UnicornRather similar to LPD-17 if you ask me…
Below similar aspect image of LPD17 w/o integrated masts
It does have a similar aspect.
I suppose that similar ships, designed to undertake a similar role, will end up with a one or other of a small number of realtively optimised shapes and forms.
Thus the Mig 29 and F-18 are structurally similar, or the Concorde and the TU-144.
Unicorn
UnicornThe reason is that Tobruk is scheduled to pay off first.
The RAN plan is for two LPDs followed bya militarised RO/RO to lift more vehicles for the follow on forces.
Unicorn
UnicornBS as usual. The new LPD will be built at GRSE.
Jesus Broncho, is that chip on your shoulder bothering you again?
It was just a possible suggestion, it wasn’t graven in stone.
Tinwing stated that you shouldn’t expect to see a new build LPD in Indian service anytime soon, unless it was sourced from a foreign yard.
Whats the issue here?
Garden Reach is already busy with other work and thus hasn’t got the resources available to build a new design LPD and deliver it quickly at this time.
That may change in a few years, but at this point it’s not at all likely that Garden Reach could design and / or build a new LPD design and deliver it into service within the relatively short term Tinwing referred to.
If the Indian Government felt that a requirement for the capability existed and was needed urgently, then they would be likely to turn to a foreign yard that is bulding such ships right now and would be able to just add to a current build program for India.
However it is unlikely that such a situation would come to pass, as we would all agree.
Therefore it is unlikely that we will see a new build LPA in Indian Navy service for some time, given that the IN needs to build up their LPD experience and determine the characteristics that they require in a new build vessel that they will in all lilklihood have built, either to a foreign or local design, at Garden Reach.
It seems we all agree on this, so what, exactly, was your problem again?
Unicorn
UnicornBoeing has proposed a marinised, blade folding CH-47, however they have not as yet found a customer willing to pay the development costs.
After the RAF Chinook issues, many air forces are understandably gun shy.
Unicorn
UnicornYes Cinciboy, operating costs on 20 year old ships are higher than brand new ones.
On the other hand, its a damn sight cheaper than wandering off to the builder of your choice and placiong a very large amount of folding down for a vessel type that you have no experience in operating, no doctrine developed and no concept of operations incorporated into your training.
It will cost quite a bit to operate Trenton, but its a pittance compared to buying new ships.
If you need proof, look at the Royal Australian Navy’s Kanimbla and Manoora. Both were in need of extensive refurbishment work which was undertaken during their conversion from LST to the LPA that they are today.
Was the cost excessive? Probably when you factor it all in.
Was the cost worthwhile? Absolutely.
They have taken part in operational deployments to the Soloman’s, Fiji, East Timor, the Persian Gulf, Tsunami relief efforts and the usual range of national and international exercises, all generating vast amounts of experience in the operational art of LPA capabilities.
The operational concepts, deployment experience and corporate knowledge built up in the operations of these ships throughout the Asia Pacific has meant that the RAN and the Australian Army can now go out with confidence and evaluate potential replacement LPAs with a solid understanding of what does and does not work for Australia’s needs.
India is now embarking on the same path, courtesy of the USN. They are not, as far as I am aware, planning anything along the lines of the massive upgrading undertaken for Manoora & Kanimbla, more along the lines of developing concepts and capabilities.
It may cost a bit in the short term, but the money saved in the long run is immense.
Unicorn
UnicornYes, it appears that the aircraft had landed off to one side, then the deck handling crew had tried to use the RAST gear to pull the aircraft into line with the hangar doors before towing it inside with the RAST shuttle.
Unfortunately the starboard wheel was caught on the RAST shuttle and the attempt to pull it meant that the wheel became the pivot point for the aircraft to topple.
It appears to be a USN Sea Hawk, you can see the forward, nose mounted FLIR, which is common to the USN’s Sea Hawks.
I bet after this choice piece of stupidity the deck crew were contestants in that new Olympic sport, synchronised butt kicking.
Unicorn
UnicornFrak me that was painful. the no flare hurts to watch.
Great video, love the reversing back up the runway.
Unicorn
UnicornEasy taking everything said in ‘The Navy’ as gospel. They have their share of corporate hacks submitting articles.
That said, Thornhill has excellent contacts. Don’t know about Wagner though.
Similaly, both Johnson and Kaplan (they collaborated on the Talwar article in the same issue) are both very well connected, their individual stuff is usually excellent.
Johnson is usually a bit dry, while Kaplan, who has been writing for them for years, tends to be a bit more interesting to read.
Unicorn
UnicornThe Japanese are quite proficient at specifying indigenous equipment to do a similar or inferior job to currently available foreign military equipment, at a quite scandalous mark up.
Cases in point include the F1 and T2, the F2, the Type 90 MBT and various other items.
Cost effectiveness tends to go out the window in Japanese procurement.
But then they are hardly Robinson Crusoe in that regard
Unicorn
UnicornDuring th first half of the 60s the Sea Vixen was partnered with the Supermarine Scimitar F1, which was employed mainly as a strike aircraft but was originally designed as a fighter. It had no radar (although one was proposed for later models, which were cancelled in favour of the Buccaneer), but it did have four 30mm ADEN cannon fitted internally below the jet intakes. It was a very fast transonic (could break the sound barrier in a dive)and agile day fighter with 20,000lbs of thrust on tap (2 RR Avon engines) and while the Sea Vixens could provide the outer layer of air defence the Scimitars could provide an inner ring under the ships radar control. The scimitar was cleared to fire AIM-9B Sidewinders as well as Bullpup air to ground missiles from it’s four underwing pylons.
Unfortunately the Scimitar had ‘issues’, I understand the RN lost 37 out of 76 aircraft delivered due to its poor handling. It’s nickname was apparently the ‘Beast’, with reason.
Unicorn
UnicornWell done mate.
Unfortunately, once you start writing, particularly on anything controversial, the hate mail follows.
My editors don’t bother forwarding most of it on to me, the article I wrote about the PLAN and it’s future plans and capabilities holds the record in both numbers and vitriol.
There is a very good reason I write under pseudonyms.
Unicorn
Unicorn20+ year old vessels are exactly what the Chilean Navy buys! As for maintenance, The Invincible class was designed on the principle of upkeep by replacement, and they have been progressively updated. Apart from the hull, very little of the ship is actually ‘old’, and most of the ideas about old ships being expensive to maintain stems from the steam era, when a ships engines and boilers were expected to last the whole life of the ship. Gas Turbine powered ships change their engines at regular intervals (Invincible changed one whilst at sea during the Falklands war!) so comparing 20+ year old ‘modern’ warships with the previous generation can be misleading. A refitted Invincinble would not require more crew than she does now (685+386 aircrew), roughly the same as three frigates, but she packs more punch than any three frigates could. Also the buying price would be very favourable compared to building a new ship (Brazil bought the much larger Foch/Sao Paolo for $15million, whereas the skyhawks for her air group cost about $74million) so the deal would not be beyond Chile’s, or several other countrie’s reach.;)
All very true, Obi Wan.
It would certainly put a few noses out of joint if Chile was to acquire Invincible and the Harriers to operate off her.
Mind you, the latest RN ships to head to Chile were a bit younger than most.
It’s all idle speculation though, I have heard nothing about any interest in acquiring Invincible by anyone.
Unicorn
UnicornShe won’t fly the white ensign but won’t be sold either.
Yes, I was dubious of exactly who would be interested.
The only country that came to mind was perhaps Chile, but why would they want to take on a 20+ year old vessel with attendent manning and maintenance issues which, to operate at full potential would require the acquisition of VSTOL aircraft?
I think it was that the earlier article’s statement was poorly worded.
Unicorn
UnicornIf one can fit car’s with proximity warning devices for parking purposes, why not warships?
Interestng thought, I wonder if it has been trialled?
Unicorn
UnicornWhy is this a problem on a modern ship? I would really think that a video camera/monitor would suffice during maneuvering in port?
I was responding to Ja’s comment.
The issue is that a camera gives no depth of vision, its a 2D image when manouvering alongside a wharf really needs a 3d appreciation
Unicorn
Sign In
