StarDestroyer.Net BBS

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.

That, and it uses damn frames.

And the link to get out of frames puts you back in frames, the buggers.

Ted wrote:

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.

That, and it uses damn frames.

And the link to get out of frames puts you back in frames, the buggers.

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.

The link to get out of frames is a leftover from an earlier version of the site that did have the stupid banner.

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...

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?

Coyote wrote:

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...

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.

I think it was a Yak-38

Sea Skimmer wrote:

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:

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.

hmm... ok,
could you explain AIP and SSK?

salm wrote:
hmm... ok,
could you explain AIP and SSK?

AIP= Air Independent Propultion.

Dunno about 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?

Sure is. Gorshkov has a Russian "Aegis-like" knockoff. I suspect resemblances to the SLY radar are superfecial, however....


Montclam is correct about the Yak.


And, I can tell you with complete confidence, that hpux is used widely on USN vessels.

Coyote wrote:

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...

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.

The Kiev originally operated Yak-36 VTOL aircraft. There was a aircraft called the Yak-141 that was much more capable. However it was canceled in the earl 1990's with only a few prototypes built. They're where attempts to attract export orders to pay or finishing development but none came up. That’s actually when talk of selling Gorshkov to India started, and she was going to have Yak-141's. But while the deal comes up every two years or so it's never actually materialized.

There was never a naval hind that I've heard of. The aircraft is far to big for Soviet vessels in terms of hangers and elevators. Also the aircraft needs to conduct rolling take offs and landings, and theres no space do that.

However the Ka-27 helicopter could carry and fire rocket pods and AT-6 missiles, as could the Ka-28, Ka-29 and Ka-32. The puny Ka-25 which originally flew from Soviet helicopter carriers only had ASW weapons.

Oberleutnant wrote:

weemadando wrote:Can I just drop in and say:

"Ph34r t3h Collins Class for it shall 0wNz0r j00 a11."

*drops to ground laughing*

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.

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..."

weemadando wrote:

Oberleutnant wrote:

weemadando wrote:Can I just drop in and say:

"Ph34r t3h Collins Class for it shall 0wNz0r j00 a11."

*drops to ground laughing*

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.

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..."

"Now lets buy torpedos heavier then the loading gear is designed for."
"Good idea, but dont bother to change the design before we build it."
"Now about the combat systems...."

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..."

Australia bought Swedish subs?

What class and when?

Faram wrote:

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..."

Australia bought Swedish subs?

What class and when?

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.

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.

Okay mostly goverment FUBAR I guess then.

Yes, the Yak-141, thanks, Skimmer! I saw a photo of it once, taking off, with the whole ass end bent to the deck and thought that maybe it had gotten poleaxed...

The Yak-38s I knew about, but never got a good photo of. Too bad they canceled the program, although from what I heard they weren't quite in the same league as the Harrier, performance-wise...

I really wish the Russians would pull out of their economic difficulties (as well as the rest of us), their techs come up with some cool shit when they're allowed to work...

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.

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.

Sea Skimmer wrote:Only now after years of work are they slowly becoming operational.

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.

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 Australia, not in Sweden?

Oberleutnant wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:Only now after years of work are they slowly becoming operational.

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.

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 Australia, not in Sweden?

They were constructed in ADELAIDE. (No offense Flib), by a company more used to building fishing boats.

Anyone seen the latest popular science,robot subs they`re going sci-fi or what

I have it but I haven't read it yet.

I love popsci. Sat-based rocket launchers, aircraft with laser weapons...

weemadando wrote:

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.

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.

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.

Beowulf wrote:

weemadando wrote:

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.

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.

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.

Yes but when a FUCKING COLLINS CLASS nails one and gets away clean you have to ask questions.

Also, the Oberon incidents were not during wargames, the sub captains did this for the hell of it.

If you're claiming that that was in open water, then I dare say you're full of it.

Howedar wrote:If you're claiming that that was in open water, then I dare say you're full of it.

Most of the ones that I'm aware of were taken in Australian territorial waters.

So, carriers steaming into port. Gotcha.

Hehe, talk about coincidences. TechTv showed the Canadian subs on the Tech of show today.