I’m not saying they would be more reliable, but that many of those who purchase used warships might not do so if they have to pay the start-up costs for new manufacture of parts that were last made 20 years earlier, rather than just refurbish currently existing ones.

After all, if they could afford new, why not the whole ship new? That would really lower maintenance costs!

As for the propellors, are you not aware that the propellors on De Gualle were made by the only such manufacturer in France… who ceased manufacture of propellors after they made those… and then suffered a mysterious fire after the propellor broke… which destroyed all records pertaining to them, just as the government was about to investigate whether there were design or manufacture errors?

There were no spare propellors, and no engineering drawings left for the broken ones, so De Gualle would have been immobilized for the 2+years it actually took for another company to design & build the new ones she eventually got. That is why France installed Clemenceau’s old props… despite the lower performance… it was better than having their brand new nuke CV immobilized for 2+ years!

I agree than ideally it would have been nice to have both still in service… but reality intrudes… the UK is not the only nation where the Treasury has as much (or more) to say about what is bought as do the Military “Heads of Service”.

all, Argentina could really use Clemenceau for “El Conflicto Segundo por Las Malvinas”… 😀

Apparently you didn’t bother to read what I posted… because it DID mention that.
“Because of delays, these slats were not initially fitted to the first 43 F-4Ss, but they were later retrofitted.” “First to get the F-4S was VMFA-451, which began to receive unslatted planes in June of 1978.”

Here is the source list for what I posted [note what #2 is]:

Sources:

1. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Since 1920: Volume II, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1990.

2. McDonnell F-4 Phantom: Spirit in the Skies. Airtime Publishing, 1992.

3. Modern Air Combat, Bill Gunston and Mike Spick, Crescent, 1983.

4. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987.

5. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989.

6. The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Aircraft Armament, Bill Gunston, Orion, 1988.

Joe Baugher used the same book to write the article I quoted as you are quoting!

Additionally, your time-frame on the F/A-18 is off, “by the time it had come on stream the front line units were already recieveing the F4s replacements.” is out by a few years:

First to get the F-4S was VMFA-451, which began to receive unslatted planes in June of 1978.

The first Navy squadron to receive the F-4S was VF-21, based at NAS Miramar in California, which began to receive its planes in December 1979.

The first production Hornet took off on its maiden flight in April of 1980.

The first production F/A-18 was delivered to the Navy in May 1980.

The Hornet was initially to be issued to training and fleet replacement squadrons (FRS), starting with VFA-125 “Rough Riders” which was commissioned as a FRS at NAS Lemoore, California on November 13, 1980. The first Hornets were issued to this squadron three months later.

In this role, they were later joined by an Atlantic Fleet FRS, VFA-106 “Gladiators” based at NAS Cecil Field in Florida and by a Marine Training Squadron, VMFAT-101 “Sharpshooters” at MCAS El Toro in California.

The Marine Corps was actually ahead of the Navy in getting the Hornet into actual operational service. The first operational units to convert to the Hornet were VMFA-314 “Black Knights” and VMFA-323, both based at El Toro, California. They received their first Hornets in January and March 1983 respectively.

The Navy received its first operational Hornets later in 1983. Navy squadrons VA-113 and VA-25 at NAS Lemoore converted from A-7Es to Hornets in the fall of 1983, being redesignated VFA-113 and VFA-25 respectively.

So, the first production Hornet (which was the replacement for both the F-4 and A-7) first flight was 5 months after the USN started getting their F-4Ss (Jan. ’79) and 22 months after the USMC started receiving deliveries (June ’78)… and again, it was 4 1/2 years after the USMC got their first F-4Ss that the first 2 Hornet combat squadrons anywhere got their aircraft.

Also, if a full-scale war had erupted in late 1984, the Hornet would have not participated, as the entire fleet had been grounded for structural defects!

With increased service experience, an unexpected problem appeared. It turned out that the Hornet was flown more than initially anticipated in the high angle of attack regime, where aerodynamic loads on the tail from turbulent air generated by the LERX were particularly severe, resulting in fatigue-related cracks in the tail area. The F/A-18 fleet was grounded for a brief time in late 1984 while a fix was developed.

Now it really looks like that “stupid modernization program” was a good idea!

Well, there are two points I would like to clear up.

First, the USMC did not “keep well clear of the A-7”, but rather were given a choice by Congress: Either the A-7 or the AV-8, but not both. They chose the Harrier.

I don’t think anyone would call the Harrier less complex or less maintenance-intensive than the A-7, so that point just doesn’t work!

The USMC had originally been planning to buy the A-7 when it won the contest to replace the A-4 in 1963, but by the time it went into service (1967) they were looking at VSTOL aircraft to replace the Skyhawk.

As Greg Goebel says on Vectorsite:
“Although the United States Marine Corps (USMC) had a strong interest in VTOL aircraft, as noted, the USMC did not participate in the Tripartite Evaluation Squadron. However, when the US took ownership of six Kestrels from the TES, some of them also ended up at the Naval Air Test Center at Patuxent River, Maryland, where the Marines performed evaluations on them.

In April 1966, the Marines operated a Kestrel off the commando assault ship RALEIGH and were impressed with the aircraft. Nonetheless, the Kestrel had no combat capability and was useless to the Marines as it was, and there matters stood until the Farnborough Air Show in the UK in September 1968.

Three USMC officers dropped into the Hawker Siddeley chalet at Farnborough and asked to fly the Harrier. The three were given ten flights each, and felt the Harrier was what they were looking for. What the Marines required was a strike aircraft that could support landing forces. Fleet carriers had to be kept well at sea for their own safety, but Harriers could fly from smaller assault ships just offshore, or from rough landing sites behind the battle lines, to provide rapid strikes for ground troops.“

The USMC bought the Harrier, and the first AV-8A combat squadron [VMA-513] was formed up in 1971.

The fact that it took over 18 more years to replace the A-4 in active service (February 27, 1990) was not due to any desire by the USMC to operate two light attack types, nor to any superiority of the A-4 in general, but rather to the higher cost and prolonged development cycle needed to finally get the Harrier to the level of performance (only reached in the AV-8B Harrier II) that allowed them to feel comfortable letting the Skyhawk go.

Make no mistake, if the Harrier had not been built, the USMC A-4s would have been all replaced by the A-7 by the end of the 1970s… and the improved A-4M (entered service 1972) would never have been ordered.

The second point is the radar issue.

The A-7D & E were equipped with radar… a computerized navigation/weapons delivery system with AN/APQ-126 radar and a heads-up display.

This was mounted in the nose, just like the AN/APQ-94 search and fire-control radar of the F-8E that was the base for the French Crusaders… and that nose was no larger than the A-7’s.

It would not have been hard to install an improved radar in the A-7 in the late 1970s-1980s, but it didn’t really need one, as the AN/APQ-126 bombing radar was considered very accurate!

As you say, the main need for an improved radar would be for the Exocet. I don’t know the exact size of the Agave, but the SuE had a very small diameter nose… so it seems to me that a slightly longer nose with the Agave could have been fitted on the A-7 without much problem… requiring a little change in the trim settings to counter the slight shift in fore-aft CG, but nothing major.

Lest see, I would have preferred they use both the names of the CVA-01 class if they HAVE to name them after people…

Who has disgraced the Monarchy less, Prince Phillip [Duke of Edinburgh], or “Cheating Charlie” [Prince of Wales]?

“I only resumed the affair with Camilla after my marriage to Diana had irretrevably broken down”…”I felt I had been forced into my marriage with Diana by my father, and never really wanted to do it of my own will”.

Ok, just when was “the marriage” “irretrevably broken down”… since he didn’t want it from the start, that would be my date… the wedding day itself! If he didn’t want to marry Diana, his vows were a lie from the start.

But that’s just my take.

Broncho, thanks.

Ok, that confirms that Mistral is being looked at as one possible base for the new ships, but the article also says:
“to build its own Landing Platform Dock (LPD), besides buying an old American Amphibious Transport Dock (ATD),”
“By undertaking the project to build its own LPD, or Amphibious Transport Dock”

ATD is a designation I have seen nowhere else, and the use of LPD, Landing Platform Dock, LTD, and Amphibious Transport Dock seems interchangeable in the exerpt you posted… and seem to be locally-used designations.

This is a bit contradictory, as it clearly links the new ships with the Trenton, while Mistral is classified as a Landing Ship Helicopter (Dock) [LHD] by France, the US, and other nations which operate them … Korea, for example (Spain calls theirs a “Strategic Projection Ship”), and that full-length flight-deck (with dock) type of ship is clearly different in design than the aft-only helicopter-deck LPD design.

The USN lists Trenton as a Landing Ship Personnel Dock (LPD)… as opposed to Landing Ship Dock (LSD) which designates nearly identical ships with smaller troop compartments and larger docking wells.

All in all, it seems that the final design is not yet set, so they are hedging their statements in an effort to avoid “getting it wrong”… by by listing all possible options of different types and designations.

Time will tell, and I look forward to seeing just what they do finally build.

Either type would do well, but I do think they need a good helicopter complement… definitely a proper hangar for at least 2 medium-large helos, something Trenton lacks, and maybe something more like Mistral than Trenton.

Having Trenton on hand to examine will help either design… the design of the dock gate can go on either, for example, as well as the trim/ballasting equipment etc.

Heck, it might even be a variation no one else has actually built… who knows?

Well, hello, pot… how’s the tan coming? Nice and black?

“The LST’s are required but I am just saying that hopefully they would be a little bigger and not 5-6k ton roundtable designs.”

The ~5,500-6,000 ton size is considered to be at the maximum limit for LSTs… you know, self-beaching ships.

The USN came to that determination in the 1970s, when it found that its 5,800 ton Terribone Parish class LSTs it build during the Korean war could access 15%-20% more beaches than its brand-new 8,300 ton [I]Newport[I] class LSTs… including a number that they considered to be “must-use” ones in their current plans. That is why most of the [I]Newport[I] class were retired before the first of the 5-year older Austin class LPDs (Trenton, for example)

For your information, the [I]Newport[I] class, as built, carried the same tonnage of cargo (500 t.), and the same number of troops (385), as the smaller Terribone Parish class or HMAS Tobruk… one of those “too small” Round-table LSTs you so despise. They were felt by the USN to have been “less useful than expected”.

The entire ~2,500 ton increase was entirely taken up in providing 7 knots more speed (more than doubling the required H.P.: 16,500 vs 6,000) and range.

As for “Try reading a bit before typing out a novel in response.”, there is someone else who posts here who refuses to provide any references to back up his claims, or verifiable data to refute the information others have posted, just like you did. I ignore what he has to say, too as it is just his opinion, not facts.

Yes, I DID do some research before posting that… where the heck do you think I got what I posted in my first post?

The statement on India looking to build ships derived from information gained from examining and using the Trenton came from an Indian publication.

I have not seen anything regarding a Mistral-type design for India, but I would expect that they are looking at that… it would be foolish not to examine all options before deciding.

I specifically said IF india decides to build LPD/LSD types… NOT “they will”!

I don’t know, and I suspect neither do you since you declined to provide any reference for your claim.

It appears that you prefer short, fact-less exchanges of unsupported opinion over longer, reasoned discussions of capabilities and reasons for the choices made, with supporting facts and references. I don’t… if I wanted to engage in “you’re wrong, and you know why” style arguments, I would still be married.

I don’t speak to her anymore, please don’t force me to do the same with you.

I would love to see the reports, etc that show India is planning to build Mistral-type ships… it would add to my knowledge, and make me better informed.

So, LPD/LSDs are “ancient designs”, are they?

Someone ought to tell the USN (San Antonio class), China (071 class), RN (Albion class), Netherlands… many others… who are building (or have just built) these types of ships for their navies!

Mistral is a LHD, which is built to a different conceptual and operational philosophy than a LPD or LSD.

Mistral is focused primarily toward helicopter-based operations, with landing craft deployed from the dock as secondary. This places personnel lift as the first priority, as they carry fewer landing craft than any of the LPD/LSD types do.

LPD/LSDs are primarily landing craft/hovercraft oriented… with the higher weight lift of the landing craft as the main focus… tanks, cargo trucks, etc…. with personnel lift as secondary.

While a LPD carries more troops and less cargo/vehicle lift than a LSD, it still is intended for sustained heavy movement operations, where a LHD is intended for quick-strike scenarios.

That is why the USN has all 3, to “mix & match” as needed for the specific mission profile.

If India determines that they need more surface-based heavy lift rather than air-delivered troop/light cargo lift, then that is what they feel they need.

The LPD/LSD brings a different capability than does the LST type… the smaller landing craft of a Trenton-type can reach islands and beaches that are unreachable for LSTs (coral reefs, long shallow approaches, etc.), as well as enter rivers & the like.

Yes, the LSTs carry these as well, but fewer, and require calmer seas to load/unload them, and have to refill/empty them with cranes, where a dock-type ship can do that much quicker and more easily (vehicles can drive into/out of the landing craft, and overhead rail-mounted cranes handle other cargo much more quickly).