Sev,

For Jonesy, China has bought two Rif modules, it won’t be so much extra. The Bazalt they won’t get that anyway so that won’t be a new maintenance burden either. But of course it will be “some” extra burden to get all parts for the ship ready. And Russia will of course not sell any of theirs.
For the Type 52B and C, I think they might have quite some parts in common with each other, hence a reduced effort too. Also, why do they build only two of each? Still testing? The Slava is a proven ship, with proven systems, hence would give them some extra punch directly when they receive it.

Its an 11000 ton blue-water cruiser. They’re not real likely to get any more of them so you have a one-off maintenance requirement. You know full well how many systems that could mean holding spares, and trained personnel, for that have no other use in their fleet!. Madness. The idea is always to develop a capability across multiple uniform hulls to maximise the efficiency of your support infrastructure – that is simply one of the basic principles of naval operations.

Extra punch directly when they receive it?. They’re going to have their AAW vessels through sea trials well before Ukraines’ Slava could be completed and commissioned!. Surely if the 052 AAW ship performs poorly in its trials it would make a much greater amount of sense to fix the problems with those ships, swapping in the S-300 weapons system if necessary, so that a full class of vessels can be deployed. One Slava is no solution to anything on its own.

JonS

all signs point to china moving away from its indigenous SAM systems to procuring more russian based ones.

Irrelevant. You dont have to buy a whole ship to get the SAMs. China, as you’ve both stated, has purchased two full Ryf weapons systems so, providing these havent been stripped down to component level for the HHQ-9 development program, it knows the shipboard requirements for deploying the system.

So purchasing slava will help out china in design and operation of vessels fielding the RIF sam system.

In what way?.

Not had a HMS Satan as far as I know.

Several references exist to vessels carrying the name HMS Lucifer though!. Dont think we’re due for a new L-class of anything soon so I think the chances of a new commission with that name are quite slim. Were the demand suddenly strong enough one of the new Daring’s could be commissioned as HMS Diablo I guess!

Cant see it though!

Picture below is the ship formerly-known-as HMS Lucifer, she was a batch II Attacker Class escort carrier, built, IIRC, circa 1943. She was renamed HMS Trumpeter as seen in the photo.

Indian,

against a exocet/harpoon type threat dont forget the 32×2 = 64 missiles in the kashtan systems (8 km range, 3.5km ceiling) and the 4 rotary cannons. these should be very capable of dealing with subsonic ASMs.

Supersonic ASMs too I shouldnt wonder – nice system Kashtan!. I did include it in the calculation though when I talked about the ability to deal with moderate volume missile attack. Dont forget that an opponent knows there are two Kashtans aboard a Talwar and that one covers either beam. Only an idiot would split his attacking fire to give each Kashtan a fair crack at defeating the attack. The attack would go in on one beam, probably stern quarter to maximise difficulties for the forward Shtil, to attempt to saturate SAM and CIWS.

the viraat and the gorshkov itself can carry multiple KA31, but having it on Talwars permits other SAGs also to have some organic coverage.

Again that sounds good on paper, but, I wonder what operational value such a part-time, unsustainable, radar coverage actually is and if its worth the loss of the ASW chopper on a vessel that really looks like it could use one?!.

I have already said the idea of a “picket line” against a 1500km long pakistan coastline is bizarre and unrealistic. we are looking at hit n run PN baiting raids and convoy escort and some ASW ops here not a picket line waiting for the kamikazes.

I think you may have the terms ‘sensor-picket’ and ‘blockade-line’ confused here a little Indian. By picket we mean a forward-deployed sensor/weapons platform intended to extend the sensor ‘screen’ out from high value units to increase warning time for them – this screen moving in formation with the main group. A blockade line is an assembly of vessels, usually fixed, intended for barrier ops. Certainly a blockade-line looks unlikely as you suggest, but, a sensor-picket, as your article describes, would need to be a feature of an IN carrier group deployment.

> hammocks in the hanger

I dont know. but do you think the russian builders are so bad ?
it will be what ships of comparable size have. underway refueling
is a routine procedure isnt it.

Its not that I believe russians build bad ships, I think that some of their design philosophy’s dont bear close inspection, thats irrelevant here though. What I was asking was whether the Talwars have spare berthing for additional aircrew – transients as they’re known in the trade. The term ‘hammocks in the hangar’ is just a euphemism for when additional personnel have to be stuffed into any spare corner of a ship thats reached its designed crew capacity.

Jon,

there is no data on talwar but i am guessing around 20+ sorties,since the russian 20380.0 corvette can provide its ka-28 with 10 2+ hr sorties.

Good info, thanks for that. I think your guess is probably reasonable. Perhaps if we knew what fuel-load a Kamov requires for a full 2.5hr sortie we could extrapolate the bunkerage a Talwar would have to carry for 20 sorties?. If that returns a sensible value in relation to what an FFG sized hull could accomodate it would certainly support your assertion.

Anyone know max fuel onload for a Helix airframe?

and how would a carrier (CVN-68) feel if the Kh-22M’s 1000Kg warhead slammed into it at Mach 3.5?

Dont know how the carrier would feel, but, the Captain of the vessel, his CAG and the screen AAW commander would be facing some very unpleasant questions as to a) how they let a Kh-22 launch platform close to that range unchallenged and b) how come they couldnt shoot down such a dinosaur of a missile when they’ve been developing weapons and tactics to do just that for the past two decades!

Viewer discretion required…

….some may find this offensive. This is what the good Leading Rate is talking about though:

The Nine Satanic Statements
1. Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence!
2. Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams!
3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit!
4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates!
5. Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek!
6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires!
7. Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all!
8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!
9. Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years!

The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth
1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.
2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.
3. When in another’s lair, show him respect or else do not go there.
4. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.
5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.
6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.
7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.
8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.
9. Do not harm little children.
10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.
11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.

The Nine Satanic Sins
1. Stupidity—The top of the list for Satanic Sins. The Cardinal Sin of Satanism. It’s too bad that stupidity isn’t painful. Ignorance is one thing, but our society thrives increasingly on stupidity. It depends on people going along with whatever they are told. The media promotes a cultivated stupidity as a posture that is not only acceptable but laudable. Satanists must learn to see through the tricks and cannot afford to be stupid.
2. Pretentiousness—Empty posturing can be most irritating and isn’t applying the cardinal rules of Lesser Magic. On equal footing with stupidity for what keeps the money in circulation these days. Everyone’s made to feel like a big shot, whether they can come up with the goods or not.
3. Solipsism—Can be very dangerous for Satanists. Projecting your reactions, responses and sensibilities onto someone who is probably far less attuned than you are. It is the mistake of expecting people to give you the same consideration, courtesy and respect that you naturally give them. They won’t. Instead, Satanists must strive to apply the dictum of “Do unto others as they do unto you.” It’s work for most of us and requires constant vigilance lest you slip into a comfortable illusion of everyone being like you. As has been said, certain utopias would be ideal in a nation of philosophers, but unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately, from a Machiavellian standpoint) we are far from that point.
4. Self-deceit—It’s in the “Nine Satanic Statements” but deserves to be repeated here. Another cardinal sin. We must not pay homage to any of the sacred cows presented to us, including the roles we are expected to play ourselves. The only time self-deceit should be entered into is when it’s fun, and with awareness. But then, it’s not self-deceit!
5. Herd Conformity—That’s obvious from a Satanic stance. It’s all right to conform to a person’s wishes, if it ultimately benefits you. But only fools follow along with the herd, letting an impersonal entity dictate to you. The key is to choose a master wisely instead of being enslaved by the whims of the many.
6. Lack of Perspective—Again, this one can lead to a lot of pain for a Satanist. You must never lose sight of who and what you are, and what a threat you can be, by your very existence. We are making history right now, every day. Always keep the wider historical and social picture in mind. That is an important key to both Lesser and Greater Magic. See the patterns and fit things together as you want the pieces to fall into place. Do not be swayed by herd constraints—know that you are working on another level entirely from the rest of the world.
7. Forgetfulness of Past Orthodoxies—Be aware that this is one of the keys to brainwashing people into accepting something new and different, when in reality it’s something that was once widely accepted but is now presented in a new package. We are expected to rave about the genius of the creator and forget the original. This makes for a disposable society.
8. Counterproductive Pride—That first word is important. Pride is great up to the point you begin to throw out the baby with the bathwater. The rule of Satanism is: if it works for you, great. When it stops working for you, when you’ve painted yourself into a corner and the only way out is to say, I’m sorry, I made a mistake, I wish we could compromise somehow, then do it.
9. Lack of Aesthetics—This is the physical application of the Balance Factor. Aesthetics is important in Lesser Magic and should be cultivated. It is obvious that no one can collect any money off classical standards of beauty and form most of the time so they are discouraged in a consumer society, but an eye for beauty, for balance, is an essential Satanic tool and must be applied for greatest magical effectiveness. It’s not what’s supposed to be pleasing—it’s what is. Aesthetics is a personal thing, reflective of one’s own nature, but there are universally pleasing and harmonious configurations that should not be denied.

IMO if you removed the devil-imagery and some of the fringe elements (Magic?) from this there is a core element of ‘Realism’ in there that would have an appeal to more than just one bright-spark sailor.

Like I said above I knew/know a few members of all three UK armed services that fit at least some of the above criteria quite merrily and shamelessly!.

Nitin,

The orgies! Dont forget the orgies!!

Attached below is an image of the Messdecks assigned to each division of Fisgard Sqdn at HMS Raleigh. I’ll try and find some photo’s of the ‘gulches’ (messdecks) aboard a Type 22 FFG for comparison that makes the Raleigh set up look like a palace!.

These are not places for orgies! :D. Though there were certain runs ashore…..!.

Photo credit: Fisgard Association.

I dont know how on topic that was Wanshan but damn its amazing what you can learn on the internet!. Never knew that was the derivation of ‘yanks’. Outstanding – my cap is well and truly doffed to you sir!.

Also I’d like to add my compliments to Golden Dragons for yours and Sevs dedication to the honourable art of codebreaking!.

Edison,

Usually I hate to resort to flippancy but, in light of what you wrote above, I feel this is an exceptional case. Please click on this link.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=mwmed&q=persecution%20complex

Perhaps it may help you comprehend how you portray yourself to others.

Heard about this earlier. Gave me a real laugh!. On this basis….

Followers live by the Nine Satanic Statements, which include “Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence; Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek, and Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification.”

….there are a LOT of amateur Satanists in the Mob! Might as well have a fully paid-up official one I suppose!.

first off, would u mind using the ‘quote’ function please? just makes skimming lot easier. cheers.

No problem!.

well, if they are based on or near some of the larger islands, then there is no reason why gunships cant also be based there should the situation merits it.

Gunships as aircover for FACs is a bit of a stretch isnt it?.

however, the main tasks these FACs will likely take on would be enforing chinese claims in the area by patroling. normally it might take a destroyer or frigate, but seeing how china donr have that many of the newer versons of these babies and also that they will be needed much more up north, these FACs can fill in the gap in peace time.

If you want to cover a patrol zone you dont do it with a vessel who’s primary search sensor is limited to 20nm or so!. You do it with a vessel that, preferably, has an aviation capability. If it is in a contested area that better be a comprehensively equipped GP hull too!. China has a very comprehensive new FFG design in the 054 thats were the money should be going – into a decent patrol frigate.

in the extremely unlikely situation that tensions do boil over, these FACs wont be left to fend for themselves. PLAN reinforcements will be sent in. the critical factor is the amount and type.

Fine. What are the FACs doing in the meantime though?. Very little presumably so there value is equivalently very little isnt it!.

with the FACs in area, there will already be some seriouse anti-shipping firepower in the area. the PLAN can probably get away with only sending down 2 or 3 of its heavy warships, maybe consistancing of one 052C for airdefence and 2 052Bs or 054s for escort and anti-sub (plus some flankers).

Whats more valuable in a forward deployed situation where air cover is less than total – a flotilla of missile craft or an extra couple of 054 FFG’s with associated aviation and comprehensive air, surface and subsurface sensor capability?. I’d take a 052C and four 054’s as a task force over the 052C, two 054’s and 8 2208’s every time. The first group may not pack the nearly 90 SSM’s of the second, but, it still sports at least 40 antiship missiles – a number quite sufficient to cope with an opposing frigate force of comparable or greater numbers. The frigate group, more importantly, would be significantly more able to deal with air and submarine threats unsupported.

if conflict do erupt across the straits, and the US opt not to get directly involved in the fighting (as i believe). then some might try a land grab while china’s is focused on taiwan.

Every bit more the reason to have task force units capable of independent operation.

having these FACs means that china can maintain a credibale military deterrance even if its main surface fleets are all engaged elsewhere.

How credible are these things, on their own, if they can only self-designate within 20nm from target, IF they get that close, and have no anti-air or ASW capability?. FACs are a false economy PLAWolf – they always have been.

im a little confused, what area of operation are u talking about here? chinese coast or south china sea? china will most likely keep its older FACs for EEZ enforcement around the mainland, while sending the new FACs down south if deemed necessary.

I think some clarification in terms is necessary here. Most nations claim a 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone around their coastlines. In areas where the zones of different coutries overlap you get boundary area disputes on fishing and mineral rights and the like. These require patrolling by assets that can cover a maximum amount of area at one time. That is NOT the description of a fast missile craft – stealthy or not!.

also, u seemed to have gotten the wrong emphysis. the main task of the FACs will be to provide a military presence, with anti-piracy as a secondary mission.

What do you mean providing a military presence?. You can put a frigate patrol zone in an area as a military presence?. Thats what the RN do with their various patrol taskings. Why do you need to build a base and stick a flotilla of FACs in the area to provide a presence?.

buying off-the-shelf western kit isnt really an option for the PRC because of the arms ban. the EU is talking of lifting the ban

An arms embargo that stops the French is a rarity. Plus didnt Racal sell a couple of Searchwater surface-search sets to the PRC a couple of years back?.

Well, in peace time u cant just sink someone cos u dont like the look of them (even if u might want to ), but if u want to maintain a steak on a piece of land, u have to be there on the spot to enforce ur claim, or the otehr guy might take it as u have abandoned ur claim if u stopped patroling there, or didnt show up to drive off anyone who landed there. (hey, thats the way things work down there, and china has lost the most number of islands that way )

Yeah we had a similar problem with a group of islands we didnt patrol properly a few years back!. The siting of a flotilla of Fast Missile Boats on the Falklands wouldnt have done much to prevent that invasion that a properly equipped and manned garrison and a few shore-based missile batteries wouldnt have achieved much cheaper. I suspect a similar situation exists in the South China Sea.

there is also the matter of the sheer number of islands in dispute. for the price of one destroyer, u can have at least a dozen FACs, more numbers means more islands protected. and being stealthy means its harder for the others to track u and take the islands u dont patrol.

I thought you had that fundamentally wrong. Do you think you can buy a dozen or so FACs and sprinkle them around a couple of island chains and maintain any kind of surveillance with them?. Take Malaysia as an example, they have extensive island strewn waters to cover and look what theyre acquiring to do the job – Meko A100 OPVs – chopper capable and with good endurance and sensors. Just two of these vessels, with choppers, will be able to maintain surveillance over a greater area than your 12 FACs and they will be able to stay out longer on station with lower crewing and support requirements.

also, if the fighting is in and around the island chains, then FACs will have a natural advanatge over larger ships, as the islands might interfer with long range radar.

Until their choppers appear and blast your FACs with Penguins or Sea Skuas!.

did u miss the section when i explained why it is unlikely the USN would be able to amass a force the size u are thinking of before the war is over?

No, I didnt miss it, it was just inaccurate. I gave you the names of the three US carriers that are right now, as I type this, within several days steaming of the South China Sea. Irrespective of whether they would respond or not they are very much there and they could respond given the order. That is a simple, indisputable, fact Wolf.

first off, there is currently only one US carrier group based permanatedly in the asia-pacific area, there is talk of adding a second one, but as far as i know, that is not final yet.

There may be only one permanently forward based, but, there is more often than not at least one other carrier group in the Pacific and, nearly always, another in or around the Arabian Gulf.

secondly, the chinese will never fight an all out war with the US over some islands in the south china sea. if there is any fighting at all down there, it will be low intensity frictional fighting between a couple of hot headed captains. at worst it will escalate into a limited war, focusing mainly on sea and air battles. no reason whatsoever for the USN to get involved in the fighting. at most the USN will show up to break it up.

Absolutely irrelevent. The fact remains that those carriers are there and can force entry whenever. The point at issue was that in the face of air threat the 2208 design FACs are unquestioningly vulnerable. You suggested that only the single US CVSG would face them so the air threat is manageable. I’m showing you where that air threat will come from.

They will do if u are thinking of amassing a fleet the size u want (6~7 full carrier battle groups). u cant just pull ships away from their previous ops without finding replacements to fill in, and u cant just pull that many ships away without consequences and reprocussions.

No. I said 6 carriers in Desert Storm. I went on to say, with the leaner USN today, that 4 carrier groups are more likely (the three I’ve mentioned plus another from San Diego). This may leave the fifth fleet without a carrier until one can come in from the Med or Atlantic but they’ve done that before. No major gapping necessary, hell, they may even get the French to deploy the de Gaulle to the gulf for a bit!.

well, the only thing the PLAN is really afraid of is the USN, and maybe very intimidated by the JDFN. however, there is only one remotely likely scenario that would bring the PLAN in direct combat with any of those two – taiwan. as such, its not about picking and choosing what battles to fight, but rather proparing for the only likely one. (just think about it, what is there in the south china sea is worth china and the US having a go at each other over?)

This is politics though Wolf. We’re discussing the practicalities of a weapon system you maintain the PLAN is developing. What you seem to be suggesting is that, as its never likely to face any serious opposition to expose its limitations, its a powerful system. Forgive me for saying this but thats nuts!.

might be a case for the AK, as it can somewhat help to simular the main gun, but the YJ83 missiles are completely out of place. unless they are planning to fit ICBMs on the ‘full sized’ versons, there is little useful data they can get from such weapons trials.

Except the impact of vibration loads from the new hullform on missile electronics, except the RCS values of the launcher housings, except the stability of the design as a gun platform etc, etc!.

Quote:
Believe me there is no way a 10knt sub heading south is going to get an intercept in on a 30knt carrier group going east-west. Like I said SSK’s dont do much chasing!.

well no offence, but i really dont have much taste for such blankest statements (mainly because i get an erge to take it as a challenge and end up spending way too much time trying to disprove it 😛 ).

I said that the only way a Kilo would be useful is if it were positioned immediately on the bows of the carrier fleet. YOU said the sub could come in from either beam. I’ve shown you that a carrier fleet at speed is not going to be caught by a 10knt sub, attempting to remain discrete, coming in from a position abeam of the carrier group. They simply do not have the speed to make the cutoff angle and would end up in a tail chase that they would lose. Simple as that.