UnicornNo real difference between this and the RNZN’s new OPVs, the position of the funnels means that vision aft is also somewhat constrained on the Project Protector OPVs.
Unicorn
UnicornMk 41 comes in three lengths;
Self Defence length (basically VL Sea Sparrow only)
Tactical Length (basicaly everything except Thomahawk and SM-3)
Strike Length (anything)
The advantage is you can optimise to suit your requirements.
Unicorn
UnicornStripped of vital equipment and manned by skeleton crews, it would take six months to restore most of them to frontline service or 18 months in Invincible’s case. She isn’t expected to go to sea again flying the White Ensign.
Interesting comment, suggesting that she may go to see under someone else’s ensign.
India is unlikely given budgetary constraints and their transition to CTOL, who else might be interested in an Invincible?
Unicorn
UnicornRequest for assistance
A request to our members who may be able to shine a light on this matter.
An associate of mine is building a radio controlled 1:72 scale model of the Type 956 destroyer, and the plans he has do not show one item he has been told should be there.
The Sovremmeny is apparently fitted with a bow thruster, located somewhere behind the bow sonar.
My associate was wondering if someone could shed some light, particularly in the form of a drawing or photo, showing the location of this bow thruster.
He wishes to fit a working bow thruster to his model and would like it to be placed accurately.
Any help in this matter wouold be much appreciated.
Unicorn
Unicornyes finland, canada, australia and kuwait none of them are airforces that really expect to fight a real war without hiding behind USA’s skirt. Any hangar queen would fit these airforces. Really canada and kuwait are your idea of modern well equipped airforces??
When the airforce formulates its requirement for an a/c they spend time and effort discussing its role and specifications.
Unfortunately american bootlickers like you are plenty in this forum. Leave India’s decisions to GOI, IAf and IN. I would consider the opinion of officers and officials serving in these more valuable than silly testimonials from forum members here.
Well Australia, Canada and Kuwait have all fought successful wars in the relatively recent past with the Hornet, as I recall the Indian Air Force hasn’t fought a war for almost a quarter of a century.
As for casting aspersions on the capabilities of these air forces, they have successfully managed to intoroduce modern capabilities into their air forces, how long has India been trying to decide on a Lead In Fighter Trainer? Is India still losing pilots in fatal accidents by trying to use the Mig 21 as a LIFT?
How much ‘time and effort’ does the IAF need to formulate and accept into service a reasonably easy capability anyway?
Yes Bronco, the forum is a democracy, that means we have the right to comment without your abuse, and you have the right to respond, hopefully with something constructive.
I am not an American bootlicker, I speak from operational experience, having served for more than dozen years in an Air Force that operates the F/A-18 Hornet, and having flown in the aircraft on numerous occaisions.
That’s a damn sight more than you can claim, your operational experience in this matter is basically nothing, so your comments should be seen as what they are, the ravings of an Indian chauvanist.
Unicorn
UnicornThe F-18 is a crappy fighter and no one in right mind for even bother with a plane like that. Strike is its forte and IAF finds it too heavy and cumbersome.
But then people here seem to know more about what IN, IAF or even Brazilian Navy needs more than the services themselves :rolleyes: .
Korea a defence partner for India….:rolleyes: :rolleyes: . Sure if wishes were horses beggars would ride. Next indo-nipponese alliance against china I suppose? :diablo:
Hmm Broncho, your prejudices are showing again.
The F/A-18 is a crappy fighter.
Really, tell that to the air forces of Finland, Australia, Canada, Switzerland and Kuwait amongst others. They had the option to buy pretty much anything they wanted, as all were paying cash, and all chose the Hornet.
The Royal Australian Air Force is currently investigating a purchase of up to 24 Super Hornets as an interim aircraft leading into the delivery of the JSF. That suggests that a modern first world nation is pleased with the service their Hornets have provided and finds the Super Hornet a viable aircraft.
Strike is its forte and IAF finds it too heavy and cumbersome.
Interesting, seeing the IAF has never operated the Hornet how exactly can they ‘find’ it too heavy and cimbersome.
It seems to have done rather well, particularly in combat operations, something that the IAF has had very little experience of in the last several decades. When it comes down to it, combat is the only true test of a combat aircraft, and the F/A-18 has perfomed well enough to remain in service with the major operators, the USN and USMC, wheras other aircraft have been phased out of service.
But then people here seem to know more about what IN, IAF or even Brazilian Navy needs more than the services themselves
And you speak with too much assurance for someone who by your own acknowledgement has no experience in military operations, no experience in procurement of defence equipment or evaluations and no experience in any of the services.
People here suggest that a piece of equipment ‘might’ be a ‘possible’ contender for an Indian requirement and you respond that it will ‘never’ be considered, that it is ‘completely’ unsuited for the requirement and that these people are ‘stupid’ for even entertaining the possibility.
In short you come across as an ill-informed, loud mouthed, opinionated and rude anti-Western (particularly anti-American) chauvinist. An instant expert on any subject because you claim to be, with no real experience to back it up.
Regrettably all too many of your kind infest the Internet.
Please stop wasting our time with your prejudices, instead try contributing to the discussion with reasoned dialogue, with sources to back them up.
Unfortunately, I don’t expect that to happen.
Unicorn
UnicornBroncho, you make an awful lot of ‘definitive’ statements regarding future procurement plans for the Indian Navy (and Air Force).
What exactly are your connections to the Indian Military and Ministry of Defence that allow you to speak with such authority?
Are you a serving military officer? A former military officer, or a defence bureacrat?
Are you perhaps a defence analyst or specialist defence journalist?
I am sure all of us would like to hear the basis for your exceptionally ‘definitive’ statements on future Indian military procurement programs.
Unicorn
UnicornAustralia has already identified a mix of the P8 and the Global Hawk as their replacements for the AP3C fleet.
Unicorn
UnicornSo, you believe the F124’s would be better suited to Australia’s needs that the projected AWD’s?
Not a friggin chance.
The F124 is designed around a European electronics and weapons fit, which was exactly not what the RAN wanted.
The RAN understands that the likelihood of an operation with European (non-UK) navies is not terribly high, however operations with the US are almost guaranteed.
Thus they want capabilities that can seamlessly interface with US-led or US-supported operations.
The dead giveaway was the fact that both of the selected contenders were SPY / Aegis ships. None of the European designes were ever really starters.
The supposed cost advantages often quoted by European manufacturers evaporated when they were called upon to quote for delivering a ship with SPY / Aegis / SM-2 or 3. They simply did not want to support the opposing capability and thus passed on every Euro of development costs directly to the RAN.
This meant that the cost differential dissappeared under hard analysis.
This left the RAN with a choice between the Arleigh Burke, the F100 and the Gibbs and Cox design.
The Burke called for too large a crew, which simply meant they ‘priced’ themselves out of the manpower required game.
The Spaniards cruelled it for themselves several ways.
The first was that they were telling the RAN they completely supported the maximum build process within Australia, however they were telling their own government the complete opposite, that they would find ‘reasons’ why significant work could not be undertaken in Australia and would reduce as much as possible the Australian end of the construction process to welding metal together, with as much systems integration as possible being done in Spain. When they were rumbled they denied ever having said anything of the kind, which went down in Canberra like a lead balloon.
The next issue was that the F100 is top heavy, it rolls very badly for a ship of its size and length, and the Pacific has greater swell lengths and sizes on average than the Atlantic, making their operations out here marginal for much of the time. One of the RAN AWD project officers rode on the first one to be commissioned and stated she rolled worse than the old Hobart class DDG’s (and he should know, he served on the old Brisbane).
Finally, the decision to build in Australia was most wholeheartedly supported by Gibbs and Cox (for the obvious reason that they were not going to be losing business in their own shipyard, unlike the Spanish and European contenders). Local build and system integration was seen as critical to the maintenance of the class over the coming decades, including the integration of future electronics and technologies over the LOT of the class.
It would also see the ASC in South Australia becme the centre for military shipbuilding and support in Australia, with the Collins class maintenance, AWD build and maintenance , Anzac maintenance, the LPA / LST build and maintenance and the eventual new AOR and Collins-replacement build and maintenance all ending up there.
I am not running down the capabilities offered by the Type 45, LCF and Typw 124 (amongst the European contenders), all are excellent ships, however the long term strategic realities in play almost guaranteed a SPY / Aegis / SM-2 / 3 solution, which was not these manufacturers preferred offering, and it showed.
Thus the Gibbs and Cox design was always looking like a winner, and the F100, while possible, was always handicapped to an extent.
Unicorn
UnicornAustralia doesn’t have any LHAs. Australia has 3 amphibious ships, described by the RAN as LPAs (Kanimbla & Manoora) or LSH (Tobruk). None remotely resembles what the USN would designate an LHA. The LPAs were called LSTs when in US service.
Agreed, however the capabilities of Manoora and Kanimbla are different and vastly expanded compared to their capabities as LSTs in the USN.
A former CO of Saginaw visited the ship, now renamed Kanimbla, after it had been refitted and found it hard to believe that he was on the same ship he had commanded, the new capabilities were well beyond anything the ‘old’ Sagnaw was capable of.
That said, they are not a patch on the capablities of a USN LPA/LHA.
Unicorn
UnicornThe VSTOL variant has the support of the Army and the Navy, for deployments on the LPAs and for operations in close proximity to troops deployed.
The large amount of commonality between the CTOL and VSTOL variants goes a long way towards overcoming the RAAF’s objections to procuring a small amount of a specialised type for the role (which was always their argument against a Harrier-type aircraft in the past).
Unicorn
UnicornI stand corrected.
Please substitute 6 Squadron (second of the F11 squadrons) for No 2 Squadron (which is standing up to operate the Wedgetails as pointed out above.
It was late when I posted and I was suffering brain fade.
the revised and expanded list is as follows;
1 Sqdn F35 VSTOL
2 Sqdn Wedgetail AWACs
3 Sqdn F35 CTOL
6 Sqdn (former F111 squadron that will probably be disbanded)
10 Sqdn P8 ASW aircraft
11 Sqdn (former AP3C ASW squadron that will probably be disbanded)
32 Sqdn Beech King Air & KA350 or equivalent replacements
33 Sqdn A330MRTT
34 Sqdn BBJ and Challenger VIP aircraft
36 Sqdn C-17
37 Sqdn C130J
38 Sqdn (former Caribou transport squadron that will probably be disbanded)
75 Sqdn F35 CTOL
76 Sqdn Hawk
77 Sqdn F35 CTOL
79 Sqdn Hawk
2 OCU mix of both F35 types
The intention is to operate five F35 units, each equipped with probably 16-18 aircraft.
Its only one more than the current Hornet fleet, and is less of a maintence burden than operating both F111 and F18 concurrently.
I would expect that 6 Sqdn would operate the Super Hornet, with the RAAF looking to on-sell them to another Super Hornet operator once the F35’s arrive, followed by the Sqdn standing down.
Australia’s F35 buy is not large enough to support six Sqdns, even with almost certainly lower numbers than todays 24 aircraft per squadron, and 6 Squadron is somewhat less prestigious (less of an illustrious history) than the others.
Unicorn
UnicornMerry Christmas Shiplover, I love your work.
Unicorn
UnicornIts a design philosphy thing.
The Burkes are a holdover from the days of cheap and plentiful manpower, and the USN tends to have people who specialise in a single job.
The RAN has always struggled with manning, the entire population of Australia is about that of the greater New York City area, 20 million.
That means that the RAN, which is about 14,000 people all up (asuming that they have all billets filled, a big if) cannot afford to have its people specialised to a single role.
Thius the Yeoman (signallers) also double as the ship’s LAN managers, the armament guys handle the ships weaponry, but also tend to be involved in boarding parties, and so on.
It also comes down to a repair and maintenance on board or alongside philosophy. Repair and maintenance on-board requires more people and specialities than repair and maintenance alongside.
I think that the West’s navies (thise who rely on volunteer rather than conscripts) will need to start looking at some of the minimum manning technologies pioneered by the commercial shipping industry.
Obviously not all will be applicable however some most definitely will be, such as unmanned engine rooms.
Look at how the use of new technologies has allowed a reduction in crewing for the USN.
A Fletcher class DDG of WW2 had a crew off some 300-340 depending on how many AA guns had been fitted. Today an Arleigh Burke has the same crewing but massively more capability, on the displacement of a WW2 cruiser.
The RANs Collins class have a crew of around 40, far better accomodated than the 68 on the less-capable Oberon’s they replaced or the 80 of a WW2 Gato.
The Burkes have a 300+ crew, their replacements will almost certainly have a smaller complement, with enhanced capability.
Reduced manning is almost a necessity today, fortunately technology will make this possible.
Unicorn
PS. The Kongo’s have a crew of around 305, about the same as a Flight 1 Burke
UnicornCorrect, the traditional bridge is going the way of the dodo, generally on most modern warships the captain commands the ship from the CIC during combat, the bridge being more of a navigation platform.
That said, the mark 1 eyeball is still the best, cheapest and most un-jammable sensor there is, so the bridge in some form will remain.
As for calibration issues with the mast mounted sensors, Vosper Thornycraft seemed to think any issues could be overcome.
Unicorn
Sign In
