rickusn“If it wasn’t feared then U.S. wouldn’t have spent so much trying to counter it, don’t listen to these yanks they are always coming up with “Fantastic” excuses why they don’t fear this or that about Russia’s military, it’s all a public front so not to look scared/weak to there American public. “
Another Troll.
LOL
Is that all this board has to offer is America bashers?
Ive got news for you losers.
All the bashing in the world wont make the Russians stronger or the U.S. weaker.
In fact just the opposite is likely to happen.
And then “Clear War” you lose yet again.
LOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
rickusnFREMM should be good proram and by all means Greece should look into purchasing some.
I wonder though why they didnt attempt to acquire a couple of Ductch De Zeven Provincien class AAW frigates to replace the ex-USN CF Adams class.
The total program cost for the Netherlands was $1.61B US for four. And the last two cost only 375m each.
I would think that Greece could have got them as cheap if not cheaper.
And having already purchased ex-Netherlands ships wouldnt it have been a much better fit?
Or would politics been a major factor against such a course?
Any thoughts?
rickusnIf he meant AVT-18 USS Lexington, which was the USN’s training carrier from December 1962 to November 1991, that ship displaced 40000 tons full load. Oriskany about 42000.
rickusnLOL
Not hardly.
The 25 De Mayo displaced approx 20000 tons full load and the MIdway approx. 70000 tons full load.
Not even close.
rickusnAlso posted on original thread:
You would be looking for USS Midway CV 41.
This ship had been homeported in Japan from October 1973 until August 1991. She began stand-down on October 1, 1991 and decommissioned to reserve on April 11, 1992.
Her final air group was CVW-5 consisting of:
36 F/A-18
18 A-6E
4 EA-6B
4 E-2C
6 SH-3H
rickusnYou would be looking for USS Midway CV 41.
This ship had been homeported in Japan from October 1973 until August 1991. She began stand-down on October 1, 1991 and decommissioned to reserve on April 11, 1992.
Her final air group was CVW-5 consisting of:
36 F/A-18
18 A-6E
4 EA-6B
4 E-2C
6 SH-3H
rickusnActually this is what you asked first:
“how many aircraft on USS Oriskany after mod?”
No F-18 aircraft were in-service before Oriskany decommissioned in 1976. IOC for the F-18 was February 1981.
But heres the squadrons and the detachments for its last deployment. I dont know the exact numbers. But it being peacetime I would quess:
24 F-8
36 A-7
2-4 RF8-G
2-4 E-1B
2 SH-3G
CVW-19 (NM)
CV-34 ORISKANY
Sep.16, 1975 – Mar.3, 1976 (WestPac)
VF-191
Satan’s Kittens
F-8J
VF-194
Red Lightnings
F-8J
VA-153
Blue Tail Flies
A-7B
VA-215
Barn Owls
A-7B
VA-155
Silver Foxes
A-7B
VFP-63 DET.4
Eyes of the Fleet
RF-8G
RVAW-110 DET.4
Firebirds
E-1B
HC-1 DET.4
Pacific Fleet Angels
SH-3G
Oriskany Decommissioned : Sep.20, 1976
rickusnOK that answers that. LOL
Anyway in 1973 during another Vietnam deployment it appears they carried 83 aircraft:
27 F-8J
40 A-7A/B
4 RF-8G
4 EKA3-D
4 E-1B
3 SH-3G
1 C-1A
rickusn“Impossible, because that CV entered service after WWII in the 50s”
Er I think he meant the Essex class as a whole rather
than the Oriskany itself.
rickusnThis should give you some idea:
Adapted from here:
http://navysite.de/cvn/cvw.htm
The nominal Air Group Composition in 1960(For all carriers except as noted):
2 Fighter Squadrons (VF) 24-28 F-8 or F-3
3 Attack Squadrons (VA) 36 A-4 (Skyraider AD-X/A1-X or other such as the Fury below in 1960 for the Oriskany)
1 Heavy Attack Squadron (VAH) 10-12 A-3 (Not on Essex class)
Total: ~70 aircraft
Additionally:
1 Carrier Early Warning Squadron (VAW) AD-5 Detachment (2 aircraft Essex class)
1 Light Photographic Squadron (VFP) RF-8G Detachment (2 aircraft Essex class)
1 VAH Detachment KA-3D for tanking(2 aircraft Essex class)
1 HU-1 Detachment 2 Helos
For the deployment following modernization see below:
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/gonavy/atsugi/gonavy60634f.html
(Last update on Jun.16, 2004)
CVG-14 (NK)
CVA-34 ORISKANY
May 14, 1960 – Dec.15, 1960 (WestPac)
Squadron
VF-141 (*1)
Iron Angels
F3H-2
VF-142 (*2)
Fighting Falcons
F8U-2
VA-146
Blue Diamonds
FJ-4B
VA-144
Road Runners
FJ-4B
VA-145
Swordsmen
AD-6
VAH-4 DET.F
Fourrunners
A3D-2
VCP-63 DET.F (*3)
Eyes of the Fleet
F8U-1P
VAW-11 DET.F
Early Eleven
HU-1 DET.F
Pacific Fleet Angels
.
(*1) redesignated VF-53 on Oct.15, 1963
(*2) redesignated VF-96 on Jun.1, 1962
(*2) redesignated VFP-63 on Jul.1, 1961
For this Vietnam deployment. Click on the link below:
CVW-16 (AH)
CVA-34 USS ORISKANY
(Apr.5,1965 – Dec.16,1965)
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/gonavy/atsugi/gonavy60634f.html
It looks to me like it could be 86 aircraft:
32 F-8
31 A-4
15 A-1
and the usual 8 in the various detachments.
It appears that during combat operations more aircraft are carried than during peace time ops.
Hope this helps.
rickusnCNS
Almirante Blanco Encalada
FF 15
ex-HNLMS Abraham Van der Hulst Jun-05
CNS
Almirante Latorre
FFG 14
ex-HNLMS Jacob Van Heemskerck Dec-05
CNS
Capitan Pratt
FFG 11
ex-HNLMS Witte de With Aug-06
CNS
Almirante Riveros
FF 18
ex-HNLMS Tjerk Hiddes Apr-07
CNS
Cochrane
??
ex HMS Norfolk 2006
CNS
Lynch
??
ex HMS Grafton 2007
CNS
Condell
??
ex HMS Marlborough 2008
I have this found here. I helped to compile and also help to maintain the list.:
rickusnNot hostility.
But you make statements that are not based on fact, history or reality.
When asked to provide any documentation to back up your statements. Nothing but more of the same.
“The Perry and Knox classes were designed as escort vessels for convois sailing the SLOC, not as an escort for a CBG. in the old language, they were not “ships of the line”, not in any way designed to be part of the cover of a carrier.”
The Knox class like the Brooke/Garcia class before it were designed to replace the WWII built destroyers with an emphasis on ASW but they were not what the USN hoped for and that program was curtailed.
Nevertheless they escorted carriers from their introduction into the fleet.
Indeed originally the OH Perry class was conceived as a low-cost convoy escort but with the Spruance class(much criticized also) which was the next attempt to replace the WWII destroyers also curtailed these ships and its design evolved into carrier escorts.
I have shown (see above) their inclusion in carrier battlegroups.
You have not shown me any carrier that operated unescorted. When you do I may reconsider my opinion of you.
You have disparaged and ignored my research.
Then said Im hostile?
You have offered nothing but useless opinions that are not based on fact,, history or reality.
Even after I asked you for specific information none and I mean absolutely nothing was forthcoming from you.
You are entitled to your opinion but not entitled to portray it as fact.
Dont patronise me by calling me “son”.
Im a 49 year old Navy veteran and while you may not respect that many do.
Your arrogance and ignorance is beyond belief.
BTW the Burke class range is 4400nm at 20kts.
When you provide answers to my original entreaty:
“Ill just start with three:
“they might as well operate their CVNs all alone.”
“ASW is not the job of an escort”
“They were a kind of permanent temporary solution for operations in tight waters (like the Med) and a direct consequence of the elimination of the CVS groups, ……””
Ill consider continuing this discourse.
I doubt if you can or will.
So Adios.
Thanks for hijacking my thread.
Ill return the favor someday.
rickusnYou make MANY assertions not based on fact.
Ill just start with three:
“they might as well operate their CVNs all alone.”
“ASW is not the job of an escort”
“They were a kind of permanent temporary solution for operations in tight waters (like the Med) and a direct consequence of the elimination of the CVS groups, ……”
But Im all eyes and ears waiting for you to provide any documents, articles, studies, website links, book excerpts or other credible material to support your contentions.
Otherwise Ill just have to assume your a “troll”.
Concerning OH Perry class “but their real value was very limited.”. This is very debatable. They indeed had limitations but as for “real value” people may actually be surprised as to how useful they have been over their service life.. So here too Im interested in how you came up with that conclusion.
As for top-end speed and fuel endurance you vastly overstate the drawbacks especially as concerns the Ticonderoga class.
The Knox class frigates were slower even than the OH Perry class. Yet they were integral parts of every Carrier’s escort screen from the beginning of their introduction into the fleet.
You have alot of opinions but are extremely short on facts and reality.
rickusnDont forget South Korea.
rickusnIm not an expert.
But if I remeber correctly it has to do with the noise generated by the reduction gears and the shaft.
The turbine and generator can be well isolated from radiating noise outside the ship if I remember correctly.
Heres a snippet repeated over and over:
“While this design is quieter, it is heavier and larger than conventional drive trains. Those disadvantages, along with reliability issues led to the decision not to utilize this design on a wide scale.”
Heres an excerpt and a link to a pertinent article:
“Two nuclear-powered submarines of the 1960s and 1970s, USS Tullibee and USS Glenard P. Lipscomb, also used turbo-electric drive for certain purposes –primarily to achieve quieting for ASW (antisubmarine warfare) missions. Both boats were somewhat under-powered in comparison with their contemporaries, though, and the carbon brushes of their direct-current, mechanically commutated propulsion motors created recurring maintenance problems. For that reason, the Lipscomb was retired early. Meanwhile, the rest of the submarine force retained geared turbines.”
http://www.navyleague.org/seapower_mag/july2001/ips_advantage.htm
Sign In
