What type of Air superiority (jet or prop) could of been operated by the colossus/majestic class though and the Independence class (saipan) in the secnario that a “third world” country had operated them in war against each other.

Depends on the timeframe, but in the early 1960s there were only two options: the A-4E and Etendard IVM/IVP Avon-engined variant.

The Avon Etendard was specifically designed with the Colossus carriers in mind (UK engine and blown flaps for lower landing speed), was offered to the RAN in 1959 (who didn’t follow up due to a lack of funds/test pilots), and did in fact fly as a prototype in 1960. Best option for air defense and recon roles (more thrust than the A-4E and better ranging radar), and superior to the A-4A/B/C in every respect.

The A-4E would be the choice for air-to-ground missions because of its centreline pylon and ability to carry more external fuel. Both aircraft probably even in the anti-shipping department – the A-4E having more fuel, but the Etendard’s Aida radar could come in useful despite its short 12nm range.

As far as second-hand aircraft go, not much available in the early 1960s. The A-4A/B/C was still in front-line service and saw intensive use in Vietnam. Perhaps the F11F Tiger? Would be similar to the Avon Etendard as a fleet defender. The Sea Venom would be just too old.

End of mission for Charles de Gaulle

The French carrier docked today in Toulon. Flying strikes 6 days a week during four months, CdG launched ~11% of NATO’s strike missions:

840 strike (Rafale/Super Etendard)
390 reconnaissance (Rafale)
120 AEW (Hawkeye)
240 buddy refueling (Rafale/Super Etendard)
http://lemamouth.blogspot.com/2011/08/les-chiffres-du-gae.html

This adds up to 13 sorties per day for the 18 aircraft embarked, a rather low number. Average sortie duration was around 2hr 20min.

During this time, CdG sailed 40,000nm at an average speed of only 12kts.

All in all, solid but hardly earth-shattering numbers. Unlikely to really help the case for a second carrier.

Does anyone have any detailed info on the intake/exhaust system, and any associated pros and cons of that layout? How similar is it to Valour‘s?

I believe you’re thinking of an underwater exhaust system? None of the ships discussed in this thread have that.

(I know Gowind’s exhausts are a bit confusing, since they’re very well hidden in the superstructure, behind the conical radar dome – they actually go through the bridge).

Swerve, maybe, maybe not.

I’ve dug into every technical description that is publicly available for both designs (plus the Kiwi Otagos), which adds up to more than a few, and I’m just saying that I’m not seeing any major differences in patrol capability – aside from some of the ones I mentioned before (container carrying capacity, separate engine rooms etc. But these are not directly tied to OPV mission requirements – rather they provide flexibility to re-role for other more demanding missions, which is both the greatest strength and a bit of a weakness of the BAM design, since it does drive up costs).

Endurance and range are certainly in the same ballpark for all 3 designs and sufficient for oceanic OPV duties (e.g. Gowind carries 30m3 of aviation fuel, same as a Forbin class destroyer and 50% more than Otago – you can infer what you want about endurance. Too bad I don’t have the figure for BAM). Habitability – can’t say, need more info on Gowind.

Thanks for the pics Santi. I’m a big fan of the BAM design.

IMHO, the BAM is the benchmark against which DCNS’ effort should be measured against. The French have bet that they could design a much smaller and cheaper hull without compromising much in terms of OPV capabilities (sea keeping, endurance, mission payload). The main difference is that the Gowind OPV platform is too small to be readily adaptable to other roles requiring containerized ,or to build specialized sub-variants (for hydrography or mine hunting, for example), but that’s a logical tradeoff.

Soon enough hopefully we’ll find out if the “small high-seas OPV” concept actually works…

Personally, I’d go with a split buy replacing the OPC with additional Legend-class ships replacing the half the Bears and an 20 of these replacing the other half and the Reliance class. But as you said, that makes too much sense.

Here’s a comparison of USCG cutters against the best foreign OPV designs, including the Gowind/Adroit. Or “cutter porn”, as I like to think… 😉

Shows quite well how massive the Legend class NSCs are, really not well suited as a replacement for the medium endurance cutters. The Spanish BAM would be a huge step up in size, while the Gowind and Kiwi Otago though smaller are still very significant improvements over the medium cutters.

Click thumbnail for full size:

Small size preview:

The prettier sister of the Tupolev Tu-91 ‘Boot’……..:diablo:

Interesting, I didn’t know about the Tu-91 Boot. I think the Tu-91’s real sister and inspiration must have been the Westland Wyvern – both large naval strike aircraft with massive contra-rotating turboprops.

IMHO, the Breguet Vultur’s mixed turbojet/turboprop solution was far superior and if used on the Wyvern could have been a real winner. The contra-rotating turboprops were simply too heavy and massive. Replacing the Wyvern’s 4,100ehp Python turboprop with a small 1,475ehp Mamba turboprop and 5,000lb Nene turbojet would have shaved off at least 700lbs and offered much better high speed performance. Both the Mamba and Nene were available in the late 1940s, so I don’t get why British designers preferred the heavy and troublesome contra-rotating turboprop solution.