…..the GR1 is a superior platform to a Bucc what ever the old guard say, its supersonic for a start. …..
Ummm… you are aware that the Tornado (and virtually every supersonic fighter or strike fighter) loses that supersonic capability when its pylons are loaded with bombs, etc?
And that a Bucc could fly faster at low-level (below 1,000 feet) than even the F-4 Phantom?
A Tonka (even a Sea Tonka with more powerful engines) would be slower with a full war-load, and slower at low altitude (where penetration missions were flown in the 1960s-1980s).
This low-altitude capability was not a “show trick”, but a planned and valued combat capability.
Looks like the Indian version (both classes) has the main deck one higher than in the UK and Aussie versions… more internal room for troops/vehicles/supplies.
Classic LST Design………….didn’t know anybody still constructed such types. Yet, they must be economical and versatile…….
The RAN (Aussie navy) is still using the one they built in 1980… HMAS Tobruk.

Japan dispatches two P-3C MPAs to anti-piracy mission off Somalia
“I gave the order today to dispatch the two P3C patrol aircraft,
That is a YS-11T/M, not a P-3C Orion.
The Mitsubishi Heavy Industry (MHI) Model YS-11 is a two-engine turboprop aircraft (powered by Rolls Royce Dart engines) designed to carry up to 59 passengers plus the pilot and copilot.
Production was from 1962 to 1973.

This is a P-3C Orion patrol aircraft:

>on sarcasm mode< Another high-quality “Defpro” article. >off sarcasm mode<
Not to worry… the US is far ahead…
Oh yeah, Obama (the Messiah) is asking Congress to stop the US ABL program as a “waste of money”.
64 modules planned so far, 55 ships planned so far. 1.16 modules per ship.
…..
What about a fire support module for shore bombardment? Lastly, the modules make it far easier to modernize the ships since the modules are not an integral part of the ship.
…..
Sorry Scooter but your mother ship would be an unnecessary waste of resources. Like Jonesy says, if you need s ship with a different module you just send one in.
And the LCS gets another mission… surprisingly linked to those ARGS!!
USMC Commandant Suggests LCS Fire Support
A persistent capability gap in U.S. naval surface fire support (NSFS) could well be filled by the new Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), according to Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway.
Conway said his Navy counterpart, Adm. Gary Roughead, has agreed to expand the concept of using the LCS as a firing platform for what Conway called a “box of rockets.”
The services are still examining storage and elevator capacity aboard LCS, and Conway said “we don’t have [the] box we need.”
NSFS is the ship-to-shore artillery element of the fires triad used to suppress and break apart enemy forces under an amphibious assault. Marine and the Navy leaders looked to reinvigorate the Corps’ classic, forcible beach-entry role after years of in-land counter-insurgency fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. But as adversary defenses become more sophisticated, and reach farther from shore, the challenge for U.S. forces remains to outfit ships with systems offering enough firepower and range.
The truncation of the DDG-1000 and cancellation last year of Raytheon’s Extended Range Guided Munition (ERGM) put a dent in the Corps’ requirement for NSFS (Aerospace DAILY, Dec. 19, 2006). In the near-term, Conway said, the Marine Corps has not found a volume of firepower that can successfully fill the NSFS gap. Using the LCS “may fix the problem for the long-term,” he added.
And more modules appear… along with the need to move seamlessly from ASW (to clear the area for the ARG), to MW (to clear the invasion beach/approaches), to NSFS (to support the actual landing), back to ASW (to keep the ARG safe during the rest of the op). Not to mention the ASuW to keep the “pesky gnats” away from the big gray floating things and the beachhead?
Now how many LCS are needed in you-all’s claimed “1 ship, 1 module, never to be changed” scheme?
The comment by the Chinese Admiral sure seemed like a joke to me.
Just like Ronald Reagan’s jest… during a mike check before his Saturday radio broadcast August 11, 1984:
My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.
That got a lot of people riled up, especially in Paris, where a leading newspaper expressed its dismay, and stated that only trained psychologists could know whether Reagan’s remarks were “a statement of repressed desire or the exorcism of a dreaded phantom.”
Of course, RR went on to establish a close personal relationship with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev after the latter came to power in 1985, and never did actually start shooting at the Soviets, now did he?
Which is what RAS is all about and is normal and routine in every navy that deploys outside home waters.
As has been stated these ships are not FAC’s but oceanic capable frigate sized vessels. Why are they requiring a dedicated mothership beyond USN routine fleet UNREP capability?
Jonesy… you do know about the key feature of the LCS concept, don’t you?
The little fact that they will have replaceable “mission modules” containing the equipment to do its various tasks?
That to shift from ASW to ASuW to Mine warfare the module has to be removed and replaced by a different module?
And that those modules are not small… in fact are larger than any current UNREP ship can transfer?
Therefore a new (or modified) ship that can store/service these modules, and has the crane capability to lift out the old module from the LCS, bring it aboard, move the new module to the LCS, and lower it into place is required?
This is what is being referred to as a “mother ship” or “tender”.
Japan is discounted because Shinano was a conversion of an incomplete battleship, not designed as a carrier.
France is discounted because… well… CdG is under 40ktons.
Displacement: 38,000 tons empty; 42,000 tons full load
The claims are that the “empty” weight of the first IAC will reach 40,000 tons… thus the “4th nation of 40k+ carrier-builders” claim.
I like the “China does not have a Navy” comment…
According to Vectorsite, the B(K).1s were designed to double as tankers, and so fitted during initial manufacture.
44 “Type 758 Valiant B(K).1” bomber / tanker aircraft. These were actually delivered originally as bombers, but were designed to permit carriage of a removeable tanker system in the bombbay, featuring fuel tanks and a hose-drogue unit (HDU) for inflight refueling. Valiants didn’t go into operational service as tankers until 1959 and it is unclear how many were ever flown as tankers, though at least 16 were.
13 “Type 733 Valiant B.PR(K).1” bomber / photo-reconnaissance / tanker aircraft, capable of carrying the HDU or the reconnaissance crate. Most were actually used in the PR role.
Ahhh… I see.
The last time I checked any of the photo links on the main site they worked fine… so you can see how long its been.
I have, however, used the main site far more frequently (and recently), and yes… it is a fantastic resource.
The main ADF serials site has been up for years… this gallery is linked to the main serials site by aircraft serial (links on the serial entry leads to the gallery).
The AIM-4E/F was a direct replacement for the AIM-4B (GAR-1D)
Just a partial oops… the AIM-4A was the GAR-1D, so I got the older designation right… the AIM-4B was the GAR-2, with the GAR-2A being the AIM-4C and the GAR-2B the AIM-4D.
from http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-4.html http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-26.html
Data for GAR-1D/2A/2B (AIM-4A/C/D):
model GAR-1D (AIM-4A)….GAR-2A/B (AIM-4C/D)
Length 1.98 m (78 in)…. 2.02 m (79.5 in)
Wingspan 0.508 m (20 in) all
Diameter 0.163 m (6.4 in) all
Weight 54 kg (119 lb)…. 61 kg (135 lb)
Data for GAR-3A/4A (AIM-4F/G):
model GAR-3A (AIM-4F)…. GAR-4A (AIM-4G)
Length 2.18 m (85.8 in)…. 2.06 m (81.1 in)
Wingspan 0.61 m (24 in) all
Diameter 0.168 m (6.6 in) all
Weight 68 kg (150 lb)…. 66 kg (145 lb)
Data for GAR-11 (AIM-26A):
Length 2.14 m (84.2 in)
Wingspan 0.620 m (24.4 in)
Diameter 0.279 m (11 in)
Weight 92 kg (203 lb)
Compared to the AIM-26A, which you agree the F-102 did carry, the AIM-4F is 1.6 inches longer, .4 inch narrower wingspan, 4.6 inches smaller diameter, and 53 pounds lighter.
I really doubt the 1.6 inch greater length was a barrier to carriage of the AIM-4F.
The AIM-4E/F was a direct replacement for the AIM-4B (GAR-1D).
As noted in my links/quotes, the F-102As were indeed modified to specifically carry the AIM-4F/G family… so the AIM-4E would have been a possibility, if they were kept around for very long.
Whether they actually did is what remains to be determined.