Since the SK ship was in internationally-recognized SK territorial waters, they were right where they were supposed to be… and whether it was a mine or torpedo, IT was where it wasn’t supposed to be!

IF that’s where she actually was.

Let’s flip that around. North Koreans aren’t maniacs. If they deliberately attacked this ship – which I am not ruling out – then I doubt they would do that ‘just for kicks’ or as a spur of the moment thing. So, one needs also to explain how it benefits North Korea to torpedo an SK navy ship inside SK terrotorial waters. Or are we assuming some huge SNAFU or a NK navy captain gone crazy?

Seeings as that level of damage is the work of a heavyweight torpedo Wan its a fair assumption. I cant think of an encapsulated torpedo weapon, off the top of my head, that incorporates a HWT?.

All the same, even if we’re dealing with a sub, how does one know what went down?.

Comparing CVF and CVV, I just don’t understand how CVF’s huge internal volume has been put to use. :confused:

They’re exactly the same size, except that CVF has a deeper and slightly fatter hull giving one extra deck and a lot more displacement. But that extra volume doesn’t translate to extra capability: 😡 CVF’s hangar is smaller and aviation fuel stowage the same. I’d wager that munitions storage is also smaller, since CVV has quite a large munitions storage (double that of CdG). What’s going on???

<br />
[B]CVF CTOL[/B] [B]CVV[/B]<br />
[B]Hull Dimensions[/B]<br />
Lenth WL 264m 262m<br />
Beam WL 39m 38.4m<br />
Hull depth [B]30m[/B] 26.7m<br />
Displacement [B]70,000t[/B] 56,500t</p>
<p>[B]Flight Deck Dimensions[/B]<br />
Length 284m 278m<br />
Width 72.5m 78m<br />
Deck Area: 15,300m2 15,000m2</p>
<p>[B]Aviation Facilities[/B]<br />
Hangar: [B]4,700m2[/B] 5,700m2<br />
Hangar height: 6-9m 7.5m<br />
Catapults: 2x90m [B]2x75m[/B]<br />
Aviation Fuel: 5,000m3 5,000m3<br />
Munitions: ? 10,400m3</p>
<p>[B]Propulsion[/B]<br />
SHP 95,000 140,000<br />
Speed 26.3kts 27.8kts<br />
Endurance: 10,000nm @15kts 8,000nm @20kts</p>
<p>Ship's crew 900 [B] ~2000[/B]<br />


Check whether both figures are the same type of displacement (standard, full load) and unit of measurement (ton, tonnes, etc)

While I agree its silly to have new planes in service just as the carrier is out of service, combined number of all those planes may not really be that much higher than what the new kuznetsov will be able to carry. It was said several times that after the modernization kuznetsov will be able to carry more planes. 26 migs plus 18-24 su33 (not sure how many are in service right now) gives some 45-50 planes. Not all planes will be able to be used in service, there’s always regular maintenance. So we may be looking at 40 planes or even a tad less at any given time. That certainly seems doable for a carrier of Kuznestov’s size, if remodelled properly.

From Naval Technology, and Global Security:

The ship has the capacity to support 16 Yakovlev Yak-41M (Nato code name Freestyle), 12 Sukhoi Su-27K (Nato codename Flanker) fixed-wing aircraft and a range of helicopters including four Kamov Ka-27-LD (Nato codename Helix), 18 Kamov Ka-27 PLO and two Ka-27-S.

16+16+4+18+2=56 airframes as is. Note, however, the substantial number of helicopters she also carries (24).

In the original project specifications, the ship should be able to carry up to 33 fixed-wing aircraft, and 12 helicopters

Aircraft:
12 Su-33
5 Su-25
4 Ka-27LD
18 Ka-27PLO
2 Ka-27S

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiral_Kuznetsov_class_aircraft_carrier
24 heli’s plus 17 fixed wing or 12 heli’s and 33 fixed wing = 41-45 airframes

The much bigger Ul’yanovsk was to carry 70 aircraft total
27 Su-27K Flankers
10 Su-25 Frogfoots
Yak-44 radar picket aircraft
15-20 helicopters

On the boiler and turbine installation [TAKR] of project 1143.5 it corresponded to the constructed ship of project 1143.4. The maximum number of air group of new cruiser on the project composed 42 ship flight vehicles (VARNISH), into [t].[ch]. of 18-28 aircraft and 14 helicopters.

http://paralay.com/atakr.html

14+28=42 airframes.

[*]What helo’s will the Russians use- The Mi-17’s are too long and the Ka-29’s are too high.

Mi-17
Length: 18.42 m (60 ft 5 in)
Rotor diameter: 21.352 m (69 ft 10 in)
Height: 4.76 m (15 ft 7 in)

Mi-38
Length: 19.70 m (64 ft 8 in)
Rotor diameter: 21.10 m (69 ft 3 in)
Height: 5.13 m (16 ft 10 in)

Ka-29
Length: 11.30 m (37 ft 1 in)
Rotor diameter: 15.80 m (51 ft 10 in)
Height: 5.50 m (18 ft 1 in)

Ka-60
Length: 15.60 m (51 ft 2 in)
Rotor diameter: 13.50 m (44 ft 3 in)
Height: 4.20 m (13 ft 9 in)

(Tiger HAP)
Length: 14.08 m fuselage (46 ft 2 in)
Rotor diameter: 13.00 m (42 ft 8 in)
Height: 3.83 m (12 ft 7 in)

NH-90
Length: 16.13 m (52 ft 11 in)
Rotor diameter: 16.30 m (53 ft 6 in)
Height: 5.23 m (17 ft 2 in)

EH101
Length: 22.81 m (74 ft 10 in)
Rotor diameter: 18.59 m (61 ft 0 in)
Height: 6.65 m (21 ft 10 in)

Super Frelon
Length: 23.03 m (75 ft 6⅝ in)
Rotor diameter: 18.90 m (62 ft 0 in)
Height: 6.66 m (21 ft 10¼ in)

I’ld say Mi-38 with folding tail ….

Note, in the video appearance of a landing ship type ‘Polnocny-C’ class unknown Iranian navy has for this type of vessels.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLl9ERUUgkY&feature=player_embedded

Current operators
Algeria: 1 Polnocny-B
Azerbaijan: 2 Polnocny-A, 2 Polnocny-B
Bulgaria: 2 Polnocny-A
Egypt: 3 Polnocny-A
India: 1 Polnocny-C, 4 Polnocny-D
Russia: 6 Polnocny-B
Syria: 3 Polnocny-B
Ukraine: 1 Polnocny-C
Vietnam: 3 Polnocny-B
Yemen: 1 NS-722

Historical operators
Ethiopia, Somalia, Libya, Iraq, Poland

It MAY be a former Iraqi navy unit …

30th January 1991. Day 14 of Operation Desert Storm, and ships of the Iraqi navy make a desperate dash for the northern waters of the Persian Gulf and sanctuary in Iranian waters. Only a few of them will make it through the gauntlet of Allied air-power lying in wait to attack any surface contacts.Already on fire amidships after being attacked by US Navy aircraft, this Polnocny C class landing ship has fallen prey to a pair of rocket and cannon-armed Jaguars only a few miles from the mouth of the Shatt-al-Arab waterway in southern Iraq. The Jaguars, led by Wing Commander Bill Pixton AFC, make a low pass to confirm the identity of the ship and turn away to position for their attack that will leave the Polnocny sinking, ablaze from end to end. Coup de Grace portrays the incident as it unfolds, capturing the moment when the Jaguar flight leader looks back over his shoulder at the burning ship and prepares to attack. The Jaguars will unleash four pods of CRV-7 rockets onto their target and then re-attack with 30mm cannon before returning to base at the end of a harrowing 3-hour mission. Heavily armed, and using Victor tankers to in-flight refuel, RAF Jaguars often flew combat air patrols over the northern Persian Gulf from their base at Al-Muharraq, Bahrain, during the first weeks of Operation Desert Storm. Their task was to seek and destroy Iraqi army and naval targets, or to locate and to suppress enemy AAA during rescue missions for downed Allied airmen. The results were invariably the same: the targets were hit, and the Jaguars, despite coming under fire, returned safely home.

http://www.aviationartprints.com/jaguar.htm

See also this newspaper article from feb. 2, 1991

ALso mentioned in the book “American naval history: an illustrated chronology of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, 1775 – present” by Jack Sweetman

^^^ Great News ……..Finally when the US puppet regiem is out we would see a more friendly Russia-Ukranian relations in years ahead.

Next we’ll see Kuznetsov getting refurbed at Nikolayev, Ukraine :dev2:

Furthermore this will be a blessing deal for the heavily damaged (by the Oranges) Ukrainian economy.

We might even see Kuznetsov dock again in the Ukraine for overhaul?