Given the sideview, I ‘d rather think they are mounted Skjold NSM style. Mounted below decks but with a raising box launcher that comes up when they are about to fire a missile.

The Sea Kings will be different, but I suppose the measurements, like bolt sizes etc. will be the same. They’ll have a lot of parts in common too, but I don’t think it’ll be identical.
The ship on the other hand… 😮 I think the only usefull thing they can do with it is take it apart, look very well how it was constructed and start from there to make their own indigenous improved design.

Here’s something on them, I know it’s not the best of sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westland_Sea_King

A picture from the Russian Nikolay Cherkasov. This is a RoCo ship as Turbinia described. She looks a lot like Conveyor in concept but apart from this picture I never found any additional information on this project/plan.

Ok guys, time to end this rather useless conversation.

RBU’s work as they should and that means, against submarines. The added anti-torpedo task is made possible by firing a barrage of rockets in the direction of a torpedo at a set range or two set ranges. Otherwise, making a direct kill is a near impossibility. Practically the expanding pressure bubbles of the rockets will either deflect the topedo’s seeker signals or just blow the thing to pieces if it’s close enough.
It’s outdated against subs as the subs have gotten a much longer range of attack by now. This is the reason why the Russians are phasing out the RBU’s in their new designs.

Brezhnev, they don’t really need torpedo tubes. If Medvedka works as it should, then it has quite some distinct advantages over ship launched torpedo’s. First, it’s much faster to reach it’s target. Secondly it’s hard to hear it coming when it’s above the surface, unless of course the submarine is very close to the surface, but that would be fairly stupid. Third, most surface launched torpedoes have a severely limited range and hence Medvedka has a longer range.
That is of course, if it works as it should. It’s a pretty “old” system by now and I suppose it has undergone quite some modifications.
Of course the targetting information, discussed extensively by Radar and Garry, is the hard part of it.

The latest Gepard versions, Gepard 5 and 6, don’t have RBU’s fitted. It is this variant that was sold to Vietnam too. It’s simply outdated and taking too much space to really justify its presence.

Radar, the earth isn’t a globe, not a slice either though.

Venezuela has an oil navy. If they would want a carrier, they could most likely buy it. Certainly with the current oil and gas revenues. But most likely they won’t want/need it. There would be more use in extra submarines.

Thanks for the info Pred, Hadn’t seen that FREMM version yet. It seems to me that they are once again sacrificing their navigation capabilities to technical requirements. That bridge looks aweful low.
Strange VLS mount too, I guess that’s to get their centre of gravity lower… Smart solution if it works. I wonder why those guys stick to those regular guns for CIWS like the one on top of the hangar. Any idea how many SAMs she would carry.

Lafayette is very weakly armed and would by no means suite the Indian needs. They were designed for long range colonial patrols.

I was thinking about REAL carriers, not the weak type of harrier carrier that has little use… Indeed for Harrier carriers the superstructure isn’t really that much of a problem.
Turbinia, depends on what ships those were. Torsion is a very recent finding on ship’s construction. And as you probably know the entrance to the below deck spaces is as big as possible, this means that the main deck is not really helping much in transverse strength and torsion prevention. That is why they have moved the superstructure to the middle nowadays, if you put it either totally in front (which would be better to stack even more containers) or in the back, then your torsion strength and transverse strength is too small for a ship that large.

Ja, the problem is not only that type of damage. THe problem is that they don’t have any transverse bulkheads, just one or two of them with watertight doors. That is caused by the fact that the cars come in and have to drive all the way to the front which is not possible with watertight transverse bulkheads every 10m. So, practically if this ship takes water, it goes all the way around the ship and free floating surfaces have killed many RoRo ships (Estonia, Herald of Free Enterprise etc.) it’s a real problem and the dry docking is only possible with minor damage caused by normal navigation, not caused by war.

The stability is an even larger issue. Cars and trucks are very high volume, but low weight cargos. The ship is therefore allowed to have them rather high up. If you come with jets and of course their fuel supply, you will have to add weight to the ship and hence make their underwater shape different resulting in lower speed.
It will of course also make your ship less stable by moving around all that weight on top of them. Stabilisers often correct for that with the cars and trucks, but they only have limited use. The deck would have to be strong too, hence weigh a lot more than the current tween decks and top deck.

In the days of these MAC things you didn’t have any electronics, nowadays you do have to mount that navigation radar somewhere, and if possible as high as you can… Although in the end you could probably do this, if you actually manage to get rid of the stability, strength and damage control issues.

So for harrier carriers Container ships are probably the best, but I wouldn’t call that a real carrier, the costs would most likely be too high for the thing’s worth…

Practically I rather think the Sovremenny EM is the best ship in China’s inventory. Two Kashtans, Shtil-1, twin 130mm gun, 4 TT’s, a helo and 8 Moskits. It’s not as stealthy as the others, but stealth is much overrated for these half-measure ships anyway. Type52B has some stealth measures, but they are not intensive enought to work to full advantage. The Delhi isn’t exactly stealth either. Kolkata is one of these will-be ships and can’t be compared to any existing ships. For now there is a break in Chinese shipbuilding when it comes to surface vessels. All yards (not only in China, but in the entire world) are full with commercial orders for now. THat means that whatever warship they intend to build, has to wait untill one of the other warships is finished to take its spot. I think they’ll stay at this for a while. They’ll have to test 52C for quite a while too. 51C seems to be failure considering her long stay in port and slow way of completion (rectifying mistakes). It would have been better to be a huge cruiser instead of what it is now.
It will take at least 3 years to figure out all the problems in 52C, Kolkata isn’t even completed yet and Barak2 is even further away from getting ready. Then it will require another few years for ironing the bugs out of the design. (as a reference, the Zeven Provincien, was here a few weeks ago, has only recently been found really ready. Some minor errors are still there and all ships have their Electronic warfare system in front of the bridge removed because it has to get adapted, that ship is now 3 or more years old…)

All together the Sovremenny is the most proven (with the EM having additional proven systems added) of the Chinese destroyers and most likely the strongest of them too.
As for India, the Delhi is the only thing to compare it to…
We don’t know that much about the other Chinese ships either. Certainly not about the sonars and ASW stuff they carry.