Serial should be ZD260 for Lynx HMA8 no. 375

Swerve

Aren’t they retiring all the S-3s? There are large numbers, with loads & loads of airframe hours left, for sale. I reckon you might be able to fit the Erieye mission kit (the austere original Swedish one, which needs a ground station – or ship ) on one. Hmmmmm. Or they do good ASW. Or buddy tanking.

But you probably need a catapult to get one off Vikramaditya with a useful load.

I’d say definitely on the cat shot required to get a loaded Hoover off Gorshkov!. Dont know bout an Erieye on an S-3, but perhaps some lightweight variant of IAI’s Phalcon might be feasible or, certainly, a Searchwater AEW in a retractable ventral bin would be possible and would be an immense improvement over rotary AEW.

IIRC the latter S-3/Searchwater was an option under consideration for UK’s MASC requirement as it was.

Harry,

jonesy what do you think of the angled deck issue as won’t that slow the turing around the aircraft as they have to have the angled deck clear before the migs land. and take off. i thought that this would also increse the safety concerns

I’ve not heard of any specific angled-deck issue regarding the conversion?. Any vessel utilising arrested-recovery techniques requires an angled-deck for reasons of safety and optimum deck-flexibility. It simply makes no sense to try and use an axial (single) deck for an arrested-recovery technique carrier these days….unless of course you build it bloody huge!!!.

The problem with Gorshkov is that the takeoff run for the Mig-29’s is so far back it encroaches on the angled landing deck – at least according to published artwork. This means that to land-on an aircraft that launching spot must be clear. Conversley it means that to launch a number of aircraft in rapid succession will take time as the following fighters will have to wait, prior to being spotted, for the launching fighter to be up and emergency free. This also means that the first aircraft launched may have to be buddy-tanked to top-off fuel wasted whilst waiting for the launch evolution to complete etc!.

STOVL on the other hand can see a fighter spotted for launch, a fighter land vertically in front of it then taxi away, then complete the launch immediately when it has a clear run. Very much easier and safer!.

Broncho

I agree the gorky or ADS only seems to do viraats job much better than viraat. It is still not good enough to do any sort of force projection. 30 odd ac complement without E-2’s is not good enough for any sort of force projection.

This is entirely the problem I have here though. The IN had a sea control carrier capability for years…what does this vessel offer thats really all that new?. They operated CATOBAR back in the day with the SeaHawks so the idea that they have no capabilities in supporting Cat operations today is unfathomable.

When you consider that the IN’s stated requirement for a number of new carrier decks appeared in Janes back in ’94 the fact that they sit here today patting themselves on the back for getting an old Russsian hybrid carrier that just continues the status quo, in capability terms, is also unfathomable.

The current thread on the larger Spanish BSAC design is case in point here. There was a 27k ton carrier available at the time, 1994, apparently with a sticker price of $400 million. The French, at the time, were flying their early Rafale-M and it was showing large promise as a revolution in efficient and capable carrier fighter design. Lets say that the IN put an order in for the three carriers its declared requirement was for in 94 – plan in for the first carrier to join in 2005 and the last in 2015. Bazan could have easily met those schedules, if not, delivered all three by 2010 through full trials and into commission.

We give the airgroup per boat as two 8-plane squadrons of Rafale-M for 32 in service. We then add in an additional 12/8 Rafale-M/N for OCU and attrition reserve and your looking at 52 aircraft to be purchased over the twenty year period from say 1995-2015. Now, even at $70 mill per copy for the Rafale-M the Indian Defence budget could’ve coped with paying for two and a bit Rafales a year!.

That would’ve put the IN as owners of an efficient, reasonably economical, carrier force operating largely future-proof, low-maintenance, true swingrole fighters capable of deploying SCALP, Meteor, AASM, ALARM and, dare I say, NSM too!. Grab hold of half a dozen E-2’s or S-3AEW conversions and you have true deployed battlespace management capabilities in to boot. Equal to a US CVN perhaps not, but, the equal of anything else sailing under anyones flag until the French PA-2 hits the water!.

Instead they get Gorshkov, STOBAR, KA-31 and a Cavour-esque STOBAR ADS that will still do little more than sea-control work!. Indian posters here tell us that the IN is happy with this state of affairs too!!!

MIG is simply faster. infact the fastest jet in naval operations. so no target can escape from it both in air and sea. it can stay longer and it can take heavier external fuel tank in centre line now. (500 gallon). and still have weopon stations for other work (11). Its radius of action will be extended further with longer range R-77/KS-172. it is almost 10 times as effective as seaharrier with smallish nose with no multi target ability against ships.

Yep cool….as I said its a more powerful aircraft….it still doesnt allow the Gorshkov to attempt any more missions than Viraat though…which is kind of the point!!!!

Are we reading the same article here? Where did this ’10 yards’ come from?

10 Yards?. I wrote 10k yards i.e 10,000 yards i.e 5nm.

I would also like to see your workings out to suggest that a carrier has a reasonable chance of outrunning a fish at 5 miles, and thats not factoring in the sub launched AShMs the Song carries.

Simple – if the torpedo pulls about 30knts, standard-ish for most mid-range fish, and the surface fleet detectsthe launch signature and shoots off at 25 knots on the same heading then the torpedoes overtake is 5 knots. In otherwords the torpedo will make up the 5 nautical miles gap it was shot at but it would take a 1 hour run to actually do it!. Like I said a really first-class torpedo like a 48ADCAP or a Spearfish might stand a better chance but it will still take 10 minutes or so with a 30 knot overtake to catch!.

As for surfacing in front of the carrier. Well SSKs are not known for their endurance and speed when operating with batteries. It would have most likely taken a great deal of skill and probably just as much luck to get as close to the carrier as it did. Trying to chase the thing down and overtake is a really silly thing to do for an SSK, and would most likely result in it being detected or simply run over by the carrier or one of its escorts. Getting in the way of the carrier is also a much more aggressive and procative act then merely surfacing near it.

As stated you need top notch fish to catch a surface fleet IF you get a stern shot at all. The best way to shoot at such a target is from right in the bows!. Everyone knows this so an SSK in position AHEAD of the target fleet is always going to make for a much more direct message than one you’ve already left in your wake!.

Fair point, but I seriously doubt the skipper of a PLAN SSK would have the authority to surface his boat so close to a USN carrier on his own.

A skipper that doesnt have authority to surface the boat he commands?. You are joking arent you Wolf?.

Well I’m afraid I have to disagree on that point. Chinese military thinking is still influenced greatly by the Art of War, which sets the ultimate goal of the military as to be able to win without having to fight, and that makes damn good sense to me.

I’m afraid it sounds civillian and contrived to me mate. The point of shooting torpedoes is to kill ships, the men on them are a secondary issue, submarines are designed to shoot torpedoes at enemy vessels it really is that simple. You can train a sub crew to perform other missions like ELINT or SF insertion but primarily the submarines job will always be to kill other ships in the stealthiest way possible.

Hell, what you are suggesting flies in the face of decades of military interation between pretty much all of the world’s major militaries. The cat and mouse games played by soviet and western subs in the cold war; the cross pacific/atlantic ‘recon’ sorties and intercepts; the showing off of each other’s strategic nuclear power; the routine tailing of subs and surface ships by subs of all nationality with ‘leaked’ reports and scope shots etc.

All incidental to the real point of the game ‘Wolf. Getting in the other guy’s face to see if you can provoke a reaction is advantageous because it shows you all sorts of useful things – how fast the reaction is, how skilful was the use of tactics and systems employment….exactly the kinds of things that you would most definitely NOT want an opponent to get a good feel for. You dont want them to be able to gauge your response because it helps them kill you if the shooting turns real.

What you have stated is a less effective way of using one’s military. Unless you have a significant technological and/or quantative advantage over your potental opponent, then war is going to be a bloody and costly affair for both sides (it often is even if you do enjoy such advanatges). By hiding your true power, you may gain a significant advantage in battle, but in order to maximise that advanatge (or have it at all), you have to keep it secret and thus your opponent will only know of it after war has been decleared. The classic example of the stupidity of such a strategy is the needless war in the Flaklands, and the best counter example where military ‘transparency’ has most likely prevented war is the cold war, where only certain knowledge of the consequences of war kept the peace.

In the Falklands they new our primary naval area AAW system because they had it and we knew their primary AShM because we had it!. How can that be considered as not knowing your enemies weapons capability!. The way you describe this is amazingly civillian in outlook!. You strive to DENY your opponent any information about your capabilities so he is more scared of you as he doesnt know what you could be capable of!. Without that ability to quantify your opponent how do you go about calculating a counter for him?. If I remember the Art of War, read very long time ago, that would fall under the whole ‘know your enemy’ thing…if he helps you know his capability how stupid is he?.

Such a move will carry likely long term costs, such as gulvanising US efforts to counter SSKs. However, it also carries significant benefits, and branding such an act as ‘stupid’ without even taking a cursery look at the costs and benefits of this act is rather rash and illogical in my view.

What benefits come from showing your hand?. As you’ve seen just on this thread those who know a little about the subject can see through the charade – if enthusiastic amateurs do that what reaction do you think the professionals are seriously having?. As for cursory looks I think I’ve explained my opinion reasonably enough?.

It also does not make any sense for the PRC to keep such an ability quiet if it possessed it. The goal is not to sink USN carriers in battle, the goal is convincing the USN that its carriers will be sunk in battle, thus reducing the likihood of those carriers getting involved in the fight in the first place.

Nonsense. If that was the case the PLAN SSK surfaces IN FRONT of the US CVSG. 10k yards astern is hardly firing position for torpedoes!. Without a pretty high-end HWT aboard theres a good chance a surface unit could simply outrun a stern-chasing torp from that range. If the SSK was trying to transmit the message you state then someone in the PLAN command chain really IS a muppet!.

It is entirely possible that this sub skipper was simply at the right place at the right time. However, it would make little sense for him to surface unless instructed so by his commanders, because pictures of the USN ships would give the skipper far more braging rights if it was reveiled that he managed to take those pics without being noticed, instead of merely being able to get that close on a suicide run.

Well scope shots usually do for most. The most likely explanation is probably some variation of the ‘Sukhoi Effect’ when Kitty was buzzed by those two Russian jets. That got media attention – a submarine surfacing, dramatically, just off a US carrier would be anticipated to do at least as well dont you think?. As to the captain being ordered to do it – for his sake I sincerely hope he was and kept a very clear message log of the receipt of that order because it wasnt very smart!.

The only theory that makes sense (other then assuming the PLAN SSK skipper to be a brainless moron) is if the SSK was instructed to surface to send a message to the USN. But that would suggest that the PLAN have done this kind of thing before and is pretty confident of being able to do it again when the mission was authorised. And I suspect many here will find that hard to swallow.

Hmmm yes my vote would definitely be somewhere close to the ‘brainless moron’ end of the spectrum here for someone in this ships extended chain of command!. I dont care what anyone says about sending messages I’m afraid a combat crew trains for war. That is gaining position by stealth, firing sufficient weapons to complete your mission goals and clearing the datum through stealth to go home, thank whatever protected you that time out and prepare to go again. Doing anything else – unless you have a massive technical overmatch on your opponent – is stupidity of the highest magnitude!.

The incident proves one particular PLAN SSK skipper is an opportunist or a certifiable lunatic if nothing else!.

IF the US CVSG’s screen was up and they were conducting ASW ops – tactical ASW maneuvering, sonar watches plus chopper’s up and SSN patrol zones – something the PLAN skipper should have been acutely aware of, then that skipper had achieved something of huge significance.

Penetrating such a screen is a massive achievement and one that, if you ever want to do it again, you stay VERY, VERY quiet about.

By surfacing 5 miles astern of the CVSG the skipper has either detected the USN group bearing down on him and gone silent, noticed that they aren’t in Defence Watches and gone for a ‘PR kill’ by making something out of nothing with the surfacing drill or he has spent hours gaining position on the group, penetrated the best ASW the USN has, and promptly given away the fact that the PLAN can do such a thing – thereby tipping off the USN the need to tighten up their ASW techniques and increasing the difficulty for the next PLAN sub attempting the same thing!. Just for bragging rights?

If its the latter scenario, in the RN, that skipper would be rightly torn to pieces for his stupidity.

What Turbinia says is perfectly accurate.

From memory only two boats fully completed service-entry shakedown trials and the usual snag lists appeared. Those snag lists were never fully worked through (the tube doors issue aside!). The second two boats didnt even get that before cancellation.

In their day the U-Class were probably the most sophisticated SSK’s anywhere….they were described as ‘conventional mini T-boats’ and the sensor fit was similar to that of a Fleet Submarine. The problem with the installation of all this kit in addition to comms gear, weapons, consumables etc is that the space in the hull is limited – even for a big-ish boat.

The price that the Upholders paid for the advanced equipment fit was that the fuel bunkerage isnt massive compared to displacement. For the main design purpose of the boats….trolling at a few knots in the GIUK gap after a sprint on and off station….extensive fuel capacity wasnt a critical issue. Unfortunately, after a chat with a Canadian officer, it is an issue for them and the boats haven’t been viewed as a tremendously good solution for their requirements. The guy I spoke to did at least agree they were a significant capability improvement over their O-boats though!

OPV’s – Offshore Patrol Vessels. Put Castle Class OPV into google and you’ll find em. Indian Navy uses the Sukanya Class for the same purpose.