The “simultaneous launch & recovery” was only really needed because of the large size of the USN supercarriers’ air wings, and only possible because of the size of the ships.

The smaller air wings could not muster enough operational aircraft to sustain truly continuous flight operations, so there was always time to shift between portions of the cycle.

However, the large air wings could keep pairs or quads of aircraft launching & recovering on a steady basis… thus requiring separate launch & recovery areas.

This was enabled by the number of deck-edge elevators and the large deck area, allowing “up” aircraft stored in the hangar to be brought up to replace returning aircraft with malfunctions that would then be struck down, and for aircraft movements to be accomplished… all while air ops were still continuing.

The small deck area of the Brit/French ships meant there wasn’t room to do more than one thing well and another poorly at the same time, much less the “all 3 well at once” of the supercarriers.

My info came (I am embarrassed to admit) from this DefPro article*, which seems to be a Babcock press release copied word-for-word:

http://www.defpro.com/news/details/13567/

Note that the statement refers to it being a “4-year refit”.

The explanation of the 2-year “no-work” period came from here: http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/12589

*what I have seen from DefPro indicates it lacks professionalism… some articles are wildly inaccurate, and others contain speculation and guesses claimed to be facts.

I usually ignore what they “publish”… but this time, as I mentioned above, it seems to be a “cut&past” of Babcock’s release, not something they made up (sorry, “wrote”).

6 years of refit for a SSN (when the US refit for a CVN lasted usually 3-3,5 years)….:rolleyes:….But the best was for few russian warships, more than a decade in shipyard 😀

Apparently, there was a 2-year period when no work was done at all in order to do work on refitting the ballistic missile submarine HMS Victorious.*

Then there were some unexpected “issues”.

Among these was the need for new inspection equipment to be designed, manufactured and commissioned to carry out surveys on the reactor systems. This required close working between Babcock, the MoD design authority and Rolls Royce to minimize program impact. Additionally, repairs were successfully carried out by Babcock to both torpedo tube air ram cylinders which were far more extensive than anticipated before being surveyed at the start of the LOP(R). Further challenges included equipment obsolescence issues, often requiring fault diagnosis and resolution without original manufacturer’s drawings.

* A deliberate decision was made to only work on one sub at a time, so as to keep the workforce at a steady level, which also had the effect of prolonging the time that those workers were employed on the refit/modernization projects. The MOD was apparently fine with this, despite it delaying re-commissioning of HMS Triumph for 2 years.

Bolivia still has 16 modernized T-33s in its inventory, but they are in the process of replacing them with Chinese/Pakistani-made JL-8/ K8 Karakorum trainer/light attack aircraft (6 currently contracted for).

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Czechs-Bounce-So-Bolivia-Goes-Chinese-05844/

Paraguay operated six AT-33A donated by Taiwan in 1990. The belonged to the Grupo Aerotáctico (GAT) 2nd Fighter Squadron (called “Indios”). They were withdrawn from use in 1998.

My friend I doubt that they would have been as effective as planned (and in my opinion the job could have possibly been done by the USAF/USN adopting a hard hitting cannon like the 30mm Aden in their fighters of the day! instead of the insistance of sticking to 12.7mm HMG’s!)
Thanks gents

Regards
Pioneer

The USAF is guilty there, as they only shifted to cannon late, with one model of the F-86 Sabre (the F-86H), and then in new designs from that point on.

The USN had made the shift to 4x20mm cannon at the end of WW2.
The only jet fighters the USN ordered that had 12.7mm HMG’s (.50 cal) were the FH Phantom and the FJ Fury (ordered in 1943/44 respectively)… and both saw limited service as introductory types… production examples totaled only 60 FHs and 30 FJs.

Their contemporary, the F6U-1 Pirate (also ordered 1944, 30 production versions built), had 20mm cannon… as did all further USN fighters, including the F8U Crusader.

Yes, a better cannon could have been used, as the Colt 20mm had some reliability problems in high-G maneuvers, but I have read that the 30mm Aden had its own glitches as well.

OK… who’s gonna throw the first stone at Blue_2?

After all, he WAS the first to mention a certain word…

😀

While Drakens are fascinating, and inarguably sleek…

There is something to be said for compact and workman-like.

Typical government procurement is to set threshold requirements (must haves) and objective requirements (nice to haves). No credit is usually given for exceeding objectives because that extra capability is costing more and taking away money from other programs. Hence, no credit for exceeding objectives.
Cheers

That is based on the assumption that greater capability ALWAYS means greater cost.

In this case, information from the last competition showed that the KC-45A (KC-330 US) would deliver that extra capability without extra cost… the extra capability was FREE!

Therefore, NO “taking away money from other programs” at all.

Why not factor that in then?