JonesyYep. Nice work Roel I’ll agree with that!.
Scorpene it is. Funny I always thought they had a four-tube fit due to the modest size of the hull!. Dont look like there’s much space in the bows for a sonar under that tube fit!
JonesyFrom a quick glance the tower mounted planes and 6 tubes mark this a Dutch Zwaardvis class boat. I’ll look at it a bit closer later to confirm that if no-one else jumps in!.
Edit: Just remembered Roels pics of the Sankt-Petersberg showing that unit with tower planes. Could be that unit as well. Whats the date on the photo? Is it recent or a couple of years old?
JonesyI know of a weapon that will have a 1.0pk against Veliky.
The Russian Navy Ops budget!!!. Hard to keep a ship at readiness when you cant pay for the beans, bullets and bunker oil to sail it!
Jonesy“We wanted ISRO to launch a satellite for the Navy but they say it’s not possible. Now, the force is looking at commercial satellites of foreign agencies to meet its needs,” say sources.
But won’t this compromise security? Well, the Navy hopes India’s domestic infotech industry will be able to provide “suitable security overlays” to ensure safety of all the data which will flow on this “hired satellite transponder”.
The Navy wants to network all its warships, submarines and aircraft with operational centres ashore to make a quantum jump from its “platform-centric operations”.
“Information of a hostile action or target can then be shared by the entire fleet and command centres on land in real time…This will produce tremendous synergy and ensure the combined capabilities of all our platforms come into play,” says an officer.
This is significant news and not good news, for the IN, at that!. India has expended much of her national treasure to develop launch and space vehicle capability so satcomms integration should be the natural advantage that the IN leverages from that.
That they will now have to go hunting around for a commercial contract and be subject to the vagueries that commercial contracts bring is in my opinion, I’m afraid, absolutely ludicrous. A commercial satellite provider means using someone elses equipment and by necessity its equipment you have no control over and exposes them to potential intermittent service, bandwidth congestion problems and, to be machiavellian, even sabotage. After all if some civvy sat tech where to be offered $50 million to screw up the IN’s satellite channels or even shut down a satellite for a few hours/days it would take strong principles on the part of the techie not to run with the money!.
This vulnerability is even more critical with a view to the amounts theyre spending developing theatre wide systems like enhanced carrier capability, SSN’s and BrahMos. ALL systems that rely on secure, 100% reliable, satellite bandwidth.
Looks to me, on the strength of this, that India is repeating the common mistake of building up, figuratively speaking, a wonderful structure without thinking about the foundations first. For a service that has shown its willingness to conquer walking before trying out for the Olympics 100 metres I find this disappointingly surprising.
JonesySounds a hell of a lot more sensible and practical to me!. Welcome back DJ!.
JonesyWACHENR0DER
However given that the region is known for incursions and what not, I would rather invest in some Mi-35’s rather than Tucanos, good fire power and some decent transport capabilities make it very needed.
Had the same thought, but, preferred the higher transit speed of the turboprop over the chopper. After all you can always pick up a number of cheap Mi-8’s to cover transport requirements and use the AT-29’s as escorts much more flexibly. The turboprops should also be slightly less vulnerable to the low altitude ‘trashfire’ weapons systems that seem to have handled US AH64’s so roughly in Iraq.
Plus I liked the extra training capability that the AT-29s would provide and the contract advantages likely to result from the Embraer F-5 deal.
JonesyProblem with this one is maintenance and logistics. The aquisition funding may be present, if we suspend reality for the purpose of the exercise, but the year on year costs will still be there. This puts a couple of sqdns of Gripen, MiG-29’s and anything of that nature far and away out of the picture. Reduced maintenance and support packages will be the necessity!.
The other interesting thing is the involvement of the Saudi’s in the mix. The Saudi’s, IIRC, have about 50 F-5E’s and 20 F-5F’s in storage somewhere. A mixed donation/aquisiton of the best 28 single seaters and 10 twin seat examples would provide enough airframes to support two 10-12 plane operational squadrons and an OCU with some attrition reserve/donor airframes left over. Cost of a couple of hundred mill.
To bring these ‘up to spec’ they need to be talking to Embraer and Elbit about their F-5BR package. Included in this upgrade package would be Python IV and Derby AAMs and a full training and support schedule. Cost for the upgrade, based on what the Brazillians paid, would be about the same as the airframe aquisition costs again.
The Brazillian connection would be furthered with the aquisition of an appropriate number of Embraer AT-29’s to meet a dual-role advanced training and light strike requirement. Hopefully with the F-5 upgrade package the cost for 24 or so AT-29’s, plus training and support, could be kept realistic.
The enhanced air defence capability would, of course, need to be one component of a coherent ADGE. With fixed wing AEW being unaffordable and, probably, unsupportable on their budget 3 or 4 TARS radar aerostats would have to be acquired to feed the low altitude air picture and, in concert with a number of mobile, low-altitude gap filler, ground based systems in the mountains could give comprehensive radar coverage to support air defence operations.
JonesyMarmalade. mmmm…… orangey!
JonesyLike i always said, only if a frigate is cutted in two by a granit and you are there you can appreciate the reasons of many has repeatly said to you about the qualities of this kind of weapons. perhpas that you need to experienced also in the first hand how it means to be handled by rude militars.
Well first I’ve repeated myself often enough on the Missile board thread so I’m not about to start doing it again over here. Despite the oft repeated jibes about the RN, you are right, I’ve never experienced rude handling by military forces…apart from some jumped up little oik of an SAC who got stroppy with a friend of mine at RIAT this year. I dont think that was quite your point though?. Are you suggesting that the only people who could have a legitimate viewpoint on the events in Iraq are those who’ve suffered brutality at the hands of a military occupation force?.
Well Nuke I’d suggest that, perhaps, you dont know what its like to be a soldier deployed to a dangerous environment with a political leadership behind you who would willingly sell you down the river in the name of political expediency. I’ve seen it have you?
What do you think JS about the recent wars in chechenia, Yugoslavia etc.? Do you find that Grozny, Mi Lai, Sarajevo are mass beliefs?
Of course not, but, I fail to see the relevance?. Just because attrocities have been commited in every war since the concept was invented doesnt mean that this individual US Marine was any more guilty of a war crime. That is IF he reacted in a manner he thought was appropriate, given his combat experience, to his self-defence and that of his mates in that Mosque. You seem very willing to empathise with the ‘poor insurgent’ here Nuke and not give the same benefit of the doubt to that Marine?. Do you think that is a fair and honest approach?.
do you have REALLY need to have proof about the brutality of the war AS RULE and not as exception? Do you also need to have proof about the heart isn’t flat?
Thing is I CAN prove the Earth isnt flat. All I need do is go down to the coast and watch ships, sailing into and out of Liverpool, appearing and disappearing over the horizon. I CANT prove that this US Marine meant to shoot that insurgent out of a simple homicidal intent to commit a murder. That being the case I refuse to convict a soldier of war crimes without much more evidence than that video showed.
You are surement not caring about the “mass belief” so tell me, if you want to find how the things really happens in the Iraqui land, why not to start by the basis of the War?
My views on the war are well documented in the archives of this site so I wont go back over old ground (stand easy Garry!). I will say, though, it was my belief then, as it remains now, that if we’d have waited another 10 years to deal with Saddam, or one of his sons, we would have been facing a much more serious and developed military, and guerilla, threat and a lot more people on both sides would have suffered than will do now.
Do you want really say to me that is difficult for you learn how frequent is a war crimes? So for every of the 2000 deads of falluja, included womes, childs etc. you need a video tape? Sorry it’s too much.
Yes it is too much Nuke. Too much that you are willing to ignore the fact that Saddam Hussein had his Mukhabarat running official nationwide policies of killing, torturing and raping those he deemed as dissident and are trying to draw parallels between that and Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Yes both those places exposed a side of the US intelligence community that was clearly reprehensible, but, the scale of those operations in numbers and severity of treatment came in no way close to that of the years of Mukhabarat activities AND the perpetrators of those running the regime in Abu Ghraib are being held to account. If you cant see the difference in the two environments then you are more blinded by your beliefs than I am!.
Try to learn why the majority is against the war and the bombing of a city, then you could understund why your statements needs corrections. But the principle is the same you are right. yuo are still deaf to the facts that compromixes your world vision.
I know what the oppositions voiced against the war are and where. To this date and, even with all thats transpired, I still find the antiwar arguments naieve. For one, after all this time, I’ve not seen one credible alternative put forward to the military intervention. We may now know that no WMD was readily deployable in significant quantity in Iraq, but, the ONLY reason we know that is that we were able to send the Iraq Survey Group in with absolute freedom of movement. Had we not intervened we still wouldnt know, for certain, today.
Obviousely you hadn’t problems to believe that Iraq was a treath for the mankind and had WMDsm, on the other hand.
My opinion was that after fobbing off the UNSCOM inspectors and UNMOVIC inspectors for a decade or so Saddam had proved he was never going to comply with the United Nations Security Resolutions his country had acceded to. I did think he had more chemical weapons than we’ve found (and had used as IEDs against US troops if you remember!), like I said, had we not gone in I would still be convinced of that.
Why you don’t tell this to GWB or TB insthead? why yuo don’t ask to them to stopping to make a industrial quantity of reasons to be “anti-Washington”?
Because I’m not naieve enough to believe that we live in a real democracy where my personal view would actually make any difference to the policymakers in my country. I know that the only political power I have is with my vote on election day and that even that power can be wiped out by the ignorant media-led masses doing precisely what theyre told to.
JonesyI’ve been aboard Exeter a few times when we were looking at the GWS30 reload system. Not deployed on one though.
The batch 1 and 2 42’s were absolutely notorious for being wet ships in a heavy sea. The problem stemmed from the design shrink imposed on the naval architects, as an economy measure, by the Treasury late in the ships design cycle. Sandy Woodward, later of Falklands fame, had the original Sheffield on her pre-commissioning workups in the late 70’s and he made a wonderful comment that, when enquiring into the problem, he found that the bows had more ‘happened’ than actually been ‘designed’!.
The problem was sorted out on the batch3’s with the stretched bows. Nottinghams refit didnt go quite that far!.
The photo is the combination of, as Wanshan accurately noted, a hard turn to starboard and an abnormal swell!.
Why the change of magazine? Is it for adding internal strength?
Even more simple!. That Aussie rock caused the flooding of and extensive damage to the vessels original magazine.
What kind of sonar is it? Hull mounted? (I think previous one was hullmounted right?) or bowmounted?
Sonar 2050 is a bow mounted array developed by Ferranti/Thomson Sintra. Its the same array as fitted to the Type23 and replaces the original Sonar2016.
JonesyJunipergoth,
The main new system is the addition of a new Sonar2050 unit with a new dome.
Upgrades have been made to the Sea Dart missile system including the entire reconstruction of the magazine space, rebuilding of the Mk8 gun mounting and its magazine and power spaces, the ADAWS combat system has also been upgraded. Hints have been made of changes to the commo shack, possibly in line with the new comms capabilities HMS Illustrious has displayed since her recent refit. Those changes aren’t public source afaik though.
The other changes are mainly engineering. The forward engine room was heavily flooded in the collision. The biggest one being the straight replacement of the two Rolls Royce Olympus boost turbines and the stripping out and refurbishment of the two Tyne cruise turbines. New boilers, new high pressure compressors, hydraulic systems, 12 miles of new cabling, new mechanical control systems as well as other ancilliary items were all replaced.
Hell of an upgrade all told!. The ships company are said to be very pleased with the results of the upgrades. The CO is on record as saying that she’s a new ship in all but name and the crew have taken to christening her Nottingham II!.
JonesySrbin,
Essentially with the deployablity issue I was really comparing NSM to the bigger Yakhont, Kh-22 and P-700 sized weapons instead of Harpoon/Exocet/Uran.
as for targeting data past 150-200+kms, well there are quite a lot of ways of detecting and targeting ships over those ranges.
Standard surface search radars can detect ships at those ranges IF you have sufficient airborne assets to mount continuous patrols around multiple sectors of your coastline (assuming a defensive scenario). There are precisely four ways of identifying ship types at long range though. These are:
1, ISAR radar imagery
2, EO/IIR imagery
3, Passive sonar accoustic profiling
4, ESM intercept.
All of these methods have limitations. 1 and 2 offer better resolution only with shorter range to target with obvious consequences for the targetting platform. 3 can be messed up by a Prairie/Masker type system or by excessive ambient subsurface noise and 4 is dependent on the opponent emitting on a militarily identifiable set and not sending one ship off on its own, on a decoy course, emitting away merrily to draw off defending forces!.
This is not, of course, to say that very long range targetting is impossible against ship targets. Just that its a LOT more difficult than most appreciate and it imposes limits on the abilty of a service to exploit the range advantage of these 200-300km weapons.
Anyways, we have discussed somethings on ACIG regarding AshMs and Carriers. ppl over there share different views.
I’ve been through all three pages over there and can’t see many different views from those that have been explored here! In fact it seems that you and Sevvy are the main players on the thread!. What views do you see there that myself, Seahawk, cru or bubulle havent already addressed here?.
JonesyGuess that means all sins forgiven then eh Sevvy?. Still dont have lots of time, but, I’ll try and get there more often. Sounds like I’ve a bit of work to do there also! 😀
JonesyCarrier related questions – definitely!. Anything you can turn up on the status of the Gorshkov refit would be fantastic. Any news on the extent of design maturity achieved on ADS would be appreciated also. I’ve heard the news on propulsion downselect and that much of the sensor fit has been settled on but I’ve heard little about how far away they are from final design freeze.
Thanks again Harry!.
JonesyNuke,
When you debate the worth of russian missiles you seems already unable to share other point of view
What should I do, in your opinion, if I dont share the populist view?. Simply agree so as not to offend the sensibilities of the masses?. Never going to happen my friend. My opinion will change when someone can provide solid information as to why my viewpoints are wrong. Until that happens I will defend my views as strongly as possible.
I agree that this issue is far more significant than some academic debate on Russian weapons systems, but, the principle is identical. Flood, Damien, Grey and the others have made eloquent and considered posts supporting their point of view. They haven’t convinced me that they’re correct though for all the reasons I’ve listed. I don’t see why I should stop posting my personal views just because they are different from that of the majority?.
Only a single case is too few to show the atrocities?
Its a poor debating technique to expand a discussion to introduce new points when you cant debate the singular issue that the discussion started on. This thread was started to discuss the shooting of a terrorist in Falluja. It was quickly expanded to criticise the whole US Iraq policy using this shooting incident as justification. That is the main point I was questioning and no-one has yet been able to prove to me that it was anything but fair comment.
One marine acting in a manner which could, very easily, be explained by his experience in that environment does not relate, in any way, to the US actions in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay.
Personally I think the whole Guantanamo Bay thing was disgraceful and, from an intelligence standpoint, fantastically stupid. That has no reflection on the events in that mosque in Falluja though except for in the minds of those wishing to reinforce an anti-Washington agenda with one more ‘attrocity’. I find that populist and intellectually dishonest and I dont see the point of debating something when your emotional response is going to blind you to the merits of any contrary position?.
Maybe Anna was right all along and this thread has exhausted any practical value it may have had for intelligent debate and should be binned at the rush?. Cull away Flood!.
Sign In
