In Scramble i found this….so…..

In 1994 the Italian Navy received it’s first five Harriers. Two TAV-8B dual seat trainers were delivered to the GRUPAER at Grottaglie – Taranto while three USA built AV-8B+ aircraft remained in the USA for pilot training with the United States Marines Corps. The other 13 AV-8B+ aircraft were constructed by Alenia at Torino-Caselle and by end 1998 all 18 Harriers were delivered to the Italian Navy.

13th by end 1997, according to Boeing press release

As for first, says here they got theirs in 1989. This may be all or first. Or could be typo, in which case 1989 was erroneously inserted instead of 1998.

AV-8B Harrier II — Two versions were developed. The first was commonly known as the “Day Attack” variant (1983). Later, a “Night Attack” variant was fielded (1991). The Night Attack Harrier incorporated a Navigation Forward Looking Infrared camera (NAV FLIR) and the cockpit was made compatible with night vision goggles (NVGs). It was also able to use the larger Rolls Royce engine. The II+ described below is identical to the Night Attack variant, except it incorporates an APG-65 radar, the same as in early F/A-18 Hornets. Next came AV-8B II+ — AV-8B with radar (APG-65) allowing firing of radar guided air-to-air missiles; should be designated AV-8C.

Question: did Italy initially use AV-8B Day attack and later switched to AV-8B Plus?

Hello,
what is the meaning of:
Strategic bombs
Tactic bombs?
I heard about Strategic Nuclear bombs… what is the meaning of this? is it different from the Nuclear boms?

and what it the meaning of strategic and tactic attack?
I wish I will find the answers here :rolleyes:
Thanks

You mean strategic and tactical bombing. See here

Tactical bombing aims to defeat individual enemy military forces. Strategic bombing aims to undermine a nation-state’s ability to wage war, historically as a part of a total war strategy. The distinction between tactical and strategic bombing can be easily blurred.

PdA operates a lot of exercises more than GG.
GG operates more combat operations, such Kosovo and Afghanistan.
PdA is more larger and capable for aircrafts that Armada doesn’t have.
Italy has more Harrier than Spain.
If a spanish pilot trained with USMC or if a UK’s harrier took off on Dedalo this is not enough to say that Spain has tradition in naval aviation.
Both Italy and Spain are younger in naval aviation. US, Uk and France have long traditions.

Sorry, in the picture there was not CG??? What is?? :confused:

One of its predecessors. I think it is Foch (R99), but I’m not sure, could be Clemanceau (R98). If Foch, then she is currently in Brazilian service under the name Sao Paolo.

Woowww, wonderful,
the three european carriers, PdA, GG and CdG.
The Invincible is missing?

There’s no CdG in these pictures ….

All very well but you are forgetting that the little country of 16 million people that I live in is among the top investors in the US, about equal the amount that French and Germany each have invested in the US. And that is roughly 2/3 of all Asian investments in the US. So, that attitude is not fitting. Not in the last place because my country was the first to recognize the fledging United States and co-financed its struggle for independence. To this day, when push comes to shove, the US does need her allies and ‘coalitions’.

Now don’t come back with some statement about me being anti-american. I have many colleagues, friends and family there and have lived there for. Smart Americans do not conduct themselves in this manner as it is this arrogant attitude which gets your country into Vietnams and Iraqs. The older members of my familiy did not serve in the US and other military and fight Germans and Japanese in WW2 to see the US turn into a nation and state that condones and/or is actively involved in the torture of people, like SS and Gestapo reincarnate. That line is longer than Iraq (e.g. Chili/Pinochet).

Finally, don’t forget who put forward the UN and its predecessors: this included some great American leaders.

————-
The impetus for the founding of the League came from Democratic U.S. President Woodrow Wilson although the United States never joined the League of Nations. The concept of a peaceful community of nations had previously been described in Immanuel Kant’s Perpetual Peace. The idea of the actual League of Nations appears to have originated with British Foreign Secretary Edward Grey, and it was enthusiastically adopted by the Democratic U.S. President Woodrow Wilson and his advisor Colonel Edward M. House as a means of avoiding bloodshed like that of World War I. The creation of the League was a centrepiece of Wilson’s Fourteen Points for Peace, specifically the final point: “A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.”

The League lacked an armed force of its own and so depended on the Great Powers to enforce its resolutions, which they were often very reluctant to do. After a number of notable successes and some early failures, the League ultimately proved incapable of preventing aggression by the Axis Powers in the 1930s. The onset of the Second World War made it clear that the League had failed in its primary purpose—to avoid any future world war. The United Nations effectively replaced it after World War II and inherited a number of agencies and organizations founded by the League.

The United Nations (UN) is an international organization that describes itself as a “global association of governments facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, and social equity.” It was founded in 1945 by 51 states, replacing The League of Nations.

The UN was founded after the end of World War II by the victorious world powers with the hope that it would act to prevent conflicts between nations and make future wars impossible, by fostering an ideal of collective security. The organization’s structure still reflects in some ways the circumstances of its founding

Winston Churchill first suggested using the name “United Nations” to refer to the wartime Allies: he cited Byron’s use of the phrase “united nations” in Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage, which referred to the Allies at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. United States president Franklin Delano Roosevelt adopted the name and the first official use of the term occurred on January 1, 1942 with the Declaration by the United Nations.. During subsequent phases of World War II the Allies used the term “United Nations” to refer to their alliance.
———-

If the UN is a failure, then all involved in it bare responsibility for that failure. FYI, this includes the US.

I really no know anyting about saudi weapon system but rumor ever weapon that was purchase from the US will stop operating if it get’s too closed to iisrael border.

And how is this supposed to happen?

Basically the design was for a battle group to hunt down commercial radars and naval groups composing of fast destroyers and cruisers and as a colonial-cruiser to show the flag and the then todays politically incorrect term of “keeping the natives” in line. Some have said that is exactly what Spains one V/STOL carrier was orginally designed for.

Jack E. Hammond

The Sea Control Ship concept was the brainchild/pet-project of then-CNO Zumwalt but never came to fruition in the USN.
A Sea Control Ship (SCS) is a type of small aircraft carrier designed and conceptualised by the US Navy in the 1960s. The SCS was designed due to severe cuts in Navy spending, requiring a cheap, flexible platform that could deliver air power to the field without resorting to an enormous aircraft carrier.
SCS was a concept in which a shipboard platform would have a smaller complement of aircraft than the large carriers(CVA) and would maintain control of sea lines/lanes inlow threat areas of the world. A SCS ship would be designed to carry the V/STOL aircraft as well as helicopters, in order to provide protection of underway replenishment groups, mercantile convoys, amphibious assault forces and task groups with no aircraft car-ner III company
The SCS concept apparently began in 1969 with a study from the USN’s Long Range Objectives Group for a new ship called the DHK. These ships of around 14000fl would carry 12 ASW Helos plus the usual destroyer type armament (e.g. aviation capable Spruance variant). Also looked at in the same study was conversion of Commencement Bay class CVEs. In 1971 the SCS designation was formally assigned for preliminary design. At this time the capability to carry VSTOL fighters was added. SCS Air Group:
11 ASW Helos
3 Early Warning Helos
3 Harrier Fighters
In late 1971 the USS Guam LPH 9 was modified for proof of concept trials lasting until the Spring of 1974 operating both ASW Helos and Harriers. The SCS design was canceled although modified plans were sold to Spain resulting in the Principe de Asturias small carrier.

Are you suggesting that is also the actual location of the hangar? If so, why would it be only on one side of the ship?

Found this on http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=386

“Lancé en 1985 et admis au service actif en 1991, le Kuznetsov mesure 304 mètres de long pour un déplacement de 65.000 tonnes à pleine charge. Ses installations aéronautiques comprennent un pont d’envol de 300 mètres de long (surface : 14.700 m²) avec une piste axiale de 60 mètres s’achevant par un tremplin incliné à 12° et une piste oblique longue de 220 mètres. Son hangar, desservi par deux ascenseurs s’étale sur 5380 m². “

If the width is 26 m then given this hangar area it’s length must be about 207 m rather than 152 m. Alternatively is length is 152 m then width should be about 35 m, which corresponds roughly with the Kuznetsov’s beam.

As for capacity, lets assume the 152×26 measure is correct for the moment. There are images available which the hangar holding 3 SU-33 with folded wings side by side. Width of a SU-33 with wings folded is 7.40 m. Taking into consideration the space that can be saved by parking them alternatingly nose or tail forward, it should be possible to fit 3 side by side in a 26 m wide hangar, while still leaving space on one side for parking a Kamov Hormone helicopter.

The hangar dimensions of the Gorshkov are quoted as 130x23x5.7m. However, since a Mig-29K with wings folded is only 5.9 m wide and is also about 4m shorter than Su-33 (17m versus 21m), this smaller hangar will likely be able to hold a similar number of jets and helicopters as the larger one on the Kuznetsov (max e.g. 7×3=21 jets, plus 10-12 helicopters).