It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

When is China going to build a Aircraft Carrier?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 01:14 AM
link   
The first aircraft launched off a ship was actually flown off a platform on a USN Cruiser anchored in an East Coast port in 19...11?. A development of the Wright Flyer, one of Curtisses first, it was a privately sponsored demonstration which failed to attract the interest of the USN.

The Royal Navy were the first to fly biplanes off warships in WW1, flying one from a jury rigged wooden platform suspended above the 6inch turret of an RAN light cruiser...a Sopwith Pup or Avro 504K. They had to fly ashore though or ditch if at sea.

Very soon they were flying off a number of Battleships, Battlecruisers and cruisers.....one-two planes per ship. Destroyers towed light barges at speed to allow the launch of fighter scouts.

at the start of the war the RN and several other Navies converted merchant ships into seaplane carriers, which carried them onboard and slung them over the side to fly off. They picked them up the same way. Most anchored in sheltered waters, and the few that could launch on the move were too slow for fleet work.

Two RN light Battlecruisers were fitted with flying off and landing platforms with the superstructures in the centre of the decks around 1916-17, another was completed post WW1

The first true carrier deck was a merchantman completed as HMS Argus in 1917. She was slow due to her merchant propulsion of the day.

Post war France, the USA and Japan completed surplus battleships and battlecruisers as carriers. The French "Bearn" the US "Saratoga" and "Lexington" and the Japanese "Akagi" and "Kaga". The Royal Navy built the first purpose built carriers, the HMS Eagle being completed in 1921 and HMS Hermes in 1924. (both these ships like the Saratoga and Lexington gave thier names to later ships most people here may be more familar with)

The USN also completed its first carrier in this time (the 1920s) when the USS Langley commissioned. She was formerly the USNS Jupiter, a slow fleet collier (coal carrier for coal burners). She was converted to a seaplane tender in the 1930s with half flight deck and exposed hangar. She was sunk in early 1942 by Japanese carrier planes whilst ferrying USAAC P-40s to Java.

All these ships had wooden flight decks and it was not until the Royal Navy's Illustrious Class Fleet carriers began to commission in 1941 that the armoured flight deck appeared.

Cheers.




posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 01:19 AM
link   
The carrier sold to Holland was one of the incomplete Majestic Class Light Carriers. She was completed as the Dutch "Karel Doorman"(sic) named after a 17th century dutch Admiral and war hero.

There was another carrier, one of the small escort (or "jeep") carriers that the Free Dutch Naval Forces operated as part of an RN/Dutch ASW group in 1944...cannot recall its name.



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 01:24 AM
link   
BTW back on topic. The Navy League of Australia's quarterly magazine "The Navy" carried the report this year that the PLA-N has had a 40,000t plus ship under construction for several years. It should launch in 2005 and commission in 2010, if they stick to schedule.

There were rumors the former Russian "Varyag" may complete in the meantime to allow them to build up operational experience before then and to provide a training platform.



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 09:31 AM
link   
This is getting rediculus, look at this Slander:

Originally posted by devilwasp

best sailors? hmm i think the austrailian and british perisher courses might have something to say about that.
now let me see best trained captains in the ocean at least nuclear boat captains and of course that makes our captains inferior to yours?
and the austrailian deisel captains are of course inferoir even though the US owns no diesel subs?

Who buillt the first nuclear submarine in the world? Who taught the British ( forget the Australians, I can't be bothered) to build nuclear submarines?

Who defeated the Japanese navy even though half the USNs Pacific Fleet was out of commission? Hmm, could it be the British !!
No, they were busy drowning in the South China Sea after getting spanked by the Japanese Navy. A Glorious naval empire it was wasn't it?
( Sorry, don't mean to be hateful!!)

The USN doesn't use deisel subs because, firstly they are old technology( Cold war era) and secondly most importantly, the missions for which the diesel boats are best-suited have vanished from planning since the end of the Cold War. DSs( Deisel subs) are well suited to defending friendly ports and lurking off enemy ports, waiting for enemy vessels to present themselves as targets. Now there is no enemy to defend friendly ports against, nor are there enemy ships to ambush. Current naval missions are rapid-intervention operations, which take place in distant places on short notice. DSs lack the sustained high speed capability required to reach the scene of an operation in a timely manner. If the submarine can't get there, it simply isn't useful. Even the focus on "littoral operations" doesn't mean DSs are the solution: those littorals are scattered all over the world, far from where the submarines are based. A small-ish SSN can work in the littorals nearly as well as an DS, and it can get there quickly.
So , when we had DSs the USN had the best DS captains, now the Australians can take first place.



Originally posted by devilwasp
also your 50 years of carriers is a bit stupid, firstly jets didnt appear untill end of ww2 and proper carrier versions didnt reach until what the 50's? and even then they were sub sonic.

Who says you need to have jets otherwise it isn't an aircraft carrier? The name itself suggests that the ship carrier aircrafts ( air- craft- carrier :duh
. The 50 years I was refering to was the development of aircraft carriers irrespective of their aircraft.(1940-2004) i.e 60 years


Originally posted by devilwasp
also you have the biggest carriers big deal the bigger the carrier the bigger the target. you knnow a kilo can disable a carrier in the right conditions and thats with the carrier being ready and prepped for war and with the battle group ready to go.know how? one single torp on the prop. that carrier will most likely have drive shaft damage and cause it to be in refit for months.

I know that a kilo can disable a carrier but my question is who is foolish enough to mess with the USN--Nobody. The repercussions would be incomprehensible, we lose one carrier they lose their country!!



Originally posted by devilwasp
hell if needed just use a nuke on them and the group will be decimated. also your great ASW units use sinking helicopters. by sinking i mean no bouyancy in them.


To attack a carrier group when it was battle ready a submarine would have to overcome detection from :
1) a destroyer, usually Spruance-class primarily for anti-submarine warfare (ASW)
2) a frigate, usually Oliver Hazard Perry-class primarily for anti-submarine warfare (ASW)
3) two attack submarines, usually Los Angeles-class in a direct support role seeking out and destroying hostile surface ships and submarines
www.fact-index.com...
Which is highly improbable with a deisel kilo class sub.
Also why does a helicopter need boyancy ??



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101

Who buillt the first nuclear submarine in the world? Who taught the British ( forget the Australians, I can't be bothered) to build nuclear submarines?

yeah and who taught you to drive your diesels which all nuclear tactics where derived from?


Who defeated the Japanese navy even though half the USNs Pacific Fleet was out of commission? Hmm, could it be the British !!
No, they were busy drowning in the South China Sea after getting spanked by the Japanese Navy. A Glorious naval empire it was wasn't it?
( Sorry, don't mean to be hateful!!)

oh yeah ever heard of the kreigs marine? sorta largeish navy with some very high tech , we kinda kicked thier asses and also if your navy so great then why didnt you notice a very large japanese carrier fleet sail across pacific round the world to kick your asses at pearl (no offence to the sailors/soldiers and airmen and women there that died)


The USN doesn't use deisel subs because, firstly they are old technology( Cold war era) and secondly most importantly, the missions for which the diesel boats are best-suited have vanished from planning since the end of the Cold War. DSs( Deisel subs) are well suited to defending friendly ports and lurking off enemy ports, waiting for enemy vessels to present themselves as targets. Now there is no enemy to defend friendly ports against, nor are there enemy ships to ambush. Current naval missions are rapid-intervention operations, which take place in distant places on short notice. DSs lack the sustained high speed capability required to reach the scene of an operation in a timely manner. If the submarine can't get there, it simply isn't useful. Even the focus on "littoral operations" doesn't mean DSs are the solution: those littorals are scattered all over the world, far from where the submarines are based. A small-ish SSN can work in the littorals nearly as well as an DS, and it can get there quickly.
So , when we had DSs the USN had the best DS captains, now the Australians can take first place.


a smallish SSN? do you know how big the nuclear reactor is??
cant get there? dude a diesel can travel as fast a nuke is prepared to go unless you want to scream to the world "HEY IM A SSN/SSBN COME AND DEPTH CHARGE ME!"
really? compared to the kriegs marine captains who were only beaten by lots of ships?


Who says you need to have jets otherwise it isn't an aircraft carrier? The name itself suggests that the ship carrier aircrafts ( air- craft- carrier :duh
. The 50 years I was refering to was the development of aircraft carriers irrespective of their aircraft.(1940-2004) i.e 60 years

yeah and who invented the first bloody aircraft carrier that you copied IDIOT WE DID!


I know that a kilo can disable a carrier but my question is who is foolish enough to mess with the USN--Nobody. The repercussions would be incomprehensible, we lose one carrier they lose their country!!



who is foolish enough to mess with them? oh wow the USN thats a real threat if they lose a carrier, they lose a carrier they run and rethink tactics allowing you to make more ambushes. yeah and your great navy decide weather to bomb iraqi "insurgent strongholds" or light houses!


To attack a carrier group when it was battle ready a submarine would have to overcome detection from :
1) a destroyer, usually Spruance-class primarily for anti-submarine warfare (ASW)
2) a frigate, usually Oliver Hazard Perry-class primarily for anti-submarine warfare (ASW)
3) two attack submarines, usually Los Angeles-class in a direct support role seeking out and destroying hostile surface ships and submarines
www.fact-index.com...
Which is highly improbable with a deisel kilo class sub.
Also why does a helicopter need boyancy ??

1) any of the above wont find the sub if it is on the ocean floor
2) they wont find it if its under 8 knots.
3) the great USN always finds enemy subs in thier pack during war games , although mostly nuclear i have heard of tales of deisels slipping through.
and "Also why does a helicopter need boyancy ??" OMG that really shows how much the USN cares for its sailors, what happens if it ditches eh? oh your going to get out the window sure after its sunk like 20 feet. those things sink like bricks. bouyancy helps keep it afloat to get the crew out and time for you to hide in if needed. hell the sea king can stay afloat for an hour before it starts to sink. im not going to sit and debate a pointless arguemnt both RN and USN are good in thier own respects the RN is more ASW the USN is more anti air and anti surface ships ,since the RN's role in NATO is to provide ASW while america takes sea and air. to get back on topic is china only going ot build one carrier or many? if so any diffrent plans.

[edit on 25-10-2004 by devilwasp]



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 10:43 AM
link   
I tried to avoid this one, but it was too full of errors for me to stay away.


Originally posted by devilwasp
yeah and who taught you to drive your diesels which all nuclear tactics where derived from?

We taught ourselves. We were the first ones to couple a battery to a sub and to use an combustion engine on one.



oh yeah ever heard of the kreigs marine? sorta largeish navy with some very high tech , we kinda kicked thier asses and also if your navy so great then why didnt you notice a very large japanese carrier fleet sail across pacific round the world to kick your asses at pearl (no offence to the sailors/soldiers and airmen and women there that died)

Sigh, obviously you forgot the part where the real threat from the Germans was their subs. Who sunk more of them?

As far as the Pearl Harbor attack. you might want to research that topic before accusing us of missing the entire fleet. You comments make you look like a rambling fool.



a smallish SSN? do you know how big the nuclear reactor is??

Do you? You'd be surprised at the size.



yeah and who invented the first bloody aircraft carrier that you copied IDIOT WE DID!

Wrong, try research next time.





who is foolish enough to mess with them? oh wow the USN thats a real threat if they lose a carrier, they lose a carrier they run and rethink tactics allowing you to make more ambushes. yeah and your great navy decide weather to bomb iraqi "insurgent strongholds" or light houses!


You have insight into US navy tactics because??? You base this on???



Also why does a helicopter need boyancy ??
1) any of the above wont find the sub if it is on the ocean floor
2) they wont find it if its under 8 knots.


Those were my favorites. I won't even touch them, I will just laugh at them. Seriously, where do you get your info from????




3) the great USN always finds enemy subs in thier pack during war games , although mostly nuclear i have heard of tales of deisels slipping through.
and "Also why does a helicopter need boyancy ??" OMG that really shows how much the USN cares for its sailors, what happens if it ditches eh? oh your going to get out the window sure after its sunk like 20 feet. those things sink like bricks. bouyancy helps keep it afloat to get the crew out and time for you to hide in if needed. hell the sea king can stay afloat for an hour before it starts to sink. im not going to sit and debate a pointless arguemnt both RN and USN are good in thier own respects the RN is more ASW the USN is more anti air and anti surface ships ,since the RN's role in NATO is to provide ASW while america takes sea and air. to get back on topic is china only going ot build one carrier or many? if so any diffrent plans.

[edit on 25-10-2004 by devilwasp]


No wait, that paragraph was better.

Where are they going to hide in a sinking helicopter?


[edit on 25/10/04 by COOL HAND]



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND

We taught ourselves. We were the first ones to couple a battery to a sub and to use an combustion engine on one.

************ it!



Sigh, obviously you forgot the part where the real threat from the Germans was their subs. Who sunk more of them?

yes and we sunk lots of them too if i dont remember correctly the canadians had a knack for takeing down thier subs.who destroyed thier surface fleet ? RN.


As far as the Pearl Harbor attack. you might want to research that topic before accusing us of missing the entire fleet. You comments make you look like a rambling fool.

so i cant defend my navy from getting its name slanders from an american who knows nothing about it?
yes you did miss it you were informed it by picking up radio coms and breaking them, you missed thier fleet and it was a complete and utter HQ f up.


Do you? You'd be surprised at the size.


so your saying a nuke submarine can be made into the size of a kilo?


Wrong, try research next time.

HMS Argus in 1917





You have insight into US navy tactics because??? You base this on???

i base this on the tactics of what any normal admiral would think if one of his carriers suddenly "dissapeared" under the waves.



Those were my favorites. I won't even touch them, I will just laugh at them. Seriously, where do you get your info from????

sure sonar will pick up any sub if its on the move, well not strickly true if it has rubber tiles, but any sub with out them would be picked up by sonar.
There are sonar's that can detect ships on the bottom of the ocean but in the right conditions they wouldnt find one. and i know the magnetic detector can find any submarine under the water but with the ships hull acting onto it would it be able to find the sub?





No wait, that paragraph was better.

Where are they going to hide in a sinking helicopter?



ever seen a helicopter its quite spacios , the seaking is anyway, but really if a helicopter was sinking they could sit on top or anywhere on it/ in it.
oh yes a sinking helicopter that floats ..........a bit contradictory there arent we?
now lets see semi safe helicopter out of freezing water OR in freezing water which you will die within under 15 mins at most with survival suit.


[edit on 25-10-2004 by devilwasp]

[edit on 25-10-2004 by devilwasp]

[edit on 25-10-2004 by devilwasp]



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 11:21 AM
link   
^^ Good to see some 'go-home-yankee' britittude!!
Also can somebody please answer an important question of mine:

"Is the PLAAN a brown water navy or blue water navy?"
I know they have 'awesum' high tech stuff but i doubt it can work in self-sufficience more than 500 miles of their coast..

"Also is the Indian navy blue or brown water..?"
Because IMHO if these two were to slug it out it would definitely be it neutral waters and not regional waters.

I keep on hearing the 'chinese navy is ages ahead of the Inidan navy' but that doesn't really matter if its w/o supply lines isn't it?



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 11:37 AM
link   
the chinese navy currently had very limited blue water capability...

It has ships that are capable... such as it's new gen destroyers and frigates, but simply not enough of them to be a true "blue water force"

It does not need a blue water force, so there is no real preasure to develop one

Taiwan is still in range of it's diesel electric submarines, and to them little else matters



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 10:11 PM
link   
There is a new standard I have noticed appearing in Naval journals apart from Littorials.....Its Green Water......a Navy that is predominately coastal in nature but with some Blue water capabilities.....Thats China.

Please remember that a lot of men from a lot of navies cross polinated these ideas over decades to bring about the element they all borrowed to make them work. Without any one of them we might still be arguing over the best battleship in service today....instead of carriers and subs.

To clarify the point on submarines I checked up my old Purnells Weapons and Warfare Encyclopedia....writen in the days when sensationalism and nationalism wasnt required to sell reference books or internet opinion.

BTW there were earlier "modern" submarines using different techniques - the French were the first to operate "modern" submarines at length in the 1890s and introduced the first successful class of diesel boats in 1905, but this man can be taken as the father of the modern submarine....nuclear or otherwise. This is verbatim (word for word). Sorry for the length and being OT

HOLLAND (US)

US Submarine, built 1897-98. Following the disasterous failure of Plunger, which failed her acceptance trials in 1896, the inventor John P holland (an Irish immigrant) decided to build another submarine at his own expense, without navy interference. The new private venture was to be Electric Boat Company design EB-6, and had a 45hp gasoline engine for surface propulsion, with a 50hp electric motor for running submerged. In addition to 18in (46cm) torpedo tubes she was fitted with 8in (203mm) Zahlinski dynamite guns, angled upwards so that they could fire bombs at ships while the submarine was partially submerged (hey sounds like SLCM).

Holland was launched at the Crescent shipyard on May 17, 1897 and completed the following year. After several trials and inspections by the US Navy she was finally bought in April 1900, and after minor modifications she commissioned formally as USS Holland on October 12, 1900 the first submarine to be commissioned into the US Navy. The final armament was only one torpedo tube and a dynamite gun in the bow. She was of no operational use, but provided valuable data for the Adder Class. She was stricken in November 1910 and sold for scrap, but was kept as a memorial until 1930 when the hull was finally sold in the Bronx, New York. She was given the number SS.1 in the listing of USN submarines.

Displacement: 64/74 tons (surfaced/submerged) Length:16.43m (53'11") oa Beam: 3.12m (10' 3") Draught: 2.59m (8'6") Machinery: 1 shaft gasoline/electric, 45bhp/50shp=8/5 knots (surfaced/submerged) Armament:1x18in TT(bow), 1x8in Dynamite Gun (later removed), crew:7

HOLLAND (Britain)

British submarine class, built 1900-1902. The Royal Navy had officially set it's face against submarines, and they had even been described as underhand, unfair and damned un-english, but by 1900 the admiralty had already decided to build them in secret. The news of the purchase of the USS Holland merely confirmed the need for speedy progress, and instead of building to the design already drawn up by the Director of Naval Construction it was decided to buy the Electric Boat Company's EB-7 design (used for the US Adder Class, which had followed Holland)

In 1900 an order for five boats was placed in strict secrecy with Vickers, Son and Maxim of Barrow-in-Furness, and news did not leak out untilthe spring of 1901 when the First Lord of the Admiralty stated in a memorandum on the 1901-02 Estimates that the Royal Navy's first submarine would be delivered that autumn. HM Submarine Holland No.1 was launched on October 2, 1901, but Holland No.5 did not take to the water until May 21, 1902. Like the early American boats they sufferred from explosions of gasoline vapour and had a tendancy to "porpoise" badly, but they did provide a basis for further development.

Holland No.5 sank in tow in August 1912 while on her way to be scrapped, and No.4 was lost by accident in September 1912. The other three were sold for scrap in October 1913.

Displacement: 110/123 tons Length: 19.46m (63'10") oa Beam: 3.58m (11'9") Draught: 3.02m (9'11") Machinery: 1 shaft gasoline/electric, 160bhp/70shp = 7.5/5 knots, Armament: 1x18in TT (3 torpedo load), Crew:7.

On a last point. If the diesels are so done, why does the US continue to invite many nations to bring thiers on exercise against them? Why does has it and does it continue to lease German diesel boats to trial? Why does the USN have an arrangement whereby each year one of our Collins class submarines sail across the Pacific to the Alaskan Underwater test range? and why does Electric Boat, the builders of USN Nukes have a technology share arrangement with the Australian Submarine Corporation.

Could it be because the Collins have the reputation of being the best ocean going diesel electric boats in service today?

You know. Rather than getting involved in he said she said discussions I am going to create a couple of threads called "the History of ......." and add a little bit to it each day if I can. Then you wont have to read my posts here



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 10:53 PM
link   
I recently saw an article which stated that the PRC had an Island Base in the Bay of Bengal in Indian Ocean waters. It had recently spend tens of millions updating facilities including a long runway there.

I thought WTF? but I havent gone to the trouble of finding info on it yet.

Ah found it. Jan/Mar 2001 (Vol.63 No.1) edition of "The Navy" magazine (The Magazine of the Navy League of Australia.

It carried the article entitled PLAN Ahead by Neil Davis. It was a detailed account of the PLA-N and its future plans.

In the conclusion, despite stating that the PLA-N was developing the potential it to fight an out of area war it was a long way from it yet. Its carrier was about 48,000 tons (and we all know that intell estimates are usually off.....add 12-15,000 tons to the finished product?).

But it was this PLA-N base in the Indian ocean that peaked my interests.

...."China is building an Indian Ocean presence in the Coco Islands in the Bay of Bengal by upgrading the naval base on Hianggyi Island as well as building a Signals Intelligence facility on Great Coco Island. This facility will allow the Chinese tomonitor the activities of the Indian Navy. This has prompted an Indian response to expand its naval activities and interests into the South China Sea with multilateral and unilateral excercises" (didnt someone just say they participated in an Air Exercise with Singapore on another thread)

China might have no reason for war today with India, but ten, twenty years down the track the whole thing might be different. China has interests in a common boarder and a sense of ....whatever over ethnic Chinese in the region. IF an war DID occur then a flanking Naval assault could add another string to Chinas bow.

The article finished up...

"Nonetheless, China has successfully made use of grandiose diplomatic posturing and bullying to promote the perception of a powerful threat when in reality its capabilities are very limited beyond its coastal regions"

Cheers



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 11:39 PM
link   
The US Navy doesn't have D/E submarines because they have good allies who do. No other reason. D/E's are very useful in littoral waters.

This thread is about China's aircraft carrier, though. My thoughts on this are that it is one thing to BUILD a carrier, quite another to OPERATE one. Even with the leg up by the Russians, it will be many years before a Chinese carrier can be used effectively by the PLAN.



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 11:45 PM
link   
No Offence meant Montana

merely trying to point out in the little side squabble about diesel electrics that they are not dead. As you say the US has one or two good freinds who run them and Admiral Rickover made sure the USN went nuclear years ago.

I wish Australia had the money and infrastructure to run some nuclear boats AND diesels.....but then we have some freinds too set up pretty well in the nuclear area, don't we?



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 11:51 PM
link   
Thats true, besides NO ONE can be excellent at all the different skills needed. A nuke skipper and a D/E skipper are two very different animals. It only makes sense to spread the load.



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Russian

Originally posted by Nerdling


And russian stuff is a copy of western stuff.


UH?


HAHAHAHA!

Now that is FUNNY.

Russians dont copy westerns.

They make their own to fight back.

Give me a couple of things Russians coped.

Please if you do NOT know the do NOT say anything.

That way people will think you are smarter.


Out,
Russian


Here's a nice Russian copy for you

And I don't just mean "a bit like", this is carbon copying. Russia's made some excellent kit in the past, nobody's gonna deny that, but Russia, like China and Japan have copied a lot too.



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by blitzkrieg



OMG thats a US aircraft carrier. USS Ronald Reagan, in Dry Dock 12 at Newport News, Virginia. that picture has been photo shoped.

and it already been posted
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by craigandrew


But it was this PLA-N base in the Indian ocean that peaked my interests.

...."China is building an Indian Ocean presence in the Coco Islands in the Bay of Bengal by upgrading the naval base on Hianggyi Island as well as building a Signals Intelligence facility on Great Coco Island. This facility will allow the Chinese tomonitor the activities of the Indian Navy. This has prompted an Indian response to expand its naval activities and interests into the South China Sea with multilateral and unilateral excercises" (didnt someone just say they participated in an Air Exercise with Singapore on another thread)

China might have no reason for war today with India, but ten, twenty years down the track the whole thing might be different. China has interests in a common boarder and a sense of ....whatever over ethnic Chinese in the region. IF an war DID occur then a flanking Naval assault could add another string to Chinas bow.

The article finished up...

"Nonetheless, China has successfully made use of grandiose diplomatic posturing and bullying to promote the perception of a powerful threat when in reality its capabilities are very limited beyond its coastal regions"

Cheers


True... The IN has a primary concern for those PLAN SSNs/SSBNs that may frequent the Indian Ocean and thus has taken to improve its ASW surface and sub capabilities..

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Some additional information for you to consider...I wont get in the middle of these debates just provide some information.

Floating Helicopters. I have had expernience with the HH3 Helicopters used by the US Airforce. These helicopters have a boat type bottom. This is the helicopter used in the Vietnam days as the JOlly Green Giant. The versions we had in Iceland were mid air refueling capable so they had a rather long range for a helicopter.
These helicopters could float...for about 20 minutes. Then they sank. The US Air Force was very loath to put them in the water for this reason. Pick ups and insertions were made hovering obviously. The main concern by the US Air Force...was corrosion. Salt water is hell on airframes hence their reluctance to float them. It was bad enough hovering low to the water. The obviously prefered to hover at hoist up and down proximitys.
While not on the inside of designs present or future I have deduced by this that boat type helicopters were not considered worth the time. Improvements in engines and transmissions since those days has obviously made the concept of floating helicopters unecessary and impractical. Improvements in survival equipment and radios etc for the crews have eliminated this floating helicopters buisness

As to how small they can make a nuclear power plant for a ship ..I suggest you research the nuclear submarine NR 1. I am not sure if it is the only nuclear submarine of this type...but she is quite small.
I do know that they have manufactured small portable reactors for remote exploration and operation stations on the polar ice. I do not know if they are still in use.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 10:57 PM
link   
I'd have thought a helicopter that'd traded it's skids for sea-plane style pontoon/floats would still be a pretty feasable idea. I'm not sure but they may even exist?



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Electric Boat division of General Dynamics corporation has a working relationship with the Australian Navy for modifications/updates to the Collins Class submarines. I believe they have been equipped also with the anechoic tiles. Also they are using the MK 48 torpedo system. Alot of these updates and problems with the Collins class have been done with help from the USA. To my knowlege this relationship continues to this day.
I believe the Collins class has the X type control surfaces at the stern for maneuvering. This is supposed to be the most maneuverable set up possible. Not sure why the US Navy went to the verticle/horizontal type surfaces after trying this set up themselves.
What Electric Boat knows about both diesel and Nuclear submarines is being shared with Newport News Shipbuilding the other stateside manufacturer of Submarines here in the United States.

Thanks,
Orangetom



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join