Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Aircraft Carriers

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 1 2004 @ 10:09 AM
link   
whats the british version by the way?


You live over there, shouldn't you be able that question better than any of us?




posted on Apr, 1 2004 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
hey just wonderin does the US use desiels ?
i can understand british using them but i dont know about the US
whats the british version by the way?
and cool i was just thrown away by marks statement (dont worry mark i didnt know if the US cariers had goal keepers or not)


In US the most popular attack sub is SSN.

Which stands for a Nuclear attack sub.

Out,
Russian



posted on Apr, 1 2004 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Resonable certain that the UK is now an all nuclear force, submarine wise. Sold all its new Upholder class subs to Canada several years ago. Defence cutbacks forced that one i believe.

USN runs a pure nuclear powered force as well

I think only the smaller navies and Russia run diesels these days.



posted on Apr, 1 2004 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Got this off another board...When you read the following article just substitue Chinese or NK SSK [Kilos?] for the Norwegian SSK and imagine a US MEU as the target.

Small sub overthrew big fleet
2004-03-21

UTV??R: A single Norwegian submarine prevented Bluelands landing operation. The crew of KNM Utv??r did infact do so well that they were removed from the exercise for 72 hours.

The mood was good on KNM Utv??r, even though they were taken out of the exercise Joint Winter for three days. They simply did too good a job and was removed to let the landing and field operations part of the exercise begin. The commander of the boat, ??istein Helge Jensen, gave stealth the highest prority and got so many British kills that they lost count in the end.


- I was given great freedom, the missions were as open as "monitor and raport" or "attack and sink", says Jensen, and displays a picture of the two naval commanders in the exercise.

- It was a mind game, and I have attemped to understand how they thought. As long as the water isn't perfectly transparent then finding subs will always be hard. In these water we always took advantage of the bottow topography, and this is one of the better exercise I have taken part as we have done a lot though work in the littorals. It is fun to put it mildly when no one discovered us, says the Lieutenant. He describes the exercise as intense and they lived in constant fear of discovery.



- Because we are a diesle vi have to ascend to snorkle, and I have used every opportunity to get air and radio messages. The tactic I laid out worked. We work all the time almost at the maximal of our potential, and I think I am able to get into the head of the surface commander. A crucial condition is that you trust the boat and the crew. It is also important to strecth the limits, for example if you are going through a narrow strait with a warship on the surface and a bad depth, says Jensen.

Onboard KNM Utv??r during Joint Winter was also the Canadian Leuitenant James Clarke, who is attentdig the RNoN's submarine course next year.


COLLEGUES: Leuitenant James Clarke from Canada is an observer on KNM Utv??r dunring Joint Winter. Here in conversation with ops-chief Leuitenant Jim Hansen.

- I have seen much I have never seen before. We have been moving more in the littorals and the navigation has been more demanding than I'm used too. It has been a great experience and I hope I can get a CD-Rom with periscope pictures of Albion, Invincible, the destroyers and the frigates we sunk and the bridges we have sailed under. Vi have done things that is every submarines dream, says Clarke.

--------

The rest of the article is just about the future of subs....

www.mil.no...



posted on Apr, 2 2004 @ 09:43 AM
link   
hey cool me not a sub guy i just know thier tactics and some subs not all but some any and thank u for proving my point psteel
any way is there any countries actually that are going 2 start a warout there with aircraft carriers



posted on Apr, 2 2004 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
hey just wonderin does the US use desiels ?
i can understand british using them but i dont know about the US
whats the british version by the way?



The US has no combat Diesel boats (SSK's) only SSN, SSBN, SSGM.
see www.chinfo.navy.mil...

also the Royal Navy also has no Diesel subs
www.royal-navy.mod.uk...

In fact in I seem to remember an article about a recent exercise the navy need to hire a German Diesel boat and crew to run an effective exercise with an inshore sub, unfortunately can't find it at the mo

Great post



posted on Apr, 2 2004 @ 02:02 PM
link   
great post psteel. Validates what a few have been saying on this topic. Good bit of info. Thanks.



posted on Apr, 2 2004 @ 02:40 PM
link   
the Hr. Ms. Walrus
Hr. Ms. Zeeleeuw
Hr. Ms. Dolfijn
Hr. Ms. Bruinvis

Royal Dutch Navy Submarines all Diesel-Electric.
we got them here.




posted on Apr, 2 2004 @ 03:14 PM
link   
ah well theres a perficaly good sub down the drain again
would be excellent for british coastline
lots of places to hide then strike
oh well



posted on May, 11 2004 @ 05:55 AM
link   
In fact the UK developed the new Upholder class diesel subs, supposed to be very advanced and then the government mothballed them and finally sold them in the defence cuts before they had fully rolled out into the fleet


HMS Unicorn was one of four advanced Upholder Class diesel electric submarines built for the Royal Navy at the end of the 1980s but decommissioned in 1993 as part of defence cuts. They remained laid up until 1998 when they were leased to Canada in a cut-price deal. The first submarine taken out of mothballs and reactivated was HMS Unseen. She was handed over to Canada in October 2000 and renamed HMCS Victoria. The remaining two vessels HMCS Cornerbrook (ex- HMS Urusla) and HMCS Chicoutimi (ex-HMS Upholder) have still to be transferred



posted on May, 11 2004 @ 08:10 AM
link   
you know what is shocking
france spends more money on its military than us and the gov wants to give us even less money
4.5 billion less ! that would mean we spend as much money on our military as the germans do and they dont even have a large army!



posted on May, 11 2004 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
you know what is shocking
france spends more money on its military than us and the gov wants to give us even less money
4.5 billion less ! that would mean we spend as much money on our military as the germans do and they dont even have a large army!


And they don't have a Navy the size of ours either



posted on May, 13 2004 @ 03:35 AM
link   
Just a point you gues may be missing, while that sub, missile cruiser, destroyer or whatever else may not make it out alive, if it destroys the Carrier it has won because the carrier cost 4 billion+crew+4billion? in aircraft. You have to remeber that in real war the enemy is prepared to take losses if he'll benefit. 1 missile cruiser for a carrier and some assorted escorts is a really good trade(if the missile cruiser can hit the carrier then they're going to go all the way and launch everything they got). You do the math, would you order the attack on the CVBG given the loss vs. kill potential, I know I would.



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Some of you need to stay on topic.

Out,
Russian



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Russian
Some of you need to stay on topic.

Out,
Russian

heh yeah i think so, what new russian carriers are comeing BTW? or the rest of europes for that matter?



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND

You live over there, shouldn't you be able that question better than any of us?

they have
trafalger for boomers
and swifture for sub killers.



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 03:00 PM
link   



Initial design work on a full-deck nuclear-powered aircraft began in 1973 under Project #1153 "Orel", which envisioned catapult-launched aircraft such as the MiG-23K fighter and Su-25K attack aircraft. The ship would have displaced 80,000 tons and carried as many as 70 aircraft. Following the death of Defense Minister Marshal Grechko, who had sponsored the project, the Defense Ministry was taken over by Marshal Ustinov, who did not share his predecessor's priorities. This Project 1153 effort was terminated in 1983.
Plans for a large-deck carrier were subsequently revived under Project #1143.7, which was undertaken at the Nevskoye Planning and Design Bureau beginning in 1984. The carrier was laid down in November 1988, but with the end of the Cold War the project was cancelled in November 1991. At that time construction was about 45% complete, and scrapping began in February 1992. The metal prepared for building the second ship of this class was also scrapped.



Specifications
Designer: Nevskoye Planning and Design Bureau
Builder: Nikolayev South
Length: 1065 feet overall
995 feet waterline
Flight Deck Width: 248.5 feet
Beam: 130.6 feet
Draft: 35.4 feet
Displacement: 79,758 tons Full Load
60,000 tons Standard
Propulsion: PWR nuclear reactors
4 turbines 240,000 shp
Endurance:
Max Speed 30+ knots
Crew: 2,300 Navy
1,500 Naval Air
Armament: 6 x 30mm/65 AK 630
24 VLS ADAM launchers w/192 RZ-130 Kinzhal/Klinok/SA-N-9 Gauntlet missiles
8 CADS-N-1/Kortik each with 1 twin 30mm Gatlingcombined w/ 256 3M-88/SA-N-11 Grison
12 cell VLS installed under the upper deckw/12 P-500 Granit/SS-N-19 Shipwreck missiles
2 RPK-5/Udav-1 Liven integrated ASW

Countermeasures Sozbezie-BR suite
Wine Glass intercept
Bell Push intercept
Flat Track
Bell Nip
Cross Loop D/F

Radar Air/Surface Search
MR-710 Fregat-MA/Top Plate 3D
2 MR-320M Topaz/Strut Pair 2D
Navigation
3 Palm Frond Fire Control

4 MR-360 Podkat/Cross Sword SA-N-9 control
8 3P37/Hot Flash SA-N-11 control
Aircraft Control
Fly Trap B

Sonar Zvezda-2 suite
MGK-345 Bronza/Ox Yoke hull mounted

Aircraft 70 aircraft total
27 Su-27K Flankers
10 Su-25 Frogfoots
Yak-44 radar picket aircraft
15-20 helicopters


Evem though it was scraped I read somewhere that it might be Russias next carrier. But it will be moddifed with newer stuff. I will try find a link. Also i heard that Russian Navy personal said that a carrier will soon be at works and will enter service in about 2010 or so. I am not to sure.



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 03:24 PM
link   







[edit on 21-10-2004 by Russian]



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 03:38 PM
link   
interesting its like a nimitz but has a ski jump. hmmm nice.



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Most people are betting against the sort of conflict that sets USN CVN against anything remotely similar.

As to Nimitz ripping anything for CVF...please fellows, last I heard you were allies...and like that its been that way since 1941.

CVF. If you check the lastest serious defence related journals, websites and so on you will see that the only thing that is (sadly) getting smaller about them are thier supporting forces and escorts.

The VSTOL F-35 version is running into trouble (usual do too much in one airframe issue) and could be dropped, and orders for F-35 have already been scaled back. Equals serious concerns about cost and viability. UK MoD is not being too plain about it but that means unless they want an oversized Harrier parking lot they have to fund large CVF.

As far as I have heard, and based on common lines of thought in several reports, they are keeping them big to allow for catapult or ski ramp launched STOL or CTOL F-35s. The USN have proven the possibility with land based Ski Ramp trials with the F-18A-D series early in thier development, and Russian Fulcrums and Flankers.

Small carriers are still effective for countries with Regional needs and other requirements (ie. heliborne lift and humanitarian evacuations and support).

The latest Italian and Spanish new building for instance allows for operations of a small number of F-35s, within thier needs and requirements. I don't think anybody is aqquirring them with the view of replaying the 1941-45 flattop campaign. More supporting thier own, especially where US interests and attention might lie elsewhere.

They also allow some states not to allow unnecessary tensions to arise if allied to US they can reduce the risk or need of a USN Battle or Amphib group deploying into a region and escalating the issue.

Likewise they can more economically support some operations than by deploying a USN Carrier or Amphib group.

They would have been handy off Somalia for Australia for instance or in providing on call support during the 1999 East Timor UN op.

Finally DYK that the JapaneseMSDF had a proposal before the Diet (Parliament) recently to fund a new class of DDH?....The description of this "Destroyer" was a 16,000t vessel, with an offset Island superstructure with weapons systems fore and aft of it, with an all through flight and hangar deck to handle...get this...three Seahawks!...The submission admited it could "in an emergency" handle up to a dozen or so heavy lift of Mine clearance helecopters (JSDF use Chinooks and Sea Dragons in those roles don't they?) Why didnt they just call it a "thru deck cruiser" like the RN!


It follows on from the construction of a 10,000t class of 4 "LST"s for the JMSDF in the 1990s, which have a half length flight deck over a full length cargo deck, with again an offset island. It was noted the forward half of the ship, which is set up for cargo reportedly showed in blueprints the ability to be fitted for not with a full length flight deck with ski ramp.

Reports on this have appeared in copies of both the UK based "Navy International" and the Australian "The Navy" in the last four five years.

Anybody seen anything else about the Japanese carrier rumors. Good on them I think.






top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join