No 5 USNS Supply fast combat support ship

No 4 USNS Lewis and Clarke or sister ships

Correct!

No.4: USNS Amelia Earhart (T-AKE 6)
No.5: USNS Supply (T-AOE 6)

Ok, well, that leaves just 2 pics to go, dunnit? :p

Exactly, and crude is positive buoyant. Not to mention tanks were topped off with inert fluid to keep airspace to a minimum. And that most missile strikes on shipping were not Exocets, but rather missiles designed to attack land vehicles namely TOW and Maverick.

Really? Clearly, TOW is an anti-tank missile, with a heat warhead. However, it’s a little different with MAVERICK: it depends on the version:

The AGM-65 Maverick is a tactical, air-to-surface guided missile designed for close air support, interdiction and defense suppression mission. It provides stand-off capability and high probability of strike against a wide range of tactical targets, including armor, air defenses, ships, transportation equipment and fuel storage facilities.

The Maverick E is being adopted in the AGM-65E version as the Marine corps laser Maverick weapon for use from Marine aircraft for use against fortified ground installations, armored vehicles and surface combatants.

The Maverick F AGM-65F (infrared targeting) used by the Navy has a larger (300 pound; 136 kg) penetrating warhead vice the 125 pound (57 kg) shaped charge used by Marine and Air Force) and infrared guidance system optimized for ship tracking.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-65.htm

Maverick configurations are based on three seekers — television, infrared and laser — and two warhead sizes. Maverick’s guidance software provides attack capability around-the-clock against fixed high-value targets, high-speed moving and maneuvering armored vehicles, ships and fast boats, and targets of opportunity. The guidance system also allows man-in-the-loop lock-on before launch. Its guidance is accurate to within one meter, which greatly reduces the possibility of collateral damage during urban close air support.

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/agm65/

Round 2…..:p

The SAAB System 21- lovely- first production fighter with a working ejector seat! Now are you after the Prop model (J-21A)

Fokker D-23

Yeah I too have seen LM2500’s as primary propulsion for the Vikrant class, buut again the number vary- between 2 and 4 of these to be used. But I have been seeing that this class will be a CODOG arrangement so I am wondering which diesel engiens will be used.

P17 frigate and P28 corvette will both be using the S.E.M.T. Pielstick 16 PA6 STC, so that would seem a logical candidate. You might see a carrier using 2 shipsets of the P17 powerplant, much like the Gorshkov/Vikramaditya using 2 shipsets of the Sovremenny powerplant.

This diesel is also used in the Chinese Type 054/A and both the Saudi Al Madina and Al Riyadh classes of frigates.

Planeman,

with all due respect & regards to ur brilliant work on the carrier comparison…… I have to point out that there was some mistakes w.r.t INS Vikramaditya. I’m pointying it out through some comparison. I hope u’ll have time to update the drawing… Thanks in advance.

btw, my perception of the likely weapons that will arm INS Vikramaditya are

2 x Kashtan
2 x 24-36 cell Shtil-I VLS/ 9m96E (40km)/ prefer 9m96E2(120km)

and if at all….. its really needed…..

8-16 cell x Brahmos VLS near the aft lift, where Klinok launchers were earlier anchored. Thats the only place Brahmos will fit if at all INS Vikramaditya is to be armed with Brahmos!

Frankly, I don’t expect more weapon systems than on the current carrier. IMHO some VL Barak maybe augmented by a couple of g76mm uns to back it up (e.g. licence built 76mm Oto Melara naval gun), or else just a couple of Kashtan units. Certainly not Brahmos (the surface strike capability is in the jets) or SHtil (which would require installation of Orekh tracking/illumination radars. besides, AAW would be the task of the destroyer screen)

It has some similarity in layout and looks to the Israeli Sa’ar-5, which is known to have experienced top-weight problems (hence, no Gabriels and only half the Baraks are carried: the rear vlu remains unloaded and is now used a location for a satcom antenna). Likewise the Victory class corvettes employed by Singapore.

The Mk56 launcher is most similar to the Mk48 also found on the Danish StanFlex ships and Niels Juel class (compact Mk48 mod 3). Other variants are found on the Dutch M-frigates (bulkheadmounted Mk48 mod 1), Canada’s Halifax class frigate and JMSDF Murasame class destroyers (on-deck Mk48 mod-0), the South Korean KD-1 and the Hellenic Hydra class frigates (in-deck mounted Mk48 mod 2).

It can carry dual-packed ESSM rounds. So, a 4 cell Mk56 equates to 8 ready to fire ESSMs. The Mod 3 model used in the Danish Stanflex ships has 6 cells (12 Missiles). It penetrates less than 1 deck and measures 366 x 271 x 473 cm (lxwxh). On the StanFlex ships, this missile launcher fits a container slot the size of which also fits a containerized 76mm Oto Melara naval gun or e.g. 2×4 Harpoon. So, I think imagine a 4 cell Mk 56 would be around 271 x 271 x 473 cm and its footprint would be less than (or at worst equal to) that of the 76 mm naval gun. I think the main problem would be its height (penetration). And it might make the ship heavy over the bow.

http://www.raytheon.com/businesses/stellent/groups/public/documents/legacy_site/cms01_048612.pdf

On page 2 of the attached report there is a graph that shows the reduction in Noise Levels of US Nuclear Submarines from 1955 through 2000. They are currently in the same realm of 110 dB. The ordinate scale states that (dB re 1 micro Pascal at 1 yd)

http://www.northropgrumman.com/analysis-center/paper/assets/analogues_stealth.pdf

Like this bit

Figure 1. This estimate of total radiated sound levels for US nuclear submarines suggests a noise reduction of 60 dB [from 170 to 110] over
45 years. Modern submarines emit about one-millionth of acoustic energy as did their predecessors.