ALso consider the water color. A light grey 956EM would stand out just as badly against dark Atlantic and arctic waters as a bright orange 965 😀



Even if the Lada class was 100% bug free and they could churn them out like pop corn they would in all likelihood continue with improved Kilo procurement. The Lada is too small tonnage wise to do the job the Russkies need done. I don’t believe it was ever meant to wholly replace the Kilo line.
Agree, there aren´t all that many 4k ton subs around.
NO FLEET CARRIER WAS EVER TRANSFERRED BY USN TO NOTHER NAVY! 😡
(Independence class were LIGHT fleet carriers, based on an escort carrier design but implemented on a cruiser hull. So`Only some WW2 escort carriers to France and Spain respectively.´ is correct in the sense of level of capability)
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/
See here also for French and Spanish carriers
Bla!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_the_United_States_Navy
CVL-24 Belleau Wood 1943 Independence-class Transferred to France as Bois Belleau (R97) (1953–1960). Returned to U.S. Scrapped 1960
CVL-27 Langley 1943 Independence-class Transferred to France as La Fayette (R96) (1951–1963). Returned to U.S. Scrapped 1964
CVL-28 Cabot 1943 Independence-class Transferred to Spain as Dédalo (R-01) (1967–1989). Returned to the U.S. Scrapped 2002
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_class_aircraft_carrier
The Independence class aircraft carriers were a class of light carriers built for the United States Navy that served during World War II.
This class were a result of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s interest in Navy shipbuilding plans. In August 1941, with war looming, he noted that no new fleet aircraft carriers were expected before 1944 and proposed to quickly convert some of the many cruisers then under construction.he crisis following the December 1941 Pearl Harbor attack demonstrated the urgent need for more carriers as soon as possible. The Navy responded by greatly accelerating construction of the big Essex class aircraft carriers and, in January 1942, reordering a Cleveland class light cruiser as an aircraft carrier. Plans developed for this conversion showed much more promise than expected. The design was based on the Sangamon class escort carrier. These were limited-capability ships, whose principal virtue was near-term availability, and the speed necessary to operate in the fleet-carrier task groups.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sangamon_class_escort_carrier
The Sangamon class were a group of four escort aircraft carriers of the United States Navy that served during World War II. These ships were originally MARAD type T3-S2-A1 oilers, launched in 1939 for civilian use. They were acquired and commissioned by the U.S. Navy in 1940-41. Due to the shortage of MARAD type C3 ships for conversion to desperately needed escort carriers, it was decided in early 1942 to convert four oilers to escort carriers. These ships were the largest escort carriers built for the U.S. Navy. The late-war Commencement Bay class escort carriers were about as large, but were built as carriers from keel up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commencement_Bay_class_escort_carrier
The Commencement Bay-class escort aircraft carriers were based on the Maritime Commission T3 type tanker hull, which gave them a displacement of approximately 23,000 tons and a length of 557 feet (170 m). Unlike most earlier CVE classes which were laid down as something else and converted to aircraft carriers mid-construction, the Commencement Bays were built as carriers from the keel up. Their general layout was similar to the Sangamon-class escort carriers, but some of the Sangamon’s engineering shortcomings were addressed.
They entered service late in World War II — USS Commencement Bay launched on 9 May 1944 — so most of them saw little or no operational service.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_escort_aircraft_carriers_of_the_United_States_Navy
AVG-1/BAVG-1 Became HMS Archer
AVG-2/BAVG-2 Became HMS Avenger
AVG-3/BAVG-3 Became HMS Biter later French Navy Dixmude
AVG-4/BAVG-4 Became HMS Charger briefly, returned to USN as USS Charger (CVE-30)
AVG-5/BAVG-5 Became HMS Dasher
BAVG-6 Became HMS Tracker
Altamaha CVE-6 Became HMS Battler
Barnes CVE-7 Became HMS Attacker
Block Island CVE-8 Became HMS Hunter
Breton CVE-10 Became HMS Chaser
Croatan CVE-14 Became HMS Fencer
Hamlin CVE-15 Became HMS Stalker
St. George CVE-17 Became HMS Pursuer
Prince William CVE-19 Became HMS Striker
CVE-22 Became HMS Searcher
CVE-24 Became HMS Ravager
Charger CVE-30 Same ship as AVG-4 and HMS Charger
Chatham CVE-32 Became HMS Slinger
Glacier CVE-33 Became HMS Atheling
Pybus CVE-34 Became HMS Emperor
Baffins CVE-35 Became HMS Ameer
Bolinas CVE-36 Became HMS Begum
Bastian CVE-37 Became HMS Trumpeter
Carnegie CVE-38 Became HMS Empress
Cordova CVE-39 Became HMS Khedive
Delgada CVE-40 Became HMS Speaker
Edisto CVE-41 Became HMS Nabob
Estero CVE-42 Became HMS Premier
Jamaica CVE-43 Became HMS Shah
Keweenaw CVE-44 Became HMS Patroller
Prince CVE-45 Became HMS Rajah
Niantic CVE-46 Became HMS Ranee
Perdido CVE-47 Became HMS Trouncer
Sunset CVE-48 Became HMS Thane
St. Andrews CVE-49 Became HMS Queen
St. Joseph CVE-50 Became HMS Ruler
St. Simon CVE-51 Became HMS Arbiter
Vermillion CVE-52 Became HMS Smiter
Willapa CVE-53 Became HMS Puncher
Winjah CVE-54 Became HMS Reaper
So, in sum: of all purpose built US carriers (rather than merchant or merchantbased conversions), only 3 ever went to a foreign navy. These were cruise hull conversions (CVLs), which where based on CVE designs and in many ways as limited as CVEs.
________________
As for the Dutch: http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/nethcv/
During WW2 only Gadila and Macoma, two converted MAC ships: civilian freighters and tankers fitted with flight decks as emergency escort ships. The two Dutch MACs – Gadila and Macoma – were identical to the Royal Navy’s MACs, and operated under British control throughout their careers. Macoma, a tanker, was launched at Amsterdam in 1935 and completed the following year )i.e. Dutch to begin with). She was converted for MAC duties in the UK from late 1943 to April of 1944. Gadila was built in Germany as a tanker, completing in 1935; she was converted to a MAC in the UK from April 1943 to February 1944. HMNLS Karel Doorman (QH1), the first carrier commissioned in the Royal Netherlands Navy. This carrier started life as a British freighter, but was converted to an escort carrier prior to completion, and commissioned 12 Dec 1943 as HMS Nairana. After WWII she was loaned to the Netherlands to help in rebuilding the shattered Dutch navy; she commissioned in Dutch service 20 March 1946. The second HMNLS Karel Doorman (R81) as first commissioned. This carrier was built as the light fleet carrier HMS Venerable, completed early in 1945. Decommissioned in 1947, she was sold to the Dutch in 1948. She recommissioned as HMNLS Karel Doorman 28 May 1948, taking the name of the previous Dutch carrier. Initially she operated with minimal modifications. On 15 October 1968 she was sold to Argentina and was subsequently refitted. Karel Doorman was renamed Veinticinco De Mayo and recommissioned 12 March 1969
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Gadila
Like MV Macoma, MV Gadila was one of nine Anglo Saxon Royal Dutch/Shell oil tankers converted to become a Merchant Aircraft Carrier (MAC ship). The group is collectively known as the Rapana class.
MV Gadila was built at the Howaldtswerke, Kiel, Germany and completed 11 April 1935 as an oil tanker for the Anglo Saxon Royal Dutch/Shell line. She was converted at Smith’s Dock, North Shields between April 1943 and 1 February 1944. She entered service as a MAC ship in March 1944, and operated under the Netherlands Mercantile Marine flag
Everybody Happy Now?
Could have been just about anyone. An old NROTC buddy of mine took the last cat shot off the USS Kitty Hawk prior to her de-commissioning, in a VFA-102 F/A-18F (don’t know who was in his back seat). Not the Skipper, just one of many first tour JO’s 🙂
Video of last flight I posted a link to shows it to be a Hawkeye AEW&C aircraft.
see this (not complete) list of 24 missions:
http://www.uscarriers.net/cvn65deploy.htm(the first one (Cuba-crisis) is not taken in the list )
‘ONLY’ :rolleyes: 25 deployments in 50 years ..? 😀
friendly yours,
Etienne
Carriers operate on a 32 month (2,67 year) cycle. Also, there is a personnel tempo policy limit of one 6-month deployment per cycle. The norm would be 50/2.67=18.75 cycles=19 deployment. So, 25 deployments is 6 deployments above the norm (+32%). If you consider shorter cycles (which have occurred in the past) you still end up with a good record:
27 month cycle > 2.25 yrs, with 50/2.25= 22.22 cycles = 22 deployments
24 month cycle > 2.00 yrs, with 50/2.00= 25.00 cycles = 25 deployments
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG706.pdf
Dude, seriously, if the reactors are that big of a deal then they can just rip ’em out and drop in some gas turbines. I mean c’mon, how hard could it be? If the Russkies can convert some weird, cruiser/carrier hybrid into a somewhat normal aircraft carrier, I’ll bet we could swap out the Big E’s powerplant no problemo.
We´ve had that discussion here before…
Enterprise is also the only aircraft carrier to house more than two nuclear reactors,having an eight-reactor propulsion design, with each A2W reactor taking the place of one of the conventional boilers in earlier constructions.
8 × Westinghouse A2W nuclear reactors
four sets Westinghouse geared steam turbines,
4 × shafts 280,000 shp (210 MW)
Essentially, by the time you take that propulsion plant out, there´s nothing worthwhile left to put GTus in. Note that in the Gorshkov conversion the powerplant essentially remained the same (oil burning steam plant).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A2W_reactor
USS Kennedy was originally slated for a four reactor plant but got fossile fuel burning boilers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A3W_reactor
The return to nuclear power for carriers came with the Nimitz class’s A4W reactor’s two reactor per ship design. While the two reactor configuration, with each core providing a much greater thermal output, is relatively less expensive than earlier designs, the power plant still represents about half the total cost of the ship.
^not just commies
Ship owners and operators recognise intuitively that combating corrosion impacts significantly upon vessels reliability, availability, through life costs and budget availability for replacement projects. However, until recently, the UK Defence procurement organisation and its budgetary stove piping precluded the adoption of a range of spend to save measures including those related to corrosion avoidance at the design stage of a project.
Additionally, in the absence of a mandated corrosion prevention programme that would guarantee continuity of initiatives through the procurement cycle, decision makers have often been forced in extremis to trade off corrosion resistance as a cost savings measure when under budgetary pressure.
http://www.amteccorrosion.co.uk/corrosion%20resistant%20ship.html
Amtec Consultants Ltd are an independent corrosion, coating and cathodic protection consultancy, specialising in all aspects of vessel construction from design, through building, to service life and major repairs in later life.
Actually, the Russian often paint decks of larger vessels in a two-tone scheme, one of which is the reddish color found on their small ships and the other is a darker color. The darker color is used primarily on the main deck, and the lighter color on the higher level decks and superstructure top.
The Russians use more than one paint scheme, probably depending on which fleet we’re looking at. They also use Grey-Green on their decks sometimes:
See http://forum.keypublishing.com/showpost.php?p=582786&postcount=12

Anyway, as our esteemed collegue Jonesy explained in the past:
The red colour is just the ‘red lead’ antirust coating. ‘Our’ ships use it too but ‘we’ uniformly put a surface coat of grey over the top of it. In some cases the Russians do and in some cases they dont.
Theres no absolute need to apply the surface coat. Certainly at the many dozens of miles that modern naval engagements are anticipated to take place over the visual advantage of having greyed out horizontal surfaces is insignificant. Plus there is a bonus that an area that takes lots of seaspray, thusly requiring regular maintenance, is easier to maintain if you can just slap on another coat of red lead rather than having to scrape off a patch then reapply the base and top coats.
Dude, seriously, I think we outta refurbish it and sell it to one of our allies.
Maybe just charge ’em for the cost of the refurb.
Dude, seriously: no way! USN has NEVER transferred a fleet carrier to any other navy. Only some WW2 escort carriers to France and Spain respectively.
Besides:
Take into account that the average life span of a nuclear power station is estimated by both the IEA (International Energy Agency) and the plant operators to be 40 to 50 years. http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1018651.shtml
U.S. commercial nuclear reactors are licensed to operate for 40 years by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Prior to termination of the original license, companies may apply to the NRC for 20-year license extensions. The average age of U.S. commercial reactors is about 32 years. The oldest operating reactors are Oyster Creek in New Jersey, and Nine Mile Point 1 in New York. Both entered commercial service on December 1, 1969.
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=228&t=21
CVN65 USS Enterprise has a nuclear propulsion plant that is now 50 years old, 7 years older than the oldest operating commercial reactors in the USA.
Built: 1958 – 1961
In service: 1962 – 2012
In commission: 1961 – 2013
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(CVN-65)
No. Even if the cost is less than not decommissioning & leaving to rust, there’d be specific spending.
Aw, chucks, there has to be a bookkeeping trick !
both House and Senate defense authorization bills include language keeping the Navy from spending any money to decommission or inactivate eight of the nine ships.
WTF? Can’t they decommission without spending?


SSM Targeting is possible with SMART-L, Tracking for Oto Melara (German F124 Sachsen-Class) not.
For a gun-engagement you need an APAR FC-channel or a tracking with optical sensor MSP500.Cheers
Likewise the LCF, but this uses Thales Mirador en-lieu of MPS500.