All Fregat radars have the same shape antennae (the ones in the picture are definately identical) and serve the same purpose there would be no reason to have two different Fregat variants on one ship.

Having two redundant systems isn’t always a bad idea. Perhaps Fregat has a high component failure rate? You could always use one while the other is offline.

I am looking for information on the nuclear powered PA2 proposal before it was dropped in favour of a conventionally powered vessel. As I understand it the vessel was basically an enlarged and improved CdG, possibly with ba doubled up powerplant in comparison to that vessel with a displacement somewhere around 60,000 tonnes. If anybody has any info or even better pictures I would be very grateful.

Thanks in advance sealord.

There isn’t that much information about the definitive “Juliet” configuration that came before the CV-F partnership.

In fact, the only drawing/deckplan that I’ve seen is a badly photoshopped drawing of the CdeG that was passed off as the PA2.

And here something I found while looking around, but didn’t really find the right topic to put it in.

The article accompanying it was in native language so that wouldn’t be of any use to you. Sorry about the bent nose, it was on the wrong side of the book 😉

Do you have any other details about this Schelde concept? Did the image come from an article or an advertisement?

The design itself isn’t entirely new, as it has been displayed by Thales to promote their integrated mast design.

Perhaps I should start a thread dedicated to this stealthy ship?

Quite a lot might have been possible: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Alternative%20RN.htm

🙂

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

I might agree with many of your conclusions, but I do have to wonder about some of the real technical factors at play.

For instance, was Sea Wolf VLS development protrated by technical issues or funding issues? In hindsight, the VLS concept is intuitively superior.

I do have to disagree with you when it comes to the topic of marine gas turbines and the number of shaft a warship should have.

As far as I know, the Marine Spey is hardly a straightforward derivation of the early 1960s Spey turbofan. It occurs to me that the development of the Marine Spey depended on the core of the later Tay turbofan, which itself was Spey derived.

It should be remembered that development of amarine gas turbine is dependant on development of the aero-engines it is based on, and not the other way around. The development of the Concorde’s Olympus 593 resulting in a Marine Olympus with nearly twice the original output.

I would also disagree with your suggestion that Invincible class carriers should have had 3 or 4 shafts. Multiple shafts invite vibration issues and sometimes it is better to resort to gearing than to trail unpowered shafts. Thankfully, we now live in the age of massive waterjets and Mermaid podded propulsors.

* Salut has already publicly disclosed at least as many as 154 engines has been delivered from 2002, the last 100 engines ending this month. The last 100 engines include TVC and uprated thrust (AL-31FNM-1, 13,200kg thrust with the nozzle designed by Klimov). This does not count an undisclosed number of engines delivered prior starting 2002 which were meant for prototypes and preproduction planes. The Russians have described the second version of the J-10 as “Super 10”. At this point, its clearly documentable from Salut that the J-10 development has indeed entered a second stage intended to achieve supermaneuverability. I don’t think I need to post these articles again and again in front of people who selectively preen evidence only to fit how they want to “feel” good.

As long as the Chinese depend on the Russian for engines, we will have a way of tracking J-10 production totals.

What happens when production shifts to the domestic WS-10 turbofan?

We might lose our ability to track J-10 production totals?

Assuming that the WS-10 is only equivilent to the AL-31FNM-1, it will still represent a breakthrough for the Chinese aviation industry. Production of the J-10, and possibly even the license produced “J-11,” would be limited only by production capacity for the domestic turbofan.

I’m not entirely sure that I believe there are three separate and complete production lines for the J-10, but I wouldn’t be surprised…..

What was there to stop the RN using the rotating drum as a VLS similar to the Soviet SA-N-9 with the rotating drum firing out of a single apeture rather than feeding them to the trainable launcher or even making the whole drum a VLS equivalent to the Mk41 or Sylver but in service far sooner than any of these.

Britain pioneered the VLS concept with Sea Wolf, although the concept wasn’t fielded in a timely manner.

The Russian rotary fed VLS also remains unique. It is hard to judge Soviet era concepts, especially when an attempt is made to compare them with their western equivilents.

yes i agree… but oh my my operational fifth generation? please dont exxagerate.
by saying operational fifth generation your saying J10 >> eurofighter , rafale su 30 MKI etc etc etc and == F22 geez… its a 4th generation its not even 4.5 th gen .

I would probably lump the J-10 together with the Eurofighter, Rafale and Gripen. I would be inclined to say that all of the “Eurocanards,” the J-10, the LCA and even demonstrators like the ECA, the X-31 and Lavi together in the same generation.

The F-22 and F-35 don’t fit neatly into any attempt at categorization.

It is clear that any Su-27 derivative belongs to the older F-14/15/16/18 generation.