danrhWell Lockheed had an Orion based proposal and there is the Nimrod MR.4 other than that its things like the crop of twin turboprop airlifter conversions or the EMB-145 MPA.
Daniel
danrh2 & 3. Completely upside down, backwards, and wrong. Are you seriously suggesting the entire tactical air component of the USAF consist of around 600 F-22s? Remember, the F-35 will replace the F-16 and A-10 as well. No matter how good the Raptor may be, that simply isn’t anywhere near enough aircraft to physically be every U.S. air power will need to be. Consider that likely at least 100 of those would be involved in training and conversion, so that leaves maybe 500 actual F-22s available for service. That means about 6 1/2 72-aircraft wings availabe: 3 in the continental U.S., one in Europe, one in the Pacific, and one in ? Again, simply not enough airplanes to be everywhere and do everything…
Oh but one F/A-22 can own five F-15s 🙂 :rolleyes: So that would be equal to 2500 fighters. Of course as you say such childish arguments overlook the issue of physical presence.
Daniel
danrhSorry if my not accepting your viewpoint offends you, but I’m actuly quit flattered that my opinion means so much to you.
Oh dear now here is a quandry. Does one confirm these egotistical ramblings by continuing to try and change your opinion or does one retire from the field and grant “victory” by default 🙂 Luckily I don’t think the remarks were directed at me and I don’t really care anyway.
I’m sorry….but your arguments make no sense……..ALL necessary functions can be combined in a single island….this has been the choice for over 60 years…….an aircraft carrier should have maximum unencumbered deck space devoted to aviation……..by its very nature a carrier will be vulnerable to damage……..its the trade off for efficiency in aircraft operations…….and until the US Navy or Marine National adopt this “two island” concept, I’ll stand by my argument for a single one.
I believe it has already been mentioned that the islands, apart from C&C functions, also house the intakes/exhausts for the CVF propulsion units. Now you cite the fact that this arrangement has not previously been seen. Granted.
However we are yet to see a CV powered in such a manner. All the large carriers have been steam turbine powered with either oil fired boilers or nuclear reactors providing the steam. The CVF will most likely have an electric propulsion system driven by gas turbines. One of the features of gas turbines is the compartive bulky trunking to carry the associated volumes of intake and exhaust air. this excerpt from one of the pages its been suggested you read a number of times gives decent overview of why the current configuration was chosen.
The optimum location for the position of the main propulsion system was carefully examined in early CVF studies, with the need to maximize the hangar space below decks a major consideration. The gas turbine generator units could be mounted in the superstructure, this would require a large island and reduce the flight deck area, but by avoiding volumous air intake/venting trunking to low machinery spaces will enable a larger and wider hanger. The comparative advantages of the two layouts was extensively debated within the DPA and the two competing industrial teams, but operational analysis and aviation generation studies demonstrated that the extra flight deck space associated with a small island(s) would be more valuable than the extra hanger space, so traditional main hull located engine rooms were selected. In the chosen Thales design, the two engine room units are widely separated, each one directly below an island to minimise the length of air downtakes and exhaust uptakes while offering good damage control. This arrangement is possible thanks to the flexibility of IFEP and propulsion pods. Battery’s and several large diesel generators will provide emergency power if the prime movers fail for any reason.
As always the final design is a compromise of competing design pressures and national priorities. Incidently given that the French have been on again/off again about buying into the CVF program for thier second carrier does that mean you’ll automatically change your opinion if they decide to go for it:)
Daniel
danrhAlso is I could add to this. The contention that islands them selves waste deck space and all thier spaces could be placed below overlooks the fact that doing that removes valuable hangar, magazine or bunkerage space. If you remove too much of that then your deck space is wasted anyway since you don’t have the assets and resources to utilise it.
Daniel
danrhWow very impressive mate, thanks, but it doesn’t give the current status, is she still active?
Actually it does 🙂 She decommisioned in 1988.
Daniel
danrhWell here’s a start
classProject 661 “Anchar” (Papa SSGN)
You can find the rest of the Soviet sub fleet here
Incidently, and please forgive the blatant advertising :), these pages are all part of project we have going in support of the Harpoon naval simulation. This Rusian stuff has been prepared by Ruslan Gorbunov, while other chaps are working on other areas.
danrhOk guys allow me to clarrify one point:
AUSTRALIA IS NOT INTERESTED IN BUYING ANY OF THIS CLASS AT ALL
We were offered the Ark Royal back in 1980 and then the offer was taken back due to the Falklands war, there is still alot of bad feelings down here over the recinderence of the offer.
It was Invincible. At that time the only Ark Royal was the recently decommed conventional carrier.
Besides Aistralia doesn’t buy secondhand defence item any more no matter what it is (as exemplified by the refusal of both Upholder subs and Surplus Arleigh Burke class DDG’s- The US had offered the RAN five original DDG-51’s for the price of three, but the deal was refused on the grounds that these ships had no organic aviation compliment)
That and the fact that the RAN cannot man three of these vessels never mind five.
Besides the Olympus Tynes would need some serious overhaul by the end of the carriers lives and since we’re are mostly using the LM-2500’s in all our main ships, this would place an undue strain on the logistics we have here. We have no use for these ships, we recognise the historical significance in them but their use is of extremely limited value to us down here, but thanks for thinking of us 😉
While I think its unlikely that we would go for such second hand vessels the lead time for the new ships is very long and is slipping as the Government fund other projects ahead of them. A lot can change. Labour and some commentators have questioned the necessity of such large vessels suggesting more of a smaller type instead. At some point the Invincible class or or something similar may be attractive. Still this Government has another two years and they probably have another term in them unless Big Kim can really pick up this act 🙂
Daniel
danrhAustralia is reserved for Flagships and I expect one of the two new carriers to be named as such, I expect Canberra to be the other since it is the capital of Australia, thus leaving Adelaide, Brisbane and Hobart for the three new AWD’s
Well maybe. Of course they are not actually carriers. They are amphibs that MAY get some fixed wing aircraft sometime towards the end of the next decade. The RAN does have a history of how it awards names. Personally I don’t know about the LHDs getting the names Australia, Canberra etc. If they do though I would take that as a good sign the F-35B will be part of our JSF buy.
The point I was trying to make about the Japanese ships was that their ships were made to differing standards to those of their American counterpart, at least they thought of the Helo 😉
The US Navy did not forget the helo. It was simply decided that as there were plenty of other helo carrying vessels it could be dispensed with as a cost saving measure, at least for the first blocks. The Japanese have a smaller and more ASW oriented fleet so the helo was more important for them.
and they also use Metric tools not silly out dated Imperial things that only America has now
Irrelevant. Despite their outmoded ways they haven’t had a problem developing world beating technology. Maybe we should all switch back.
Daniel
danrhNone yet but Canberra and Adelaide are free, well will be by the time these ships enter service.
So are Brisbane, Hobart and Australia. Perth will be the last of the ANZACs due for delivery next year.
I wouldn’t touch the American DDG-51’s but the Japaneese ships are very much improved and thus very much better, you have to remember, the wider the beam, the better the sea handeling, this is something we haven’t seen since the days of the big capital ships of WWII. Sure there is extra room for stores, but it’s more importantly about sea keeping.
Not quite sure what you’re saying here the Kongo’s do not feature increased beam (well maybe one foot more depending on references).
Daniel
danrhIt is not similar to it. It is exactly like it. There is no point for a size increase since from the beginning the 054 is large enough to carry such systems, but resorted to using the HQ-7 with reload when the appropriate SAM system isn’t available yet. The HQ-7 with reload is a stopgap.
For them to create a bigger ship would mean to create an all new ship, since the moment you changed the hull dimensions, you change the entire hull. Where do you have this idea that hulls are plug and play, huh? In that sense, it would be vastly uneconomical for them to create a ship design that was already obsolete right off the board since they would have to create a new ship once again just to change the SAM system.
This sounds a bit like the 115 v 167 debate that we had on CDF. Is it bigger or not 🙂
Ships have in the past been given stretches without creating an entire hull. They add a few extra frames to the hull ala Type 42/3 or they can angle out the stern as in the later FFG7s. The MEKO sytems is designed to be choose your own hull size and modules type of afair. What has never happened (AFAIK) is an overall scale up ie same proportions, larger dimensions.
Daniel
danrhScoot: you’d be suprised how many times i’ve been asked that in the last week, I did post about the ADF’s intentions some time ago, but just for you I’ll re state what i said before!
The Australian Defence Force is lookingb at replacing it’s Hornet and F-111 fleet with the new F-35 in a 70/30 mix of two new types that are not on the drawing board yet (well that was at the time of the report). 70 F-35’s which would be a hybred of the F-35A and C models and a new version of the F-35B model of which 30 will be bought for ops off the two new LHD’s that the RAN are planning to buy.
Now considering that we are looking at introducing these planes in 2015 this does tie in with further development of the F-35 fleet. And considering Australia never buys anything off the shelf but tailor makes it’s planes to it’s needs, this could be interesting (refer to the F-111 program).
There still are many people here that are opposed to this planned purchase especially since most see it as a deal that has been forced on to us by the US.
Um where is this coming from Ja? Last I heard was that the Government will be replacing the current fleet (72 F/A-18 & 35 F-111C/G) with upto 100 new aircraft. These aircraft have not been officially chosen yet but the Government has signed us up to the SDD pahse of the JSF and baring the failure of the program it is almost a given that the F-35 will be the next fighter of the RAAF. IIRC the minister did mention at the last press release for the LHD program that a number of the F-35B varinat might be purchased for operation of the vessels. However I’ve not heard anything that sounds as definite as what you seem to be quoting. Re a tailor made variant of the F-35 I don’t think that is particularly likely. The F/A-18 Hornet fleet were pretty much stock standard
The Australian Hornet deletes the catapult launch equipment, has a conventional ILS/VOR, has landing lights, is equipped with a fatigue recorder, and has an added high-frequency radio for long-range communications, but is otherwise identical to the Navy/Marine Corps version. Australian Hornets are fully compatible with the AGM-65 Maverick air-to- surface missile and the AGM-84 Harpoon anti-shipping missile. In addition, it is equipped so that it can carry a reconnaissance pod in place of the internal cannon.
It has already been mooted that future weapons procurements will be made with an eye on compatibility with the F-35 to avoid having the inventory become redundant after the the new type enters service or having to pay for the integration of a non-standard weapon.
Daniel
danrhSeems like a better solution than using tactical fighters! I don’t see the point of India and the United States using there Mig-29K’s and Super Hornets as tankers? Any Aircraft Carrier is limited in the amount of Strike Aircraft it can carry. Using them as tanker seems like a complete waste………….expensive too! :confused:
Well the problem is that loading the E-2 (or C-2 would be better) with fuel for refueling would make the aircraft to heavy to launch. An just relying on standard internal fuel for transfers offers no advantage over a buddy tanker but the tanker is larger (takes up more hangar/deck space) and is slower (more difficult for fast jets to station keep).
Daniel
danrhThe opposite is correct. Every naval flyer has to do an amount of carrier-landings to keep his profiency. In peace time, that is more than 90% of service time, there are no real combat sorties at all. The pilots are well trained at all. Why not use up some of the flights/landings to support the daily routine. A F-18 is multirole, having done some top-up work it can perform some time of carrier-cap too if that need arise. A carrier is always space and personal limited. There is no constant need of an mono-task arial tanker, which itself use-up that valuable space and personal. There is never a 24 hour need to fly non-stop attack-missions with all fighters on board, even in wartime. This are limited battle days in a full scale war. You can draw from a pool of F-18s as much aircraft as you need for most missions. So there will be no real shortage of arial tankers as such need arose. If you need much F-18s for CAP, you have it. If you need a max number of F-18s for an all afford strike mission, you will have it. As you can see, the gains are much more. Just to remember again. Every carrier-wing pilot has to do a minimum number of carrier landings, when the other part of that mission is much less important and most times an excuse to justify the launch at all. So that multi-use approach gives high flexibility and an optimum use of limited resources.
Don’t forget that modern carrier aircraft are complex machines and even though reliability has improved over the years there will always be aircraft that are not mission capable for one reason or another. These unavailable aircraft are probably still capable of flying a tanker mission though. So most of the time the maximum available number of for strike taskings will not be affected directly by tanking taskings as these can be drawn from this pool of a/c unavailable for other reasons.
Daniel
danrhWell I wasn’t suggesting that the Indian’s won’t necessarily have a refueling capability just questioning the wisdom of using some of the small number of attack planes to buddy refuel the large AEW&C plane. Still I checked out the MiG-29/UPAZ combo and came yup with this
Some MiG-29Ks may be also used as air tankers and for this purpose the aircraft will carry unified suspended refuelling set (unifitsirovannyi podvesnoy agregat zapravki or UPAZ), a ‘buddy-buddy’ refuelling pack under its fuselage, as well as four additional fuel tanks, two of 1,150 litre capacity (typical for MiG-29) and two 490 litre each (from MiG-21) under the wings. The total fuel capacity with additional tanks will be 7,820kg.
while from globalsecurity the max internal fuel load of the E-2C is 5,624 kg
so I guess its not as impractical as I thought.
Daniel
danrhIt will have a Refueling Probe Standard…………….. 😀
Um and what is going to carry this fuel to refuel the E-2? If you’re going to rely on a land based tanker well why not a land based AEW&C instead. I can see where the usefulness is for the US but not so much for India.
Sign In
