Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 22 of 24  [ 235 posts ]  Go to page « 120 21 22 23 24 »
Author Message
Tobius
Post subject: Re: Novgorod AUPosted: August 8th, 2017, 7:51 pm
Offline
Posts: 545
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 2:10 pm
Gollevainen wrote: *
No, its a long range anti-ship missile similar size and capabilities as Soviet Granit (SS-N-19 Shipwreck)
One small note. There is nothing in the guidance package of the Granit or any Russian anti-ship missile that prohibits land attack capability in the bird. It is a built in targeting feature of the inertial navigation auto-pilot. One of the secondary missions of such missiles, for example, was as anti-airfield weapons.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Gollevainen
Post subject: Re: Novgorod AUPosted: August 9th, 2017, 8:58 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 4685
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:10 am
Location: Finland
Contact: Website
Yeah in theory it could be used as a land attack missile, but it was in both cases with both missiles, in this AU and OTL developed to anti-ship missile as a main purpose of the weapon.

_________________
Shipbucket mainsite, aka "The Archive"
New AU project "Aravala"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Tobius
Post subject: Re: Novgorod AUPosted: August 9th, 2017, 12:38 pm
Offline
Posts: 545
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 2:10 pm
The "secondary" mission for the Russian missiles was specifically designed for Norway, Great Britain, Iceland, and in the Pacific for the US air bases in Japan and certain western Pacific islands. In effect it is a necessary precursor function to break the GIUK gap air defense first and to shatter in the Pacific what we now know, from the Chinese heirs to Russian naval strategy, as the First Island Ring, so that Russian naval forces can pass through the geographic choke lanes into open ocean to operate.

Functionally; long before the Russian surface action groups could ever hope to close to missile range in a naval engagement, they would have to accomplish those anti-airfield missions first to remove western airpower which was the primary means of blockade in place.

And to be honest, (Only my opinion, and I'm sure that there are experts on this board who can check it.), given the essentially crude and easily defeatable nature of those missiles by ship-borne countermeasures, it makes sense to incorporate such a land attack function to get some successful use out of the Russian weapons. Especially for an AU such as this one, a smaller, weaker maritime nation will see the need for such a feature in its naval anti-ship weapons. Taiwan and Japan as RTL examples instantly come to mind.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Gollevainen
Post subject: Re: Novgorod AUPosted: August 12th, 2017, 10:36 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 4685
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:10 am
Location: Finland
Contact: Website
12.8 Aircraft Carriers

12.8.1 Post-War modernisation of wartime carriers
[ img ]
[ img ]
[ img ]
[ img ]
[ img ]

_________________
Shipbucket mainsite, aka "The Archive"
New AU project "Aravala"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Gollevainen
Post subject: Re: Novgorod AUPosted: August 12th, 2017, 10:39 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 4685
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:10 am
Location: Finland
Contact: Website
12.8.2 New construction 1945-1991

[ img ]
[ img ]
[ img ]
[ img ]
[ img ]
[ img ]
[ img ]
[ img ]
[ img ]
[ img ]
[ img ]
[ img ]
[ img ]
[ img ]
[ img ]
[ img ]

_________________
Shipbucket mainsite, aka "The Archive"
New AU project "Aravala"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Gollevainen
Post subject: Re: Novgorod AUPosted: August 12th, 2017, 10:42 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 4685
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:10 am
Location: Finland
Contact: Website
12.8.3 Construction after 1991

[ img ]
[ img ]
[ img ]
[ img ]
[ img ]
[ img ]

_________________
Shipbucket mainsite, aka "The Archive"
New AU project "Aravala"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
odysseus1980
Post subject: Re: Novgorod AUPosted: August 12th, 2017, 12:35 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3580
Joined: November 8th, 2010, 8:53 am
Location: Athens,Hellenic Kingdom
Contact: Website
Very nice series again. I tend to believe that if USSR had built carriers from late 1940's they could evolved in a similar way.

The I-23/27 look like MiG-23. I remember that a carrier version of Flogger was to developed for the Orel carrier (which cancelled before laid down and the Kiev was built instead).


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Hood
Post subject: Re: Novgorod AUPosted: August 12th, 2017, 12:45 pm
Offline
Posts: 7150
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am
Fantastic work Golly. All of these ships are beautiful but I knew the carriers would be a real treat and you haven't disappointed.

I like how you have worked in the newer Russian designs, I must admit compared to the Soviet-era designs they look almost comical, like the Lider and tri-hull amphibious assault ship rather than serious designs. I guess time will tell if these are propaganda stunts or if they were emerge in metal form in the real world.

One point I might make though is that the Novogordian Navy does seem to be a little ahead of the curve with angled flight decks and steam catapults than RL even in Western navies.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Blackbuck
Post subject: Re: Novgorod AUPosted: August 12th, 2017, 12:53 pm
Offline
Posts: 2741
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 9:15 am
Location: Birmingham, United Kingdom
Yay! I was patiently waiting for your carriers to make their début.

_________________
AU Projects: | Federal Monarchy of Tír Glas| Other Ivernic Nations | Artemis Group |
Blood and Fire


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Tobius
Post subject: Re: Novgorod AUPosted: August 12th, 2017, 4:06 pm
Offline
Posts: 545
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 2:10 pm
These are beautifully drawn and the fluff that came with them is fantastic!

Can I make some small observations? These are my opinions and are based on RTL experience with aircraft.

1. STOBAR carries are all fish and no fowl. What I mean by that is that you are not likely to find steam catapults on a STOBAR carrier. These machines are mechanically complex and take up too much deck space. The catapults also compete with the ski ramp for assisted takeoff function. At least that seems to be the RTL reasoning and current practice.

2. Up to now, I have seen no operational evidence that anyone has solved the stall problem that a catapult assisted shot off a ski-ramp entails for a launched naval aircraft. At least nothing in the literature shows that either the Russians or British have solved it in the RTL, I may have missed it.

3. I observe this other RTL item to consider for the AU aircraft fluff for early Novgorad AU naval jets. The USN had a lot of trouble with early pure swept wing Sabre-like jets, especially in traps. (Dutch rolls and stalls on approach.). Anything that looks like a Mig 19 in planform is possibly susceptible to the same RTL problems? The reason the 1950s modified cranked delta Panthers and Phantoms and the British Sea Vixens look the way they do is because a cranked delta planform is far more forgiving in a trap in near stall conditions. These jets of this era, one could suggest, were all underpowered compared to their piston engined predecessors and the present current generations of naval jets. There was no emergency military reserve for a pilot to power his way out of an A of A mistake.

4. I like the Stalin/Kruschev nod to history that shows up in these designs. I also like the distinctly Russian (read Italian), feel to the aesthetic. The Project 1153 and its predecessors look like one could trace them back to the RMS Aquila.

5. I know some people might complain about the placement of elevators and deck fouling with VLS missile systems shown in the art, but I am not one of them. This is actually RTL and historically justified by what the Russians do and did for what to them seem very good technical reasons. Only battle (currently Syria), has shown them that they might have to rethink some of their feeder elevator arrangements; but that is something more of a deck operations handling problem than anything a designer or artist need worry about here. The drawn arrangements can and should work quite well.

6. I do have one question based on my ignorance and my need to learn. Why three screw shafts? For turning circle and into the wind sheer reasons, US carriers have adopted either two or four shaft and symmetric rudder control for their carriers. Most other navies do or did the same. Why would the AU Novgorod navy be different? I mean I don't understand it and I would like to know the advantages. The RTL Germans were not stupid. They considered a three shaft and three rudder arrangement in some of their notional 1930s carrier designs.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 22 of 24  [ 235 posts ]  Return to “Alternate Universe Designs” | Go to page « 120 21 22 23 24 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]