Originally posted by expat01
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Royal Navy Type 31
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by danno View PostAre you suggesting Russia is bereft of any meaningful warship construction capability/capacity/competence.
What remains is located in St Petersburg, Murmansk, Severodvinsk or Vladivostok (currently closed for upgrade).
If United Shipbuilding Corporation (OCK) isn't building it, it isn't being built.For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by na grohmità View PostNone that are not ice bound for a large portion of the year. The fall of the iron curtain put an end to much of the Russian naval shipbuilding abilities.
What remains is located in St Petersburg, Murmansk, Severodvinsk or Vladivostok (currently closed for upgrade).
If United Shipbuilding Corporation (OCK) isn't building it, it isn't being built.Everyone who's ever loved you was wrong.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by danno View PostAre you suggesting Russia is bereft of any meaningful warship construction capability/capacity/competence.
This should tell you that warship construction involves more than welding steel. If why that is so is a mystery to you, that's alright - you really have no choice but to accept that Russian shipbuilders declared this was a task beyond them and there is clearly some complexity to the issue which, though it eludes you, is real.
The deal would have seen four warships, at least one mostly constructed in France in partnership with Russian design teams and finishing with at least one fully constructed and fitted in Russia as they gained experience - the detail of that was a point for negotiation.
This is also why China bought an unfinished Soviet aircraft carrier and spent a decade figuring out how it was built - and why - before finishing it and putting it into service - so they could actually build more by themselves. It's also why China bought and learned to construct, then gradually modify, 1960s era Soviet spacecraft before trying to get creative rather than try the painful route of trial and error by themselves. Rocket science isn't really science, it's Engineering. Engineering is what we are about here, and that's about more than welding.Last edited by expat01; 19 August 2016, 07:30.
- Likes 3
Comment
-
Originally posted by expat01 View PostWe are suggesting that Russia is bereft of the kind of warship construction capability/capacity/competence that would have enabled them to build a vessel of the standard of a Mistral class - a standard they wanted. Further, that the Russian warship industry informed their government that it would take them ten years at least to develop such a capacity and so they went to France. This is in the public domain.
This should tell you that warship construction involves more than welding steel. If why that is so is a mystery to you, that's alright - you really have no choice but to accept that Russian shipbuilders declared this was a task beyond them and there is clearly some complexity to the issue which, though it eludes you, is real.
The deal would have seen four warships, at least one mostly constructed in France in partnership with Russian design teams and finishing with at least one fully constructed and fitted in Russia as they gained experience - the detail of that was a point for negotiation.
This is also why China bought an unfinished Soviet aircraft carrier and spent a decade figuring out how it was built - and why - before finishing it and putting it into service - so they could actually build more by themselves. It's also why China bought and learned to construct, then gradually modify, 1960s era Soviet spacecraft before trying to get creative rather than try the painful route of trial and error by themselves. Rocket science isn't really science, it's Engineering. Engineering is what we are about here, and that's about more than welding.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ancientmariner View PostIf you have'nt done it before you get a master class until you develop the skills to repeat the abilities of others. Getting an overseas sample of the real thing sets up a stream of skill sets that will lead to an ability to further develop and improve ship and onboard capabilities. The East Europeans and Asians have become the forefront in shipbuilding and mass production of electronics. Nothing is too difficult. They have mastered Submarines, Space Craft, Fighter Jets, transport aircraft, optics, Car production. A big thing like an aircraft carrier is just like adult colour books, copy it carefully, and then improvise as you go along. It' also more productive than spying, if you have the cash to pay for it.
Even when building the CdG, the French went to the Americans for the catapults in order to achieve CATOBAR capability. In fact any nation who has operated a CATOBAR carrier over the last 60 years, with the exception of the Royal Navy, has done so thanks to US technology. When the RN considered a return to CATOBAR for the QE class, they had to turn to the US as well indicating that all they had learned died with the decommissioning of Ark Royal.
When you're building OPVs and perhaps Frigates, copying still works relatively well although details of material composition and preparation can still present some nasty surprises. When you move on to larger, more complex vessels (and aircraft carriers are considered to be some of the most complex machines ever built and operated) institutional knowledge gained over many years has no peer or easy replacement.Last edited by Medsailor; 19 August 2016, 12:22.
Comment
-
I think whether Navies go for STOVL. STOBAR, or CATOBAR is overall related to cost, both in shipbuilding and aircraft types. In the latter case with a big move to using Air Force planes and crews from carriers STOVL seems to be popular among a range of navies. When you consider that at least one of the emerging players is the only consistent supplier on, Launch to demand,transport to the International Space station, I don't think carrier production of choice will impede them over time.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ancientmariner View PostI think whether Navies go for STOVL. STOBAR, or CATOBAR is overall related to cost, both in shipbuilding and aircraft types. In the latter case with a big move to using Air Force planes and crews from carriers STOVL seems to be popular among a range of navies. When you consider that at least one of the emerging players is the only consistent supplier on, Launch to demand,transport to the International Space station, I don't think carrier production of choice will impede them over time.
Comment
-
Worth noting that the much heralded restart of the TU-160 BLACKJACK production line has been put on ice - Russia builds the airframes, but guess where the engines come from, and guess who's decided not to sell them to the Russians....
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by ropebag View PostWorth noting that the much heralded restart of the TU-160 BLACKJACK production line has been put on ice - Russia builds the airframes, but guess where the engines come from, and guess who's decided not to sell them to the Russians....
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by ropebag View PostWorth noting that the much heralded restart of the TU-160 BLACKJACK production line has been put on ice - Russia builds the airframes, but guess where the engines come from, and guess who's decided not to sell them to the Russians....
Despite old technology US participants are happy to fly to ISS on Russian rockets. The West needs to counter and match the capability by maintaining current equipments and systems and not continually throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by ancientmariner View PostDon't underestimate the capacity of Russian military to deliver front edge action. In Syria they have launched more airstrikes in a single day than the combined western alliance have in one month. Their Black Sea corvette type ships have been adapted to deliver a cruise type missile to 900kms.
Despite old technology US participants are happy to fly to ISS on Russian rockets. The West needs to counter and match the capability by maintaining current equipments and systems and not continually throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
As to the ISS (Sorry for going off topic), but the US/rest weren't/aren't happy, they just had no choice after the Shuttle proved unsafe and unsustainable (and ESA decided not to fund their proposed option), their push to move towards the Commercial flights show that (which vastly exceed the Soyuz). The Russians have tried repeatedly to replace the Soyuz without any success (including trying to get the ESA to pay for it), and now the Russians maybe abandoning the last module for the ISS while the other partners are pushing forwards and upgrading it. Just because the Russians can leverage off past investment doesn't mean they can sustain things going forward.
Comment
Comment