EdLawOkay, I am happy to accept that no special deck coating is needed (I was actually meaning the aluminum decking on the temporary runways and on the smaller amphibs though – they currently use aluminum sheets, which are okay for the Harrier, but not for the JSF, which are alleged to have melted them in tests). The decks on carriers are coated to deal with hot engine exhausts anyway, though the decks on smaller amphibs (LPDs and LSDs, not LHAs) are only built to deal with helicopters, so I would not be so sure how well they would cope.
I am aware that there is very little funding available at the moment, though as I said, this is partly because of the multitude of projects on the go at the moment. The MoD currently only get ~2.4% GDP, where they really should be getting 2.5%, and I certainly agree that there is an unwillingness to ‘open the purse strings’ at the moment. As for funding the new LHDs, in 2005 the RN decided that the new CVFs would have a secondary amphib role, and future plans seem to revolve around 2 x CVF plus HMS Ocean (in 2003 the RN did start looking at the LPH(R), but probably decided not to push their luck!).
The issue of the ITAR waiver was the subject of the recent Bush/Blair meeting, and from what has been revealed, I suspect the ITAR waiver may well come along, though as you say, this is not certain. I never suspected that this would represent an opening of the floodgates – most of the technology has been available for many years, but has been done quietly (UK had ‘sight’ of a lot of US black projects like the F-117 for years before they were revealed). There has been a lot of discussion of the effects of, and chances of getting, the waiver, and I suggest that there is enough on that subject already discussed in the other threads on the subject.
EdLawThe trouble is that all the Midway conversions had severe rolling problems in heavy seas (large deck overhang). Also, the hull was laid down in ’44, so she was a good old age when retired, so I suspect few customers would want her – also, mid-sized is not always a great thing, she was too big for the ‘small’ carrier navies (Argentina, Brazil) and too old for the ‘bigger’ navies like the UK or France. On a related note, I seem to remember reading somewhere that Argentina had actually looked into buying one of the old SCB-modernised Essex class carriers, though I am not sure when, probably in the ’70s I would guess. My suggestion of civilian uses was just for fun though! :diablo:
EdLawWell, to be fair, they are not all real Hornets – the Super Hornet is really a different aircraft, it is a bit like the old Grumman F-4F Wildcat and the F-6F Hellcat, they may have some visual similarities, but they really are different. I do not know of any time in the past that the US Navy has aimed for a single type on a balanced air wing (during WW2, some of the escort carriers could embark an airwing of one type, but only for a specific purpose, then revert back to a normal mix of fighters, scout bombers etc).
It does make the carrier airwings a little bland though – they lack the character of the old Tomcats, Intruders and Corsairs/Skyhawks!
EdLawHow about Zell Miller? He is a Democrat, but he has a certain following in the Republican camp, after his endorsement of Bush for the election in ’04. He has left congress now, but if you needed to find a Democrat that Republicans could cope with, he would probably be at the top of a short list!
I personally support the Republican party in general, though I tend to be a fiscal conservative more than a social conservative (i.e. I support the lean government part, but not the whole ‘change the constitution to outlaw {insert pet hate here}’ part that seems popular at the moment).
EdLawThe ITAR waiver may well come through after the November elections – the main opposition comes from Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL), who is, if memory serves, retiring this year.
In terms of getting new equipment, it must be remembered that there is currently a ‘stacking’ of programs, i.e. a lot of programs, all of which need funded. (CVF, Type 45, Astute, Bay class LSDs, new RFAs etc, they all need funding at the moment). The point being that, once those are funded and in service, hopefully some money will become available – the new LHDs would not be ordered for 10-15 years anyway, so it would not be ‘stealing’ funding from the CVF and other projects.
Anyway, it is healthy to dream!
As for ‘the guy that thinks the deck will melt’, I know that they can land vertically, but the deck does need to be treated with a special coating. During the ‘X-32/X-35’ run-off stage, I think the issue was operating the aircraft from regular airfield surfaces – it may well be to do with the F-119 engine being used, which would probably have to run hotter than the F-135/136 would. It was mainly in terms of operating off non-aviation vessels, like the LPDs etc…
EdLawWell, as an alternative to these flights, I am hereby proposing that the Greek and Turkish air forces take part in the Red Bull FlugTag, the event where amateurs try to fly insane, unflyable aircraft off a pier. Whoever goes furthest wins – it would certainly be safer, and far more fun, and would, I hope, ease the tensions!
EdLawA healthy compromise might be to fit a GAU-12 25mm gun, and attach a Starstreak launcher (I remember reading that it has great capability for destroying tanks, including the latest types due to its velocity) and Hydra rockets, for anti-personnel use. The turret would probably be a bit like the Blazer turret – and would give a good balance, with the gun for anti-materiel and anti-air, Starstreak for anti-aircraft and anti-armour, and rockets for anti-personnel and light anti-armour (costing less than the Starstreaks). It is a compromise, but to be honest, just about anything you try with design work is a compromise!
EdLawI apologise for my typo, indeed, it should indeed have been CVN-76, not 77 as I said, CVN-77 is actually the last (as currently scheduled) Nimitz class, i.e. the GHWB. CVN-78 will actually be the first of what was to be CVN-21/CVNX, the post-Nimitz design, though there is significant debate as to the genuine cost savings, since the predicted whole life savings are questionable in light of the higher unit cost.
Reagan did indeed have high ratings when president, but since the way history judges a person is rarely based on popularity ratings when alive – a lot of facts which alter people’s opinions only come out after their deaths (or upon their leaving office). Since this thread is not about Reagan, it is hardly relevant to turn it into a discussion of his popularity ratings. His ‘pole’ (sic) or poll ratings do not affect the issue of ship naming, nor mean that a ship should not be named after another popular president! As I made perfectly clear in my response to Vortex, I was merely making an observation that naming new carriers after Republicans, and retiring one named after a Democrat might not go down well in some circles. Instead of simply taking that statement for what it was, you seem to feel that somehow it is a slight on the reputation of one former President – I note you choose not to boast of GHWBs outstanding popularity!
Considering the fact that you are new to this forum, it is quite amusing that you choose to make your first posting an insult!
EdLawIndia has the Mig-29K though, and, for a while longer, the Sea Harriers, so I would be surprised to see much interest in a Goshawk 200 – it would probably have a higher unit cost than the Mig-29Ks!
EdLawPersonally, I would love to see them use the Mk62 500lb Quickstrike mines – have a nice bit of target practice – allow B-52Hs (with 51), B-1Bs (with 84), B-2s (with 80), F-15Es (with 12-24), and others to try – a few hundred Mk-62s should probably be able to sink a carrier. You just need to set them all to go off immediately after impact for safety reasons. Okay, Greenpeace et al would probably be upset, but if they really wanted to protest, then let them – they can tie themselves to the carrier! :diablo:
EdLawA great pity, she would have made a great tourist attraction for people with more money than sense – instead of buying a trip on a Soyuz to the ISS, you can get launched off the deck in one of the retired T-2 Buckeyes… I am sure they would have had takers! :dev2:
EdLawWell, that will make everyone aboard the other carriers a little happier, since they all share basically the same basic hull design. It would be interesting to see the new ‘commercial’ spec ships exposed to the same test – I have not even seen a photo of them undergoing the classic shock testing.
EdLawIf memory serves, the Dutch have just put through a request for Tomahawks, specifically for the De Zeven Provincien class, though whether the VLS cells will go there, I do not know.
EdLawI am certainly not ignorant of US history as you imply, and your assumption that anyone who is not born and raised in the US is ignorant of US history is almost the definition of condescending! I actually used to live in the US, and I am well aware of the fact that Reagan was more popular while alive, but since both are dead, that is hardly relevant. My point was that having carriers named after both Reagan and GHWB might be politically questionable, and you cannot possibly tell me that GHWB is more admired than JFK! Quite how you consider this to be ‘rewriting our history’ is not entirely clear!
I believe that your statement was condescending, and, in fact in error – I made no comment about Reagan not being popular, and I did not endorse either one. They both have a following, and both have detractors, but that is not the point. My statement was a simple observation, with no hidden meaning – I simply gave my supposition that having ships named after two recent Republican presidents, and retiring one named after a Democrat, especially while a Republican is in office, could prove politically amusing. Your immediate assumption that my statement, which ran to just 36 words (on just over one line!), was somehow a sign of ignorance would be amusing if it were not so condescending.
I suggest we agree to disagree, and leave it at that – I am not going to apologise for making a simple political observation, and I suspect you are not going to apologise for your reaction to it. This forum is generally very pleasant, and things like this are not needed.
EdLawNuclear propulsion is not really an option for a carrier under 45,000tons, both in terms of cost, and in terms of practicality. Also, nuclear power would only be an option for the US, UK, France or Russia, nobody else would have the design experience to do it safely (and even the French had great difficulty with the CdG, and probably would not do it again). In terms of using the Rafale, it is not the cats that are the problem, it is the deck length – the Foch/Clemenceau were too short to operate Rafale, which lands quite fast. As for the island, the problem is that every inch of island is an inch less deck space, and increasing the size of island can pose problems in terms of safety, reducing the clearance on landing.
The idea of navalising the AMX was discussed quite a while back, but the general consensus seemed to be that the costs would be unacceptably high. Basically, you just get a modern A-4 Skyhawk, but at much higher cost, and there would be very few customers, so development costs would not be spread over many aircraft. It was actually mooted officially, but I think the idea of funding development of what is, for all intents and purposes, a new aircraft, just to buy ~20-50 aircraft (meaning that even $500m in development costs would add $10-25m per aircraft), did not seem worthwhile. After all, it would only produce a subsonic attack aircraft – why not just build a modernised A-4 Skyhawk!
Sign In
