From the looks (only) it is conceivable to have two cats on the BSAC layout – one on the angled deck on the port beam and one on the bows. In reality it’d be a port/starboard split rather than the ‘traditional’ bow/waist affair as (as has been pointed out) she aint exactly big in the beam.

Would the bow cat impede the angled deck?. Possibly – the images we have arent clear enough to be definitive. The colour image shows almost a twin-track axial layout with landing and takeoff drags almost parallel in which case simultaneous launch and trap should be viable. Such a capability (simultaneous launch/trap) is very important for a whole slew of reasons, if nothing else, for the situation where a launching plane goes ‘mechanical’ on its driver and he wants to put it back aboard pronto. With simultaneous capability the whole flying programme doesnt have to be canned while they reconfigure the deck for a landing event. Thats only one example.

The more crucial thing here is the propulsion fit these things were meant to employ?. I cant see any obvious funnel groups or uptakes detailed to give a hint, but, if these were following the trends a COGAG layout would leave the problem of where the steam head would come from to power the cats?. Or were these things intended to have a modern steam fit and just accept the penalties of that?.

Blackcat,

but even then, the foreward launch point of the real Gorshkov model don interfere with the landing at least theoretically…

There is nothing theoretical about it – on the images shown thus far the Vikramaditya’s short takeoff spot fouls the landing run. Unless the Russians can put in a hull stretch when they do the conversion that boat is not, again from current imagery, doing simultaneous launch/trap.

Jonesy.

You seem like a sensible bloke.

Certainly you present well reasoned arguments that the conspiracy theorists are unable to answer.

So why are you wasting your time here on this thread trying to penetrate closed minds? It doesn’t matter how much information you present and how many unaswerable questions you ask, you will not convince them.

The rest of us have given up, why don’t you? Then we can let this thread sink into the haunted depths of the forum?

Moggy

Moggy,

What can I say – it seemed a good idea at the time and I flattered myself that, for a short while, I was getting somewhere!. The text block from CLEAR WAR and SSS’s latest batch of pictures would seem to give lie to that though.

So, yeah, lets leave these guys to pat themselves on the back and feel superior to all of us poor dupes who don’t know their ‘truth’!. 😉

Proves one thing though – if NASA ever do want volunteers to be sent back to the lunar surface we’ll have a couple of bloody good candidates!!!.

OK lets walk through this slowly.

You claim that NASA’s explanation for the speed effects, the dust clouds etc are demonstrably wrong. For the sake of argument lets say that you are correct – what does that actually mean?.

It means one of two possibilities:

1) That NASA staged a hoax on an utterly unprecedented scale. Sending an unmanned capsule with remote-controlled recordings of the voices of the ‘astronauts’ to simulate the voyage phase and the landings, then cutting in to the staged tv footage for the moonwalks, then landing the unmanned craft to deploy the first laser reflector we KNOW is there. Then after the fact pursuading everyone involved to keep the secret for the next, so far, 37 years.

2) That NASA got it wrong with their explanation of the events you describe because they were in, literally, uncharted territory and made mistakes.

Answer, honestly, which one of those is more plausible?.

That is IF they are in fact wrong with their published explanations and its not YOU that is wrong in your observations of the speed of the people and vehicles on the lunar surface and YOU that is wrong on the amount of dust that would or wouldnt be kicked up by the lander. Incidentally you didnt answer how you know that the vehicles and people are moving ‘at the wrong speed’ or explain how you know that the Lander shouldn’t have kicked up dust when it landed?.

The hoax theory described in point 1 above is science fiction, face it, the whole thing would have been ridiculously farcical if it had gone wrong!. What would have happened if Apollo 11 crashed on landing at the moon – would they have dragged Armstrong et al off their sets and shot them?. They certainly couldnt have been seen in public ever again.

What would have happened if one of the tape machines in the ‘unmanned Apollo 11 capsule’ broke and suddenly one of the astronauts disappeared from comms – would he have suddenly had a nasty sore throat perhaps? Lost his voice for the remainer of the mission?.

Then we have these contentions of the physical impossibility of astronauts surviving the journey or being able to perform the tasks they were seen performing or, and my personal favourite, the wind-fluttering flag. These have all been adequately debunked just on this thread by people who aren’t really even that interested after a few minutes thought or some specialist knowledge.

Then we come to the holy grail, the only thing that yourself and -666, seemingly have left to point to – the photographs. Valuable to you because they show a few things that really do seem unusual and, with very limited experience in the environment, things that can’t easily be explained away probably because no-one is absolutely certain as to why they appeared so. Not me, not you and not even NASA.

Turning a few ‘potential’ genuine mistakes by NASA into the SOLE proof for debunking the Apollo moon landings though – in the face of such overwhelming evidence to the contrary is something that I cannot comprehend. Hope you enjoy looking at your pictures though!.

The interesting footnote to this is that NASA will be definitively answering the question, in 2008 I believe, with the Lunar Reconnaisance Orbiter (LRO). LRO is scheduled to photograph the original landing sites to make sure their plotted so future landings dont crash into them!. Guess they’re working on the CGI imagery to fake those sites as we speak eh Clear? :rolleyes:

You’re bothered by the ‘pot-shots’?. You do suprise me – you’ve not done me or many of the others here the basic courtesy of refuting the points we’ve raised. If I am behaving discourteously myself I fail to see the difference I’m afraid.

I dont know how it will come out but I’ve attached a very quick MS Paint drawing of how you can get the two photo’s you posted without the Orbiter module going into a landing mode. Its very very simple.

The lander falls away from the orbiter while the orbiter carries on around the moon. The photographs show the seperation with the Moons surface in the background as the photo’s are being shot back towards the orbiter which, not having just fired retro’s to seperate is speeding off on its next circuit.

Star

u wrote this. i asked which other carrier can do offensive operations in face of land based AWACS coverage?

Dont try shifting the goalposts – you asked: “Which aircraft carrier on stand alone basis can face Flanker force backed with AWACS?” then went on to “Carrier aircraft has shorter range to begin so how can it even reach airbases where Flanker is parked? and land aircraft can be launched and land in multiple airbases”. You were fairly clearly splitting the issue into land-based Flankers against a Carrier Air Wing. Thats not what Scooter was asking about.

theoretically MIG-29K did not exist before so it was created. so cannot deduce from current Su-33 how the actual Su-33 will be like the bigger Su-33KUB. and IL-76 is longer range platform so it will sniff out carrier further in high seas than what ever small AWACS a carrier has to look for aircrafts inside airbases.

Dont quite get your points I’m afraid. The Mig-29 comment is cryptic but indisputable. The Su-33 thing – well we’ve seen the Russian Navy variant and could legitimately use that as a baseline. If anything, by your logic there, the Su-33 would be the aircraft we could define a better theoretical model for as there are no service Sea Fulcrums of any description yet!?. The comment about a land based Il-76 AWACS compared to an E-2 is innaccurate I’m afraid as the E-2’s job is much, much easier and, unless its forward supporting a strike package, it’ll usually be on station at most a few hundred miles from its ‘airbase’. The small size of the platform is therefore not quite the handicap you would presume.

for example?

For example USN carrier ops off the Soviet Far Eastern coastline and round Murmansk. There are some great stories knocking round the net from an ex Hawkeye guy I used to talk to, Cdr Andy Pico, of the fun they used to have at the AV-MF’s expense.

Garry,

Amazing… Jonesy are you a bit slow at the moment or has the western CVN blinded you.

In a fight between a Kuznetsov and an modified Gorshkov with no real AEGIS cruiser escort or Seawolf SSN support why on earth would you remove the Granits from the Kuznetsov? Fire the damn things at the Modified Goshkov and sink the damn thing… firing all 12 if need be.

Fight with what you have… mach 3 anti ship missiles with conventional warheads in the 900kg range make rather more sense than 3-4 more Flankers.

definitely slower than I used to be Gaz. Sign of old age creeping up…you’ll know about that too eh?. 😎

What makes you think that the IN wont be deploying AAW ships that make a SPY-1/AEGIS ship look antique by the time the PLAN could get an operational Kuzetsov worked-up (or by the time Vikramaditya is worked up for that matter :diablo: ) ?. I’ve seen the indications of them working up a P15 AAW design replete with Israeli active array MFR and this super-Barak area SAM thats meant to be in the works. Yep its a promise not been delivered on yet but you could say that of the Gorshkov AND Varyag so, as this is all utterly theoretical anyway, I dont think it unfair to grant the IN CVBG a few of these AAW ships.

Suddenly 12 P700’s doesnt seem like that much of a saturation attack and, as I always say about Granit and the suchlike, how would the Chinese target them?. Unless, of course, you’d advocate the Chinese surface-warfare commander rippling off his whole battery on an ESM contact?. I could see a very smug Indian Admiral laughing his bits off as he gets the report of his decoy barge and its RF transponder being obliterated by 12 great big missiles – happy in the knowlegde that, as P700’s are reloaded dockside, there aint going to be anymore. 3-4 Flankers make so much more sense than 12 P-700’s!.

Gollevainen,

Well i haven’t seen lately any cut drawings of Kuznetsov interios, so i cannot say this for certain. But What i’m saying is that when you have big space, like a hangar, it requires different kind of structures above it to hold the pressure from the roof/flight deck than smaller space which usually are divided from each others by supporting middle walls (i’m sorry if i’m being bit confusing as i’m not so familiar of the proper english terms). So when you decide to lenghten the hangar, you need quite extensive reconstruction of the supporting elements of the flightdeck/hangar roof. But without any blueprints i cannot speculate how big rebuild it would need. If you have some, could you post them so that we can speculate more???

I did used to have a partial cutaway of Kuznetsov that showed the canted launch tubes of the P-700 VLS and how far back they intrude into the spaces, I believe, should be preserved for the hangar. The laptop that it was saved on was lifted by some little oik from my car outside Farnborough station a few months back though so I’m sorry I cant service that request?!.

Of course you are correct that any major modification to a hull such as the VLS removal will require time in a yard to accomplish, but, its not that much of a chore. The removal of the GWS.30 Sea Dart system from the Invincible boats is at least comparable and that was, relatively, painless!.

PLAwolf,

One word, satellites. China already have imaging and radar spy-sats in orbit and it would be a simple, and fairly quick task to divert one or more of these to check out the area where you think the enemy carrier is before you send out the strike package. If the enemy tries to pull a fast one and bunch most of not all of their air defence assets in one place away from the carrier, then you start looking for the undefended carrier.

First I’ve ever heard about China possessing radar reconnaissance sateliites?. You got any sources for a Chinese RORSAT ‘wolf?. Optical satellites have been around for a very long time and, well handled, carrier’s have been dodging them just as long!. A couple of EO sats knocking around aren’t that much threat to a deployed CVBG in blue water.

Am I missing something????

I think that would be fairly safe to say! 😎

Conveniently you have illustrated the most important thing you are missing – a sense of objectivity!.

What with the whole manual dexterity thing being disproved, the thermal regulation thing being debunked, the LRRE proof remaining utterly unrefuted, the independent technical witness accounts being studiously ignored etc all because they are diametrically opposed to the rant you want to have!.

You tout these pictures as ultimate proof of some chicanery or other but seem to be lacking the experience to understand what they show?. If you were, as you claim, involved in military service you would understand, hopefully, that PI or Photo Interpretation is a skilled art and that serving PI’s undergo intensive training not only to spot the things that are there, but, also the things that are not!. Sounds silly but here we’re talking about decoys and the such like. Quote I’ve seen in print regarding that area of work is that ‘a picture is worth a thousand words – a thousand words can tell a lot of lies!!’. If you have the background you claim, really, that should be little suprise to you!.

Fortunately Frank and your good self have provided all the proof of the above axiom needed. Frank your timing is impeccable as ever mate!.

Franks picture and post speak for themselves with crystal clarity. Your picture, SSS, shows (you’d have us believe) the lunar orbiter descending towards the surface.

Its not. The lander, in that shot, has just seperated from the orbital module and is looking back at the orbiter with the moon in the background – both vehicles are still happily on their orbital path. You’ve just assumed that the photo is taken perpendicularly downwards because it supports your theory. This is no different than any one of hundreds of shots of earth orbiting vehicles taken with the planet in the background. Yet to you this is a ‘NASA mistake’ proving a hoax and one that is entirely unsupportable by any other shred of solid evidence.

Perhaps its time to take a step back, consider the evidence in total and re-evaluate your conclusions?

You are still not getting this are you?

The speed of the Astronauts or Lunar Rovers is utterly irrelevent to whether the moon landings in the Apollo programme were real or not. It makes not one bit of difference if they appeared to be going slower or faster than they ‘should be’ (though how you can determine with 100% precision what the accurate speed should be or not amazes me!). They were there – we know this because the vehicles were tracked there, by independent means, and because they left evidence. Evidence that no-one here has been able to refute.

You might want to depart this into whether ‘Russia/NASA has other Tech that they use “SECRETLY” to go to the deep space’ if you wish, I dont, and frankly I dont think thats going to enhance your credibility much do you?

Also I’m glad that you believe that the ISS is real, there is at least a link back to the real world for you. Unless, however, you believe that the vacuum of space in Earth orbit is substantially less than that on the surface of the moon otherwise how could Astronauts display the dexterity necessary to build that marvellous structure, but not have the dexterity to be able to manipulate specially-designed camera’s on the lunar surface?. I remain to be amazed at the technological leap in spacesuit glove technology that explains away that little contradiction!!!.

One word Wolverine – bait!. You attempt to present the opponent with exactly what he’s looking for. For example you could set a pair of diagonally opposed Ka-31’s, emitting sparingly, ‘boxing’ a sector to simulate fore and aft radar pickets on the carrier group, but with a SAM trap in place instead of the carrier.

Perhaps you get an, unfortunate, escort to bang away on active sonar and emit on its air search set intermittently up an anticipated threat axis to simulate a picket and make it appear to be steaming a patrol pattern on a fixed line of advance to reinforce the illusion. Dangerous for the picket but you could always have a passive low-CAP spotted nearby I guess!.

Like I said you try and present the picture that the opponent wants to see and have assets placed to attempt to capitalise on the situation IF he reacts as you wish. In the case of the SAM trap example you could have an extra CAP pair or two up flanking the SAM shooters at distance or additional birds spotted at alert 5 on DLI – waiting to spring the trap when the first indication of airborne radar hitting the target vessels comes in.

There are lots of tricks that get taught on Advanced Warfare courses. Did you ever read the story of how Sandy Woodward got an old County Class cruiser into MM38 range of the USS Coral Sea and ‘put 4 missiles into her’?. No tactic, unfortunately, come with a guarantee and they certainly aren’t too easy to execute. Which is where the factors discussed by Voront and Turbinia come into the picture. As I said earlier to examine every variable in the equation would take a very, very long time!!!.