dark light

Bager1968

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 2,311 through 2,325 (of 3,360 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: France confirms 3rd Mistral-class #2052779
    Bager1968
    Participant

    The article I posted suggests that the French have different plans…

    In order to make it possible the navy to carry out economies of scale and to be able to sell occasion these TCD,

    Apparently, they will raise some of the funds for the 4th by selling the TCDs.

    in reply to: The RAF should be ashamed…….. #2053156
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Again, note that the “two year delay” is to the commissioning dates!!

    Actual construction start is NOT to be delayed… work is simply to be carried out at a slower pace than originally scheduled.

    in reply to: Medium Carriers #2053160
    Bager1968
    Participant

    I didn’t post any pic (of CdG)… Distiller posted a link to a pic that shows the Rafales & SuE on the bow parked at a much different angle than in HK’s drawing (giving more clearance to the bow catapult for the E-2C)… resulting in only 5 aircraft forward of the island vs the 6 in HK’s drawing.

    As noted, in HK’s drawings with the catapult moved to starboard, launching an E-2C from the bow catapult would require clearing the bow of all other aircraft, due to the greater span of the Hawkeye’s wing (Distiller’s photo shows it extends well past the “clearance line” painted on the bow).

    in reply to: France confirms 3rd Mistral-class #2053166
    Bager1968
    Participant

    I KNOW it’s not the same story… I posted it specifically for the part I underlined*…

    The part that says that, yes, it IS to replace Foudre… and that a 4th is planned to replace Sirocco!

    I would expect that with 4 in the fleet, there should be 1 available for training duties in all but the most dire circumstances.

    * and because it addresses your concern about the fleet train as well… that there is a program being prepared to replace the fleet tankers and support ships.

    in reply to: Japan to consider F/A-22 to replace its F-4s #2463777
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Most of the nations buying F-35 are not willing (or able) to field two high-end fighters… and want a true multi-role aircraft.

    F-22 is not (no matter what capabilities the USAF tries to back-fit), and F-35 is.

    F-22 is also at least 50% more expensive than F-35, which is a major deal-breaker for most of the nations that are in the F-35 program.

    in reply to: France confirms 3rd Mistral-class #2053325
    Bager1968
    Participant

    http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=109002

    An English version seems a good idea – machine translation.

    “Finally a good news for the marine and the building sites of Saint-Nazaire. Within the framework of the revival program of the economy launched by the president of the Republic, the ministry for Defense will have a budgetary extension. Herve Morin indicated that this envelope could allow the anticipated ordering of the third building of projection and command (BPC) of the type Mistral (cost estimated at approximately 300 million euros).

    The first two units, the Mistrals and Thunder, were coréalisés by DCNS and the Building sites of the Atlantic. Delivered in 2006 and 2007, these ships were produced in two parts. The front halves, carried out in Saint-Nazaire in 2003 and 2004, had been towed in Brest where they had been welded with the back parts, assembled by DCNS starting from blocks produced in Poland. For the third BPC, such an assembly should not reproduce, the building sites resident of Saint-Nazaire (today STX France) undoubtedly ensuring the totality of construction. This order would make it possible to fill the hole of load specified starting from the end 2009. If nothing is yet act, a notification is hoped for the next year for a realization in the tread. “We started to work with DCNS to start this project and to present an offer”, explains Jacques Hardelay, managing director of STX France, whose State recently took 33% of the capital.

    In crisis period, where the orders of steamers (principal activity of Saint-Nazaire) are in sleep, the public authorities should thus give a blow of growth to the industrialist, who hopes in parallel to see quickly starting again the project of second aircraft carrier. Nicolas Sarkozy had indicated in June that the decision to build, or not, this ship was deferred to 2011 or 2012. However, if the situation in Saint-Nazaire became critical, it is hard to imagine how the Head of the State would not authorize this salutary order (several assured years of load). The trade unions, like the town councilors, anxious of the future of the building sites, invited the government besides to support the industrial activity in this delicate period. “It would be interesting to be able to produce in Saint-Nazaire these military ships. That would make it possible to make up the deficit of work, in particular in the research departments”, estimates Marie-Odile Bouillé, appointed of the Loire Atlantique

    A third… and a fourth BPC concerned

    Concerning project BPC, it should be noted that the third boat must be followed by a fourth ship of the same type (4 BPC are envisaged in the new model of army defined by the White paper and ratified by the military bill of programming). The two new buildings will come to replace transport of barges of Foudre unloading and Sirocco, brought into service in 1990 and 1998. In order to make it possible the navy to carry out economies of scale and to be able to sell occasion these TCD, the grouped order of the BPC 3 and 4 are not besides to exclude. STX could, moreover, profit from possible contracts gained with export by DCNS. The French naval group in particular seeks to place the concept of the BPC to South Africa and why not Canada and Portugal.

    For memory, the Mistral is 199 meters long for a displacement of 21.500 tons in load. Equipped with a command centre and important hospital infrastructures, it can transport 16 helicopters, 450 soldiers, 70 vehicles (including 13 Leclerc tanks) and 4 barges of unloading. Built to the civil standards, it is in particular equipped with cabins derived from those installed on the steamers. This is why the part before this building, made in Saint-Nazaire, included/understood the “buildings life” and the embarked hospital

    STX in string for the renewal of the supply tankers

    Vis-a-vis the disarmament of its floating workshops and with the ageing of its fleet of supply tankers, the navy currently studies the replacement of these units by a new generation of logistic buildings. Of a displacement of more than 20.000 tons, these ships would replace the buildings of support the Loire and Jules Verne, designed to be withdrawn from the active service in 2009, as well as the supply craft Meuse, Var, Marne and Somme, delivered between 1980 and 1990. Charged with fuel, vivres, ammunition and spare parts, these ships, very requested, make it possible to deploy durably and in all autonomy, far from the metropolis, a naval or air and sea group. However, the four supply craft currently in service start with seriously aging, in particular the Meuse (28 years), some knowing technical vexations more and more. For certain sailors, their replacement is a priority, or else the capacities of deployment overseas of the burbot could be obérées during the next decade. The inscription of the order of four new boats is thus highly wished in the next law of military programming, covering the period 2009 – 2014, is examined this winter by the Parliament. In this manner, the new logistic buildings, capable general-purpose units to ensure the supplies the sea and certain repairs thanks to embarked workshops, could be ordered by 2011 – 2012.

    Double hull: “It would be good that the State shows the example”

    Another factor could, nevertheless, encourage the ministry for Defense to order these boats in times, and even earlier than envisaged. New shareholder of STX France, with more than 33% of the capital, the State will be can be constrained to ensure of the load the building sites resident of Saint-Nazaire. Whereas the company is currently in conflict with one of its main customers, NCL, in connection with the realization of the program F3 (2 giant steamers for 1.5 billion euros), the crisis is also felt in the sector of cruising. After five years of euphoria, the ship-owners indeed ceased ordering ships. And, in ambient uncertainty, one really does not see when that is arranged. However, for lack of new agreements, the site could know a strong contraction of its activity as of the year 2010.

    Lastly, the defenders of the project propose the problems of maritime security. Since 2010, the double hull will be obligatory for the civil tankers. However, the Meuse, VAr, the Marne and Somme are tankers with simple hull. Following Grenelle of the Environment and whereas France pushes with the reinforcement of the legislation on the maritime security, “it would be good that the State shows the example”, estimates an industrialist.”

    in reply to: Medium Carriers #2053376
    Bager1968
    Participant

    On the original, anyway… not on any of those with it moved toward the starboard.

    in reply to: Lebanon to get 10 MiG-29s. #2464757
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Last I read, the ex-Algerian SMTs were “to be integrated into the Russian Air Force”.

    in reply to: Medium Carriers #2053390
    Bager1968
    Participant

    OOOH, OOOhh….

    I have a question…

    On CdG, do they ever launch their E-2Cs from the bow cat?

    Because your drawings (even the “real” one) all show a safety line just wider that the Rafale… while the E-2Cs the French also operate from CdG have a MUCH greater wingspan.

    Wide enough, in fact, to require moving all those Rafales off the bow completely on the versions with the bow catapult closer to the starboard side (the real one would simply require hanging their rears off the deck-edge).

    in reply to: Medium Carriers #2053934
    Bager1968
    Participant

    I don’t their is any need for a Larbord lift as the USN have deleted them since the JFK Kittyhawk class

    Really???

    What’s this on the aft end of the angle deck (port/larboard side) of USS Nimitz (post JFK/Kitty Hawk)?

    http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/us_navy_pages/aircraft_carriers/nimitz_cvn_68/02_uss_nimitz_cvn_68.jpg

    Or here on USS Harry Truman (the 8th Nimitz class CVN)?:

    http://www.truman.navy.mil/photos_original/photo_may08/medium/080531-N-2984R-214.jpg

    Or on the not yet commissioned USS George H.W. Bush (10th Nimitz)?:

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6e/GHW_Bush_CVN_77_Carrier.JPG

    Or planned for CVN-78?:

    http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/images/3-aircraft-carrier.jpg

    http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/images/2-aircraft-carrier.jpg

    in reply to: CVA-01 Opinions? #2054060
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Centaur was pulled from active duty in 1965…
    CVA-01 was intended to replace Victorious.
    CVA-02 was to replace Hermes & Ark Royal, and CVA-03 was to replace Eagle (she was undergoing modernization when the CVA program was axed).

    There was little or no intent to go for more… but that would have been enough… 3 CVAs instead of the Invincibles as fleet carriers… with 2-3 much cheaper, simpler forms of the Invincibles being built as LPH replacements for Albion (retired 1972), Bulwark (1978), and Hermes (she would have gone to LPH duties in 1972 as historic).

    A much better, more balanced fleet than 5 CVAs and no LPH ( the funds-sucking of a 5-CVA program would starve the amphib renewal program completely by ~1982). And no, the 2 extra CVAs wouldn’t make very good “fill-ins” for the LPHs… not enough (and wrong type) of berthing for the troops, and not enough accessible storage for their equipment & supplies.

    For the funds of 2 CVA you could get 3 LPH and replace at least 1 of the LSDs… or build 2 LPH and 2 LSD.

    in reply to: USN "super carriers" too big? #2054064
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Ah, but one can’t assume that any or all of that will be available in every situation.

    E-2C/D; EA-6B/EA-18G WILL be on the same carrier as the F/A-18E/Fs, now won’t they?

    Looks like they’ll be available at least… even if the satellite tracking/recon, etc aren’t.

    in reply to: Medium Carriers #2054067
    Bager1968
    Participant

    To me (and as the USN found in operational service) the SCB-101.66 (1967-70) modification to Midway was a bit too extreme.

    While Coral Sea’s SCB-110A modification didn’t produce quite as much deck park, and had smaller and lighter weight-lifting elevators, she never had Midway’s problems with elevators being too close to the water or the stability problems (excessive rolling in calm seas) produced when they tried to reduce how low Midway sat.

    Coral Sea in her SCB-110A (late 1950s) guise:

    http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Carriers/USN%20Midway%20and%20Essex%20CV/CoralSeaSCB-110A.jpg

    Midway & Franklin D. Roosevelt in their SCB-110 (early 1950s) guise:

    http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Carriers/USN%20Midway%20and%20Essex%20CV/MidwayFDRSCB-110.jpg

    FDR in her final “austere” (1968) guise (she had been intended to be modernized as per Midway’s SCB-101.66, but that cost too much, so she only got a little work to carry her through her last ~5 years of service).

    http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Carriers/USN%20Midway%20and%20Essex%20CV/FDR1968austereoverhaul.jpg

    In my book, both Midway & FDR should have been done virtually identical to Coral Sea, the lower cost would have allowed both to be done, and there would have been little “real-world” difference to Midway’s capabilities… and FDR would have stayed in service longer as well.

    Something like this:

    http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Carriers/USN%20Midway%20and%20Essex%20CV/CoralSeaSCB-110AphaseII.gif

    in reply to: CVF #2054714
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Both of you just shut the ^%$ up before you get the thread locked.

    in reply to: Vikramaditya Part 2 #2054715
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Exactly… report the fool and move on with the real, civil, debate.

    Ignore him, as replying only encourages him to continue and further ruin a decent conversation.

Viewing 15 posts - 2,311 through 2,325 (of 3,360 total)