buy some of- this would help Russian industry gain advances in both FBW and light weight polymer construction techs, I know France would love to sell more and adding the Russian navy to the list of customers for this fine product would be a score for EADS.
The Super Frelon is still in service in France (though expected to be replaced by NH-90 by 2011-12) abd both produced and used in China (as Z-8). But that was not the point.
Super Frelon has a folding tail, which reduces it’s length, and it is as tall as EH101, which is significantly taller than NH-90. Wouldn’t it be logical for the French to take into consideration the EH-101 as a possible visitor (or even resident) of the Mistral, given it’s use by UK, Italy and Portugal. By comparison, the Dutch and Spanish have designed their LPDs (Rotterdam/Galicia, of the Enforcer-series, which resulted in the UK Bay class) with an eye to both NH-90 and EH101 even though e.g. Spain uses the Sea King (though plans for NH90 on the Juan Carlos), which is more similar to NH-90 (Length: 16.7 m, Height: 5.13 m) than to EH101, and the Dutch have NH-90. Lockheed Martin, team leader for the US101 VXX competitor, noted that the US101 has a folding tail, unlike the EH101. Which shows it is not that hard to make a change.
Capacités aéronautiques
Pont d’envol
Comparés aux 1 450 m2 de surface de pont d’envol du TCD Foudre (3 spots sur plate-forme avant) ou aux 1 536 m2 du TCD Siroco (3 spots sur plate-forme avant et 1 sur plate-forme arrière), les 6 400 m2 des BPC s’étalent sur un pont continu comprenant 6 spots. Les hélicoptères alliés «moyens lourds» comme le «EH101 Merlin» (16 tonnes), peuvent se poser sur le pont d’envol. Les hélicoptères «super lourds» comme le «Super Stallion» américain (35 tonnes) disposent d’un spot dédié (spot n° 1).
Mise en œuvre d’hélicoptères
Si la mise en œuvre simultanée d’hélicoptères passe seulement de 4 à 6, le nombre de ces derniers stockés, réparés et prêts à décoller, passe lui de 4 à 16 au sein d’un hangar de 1 800 m2 situé au pont inférieur. Une zone de maintenance aéronautique équipée d’un pont roulant, divers ateliers et magasins aéronautiques autorise l’entretien complet des hélicoptères embarqués. Les installations d’avitaillement en carburant aviation (kérosène TR5) permettent d’effectuer des pleins ou reprises sur 4 hélicoptères simultanément sur le pont d’envol grâce à un monte-munitions ou de mener cette opération à l’intérieur du hangar.
Ascenseurs
Les BPC sont dotés de 2 plates-formes élévatrices Mac Gregor de charge de 13 tonnes, la première de 225 m2 (15 x 15 m ), permettant la montée au niveau du pont d’envol d’hélicos voilures déployées (écourtant le délai de décollage), la seconde de 120 m2soit (18,5 x 6,5 m) à proximité d’une grue de charge de 17 tonnes. Selon le capitaine de vaisseau Gilles Humeau, commandant du Mistral, « la taille du pont d’envol permettait [en opérations, ndlr] de mettre en œuvre 30 aéronefs en utilisant les 6 spots ».
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classe_Mistral#Pont_d.E2.80.99envol
The flight deck at least can take EH101s and in one place even CH-53 (Length: 26.97 m, Height: 7.6 m). The 18.5×6.5m elevator can handle a 19-19.5m long helicoptor placed diagonally. Likewise, the 15x15m elevator should be able to handle a helicopter up to 21m long helicopter if placed diagonally.
Note that Mi-17 (max t/o weigh 13 metic tons) is entirely possible on both elevators, Mi-38 (max t/o weight 15.6 metric tons) on one.
WanshanThere are certain objective, verifiable, facts. The location of the incident can be simply proven from the navigation logs of the salvage ships – seeings as it didnt look like they were being harrased in their operations by NK vessels we can safely assume they were not in NK territorial waters!.
Any move on the ROKN part to censure those logs would be tantamount to an admission of deception. If the ROKN release a posit thats different from where the wreck was recovered it’ll only be a matter of time before someone speaks out of turn. It would be a stupid risk to run
The visible damage is entirely consistent with a high capacity under-the-keel detonation. A large ground influence mine, in shallow water, can do something like this but the conditions would have to be very, very specific. On balance of probability, to get that damage, a HWT is more likely than any other weapon. Any way you cut it that puts a hostile submarine firing a warshot at another countries warship at a verifiable position – which is an act of war.
The only outstanding questions are who’s submarine fired the torpedo and what was the South Korean doing immediately prior to taking the hit. Those answers can change the reality of the response massively and make precipitous statements regarding NK massively unwise.
Now there is a solid argumentation. Thank you, sir, you’ve brightened my day!
Looked at the images here, posted by Tango: given where the hull broke and the extent of hull that appears missing, is there any way this type of damage could have been caused by an accident (e.g. some massive engine room explosion)?
Sign In
