This somehow makes me think the P-17 will just have a regular Shtil Launcher.
The whole is EXACTLY shaped as a regular Shtil launcher’s ground plate/footprint. The aft hole probably for 8 Brahmos missiles. Looks pretty similar to Talwar in lay-out except for the double hangar. I’m not sure wether that forward hole is mounted on the main deck (as in Talwar), or higher…
Anone with better and more recent pictures???
TinWing,
officially she doesn’t make 27kts. Only 25, but with current etc. in the Channel you can make 27. Same applies for any ship, including carriers and others, if the current and wind are with you or against you, it can make quite a difference in speed.
Fuel consumption often depends on what type of engines they use. When you have a 25-27kt ship, they sometimes use two engines, more reliable, as it can still reach 75-80% of its normal speed on one engine, but of course using two of them also causes a large increase in consumption.
A ship like this one can save a few days by sailing at such a high speed over a normal 23kt one. A few days is quite something in shipping business.
As for the carrier, it has been thought about for several times. Depends on what you need I guess. It won’t replace a CVF, but it could however replace an Invincible with ease.
Crew is always dependant on what your company wants to spend. A vessel has a minimum crew requirement, including the educational (read: papers) they need for a certain voyage. Mostly ships of this size have a crew of about 25, but they often have space for over 30.
Tenthije, innocent yes of course, we all are innocent :D. Oh so the guys in the containers aren’t the production guys??? Good to remember that next time when I find them.
Route pack,
There is a good reason to keep things silent on Merchant shipping and the companies (probably among the strongest financial and political companies in the world) are not really ready to open up things. They like to keep things as tight as possible as the market in shipping is pretty hard. If some company sees a commercial/technological “hole”, they will try to fill it and avoid anyone else to benefit from their technology/ideas.
I’m interested too Turbinia 😉 What do you want to know about the container vessels?
Here are some of my pictures onboard the MSC Lucy, 324m long, speed of 27kts with a 90,000hp engine, can take around 8,800TEU, although as you know they never really take that amount.



As you can see only the three lowest containers are secured to the deck with rods, everything above it is only attached to the container below and next to it. Not really safe. You can imagine what the result is when they stack them 8 high on the deck in bad weather… They run away easily 😀
The muscle to move this thing:
And the CO2 room, all hatches are pretty well protected by this system with its sensors and gas, over 500 bottles:
Sailing them is NO fun at all. On navigation, they are too fast, you have to overtake all the others and that’s pretty annoying (although it does give some action in your watch), they also became pretty large and hence overtaking is not an easy job when you’re in Singapore Strait or other narrow passages.
The view is also very limited and manoeuvring such vessels on your own is out of the question, you always need a pilot, also because those ships have to be put very correctly in place in comparison to the cranes (can’t use automatic mooring winches either as the ship will start to run around the quay and hence will again lose the correct position).
In the old days calculations on stability etc. were done onboard. Nowadays that became impossible. The main concerns of loading these beasts are:
a) stability
b) dangerous goods (separation/stowage)
c) easy acces, what has to go out first has to get in last
With 20 or 30 containers it’s still possible, but not with 3,000!
Add to it that most of these big ships have a bunch of slots for refrigerated containers (also called reefers, taken from the old designation “reefer” as a refrigerated fruit carrier), and hence have to be taken in account too.
Another annoying point is that you hardly have a clue of what’s onboard. Some guys succeed in putting a bulldozer or steel coils in containers without lashing it correctly. It’s inside the container, so lashing isn’t really your concern. Of course when the ship gets into bad weather these goods start moving and often just bang through the container side resulting in dangerous situations.
All in all it’s a very high tech (and predominately fast and stressful) business and they have to send everything around. If a ship calls in on Shangai and afterwards heads to Rotterdam, they have to send the loading arrangement and requirements from Shangai to Rotterdam. Then they can see in Rotterdam which containers have to get moved and where they have to position the cranes to do this in the most efficient way. (this is also counts for short trades in which the ships are sometimes only hours away when the loading arrangement arrives, so they have to hurry to get everything fixed when the ship arrives)
The small straddle carriers (“elephants”) are all guided by satellite and when they receive a container from the big crane, they know exactly where to move it on the terminal.
no you’re not remembering correctly 😉 PLAN never had any joint manoeuvres with Kuznetsov included. Admiral Ushakov was the one which needed half a year of repairs after this deployment and not Kuznetsov (as she went out a month later to train new pilots). Ushakov lost two liferafts in this storm which actually ended up on the Icelandic coast. The ships went at anchor above Iceland after this and the rescue tugs came alongside Kuznetsov and Velikiy for repairs.
The one involved in PLAN joint manoeuvres was Burniy along with an Udaloy (I think it was Panteleyev could have been Shaposhnikov too).
Pff, I’ve been wrong on that name for all my life then… Guess I’ve read somewhere Lekui and kept that name in mind without really checking, thanks for the correction!
But if I’m following the thing right than Jebat is older than Lekiu? or do you mean with “seniority” that she is just more important in the fleet as flagship?
After another look I think the elevator is just down… Ramp’s there.
Hasn’t changed Jon, if you look well, into the smoke, you can see the SAM launcher is still there on its platform as you can see in the picture you have linked.
The hangar itself looks indeed a bit shorter, but I think that is due to the angle of the picture.
You could probably fit them instead of one of these old and completely obsolete SAM launchers.
Ayala, they aren’t true box launchers. If you look well you can see that they have just put a cover around a round launcher. The Nakat has round tubes as well for Yakhont. So it’s just a matter of having some cover, probably to get it slightly more stealthy, although I doubt that will help much on a Kashin…
Oops, sorry Jon…
Anyhow Ayala, strangely the ship in your picture has AK-230… The one behind it has AK-630M. So not all of them have the AK-630M, that is strange. Any idea if this is the same ship? And when the pictures were taken?
Jon, not aft, you can see the Barak VLS in front of the Ak-630. The hightened part where normally the forward pair of AK-630s is.
Nick, which cases are you talking about? Have they ever been used in combat? Or do you mean during exercises?
The same thing can happened just as easily to modern ships with watertight compartments if enough compartments were breached. Why do you think ships still sink these days even when they have watertight compartments? No ships are unsinkable, you just need a big enough hole, as the Titanic again examplifies.
I’ll tell you, because they tend to break… Most ships that sank lately have just been breached, large holds being filled with water, in addition to their often already heavy cargo, causes the hold to just collapse and break off. There have been quite some cases of that, along with a lot of RoRo victims as they do not have these truly watertight comparments and often they just let the doors open in those bulkheads! 90% of all ship accidents are caused by human error. The other 10% is mostly structural failure which is what I have mentioned above.
The bulkheads of Titanic indeed extended above the waterline, but a certain trim caused them to get below it, and so the water could get further in the next compartments, causing more water to enter, more weight, more ship below the water and hence the water ran ahead again. And then it broke 🙂 Now those were the good old days, no SOLAS to take care of no ISM, no computers, design was still fun back then I guess.
Turbinia,
I don’t think they will ever publish any GZ curves of any warships…
I can however get you some interesting things on the M-class if you wish. Something very technical, above my head really, but it might be interesting to you I believe! It’s about slamming with a bunch of computer generated tests for the M-class, including the curves etc. I also have comparmentalisation plan of this ship.
I have indeed wondered up to which sea states they can effective operate. After seeing the Sovremenny (Admiral ushakov) in these harsh conditions in the barentz, with her radars turned off and the sonar coming out of the water once in a while, I think it was pretty useless at that moment. After being in a typhoon myself, experiencing the same trouble, not even seeing one (out of 320m of ship) in front of me, nor having any real reliable radar or AIS information, and sailing with the idea: “no one else is as stupid as us to try and sail here so a collision is unlikely” I started wondering how a regular frigate would fair in a rough sea.
PLAWolf,
funny you mention Titanic as she is exactly THE example of what it is to have NO watertight bulkheads. She didn’t have compartments, the bulkheads didn’t go all the way up to the maindeck. Which actually meant that when the first compartment flooded, the water just rose up, and then got into the next compartment over the bulkhead. Titanic was therefore the example that actually caused the obligation to put watertight bulkheads in a ship, so even a small hole would have actually sank her.
It is predomitaly the free flooding surfaces that are dangerous in a ship, but due to the compartmentalisation of these already small craft, this is probably not such a big problem on these vessels either. However the steering gear room is most likely a pretty large space compared to the other spaces in the ship, so it could have been a slight problem for this already unstable design.
We would need a real stern shot to see what really happened I guess. If this is indeed where she was hit, then it does show that they were not doing evasive manoeuvres, maybe relying on the Phalanx to take it out?
Sens, do not forget that they will have most likely imposed a restriction in photographing in port for Merchant ships. It happens often enough, I even doubt it is allowed in peace time to take pictures there (anyone who has experience entering this port?). In other Gulf States it’s often forbidden too. And you can always try, but it can result in losing your camera along with a huge fine for the ship… Not exactly worth the risk in some cases. Along with the restriction to take pictures from certain Merchant vessel types (gas and oil tankers etc.). So it all depends on how secret the Israeli forces want to keep this. They might even mount stuff in front of the ship if they want to.
This picture might or might not show the ship after the damage, hard to tell from this one shot.