Moderator: Edi
That, and it uses damn frames.Sea Skimmer wrote:Warships1 is a good source, but its pages don't get updated very often, especially the newer stuff. But then, its really more oriented towards history, and the specs of ships that have already been scrapped don't change very often.
If you open the naval weapons or warships main page in a new window, you wont be bother by the frames again unless you return to homepage. Thats what I always do and everything works fine.Ted wrote:That, and it uses damn frames.Sea Skimmer wrote:Warships1 is a good source, but its pages don't get updated very often, especially the newer stuff. But then, its really more oriented towards history, and the specs of ships that have already been scrapped don't change very often.
And the link to get out of frames puts you back in frames, the buggers.
Isn't that basically the Kiev-class? Kinda compact, with only an angled deck; the foredeck loaded down with weapons systems..?Lonestar wrote: India used to have two ex-British carriers... and they're trying to aquire the Admiral Gorshkov, which is a bit like a CVL except more armed. Imagine it as a combo-crusier-carrier, like an ISD...
I think it was a Yak-38Coyote wrote:Isn't that basically the Kiev-class? Kinda compact, with only an angled deck; the foredeck loaded down with weapons systems..?Lonestar wrote: India used to have two ex-British carriers... and they're trying to aquire the Admiral Gorshkov, which is a bit like a CVL except more armed. Imagine it as a combo-crusier-carrier, like an ISD...
And didn't the Russians have the only mach + VTOL, a Tupelov design with twin-boom tails and the entire engine rotated down to take off..? Tu-141 or some such...? Or -114... It was supposed to be a fleet air arm craft.
hmm... ok,Sea Skimmer wrote:However the range and speed is quite limited. Not like AIP is anything new though. And it still doesnt make SSK's anything more then somwhat mobile minefields.salm wrote:
they´ve got a diesel motor as well but it can also run on hydrogen fuel cell only which makes it a lot more silent.
here´s a link:
AIP= Air Independent Propultion.salm wrote:
hmm... ok,
could you explain AIP and SSK?
Coyote wrote: Isn't that basically the Kiev-class? Kinda compact, with only an angled deck; the foredeck loaded down with weapons systems..?
And didn't the Russians have the only mach + VTOL, a Tupelov design with twin-boom tails and the entire engine rotated down to take off..? Tu-141 or some such...? Or -114... It was supposed to be a fleet air arm craft.
Another odd question: were there ever any Mi-24 "Sea Hind" naval variants?
Yes she's a Kiev. Last one Russia has left. As part of the deal, the weapons covered foredeck would be removed and a ski jump installed to allow for operating MiG-29K's. Su-33's are too big for the vessel.Coyote wrote:Isn't that basically the Kiev-class? Kinda compact, with only an angled deck; the foredeck loaded down with weapons systems..?Lonestar wrote: India used to have two ex-British carriers... and they're trying to aquire the Admiral Gorshkov, which is a bit like a CVL except more armed. Imagine it as a combo-crusier-carrier, like an ISD...
And didn't the Russians have the only mach + VTOL, a Tupelov design with twin-boom tails and the entire engine rotated down to take off..? Tu-141 or some such...? Or -114... It was supposed to be a fleet air arm craft.
Another odd question: were there ever any Mi-24 "Sea Hind" naval variants?
The Australian Government decision making process:Oberleutnant wrote:The Swedes sure know how to design conventional submarines, eh? :) I dare to say their upcoming "Viking" subs will be better than the ones what the Germans will be launching in the near future.weemadando wrote:Can I just drop in and say:
"Ph34r t3h Collins Class for it shall 0wNz0r j00 a11."
*drops to ground laughing*
"Now lets buy torpedos heavier then the loading gear is designed for."weemadando wrote:The Australian Government decision making process:Oberleutnant wrote:The Swedes sure know how to design conventional submarines, eh?weemadando wrote:Can I just drop in and say:
"Ph34r t3h Collins Class for it shall 0wNz0r j00 a11."
*drops to ground laughing*I dare to say their upcoming "Viking" subs will be better than the ones what the Germans will be launching in the near future.
"We are looking for a proven tropical and temperate water design."
"I know! Lets buy an untested prototype design from Scandinavia designed for arctic conditions!"
"And lets give a company with no sub building experience the contract!"
"YEAH! And lets..."
Australia bought Swedish subs?weemadando wrote: The Australian Government decision making process:
"We are looking for a proven tropical and temperate water design."
"I know! Lets buy an untested prototype design from Scandinavia designed for arctic conditions!"
"And lets give a company with no sub building experience the contract!"
"YEAH! And lets..."
Kockums Type 471, named Collins by Australia. Six where bought, entering service from 1996-2001. They've suffered basically every probules possibul without one sinking or exploding. The combat system doesn’t work, they weren't designed for warm water, the loading gear can't take the weight of the torpedoes and they unbalance the boat, the structures had major problems. They've basically been pier side since completion. Some of it was design, some was inept combinations of several different nations technology and some was the fact that the building yard had no idea how to build subs.Faram wrote:Australia bought Swedish subs?weemadando wrote: The Australian Government decision making process:
"We are looking for a proven tropical and temperate water design."
"I know! Lets buy an untested prototype design from Scandinavia designed for arctic conditions!"
"And lets give a company with no sub building experience the contract!"
"YEAH! And lets..."
What class and when?
Okay mostly goverment FUBAR I guess then.Sea Skimmer wrote:Kockums Type 471, named Collins by Australia. Six where bought, entering service from 1996-2001. They've suffered basically every probules possibul without one sinking or exploding. The combat system doesn’t work, they weren't designed for warm water, the loading gear can't take the weight of the torpedoes and they unbalance the boat, the structures had major problems. They've basically been pier side since completion. Some of it was design, some was inept combinations of several different nations technology and some was the fact that the building yard had no idea how to build subs.
Only now after years of work are they slowly becoming operational.
And somehow they still manage to get practice shots off at US carriers in wargames.Sea Skimmer wrote:
Kockums Type 471, named Collins by Australia. Six where bought, entering service from 1996-2001. They've suffered basically every probules possibul without one sinking or exploding. The combat system doesn’t work, they weren't designed for warm water, the loading gear can't take the weight of the torpedoes and they unbalance the boat, the structures had major problems. They've basically been pier side since completion. Some of it was design, some was inept combinations of several different nations technology and some was the fact that the building yard had no idea how to build subs.
Only now after years of work are they slowly becoming operational.
HenceSea Skimmer wrote:Only now after years of work are they slowly becoming operational.
at the end of my sentence, though neither of the submarine classes currently used by the Swedish Navy have had no serious problems I'm aware of.They were constructed in Australia, not in Sweden?Some of it was design, some was inept combinations of several different nations technology and some was the fact that the building yard had no idea how to build subs.
They were constructed in ADELAIDE. (No offense Flib), by a company more used to building fishing boats.Oberleutnant wrote:Hence :) at the end of my sentence, though neither of the submarine classes currently used by the Swedish Navy have had no serious problems I'm aware of.Sea Skimmer wrote:Only now after years of work are they slowly becoming operational.
They were constructed in Australia, not in Sweden?Some of it was design, some was inept combinations of several different nations technology and some was the fact that the building yard had no idea how to build subs.
How hard could it be to wait until the carrier passes over you? It's not like the carriers can go anywhere they wished in a wargame. They're restricted to specific map squares.weemadando wrote:And somehow they still manage to get practice shots off at US carriers in wargames.Sea Skimmer wrote:
Kockums Type 471, named Collins by Australia. Six where bought, entering service from 1996-2001. They've suffered basically every probules possibul without one sinking or exploding. The combat system doesn’t work, they weren't designed for warm water, the loading gear can't take the weight of the torpedoes and they unbalance the boat, the structures had major problems. They've basically been pier side since completion. Some of it was design, some was inept combinations of several different nations technology and some was the fact that the building yard had no idea how to build subs.
Only now after years of work are they slowly becoming operational.
Not to mention the fact that our old Oberon class sub captains used to regularly mail the US Navy HQ pictures of their carriers propellors taken from their periscopes. Unsurprisingly the US Navy was very unhappy each time this happened.
Yes but when a FUCKING COLLINS CLASS nails one and gets away clean you have to ask questions.Beowulf wrote:How hard could it be to wait until the carrier passes over you? It's not like the carriers can go anywhere they wished in a wargame. They're restricted to specific map squares.weemadando wrote:And somehow they still manage to get practice shots off at US carriers in wargames.Sea Skimmer wrote:
Kockums Type 471, named Collins by Australia. Six where bought, entering service from 1996-2001. They've suffered basically every probules possibul without one sinking or exploding. The combat system doesn’t work, they weren't designed for warm water, the loading gear can't take the weight of the torpedoes and they unbalance the boat, the structures had major problems. They've basically been pier side since completion. Some of it was design, some was inept combinations of several different nations technology and some was the fact that the building yard had no idea how to build subs.
Only now after years of work are they slowly becoming operational.
Not to mention the fact that our old Oberon class sub captains used to regularly mail the US Navy HQ pictures of their carriers propellors taken from their periscopes. Unsurprisingly the US Navy was very unhappy each time this happened.
