This is true Yama but, back then, engagement ranges were far shorter and detection systems still primitive….optimum attack range for U-boats is supposed to have been 300-1000yds!. Do you think that bears any relationship to the tactical environment today?.

Indeed not, modern subs have much better sonars than WW2 era subs, whilst LCS has no sonar at all unless it carries the ASW package, and even with that it won’t detect anything unless it slows down… 🙂

UK Border Force receives new cutter

Nice 🙂 To be honest, they were regarded as pretty terrible vessels in Finnish Border Guard, with unofficial designation ‘heavy coastal canoe’, which is why they saw little use. But maybe the shortcomings aren’t so relevant for Border Force.

I’m still wondering why russian MoD didn’t purchase some LSD as well.

They may have 😛

In other news, as has been already reported, old Kara-class hulk ‘Ochakov’ indeed has been sunk as a blockship in Donuzval Bay: http://www.demotix.com/news/4108631/kiev-accuses-russia-sinking-cruiser-ship-blockade-ukraine-fleet#media-4108401
Sad sight!

Yet, the core of the story wasn’t so much the RAS but the loss of a boiler on a New Ship!

Unfortunately the article did not elaborate what the “boiler snag” was. It could be anything ranging from harmless to very serious. Steam turbines, in general, are very delicate form of propulsion very prone to breakages and malfunctions, and they require an experienced crew. All of which is why steam turbines are not much used anymore. Good news is that ship’s still under deliverers warranty.

Just call the U.S.E. “France” and you allready have a large western European country on board with it.

Coincidentally, that would be the only way to get the French in to such an endeavour

@Tu22m: Thales (the mathematician) tells me that the size of the object detectable is 7m. So Anything around 7m will be detected for BDA.
Although, given the quality of the video displayed by LM showing the detection and the tracking of a BM at long range (coupled with the Radar), I alrdy made my mind regarding its quality.

That ‘missile’ is 300 tons, over 50 metres tall. I’m actually not that impressed. Carrier rockets have enormous launch signatures and in good conditions they are visible to naked eye hundreds of km’s away.

The RN didnt abandon CATOBAR…the RN could never afford CATOBAR on the budget provided and keep the other things it wanted to have. It made the choice for STOVL as it allowed for as much of the RAFs budget to be applied to Carrier Strike as possible…leaving funding for the frigates, UAV’s and other things we want. Seeing as we dont expect to be going carrier on carrier in blue water with QE STOVL’s just fine for what we need. That happy compromise is not available for the IN as they need to deploy in the full USN model to accomplish their taskings.

Uh, why?

The French carrier was hobbled by the political decision to go nuclear when they didnt have a powerplant to do it (salutory lesson for Indians re IAC-2!!!). Their conventional carrier design prior to that was just fine…as any Brazillian naval officer you care to meet. The DCN Romeo/Juliette conventional hulls were cited as needing about 2.5bn Euro to deliver from French yards with European build costs and all the systems. A CATOBAR Fincantieri design stretched 10% or so from the current STOBAR IAC-1 or a simplified 50k ton variant of the DCN Romeo would have ballparked around the US$3-3.5bn built in Europe. Built in India you knock 25% off the top straight off?

Looking how Indian domestic warship building has done over last decades, some scepticism about that seems warranted.

Start 2005 with Invincible coming over for frigate money. The plans in place for SHAR as happened are fine. There is then about 4 years to get the design sorted out for CATOBAR IAC-1, long lead orders placed, sort out consultancy and modernisation of Indian yards…then another 4 years for build plus 2 for trials, remediation and service entry. That timeline is ample. The spend, even if you get the first hull built and fitted out in France or Italy, is no more than has gone on Gorshkov and IAC alone and, again, you have the one single design that allows you to build up an efficient, sustainable, carrier force at the end of IAC-1. What happens to Invincible after the SHARS go is irrelevent…seeing the gap the IN has in ASW I’d suggest any remaining life would’ve been, ironically, best spent back as an ASW CVH…but they’d have had money’s worth by then!.

I agree they could have done it for about same money as spent on Vik+IAC 1: however, it would have had the downside of producing only one operational (albeit more powerful) carrier by 2020, by which date the STOVL carriers and their planes would have expired. By contrast, present solution lets them have 2 operational carriers by that date.

Of course, idea of refurbishing Gorshkov was risky to begin with, with the risk ended up materializing: “quick, cheap & dirty carrier” hilariously failed on first two counts (partly Indians own fault: if they hadn’t dragged their feet for four years (!) about the deal, maybe it would have ended up closer to original cost & time estimate). However, once they settled on STOBAR solution for IAC-1, it really made no sense to give up on Gorshkov since though costly, it produced a ship with similar capabilities as future carrier but much quicker. Starting over from scratch with all-new ship would have meant even longer waiting period and risking Navy becoming carrier-less should IAC-1 suffer from delays too (which is of course still possible). And if there is an upside with whole Gorshkov price hike, at least the ship as it is now has future operational lifespan close to all-new ship.