The 0.8mach air vehicle will be more capable of evasive manoever than a more massive missile at higher endgame velocity. Is there a suggestion here that Vulan is at M2.5 in terminal phase?. I understood that, at very low altitude, these big missiles velocities were closer to M1.3-.5 than anything M2.silly or above?.

http://thediplomat.com/2015/07/revealed-details-of-indias-second-indigenous-aircraft-carrier/

The Navy’s letter of request states that that carrier will be the first in the Indian fleet—and first non-Western carrier—to field a catapult launched but arrest landing (CATOBAR) aircraft launch system.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Galleries/318-3/Historic-22.jpg[ATTACH=CONFIG]239409[/ATTACH]

First for CATOBAR in the Indian fleet???. I think not!. Bad, sloppy, journalist….for shame sir! 🙂

My view is that this is still telling

“Interviewed in January 2014, Air Vice-Marshal Philip Osborn, Director of Capability, Joint Forces Command stated that the UK had “every intention of continuing to utilise Reaper beyond Afghanistan”. He continued:

You will see us plan to bring Reaper more into an expeditionary, rather than deployed mode, and over the next few years we will shift from Reaper into the Scavenger programme, [which] should be capable of doing far more, on a worldwide basis.

The buzzwords are there to map to Carrier Strike. What we will see dedicated to Carrier Strike in the nearer term is more nebulous….we’ll see when the footage from next years Joint Warrior comes out!.

^ I was alluding to that thanks for bring it up
Is there a place where I can read more details on the SOviet air-sea battle tactics in the late cold war era ?
I mean how they intended to guard their SSBN
Deploy their DD/FF to counter western Aircraft carriers and other surface fleet
And their ASW doctrine
etc

I’d start here: http://www.amazon.com/Power-State-Sergei-Georgi-Gorshkov/dp/0080219446

Exactly
I mean the Kresta II, Kara , udaloy are very weak in this anti-ship department and defenceless against Harpoon armed ships even of the japanease navy.What was the plan of the soviets to protect these ships from such harpoon armed ships ?

As noted above these class of ships were ASW hunters. In Gorshkovs doctrine they would be forward deployed as part of a taskgroup to prevent NATO/opposing forces from interfering with friendly submarine taskings in blue-water. The group, in the early 70’s era onwards, would have comprised heavy missile ships like the Pr.58/Kynda’s or -1 Kresta’s with P-35’s etc to engage hostile surface units at extended range. Added to that would be the heavy missile fire from a likely taskgroup flag like a Kirov or Kiev class.

Think you’ll find that is a max speed turn Jang but it is a good illustration of what happens when one has a broad sail area in a strong beam wind!. The contrast between the ‘Bonkers’ destroyer and the Kirov is actually quite well marked out in the photo you’ve selected there. Look at the bridge height in relation to the top of mast. Its a LOT higher up with the pagoda than it is even with the hefty installation on Kirov. Also look at the winded area of the top ‘pyramid’ compared to the equivalent area on the T45. In both cases you’ll see that the ‘fantasy fleet’ Russian design is much higher and wider than the comparable designs.

The beam reported is 20m which I think is on the lower side. To me the beam is definitely over 20m and probably around 24m?

Its to be hoped so and more….T45’s max. beam is 21m and its a much smaller ship than this!.

Jinan,

Having said that (and making sense imho), how do you view/read the carrier model put forward by the Krylov Institute?

To be honest I looked at it and lost interest when I saw the mini ‘ski-bump’ on the end of the deck-angle. Bad news news if you miss a wire on this ship it would seem…higher landing speeds needed to get you up and over the bump above stall speed I’d guess…certainly I’d expect it to make bringback weight calculation messy!?. I actually first thought it was some kind of posh fan-art as opposed to something from a real design house?. From TR1’s above comment though perhaps this is just a case of posh fan-art from a real design house! 🙂

Again an issue would crop up of doctrine….explained again by TR1 as it appears not to have been conceived to fit in to any specific doctrine!. To explain what I mean…..if I say that, until you put the context of UK Carrier Strike on to CVF, it is indeed mind-boggling getting your head around the idea of a modest-supercarrier-sized STOVL flat-top!. Translating that to this ship I cant actually conceive of the doctrine that is best serviced by a rough 90k ton STOBAR aircraft carrier.

From the sheer size and aircraft arranged on deck it looks like a CVN in the USN model….both of which together implies a requirement for a specific sortie generation rate. Then, though, you look at the images from dead astern and you see all deck launch spots, bar one short spot forward at roughly centreline, foul the landing strip…bump and all!. So you have a multirole strike/air supremacy airgroup in the conventional model but an inherently slow launching platform and no support refueller type….therefore a requirement to always utilise some percentage of your group buddy-stored to keep the first strikers launched topped off. This when shorter launch cycle time provision from CATOBAR has to be a viable option technologically and validates the size and airgroup. It all looks a bit confused to me but…like I said thats based only on a cursory glance at the photos and a suspicion that the person doing the design knew more about ships than actual operations!?.

Lets take her for a spin 😉

I’m old school I’m afraid!. Give me an 1135M for the joyride 🙂

I am impressed, at face value, by the earlier imaged Saphir though. Be very interested if anyone knows unit costs and operational design criteria for the hull (mission capable seastate limits etc)…also the 20 man crew looks good for a hull with a 30 day endurance…does anyone know how this works in the Border Guard?. Is it a CO, XO and three 6-man watches or a generally less structured operational pattern?. Curious to know how lean the ship can be run?.

Where else would they rather be? And so could coverage with multiple ASACs.

Presumably being part of the UK air defence environment. How many Sentries do we have again?. I claim no air operations expertise but we do need to sustain coverage of UK airspace even while we embark in combat operations elsewhere?. I’m not sure its so essential that we have a few SSNs in home waters at all times provided we maintain FRE etc.

Matter of opinion. Hanit was hit by one missile. Stark – only one missile exploded, both hit at same point.

Neither ship stayed in the fight after their missile hits. Hanit was hit by a basic lightweight AShM.

Right so one E-3 flying at 600mph can’t cover the airspace even with several ASACs and MPAs flying combined ISTAR but 7 submarines travelling at 30kts can cover the subsurface?

I didnt say that an E-3 couldnt get to the Falklands. I said its unrealistic to think we’d send a detachment of enough aircraft to maintain round the clock coverage.

It’s not like UAVs don’t require support equipment and traning and the above items don’t crash as often as UAVs. How much does that cost, even if they don’t crash into the carrier itself? 10.2 losses per 100,000 flying hours. That’s $200+m even without the radar.

Its also 100,000 flying hours using your numbers!!!!. By my rough mental calculation thats more than 10 UAVs flying 24hrs every day…consecutively for a whole year. Coverage that, to replicate with Sentry, would mean perhaps 2 airframes aloft permanently so a, rough, squadron strength deployment?. Doubling the E-3 force plus all of the routine operational costs would come with a significant price tag you’d expect….plus it’d not be such a useful platform for ISTAR would it….remember the UAV can do both. I’d imagine replacing 10 UAV’s per 100,000 flight hours would be the infinitely preferable option!.

So you want to see ships from a long way off but not actually have the ability to hit them with anything useful?

Nope I want to have positive ID on the ship target before I fire a missile at it and need to be sure that my weapon isnt going to veer off and sink a ferry load of nuns, orphans and CNN reporters by accident. That is why we have RoE’s after all.