Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 20 May 2013 06:36

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5885 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77 ... 148  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 09 Jun 2012 13:19 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08
Posts: 505
There isn't much point in being able to hit central U.S. targets if China doesn't even have enough missiles to cover the west coast. They have maybe, what, a max of 50 missiles that can strike the U.S.? Is the deterrence really substantially higher if you can strike the eastern U.S. coast rather than just the west coast?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Jun 2012 16:14 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 May 2006 22:56
Posts: 548
Location: Some where near Equator...
DavidD wrote:
Nice pic of the Varyag, can't believe that old hunk of metal has transformed into something like this:

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/2796 ... rt7cru.jpg

As for the engines, China won't truly catch up any time soon. Engine-making represents the very top cutting edge technology in manufacturing, and technology-wise, China isn't close to the top in any major field really. Maybe 10 years from now they'll have something resembling parity, but I don't expect true parity until perhaps decades from now. The WS-10 is a good start, but it's still struggling to compare with 30-40 year old designs.


How different it is from our Vik in terms of length; aircraft capacity other known technical capacity etc


Last edited by nits on 09 Jun 2012 20:48, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Jun 2012 17:11 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 25453
Location: havildar-major, 1st JSOC munna detachment.
varyag would be around 10,000t heavier, 20m longer and around 15m wider at her widest point which is the island & waist deck region.
varyag airwing is likely to be around 10 fighters/helis more esp now that Granit silos are not doubt removed...varyag had a more carrier role built in from day1 unlike the kiev class whose hull is really too narrow for a proper carrier.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Jun 2012 22:34 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 27 May 2011 19:21
Posts: 336
DavidD wrote:
There isn't much point in being able to hit central U.S. targets if China doesn't even have enough missiles to cover the west coast. They have maybe, what, a max of 50 missiles that can strike the U.S.? Is the deterrence really substantially higher if you can strike the eastern U.S. coast rather than just the west coast?


China could hit the US east coast for at least the last 30 years.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Jun 2012 23:01 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26
Posts: 1218
Location: Atop Orthanc, cursing, "Damn it where are those backfires??"
Singha wrote:
varyag would be around 10,000t heavier, 20m longer and around 15m wider at her widest point which is the island & waist deck region.
varyag airwing is likely to be around 10 fighters/helis more esp now that Granit silos are not doubt removed...varyag had a more carrier role built in from day1 unlike the kiev class whose hull is really too narrow for a proper carrier.


Yes, while Varyag is no doubt bigger what about the SU-33, which is it's primary fighter, doesn't it have a bigger footprint than the MiG-29K on the Vikad? My guess is that the airwing won't be all that different from the Vik, but I am just guesstimating here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Jun 2012 23:59 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 May 2006 22:56
Posts: 548
Location: Some where near Equator...
Singha wrote:
varyag would be around 10,000t heavier, 20m longer and around 15m wider at her widest point which is the island & waist deck region.
varyag airwing is likely to be around 10 fighters/helis more esp now that Granit silos are not doubt removed...varyag had a more carrier role built in from day1 unlike the kiev class whose hull is really too narrow for a proper carrier.


Curious to know Sir - the new carriers which india is building; is that bigger then varyag; how does it fare in compariosn to varyag... :twisted:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Jun 2012 09:30 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 7504
wong wrote:
China could hit the US east coast for at least the last 30 years.


That is one of the reason i remember during Clinton Era , China and US signed a treaty of not pre-targeting their Strategic Missile at each other as confidence building measure.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Jun 2012 11:39 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 25453
Location: havildar-major, 1st JSOC munna detachment.
ADS1 is similar sized to Gorshkov in tonnage or slightly smaller. but being a purpose built design upscaled from cavour, it will generally be more efficient about things. wiki comparison says 20m shorter, but critically 10m broader deck.

ADS1 shape, size, tonnage is very similar to the charles de gaulle.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Jun 2012 07:25 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 Sep 2004 05:00
Posts: 385
Oh lordy.........the Varyag picture is major photoshop. See the twin pole like thingies on the front? One of them has shadow while the other doesn't. Someone forgot to add shadow to it. :rotfl:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Jun 2012 11:13 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 2218
That dark patch is not a shadow ... The picture is certainly enhanced for creating awe ... but credit must be given to the Chinese for resurrecting what looks like a very good carrier.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Jun 2012 11:18 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 25453
Location: havildar-major, 1st JSOC munna detachment.
kuznetsov class probably suffers from the same russian inexperience in prolonged deep ocean carrier ops. they had no exp in that prior to the moskva helicopter carriers and later the kiev class. Kuz class was supposed to be their first 'proper' carrier but again they just could not let their missile fetish go and packed the foredeck with granit missile silos. why in gods name could they not leave it to the oscars and akulas of the world? the chinese have likely removed these and the obese armament of SAMs and kashtans lining the verandahs like a japanese robotech movie. still we never know how good the internal hanger and systems are vs what we expect from a khan cvn. the su33 is also unproven as a naval fighter - sure it can takeoff and land but good it really is in sustained ops over the sea. payload penalty in fuel is surely there.

I would say its a better carrier design than Vik for sure being more of proper carrier, but a 'proper' 65000t carrier of the CVF type with steam cats , hornets/JSF and E2D still trounces it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Jun 2012 06:37 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 07 Aug 2003 11:31
Posts: 173
same scale
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Jun 2012 08:42 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 03 Feb 2011 16:22
Posts: 34
It appears that they have shifted the entire island to the starboard side and added two lifts on either sides of the island.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Jun 2012 10:15 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 25453
Location: havildar-major, 1st JSOC munna detachment.
top pic is of AG not Kuznetsov.

Varyag I dont see any basic change. see this - overall deck has remained unchanged and the lifts were always there.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Gall ... ant-04.jpg


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Jun 2012 10:32 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Posts: 8415
Location: Ya kundendu tushar haar dhavala ..
Whatever little size advantage Varyag has over Vik is offset by the fact that former will operate a much larger Su-33 or it's clone J-15.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Jun 2012 12:51 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 03 Feb 2011 16:22
Posts: 34
[quote="Singha"]top pic is of AG not Kuznetsov.

My bad :oops:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Jun 2012 13:03 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 25453
Location: havildar-major, 1st JSOC munna detachment.
it would be most interesting to know if the Su33 can takeoff with its full 8-9t internal fuel and what kind of realistic payload.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Jun 2012 13:56 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 7504
negi wrote:
Whatever little size advantage Varyag has over Vik is offset by the fact that former will operate a much larger Su-33 or it's clone J-15.


A folded Su-33 inside a hanger occupies smaller foot print compared to folded Mig-29K according to Yefim Gordon in his book Su-27 Flanker.

But he was comparing the older Soviet Mig-29K with Su-33 not sure if its valid for newer IN model.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Jun 2012 14:23 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 25453
Location: havildar-major, 1st JSOC munna detachment.
on the kuznetsov, the su33s deployed were it seems only equipped and tasked for air defence, not strike duties. they did not carry any PGM, iron bombs or ASM. these are no doubt heavier than AAMs. plus strike sorties will need to cart a couple AAM for self defence.

youtube videos of Kuz air ops show clean wings, not even dummy AAMs on the su33 ... the ship looks kind of deserted and forlorn in contrast the buzz of activity on a CVN. no evidence of Su33 taking off 'loaded for bear'. the Kuz has never done a 7-9 month intensive deployment cycle the khan carriers do.

the real proof will be if PLANAF can up the tempo and operate Su33 at high tempo and fully armed from varyag on a longish mission like say to eastern indonesia and fiji....they could exercise with other nations and practice strike missions as well.

we shall see.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Jun 2012 14:36 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 05 Dec 2008 22:23
Posts: 244
In South China Sea, a surprise Chinese escort for Indian ships


“Welcome to the South China Sea, Foxtrot-47,” buzzed a People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) frigate to the INS Shivalik (F47). :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Jun 2012 15:19 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Posts: 265
Location: NZL
Singha wrote:
on the kuznetsov, the su33s deployed were it seems only equipped and tasked for air defence, not strike duties. they did not carry any PGM, iron bombs or ASM. these are no doubt heavier than AAMs. plus strike sorties will need to cart a couple AAM for self defence.

youtube videos of Kuz air ops show clean wings, not even dummy AAMs on the su33 ... the ship looks kind of deserted and forlorn in contrast the buzz of activity on a CVN. no evidence of Su33 taking off 'loaded for bear'. the Kuz has never done a 7-9 month intensive deployment cycle the khan carriers do.

the real proof will be if PLANAF can up the tempo and operate Su33 at high tempo and fully armed from varyag on a longish mission like say to eastern indonesia and fiji....they could exercise with other nations and practice strike missions as well.

we shall see.


Not without Catapults .... hell no. You are gonna struggle to launch a Su-33 loaded for bear.
The only way around is to launch half the aircraft with fuel and the rest with weapons and then do buddy refueling on the way.
Refuellers return and the strike packages continues. Either way... expensive use of Su-33 as mini tankers, even those Su-33 will not be topped up. An aircraft bigger than an F-15 needs a Catapult to be launched from a soccer field.

Initially I put down my cup of tea and went what the hell when we decided on Mig-29 for the Navy but once I did the maths and read about aircraft recovery it became crashingly clear that if you are going for Ski Jumps, you got to halve your loads.

Some Comparasion pics coming up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Jun 2012 15:30 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 25453
Location: havildar-major, 1st JSOC munna detachment.
given their limitations, I would imagine both VK/Varyag are more useful to fleet air defence for a formation thats out of range of land based fighters, than a 1-800 A2G strike force of the kind the khan airwings have evolved into (for lack of credible air threats, while still retaining the apg79+aim9x+amraam on the side - keeping powder dry).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Jun 2012 20:46 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 17466
Location: NowHere
10k miles away, re-fuelers for su33 does not look operationally sound.

nuke powered A/C with on board capabilities to refuel is the way to go. yeah, those EMF catapults are required.

OTOH, if sea harriers ++ can be thought off, then there is something sweet. I would think a VTOL operational, would cause any force to shiver in their pants.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Jun 2012 21:46 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 25453
Location: havildar-major, 1st JSOC munna detachment.
the vStoL JSF is not causing anyone to lose sleep - yet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Jun 2012 22:59 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Posts: 1887
Location: India/US
cats for the next carrier :((
I think we should still look at innovative ways to fling a craft, particularly for non-nuke carriers with not so abundant steam supply. Like hypergolic liquid bi-propellants (or slow burning modular ones of the solid kind for ease of storage and resupply) expanding inside cylinders to push pistons etc. Maybe EMALS running off some turbofan powered APU generators etc.

nuke power is for 180-day deployment across oceans and the situation is middle of WWIII. It does not make sense for India right now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Jun 2012 05:11 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 20927
Location: Pakistan Painindabutt.
negi wrote:
Whatever little size advantage Varyag has over Vik is offset by the fact that former will operate a much larger Su-33 or it's clone J-15.


Also means more fuel per sortie. With 90% of all sorties being peacetime missions more fuel is burned up and a bigger logistics hurdle.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Jun 2012 05:50 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31
Posts: 4272
Quote:
A folded Su-33 inside a hanger occupies smaller foot print compared to folded Mig-29K according to Yefim Gordon in his book Su-27 Flanker.



I find that a bit hard to believe

even without the wings the rest the flanker is a beast compared to the 29.

only a side by aside and top views can show whether thats true


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Jun 2012 07:54 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 25453
Location: havildar-major, 1st JSOC munna detachment.
the length of the flanker is certainly more than Mig29K .... this impacts the turning radius on deck, the parking areas and the efficiency of hanger space. the lifts might also need to be a certain minimum size.

wiki lists the flanker as 4m longer and 4m wider without folding wings ofcourse.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Jun 2012 09:32 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 7504
Well the Su-27 Flanker by Yefim Gordon mentions the details but i found a link on that and its written by Ken

link

Check the above link but synopsis pasted below

Quote:
With its folding wings and tailplanes, plus the folding tailcone and nose pitot, the 'footprint' of the Su-33 on Kuznetsov's deck and hangars is actually LESS than the MiG-29K.

During the trials against the MiG-29K, Sukhoi proved to the Soviet MAP that, thanks to the Su-33's more capable WCS, bigger weapons load and longer range, a carrier wing composed of Su-33's would be more effective than a 50% greater number of MiG-29K's.

In other words, you would need 30 MiG-29K's to do the same job as 20 Su-33's - and they would take up a proportionately greater deck and hangar space.

Su-33

Wing Span = 14.7m (48 ft 2 in)
Folded Span = 7.4m (24 ft 3 in)

MiG-29K

Wing Span = 11.4 m (37 ft 3 in)
Folded Span = 7.8m (25 ft 7 in)

Even with a folding tailcone and nose pitot, the Su-33 is slightly longer than a MiG-29K, but the critical deck-space dimension is the folded span.

This all refers to the original MiG-29K (9.31), not the 'new' MiG-29K/KUB.


The flanker in most DACT conducted beats the Mig-29 most of the occasion in BFM and in WVR combat it already has a advantage of huge radar , weapons payload and range.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Jun 2012 10:05 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Posts: 265
Location: NZL
Thats my point shiv, you can either launch weapons or you can launch fuel --> if you are launching the Su-33 from KuZ.

Which means if you launched the a/c with weapons are defensive only unless you are topped by buddy.
Else you launched the a/c with little weapons and lots of fuel.

The Chinese military transformation of their military smells of their ego, one that is driven to acquire a stick of the same size and color as the bully. However in this case they got the bigger carrier and the bigger aircraft however it doesn't have the oomph. CATS !!

by the way the angle of launch on Kuz is 12 and VikAdit is 14.5


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Jun 2012 10:32 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 25453
Location: havildar-major, 1st JSOC munna detachment.
yeah..before CATS everything is maya. I am sure they are trying to work on cats using a mix of local and stolen tech from massa. unfortunately rus/ukr cannot help them on this.
it will need a mighty 'khan' cat to hurl a 30t flanker into the air for sure.

we have operated steam cats off the old vikrant for alize and sea hawk.

unfortunately the french are happy to import this low volume item rather than develop alternatives coz there is no world market for it.

I guess its time to test our 'friendship' with the khan and see if their establishment will release it and in parallel start a plan-B of working with Russia to develop cats either steam or EM both for us and for their future carrier plans. who would have thought that a technology that dates to 150 years ago would become so strategic in this day? :mrgreen: Rus has good strength in EM stuff and perhaps japan might also be willing to extend some aid to their starving new biraders.

we will either have to run a steam plant perhaps using furnace oil to generate steam, or else EM sounds more efficient because energy can be stored rather than always needing to be generated...perhaps a diesel-electric generator can provide the current and stored in submarine style banks of batteries or something


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Jun 2012 10:54 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41
Posts: 325
Austin wrote:
Well the Su-27 Flanker by Yefim Gordon mentions the details but i found a link on that and its written by Ken

link

Check the above link but synopsis pasted below

Quote:
With its folding wings and tailplanes, plus the folding tailcone and nose pitot, the 'footprint' of the Su-33 on Kuznetsov's deck and hangars is actually LESS than the MiG-29K.

During the trials against the MiG-29K, Sukhoi proved to the Soviet MAP that, thanks to the Su-33's more capable WCS, bigger weapons load and longer range, a carrier wing composed of Su-33's would be more effective than a 50% greater number of MiG-29K's.

In other words, you would need 30 MiG-29K's to do the same job as 20 Su-33's - and they would take up a proportionately greater deck and hangar space.

Su-33

Wing Span = 14.7m (48 ft 2 in)
Folded Span = 7.4m (24 ft 3 in)

MiG-29K

Wing Span = 11.4 m (37 ft 3 in)
Folded Span = 7.8m (25 ft 7 in)


Even with a folding tailcone and nose pitot, the Su-33 is slightly longer than a MiG-29K, but the critical deck-space dimension is the folded span.

This all refers to the original MiG-29K (9.31), not the 'new' MiG-29K/KUB.


austn,

i doubt the wing span spec wrt Mig 29K as mentioned by 'Ken' in the link provided by you. ofc he refers to the older version of Mig 29k but the fact is - the wing span which was 'improved' (by folded radome option) in the newer Mig 29K - still brings it to 14.13 meters. folded span has been improved too by shifting the fold line closer to the wing root. so MIG 29K -

wing span - 14.13 metres.

folded span - 5.80 meters.

refer MiG-29K-2002 in this link

still substancially less than SU 33.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Jun 2012 11:56 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 15 Nov 2011 11:34
Posts: 36
Singha ji

IMHO EM CAT will be better in future, not only it will launch ACs it can launch future missiles, shells etc... we must build nuclear powered Aircraft Carriers so we will have no shortage of electric power.

We can enable such boats with energy hungry ray weapons to incinerate incoming missiles like DF-21s, Babars & Chino/Pako SATs as well.

IMHO this is the time when Bharat has to come out of shadow of a follower and try these new techs to show world what it has never seen or imagined. This is what creates respects globally (not any amount of charity)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Jun 2012 15:47 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 7504
Arrested spy compromised China's U.S. espionage network: sources


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Jun 2012 19:30 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31
Posts: 4272
thanks Austin

but I stil find it hard to believe

kind of like the Us MICs is next gen product will do longer range, more payload, more sensors, easy to maintain, etc etc all on the lowest bid :)

we know how they all turn out :)

what about the logistic foot print of fuel etc ???


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Jun 2012 20:26 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 25453
Location: havildar-major, 1st JSOC munna detachment.
the issue is moot anyway. Su33 is retired and Rus is buying a fresh set of Mig29K to keep Kuznetsov operational.

its an issue only for the chinese now, who will have to make a meal of whatever they have. Rus would willing to export Mig29K to them also if desired.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Jun 2012 10:52 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 7504
Surya , Logistically speaking there is no doubt that operating cost per hour for the flanker would be higher ...but that is more than offset with far better capabilities.

After all if you have one carrier or two and then you want to defend the entire CBG which might be 30-50 odd ship you would want your best aircraft up in air .... stuff like reach , persistence and payload would matter.

Flanker specially the more modern one can stand up to any thing out there because of these qualities , you cant say that for Mig-29K , it can defend itself but would have a hard time dominating against the likes of Flanker or Rafale out there.

The advantage Mig-29K offers is its small size affords more number and considering you can theoretically put many aircraft in air and can vector it in many directions , you still end up with more numbers of aircraft in air and quantity has it own quality for similar displacement aircraft carrier. ( you take into consideration things like maintenance you would have less number of flanker operationally available )

Singha , the key reason why Russia is option for Mig-29K its the best available to them but because they want to keep Mig in business and do not want to make Sukhoi too strong(under UAC) for its own good which it already is , its a way of balancing between the two where ever possible ....not to mention the Indian order has given a production line where it can build more and cost less , There are other reasons like keeping the factory production line open and not keeping the skills ideal. In socialism the Russian MOD are no different than Indian counterpart .

The best option for IN is to move toward Rafale or JSF by end of this decade which ever is available and we get it with no strings attached ....Rafale looks more attractive atm considering its logistics advantage with IAF fleet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Jun 2012 14:30 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 20927
Location: Pakistan Painindabutt.
Austin wrote:
Surya , Logistically speaking there is no doubt that operating cost per hour for the flanker would be higher ...but that is more than offset with far better capabilities.


Austin - this is highly debatable for the simple reason that a carrier battle group is a complex animal of which the model of fighter on the ship is only one component. It is erroneous to judge to capability of the entire group of ships at sea simply by comparing the aircraft on board. A lot depends on the defences of the fleet from hostile ships, submarines, aircraft, where it is deployed, how far from home the fleet might be and how long the fleet has been on patrol at the start of any hostilities and what role is expected of the group in any battle.

Clearly any manager of a battle group will have to take all these into consideration.

After all the Varyag sailing within 1000 km of the Indian coastline during hostilities will not even need another carrier group even with Harriers to oppose it. It will be taken out by stand off missiles or a sub or a combination of both. So unless the Chinese watch what they do very carefully, having the Flanker on board will not keep the ship away from Davy Jones' locker. One by one if a couple of escort ships are sunk the carrier will soon have to start heading for home or one day the Flankers that take of will only have a patch of oil spill to land on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Jun 2012 14:58 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 25453
Location: havildar-major, 1st JSOC munna detachment.
asymmetric response availibility is why the americans did not bother with developing big anti-ship missiles of the granit or yakhont type, they had enough subs armed with torps and harpoons for the job.

I am curious to know what kind of arctic CVBG exercises nato conducts...heard of upto 4 american carriers operating together north of the article circle and also in the Fjords of norway. what they do with 350m long ships in the confined waters of fjords is also something my curious mind wants to know.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Jun 2012 19:04 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Feb 2004 12:31
Posts: 304
China puts its first woman astronaut into orbit

http://news.yahoo.com/china-puts-first- ... 54354.html

Quote:
JIUQUAN, China (Reuters) - China put its first woman into orbit on Saturday, one of three astronauts to attempt a critical space docking in the latest challenge for the country's ambitious space programme.

A Long March rocket blasted off in the early evening from the remote Jiuquan Satellite Launch Centre in the northwestern Gobi Desert, carrying with it the Shenzhou 9 spacecraft and the three astronauts, including 33-year-old female fighter pilot Liu Yang.

This is China's fourth manned space mission since 2003 when astronaut Yang Liwei became the country's first person in orbit, and comes as the United States has curtailed manned launches over budget concerns and changing priorities.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5885 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77 ... 148  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group