StevoJHYour Hornets better than Su-30s? In what respect?
Venezuala’s arent in the southern Hemisphere and Indonesia only has 2 or 3 that they can’t afford to fly anyway.
StevoJHIndonesia has some Su-30s. Venezuela’s Su-30s are at least 70km from the Southern Hemisphere and Angola has Su-27s :diablo:
None of which would have better then even odds against a Typhoon and most likely worse then even odds.
Other then those typhoons the best fighters in the Southern Hemisphere would probably be either the Australian F/A-18A+’s or the Brazilian M2000’s.
StevoJHThey could also be stripping it out prior to being transferred to their coast guard. Since several PLAN ships have previously been disposed of that way.
StevoJHOne option here in the case of the USN would be to take out of “mothballs” the JFK or the Kitty Hawk and re-condition them (big dollars) to operate as afloat forward operating bases. That would give you the space and tonnage to cover the full range of COIN/OOTW missions without pulling a CVN out of some other high priority area. That being said, any ship with that much mobile sovereign acreage is a strategic asset and would still require a quality escort force.
Umm…you realise that this is the job of the CVN’s right? and that if there are not enough of them they should build more (IMO, with the LHD’s and CVN’s that they already have, USN actually has more then enough flat tops for what they are doing). I wouldnt be surprised if pulling an old carrier out of reserve and giving it s SLEP (which is what would be required) would probably cost more then half as much as a new CVN, would cost more to run and would only have a short service life.
Remember these are all 50 year old ships you are talking about.
StevoJHHas anyone read this months copy of Combat aircraft? It has a piece in it about the GR9 and &. The guy talking was saying that his aircraft have just been updated with (i can’t remember the upgrade code) the ability to tell the aircraft it is carrying paveways without actually needing to carry them. The next upgrade is link 16 and something else. He seemed to think this was going ahead.
He says they are off to Red flag this year and are going to be doing Paveway III bombing on hardened bunkers etc. He said this is to get the pilot training back up to standard as they have been concentrating on the afghan mission for a long time. Also JFH have been doing carrier training and will be doing night landing’s operations this year. Basically he was saying they are getting there range of skills back.
Are these upgrades going ahead still?
I was always under the impression that not all aircraft would be upgraded to GR9. Some would stay as GR7 and some would be GR7A.
Can anyone remember what the GR7, GR7A, GR9 and GR9A upgrades involved? Maybe JFH will have an all GR9 and GR9A fleet from now on. What squadron is being retired?
All aircraft were GR.7’s.
Those given the new engines were redesignated GR.7A.
Those given the new avionics were redesignated GR.9
Those given both upgradess became GR.9A.
From memory the second RN squadron that was “unofficially” stood down is supposed to be standing back up this year. If an RAF squadron was disbanded then the status quo would remain the same as it is now.
StevoJHIEDs have killed Abrams crews, what does that tell you about the “safest” western tank? Hmm..
I thought the Chally 2 or Merkava were the two safest. 😉
And for the record, I said *may* be better.
StevoJHThey don’t make UAVs or landing ships, so those purchases are logical if they don’t want to waste R&D money. I do suspect that there will be some high quality Russian UAVs within the next 5 years. Tanks?! What kind of non-sense is that?
UAV’s would be a good investment, given the length of Russia’s land borders.
As for Tanks, while Western Tanks may be better then the T72/T80/T90 series, Russia could not afford to purchase Western Tanks in the numbers required, plus given their most likely enemy (china), they are not needed. Better to design and build their own tanks, with Western equipment added on as and when needed.
StevoJHOther then some of the Baltic Nations and possibly North Korea and Iran, which countries still have the Ships and Equipment to carry out a large scale mining operation. And it should be noted that these countries would all basically be mining a littoral area.
The RN’s plan is no different from the USN’s plan to do MCM from the LCS’s.
StevoJHJapan/China/England/France and especially RUSSIA I’m 99.9% sure have black projects that have NEVER stopped scince the end of the Cold War.
England? Don’t you mean the United Kingdom?
StevoJHcorrect me if I’m wrong, but isn’t HMS Clyde fully functional at sea state 6, while being only 1900 tons?
The various classes of Type 12 Frigates went from around 2500t-~3000t, so its doable.
StevoJHRegarding C3 and the Australian OPC, I posted the following on another board a week or so ago.
These ships, while small by modern terms (in the 2,000t range) can easily give the firepower of a last generation frigate such as the River class (Australia), or Leander class (UK) through the use of modular bays which will likely be present on the ships from the start.
First of all, the ship is going to have a gun forward, in the RAN the likely gun chosen would be the 76mm gun in service aboard the Adelaide class frigates, in the heavier C3’s of the RN the choice would likely be the 4.5″ Mk.8 Mod.1, possibly using mounts removed from Frigates and Destroyers as they leave service or are upgunned to the 6″ gun. This gives these ships the naval gunsupport ability of frigates or destroyers, making them roughly equivilent to these earlier frigates.
Ship board SSM’s are not a requirement, but rather a magazine for helicopter munitions including both torpedo’s and missiles. While during normal service these ships might carry the A109 or similar helicopters, likely with a .50 door mounted machine gun, during wartime the ships flight could possibly be replaced with a Sea Hawk or Wildcat flight depending on country, giving the ships a potent ASW and ASuW punch.
As these ships will be replacing in service MCM and Survey craft, they are liable to be fitted with a modular bay aft of or beneath the flight deck. These could be filled with either MCM equipment, RHIB’s for boarding operations, or even a modular TAS.
With the larger gun up front, thought could be given to fitting either .50 mini typhoon or 20mm typhoon mounts on the port and starboard beam to cover the small boat threat and for when the forward gun is overkill. Guns should be remote so they can be linked to the combat system for anti-air and so that they can be operated in bad weather without exposing crews to the elements.
Modular systems such as TAS would not necessarily be designed for these ships, but rather for the C1 and C2 ships of the RN and the ANZAC replacement of the RAN, however with a common architecture used so that if a C1/C2/ANZAC replacement is in refit and cannot be rushed to the area of operations fast enough, then the TAS module can be fitted aboard the C3/OPC as a temporary measure, making the system modular also allows easier repair by replacement aboard the largerships, allowing them to complete their deployments with replacement modules while their own goes back to a depot to be repaired.
By doing these things, along with allowing the ships to link into a CEC network, these ships would have the firepower of earlier generation frigates, even though they would not necessarily be as durable depending upon what standards are used for their construction.
Stephen
What do you think?
StevoJHUnderwater torpedo tubes? :confused:
And I seriously doubt the Iranians are planning on suicide speed boats, 20mm guns on typhoon mounts and phalanx would put them on the bottom quick smart.
StevoJHIF the SSK has the sensor capability to take a shot without direct path then the answer to the question of dealing with a 40km inbound wakehomer is to outrun it!. Wakehomers follow a zig-zag or snake pattern in order to fix the wake boundaries. A 30knt ship with a 40km head start has a good chance in a flat out race with a fish that has to bounce around an indirect tailchase course!.
Do any torpedo’s even have a 40km range at a decent speed?
StevoJHI’m no expert on Nuclear Power in warships so i’m not sure what size we are talking about here. Given the size and space that the current turbine’s Engine room would take up on the CVF that would surely be big enough to fit a couple of reactor’s in. Looking at the size of a submarine i don’t imagine the reactor’s are that big. In the film K-19 the reactor room seemed quite small. Mind you I wouldn’t want any of those types on my ship! The MOD must of looked at costings for oil versus nuclear and found that it was cheaper to run on oil throughout the service life versus nuclear? Mind you then again:rolleyes:
I know CVF is meant to be flexible and future proof but i’m not sure if the engines were as flexible as installing catapults for example. With the UK maybe going to buy commercial reactor’s for UK power stations possibly from Westinghouse or another US company a deal could probably be done if the same company made reactor’s for the US carriers. The UK has probably done in depth studies into reactor powered ships and carriers and the differences they would have from submarine reactors like PW1 and 2 for example so the same mistakes as France shouldn’t happen. I doubt we will ever see Nuclear power in CVF. Maybe in some future fantasy world where the UK had to have lots more carriers than 2 in service but not in the real world.
Lets just hope we get 2 CVF’s in service and not a couple of incomplete hulks dockside. Would be a nice view when driving over the forth road bridge though. Anyone been down that way or know of a good vantage point to see Rosyth for any progress recently. My grandad used to take my dad to see the Forth Road bridge during construction so hopefully there is somewhere to see CVF’s being built from. Any idea’s let me know.
There have been a few small “nuclear battery” concepts that have come up in the media since the design for CVF was finalised. One of the ones I was reading about was 30MW, which is just under the power produced by one of CVF’s GT’s. This particular reactor was a sealed unit, which once built is never opened again.
StevoJHGiven the French experience with trying an unconventional nuclear approach to powering their carrier I doubt the RN would be able to sensibly de-risk any other option apart from conventional turbines.
Using the Generators to produce electricity to power electric engines is a completely different propulsion system to the old style steam driven propulsion of the CdG.
Sign In
