FedaykinYou are perfectly correct of course – my brain is in definite need of a refit memory wise. Thanks for the correction 🙂
I must admit the J-47 is one of those engines I have wanted to know about, any web info out there guys to fill the gap in my knowledge.
FedaykinI’ve heard this and I still think it’s myth put about by a few ‘experten’ who don’t like to think that their aircraft had flaws. The slats were an anti stall device. They deployed automatically and invididually, and the pilot had no control over them. They worked on negative air pressure and popped out when the wing was about to stall. In all probability, one would deploy before the other leading to ‘grab’ and the aircraft being thrown off aim. It would take an incredibly skilled pilot in my view to turn so precisely that the slats deployed at exactly the same time and then keep it on that knife edge before they retracted again. And even then I’m not sure the much more highly loaded 109 could stay with, let alone outturn, a Spitfire or Hurricane.
I’ve never seen any stats to bear this out, just one or two accounts. Erwin Leyhauf, for example, who says ‘this advantage soon changed when improved Spitfires became available’ – despite the fact that no changes to the Spitfire’s turning ability were made while the original planform remained and if anything would be eroded because of increased weight. He also smugly points out that ‘The English later clipped the wings of the Spitfire’ to copy the 109, evidently forgetting that the Germans later added elliptical tips to the 109’s wings.
Squadrons in France and later the RAE tested 109s in mock combat with Spitfires and Hurricanes and kept coming back with the same result – the 109 cannot turn as tightly. In a turning fight, the 109 will more or less always lose. Luftwaffe tactics bear this out – high speed ‘bounce’ and get out of there before your enemy can lure you down to low speed when they will have the advantage.
As far as the ‘high energy’ turns are concerned, didn’t the 109’s elevators start to get incredibly heavy at higher speed meaning it could turn even less tightly?
Well the fact is I’m not the best qualified to talk about it:D but as during the war there were so many different variants of all these types its very difficult to get a clear answer. I think one of the German aces could certainly get more out of the 109 then your average pilot. During the Battle of Britain the Spitfire and 109 were certainly more closely matched then people give credit and the canon armament in the german type were certainly handy. The Germans during the battle of Britain suffered the same problem that the Argentines during the Falklands war lack of endurance over the battle area which in my opinion was more critical than respective turning radius, combined with some stupid tactical decisions by the German high command despite being the smaller force the RAF had the advantage.
FedaykinThe man of details now claims the Soviet Union used the same NATO standard fuels, by the way even with 0.77 the weight is 15292 kg.
So now the soviet pilots before striking the western bases needed to fuel at the next NATO base:D :rolleyes:
Yes that was the plan if things had kicked off in Europe, the Soviet plan was to use captured NATO forward airbases as the front moved forward. It was one of the reasons that Russian aircraft use the same connectors for the refueling points.
FedaykinSorry rickusn but have you started reading those silly “Left behind” novels?
I haven’t read a post so paranoid and confused in a long time.
“New world order”……please:rolleyes:
Certainly it is correct for the USN to be concerned about any Russian naval developments as well as China but your end of the world everyone is out to get America scenario doesn’t wash.
The Gorshkov refit is behind schedule and over budget…period! No conspiracy involved there I’m afraid.
Well I’m off to await the Rapture:D
Fedaykin(One or two 109 pilots maintain, if I recall, that the 109 could turn inside both the Spitfire and Hurricane but as far as I am concerned the evidence doesn’t bear this out at all)
The funny thing is if you ask any person about the Spit/Hurricane vs the 109 they will bring up the turning radius.
They thing is it’s not quite so clear cut and in some respects a bit of an old wives tail.
The easiest thing to say is that a Spit or Hurricane flown by an average pilot will out turn a 109 with an average pilot. At high speed and altitude the 109 is better able to retain its energy allowing it to hold a harder turn whilst at slow speeds it can turn very tightly utilising the automatic slats.
The thing is most German pilots were not prepared to push the 109 too hard in turns due to a fear about the structural strength and unpredictable stall characterisics at slow speed. Most average pilots would back off from the turn thinking the aircraft was about to stall despite the fact that slats hadn’t yet deployed and they still had plenty of leeway. On the otherhand the average Spit pilot would get stick judder prior to entering a stall in a tight turn allowing them more leeway to perform tight manouvres. German aces were more prepared to push hard allowing them to out turn the British types.
FedaykinAround 2018-2020, which is why they’ve begun studying potential replacements.
Yeah plenty of time for a careful study and plenty of systems to look at. I doubt that a big system like Patriot or SAMP/T so something in between I would think.
FedaykinIn an ideal world, the carriers would have a three-layered defence, consisting of Aster 15 (or preferably booster quad-packed Meteor), CAMM or RAM, and a final layer of 35mm Millenium guns.
On the subject of the CAMM I would have hoped that Rapier would be replaced by something more capable than a ground launched ASRAAM type, preferably a Meteor derivative. Given all the moves in the US towards using a ground based AMRAAM, it would seem logical for the UK to look at the same sort of system, but using the newer Meteor. It might be worthwhile to have a shorter range ASRAAM anti-missile weapon added, but I would really want the longer range capability of the Meteor as well.
I highly doubt we will ever see a naval variant of the Meteor in sevice anywhere. MBDA already have 8 different naval sam systems of overlapping capability on their product portfolio. Combined with the numerous systems from other companies its a saturated market.
Whilst a naval meteor might have an interesting performance range I don’t think that would be good enough to justify the investment when there are plenty of other good systems on the market.
Rapier is going to be around for long time yet and again I think any replacement will be off the shelf.
Finally self defence for CVF in my opinion will either be Goalkeeper or Phalanx taken off retiring ships, its the cheapest option and I think when it comes British naval programs at the moment cheapest is always going to win.
FedaykinSounds good to me, though the mounting of the radar on the AEW version seems to be a sticking issue. I’d have though something like the Ericsson Erieye along the top with the front mount on some sort of lockable pivot allowing the wings to fold underneath it.
I was thinking along the line of some form of retractable underslung dish or a retractable side mounted array like the Erricson. Push come to shove Searchwater 2000 could be fitted in similar way to the ASAC 7 but it would be draggy.
FedaykinLet’s talk about the platform design, the twin island layout is as innotive as it is quirky looking, and kudos to the MoD for having the balls to go with BMT’s original thinking rather than BAe’s design. The engines, GT’s and diesels whilst having their critics are an awful lot cheaper than nuclear, especially given that the UK would need to design a new nuclear reactor for just two ships with virtually no prospect of further sales of the reactor, or try and make a submarine plant work in an aircraft carrier in the way France tried, which isn’t the way ahead IMO. The MT30 engines, superb machines, although in a way I’d have liked to see the WR21, the engine installation looks worthy of discussion too. IEP looks like it’ll be used, again a very forward looking decision, one of the great innovations of T45 was IEP despite it being sadly ignored on this board. The C&C and self defence provision, these seem up in the air still, with estimates ranging from them having nohing beyond CIWS and relying on T45’s for C&C facilities, to full fleet flagship outfit with Sampson etc. and high capability self defence. Personally, my view is once the ships are built they can do what they want to improve that side of things later, get the ships past the treasury now and take care of stuff like that later, and IMO the weapons of an aircraft carrier are it’s aircraft, anything more than bolt on CIWS and final inner layer point defence is a waste of space and resources that should be going into air ops IMO.
I think the C & C facilities should be fitted but the expensive Sampson radar isn’t necessary.
FedaykinYou’d still need arresting gear which the STOVL doesn’t have. And if you fitted that then you’d be as well going the whole hog and fitting EMAL/Steam catapults.
A Merlin as a refueler? If you were even going to consider a tanker option as part of the embarked airwing then you buy tanker configured V22 with a hose and drogue hanging from under it’s tail.
I believe a palletised refueling system is being looked at for the V22, my ideal solution for the STOVL carrier would be a split buy of V22 with some fitted with some form of radar for AEW and others in standard fit for the COD role with some refuelling pallets available for rapid conversion into the tanker role.
FedaykinWho says she’ll get steam cats? Might be EMALS.
The French:D
Long lead purchase of the C13 steam catapult actually came up as an issue during the recent French presidential elections. If PA2 is a go then steam catapults will be whats fitted.
As for producing the steam, I would presume some form of commercial Diesel oil fired boiler’s fitted in the Sponsons.
FedaykinI will be interested to see how long the Kuznetsov has to lay up for repairs after this tour.
Seems to be the norm for something to breakdown when she goes out on a deployment.
FedaykinWhats interesting about the choice of four 40Mw Diesels for each ship is it shows the probable choice that has been made when it comes to propulsion for the CVF.
That fits in with the favoured CODLAG solution using 2 MT30 Gas Turbines and four Wartsila Diesel sets driving two shafts.
FedaykinThat has been intriguing me to, we have really seen nothing of her since she got her smart new paint job and that must have been nearly a year ago now. I have always been of the opinion that the Chinese authorities have far more control over the leaking of images than we have been lead to believe and that their is a strict policy for both internal and external uses.
I agree on that one, a great many of the unofficial photos that are released are probably really from approved channels.
In the case of the Varyag notice that pictures dried up just at the point where you could make a good guess about her final role amusement park/training/actual service. I think it suited China very well having all those pictures come out showing work being done on her but not reaching a point where people can draw conclusions. The last picture was this one which shows a fair amount of activity but not enough to draw conclusions. I think we can conclude from those last shots that came out that we were close to a point where we can draw a conclusion.
I’m curious about the lack of recent independant satellite pictures on the other hand.
FedaykinExactly, the irony is that China bought the Varyag, and whether she will ever put to sea again is highly debatable but there is no doubt that they have extracted an awful lot of information from her.
What fascinates me about Varyag is that up to a couple of years ago we had a flurry of pictures of her at Dailan. These have now dried up over the last year (the Chinese gov are clearly cracking down when it comes to naval pictures).
Sign In
