Hi lads,
What I miss in the discussion is a realization that it (the selection process thusfar) is not solely about the qualities of the respective boats, but also about the whole accompanying package: off-set deals, tech transfer, employment in Australia. I’m not saying these should matter most, but disregarding them is unrealistic.
Regards,
J.
Background: one could say naval ops in cold weather environment in Northern latitudes. With many Western naval capabilities depending on the use of vessel-based aerial platforms the combat performance of surface units declines sharply once the aerial platforms can’t fly. Also sensor performance (radar) sharply once the vessel starts jumping around in heavy seas, possibly making targeting difficult (and that does not even take into account sensor performance degradation in snow and ice storm and spray filled seas).
Does anyone have hard facts concerning the various environmental limits for flight operations on the various classes of ships? Sea states, ice build-up, etc. Even CVN can jump around too much in high waves for flight ops (not even talking safe flight ops), and once the deck is icing up from the spray in higher sea states taxiing becomes impossible on those steel decks (since they are not heated). Are there any doctrines taking that into account?
There are of course limits for high sea water temperatures for heat-exchangers upon ships, especially critical for nuclear powered units. Any info there?
Also not aviation related: The doors of the VLS cells. Where they ever tested with ice build-up? There are pictures from Murmansk convoys, and also from Kriegsmarine units with heave ice build-up all over the ship. Are those doors heated?
Excellent topic. Clearly, it is not just environmental factors (notably wave height, wind) but also ship design (as this impacts not only how lively a particular shipdesign may be but also e.g. where the helicopter deck is relative to the water surface i.e. “freeboard”)
Destroyers and their aviation detachment crews fleetwide have been trained on using the OPPs.
“Operator polar plots” (OPP) consist of a series of placard overlays that identify limits and safety considerations that take into account a ship’s speed and sea conditions in addition to pitch, roll and relative winds. Based on the height and direction of waves, a specific OPP is used by both the ship’s officer of the deck and the helicopter pilot to determine the best options for safely landing a helicopter on a ship’s flight deck.
“This was a joint effort across several commands,” said Capt. Jack Olive, responsible for aviation operations aboard surface ships for Commander Naval Surface Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet. “Naval Sea Systems Command, Naval Air Systems Command, Naval Air Forces, Navy Safety Center and Naval Surface Forces worked together to address the safety concerns of landing helicopters on low freeboard flight decks, such as destroyers.”
A low freeboard flight deck is one that is close enough to the surface of the water such that a wave could wash over the flight deck, creating a hazardous situation for crew and equipment. Olive noted that Arleigh Burke-class destroyers have a flight deck approximately 13 feet above the waterline.
“Because the deck is so close to the waterline, conditions could exist that allow waves to more readily come over the deck,” Olive said.
OPPs are placards that officers of the deck use to plot the ship’s heading and speed, with overlays designed for certain sea states to determine limits for safe handling during flight operations. The direction of waves relative to the ship heading and ship speed are also marked on the placard. This plotted point will exist somewhere on the graph and if a given condition (denoted by different colors and crosshatch marks) indicate potentially risky or dangerous conditions, the ship can take actions, such as adjusting ship’s course and speed, to mitigate those conditions.
Ship speed is shown in five-knot increments on concentric circles from the center of a graph, with waves shown relative to the ship’s position. Red and yellow areas are speed-heading combinations to be avoided. Regions defined by dark lines with cross hatching reflect areas where launch and recovery roll and pitch limits may be exceeded.
http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=85891
Related story: http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2015/06/28/lawrence-helicopter-tragedy-accident-ddg-investigation-hazrep/29162991/
You may find Part E, Chapter 1, Section 1of “Rules for the classification of ships” of interest. http://www.veristar.com/portal/veristarinfo/detail/generalinfo/giRulesRegulations/bvRules/navalrules
See also http://www.rina.org/en/our-services/classification/naval-ship-services
The deck footprint of a KT-184 quad is quite modest. Round 3mx2m somewhere and that 2m width is generous and allowing for access down the sides. The quad would fit on that after deckhouse angled outboard. The main issue would be exhaust management in that location…would have to be tested of course…worst case a deflector grid arrangement of some kind could be called for?. I’d expect that a deckhouse designed for a deck penetrating cannon mount would be fairly sturdy to cope with mount traverse and recoil loads as well.
One thing is for certain that I’d be happier losing a pair of gatlings before the very handy torp tubes or the B-position main mount!.
Just to get an idea of size.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]245242[/ATTACH]
If you had to keep Metel, why not loose the forward pair of AK630s (more like on Kashin Smetlivy)?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]245243[/ATTACH]
But why not remove Metel and stick in 2 six-packs Club-U? Then, they could carry a mix of missile e.g. anti-ship (3M-54), land attack missiles (3M-14) or even ASW (91R). Or Yakhont.
(In the pic below, do note the option with 2×4 mounted crosswise behind the rear stack: might that work for Uran also?)
http://concern-agat.ru/en/production/missile-systems-land-and-sea-based-missile-systems/club-u-modular-missile-system
[ATTACH=CONFIG]245245[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]245246[/ATTACH]
Those mini ledges looks pretty tight and might have weight limits. The logical thing would be to replace the obsolete Metel launchers, but otherwise, why not remove the top 100mm gun? Plenty of space there for like whatever.
The Uran installed on Krivak I was place next to the forward superstructure that used to house the RBUs.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]245240[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]245239[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]245241[/ATTACH]
Close up, see http://navsource.narod.ru/photos/06/359/06359045.jpg
Are there still Metel rounds with service life on them by now?. Last stat I read on the system was that they were down to about 100 and that was 10 years back?. Has money been invested on upkeep of the inventory?.
I do remember this mishap last year, involving Metel:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3175806/What-did-Putin-missile-Russian-Navy-Day-celebrations-nosedive-weapons-launch-warship-flops-sea.html
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/russian-ships-weapon-show-backfires-6146582
Are there still Metel rounds with service life on them by now?. Last stat I read on the system was that they were down to about 100 and that was 10 years back?. Has money been invested on upkeep of the inventory?.
I do remember this mishap last year, involving Metel:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3175806/What-did-Putin-missile-Russian-Navy-Day-celebrations-nosedive-weapons-launch-warship-flops-sea.html
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/russian-ships-weapon-show-backfires-6146582
What a strange title. Ready for service would be more apt and appropriate. Even commissioned, fully operational ships aren’t automatically ‘ready for war’. Besides, what war?
Israel’s Navy conducted a successful test firing of surface-surface missiles from a Saar 5 corvette. The test included the launch of a new weapon, assumed to be an indigenous surface-to-surface missile developed for the Israel Navy by Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI).
http://defense-update.com/20160327_israeli_anti_ship_missile.html
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/israel-develops-new-anti-ship-missile-53133/
Lastly in Murmansk
Seldom have I seen such a large volume of nonsense condensed into such a short article.
Well said.
by comparison
[ATTACH=CONFIG]244187[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]244188[/ATTACH]
And, you have to keep in mind that the hangar/superstructure thing was set from the first of class Kiev, which had a different superstructure than the fourth Baku/Gorshkov, that ran right up to the rear elevator.
Kiev (this piuc showns nicely how relocating the forward elevator to the deck edge would mean rerouting the exhaust system. Movement of elevator to forward of the superstructure would mean extending the hangar forward, as it ends are the forward edge of the forward elevator).
Baku/Gorshkov
Is it me or the Vikramaditya has the worst possible elevator locations possible for a CV? Operation of the fwd lift disrupts both landings and takeoffs while operating the aft lift disrupts landings. How was this not addressed during the rebuild? Too expensive? Some other work around that I am not catching onto? There are good reasons why deck edge elevators are the standard on CVs.
So, when aircraft are landing, use the forward lift (nearest to landed aircraft) to bring them below decks. When operations call for take offs, use rear lift (nearest to starting positions) to bring aircraft to deck. What’s the problem? I don’t think she is intended to conduct both simultneously as larger CV/CVNs are.
The position of the elevators in Gorshkov is a given and determined by the hangar and the superstructure. Where would yo have your deck edge elevators given where your hangar and superstructure are? And what would the extra cost have been (assuming its technically possible to make such a modification, because it would mean that functions located in spaces in the hull sides would have to be relocated/accommodated elsewhere). The 20-ton capacity elevator beside the ship’s island superstructure was unchanged, but the aft lift was enlarged and its lift capacity increased to 30 tons.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]244183[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]244184[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]244182[/ATTACH]
RBU-6000.
Where?
Would an F-35’s engine fit inside a V-22 or would they sling load it?
The answer is internal cariage. But it’s complicated. Read here
http://aviationweek.com/defense/bell-tests-v-22-jsf-engine-carrying-capability
http://www.naval-technology.com/news/newsus-navy-grants-carrier-onboard-delivery-aircraft-designation-to-v-22-osprey-4802564