Naval Pictures VII: Underway, Shift Colors!

[Cannonshop]

Transatlantic? Okay, now I'm REALLY impressed. Do they do it solo, or do you think the cartels might have rendezvous with improvised tenders?

Or maybe they got good and coked up and it was a case of "Hold my beer, muchachos."

[Kidd]

Transatlantic? Okay, now I'm REALLY impressed. Do they do it solo, or do you think the cartels might have rendezvous with improvised tenders?

This boat is 65 feet long. HI Sutton reported on a 40ft long sub that had an estimated range of 2000nm. The transatlantic route is estimated about 3800nm.

I'd say it's probably doable unrefueled, with little margin for error. As the article remarks:

The transatlantic trip is dangerous, as the slow-moving vessels are unable to outrun storms and hurricanes and are not built to any known safety standard. The crew of a narcosub must stay out of existing shipping lanes, because their vessel is built not to be seen and does not transmit an AIS signal to broadcast its position to other ships. A 100,000-ton container ship will easily run down a LPV without seeing it. What’s more, a narcosub crew can’t exactly call the Coast Guard if a problem arises. For all we know there are narcosubs—and their crews—sitting on the bottom of the Atlantic, the victims of failed crossings.

[Colt Ward]

Island hopping through the Gulf would be bad enough . . . imagine a winter Atlantic gale in that thing, navigating by a hand held GPS (I assume) . . . eating MREs, relieving in buckets, and hoping to God the engine does not give out.  You could not just plop a stooge into it like a shorter run IMO, you need someone who can problem solve (at least a bit) and that person should figure out how bad it will be for the trip.

I mean, I can figure out one source of pilot/crews.

'You slept with el Jefe's daughter muchacho . . . normally he would flay a man alive who did that, but we need you to pilot this sub . . . get across 5 times and el Jefe said he would forgive you.'

Interesting part is, I assume the subs would be shipped back as cargo due to it being safer = RoI.  Also, what keeps a narcosub like this from being towed by a freighter and being released off shore from where its to make the clandestine delivery.

[Kidd]

'You slept with el Jefe's daughter muchacho . . . normally he would flay a man alive who did that, but we need you to pilot this sub . . . get across 5 times and el Jefe said he would forgive you.'

Interesting part is, I assume the subs would be shipped back as cargo due to it being safer = RoI.  Also, what keeps a narcosub like this from being towed by a freighter and being released off shore from where its to make the clandestine delivery.

Snerk.

Pros and cons. On the one hand it would certainly reduce the risks considerably to have a tug available, maybe even for most of the way and just castoff when evasion is necessary. On the other hand it's a major security risk as basically the entire crew and probably the freighter owner would have to be in on it, there's no disguising a tow.

Article said, and I think I agree, that one of the major advantages of the narcosub is its one-man self-contained operation. The less people know the more unlikely the op can be leaked to police by informants.

[Colt Ward]

Yeah, while initially I was thinking of a freighter . . . a fishing vessel would be easier, and a last change to refuel.

[Kidd]

Yeah, while initially I was thinking of a freighter . . . a fishing vessel would be easier, and a last change to refuel.

I personally favour the one-man interpretation. Not just in crime but in business as well, one of the biggest problems is finding someone trustworthy to fill a sensitive key position.

[chanman]

I'd expect them to be disposable. It's just logistically easier to salvage a few valuable parts and deep six the rest.

Same reason I wouldn't expect coked up crews. Smuggling is a business and a narco sub is an expensive and already risky investment before adding complications on top of that.

[marauder648]

Some amazing close up footage of RN warships in the 30's

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FeJTgQeFT8&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR0gYwIpy9q2QiVhEV-yoYWo4RlB39CeCbH5jBoD364tG01Xre5XIWwGrKY

[HobbesHurlbut]

https://mobile.twitter.com/Capt_Navy/status/1206177634771722240
Man that train the Russian Navy is on isn't stopping for a break.

[PsihoKekec]

It was bound to happen for some time, that sub and drydock have been left abandoned for almost decade.

[I am Belch II]

The Russian Navy can't catch a break. Hard to rebuild your fleet when you keep on having problems with it.

[Wrangler]

Isn't this maintenance issue their having? Their shipyards are still able build nuclear submarines and frigates (and smaller).

[PsihoKekec]

In the 90's most of their capabilities went to crapper when their economy imploded. Some facilities struggled on, especially those that had foreign orders and those that were absolutely neccessary for maintainance of nuclear triad. Everything else suffered massive loss of institutional knowledge and dearth of maintainance. So there is fifteen year gap that they are trying to bridge for the last fifteen years but it's slow and difficult undertaking.

[chanman]

The Russian Navy can't catch a break. Hard to rebuild your fleet when you keep on having problems with it.

I'd argue that they're catching all the breaks and right in the face to boot

[Wrangler]

I rather see them have problems than give everyone else problems.  They have ambitious goals for rearmament of their fleet. Nuclear carrier (Storm) and nuclear destroyer/cruiser thing.

PLAN has similar carrier goal, their third carrier on trials, their suppose to make two of the Type 002s.  However, no details if their as heavy as wiki says they were suppose to be. 85,000 tons.

[chanman]

Chinese Navy gotten their third aircraft carrier out and about on trials, designated Type 002. 

I'm pretty sure that's the Type 001A (the one that's still on sea trials). The Type 002 is not only still under construction, but is supposed to have a catapult, which may also mean no need for a ski ramp.

I did notice a lot of confusion over the actual numbering, but the carrier that's currently under trials is the Kuznetsov-derivative. The 2 examples of the next-model carriers (supposedly catapult-equipped) are still under construction.

[Daryk]

I'm certain any confusion over numbering is entirely deliberate.

[Wrangler]

I'm pretty sure that's the Type 001A (the one that's still on sea trials). The Type 002 is not only still under construction, but is supposed to have a catapult, which may also mean no need for a ski ramp.

I did notice a lot of confusion over the actual numbering, but the carrier that's currently under trials is the Kuznetsov-derivative. The 2 examples of the next-model carriers (supposedly catapult-equipped) are still under construction.

Media is certainly playing games then. Both the Liaonings and the Chinese sister ship are cruising around yet, they said third ship was out.  Sorry to have misinterpreted things.

[Ursus Maior]

https://mobile.twitter.com/Capt_Navy/status/1206177634771722240
Man that train the Russian Navy is on isn't stopping for a break.

That was a Tango that had been sitting in that same dock for a decade. Tangos have been out of service for at least that decade. It's not really a loss, operationwise. Doesn't look good either, though.

[Daryk]

It always looks bad when your trash pile falls over on its own.

[chanman]

Didn't the Washington Treaty slow down alot developmental improvements that the Royal Navy was trying to do?  They would had a very different Navy by the time WW2 broke out. 

I do wonder if the Aircraft Carrier would have been a thing hadn't Treaty hadn't gone done.  I think it would been still rise of the fleet carriers if War as we knew it came out, but the Carrier would came out much later or slower given Capital Ship race would have been still on with Battleships. 

Like the UK's G3-Class and US's 1920s era Proposal for the South Dakota Class Battleships or Lexington Class Battlecruisers.  I'm not sure what designs US had in mind or proposed, since 1920s South Dakotas were slow 23 knot ships more extensive (if not wild) UK designs which were pitched prior to compromise of the Nelson-Class became.

No, if anything the only country really held back by the naval treaties was the US. The Japanese didn't see it that way, but they only had a faint acquaintance with industrial reality anyway. WW1 did a real number on the economies of the British and French empires. The treaties not only capped the outlay of the fleets, but also provided an excuse to decommission a lot of older but still functioning warships and draw down personnel count (and that all-important payroll).

Speaking of treaties, I think everyone's familiar with the treaty 'cruiser' limit of 10,000 tonne displacement armed with 8-inch guns. Meet the 'prototype' those limits were drawn around: The Hawkins-class cruiser.


Probably notable because of the odd turret layout of 7 x 7.5" guns with wing turrets

[Luciora]

While doing some research on japanese torpedo launchers, I stumbled across this proposed Kongo layout.  That's alot of fish in the water if it was ever made.

[ANS Kamas P81]

Kitakami and Oi approve.

[I am Belch II]

The Kitakami was a light cruiser with 40 torpedo tubes. 40 Long Lance Torpedoes swimming their way towards the enemy what a shock.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_cruiser_Kitakami

[Weirdo]

Judging by my experience in a War at Sea game on Sunday,  Oi was a bastard, and I am REALLY glad that Kongo was never made. >:(

[Wrangler]

Would those torpedoes be questionable given what the reliability of the weapons were back then when came to Torpedoes prior to breakout of WW2?

[Dave Talley]

the long lance was very effective, probably responsible for more allied tonnage in the pacific than anything else iirc

[Istal_Devalis]

Long Lances didnt have the reliability issues of other nations.
They did have the problem of blowing up spectacularly if they got hit, though.

[ANS Kamas P81]

Long Lances didnt have the reliability issues of other nations.
They did have the problem of blowing up spectacularly if they got hit, though.

To be fair, so did anything they hit...

It wasn't just reliability, the accuracy of the torpedo and the extreme range it had was damned good.  Comparing the IJN Type 93 to the USN Mark 15, the 93 has 265 pounds more explosive (31% more) and the range/speed bands were far better.  Almost 4 times the range, at higher speeds, than the American torpedoes.  I mean, this thing could shoot dead-silent torpedoes with minute-of-fleet accuracy outside the range of even the Iowas.  That says something about how much better their torpedoes were.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/torps.htm

[Daryk]

And all of that was completely aside from the reliability issues of the American torpedoes...