Navies
-
anybod know who is this region possess helicopters carriers and aircraft carrier?
Other than thailand, which countries in this region have aircraft carriers? Vietnam? Indonesia? -
oni thailand gotOriginally posted by Arena:anybod know who is this region possess helicopters carriers and aircraft carrier?
Other than thailand, which countries in this region have aircraft carriers? Vietnam? Indonesia? -
Any idea where did the Thais bought their carriers from ?? Uncle Sam or the Ruskies ?
-
]KiloClass[
Builder: EN Bazan, Ferrol, Spain -
Am I right to state that excluding Russia and the USA, Thailand has the only navy to operate an aircraft carrier in the Pacific theater?
-
I dun think the Russian has any air carrier in the Pacific.Originally posted by Laplace:Am I right to state that excluding Russia and the USA, Thailand has the only navy to operate an aircraft carrier in the Pacific theater?
But I believe there was report that the Jap has a requiremnet for a few medium size helo carriers in the future.
And rumour has it that China will have a aircraft carrier b4 the end of the decade.
CHARGE!!!
-
well hell, maybe PRC already have aircraft crariers in production..............
-
I'm not sure where the Kuznetzov is based. At first I thought it was in the Black Sea or somewhere in the Bering. Pacific? Dunno...
I read from newspaper reports that modern day carriers take over a decade to be built and tested before obtaining operational capability. At least that applied to American Carriers (I dunno which class) and that French carrier (I dunno the name).
So I think if the Chinese navy is planning to have one by the end of the decade, they should be constructing the hull now... Which I dunno whether they are doing or not.
Haiz... dunno so many things. I am such a kudu head... -
It is relatively easy to build a carrier once they have the design and finalize the operational concept.Originally posted by Laplace:I'm not sure where the Kuznetzov is based. At first I thought it was in the Black Sea or somewhere in the Bering. Pacific? Dunno...
I read from newspaper reports that modern day carriers take over a decade to be built and tested before obtaining operational capability. At least that applied to American Carriers (I dunno which class) and that French carrier (I dunno the name).
So I think if the Chinese navy is planning to have one by the end of the decade, they should be constructing the hull now... Which I dunno whether they are doing or not.
Haiz... dunno so many things. I am such a kudu head...
They will need time to develop the design right?? What is layout of the flight deck?? How to develop a arrestor hook system? Lift? hangar design? Designing carrier a/c that can take repeated arrestor type landings. -
Which is why the USSR evolve from a
Moskova (spelling) - helicopter carrier
Kiev - slanted deck carrier with both rotary and VStOL aircraft
Kurtxxxx (spelling) - full fledge carrier
One cannot jump to step three immediately. The Frenchies with their Charles de Gaulle have been operating carriers since WWII. The Indian/Brazilian/Argentinian Navy basically only buy their carrier 2nd hand. -
Relatively easy? Not so. If you are talking about mini-carriers like that of Thailand's, then ok, many have the techncal expertise. But building a carrier like that of the Charles De Gaulle (least of all the papa of all carriers, the Nimitz class) would require expertise over and above most. Its not just the technical stuff of steam catapults (which is actually a guarded secret), but the layout of the deck for flight operations, how to handle having a thousand people on board a ship, how to get the whole system to work, that's a WHOLE different story, and that, as posted in the above post, requires experience. Something which only America has abundant supply of. Not even the Soviet fleet was a carrier power, even at its peak. This was due to the thinking of one particular admiral (can't remember his name) who didn't believe in carriers....Originally posted by spencer99:It is relatively easy to build a carrier once they have the design and finalize the operational concept.
They will need time to develop the design right?? What is layout of the flight deck?? How to develop a arrestor hook system? Lift? hangar design? Designing carrier a/c that can take repeated arrestor type landings. -
If you read my message carefully, you would find that I meant the same thing too.
Compared to finalizing operational concept, designing/experimenting with new technical details like arrestor gear, carrier a/c landing system, arming/refueling of aircraft, specialize maintenance tool in a cramped enviornment, how many crew and how many crew of each "type", their training/development and so on and so on. All this will consume a lot of resources and time. And also can be achieved only if the country go about in a systematic basis.
After they have done and mastered the above , "building" a carrier as in hull and structure is relatively simple.
For the RSN to operate a submarine we have to "learn" for more than 2 years. And we have a mentor in the Swedish Navy.
If the PLAN wants to develop and built their own carrier on their own, even if they have help from Russia it will probably take a while.
Regards,
Woon Chong -
agreed.
See URL for link on the status of Russian aircraft carrier "fleet"
http://www.webcom.com/~amraam/rcar.html
also see china's naval ambitions
http://www.varyagworld.com/
http://china.jamestown.org/pubs/view/cwe_002_006_003.htm
As have been discussed, hardware is only one component of any strategy. The software i.e. human input through training, verified SOPs, capable leaders etc makes all the difference in actual execution.
my 2 cents (hoped I have not repeated any old stuff as it is my "virgin" post) -
Originally posted by gary1910:
heard tt SG is oso interested in having a helo carrier but think it will not be of top priority especially the LSTs are available for helo ops too and newer sub may get higher priority... anyway pls bear with my ignorance, why do they need helo carriers for? since they can't project as much power like the aircraft carriers...
But I believe there was report that the Jap has a requiremnet for a few medium size helo carriers in the future.
[b]CHARGE!!!
[/b] -
Btw anybody knows what types and how many kinds of torpedos does our Sjoormen Submarines have?
Btw the Ottomat missiles seems to have a range of 100km or more if I'm not wrong and that surpass our Harpoons. How do you think Harpoon will fare against them? -
RSN seems to have lotsa plans in store to upgrade and introduce more technology and firepower. With the La Fayette frigates coming n if new subs acquisation are to be announced in few yrs time, then RSN seems to needs lotsa more manpower which will become a critical issue when RSN is the smallest force in terms of manpower in the SAF. So although RSN may have plans for helo carriers which maybe good to haf but not practical.Originally posted by Arena:heard tt SG is oso interested in having a helo carrier but think it will not be of top priority especially the LSTs are available for helo ops too and newer sub may get higher priority... anyway pls bear with my ignorance, why do they need helo carriers for? since they can't project as much power like the aircraft carriers... -
The Sjoormens have two type of torpedo tubes.....4x 533mm tubes for Type 613 heavy weight torpedoes and 2x 400mm tubes for Type 413 light torpedoes.Originally posted by [G]oggles:Btw anybody knows what types and how many kinds of torpedos does our Sjoormen Submarines have?
Btw the Ottomat missiles seems to have a range of 100km or more if I'm not wrong and that surpass our Harpoons. How do you think Harpoon will fare against them?
The 613 is for anti-shipping purposes while the 413 is anti-sub purposes.
Singapore has got only the Type 613 torpedoes from public domain. I think they plan to use their AS244 Whitehead torps for the 400mm. -
In my view, RSN will be setting up a base in Preda Branca as soon as legally possible. Everything else can wait.........Originally posted by Arena:heard tt SG is oso interested in having a helo carrier but think it will not be of top priority especially the LSTs are available for helo ops too and newer sub may get higher priority... anyway pls bear with my ignorance, why do they need helo carriers for? since they can't project as much power like the aircraft carriers...
Will most probably be an oil rig. This will solve a lot of problems especially with communications. It will be a very important node in the future scheme of things. -
Thank you. You summarize it very nicely.Originally posted by vaxjunior:agreed.
See URL for link on the status of Russian aircraft carrier "fleet"
http://www.webcom.com/~amraam/rcar.html
also see china's naval ambitions
http://www.varyagworld.com/
http://china.jamestown.org/pubs/view/cwe_002_006_003.htm
As have been discussed, hardware is only one component of any strategy. The software i.e. human input through training, verified SOPs, capable leaders etc makes all the difference in actual execution.
my 2 cents (hoped I have not repeated any old stuff as it is my "virgin" post) -
I then to dis-agree. I think Sgp should keep our presence in PB as "civilian" as possible. Although I am sure that the "navigation radar" on the island (visible in public domain), have military uses such as having visibility and early warning from threats arising from West Malaysia's East Coast and the South China Sea, it looks very civilian with its white and red stripes. I think we should keep it that way as I don't think it will help our cause (legal wise) if we are fighting the ownership of the island just to convert to a naval base. We are basing on the fact that we have been assisting navigation on the island for upteem years.Originally posted by Fairyland:In my view, RSN will be setting up a base in Preda Branca as soon as legally possible. Everything else can wait.........
Will most probably be an oil rig. This will solve a lot of problems especially with communications. It will be a very important node in the future scheme of things.
Anyway the island is really very small, what can we do that. Even if have a space for a base there, it would be miserable posting as it will be so far away from the mainland and will not have any recreational facilities. -
Would RSN be considering building own new sub? Just like the new frigates? It would be nice if the new sub can carry some anti-ship missle beside torpedos... vertical launch type.. fire below water surface.. that will coolOriginally posted by Arena:heard tt SG is oso interested in having a helo carrier but think it will not be of top priority especially the LSTs are available for helo ops too and newer sub may get higher priority... anyway pls bear with my ignorance, why do they need helo carriers for? since they can't project as much power like the aircraft carriers...
-
Would RSN be considering building own new sub? Just like the new frigates? It would be nice if the new sub can carry some anti-ship missle beside torpedos... vertical launch type.. fire from below water surface.. that will coolOriginally posted by Arena:heard tt SG is oso interested in having a helo carrier but think it will not be of top priority especially the LSTs are available for helo ops too and newer sub may get higher priority... anyway pls bear with my ignorance, why do they need helo carriers for? since they can't project as much power like the aircraft carriers... -
sorry ,, click wrongly.. ended up double posting.
-
The Russian had a carrier....name started with a V...sold it to China.(Valkriye or something? cant remember)The Thai carrier is frm Spain...which i believe a few other counties have bought also.Anyway the other main problem with big carriers other then design is it's powerplant.Not many countries have Nuclear abilities and even less have the ability to put that on a ship!!Infact the Charles de Gulle had problems with it's powerplant all through it's life that was only fixed in the 2nd ship!
-
You mean the Clemenceau class carriers? Cos the Charles De Gaulle is still rather young and it's sister ship is still on the drawing board. But both the Foch and Clemenceau carriers are powered conventionally.