Royal Navy at this time has

2 Carriers each capable of carrying a 40+ air wing
1 Ocean class LPH capable of carrying 18+ Helicopters
2 Albion Class landing docks
6 Type 45 Destroyers
6 Type 26 Frigates
7 Type 23 Frigates
7 Astute Class Fleet Submarines
4 SSBN’s
16 MHPC’s

LPDs: Bulwark is the current Fleet Flagship BUT Albion is in extended readiness i.e. available for reactivation at short notice if needed.

Royal Fleet Auxiliary: three Bay class Landing Ship Dock (LSD). aviation training ship Argus

6 Point class sealift ships are available to the MoD under a long term Private Finance Initiative

Other European Navy’s

2 LPD’s
26 Frigates
4 destroyers
5 Corvettes
14 diesel submarines

Not bothering with destroyers and frigates, I miss

Royal Nthl Navy : 2 LPD, 1 JSS, 4 diesel subs
Italian Navy: 3 San Giorgio amphib assault ships, 2 VSTOL carriers, 6 submarines.
Danish Navy: 2 Absalon class command and support ships.
German navy: 4 submarines bow, 2 more on order
NOrwegian navy: 6 submarines

There are persistent rumors that there is a navalized version of the huge Coalition-SV artillery system in the works for the Russian navy.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]218920[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]218921[/ATTACH]

Still just talk………..

Yes, but notably not a rehashed Ulyanovsk

[ATTACH=CONFIG]218559[/ATTACH]

A study performed in 1991 by Gibbs and Cox showed that it was technically feasible to install a Mark 71 on a DDG-51 Flight I variant; however, the installation had some serious drawbacks. The height of the required barbette caused the mount to restrict the view of the bow from the bridge. This was considered to pose a safety issue when maneuvering the ship in congested waters. In addition, the height of the mount would have imposed severe restrictions on the use of the forward VERTREP station. This plus the cost and the small magazine size – 204 8-inch (20.3 cm) projectiles vs. 600 5-inch (12.7 cm) projectiles – caused the installation to be deemed undesirable.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_8-55_mk71.htm

Kind of looks like you are sacrificing one of the key advantage of a submarine, its stealth! A long range MPA could surely pick up the sail bulge unit sticking out of the water, also wouldn’t it have quite a significant IR signature which again could be picked up at long range.

The art work may be putting you on the wrong foot as the page actually says

“When semi-submerged, SSGT can operate at a fast transit mode, achieved by its gas turbines burning kerosene with air inducted through an extendible mast.”

also

When operating in the fast transit mode, the boat operates as a semi-submersible with
the bulb positioned above the surface. These gas turbines burn kerosene (AVTUR/AVCAT) with air
inducted through an extendable mast. The hull form selected minimises surface wave making in
this mode without compromising submerged performance.

http://media.bmt.org/bmt_media/resources/38/SsgtBrochure.pdf

That sounds much like advanced snorkling….?

he Royal Australian Navy’s two Kanimbla class amphibious ships sold for scrap.

Australia Sells Amphibs for Scrap

estimated scrap metal value of $2.5 million each
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/navy-workhorses-hmas-manoora-and-hmas-kanimbla-to-end-careers-as-scrap/story-fncynkc6-1226546722433

Hi everyone,

I have some questions about target detection:

1/ What is the best method to detect target in general? Is it radar because I see the most important and most advertised sensor on fighter is its radar

2/ Why there is no AA missile with both IR and radar homing. Different IR and radar versions on the same missiles exist but combo on one missile seems do not. Will IR sensor and radar block each other? If not, I think IR + radar combo will help to identify target between chaffs and flares and simply the logistics and mission choice, isn’t it?

3/ In according to chaff and flare, I think TV guided can distinguish them because there is no way to fake target in visible light with HDR camera, isn’t it true?

Regards

Using a combination of several passive sensors with data fusing is probably preferable over using an active sensor (which points an arrow at yourself). Note the Mig-29 and Su-27 started the practice of having an IIR sensor as well as a radar set, and Western aircraft have been following suite.

There is a dual sensor antiship missile made by Taiwan/RoC. And there are dual homing SAMs (e.g. RAM uses RF and IR). The problem on a missile (and a AAM in particular) is probably small diameter. Then again, in the 1990s, dual sensor missiles were sought for air to ground. http://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/161507

Meanwhile, for single sensor missiles, dual frequency radardetaction or dual band imaging will aid in discriminating deocys and targets…