sealordlawrenceThere is a story that a Rapier system managed to track an F-117 an and airshow, Farnborough IIRC, but I dont know the details.
sealordlawrenceDo not over estimate the impact of the Blockade, the biggest problem was economic mis-management. Based purely on resources Germany had everything it needed internally but the sudden loss of imports created an economic schism that unbalanced the entire aparatus. The irony is that had the Germans had a centrally planned economy they may have survived. My Humble opinion is that had I have been in Germany’s position I would have not undertaken an offensive in the west in 1918, I would have further strengthened that defensive lines and sought to consolidate and integrate the gains made in Eastern Europe into the war effort. However, had the Allies carried out Plan 1919 as planned I think it incomprehensible that Germany could have survived the storm. Had Plan 1919 been undertaken it is my belief that the German line would have been thrown (at least) back to the Rhine and the greatest part of their fighting power annihilated thus leaving their position untenable.
Clearly the accuracy of any 1919 strategic bombing effort would have been a serious issue but I see no reason why accuracy rates could not have equaled those of the early World War 2 period (admittedly still far from impressive). It is possible that some of these accuracy issues could have been off set by quantity, with over 700 Vimy’s and over 200 V/1500’s having been ordered prior to the Armistice the RAF would have been in a position to undertake very large raids. Of further interest is the order for 1500 O/400’s for the US army air corp. All of these aircraft on the western front would have provided an unprecedented level of long range firepower for the Allied forces. Whilst strategic operations against economic targets may have been relatively ineffective but the use of such a force against sub strategic targets to the rear of the Hindenburg line could have had a devastating effect on the ability of the Germans to maintain the position especially if something like Plan 1919 had been unleashed on the ground. Of course this is all entirely hypothetical and detracts from the actual doctrines but it does make an interesting discussion.
sealordlawrenceOr you could use the 155 AGS from the DDG-1000.;)
sealordlawrencehttp://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/2011.asp
“Vice Admiral J.S. Bedi told this website’s newspaper, ‘‘First of all, the Hawkeye is too big. In light conditions, the endurance of the aircraft goes down from five to just one hour. And for an early warning aircraft to have the capability of staying for only one hour makes no sense. We have decided not to consider the Hawkeye.”
Matt that article is pretty old, at least a few months. And scooter I prefer the kuz to CDG anyday. I believe the E-2c shouldn’t have as much trouble taking off from Kuz as from gorky.
Why? The kuznetzov is a bizzare hybrid that sacrifices a significant amount of aircraft carrying capability in order to carry the SSN-19. At least the CdG is true CVN rather than half cruiser.
sealordlawrenceThanks alertken. We are all too quick to talk about aircraft types but we often forget the doctrines that inspire them and indeed the doctrines they themselves inspire!
sealordlawrenceHave a look at Tami Davis Biddle, Rhetoric and Reality in Air Warfare. This is an excellent book and traces the evolution of bombing theory/policy/doctrine in both World Wars.
The RAF’s answer to Fuller (as far as it went) was Viscount Tiverton; again, Biddle covers him.
There’s also Neville Jones’s book on the origins of strategic bombing The origins of strategic bombing: A study of the development of British air strategic thought and practice up to 1918, which was followed up with The Beginnings of Strategic Air Power: A History of the British Bomber Force 1923-1939 . While not within the area you queried, you might find it interesting. It’s worth noting, though, that the earlier book didn’t have access to all the sources, so shouldn’t be taken as definitive.
You might also want to have a look at George K Williams, Biplanes and Bombsights: British Bombing in World War I which you can get online at http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/catalog/books/Williams_B68.htm
Do be aware, though, that the online pdf document has a bit of a tendency to sulk if you try to print it out, and can irritatingly just produce the first page…
Hope that helps!
Excellent, thanks very much DDJ!
sealordlawrenceI tried to check that Sean – if you mean the chord at the base of the fin.
As far as I can tell, the leading and trailing edges of the fin at the root look as though they meet the fuselage/wing at the same point on the Su-35 as on all other Flankers – in other words, the fin is no ‘broader’ than a ‘standard’ fin.
The rudder area is increased – by means of an ‘add on’ to the trailing edge, but the fin area itself seems the same.
The dielectric panel at the fin tip is gone – but the area is the same.
The first published ‘artists impressions’ of the new Su-35 showed a braoder, shorter fin – but it does not appear to have materialised.
More interesting, IMHO, is the removal of the side chaff/flare boxes from either side of the tailboom – I wonder if that gives the all-aspect TVC nozzles more ‘side room’ to swivel laterally ???
Ken
Ken
Thanks for all the details Ken!:) The Su-35 is still a good plane but it is not as exciting as it was when it was first announced. Frankly the Mig-35 seems more innovative.
sealordlawrenceAll the early info about the new Su-35 stated that it would have smaller fins.
The one at MAKS did not appear to be smaller than the Su-27SKM alongside – although it is difficult to tell at a glance.
It did have BIGGER rudders though – Su-30MKI-style.
Ken
I take it that there was no sign of the vanishing tail sting radar either?:confused:
sealordlawrenceThe rationale for no ski jump is often given as the impact on deck space, but in RN experience;
-it costs them one heli spot, hardly the end of the earth
-the ski jump reduced the Harrier take off run sufficient to operate Harriers and choppers simultaneously with the payload they were operating with no ski jump, which wipes out the loss of a single heli spot.
On the whole, it’s hard to see any good reason for not fitting a ski jump to a STOVL carrier other than political ones.
Unless it is not actually a STOVL carrier.;)
sealordlawrenceThe Germans knew they would never gain superiority over the RN, which makes you wonder–what did they think they were accomplishing? The fact is that even the Germans were unsure what their largest fleet units were intended to do. No kidding.
They were bigging up there egos, nothing more and nothing less.;)
sealordlawrenceAnyway, the JDA has come out stating quite clearly that “the ship would function purely as a platform for helicopter operations. A JDA press release says the design does not require the deck to be able to withstand high-temperature jet efflux and denies any plans to incorporate a ‘ski-jump’ facility.” Quotes come from a JDW SEPTEMBER 17, 2003 article on the 16DDH.
I quote this for the benefit of all those still maintaining that the DDH16 is some sort of uber secret Beijing bombing attack carrier carrier. It is not and without a major reconstruction it never will be. Going by this the type can not even perform ‘trials’ with the F-35B.
And maybe it should be pointed out that there is the sum total of zero evidence of Japanese interest in the F-35B at the moment, compared to a plethora of articles talking about Japanese interest in the F-22.
So once again, The DDH16 can not operate F-35B and will remain unable to without major reconstruction.
sealordlawrenceGents,
Lets be realistic there is a new small flight deck that will operate all the helo types currently in service for what ever role she is needed for, but a fighter base? I think not as she is too small and the deck is all wrong when compared to other small flat tops like in Spain and Italy OK.
It should be noted that small decks need aids to help fast jets get off the deck and all but the USN use the ramp which works very well as we all know. The USMC wants ramps on their flat tops but the USN comes up with lots of silly NO’s to that even though they would greatly increase the capability of their AV8B’s as they recently saw onboard HMS Illustrious.
16 DDH and her sisters will be a welcome addition to their fleet when compared to what they are replacing. Fast jets onboard? maybe for trials but not as a fighting unit, they would want something much bigger. Let us not forget they too have a budget to work within and no real need for such a large vessel at present as they are after all a Self Defence Force.:cool:
Again, unless the flight deck is heavily modified there will be NO F-35’s on the DDH16’s.
sealordlawrenceMan, just think of a Allied Strike Package made up of B-2’s, UCAV’s, F-22’s and F-35’s! :diablo:
‘charlie wont ever see em or hear em’:diablo:
sealordlawrenceA spiritual successor to the CVE, basically just a runway on a hull with a deck lift to a hangar, cheap, cheerful and it’d be useful for second rate carrier duties where all that’s wanted is a floating airfield to operate in areas with no developed air threat. Kind of like a carrier equivalent of Ocean. Another one I’ve wondered is this, it’s widely suggested that the psychological impact of 16″ guns gives them a military value far in excess of their actual effectiveness when used for shore bombardment. The Iowa battleships were a horrific drain on USN resources for a bit of shore bombardment and putting the sh*ts up enemies squaddies. So why not just re-invent the monitor, stick a 16″ gun turret on a cheap hull or glorified barge, minimum crew, only systems needed to fire their guns, effective, cheap and easy.
I think that is part of the idea behind the Twin AGS on the DDG-1000. However as is usual with US defense procurement programs they lost track of the cheap bit.;)
sealordlawrenceI have a different theory. The Hyuga was designed with the F35B in mind but it is not able to operate it in relevant numbers. It might be a “political trial ship”.
They build a flat top looking like an aircraft carrier without beeing one. It only “operates 4 helicopters”. If everbody got used to it they start trials with F35B. If the trials prove that the aircraft is suitable and the public has accepted F 35B the admirals claim that the ship is too small to operate the aircraft in adequate numbers. Furthermore they will note that China starts successful trials and operations with Varyag. Then it is time to build a “real carrier”. .. Perhaps they built a ship with british assistance like 100 years before (Kongo class battlecruisers) but this time a CVF 😉 ???
Again if that was the case a few simple differences would be apparent, starting with a flight deck actually capable of using the F-35.;)
Sign In
