Pyotr Veliky – flagship of the Northern Fleet

A heavy nuclear-powered cruiser (TAKR), the fourth Kirov Class battle cruiser of the Russian Navy, originally named Yuriy Andropov (Юрий Андропов). It is the flagship of the Northern Fleet.

Because of economic problems both before and after the fall of the Soviet Union, work on her was severely postponed. It was not commissioned until 1996, ten years after the construction started. She had now been renamed Pyotr Velikiy, Russian for Peter The Great.

After completing her acceptance trials in November 1996, she was transferred to the Northern Fleet at Severomorsk and becoming the flagship of the Northern Fleet.

In August 2000 Pyotr Velikiy was in the Barents Sea involved in the largest naval training exercise since the fall of the Soviet Union. She was to be the designated target of the Oscar-II Class submarine K-141 Kursk, and was conducting evasive maneuvers when communication with Kursk was lost, the submarine apparently having suffered a catastrophic torpedo detonation with all hands lost. Pyotr Velikiy guarded the area where the submarine sank during the subsequent salvage operation in 2001.

In March, 2004, Russian Navy chief Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov declared the Pyotr Velikiy unfit for service due to problems with the ship's engineering maintenance.On April 19, 2004, she was docked in the floating drydock PD-50 for painting of the underside of the hull, repairs and examination of the steering system. The repairs were completed later that year, and she was carrying out missions again by August. Pyotr Velikiy has been known to carry two Pennant Number during her service; "183" and currently "099".

Graphical Info

(Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org)

Medium Range Surface To Air Missile For Malaysia's Air Defense

Air defense is the most crucial part in the national security issue. With the increasing of missile and combat aircraft technology nowadays, this 'air enemy' could creating the threats whether inside or outside from this region. Area air defense could be one of the platform for naval forces in order to creating the total defense against the air threats from the enemy. but the question is, how effective of this platform can give the total protection to the country?. How about the ground platform of MRSAM? the combination of naval and ground platform will be the solution of national air defense.Below are the choices of the MRSAM for requirement of Area Air Defense:

Land Based

ASTER 30 SAMP/T














Manufacturer: MBDA
Max Range:120 km

The system comprises a fire control system based on a multi-function electronic scanning radar and a Vertical Ground Launcher mounted on Italian Astra/Iveco and French Renault-TRM 10000 trucks and capable of firing eight missiles in rapid sequence. The Aster 30 missile system offers high-level tactical and strategic mobility and due to its high rate of fire is capable of countering saturating threats. SAMP/T with the Aster 30 Block 1 missile can intercept ballistic missiles of ranges up to 600 km. The Arabel Multi-Function Radar operating in the I/J band, having a full hemispherical coverage, high track data refreshment rate and good accuracy A tactical operations center (ME), fully interoperable with allied forces, allowing flexibility in operational modes, Up to six Vertical Launching Systems, each containing eight ready-to-fire missiles, ASTER 30 anti-missile missiles. The SAMP/T system provides 360° defense and an all weather capability. It also features an extremely quick response time, a high firing rate, and the capability to engage many targets simultaneously. It is designed with a high built-in test capability, and requires limited logistics. No more than two people are required to operate the system and the engagement sequence or on board maintenance tasks can be managed in a very comprehensive manner. The use of standard conventional control symbols and a Man Machine Interface (MMI) optimised with the end user in mind allows for easy system use.

Tor M1 9M330






















Manufacturer: Unknown
Max Range:25 km

The system is comprised of a number of missile Transporter Launcher Vehicle (TLV),Each TLV is equipped with 8 ready to launch missiles, associating radars, fire control systems and a battery command post. The combat vehicle can operate autonomously, firing from stationary positions or on the move. Set-up time is rated at 3 minutes and typical reaction time, from target detection to missile launch is 5-8 seconds. Reaction time could range from 3.4 seconds for stationary positions to 10 seconds while on the move. Each fire unit can engage and launch missiles against two separate targets. Tor M1 can detect and track up to 48 targets (minimum radar cross section of 0.1 square meter) at a maximum range of 25 km, and engage two of them simultaneously, at a speed of up to 700 m/sec, and at a distance of 1 to 12 km. The system's high lethality (aircraft kill probability of 0.92-0.95) is maintained at altitude of 10 – 6,000 m'. The vertically launched, single-stage solid rocket propelled missile is capable of maneuvering at loads up to 30gs. It is equipped with a 15kg high-explosive fragmentation warhead activated by a proximity fuse. The system is offered as fully integrated tracked combat vehicle, or as a modular combat unit (TOR-M1T) comprising a truck mounted mobile control module and launcher/antenna units, carried on a trailer. Other configuration include separated towed systems, as well as shelter-based systems, for the protection of fixed sites.

(Ref: www.mbda-systems.com and defense-update.com/products/t/tor)

Indigenous Armored Personal Carrier (APC) of Malaysia

Pars 8x8

Crew: 2 men

Personnel: 12 men

Dimensions and weight

Weight: 24.5 t
Length: 7.96 m
Width: 2.7 m
Height: 2.17 m
Mobility
Engine: Deutz diesel
Engine power: 530 hp
Maximum road speed: 100 km/h
Amphibious speed on water: 5 - 6 km/h
Range: over 1 500 km
Maneuverability
Gradient: 70%
Side slope: 60%
Vertical step: 0.7 m
Trench: 2.4 m
Fording: Amphibious















Patria AMV

Crew: 3 men
Personnel: 10 men

Dimensions and weight

Weight: 16 - 26 t
Length: 7.75 m
Width: 2.83 m
Height: 2.35 m

Armament

Main gun -
Grenade launcher 1 x 40-mm
Machine guns 1 x 12.7-mm
Elevation range: - 8 to + 48 degrees
Traverse range: 360 degrees
Mobility
Engine Scania DI 12 diesel
Engine power: 490 / 540 hp
Maximum road speed: over 100 km/h
Amphibious speed on water: 6 - 10 km/h
Range: 800 km
Maneuverability
Gradient: 60%
Side slope: 30%
Vertical step: 0.7 m
Trench: 2 m
Fording: Amphibious















Mowag Piranha IV

Crew: 3 men
Personnel: 9 men

Dimensions and weight

Weight (in combat order): 15 - 25 t
Length: 7.3 m
Width: 2.8 m
Height: 2.25 m

Armament

Main gun: 30-mm chain gun
Machine guns: 1 x 7.62-mm
Elevation range: - 10 to + 45 degrees
Traverse range: 360 degrees
Ammunition load
Main gun: 190 rounds
Machine guns: 400 rounds
Mobility
Engine: MTU diesel
Engine power: 544 hp
Maximum road speed: 100 km/h
Range: 750 km
Maneuverability
Gradient: 60%
Side slope: 30%
Vertical step: 0.7 m
Trench: 2 m
Fording: 1.5 m

There are some comparison are being made base on the specification of 3 different 8x8 APC, look at the bold specifications, there are pro and con in term of certain aspects, anyway letter of intent was signed by Malaysian government and give the local defense firm, DRB-Hicom Defence Technologies Sdn Bhd (Deftech)to develop the 8x8 Armoured-Wheeled Vehicle (8x8 AWV) programme with the support of the Defence Ministry, Malaysian Army and the Malaysian Defence Industry Council. This R&D also involving the plan of expanding their existing plant in Pekan as well as to equipped that plant with the new machinery and equipment also some investment on local talent (engineer, technician, etc.)later on.

(Ref:www.military-today.com/apc)

New MRCA for RMAF

Since the procurement of SU-30MKM, Malaysia was eager to look for another Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MRCA), in order to continue their modernization program for the air force. The initial target for establishing 2 squadrons of MRCA seems to be retarded due to economic crisis. Minister of defense was mentioned earlier the possibility of buying American made MRCA (F/A 18E/F) is quite high because of the interesting offers from the manufacturer (Boeing). Anyway what is so special about this MRCA? let's have a look the specifications of F/A 18E/F hornet that shows below:

































General characteristics

* Crew: F/A-18E: 1, F/A-18F: 2
* Length: 60 ft 1¼ in (18.31 m)
* Wingspan: 44 ft 8½ in (13.62 m)
* Height: 16 ft (4.88 m)
* Wing area: 500 ft² (46.45 m²)
* Empty weight: 30,600 lb (13,900 kg)
* Loaded weight: 47,000 lb (21,320 kg) (in fighter configuration)
* Max takeoff weight: 66,000 lb (29,900 kg)
* Powerplant: 2× General Electric F414-GE-400 turbofans
o Dry thrust: 14,000 lbf (62.3 kN) each
o Thrust with afterburner: 22,000 lbf (97.9 kN) each
* Internal fuel capacity: F/A-18E: 14,400 lb (6,530 kg), F/A-18F: 13,550 lb
(6,145 kg)
* External fuel capacity: 5 × 480 gal tanks, totaling 16,380 lb (7,430 kg)

Performance

* Maximum speed: Mach 1.8+[12] (1,190 mph, 1,900 km/h) at 40,000 ft (12,190 m)
* Range: 1,275 nmi (2,346 km) clean plus two AIM-9s[12]
* Combat radius: 390 nmi (449 mi, 722 km) for interdiction mission[82]
* Ferry range: 1,800 nmi (2,070 mi, 3,330 km)
* Service ceiling: 50,000+ ft (15,000+ m)
* Wing loading: 92.8 lb/ft² (453 kg/m²)
* Thrust/weight: 0.93

Armament

* Guns: 1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M61 Vulcan nose mounted gatling gun, 578 rounds
* Hardpoints: 11 total: 2× wingtips, 6× under-wing, and 3× under-fuselage with a
capacity of 17,750 lb (8,050 kg) external fuel and ordnance
* Rockets:
* Missiles:
o Air-to-air missiles:
+ 4× AIM-9 Sidewinder or 4× AIM-120 AMRAAM, and
+ 2× AIM-7 Sparrow or additional 2× AIM-120 AMRAAM
o Air-to-surface missiles:
+ AGM-65 Maverick
+ Standoff Land Attack Missile (SLAM-ER)
+ AGM-88 HARM Anti-radiation missile
+ AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW)
o Anti-ship missile:
+ AGM-84 Harpoon
* Bombs:
o JDAM Precision-guided munition (PGMs)
o Paveway series of Laser guided bombs
o Mk 80 series of unguided iron bombs
o CBU-87 cluster
o CBU-78 Gator
o CBU-97
o Mk 20 Rockeye II
* Others:
o SUU-42A/A Flares/Infrared decoys dispenser pod and chaff pod or
o Electronic countermeasures (ECM) pod or
o AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR Targeting pods or
o up to 3× 330 US gallon (1,200 L) Sargent Fletcher drop tanks for ferry
flight or extended range/loitering time or
o 1× 330 US gal (1,200 L) tank and 4× 480 US gal (1,800 L) tanks for
aerial refueling system (ARS).

Avionics

* Hughes APG-73 or Raytheon APG-79 Radar

Payload Flexibility

The Super Hornet's versatility applies to its weapon stations and payload types:

* 11 weapon stations
* Supports a full complement of smart weapons, including laser-guided bombs
* Carries a full spectrum mix of air-to-air and air-to-ground ordnance

Power and Flight Characteristics

The Super Hornet is powered by two General Electric F414-GE-400 engines:

* Distinctive caret-shaped inlet to provide increased airflow and reduced radar
signature
* 22,000 pounds (98 Kn) of thrust per engine, 44,000 pounds (196 Kn) per aircraft

Flight qualities:

* Highly departure resistant through its operational flight envelope.
* Unlimited angle-of-attack and carefree flying qualities for highly effective
combat capability and ease of training.
* Reconfigurable digital flight-control system detects and corrects for battle
damage.

Upgradeability

Long-term designed in versatility ensures the Super Hornet's investment value. Current upgrades delivered in the Block Two configuration include:

* Active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar
* Advanced targeting forward-looking infrared (ATFLIR) system
* Joint-helmet mounted cueing system (JHMCS)
* Multifunctional information distribution system (MIDS)
* Advanced aft crew station
* Fibre channel switch for increased data processing capability
* Fully integrated weapons systems and sensors for reduced crew workload and
increased capability.

(ref: en.wikipedia.org and www.boeing.com)

Extreame Engineering: The Construction of Underwater Tunnel (project example)

Tunnels built across the bottoms of rivers, bays and other bodies of water use the cut-and-cover method, which involves immersing a tube in a trench and covering it with material to keep the tube in place.

Construction begins by dredging a trench in the riverbed or ocean floor. Long, prefabricated tube sections, made of steel or concrete and sealed to keep out water, are floated to the site and sunk in the prepared trench. Then divers connect the sections and remove the seals. Any excess water is pumped out, and the entire tunnel is covered with backfill.

The tunnel connecting England and France -- known as the Channel Tunnel, the Euro Tunnel or Chunnel -- runs beneath the English Channel through 32 miles of soft, chalky earth. Although it's one of the longest tunnels in the world, it took just three years to excavate, thanks to state-of-the-art TBMs. Eleven of these massive machines chewed through the seabed that lay beneath the Channel. Why so many? Because the Chunnel actually consists of three parallel tubes, two that carry trains and one that acts as a service tunnel. Two TBMs placed on opposite ends of the tunnel dug each of these tubes. In essence, the three British TBMs raced against the three French TBMs to see who would make it to the middle first. The remaining five TBMs worked inland, creating the portion of the tunnel that lay between the portals and their respective coasts.

Unless the tunnel is short, control of the environment is essential to provide safe working conditions and to ensure the safety of passengers after the tunnel is operational. One of the most important concerns is ventilation -- a problem magnified by waste gases produced by trains and automobiles. Clifford Holland addressed the problem of ventilation when he designed the tunnel that bears his name. His solution was to add two additional layers above and below the main traffic tunnel. The upper layer clears exhaust fumes, while the lower layer pumps in fresh air. Four large ventilation towers, two on each side of the Hudson River, house the fans that move the air in and out. Eighty-four fans, each 80 feet in diameter, can change the air completely every 90 seconds.

Now that we've looked at some of the general principles of tunnel building, let's consider an ongoing tunnel project that continues to make headlines, both for its potential and for its problems. The Central Artery is a major highway system running through the heart of downtown Boston, and the project that bears its name is considered by many to be one of the most complex -- and expensive -- engineering feats in American history. The "Big Dig" is actually several different projects in one, including a brand-new bridge and several tunnels. One key tunnel, completed in 1995, is the Ted Williams Tunnel. It dives below the Boston Harbor to take Interstate 90 traffic from South Boston to Logan Airport. Another key tunnel is located below the Fort Point Channel, a narrow body of water used long ago by the British as a toll collection point for ships. This underwater tunnel took advantage of tried-and-true tunneling techniques used on many different tunnels all over the world. Because the Boston Harbor is fairly deep, engineers used the cut-and-cover method. Steel tubes, 40 feet in diameter and 300 feet long, were towed to Boston after workers made them in Baltimore. There, workers finished each tube with supports for the road, enclosures for the air-handling passages and utilities and a complete lining. Other laborers dredged a trench on the harbor floor. Then, they floated the tubes to the site, filled them with water and lowered them into the trench. Once anchored, a pump removed the water and workers connected the tubes to the adjoining sections.
A few miles west, Interstate 90 enters another tunnel that carries the highway below South Boston. Just before the I-90/I-93 interchange, the tunnel encounters the Fort Point Channel, a 400-foot-wide body of water that provided some of the biggest challenges of the Big Dig. Engineers couldn't use the same steel-tube approach they employed on the Ted Williams Tunnel because there wasn't enough room to float the long steel sections under bridges at Summer Street, Congress Street and Northern Avenue. Eventually, they decided to abandon the steel-tube concept altogether and go with concrete tunnel sections.

The problem was fabricating the concrete sections in a way that allowed workers to move into position in the channel. To solve the problem, workers first built an enormous dry dock on the South Boston side of the channel. Known as the casting basin, the dry dock measured 1,000 feet long, 300 feet wide and 60 feet deep -- big enough to construct the six concrete sections that would make up the tunnel. The longest of the six tunnel sections was 414 feet long, the widest 174 feet wide. All were about 27 feet high. The heaviest weighed more than 50,000 tons.

The completed sections were sealed watertight at either end. Then workers flooded the basin so they could float out the sections and position them over a trench dredged on the bottom of the channel. Unfortunately, another challenge prevented engineers from simply lowering the concrete sections into the trench. That challenge was the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority's Red Line subway tunnel, which runs just under the trench. The weight of the massive concrete sections would damage the older subway tunnel if nothing were done to protect it. So engineers decided to prop up the tunnel sections using 110 columns sunk into the bedrock. The columns distribute the weight of the tunnel and protect the Red Line subway, which continues to carry 1,000 passengers a day.

The Big Dig features other tunneling innovations, as well. For one portion of the tunnel running beneath a railroad yard and bridge, engineers settled on tunnel-jacking, a technique normally used to install underground pipes. Tunnel-jacking involves forcing a huge concrete box through the dirt. The top and bottom of the box support the soil while the earth inside the box was removed. Once it was empty, hydraulic jacks pushed the box against a concrete wall until the entire thing slid forward five feet. Workers then installed spacer tubes in the newly-created gap. By repeating this process over and over, engineers were able to advance the tunnel without disturbing the structures at the surface.

This new underground expressway has eight to ten lanes and will carry about 245,000 vehicles a day by 2010.

The conclusions are As their tools improve, engineers continue to build longer and bigger tunnels. Recently, advanced imaging technology has been available to scan the inside of the earth by computing how sound waves travel through the ground. This new tool provides an accurate snapshot of a tunnel's potential environment, showing rock and soil types, as well as geologic anomalies such as faults and fissures.

While such technology promises to improve tunnel planning, other advances will expedite excavation and ground support. The next generation of tunnel-boring machines will be able to cut 1,600 tons of muck per hour. Engineers are also experimenting with other rock-cutting methods that take advantage of high-pressure water jets, lasers or ultrasonics. And chemical engineers are working on new types of concrete that harden faster because they use resins and other polymers instead of cement.

With new technologies and techniques, tunnels that seemed impossible even 10 years ago suddenly seem doable. One such tunnel is a proposed Transatlantic Tunnel connecting New York with London. The 3,100-mile-long tunnel would house a magnetically-levitated train traveling 5,000 miles per hour. The estimated trip time is 54 minutes -- almost seven hours shorter than an average transatlantic flight.

(this article was adapted from the ref: http://science.howstuffworks.com/tunnel4.htm)

Method Statement for Construction of Groove Texture on Retaining Wall Surface

This method statement has been written by the writer during a duty as a Site Engineer in a construction of 40 storey luxury condominium at Mont Kiara, Kuala Lumpur.
















1.0. Objective

The objective of this statement is to outline the work method for the construction of groove line to Western Retaining Wall.

2.0. Scope of Works

The works is limited to the Western Retaining Wall from Ch. 0.00m to Ch.192m and between the Top of Suspended Driveway and Top of Retaining Wall.

3.0. References

a) Project Quality Plan
b) SD / Grooveline / 01 Groove Line Detail
c) SD / Grooveline / 02 R.C. Retaining Wall between Gridline A and B
d) PVC Beads / Groove Products Sheet
e) TY Lin’s drawing RD-4, 80 17 Road Reserve Profile (This drawing is not attached herewith in this statement)

4.0. Resources

4.1. Material

a) Ordinary Portland Cement to BS 12
b) Sand shall be clean, free from clay and other impurities and to BS 1199: 1976
c) PVC - Groove SC 1550

4.2. Machineries / Tools / Equipment

Concrete Mixer 1
Wheel barrel 2
Trowel -
Plumb -

4.3. Manpower

Supervisor 1
Carpenter 1
Skill Workers 4
Unskill Workers 3

5.0. Methodology

Plastering Work Instruction

5.1. Roughen the surface of retaining wall by means of axe.

5.2. Prepare the level peg on the surface of retaining wall by using the motar mixture (1 part of OPC and 3 parts of sand). Size of each level peg is 50mm × 50mm × 15mm high @ 1.5m apart in both directions.

5.3. Apply the base plaster on the surface of retaining wall. The thickness of base plaster approximately between the ranges of 12mm ~ 15mm thick.

5.4. Surveyor will mark the reference of vertical straight line on the surface of the plastered retaining wall. Base on the reference line marked by surveyor, carpenter will measure the distance from the reference line to obtain the rest of the vertical straight line and mark it on the surface of retaining wall.

5.5. The PVC U-Groove SC1550 shall be fixed on the surface of retaining wall with guidance from the marking line that were made on the surface of retaining wall previously. Make sure to check the verticality in plane for each of PVC-Groove which being fixed. Don’t forget to seal the PVC U-Groove with masking tape to avoid the PVC U-Groove being damaged during the plastering works are carried out.

5.6. Finally apply the finishing plaster coating at the gap between 2 PVC U-Groove.

6.0. Inspection

All inspection and testing shall be in accordance to the Inspection and Test Plan.

6.1. Receiving Inspection and Testing

Materials Receiving Inspection Checklist shall be carried out on the Delivery Order / Purchase Order and recorded on Form


6.2. Concrete Surface Preparation Inspection

The surface to receive motar shall be free from dirt. Any loose concrete shall be removed.


6.3 In-Process Inspection and Testing

The mixture shall be mixed thoroughly until the motar are uniform and trowellable.

6.4. Final Inspection and Testing

The inspection will be conducted visually.

Happy New Year

I wish all the blog visitor happy new year, hope this year can bring a lot of happiness and prosperity to all ...

may Allah bless all of you and hope your dream come true....


regards,

lkick