dark light

Ja Worsley

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 3,659 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Subject Study- RAN Future LCH #1998397
    Ja Worsley
    Participant

    Sirius? I thought her Deck was pretty much unusable due to wind flow issues or something similar?

    Not true mate:-

    CORRECTING THE RECORD

    On this page, we set the record straight to correct any inaccuracies in media reporting of DMO issues.

    The Facts

    16 August 2007

    The Story: Today’s edition of the Courier Mail features an article by Mr Ian McPhedran titled ‘Helicopter ship ban: No-flight deck cost $8m.’ Mr McPhedran claims helicopters have been banned from using the flight deck fitted to the Navy’s replenishment ship HMAS Sirius.

    The Facts: Aviation modifications were carried out on HMAS Sirius to provide a Vertical Replenishment (VERTREP) capability. This VERTREP capability involves a helicopter hovering over the ship’s deck to transfer underslung loads, typically pallets of stores or food. The modification also provides a transfer capability which allows the ability to transfer persons or equipment by the helicopter’s winch. The aviation flight deck modifications were designed to accommodate naval helicopter landings in the event of an emergency only, not as part of normal operations.

    Source Department of Defence DMO.

    http://www.naval.com.br/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/hmas-sirius.jpg

    http://www.naval.com.br/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/hmas-sirius-2004.jpg

    in reply to: PLAN Carrier Updates. #1998677
    Ja Worsley
    Participant

    Ok I found something but it still raises some questions:

    Source: Air- Attack.com

    Russian-Chinese Su-33 fighter deal collapses – paper

    Published: Tue March 10th, 2009 via: RIA Novosti

    MOSCOW, March 10 (RIA Novosti) – Russia has refused to sell its Su-33 carrier-based fighters to China over fears that Beijing could produce cheaper export versions of the aircraft, a Russian daily said on Tuesday.

    The Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper said that China and Russia had been in negotiations on the sale of 50 of the Su-33 Flanker-D fighters, to be used on future Chinese aircraft carriers, since 2006, but that the talks collapsed recently over China’s request for an initial delivery of two aircraft for a “trial.”

    Russian Defense Ministry sources confirmed that the refusal was due to findings that China had produced its own copycat version of the Su-27SK fighter jet in violation of intellectual property agreements.

    In 1995, China secured a $2.5-billion production license from Russia to build 200 Su-27SKs, dubbed J-11A, at the Shenyang Aircraft Corp.

    The deal required the aircraft to be outfitted with Russian avionics, radars and engines. Russia cancelled the arrangement in 2006 after it discovered that China was developing an indigenous version, J-11B, with Chinese avionics and systems. The decision came after China had already produced 95 aircraft.

    This time, Russia refused the Chinese offer even after Beijing had offered to buy 14 Su-33 aircraft, saying that at least 24 jets should be sold to recoup production costs.

    However, the Moskovsky Komsomolets said that the Su-33 deal may be reviewed later because China desperately needs carrier-based aircraft to equip its first indigenous 48,000-ton aircraft carrier, due to be built by 2011. Beijing has also announced plans to build a nuclear-powered aircraft-carrier by 2020.

    Chinese media recently quoted China fleet commander Adm. Xu Hongmeng as saying: “China will very soon have its own aircraft carrier.”

    The Su-33 is a carrier-based multi-role fighter, which can perform a variety of air superiority, fleet defense, air support and reconnaissance missions. The aircraft entered service with the Russian Navy in 1995 and are currently deployed on board the Nikolai Kuznetsov aircraft carrier.

    Russian Su-33 naval fighters are significantly cheaper than any similar foreign models, such as the French Rafale-M, or the U.S F-35C or the F/A-22N Sea Raptor.

    ————————————————————————–

    So according to this, the deal could be looked at once again- should it be, the Russians would make tougher rules against copying.

    What caught my eye here at the end was mention of an F/A-22N Sea Raptor- Excuse me??? When did that happen?

    in reply to: PLAN Carrier Updates. #1998758
    Ja Worsley
    Participant

    Hasn’t the Su33 deal collapsed Ja?

    As far as I am aware the PLAN are testing a J11 variant.

    First I heard about it- though I have been working a lot lately so it maybe true- I’ll have a scout around on the net and see what i can come up with.

    in reply to: PLAN Carrier Updates. #1998763
    Ja Worsley
    Participant

    this carrier is going to be used

    I’ve been saying that for a long time now- Blind Freddy could have told you that when China got it’s hands on this vessel, it planned to use it- they have had a long time now to study it, how it works, where everything goes- now they are finishing it and then going to build their own in reverse engineering- hence the statement by the PLAN that they will have 3 carriers by 2015

    + 10 million

    The PRC is the only permanent member of the UN Security Council that does not have an aircraft carrier. This ship will rectify that.

    It’s not like they haven’t had a chance, more like this is the right time and now they have the right vessel!

    Ah, so that’s what this is really about …. 😀

    Morning Wan- would you like some coffee now that you’ve woken up :dev2:

    Very beautiful shot
    Maybe the 1st sea trials in 2011…

    Official PLAN sources say that Sea Trials for this vessel are due in August this year- I think you’ll find that this vessel is more ready than we’ve been lead to believe- couple this with the PLAN order for 35 Su-33’s due for delivery of the first batch in June this year and we start to see a brighter picture here- well brighter for the PLAN! 😮

    in reply to: Question about LCS- the loosing contender #1998768
    Ja Worsley
    Participant

    Shame on me 😎

    So you are human and not an encyclopedia after all 😛

    Its a travesty to name that frigate “Independence”! Name goes from a supercarrier to a………….:mad:

    Steady on mate, these ships are revolutionary in all aspects of the naval service; Their design, then crewing, their role even their employment. I had some friends on CV-62 and they are proud that the name has lived on and that it’s gone to such an important vessel as this!

    They both look like awesome ships so my vote would make them both winners. I would build 27 LCS-1 Freedom Class ships for the Atlantic fleet and build 27 LCS-2 Independence Class ships for the Pacific fleets.

    A split build may still be on the cards mate, both vessels do have their own unique quallities: 1 has the shallower draft where as 2 is more flexible with organic air operations! It’s interesting to see the costings release of LCS3 and 4- the Austral vessel costs less, is bigger yet has the same crew numbers, can handle two helo ops (up to MH-60 sized) on flight deck at the same time and provides more room for mission modules or more importantly can interchange mission modules in far less time than the rival.

    The Air Force should have done this with the YF-22 and the YF-23 and put both fighters into service.

    If you ask me, the USAF needs it’s head read on the YF-23 contention- it should have won hands down! But that’s for the Air Force section, this is the navy section.

    in reply to: Subject Study- RAN Future LCH #1998772
    Ja Worsley
    Participant

    The question is though, how stable would it be after that change?

    Would it turn turtle in a 1metre swell let alone a 10 metre swell? 😀

    Granted that the center of gravity would change mate, considering Tenix’s success on Sirius I don’t think there’d be much to worry about since they seem to know what they are doing and have successfully employed a modification like this previously- though a thought does come to mind- should ballast become a problem here, then add a similar addition to the mid section just forward of the bridge, this would give back the two .50cal positions I deleted and also add more internal berthing space to embark troops for a longer journey (say Townsville to Noumea in a mini Tobruk fashion)

    in reply to: Subject Study- RAN Future LCH #1998902
    Ja Worsley
    Participant

    I got a bit bored and thought I’d have a crack at this design stuff.

    What I did here was add a flight deck to the standard Caiman200 design which I do seem to favour for this project. The aft is slightly enclosed aka Tobruk fashion but the landing grappels are still exposed, I moved the comms antenas around a bit to allow flight ops and I added an MRH-90 (borrowed it from Stan Hyd’s Mornington Class OPV design) to give the desired effect.

    The added internal area would create extra room for the surgery mentioned on one side of the vessel and on the other side the increased fresh water equipment and possibly some extra storage room- maybe even enough room for a holding room for immigrants or unlawful people.

    in reply to: Russia confirms purchase of Mistral #1998947
    Ja Worsley
    Participant

    AI: Thanks for saying what I was thinking mate

    in reply to: Question about LCS- the loosing contender #1998949
    Ja Worsley
    Participant

    Related non-us example: Triton

    http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/trimaran/

    So, trials with a friendly navy may be a possibility, so is sale to a foreign service or transfer to a US-sister service. Sale to a US commercial pary might also be possible, the vessels can then be loaned/rented back by US government services. I can also see the loosing contender joining the small fleet of USN X-craft and/or ending up supporting e.g. special forces ops. Or they may just be retired at some point and stored or disposed of (see e.g. what happened to the Pegasus class PHMs patrol hydrofoils and PC-1 Cyclone class coastal patrol ships, or some the the more recent mine counter measures ships)

    Shame on you Wan: you forgot to mention that RV Triton is now in Australian Customs service as ACV 90 Triton and slightly modified. She now has two .50cals mounted on her and has traded some of her Ballast for extra room to house people caught doing illegal things in our EEZ (see in the pic, the tents for and aft of the main structure).

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Australian_Customs_ship_Triton_moored_in_Darwin_Harbour.jpg

    As for your comment about where they may end up- I really thing the USCG would love these vessels in their service- they already have the weapons systems in place so logistics and supply won’t be an issue (remember that the 56mm gun is new to the USN but has been in USCG service for a good many years now). Should the USCG gain the LCS 1 type, then ops closer to shores of drug lords with DEA support would be more realistic.

    in reply to: Russia confirms purchase of Mistral #1999291
    Ja Worsley
    Participant

    Well I guess I am out of excuses for the EH-101 other than would the Russians buy British equipment?

    Wan- thanks buddy, I feel better now 😀

    in reply to: Russia confirms purchase of Mistral #1999478
    Ja Worsley
    Participant

    The 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:

    http://www.larsenal.com/Source/galerie/grand/BPC_Mistral/Super-Frelon_en_operations/Mistr49

    http://www.larsenal.com/Source/galerie/grand/BPC_Mistral/Super-Frelon_en_operations/Mistr50
    http://www.larsenal.com/GB/galeries/galerie_02.php?maquette=Super-Frelon_en_op%F9rations&poua=BPC_Mistral

    http://bpctonnerre.free.fr/fevrier2010/tonn28022010g.JPG
    http://bpctonnerre.free.fr/actualites2010transittoulonbrest4.htm

    This 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!

    Geee look at the tight sqeeze on that side elevator, no room for mistakes there!

    Well, that settles the height issue then?

    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!

    Didn’t you know, we do a group hug regularly :);)

    Speaking of which- you haven’t given me mine lately Wan 🙁 I feel left out!

    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)

    Hmmmm Russia use their Mistral like the USN use their Amphibs with Harriers- I like it. Yeah Bring back the Freestyle!

    http://en.academic.ru/pictures/enwiki/89/Yak41M_over_Baku.png

    The Kazan Ansat is in low rate production with a quadruplex digital FBW system and whenever it finally enters service the Mi-38 will be FBW as well. If only the Russian helo industry got their collective behinds in gear, I’m not sure Europe would have much to teach them beyond improvements regarding maintenance intervals.

    Take also composites – the Ka-50/52 family do not contain as much by weight as many Western helos but they use this type of material in their central load-bearing structure, not just for skin panels and access hatches. That is unusual (though far from unheard of) even today and it certainly was back when the Ka-50 first appeared.

    I did a bit of looking before commenting and I found no reference to the MI-38 being FBW at all. The Ansat is a small helo that would make a nice plane guard but not a real contender for mass airborne helo ops from an LPD- lets be serious here

    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.

    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.

    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!

    in reply to: Russia confirms purchase of Mistral #1999733
    Ja Worsley
    Participant

    Provided that hangar height is compatible and the forward elevator can be enlarged, a modernised variant of the Ka-29 (based on the Ka-32-10 with a rear ramp that Kamov is studying) would be completely fine. Seriously, while the NH-90 airframe is very sophisticated, the Ka-32 family offers almost the same performance in a much more compact package – likely cheaper too. Other than tech-transfer (which Russia is getting anyway through civilian AW139 licensed assembly), what’s the point?

    My point here is that the AW-139 doesn’t have Fly By Wire controls, the NH-90 does- this would help Russian industry expand into this area for their own local industry.

    The EH101 is probably out
    Russia probably won’t/won’t be allowed buy from US

    But … EH101 is not US its Anglo-Italian

    That doesn’t change the substance of your analysis or course.

    Al

    What I meant here mate was that if Russia can’t and won’t buy American, then they can’t and won’t buy English either! I know the EH-101’s design and origins- the Italians and the Russians have a history of co-operative design (MB-348/Yak-130)

    in reply to: Russia confirms purchase of Mistral #1999820
    Ja Worsley
    Participant

    This is what Mikhail Barabanov, Russian military expert, who visited the Mistral with Russian delegation said (pardon my English):

    “о высоте ангар, по моему впечатлению, достаточен для размещения там Ка-27, Ка-29 и Ка-52. Но, помимо вопроса складывания винтов на Ка-52, серьезной проблемой тут встанет узкий бортовой подъемник. Если Ка-27 на него со сложенными винтами, видимо, и влезет, то Ка-29 и Ка-52 туда точно не войдут по ширине внешних подвесок. То есть их подача без серьезных переделок подъемника возможна будет только через кормовой «широкий» подъемник на торце кормового среза.”

    “About hangar’s height, my impression is that it’s sufficient for placing there Ka-27, Ka-29 and Ka-52. But, in addition to the question of folding the rotor on Ka-52, another serious problem that will arise is the narrow shipboard elevator. If Ka-27, it seems, could get in with folded rotor, Ka-29 and Ka-52, on the other hand, won’t get in for sure because of the width of the side mounts. In other words, without introducing modifications to the elevator, their delivery [to the flight deck] is possible only by the “wide” stern elevator.”

    http://vif2ne.ru/nvk/forum/2/co/1922035.htm

    So I guess some changes will be introduced into the Russian version of Mistral.

    May be it’s important to the French, so they will give up on something else – I don’t know. My impression is that Russians locked on the Mistral, and the (supposed) interest in similar ships is for other reasons (maybe for the negotiations’ sake or for making this all deal to look more transparent and commercial than it is).

    I don’t agree, but lets not get into this any more.

    Zil: Спасибо за ваши комментарии другу и добро пожаловать на борт

    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 ….

    Wan: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.

    in reply to: Russia confirms purchase of Mistral #2000037
    Ja Worsley
    Participant

    Ja, I don’t think the dimensions are an issue. The NH90 is exceedingly high for its class at around 530cm, the Kamovs are only just 20 or 30cm higher and shorter (even shorter than a folded NH90). And the Mi-17 is lower than a NH90. The main plate-forme elevatrice has an open end for the ass of any helicopter to stick out.

    Storing a Kamov in the hanger and working on it is the thing I am worried about- I know from my time in the service that the height in a hanger is very important when working on crusial bearings in rotor hubs and such- 30cm is not really enough room- you need at least a meter clearence to work on rotors and associated areas.

    As for the elevators, I was thinking of the mid aft deck lift which is rather narrow and short. I have heard that the aft elevator could take a CH-47 (but actually fitting them in the hanger was the problem the RAN was worried about- something the Spanish thought about when designing their vessel as they have the CH-47’s in service).

    I think the Ruble will remain strong enough, plus don’t forget that GDF Suez just became partner in Nord Stream – it’s not necessarily money that would flow as payment.

    Well that’s true enough, besides, they could always barter some deal like they have been accepting from other countries- though I can’t see a market in France for Zil’s or Russian coal, but yeah the oil is the key here, Russia has it and France needs it.

    in reply to: Russia confirms purchase of Mistral #2000121
    Ja Worsley
    Participant

    Ка-27, Ка-29 and Ka-52 landed on Mistral. So probably those helicopters are intended to be used.

    Landed on and stowed in the hanger are two very different things, the latter is the one I am concerned about

    Keeping French weapons on Mistral seems extremely improbable.

    That’s what I think too.

    1-3 or 2-2 doesn’t seems to be really important. It’s just a negotiation process.

    Actually it is important- the French have been pushing hard to sell the Mistral’s, if they opt to do 1-3 then French jobs are at stake, if they do the 2-2, then the contract is at stake from the Russians (don’t forget, they can always go to either the Spanish or the Dutch and get a similar vessel- the Spanish might drive a harder deal but the Dutch would welcome any deal anyone is willing to offer for their vessel).

    It seems to me that Russian economy is not less stable than that of any other developed country.

    Tell that to the Russian people who face incredible debt that the state just can’t seem to get rid of.

    Purchase of Mistral class ships is already controversial. Purchasing French helicopters will make it even more so.

    I don’t see how- they have a vessel that is incompatable with their current equipment- they’d need a stop gap till their industry could catch up- besides, it would give them another area to look into.

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 3,659 total)