Bigger, heavier, more powerful, more of them… that’s the American way. Ski-jumps are clever, efficient, imaginative, very un-American. :diablo:

“An AV-8B Harrier with a gross weight of 29,000 lb (13,000 kg) on a 59 °F (15 °C) day and a 35 kn (40 mph; 65 km/h) wind over the deck would require 400 ft (120 m) to takeoff using a 12° ski jump ramp designed as on the Principe de Asturias, but 750 ft (230 m) without the ski jump ramp.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_Deck#cite_note-history.navy.mil-10http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/1990s/1990/mj90.pdf

Pincipe d’Asturias length o.a.: 195.9 metres (643 ft) . The 5,100 m² flight deck is 176 m in length

WASP LHD length o.a: 257m (844 ft) . The 8,522 m² flight deck measures 250m (819 ft) by 34m (112ft).

In other words, the flight deck on the larger US ship has sufficient length for any AV8Bs launching from it to not need the ski-jump.

Further from previous post it appears to have a very similar setup to the older FLOLS system:

http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation2/P-1211/P-12110017.htm

http://www.tpub.com/content/construction/14027/css/14027_167.htm

Nice find, thx

about 1997 my partner and I took in language students.One was a mature french guy from one of the major french naval bases.He was on a english refresher course and was pretty good,hower as his leaving date drew near he became very anxious and worried looking so I asked hom what the problem was.He replied”when I start work next week I have to train Taiwanese sailors on ship systems on some second hand frigates we are selling to them,problem is only the officers speak english so I have to translate from French to english and they tell the sailors in chinese”!!!Wonder if the frigates ever got there!!!

Taiwan has not obtained any ships second hand from France, frigates or otherwise.

according to this article
http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=116658

the LSD FOUDRE is finishing a great repair and maintenance program although she is expected to decommision next year.

Don’t you find strange that a ship supposed to decomission is being submitted to such a repair? A possible “pre agreement” for a future sale to a foreign navy?

On June 2010, French defense minister Hervé Morin offered the Foudre (L 9011) to the Argentine Navy during his visit to Buenos Aires. Argentina had already declined the transfer of the Ouragan class in the past and was more interested in seeking French support for a locally built amphibious ship instead.
http://infodefensa.com/lamerica/noticias/noticias.asp?cod=2369&n=Francia-ofrece-un-buque-de-transporte-anfibio-a-Argentina
http://infodefensa.com/lamerica/noticias/noticias.asp?cod=2026&ref=Tierra&n=Argentina-y-Francia-hablan-de-cooperan-en-la-construcci%F3n-de-buque-anfibio-y-la-modernizaci%F3n-de-aviones-y-helic%F3pteros
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foudre_class_landing_platform_dock

Sister ship Sciroco is a good 8 years younger than Foudre (commissioned 1998 versus 1990)…

The USN AN/SPN-46 PALS system uses dual arrays to be able to handle two aircraft in an approach pattern. So you could imagine this system being similar. Presumably the inboard array handling the closer inbound at some range threshold. Obviously just supposition but the pieces do seem to fit!?.

like so:

http://www.tpub.com/content/et/14089/css/14089_33.htm

Precision approach and landing systems include Textron Systems’ SPN 46 (V)1 and (V)2 automatic landing systems for aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships.

When engaged a PALS approach provides a hands-off landing for the pilot. Pilots don’t use it often, prefering not to hand off much of the aircraft’s controls to a computer but it is important for controller to be able to take control when all other systems fail. Another type of approach used is a mode II approach. Using a crosshair display, or “needles”, pilots line up their approaches and get confirmation of their readings from a CATCC computer. The third type of approach, mode III, involves a controller “talking down” a pilot, providing the pilot with precise instructions for a safe landing

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/an-spn-46.htm

Automatic Carrier Landing System (ACLS) AN/SPN-46(V)3 is a Precision Approach Landing System (PALS) which provides electronic guidance to carrier-based aircraft and allows landing in all weather conditions with no limitations due to low ceiling or restricted visibility.

http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.PhotoGalleryDetail&key=8E68C563-917F-4F68-9200-05AF2EA29C72

That after bridge deck would be their equivalent of Flyco i’d presume?.

I dont like the inboard array for a fire control set – what good is it there when you could site a director anywhere along the port deck edge extensions and get better arc’s.

Sited atop flyco, highly directional, modest output (going by array size) indicating short-ish range. How does some kind of precision approach radar system, possibly bistatic, grab you?.

Plausible, particularly since the pair of AK630s found on each flank of the Kuznetsov are not present on the Varyag (and these would be the only gun fire control purpose I could think of for this set of radar directors). If so, it is an interesting Chinese development. Any similar Western of Russian system od or new?

Anyone care to theorize/speculate what the 2 fire control radars atop the read bridge are for?