it’s a waste of expensive munitions for a start
Go and wash your mouth out with soap!
it’s a waste of expensive munitions for a start
Go and wash your mouth out with soap!
Nah. But we were given a complete set of X-mas clothes and the little fella has no fewer than 3 different Santa-hats now :rolleyes: And we thought we spoiled our dog …
From the baby front…
First times. For a sample, we’ve done
– first time in the stroller
– first time to the park
– first time to the beach
– first inocculations
– first puke on daddy
Everythings well. Merry X-mas to you all
Hurrah, more pissing contests…. 🙁
Someone is missing the point that i was trying to make. Namely that steam is outmoded, overmanned and definately a point against the purchase of an Austin class.
Not this person. However, while “Obviously steam is out and diesel is in, esp. in LPDs “, for some navies “If they [Austins] are available immediately, at low purchase cost, and you’re a navy for which manpower is ralatively cheap, then they are attractive options, so long as you limit yourself to good maintenance and little else.” Especially if obtained via military aid (FMS): if you get a steam powered ship for (near) free, you can afford its higher operating costs for at least a while. Clearly it is not a long term, or ulitimate solution. But works nicely in the interim.
No but diesel is and steam is an ancient technology that is rapidly being abandoned. That these ships use that propulsion form will seriously work against any possible sale.
Obviously steam is out and diesel is in, esp. in LPDs. But that was not why I responded: I responded to the suggestion that GTUs were commonly used as propulsion in LPDs. Any other open doors?
Amphibious ships in general? Two LHDs and two LPD classes.
US: San Antonio (LPD-17) and Makin Island (LHD-8)
Russia: Ivan Rogov (Pr. 1174)
Spain: Juan Carlos (BPE)
Naval Technology on San Antonio:
Propulsion
The ship is powered by four Colt-Pielstick 2.5 STC diesel engines developing 10,400hp each. The main reduction gears from Philadelphia Gear Corp turn two shafts with Bird Johnson controllable pitch propellers. A new high-power “low-drag” propeller hub design provides improved propeller efficiency.The ship’s electrical power is provided by five 2,500kW Caterpillar Ship Service Diesel Generators (SSDG), with self-cleaning strainers and filters and electric pumps. Seven 200t York air-conditioning units are fitted for cooling of systems and habitation. The ship auxiliary systems are all electric, including electric heating, electric water heaters and a 72,000gpd reverse osmosis water-generating plant.
Global Security on San Antonio
MAIN PROPULSION 4 – Medium Speed Turbocharged Marine Diesels
2 – Shafts
2 – Single Reversing Reduction Gears
2 – Inboard Rotating (top) Fixed Pitch Propellers
Last of the WASP class, Makin Island LHD-8 is the first (and only) US amphibious ship to employ GTUs. Schedule to be commissioned in spring 2009.
BPE Juan Carlos is the first and only Spanish amphibious ship to employ a GTU. Will commission only in 2011 (and Aussie version 2013+)
So, in short, at this point, the only GTU amphibs in service LPD is the venerable Ivan Rogov class. The Makin – an LHD – will be the first non-russian amphib ship that will employ GTUs. Unlike Ivan Rogovs, Makin will have Electric Drive. BPE (LHDs) are not coming online for another 2 years. These LHDs are however much closer to e.g. Principe d’Asturias, Garibaldi and Cavour, Invincible class carriers (all COGAG).
So, in effect, this type of propulsion (GTU/Electric) is rather innovative in this field (LPDs). Let’s not pretend it is the most common form of propulsion for LPDs.
To ask the question, why would you buy an Austin class? even ignoring the age of the ships, they require massive crews and use steam propulsion rather then diesel, gas or a mix of one of those with electric.
If they are available immediately, at low purchase cost, and you’re a navy for which manpower is ralatively cheap, then they are attractive options, so long as you limit yourself to good maintenance and little else.
Q: which LPDs employ gasturbines?
I didn’t post any pic (of CdG)… Distiller posted a link to a pic that shows the Rafales & SuE on the bow parked at a much different angle than in HK’s drawing (giving more clearance to the bow catapult for the E-2C)… resulting in only 5 aircraft forward of the island vs the 6 in HK’s drawing.
As noted, in HK’s drawings with the catapult moved to starboard, launching an E-2C from the bow catapult would require clearing the bow of all other aircraft, due to the greater span of the Hawkeye’s wing (Distiller’s photo shows it extends well past the “clearance line” painted on the bow).
Ooops, missed that in passing. Sorry 😉
I must have missed it, where is Pyotr Veliky in that photo?!? 😀
THey’re towing her.:dev2:
The second one is commander Bond’s plane! 😀
On the original, anyway… not on any of those with it moved toward the starboard.
The second pic is from the same photoshoot/series as your initial pic. I’m using it as a reference for the frontal shot. The Rafale in that pic is in the same position as those four in your pic.

.jpg)
Think it would be (just) possible to leave the Rafales forward when launching an E2C forward.
“The X-47B wing span is an impressive 62.1 ft, compared to 44.7 ft. for an F/A-18. Wings fold in to reduce overall span to 30.9 ft. for stowage.”
Looks like it can be refuelled in flight as well.