Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise

[Daryk]

It varies, and will continue to.  On ships that can accommodate women without modifications (like carriers and large deck amphibs), there's no assignment restrictions that I know of (I don't work in personnel).  Overall, women make up ~19% of the Navy, and 25% has been stated as a goal overall and aboard ships.  It's certainly less than that in general.

[Wrangler]

Russian Navy's parking lot.  If i'm not mistaken, the two ships pictures are par of Udaloy-class destroyers.



The ship in the background looks likes a Whiskey-Class Submarine.  Not sure if the Class is right from that view. It has deck gun on the bloody thing!

[Kidd]

Russian Navy's parking lot.  If i'm not mistaken, the two ships pictures are par of Udaloy-class destroyers.

Absolutely hnnggh.

BTW just behind the right Udaloy you can see a Stereguschiy-class corvette.

[kato]

The ship in the background looks likes a Whiskey-Class Submarine.  Not sure if the Class is right from that view. It has deck gun on the bloody thing!

The submarine is the Stalinets-Class submarine S-56 (see pennant on the sail), active from 1941 to 1955 and turned into a museum in the mid 70s.

P.S.: She was originally built in Leningrad from '36 to '38, then knocked down and shipped across land to be reassembled in Vladivostok, commissioning in '41, then in '42 made her way back to the Northern Fleet by way of the Panama Canal. She transferred back to Vladivostok through the Northern Sea Route in '54, where she's been since then.

[marauder648]

That pic looks like it's just begging to have a wave climb the bow and do bad things to the helicopter deck and pilot house windows.  I'd be willing to bet that the design would minimize that, though.

Yeah the X-bow design is very clever

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZ934OKFnHY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zZ_tzndh1U

Those short vids show the effectiveness of the hull form, even when it drops into a trough there's little splash.

[JadeHellbringer]

The submarine is the Stalinets-Class submarine S-56 (see pennant on the sail), active from 1941 to 1955 and turned into a museum in the mid 70s.

P.S.: She was originally built in Leningrad from '36 to '38, then knocked down and shipped across land to be reassembled in Vladivostok, commissioning in '41, then in '42 made her way back to the Northern Fleet by way of the Panama Canal. She transferred back to Vladivostok through the Northern Sea Route in '54, where she's been since then.

I don't even know where I'd start to find out for sure, but I'd wager that makes her the only Soviet submarine to ever transit the canal.

[kato]

Nah, she was with a group of six submarines according to Russian wikipedia. Apparently at least four other submarines went the other way, from the Atlantic to the Pacific in 1944.

Apparently, somewhat interestingly, no Soviet/Russian warships used the canal at all between 1944 and 2008.

[Kidd]

Russian Navy's parking lot.  If i'm not mistaken, the two ships pictures are par of Udaloy-class destroyers.

And here is the other side of the shot. I don't know when the above is dated, but this one was (allegedly) taken on the 25th of December, on the commissioning of 335, the Steregushchy Class corvette Gromkiy.

[Wrangler]

If i'm not mistaken, China's CV-17 (it's first domestically home-built carrier of the Type 01A Class) is almost ready for it's trials (if not already done so).  They haven't formally announced the name of the ship yet.

[Sabelkatten]

How does the 01A compare to the Q.E.?

[Wrangler]

How does the 01A compare to the Q.E.?

I'm just former enlisted guy who follows Navy related development closely.  So this is my point of view.

She has a fixed wing compliment, using no Catapult, but using up fuel to launch from the ramp.  Its still a lot of still fixed wing aircraft being kicked off the deck.  CV-17 is 55,000 tons unloaded, while QE is 65,000 tons unloaded.  While QE II is heavier ship, her air compliment are more helicopter than fixed wing.  Type 01A has same rough number of aircraft as QE, again they are fixed wing with longer ranges than QE could hope for. It's unclear from what I read since both ships are virtually new, still in their respected sea trials what their actual air compliment suppose to be made of, however it's suspected Type 01A aka CV-17 is suppose to have 32 Shenyang J-15 (Copied Su-33) Jet Fighters.  I don't think the British will be carrying alot F-35Bs for cost reasons, so its likely there will be roughly squadron of 6-8 of them on board with rest mix of Helicopters and Attack Helicopters.  I would imagine that if in a pinch, the QE could carry more Jet fighters in time of war.  How many safely is uncleared, it's not published publicly.

[truetanker]

Well here's a real beauty!



TT

[Wrangler]

The actual ship the above battletech one is based on, Sovremennyy-class destroyer.


The Osmotritelnyy, one of member class ships.

[Dragon Cat]

I'm just former enlisted guy who follows Navy related development closely.  So this is my point of view.

She has a fixed wing compliment, using no Catapult, but using up fuel to launch from the ramp.  Its still a lot of still fixed wing aircraft being kicked off the deck.  CV-17 is 55,000 tons unloaded, while QE is 65,000 tons unloaded.  While QE II is heavier ship, her air compliment are more helicopter than fixed wing.  Type 01A has same rough number of aircraft as QE, again they are fixed wing with longer ranges than QE could hope for. It's unclear from what I read since both ships are virtually new, still in their respected sea trials what their actual air compliment suppose to be made of, however it's suspected Type 01A aka CV-17 is suppose to have 32 Shenyang J-15 (Copied Su-33) Jet Fighters.  I don't think the British will be carrying alot F-35Bs for cost reasons, so its likely there will be roughly squadron of 6-8 of them on board with rest mix of Helicopters and Attack Helicopters.  I would imagine that if in a pinch, the QE could carry more Jet fighters in time of war.  How many safely is uncleared, it's not published publicly.

Normal complement of F35 is 12 but it ramps up to 24 or something in war deployment

[chanman]

The PLAN has a much larger surface fleet to flesh out the carrier's battlegroup. With 6 Type 45 Destroyers and 13 Type 23 frigates, it looks like the RN would be hard pressed to fill out two full CVBGs once your account for ships operating independently, undergoing overhaul, escorting amphibs, etc.

[ANS Kamas P81]

There's a lot of sub captains around the world just ITCHING to be the first to get hull photographs of this thing...

[I am Belch II]

In major war the QE can carry up to 50 aircraft. Its normal load will be a lot lower.

[Kidd]

UK MOD advised that once operational, a QE would usually sail as a "commando carrier" with 12 F35Bs for air defence, or regularly with 24 F35Bs such as on her first operational deployment, or with 36 F35Bs in "all der Lightnings" mode, in addition to AEW and plane guard helis of course.

QE's first captain also said they can carry even more than that, but at reduced operational efficiency.

The PLAN has a much larger surface fleet to flesh out the carrier's battlegroup. With 6 Type 45 Destroyers and 13 Type 23 frigates, it looks like the RN would be hard pressed to fill out two full CVBGs once your account for ships operating independently, undergoing overhaul, escorting amphibs, etc.

Most any event calling for both QE and POW to operate will not have any RN ships operating independently, it'll be a all hands on deck effort similar to 1982.

But of course the PLAN is much bigger than the RN, no denying that.

[ANS Kamas P81]

I imagine the plan is to never operate Liz and Wales together at all, but cycle them in an on/off schedule - one in the water doing things, the other in dock for maintenance.  Considering the cycle times for US CVNs, and the smaller design, I could see them trading off every 24 months or so.

[worktroll]

The Italian motor torpedo boat MAS 15. in 1918, she sank the Austro-Hungarian battleship SMS Szent Istvan.

W.

[Wrangler]

French Torpedo Boat No 63 in what is believed to be 1880.


Sadly there isn't alot on her, what is interesting about this picture is was taken in the Military port of Toulon, France's main naval dockyard, It's been speculated that the bow of the ship facing the camera is to the French ironclad Couronne, which seems to have operated from Toulon.  The vessel in the right background it's suspected to be the French ironclad Gloire, the world's first ironclad warship.

(This info came from Wikipedia question).

[Colt Ward]

Torpedo boat?  Looks pretty sub-ish to me though it does have a rear facing funnel?

[glitterboy2098]

back then the line between submarines and torpedo boats was more blurred.

according to some quick research, that's a 3rd Class French Navy Torpedo boat built by Thornycroft by their Chiswick yard in 1878, modifying the HMS Lightning design. it had a Steam Engine (using a modified locomotive engine design) and was armed with a single spar torpedo. like most early torpedo boats, it was built to have a very low waterline. what we now would call a semi-submersible. the idea being that being so low in the water would make it harder to detect and hit, while also putting the spar torpedo into the right position when it hit the target to break the enemy's keel.
as a 3rd class design it was meant for harbor defense rather than fleet use, thus the lack of any secondary weapons. though supposedly it had good sea handling. the french would later refit three of that model to have a single whitehead torpedo tube, and would go on to build their own knockoff versions of the torpedo armed ones.

while nothing i've found on it says specifically, i'd guess it probably started out as a 1st or 2nd class ship (for use in fleet actions or coastal defense) but the advent the Royal Navy adopting the whitehead torpedo only a year or so before the Torpilleur 8 through 19 were delivered saw the design downgraded, since spar torpedoes were obsolete.

given the hull number i'm personally not convinced that is the 1878 Thornycroft design though.. especially since it doesn't look much like the HMS Lightning.
as first designed:

post-2nd refit to add the whitehead torpedo tube. (first refit added two torps in drop collars hung off the sides.. which proved unreliable)


my guess it would either be one of the french built knockoffs, which switched to diesel engines, or a one off Thornycroft built one from the mid to late 1880's. many of their designs from then have similar lines.

[kato]

given the hull number i'm personally not convinced that is the 1878 Thornycroft design though..

The 33m type that No 63 belongs to were built at Normand between 1882 and 1885 with 15 units built (No 60 to 74), based on a prototype submitted by Normand as an alternative to the Thornycroft prototype series. The first six - including No 63 - were built with a single 15-inch torpedo tube, the last nine with a ram bow and 14-inch torpedo tube.

That they were built by Normand is important insofar as the French Navy subsequently "redesigned" them inhouse and handed serial production of the next derivative type with 51 units built to about every shipyard except Normand. Normand reacted by submitting their own derivative design again, and managed to land the contracts for the next three series with a total of 165 units built during the 1890s.

while nothing i've found on it says specifically, i'd guess it probably started out as a 1st or 2nd class ship (for use in fleet actions or coastal defense)

The "1st"/"2nd" effectively only denotes the generation for French torpedo boats of that time.

Generation 1 = introduced before 1880
Generation 2 = introduced before 1890
Generation 3 = introduced after 1890

Initially Generation 1 was introduced as "Torpilleurs de Garde-Cotes" (coast guard torpedo boats). When Generation 2 (like the 33m type) rolled in they decided to split that into the new ships as the "Torpilleurs de 1ere Class" and the old ships as the "Torpilleurs de 2eme Class". In 1890, with the introduction of Generation 3, these again became 1ere Class and the older two classes were pushed back one number, thus creating 2eme/3eme Class (some smaller high sea torpedo boats were also pressed into the scheme by displacement in 1890, with the Doudard de Lagrée class becoming part of 2eme Class).

The exception to this 1st/2nd/3rd class scheme were the "Torpilleurs-Vedettes", which existed as a separate class of small torpedo boats - defined as below 20t displacement in 1890. The 17 "Torpilleurs-Vedettes" - of three types - were intended to be carried as deployed by carrier ships, for which only one existed: the torpedo boat carrier Foudre. The name may be familiar, since after the concept was abandoned this ship was rebuilt into the first seaplane carrier.

[Daryk]

And we think the games contractors and governments play these days are rough...  ::)

[Nightlord01]

Torpedo boat?  Looks pretty sub-ish to me though it does have a rear facing funnel?

From what I've read, modern submarines effectively evolved from torpedo boats. Despite there being several noteworthy submarines before torpedo boats were even conceived, their true genesis comes from a mix between torpedo boats and destroyers.

[marauder648]

[Daryk]

That is a gorgeous picture Marauder...  And you could even say it includes a submarine or two... ;)

More seriously, that is one heck of a filter on the camera!

[ANS Kamas P81]

Proof it's flat after all, you can even see the edge of the ocean!

[Kidd]

Dutch Holland-class OPV, what a beaut

Could adding a Marlet or Hellfire type missile launcher improve its usefulness against pirates/suicide boats, or is it overspec?