Two “CV-1952” class ships are laid down in 1953-54. They will complete around 1958-59 (perfect timing to fill the slots of Victorious & Hermes in the historic RN). They will be fitted with a full 7° angle, and with 3 steam catapults (corresponding to the historic BS-4/4A, one on the angle and two on the bow).

Two “CV-1952 Batch II” are laid down in 1956-57, to replace the 3 ships of the Centaur class in 1961-62. These will be fitted with an enlarged flight deck (more deck parking), and with only 2, but more powerful, catapults (corresponding to the historic BS-5/5A).

Actually, CV-1952’s catapult arrangements were changed during the design process sometime between Sept. 1952 and July 1953 (according to Brown’s book). This involved one 150ft bow catapult and one 200ft waist catapult (launch weight: 60,000lbs), instead of 3 short catapults. Presumably BS-5 & BS-5A?

HMS Lord Mountbatten, 809 with 14 Buccaneers, 892 with 12 Sea Vixen, 849B with 4 gannets, 824 with 6 rotodynes, a COD & 2 SARs. In an emergency, due to their size these vessels aught to be capable of carrying an extra squadron of either Buccaneers or Sea Vixen depending on the threat.

CV-1952’s maximum airgroup would have been considerably greater than that – in fact, CV-1952 would have been equal to CVA-01 in most respects! It would have had more aviation fuel, slightly larger hangar & higher aircraft capacity than CVA-01, but shorter catapults:

The proposed airgroup was 55 aircraft:
12x strike (NA.39, would become the Buccaneer)
33x fighter (Scimitar)
8x ASW (Gannett)
(+ presumably 2 SAR helos)

In 1970, that would have given us about 50 aircraft. Quite something! :diablo:
22x Phantom
16x Buccaneer
5x Gannett
7x ASW/SAR helos

I’ve updated my list of post-war medium carriers to show how CV-1952 compares to other RN carriers, as well as the contemporary Clemenceau & Essex classes.

Wasn’t the Super Sabre difficult enough to land and actually stop on an airfield, let alone a carrier?!
I take it this design was proposed before the ‘Sabre Dance’ and and keeping power on to avoid stalling became a big issue.

You’re correct. The F-100A fleet was grounded about a year after this proposal (Nov. 1954) and received extensive aerodynamic mods including a longer tailfin and wingtip extensions to improve landing characteristics and high speed stability.
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f100_2.html

The Super Fury would have had the same problems – it’s got the same short tail that caused so much grief on the early F-100As.

Short tail F-100A

Fascinating stuff Bager! According to those specs, the Super Fury would have been superior to the Crusader in many respects:

Strengths

Weaknesses

Look again.

F-100D: Wingspan 38 feet 9 inches, length 50 feet 0 inches, height 16 feet 2 3/4 inches

F-8E: wingspan 35 feet 8 inches, length 54 feet 6 inches, height 15 feet 9 inches

What you are seeing is due to aircraft being at different distances from the camera.

+1. The F-100 was actually about 4,000lbs heavier empty than early F-8A Crusaders. However, later air-ground capable F-8E/Hs were heavier so by the mid-1960s the gap was reduced to 1,500-2,500lbs.

Despite the weight disadvantage and older design, the F-100’s performance really seems quite good. Climb rates at all altitudes were essentially identical to the F-8A Crusader, which had the same engine. The F-100C was also up to 20kts faster under 20,000ft, and only 40-80kts slower between 20,000ft & 40,000ft. Finally, the F-100’s range was unmatched by any single-seat fighter until probably the F-16, thanks to large internal fuel plus external tanks. Not bad for an aircraft entering service 1.5 years ahead of the “last gunfighter!” 😎

All this makes me wonder whether the Hun’s “Lead Sled” moniker was actually deserved. :confused: Imagine if the F-100 had been uprated with the same J57-P20 engine as on the F-8D (+2,000lbs AB thrust). This engine was available just a few months after the end of the F-100 production run and on the F-8D delivered huge performance improvements vs. early F-8As (+M0.3 top speed, +50% climb rate at sea level, despite a 2,000lb weight gain! :D). Sure, the F-100 would still have been slightly behind the F-8 in A2A performance, but probably good enough against MIGs, and its multirole capability would have been attractive.

A J57-P20 powered F-100D (plus ideally a small radar). Now that might have turned out to be useful in Vietnam… 😉

One thing a lot of people forget is that Gripen NG’s heavy stores configurations are going to be very draggy, creating a big penalty in speed, acceleration and range. This is due to parasitic drag from multiple ejector racks, compounded by interference drag from tightly spaced pylons such as the twin fuselage pylons. So while Gripen NG may have good range with only fuel tanks or light stores, as soon as you add 6x AAMs or 6x bombs that range most likely stops being competitive, not to mention dynamic performance going down the drain.

Based on the examples below, it’s clear that:

Drag Indices
F-16 clean: 100
2x 1400L tanks & pylons:35
2x 2000lb GBU-24 bombs & pylons: 40
2x TERs with 3x 500lb GBU-12 each: 76 😮
Single 500lb GBU-12: 7

F-18 clean: 100
2x 1250L tanks & pylons: 44
2x VERs with 2x 1,000lb Mk-83 each: 57
Single 1,000lb Mk-83: 6
Interference drag of full loadout: 12 😮

F-15 clean: 100
2x 2840L CFT: 21
2x 2300L tanks & pylons: 25 😎 (Very low vs. F-16)
4x 2000lb GBU-24 (2 abreast): 25
Single 500lb GBU-12: 4.3 😎 (40% less vs. F-16)

Sources:
http://edocs.nps.edu/npspubs/scholarly/theses/2002/Sep/02Sep_Young.pdf
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR1216.pdf

The 19 AdlA CN-235 are new, & another 8 have been ordered, for a total of 27. They won’t need replacing for many years, & the KC-390 won’t replace them. It’s an extra type.

50 A400M is enough to replace the current inventory of Transall & Hercules. That number will provide a lot more capacity than them, & the CN-235 can deal with small loads, where an A400M is excessive, & provide the necessary numbers.

Nothing wrong with the KC-390, as far as I can see, & I hope it’s a great success. I can think of many countries which it would be suitable for, as both a transport & a tanker, & I’d like to see it take sales off the C-130J, but for France, it’s definitely a political purchase. That’s not a criticism, BTW, merely an observation.

I think most observers disagree that the French have no need for the KC-390. Currently they have a massive shortfall in transport capability, even before the retiring of Transalls and A400M delays. IIRC, the French can meet less than 20% of their strategic transport needs. A400M will just about help fill this gap, but more transport aircraft are certainly not a luxury. Also, the A400M is expensive in terms of acquisition and operating costs, so anything that can help stretch out A400M deliveries beyond 2025 (as currently planned) is welcome.

CN-235 meanwhile is useless for logistics missions – it can only carry 5t-6t on short intra-theatre hops. The French use it only for parachuting and local transport missions from their foreign airbases.

So the KC-395 is perfect to fill the logistics gap below the A400M. It can do medium range logistics missions for light payloads such as people, spare parts, medevac etc. It can help reduce the peacetime burn rate of A400M hours, reducing fleet operating costs. It can also help push back some of the A400M deliveries into the 2020-2025 or even 2025+ timeframe, reducing immediate acquisition costs. Win win for the French, IMHO.

So why has nobody done that? Why do most navies that build amphibious ships think it’s worth having a couple of different types, e.g. an LHD & a cheaper (& usually smaller) LPD or LSD?

Might it be because a high/low mix can provide more flexibility? Because having more ships is more flexible, enabling one to send a basic LSD when that’s all that’s needed, & save the more expensive LHDs for the tasks only they can do?

LHDs aren’t inherently more expensive than LPDs. Certainly the Mistrals and Juan Carlos are cheaper than the Albions and San Antonios. It’s a question of equipment fit and modular design, not displacement or deck shape.

In addition, LHDs do have one huge inherent advantage over LPDs. They have much more volume, thanks to having more internal decks and a flush deck. This is great for low density payloads such as helicopters, pallets, command & hospital spaces etc. Partially as a result, the 21,000t Mistrals have the same vehicle and dock space as the larger 25,000t San Antonios, but also a huge hangar, larger command and hospital spaces, not to mention the empty deck space!

The other reason why Mistrals have more usable internal volume than the San Antonios is that they have half the crew requirements.

In summary, the LHD vs. LPD debate is pointless. What matters is:

1. Ship automation to reduce crew requirements & volume uptake
2. Modular design to cut costs (might be a bit easier with an LHD than an LPD?)
3. Maximizing volume (easier on LHDs)