SSBNs can be used for only two things… deterrance and nuclear mass destruction.

Carriers, however, can be used for power projection, defence, and specialty missions like ASW, ASuW, air-superiority, land strike, surveillance, SAR, disaster relief (helo-based), etc.

Which is the better buy?

There is also the little fact that warships… especially guided-missile Destroyers… have several times the equipment… and that equipment is several times more complex and knowledge-specific… than the “minimum the regs call for, cheapest we could find, most idiot-proof on the market” stuff on commercial vessels.

Slight variations between systems installed on “near sister” ships can mean that the operators have not been trained on the changes, and have to learn about them while operating them… not in a classroom setting with experienced instructors and training aids, like they were supposed to..

Yes, the LHAs have a hospital.

“A capital ship, the Tarawa class can simultaneously fulfill six war-fighting requirements: flagship for embarked amphibious squadron, flag or general officer staff; aircraft carrier, with a 35-aircraft complement including AV-8B fighter/attack V/STOL Harrier jets, AH-1 helicopter gunships, CH-53E Super Sea Stallion “heavy lift” and CH-46D/E Sea Knight helicopters; amphibious assault launching platform, employing a variety of surface assault craft including the Navy’s newest 40+ knot LCAC, 135-foot Landing Craft Utility (LCU), and other amphibious assault vehicles; hospital ship, equivalent to the nation’s finest local hospitals with 17 ICU beds, 4 operating rooms, 300 beds, a 1,000-unit blood bank, full dental facilities, and orthopedics, trauma, general surgery, and x-ray capabilities; command and control (C4I) ship, with the Navy’s most sophisticated SHF and EHF satellite communications capability; and assault provisions carrier able to sustain embarked forces with fuel, ammunition and other supplies.”
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/lha-1.htm

“all pilots will have to be trained for either craft. Perhaps existing C-130J pilots would train faster (less expense) on the C-27J, but i would suspect most existing C-130J pilots will stay C-130J pilots as they are fairly new planes.”

The USAF has claimed in the past that any C-130J certified pilot would automatically be rated for the C-27J (and vice-versa).

This reduces training and eases scheduling and manning issues.

As for anything EADS claims, see the Norwegian C-27J purchase (as discussed on PPRuNe):

“The 450 million euro (approx) buy was approved in the Norwegian parliament today.

But: The Norwegian MOD also informed the public that Airbus has run a smear campaign against LM, giving false information about the abilities of the C130J.

Airbus published a memo to the media, and perhaps more importantly to the members of the parliament defense committee, claiming that the C130J came last in all 7 comparison studies performed by the N-MOD. (The studies are classified)

The claim is completely wrong according to the same N-MOD.

(Airbus also claimed 2 weeks ago,that the first A400 could be fully operational with the RNoAF in January 2010)

The media has made the misinformation case the major storyline, bringing in a lot of commentators on spin, corruption, lobbying etc.”

My first aviation memories were from the early-mid 1960s.

I was born in Reno, Nevada in 1962, and we lived north-west of there in a little community called (variously) Bordertown or Glider Valley. [1/2 mile from the California border and located beside a dry lake-bed used as a glider landing/recovery field]

Just a few miles away was Stead Air Force Base (used mainly for survival training)… which was closed in 1966 and became the site of the Reno Air Races.

No, I don’t remember any of those (we moved away in Nov. 1967), but my oldest brother attended the elementary school on the base. My dad was a railroad policeman, not asssociated with aviation in any way.

I remember the bangs we would hear periodically, and my parents telling us about what made “sonic booms”… and I wondered what it was like to fly faster than sound travelled.

I also remember seeing lots of single-engined high-wing planes, and lots of gliders… both flying overhead and landing/taking off from the dry lake… often a plane with a glider in tow.

As a side note, many of the glider altitude/speed/duration records set in the US were set in the Reno area… the Sierra Nevada mountains to the west cause the westerly prevailing winds to rise, and the hot air from the desert east of the mountains pushes the winds even higher for many miles past the mountains.

This, of course, is why nearly every dry lake in the area saw glider traffic… you often lost your thermals while too far from Reno to return to your airfield of origin.

Hmmm… my oldest brother lives in Reno… maybe I’ll visit him this September? :diablo:

For the F-14, note the statement ” UPGRADE: sorry, this is fake! This photos send me a friend from Mexico, but original photos located in iiaf.net 🙁 “

As in… photos of US F-14s modified to show Soviet markings.

Lets see… with the C-27J, the US logistics system (yes, all services get their parts from the same supply centers) will have to add very few parts… no new training equipment, etc. (just more of the same), have maintenance personnel experienced on the engines, etc. (higher-level maintenance will be done by the USAF, just like with a number of multi-service aircraft, and for lower-level work, the Army will get a number of senior techs crossing over from the USAF, I quarantee it… as they will offer good bonus money for them to do it).

With the C-295, they would have to add a very large number of new parts (costs more than just the parts to put them into the system and warehouses), add new repair equipment, train everyone on new, unfamiliar equipment… the list of expensive “non-aircraft” extras goes on and on.

I strongly doubt that those costs have been added into EADS’s operating cost estimates… if they were, then they must be planning to give the parts away for free, as I see no other way the C-295 would cost that much less than the C-27J.

“so you would agree that in all likelihood their assertion of 50% lower operating costs is not dishonest and a reasonably fair estimate?”

If you agree that only counting SOME of the operating costs of your aircraft, and counting all of the competition’s costs is not dishonest, or is reasonable.

I don’t.

To find what aircraft types went on which carrier deployment (post WW2) look here: http://navysite.de/carriers.htm
1. click on a Carrier… Ranger for example: http://navysite.de/cvn/cv61.htm
2. scroll down until you see: “Click here to get a view of the deployments of USS RANGER” [here is the link: http://navysite.de/cvn/cv61deploy.htm ]
3. click and a list appears with this data: Date of Departure; Date of Return; CVW (Air Wing #); Squadrons (Aircraft); Tail code; Area of Operations; Battle Group; Operations/Exercises; Ports of Call