cut&paste into 1 image:

Taiwan had planned a modified Perry-class Frigate with a 32-cell Mk 41 VLS and the 76mm gun on the bow, and SSMs amidships.
While it was canceled, it is an interesting idea.
Kwang Hua I/PFG-2 batch 2:


It can definitely operate F-35B with modifications, but there are some features which which would probably have been designed differently if it was intended to operate F-35B in the future, for example the size of the lifts. I thnk only one can take an F-35B, so there’s no backup if the aft lift fails.
That would mean modifying the ship. An F-35B can’t operate off it as currently configured.
If Hyuuga or her sister ship goes into dock & sprouts a ski-jump, expect F-35B operations. Until then, forget it. The
The JMSDF has stated the flight deck of the Hyuga class is not rated for the temperatures that would be experienced with take-off and landing by an F-35B.
So there would need to be significant materials work on the entire flight deck before anything but trials could occur.
Jonsey, the problem with your idea is it adds several dedicated aircraft to an already crowded “aviation-limited” ship.
The Tactical Organic Sensing System is to be developed as a modular system, meaning you can use the Ospreys normally aboard, and just slide the module in when you want to fly an AEW mission… then slide it back out when you need that airframe for a troop/cargo mission.
Not knowing what the RA.28R went in, I googled it… and found this nice number:
http://www.transportarchive.org.uk/getobject.php?rnum=G3314&searchitem=Concorde&mtv=G1&pnum=7

It looks like the USMC have given the US its Sea Control ships by another route. Shame that there’s no AEW though. Maybe there are plans afoot to mod the Osprey or deploy UAVs in that role?
Al
There is a plan for the Osprey to carry an AEW radar… the program is called TOSS.
http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2008/03/vertical-upgrade-for-airborne-early.html

Wish I could see the pics… that site locked up my computer so tight I had to shut off power without shut-down to regain function of any kind.
And yes, my computer handles PDFs just fine.
10 is sufficient, as this meets the minimum requirements to keep 1 carrier at sea (not counting short port visits) in the 3 main operating areas at all times. 9 would begin entering into the realm of over-use.
No more CVNs are needed as long as the USMC gets an all-F-35B force. This will give an increased ability for the 10 Expeditionary Strike Groups (centered around an LHA/LHD) to operate independently in lower-intensity operations until a Carrier Strike Group can reposition to support them, or to deal with a situation by themselves (as they have done numerous times in the past 20+ years… see Liberia in 1990-91 & 2003, and other such missions).
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/sharp_edge.htm
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE4DD1730F936A2575BC0A9659C8B63
Tensions in the area rose further when the United States sent destroyers to international waters off southern China to protect a naval surveillance patrol that was involved in a stand off with Chinese vessels.
China says the U.S. patrol vessels were within its 200-kilometer (125-mile) economic exclusive zone, but the United States has insisted they were in international waters.
An EEZ is NOT “territorial waters”!
It is simply an area in which another nation cannot conduct fishing/resource extraction operations.
The US ship was 75 miles south of Hainan Island, so it was certainly in the EEZ, but NOT in territorial waters.
Passage of ships and other “non-economic” activities (including non-combat military operations) are allowed to any nation in another nation’s EEZ… so the Chinese protest is meaningless under international Maritime law.
Territorial waters, or a territorial sea, as defined by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, is a belt of coastal waters extending at most twelve nautical miles from the baseline (usually the mean low-water mark) of a coastal state. The territorial sea is regarded as the sovereign territory of the state, although foreign ships (both military and civilian) are allowed innocent passage through it; this sovereignty also extends to the airspace over and seabed below.
An exclusive economic zone extends for 200 nautical miles (370 km) beyond the baselines of the territorial sea, thus it includes the territorial sea and its contiguous zone. A coastal nation has control of all economic resources within its exclusive economic zone, including fishing, mining, oil exploration, and any pollution of those resources. However, it cannot regulate or prohibit passage or loitering above, on, or under the surface of the sea, whether innocent or belligerent, within that portion of its exclusive economic zone beyond its territorial sea. Before 1982, coastal nations arbitrarily extended their territorial waters in an effort to control activities which are now regulated by the exclusive economic zone, such as offshore oil exploration or fishing rights (see Cod War). Indeed, the exclusive economic zone is still popularly, though erroneously, called a coastal nation’s territorial waters.
Yes, the 300-series Avons (and only the 300-series) were designated RB146.
Avon RA.29 (mk301): thrust 12,100 lb (15,715 lb); length 138”; diameter 41.5”/44” reheat module; SFC .932/1.85
Avon RA.29 (mk302): thrust 12,690 lb (16,360 lb); length 138”; diameter 41.5”/44” reheat module; SFC .85/1.85
Avon RM6C (RA.29) [#66 reheat module]: thrust 12,690 lb (17,260 lb); length 138”; diameter 41.5”/44”; SFC .85/1.85
Avon RM6C (RA.29) [#67 reheat module]: thrust 12,690 lb (17,640 lb); length 138”; diameter 41.5”/44”; SFC .85/1.85
I found a weight of 2,890 lbs for the Avon RA.29 (mk 301), but this seems a bit light, as that is the same as I have found for the non-reheated Avon 201/2 series (RA.14/28).
There was a 500 lb difference between the Avon 100-series RA.7 (2,460 lb with no reheat) and the RA.7R (2,960 lb with reheat).
Magnetos were part of the ignition system… but they are different from what you are talking about.
I hear a wind-up in progress.
Freedom, Wisconsin:
http://www.townoffreedom.org/
Freedom, New Hampshire:
http://www.townoffreedom.net/
Freedom, NY:
http://www.city-data.com/city/Freedom-New-York.html
Independence, Missouri:
http://www.ci.independence.mo.us/
Independence, Va:
http://www.independenceva.com/
Independence, La:
http://www.townofindependence.com/Default.aspx
I found that the photo slot didn’t seem to generate the same interest as the Historic one does.
Precisely.
hunterxf382, I have a great interest in historic aircraft, but have little spare time. As a result, I don’t think I have ever even visited the photography section here… unless there was a link to a specific thread/set of pics in a post in a Historic or ModMil thread.
I definitely don’t have the time to sort through all the threads there to try to find if someone has posted pics of an aircraft I am interested in… or to check out one on an aircraft I am unfamiliar with until I actually see it mentioned and develop an interest in it.
While I haven’t yet posted anything on the “post-pic” threads here, I appreciate their presence.
That said… I need to find out more about BP Overstrands…. 😀
Van Halen ………. Dreams 😉 with nice video http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GjPEBunlstQ :p
That vid has been taken down.