well of what i have heard, the ships suffer from extensive topweigt as israelis wanted to but so many SSMs to the the topdecks of it (The sthealth features effectively left no other place for them) I have also read that Israeli Navy had little understanding or intrest of ship top-weigth proplems that later coused them trouple as they overloaded their small boats with effective SSM fit…so no succses. The US shipbuilders were propaply aware of it but israeli didnt change the requirments. So they were referred as pocket cruisers by the americans. Later on I have heard that the planned OTO 76mm wasent fitted on the foredeck as it was too heavy, and the Gabriels arent usually carried.

The only reason the Sa’ar Vs suffer from excessive topweight is because the Israelis were more concerned with supporting their local defense industry than producing seaworthy combatants.

It wasn’t neccessary to fit a total of 64(!) Barak SAM missiles to this class. However, IAI produces the Barak missile and there wasn’t exactly a backlog of foriegn orders at the time the Sa’ar Vs were planned. Of course, since the ships were more-or-less free, Israel could afford to direct procurement money towards the domestically produced armament.

This must be the question of the hour for every RN nut.

Was the MoDs announcement just before Christmas re a two stage main gate process a vote of confidence in the CVF of the start of a prolonged way of cancelling it?

I’d say that it’s still too soon to tell.

That’s the coward’s answer.

This is for You, Blackcat :rolleyes:

Nice.

You don’t see maritime boilers every day!

Any pics of the steam turbines?

The main propulsion of the INS Vikramaditya will be steam, the Baltiysky Zavod company has been contracted by FSUE Northern Machine Building Enterprise (Severodvinsk) to make 9 KVG-3 boilers for the ship. The boilers are being configered to run on Diesel.

Why 9 boilers?

To the best of knowledge, the Kiev class was originally built with 8 boilers?

Are the Russians reboilering the ship and then providing a “spare?”

Yes, having a quasi-centrally planned economy has its advantages, plus a governmental form that allows for the redirection of the economy at the whims of the leadership must help.

I don’t think that your description applies to modern China.

No, this one:

You’re talking about Project 11780 or “Halzan.” I don’t have any details, just the drawing below. It came from a Russian forum that’s no longer online, if I remember correctly.

It appears that Project 11780 was another amphibious or ASW project, not the cancelled nuclear powered carrier you originally asked about.

Just to confuse things further, my drawing of “11780” appears to be labelled “10200” and has a date of 1980!

Sorry for the waiting, if you send me a PM I’ll be able to help you out. Also check the www.****.org forum, there is a thread on the Kapusta/Ural project in there, with the thoughts about the hull idea too. Haven’t got the time to read and post it here though.

What’s www.****.org?

With IN slated to get nuke subs in the not to distant future which country do you think will have the better navy 10 years down the line – the Indian’s or the Chinese. Discuss! :diablo:

In terms of shipbuilding capacity, it is clear that China is far ahead. I don’t think that anyone can deny this. This isn’t a provocative statement or an incitement, it’s just a plain statement of fact.

It’s also true tht Chinese defense planning is hardly transparent to an outside observer. Just because China has the world’s largest shipbuilding industry doesn’t mean that China will develop the world’s biggest and most capable navy – or not neccessarily within the span of single decade.

In contrast, India tends to communicate its intentions toward defense planning long before embarking on actual procurement.

I just don’t think that there’s enough information to make an informed debate on this subject.