Thats the point, the anti- sverdlov designs were all cancelled for monetary reasons, the sinking of a sverdlov would not have stopped that

but where they stopped before this incident or only afterwards?

If it’s any comfort, we didn’t get to the eurocup either…tough only difference is that we have never gotten there, nor to any other international championship cups. Someone has counted that if take under consideration of all the played games and the time spended in the international football circles, Finland is the worst footballcountry ever…:( 🙁

But we never have been this close to actually qualifying to the finals so it gives hope in a longer term…:)

And what I am pointing is that suggestion is flawed. The reason being that the RN’s budget was being perpetually driven down by the UK’s economic reality, not by any operational considerations. The loss of one Sverdlov would not have changed any RN procurement policy.

well perhaps talks of entire budget are bit far headed. My orginal claim (i just read it myself:D) was that such blow would have effect on those who were suggesting and desinging anti-sverldov desings. You may be rigth that to the budget it wouldnt have had any effect, but what to do with that budget inside the navy.

The British defence budget in this period (really up until the 1980’s) was entirely budget driven and the random loss of one Soviet cruiser would have changed nothing. That is fact.

How can it be a fact, when such thing (blowing up a Soviet Cruiser) didnt happen:confused:
Anyway, my suggestion was mainly made to give some support the orginal mystery claim that Why would UK special services try plant limbet mine to a Soviet Cruiser?

You dont know your Royal Navy History, read Vanguard to Trident By Eric J Grove. The factor driving the british defence budget was money and almost nothing else, every time a project is cancelled in this period it for financial reasons, the country could not afford it.

Yeas and its the politicans who rule the how much money goes to which sector…and politicans can be influenced by just about anything

The loss of one Sverdlov would not have affected British procurement which was entirely budget orientated.

By 1956 Sverdlovs were being scrapped on the ways anyway, the Soviet policy change had already taken place………whether British intelligence was aware of this at that time I dont know.

Budgets and plans are mostly politically orientated and are often affected on large symbolical events which may technically be quite minor.

Whether the Sverdlovs actually were obsolete is a difficult question to answer…IMO.

Thats a tricky one. In the context of the post-war situation where aircrafts seemed to be the nails in large surface combatants coffins there might be difficoult to drawn conclusion that completely WWII era concept and equal technology of western cruisers of 1939-45 era wouldn’t be obsolete.
Then again 16 cruisers added to a fleet that before that had less than 10 wwII era cruisers (Pr. 26, 26bis and 68) is a huge difference and certainly gives its adversors something to chew on. Aircrafts and even more EW sector at those days didn’t have the same goodies that justifies similar superiority status as the enjoy today in naval warfare. Any US/UK battlegroup would have still had to face pr.68bis with its own surface assets as well in most cases.

Few things I would like to throw into this depate considering the pros and cons of UK to actually posit explosives to Sverlodv class.

Those of you who had done your homeworks by naval matters will surely know the rather odd prestige and value that RN put on the Sverldovs. Despite these cruisers were obsolete from launching, in British circles they posessed considerable attention and were taken as suprise threat in the climate where RN was stripping of its large surface combatants. If war would have bursted out, there migth have been odd situation where RN would have been almoust suprassed by Russia in quantative terms.
Therefore many desings and ideas rosed out in this period to counter the thread of the Sverldovs. Many are familar with the unbuild big gun cruisers/destroyer projects of this period and other applications came foward also. Such projects were offcourse extra burden to UK defences that were allready in tigth situation and underpressure of new war methods, and few wanted to see revial of the manpower insestive big surface fleet.

Under these circumstances a dreadfull Sverldov, suddenly and embrassingly exploding in aftermath of high-key diplomatic visit would have make end of the expensive counter-sverldov desings (like they did in real life) and migth have even made Soviets to reconsider the practicality of such ships in first place.

So who knows:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

There is no means to determine if planes are designed by based on some other aircrafts frames by simply looking the outward physical features. You can list dozens of “evidences” to one way or another and depate which one is right untill the world ends. Physical similarity can only be used as a indicator that (“yeah, those guys were right”) illustrates some other type of evidences, but not as a solid proof at alone.

For example lets try to use this case in more down-to earth type of metaphor:

Lets pretend that J-10 is a child of two chinese parents, Chengdu (as mother) and the what-ever was that design burey 611 or 601? (As Father). As it grews it started to resample another child, the Lavi which parents were from Israel. Now rumours fly around that perhaps it wasen’t the 611/601 institute that screwed Chengdu, but some isreali salesman in a “quick one while he is away” type of situation. The childs ears and eyes sure look like jewish herritage…
So the bad mouths are now shouting: “its the IAI who really is the father!!” Ofcourse all the relatives of J-10 are upsetted becouse of this and tries to deny it in every means, and why wouldn’t they? It’s blain insulting to anyone no matter where you come from.
But the question is, is the outwards similarity and wild rumours enough to say who is that childs real father? Sure it can put a shaddow on it, but not liable in front of the law. The both parents are still chinese if you ask the authorities. So only way to determine the real line of blood is ofcourse the paternity test.

So back to the real life and to these two planes. Yeas there are rumours that IAI is involved to the program and they are ranging from J-10 being direct copy of Lavi with just enlargened engine and assosiated stuff to IAI just giving technical help to the chinese as they were desinging similar aircraft as the Israelians were back in the days. (I personally belive to the later) But they aren’t enough to proof anything. We need the paternity test.
In this case the paternal test would be unbiased examination of all information based on J-10 program which is basicly impossiple to perform, as the ones demanding it (us loud-mouths in internet forums) hardly can acess to such data. So it may well be we might never know the real father of J-10…

…And as it is pointless to try and come to some sort of conclusions in internet-forum depates, the wiches circle will keep on rolling…