yeah, because a hypothetical CVN-78 air wing in 2015 consisting of 2 squads of hornets, 2 squads of super hornets, 4 growlers, 4 hawkeyes, a couple greyhounds, and a half dozen or so seahawks is so woefully inadequate compared against the air wings that the carriers of other world navies will be able to put to sea at that time.

But:

The carrier will be capable of carrying up to 90 aircraft including the F-35 joint strike fighter, F / A-18E / F Super Hornet, E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, EA-18G, MH-60R / S helicopters and unmanned air vehicles and unmanned combat air vehicles.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/

Still:

In order for a carrier to deploy, it must embark one of ten Carrier Air Wings (CVW).[Note 3] The carriers can accommodate a maximum of 130 F/A-18 Hornets[26] or 85–90 aircraft of different types, but current numbers are typically 64 aircraft. Although the air wings are integrated with the operation of the carriers they are deployed to, they are nevertheless regarded as a separate entity. As well as the aircrew, the air wings are also made up of support personnel involved in roles including maintenance, aircraft and ordnance handling and emergency procedures. Each person on the flight deck wears color-coded clothing to make their role easily identifiable.

A typical Carrier Air Wing can include 12–14 F/A-18F Super Hornets as strike fighters; two squadrons of 10–12 F/A-18C Hornets, with one of these often provided by the U.S. Marine Corps (VMFA), also as strike fighters; 4–6 EA-6B Prowlers for electronic warfare; 4–6 E-2C Hawkeyes used for airborne early warning; C-2 Greyhounds used for logistics and a Helicopter Antisubmarine Squadron of 6–8 SH-60F & HH-60H Seahawks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz_class_aircraft_carrier#Carrier_Air_Wing

Appears to be unrelated to either the system aboard Kuznetsov or the one at NITKA.

http://picasaweb.google.com/Mick.Elst/AdmiralKuznetsov#5300585662345849266

http://pilot.strizhi.info/photos/v/nitka/IMG_5038_sk.jpg.html

Nice finds!

Check this one (Kuz + Varyag in single shot)
http://picasaweb.google.com/Mick.Elst/AdmiralKuznetsov#5082899159214512018

It seems evidence but as with any tv report, if you take it out of context it gets new meaning: what – if anything – happened (right) before this video was shot?

Also, how can one objectively determine from this footage whether a) the Babur overtook and turned to port into Godavari or b) the Godavari reduced speed, dropped back and turned to starboard, cutting of Babur?

No oibjective to flame, simply curious to here various answers/arguments.

Personally I think it would be more worthwhile adding a surface attack mode to Sea Viper, the Americans have done similar with SM-2 Standard as this video shows:

Any SARH missile can in principal be directed onto a surface target if necessary by illuminating that target. The missile utilizes the energy reflected from the target and from rear reference RF (transmitted from the director system) for developing missile wing movement orders enabling target intercept.

See accident in 1992 in which 2 Sea Sparrow where fired from carrier Saratoga and hit the Turkish destroyer-minelayer TCG Muavenet (DM-357), former USS Gwin (DM-33) transferred to Turkey in 1971, in the bridge and killing five Turkish sailors (including the captain) while injuring 13 others during an exercise in the Aegean Sea.
http://mashpedia.com/TCG_Muavenet_(DM_357)

Standard Missile was always intended to also be available for attacking ships.
“The Navy’s Standard Missile was a surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missile which came in two versions.”
“The Standard Missile is one of the most reliable in the Navy’s inventory. Used against missiles, aircraft and ships, it first came into the fleet more than a decade ago.”
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/sm.htm
See also Navy Fact File
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/navyfacts/blstandard.htm

” Block IV was the main production variant of the RIM-66A, and featured ECCM improvements, reduced minimum range, and a shortened acquisition time for surface targets. It entered service in 1968, and many earlier Block III missiles were later converted to this standard.
…
All Standard missiles had inherent surface-to-surface capability. But there were also versions designed specifically as ship-to-ship weapons. The RGM-66D SSM-ARM (Surface-to-Surface Missile/Anti-Radiation Missile) was a relatively simple development of the RIM-66B SM-1MR Block V, which used an anti-radiation seeker to home on enemy ship radars. “
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-66.html

…And Standard isn’t alone: Soviet S-125 (SA-N-1) SAM system was also capable against ships.

Don’t know how that would work for an active radar homing missile like Aster, but I presume it could be done.

Aren’t the CH-46s being replaced by the MV-22s? How will that affect deck-spotting and numbers required?

Their folded footprint probably isn’t all that different from CH-46. Unfolded, probably more space needed sideways, not so much difference lengthwise.

Appears the same deck layout works for both helicopter and tiltrotor.

Hi-res image of MV-22s in the process of ‘unfolding’ here

Because a ski jump would enable you to launch fixed-wing aircraft from one half of the deck, while simultaneously recovering them, or operating helicopters, on the other half. That’s more efficient use of the deck.

The crowding you mention is another argument in favour of using as little deck as possible. If deck space is precious (as the crowding implies), then using no more of it than absolutely necessary for a particular function is wise.

So that then basically is the four-spot loss djcross was talking about. I’ld expect you’ld be unable to perform either mission adequately.

Note that LHA/D Tarawa/Wasp compared to LPH (IwoJima) saw an increase in the number of helicopter spots from 6 to 9. That greater number of spots on LHA/D compared to LPH had something to do with the number of CH-46helicopters needed to lift a particular sized unit in a single flight. You’ld be giving that up, going back in fact to a number of spots less than the 6 on board the LPH-2s.

Note also that the AV-8Bs are primarily meant for forward basing (on land, that is!) The Marines Corps’ concept for deploying the Harriers in a land-based expeditionary role focuses on setting up forward bases and light maintenance facilities in under 24 hours on any prospective battle area. Containing one to four aircraft these are to be located 20 miles (32 km) from the forward edge of battle (FEBA). Supplies, including armaments, were to be regularly ferried by Sikorsky CH-53E Super Stallions. The close proximity of forward bases allowed for a far greater sortie rate and reduced fuel consumption.

Typically only 8 Harriers are carried (hardly a numer to go play aircraft carrier with). Carrying more would mean carrying fewer heli’s. But if you take away the LHA/Ds heli’s, why retain capability for 2000+ marines?

The primary role for Gators is moving Marines and their kit to shore as quickly as possible.

The secondary role is keeping those Marines well supplied with ammo, food and fuel.

There are 9 spots on the Gator’s deck for the helos which make the primary and secondary roles possible.

Adding a ski ramp would eliminate 4 of those 9 spots, making the Gators’ ability to fulfill its primary and secondary roles difficult.

It will be a cold day in Hades when you see a ski ramp on a Gator.

Four? How so? See Juan Carlos I deck layout > very similar to that of USN LHA/Ds but on a shorter hull, with skijump.

In practise, LHA/D starboard side helicopter spots are often unavailable due to deckparking of helicopters/aircraft. AV9Bs take off over the slight off centre line. IMHO, adding a skijunp might cost as little as 1 helicopter spot.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/LHD8_Sea_Trial.jpg (hi res)

Why is using a flight deck that is available fully a waste? Having a 250m long lfight deck and NOT using is would be a waste. The LHD is so much bigger at 40k+ tons, as compared to 17k tons for the Principe d’Asturias and 27k tons for the Juan Carlos I (L61), which has a flight deck of 202 metres (663 ft) with a “ski-jump”.

I’m not saying a skijump is not a usefull item, I’m saying the Americans have less need for it because their ship is far larger (longer) to begin with, and they prefer more helicopter spots over the apparent advantages of a ski-jump. Which is logical as their primary role is an remains assault from the sea (not air defence or air attack)