JonesyThat would be my position broadly also. I thought the admirals statement was very carefully worded. In terms of simple capabilities the coastal/patrol submarine element of the Russian navy is something we have no answer for…and, as grounded Astutes demonstrate, it does represent a distinct skillset.
In that context I couldn’t contend that the RN is the 2nd most capable. I’d stack our current Fleet submarine force against the Russian one even out past the mid-term. That’s not quite the same thing though is it!
JonesyJonesy I had no idea you thought so highly of the Marine Nationale 😉 .
Any service capable of training it’s people to cope with being stuck in a large steel tube with 60+ Frenchmen must be worthy of high praise TR1!.
JonesyWas there even in any question of that, in terms of the nuclear boats especially? I don’t think so.
The bigger issue is how much of the VMF is under repairs right now.
2nd most professional submarine service compliments the 3rd. How quaint :applause:
JonesyIsn’t that what a helicopter is? There are a lot of countries that operate small utility aircraft for the same role as a helicopter (notably Isreal), especially in flat environments where these planes can land to set down troops like a helicopter does. I would even go as far to say that the An-2 is still a viable platform for air cavalry type troop support. We’ve grown accustomed to well contained wars like the Gulf war or Afghan war where hostilities are well contained and can be reached by fully equipped air bases. This is not always the case.
Plenty of footage of helicopters being shot down by irregular forces possesing only the simplest and most accessible weaponry…..thats before we get to a full, conventional, FEBA scenario with modern systems in a coordinated air defence environment…and the helicopter can always stop and duck behind something solid!.
The idea of combining CAS with another function makes all kinds sense. If you want to make a STOL transport, like the fascinating S-80, into such a warfighter to deliver CAS effect though do it from above the trashfire. There is an absolute array of light, smart PGMs from Saber to DMB and all the way up to SDB….SDB is, what, $40k a go now?. One SDB = 1 Toyota Hilux technical….weapon/target cost parity achieved…..and you’ve done it from a nice safe place with no risk to crew or aircraft.
For my money you put the light smart PGMs on a high endurance unmanned platform and use it to generate ISTAR product while its on station but thats just personal preference and a slight discomfort with losing an important logistics platform if the S-80 crew, in that example, decides to go all Billy Mitchell and gets it wrong.
JonesyDARPA’s Secret 140-Ton Drone: Unmanned Naval Vessel Is Known As ‘Submarine Hunter’
Nearly as funny as the Russian ‘Doomsday Machine’ nuclear AUV/torpedo from a few months back.
JonesyNew Royal Navy general purpose frigate to be known as Type 31
That’s a very curious Type number for a GP escort. The Type range for a GP hull is in the 80-90’s.
31 is very close to the top end of the ASW numbering range!.
JonesyI was always under the impression the Royal Navy only operated a couple of submarines yet looking on Google Earth I can see 10 submarines docked at HM Naval Base St Levan Gate. How many submarines do the Royal Navy currently operate?
Guz is where the decom’d war-canoes go out to pasture. Details here: http://www.urbanghostsmedia.com/2015/03/10-abandoned-submarines-bases-sub-pens/
Jonesy[ATTACH=CONFIG]243772[/ATTACH]
Signal flags, even in this era of instant universal communication, are still retained and their use is still trained out as far as I know. I havent tried to translate the colours shown here to see whether it is just ceremonial but, back in the day, in-jokes were passed in the ‘bunting’.
JonesyAnswer depends on broader aircraft carrier ambitions and timelines.
Personally I think India should build Vishal to same specs as Vikrant and operate the same air wing (with suitable upgrades), and then commit to a next-generation >65k ton carrier program with nuclear power, EMALS, VLO aircraft etc. designed to reach fruition in early 2030s. Airwing options for this carrier would be AMCA, F-35, and whatever the Russians and potentially French have to offer at the time, plus UCAVs of one sort or another. Probably three units would be built over the course of 10-12 years, with the last replacing Vikramaditya by mid 2040s.
Agreed.
STOBAR still, in my view, was a mistake but it’s a mistake no-one seems to be interested in (or, more to the point, capable of) exploiting for the near-to-mid term. By this I mean that the IN’s extended lack of sea control capability isnt being challenged by any other major player with an interest in the IO theatre of operations. With so little on the threat board there seems no major push to jump from STOBAR to CATOBAR to justify the ensuing costs. Just as there was no major push to jump from STOVL to STOBAR 10yrs ago the same situation exists now.
With that strategic ‘breathing space’ and a potential convergence of technologies like EMALS/AAG, UAV/UCAV, DEW and proliferation of LO offering to combine to dramatically alter the nature of the carrier airwing opting for a legacy solution like CATOBAR/Rafale would seem a bit….well…..a bit like going for STOBAR/Fulcrum a decade and a half back :dev2:
JonesyOk I’m not sure of the point that is being aimed at here, but, some questions to hopefully show you why creating ‘absolutes’ as you seem to be trying to establish here is quite impossible:
You state dB values that I am assuming are supposed to be radiated noise?.
When you understand the operational impact on acoustic signature hopefully you’ll see why any attempt at a list such as this is utterly meaningless. That the signatures themselves are highly classified, and would never genuinely be public domain information, doesnt even become relevent!.
JonesyWater fog mask is not really new technology (several Finnish vessels have it for example), so Russians using it would hardly be surprising. However I don’t think the wire in picture is related to such system…It’s probably just some cabling for equipment or sensor.
Absolutely agree Yama. Technically generating a fog is not especially challenging. The idea of doing so far predates IR surveillance equipment and missiles…..the problem, as it always has been, is how you get your pocket fog-bank to stay attached to the ship while it steams at 30knts into a headwind!. Enter offboard pyro and floating smoke generators…..better way to skin that particular cat.
Obviously for vessels that might seek to operate in a coastal ambush mode, spending time stopped or at steerage, the ability to hide in some self-generated murk could be very useful. Beware odd little fog banks off the Finnish coast it would seem! 🙂
Blitzo,
I mean, it makes sense and would be well within their capabilities, but I do not recall any specific articles or rumours explicitly stating it.
Came up in reference to some digging I was doing about the Taiwanese adding an IIR capability to their HF-2 weapons many years ago. Shortly afterwards I noticed a few articles on water fog research appearing….sure there’ll be some sources online for the Googling. Its not exactly like there are many shocking revelations possible in this technology area. That is of course unless someone has figured out how to tether fog! 🙂
JonesyIts open source that the Chinese are playing with water fog for optical/IR screening but I’ve not seen the Russians deploy anything like that. Multispectral smoke/offboard pyro does the job already and in far more controllable delivery patterns. As you note Prairie/Masker is a number of transverse wet strips under the hull so this isnt an analogy of that system.
Fraid it looks more like an external cable run to me Rockall. Possible some kind of magnetic signature attenuation if its meant to be part of a stealthing system….or a self-degauss capability if you wanted one?. Could as easily be an antenna or comms cable though….hard to tell!.
JonesyLOL. But it ain’t the Enterprise.
Someone has to be grooming that guy for command of CVN-80 when she commissions…….
The single BIGGEST missed PR opportunity in the history of publicity if theres an Enterprise and James Kirk doesnt get to command it!
JonesyTalk about hitting the side of a barn…
Give it a following sea and good wind over the beam and more than a few observers believe its profile will reduce itself significantly!. :rolleyes:
JonesyCould that crane be mounted on top of a telescopic hangar looking at the hight of the structure it is on now it looks to be about 3 m if it could be lifted so a hangar for a wildcat could be fitted that it job done best of both worlds
First lesson of cranes is that they are always installed as close to maindeck level as possible. Height is an enemy when you are on a platform that relies on beam and displacement for lateral stability….on a monohull most notably so (one reason why I am such a large fan of SWATH for this mother-vessel type role). I would strongly suspect that deckhouse the crane is seemingly ‘bolted to’ will be a strengthened housing for the base of the crane and its control gear….moving it then will not be an option. You could, I imagine, change to a knuckle jib type crane similar to this….
[ATTACH=CONFIG]242404[/ATTACH]
…and mount that on a transverse/athwartships deckhouse such that the jib would open out over the top of a retracted telescopic hanger immediately aft of it….that would be at the penalty of a much reduced weight-at-reach loading on the crane though. This would be an easily contested approach, given the existing design, though as the crane is going to see an awful lot more use, in routine ops, than a telescopic hangar would!. Cradles for UUV/USV type vehicles would sit on the flight deck, if deployed, so you wouldnt get aviation and UUV/USV capability concurrently anyway….our current MCMW fleet obviously doesnt have aviation capabilities either so its no loss in that sense of course!.
Sign In
