SeverodvinskJust to show you how similar it is, this is the cooling of the cilinders of a ship’s engine. The pistons are put inside these huge things. Nonetheless they have to be replaced too and it’s the same motion. As you might see, this thing is a bit more fat than a VLS canister, but basically still the same.
SeverodvinskI certainly don’t. ALthough it should be said, that the Soviet government didn’t at all really care about that money, as long as the West was scared of it, it was OK. Plenty of money got wasted there…
And if Tom is digging untill he can blame them, and if he is really capable of doing such, then that must mean that there are things that they are blamable for… I mean, they must have ****ed up if Tom can prove that. Tom’s not the man that makes up such stories or stuff…
On the other hand of course the missile got updated. But I don’t think they are in the “real magic plan” anymore… ANd GarryB was indeed right about the fact that it is old by now, and I expect, if they do find the money, they might start upgrading the bombers for Brahmos or Yakhont… That would make a larger amount of missiles for each bomber. But like I said, I do doubt the Kasatka and Legenda system’s status and if that part of detection doesn’t work, the whole system’s effectiveness is reduced quite a lot.
SeverodvinskI have seen all of these pictures long before. I’m a member at CDF too, so my background is there for sure. The 5° were not meant as a limit or anything. It was just to show that when you have even the slightest inclination, it is very hard to slide something vertically down. Basically, sliding a VLS canister inside its module isn’t all that different from sliding a cilinder in its canister, both are cilindrical object slided vertically into something! (hmm, sounds suspicious 😀 )
I know about these pictures, but then again, this is in port. You should not engage me this rapidly… Slava can do the same in port, there’s no doubt about that, otherwise they would have left all the expensive cranes out (that would save weight, money and would add to the ship’s strength, cause cranes are quite bad for a ship’s structure). So, Slava could do this, but when i port, it is comparable to a land ops, and as I said, at sea that’s a totally different story.
SeverodvinskHere’s my latest. I started building it yesterday and will probably finish her tonight or tomorrow…
Delt III in 1/2400 😀
SeverodvinskYeah I went to Africa with a Navy warship, I’ll get some pics:
Sevy with the Sextant
Sevy with the Uzi
Sunset on the Southern Atlantic.
Sunset above the Island in front of Conakry port (Guinea)
Barbeque on the Helicopter deck
Mountain in Guinea…
SeverodvinskThanks a lot. Next week I’ll try to upload the one I have. She’s at sea with some more missiles 🙂
SeverodvinskComing from the Persian Gulf, boarded in Fujairah in the UAE. We sailed to Japan and there we discharged. Afterwards sailed back inside the Gulf to load at two ports in the Gulf. Then went back to Fujairah, just outside the Gulf. And started Bunkering for the next trip to Japan. (there I disembarked again).
SeverodvinskOh no, it’s the damn Meteorit. :p
What do you mean with the additional torpedo tubes? Mounted vertically? Or mounted outward?
Severodvinskhmm, I know how they do it, that’s because these SSMs are in standardised containers. Pulling the box off and putting one instead is quite easy. But then on the other hand, putting the missile upright and sliding it into the VLS module is quite a different thing. From experience, I can tell you such operations aren’t easy. It’s like changing a cilinder in the Engine of a ship. We had to go at anchor for doing that since the ship was moving too much. Moving too much meant rolling for even less than 5°. I can tell you that warships tend to roll more than that… Which also means sliding the missile canister in the VLS will be quite hard.
and once they are on the ship, the cranes should have no difficulty loading them into the VLS.
Didn’t you read my last post. Do you see any rails to transport them around the ship? Do you see a crane that can effectively grab such a canister, assuming you can roll it below the crane that is, and and lift it? There is this one erector, but honestly I don’t see it doing such operations… Also, if that missile lays on your deck it’ll start rolling, never quite laying still below your crane to grab it. We’re not talking about land operations, we’re talking about a clear sea operation and the movement of a ship should never be underestimated, especially not on warships.
SeverodvinskHmmm, nuclear weapons are quite vulnerable to a normal explosion. The sudden heat might set off some electrons inside, triggering the bomb. You really don’t need to smash the small part to the bigger one to achieve that. Also, just the blast on a nuclear load can trigger it too. Remember in the beginning of the nuclear age, a doctor explaining something to his students with a half ball formed piece of nuclear material. He dropped it on the bench and it exploded. Although quite limited, it shew already how vulnerable this is to shocks. I know it is quite well protected against that inside the bomb, but I don’t know whether that counts for an explosion just behing the charge…
Were we talking about Moskit? Woops, must have missed a part then…
Well, Aegis has lately been modified for such targets too. Remember the SM-2 has scored some surface kills too. This means that it can indeed hit low-flying targets too. If the Moskit is detected, they have quite a chance. Of course the question is whether they can detect it in time. I think it’s not all that low-flying… Also, as I have stated above, only 4 Sovremennys, 1 Udaloy II and some smaller vessels carry Moskit. The great days of 18 Sovremennys with more Udaloy IIs planned are gone. I suppose they are going for Yakhont/Brahmos nowadays.
Well, Tom gave me the numbers, but I should really take a look again then.
Just because you’re kind of “fed up” with different publications about “rubbish” of Soviet equipment that doesn’t mean that I am prepareing such stuff out of any kind of a purpose. Together with Farzad and Arthur Hubers I simply wanted to gather whatever evidence is available about the deployment of Tu-22s in Libya and Iraq. I’m sorry if specific parts of these look not good to you, but if these are the facts we found, what should I do about that?
Construct evidence in order for the Tu-22 and Kh-22 to look better?
The Tu-22 and Kh-22 are well-known as extremely problematic even in Russia of our days: you’ll find detailed descriptions how both were rushed into production despite state acceptance testing writting a negative report about them – i.e. actually suggesting them not to be purchased. No less but eight major “updgrade” projects were run to bring the Tu-22s to a satisfactory level – and these were never entirely successful. Quite on the contrary: there were even immense problems with the Tu-22M and Tu-22M-1.
Finally, it’s not so that “some Iraqi” said someting, but two former IrAF Tu-22-pilots “said something”, and the US documents from monitoring the Soviet and East German testing in Iraq, in 1981, confirm them down to the last dot and comma: the Soviets (and East Germans) flew four Tu-22Ks to Iraq in 1981, together with 300 Kh-22s. They tested them against MIM-23Bs, and lost one plane to I-HAWKs when this had – after a whole week of successive but fruitless attacks, all spoiled by malfunctioning radars, guidance equipment on board the bomber and Kh-22MPs – to approach INTO the range of the SAMs. Then the test was stopped and the surviving planes given to the Iraqis…
Anyway, in the case of the AT-6 the Soviets took the whole remaining stock – but only in 1994, and updated it to a levels where the missile started to function. Before this was so, the AT-6A was such a crap of a weapon, it was falling apart immediately after the launch. The pk against targets moving at less than 15kts was only around 4%!
As said, I don’t know what happened with Kh-22s after the Iraqi experience in 1981 in the USSR: perhaps they expected to replace the AS-4 and AS-6 with new generation of weapons and did nothing. But, in 1982 the Soviets came back and attempted the whole stuff once again, with result of having one of the Tu-22s damaged beyond repair – again by MIM-23Bs. Subsequently, the surviving two planes were again given to Iraqis and these were targeting only large cities with them – not some specific targets.
These are quotes by Tom on Acig. As you can see in the beginning, it was an answer on my posts, I were indeed quite shocked by what he told me. On the other hand, I could believe his arguments, because they’re quite logical, the targetting problems indeed reduce the range and certainly in the beginning. And of course there is the fact that they indeed had rubbish electronics back then.The Tu-22s he is talking about is the Tu-22K.
It should be said that Tom admitted that he didn’t know what happened after those tests. Whether they had upgraded or modified the missiles or not. He admits that everything beyond the Iraq deployment is out of his interest.
This is also the reason why he said the AT-6 argument. He thinks the Kh-22s might have all been upgraded to the real test-standard instead of the old production (read: rubbish) standard.
Most formidable, Yaroslavl Mudry is resumed. I thought they quit the building and even scrapped the remains. Nice to hear, that’s the second Neustrashimiy coming into service then. I suppose Northern fleet. hmm, better make sure the first one is in good shape instead of building a new one. Maybe they are expecting the first one to sink before 2005…
SeverodvinskThere you have it, Wanshan you are correct on that…
GDL, I, and I suppose Koxinga too, am not really suggesting. I’m not only looking at pictures to conclude that. ALso, for the Chinese, there I’m looking at pictures only. But if a Burke, a Slava and a Kirov can’t reload at sea because it is too unstable, the cranes are too weak in such conditions (and comparing SLava’s cranes to the Chinese reloader), we can very safely assume 170 is not capable of reloading at sea either. There is also the question where these reloads would come from… Brought in by helicopter on the stern helo deck? I don’t see any rails to transport the missile up front then. Bringing it in with a Helo and just dropping it somewhere up front is quite risky too. I don’t see any magasine that is freely accessable from the main deck either…
SeverodvinskThat would indeed be good. SO the VLS for all 24 is mounted behind the sail? Or again in two banks on both sides of the sail?
Yet it is not anymore an SSN, then it is a true SSGN.
I suppose it’ll be much more quiet than the Oscar SSGNs and might have a single screw (if it is indeed somewhat based on Akula).
SeverodvinskI found it back, the S-10 Sub-launched Granat was tested from two Yankee-Notch class submarines, instead of the SLBMs. I suppose that was VLS…
The Ohio conversion isn’t all that new then!!
Vympel, you mean it will have only 3 Yakhont/Onyx missiles? or do you mean there will be more than just one VLS module? It is of course a very large missile and it is hard to fit it in any submarine with bow mounted torpedo tubes. The rear of the sail, that means something like the SLBMs from the Hotel class?
SeverodvinskThat’s something new for me… So, it will become an SSGN class, more a follow on to Oscar than to Akula?
The Granat VLS is the one I was talking about. hmm, I’ll have to ask some people about that then.
SeverodvinskSorry to say, but very very very reliable sources, that have been onboard that ship, say it sometimes only has this small part of its armament.
Kursk was also to have discharged the “fat torpedoes”. But by lack of ready cranes in port, this has not happened and therefor they took them with them on the exercise.
Sign In
