Bager1968NO!
I won’t!!
You can’t make me!!!
AAARRRGGGGHHHH!!!!
“BAJS… we don’ need no steenkin’ BAJS!!!”
😮
Bager1968Don’t expect Mistrals, etc. anytime soon, India has other plans:
http://www.idsa.in/publications/stratcomments/gskhurana030406.htm
“Although Trenton is 35 years old and would have only about 15 years of residual life, the vessel would provide the Indian Navy with invaluable expertise to operate a vastly different platform and enable refinement of its operational concepts for amphibious missions. (Of course, it would also entail acquisition of hovercraft/landing-craft and more transport helicopters to be used in conjunction). Besides, the LPD design could also be studied by Indian shipyards for indigenous construction in the future. Reports indicate that plans are on the anvil to build similar vessels at Kolkata. Although relatively expensive, such versatile vessels are particularly suited for the presently unthinkable out-of-area (OOA) contingencies.”
There are actually to be 5 LST-Ls… 2 already in service, and the 3 new ones.
Class Landing Ship Tank — Large (LST-L)
L 20 Magar; commissioned 15 Jul 1987
L 23 Gharial; commissioned 14 Feb 1997
Based on the Sir Lancelot design, these Landing Ship Tank — Large (LST-L) are built at Hindustan SY but fitted at the Garden Reach DY. In fact, GRSE is the only shipyard in India which specialises in designing and building amphibian LST(L) ships for the Indian Navy.
INS Shardul; ordered December 2001; launched 04 April 2004
INS Kesari; ordered December 2001; launched 08 June 2005
INS ?; ordered December 2001; status unknown
In December 2001, a letter of intent for construction of three landing ship tanks (large) was placed on the Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers Ltd (GRSE) shipyard. GRSE would deliver the landing ship tank by June 2007. The three large landing ship tanks would cost around Rs 350 crore each. The LST designs is an updated versions of two earlier vessels, INS Magar and INS Gharial, built by GRSE for the Indian Navy.
Since the first group was to have 3 ships, and the third was cancelled in favor of the improved type, has the planned third of the improved class been cancelled in favor of larger ships, or is it building?
Bager1968USS Hyman G. Rickover (SSN-709)
Commissioned: 21 July 1984
Inactivation: 14 December 2006
Decommissioning: 1 March 2007 (scheduled)
Bager1968Yes, there is a strong role for this type of ship… if you can get your politicians to buy these in addition to the “higher-end” warships you also need, rather instead of them like the politicos will try to do!
Bager1968A while ago, we discussed this on another forum…
http://p216.ezboard.com/fwarships1discussionboardsfrm9.showMessage?topicID=1280.topic
Not much more info, but take a look.
Bager1968Yes… those aircraft, among which I would place the F4D Skyray (mentioned by Ja) and F11F Tiger, while nominally supersonic (usually ~mach 1.2 max), almost never used that speed operationally, spending almost all of their time subsonic.
They deserve their own comparison thread.
This thread, however, is supposed to be about those aircraft designed for subsonic flight… which, while sometimes capable of temporarily exceeding the speed of sound in specific situations (usually while diving or in a “clean” configuration”), had this ability as either an accidental result or due to aerodynamic refinement after the base design was set, not as a specific original design element!
Bager1968Sea Hawk… no, it has not been mentioned as it was a barely effective interim type… basically the first RN jet-powered strike-fighter, and performance associated with that status… there were better types coming off production lines before it was fully in RN service. The only nation that used it much at all was India… because that was all that the UK would let them get in 1960-1970.
Sea Venom… yes, I mentioned it earlier. Decent radar-equipped 2-seat fighter, definitely better at both fighter and attack than Vampire, but hampered by not being retro-fitted to use even the early models of AAM… not even Sidewinder. This is especially surprising in its Australian service, where the Avon Sabre had Sidewinders from the end of 1959 on, along with its 2-30mm Aden cannon. The RAN flew the Sea Venoms until they were replaced by sidewinder-equipped A-4 Skyhawks in 1967, and did not fit them with anything other than its 4-20mm cannon and 8-60lb unguided rockets, which were aimed by the radar.
The Sea Venom was the Aussies’ only all-weather fighter until the Mirage… with no AAMs!!
I have to correct an earlier statement of mine… the 7,500 lb.s.t. Avon-Sabre was not the highest-powered Sabre variant. The F-86H had a 8,920 lb.s.t (improved to 9,200 lb) J73-3… but its lack of aerodynamic refinement, and its heavier attack-centered airframe limited it to purely subsonic performance.
With its more refined airframe, the Avon Sabre easily used the transsonic realm, and slightly above when needed.
The FJ-4 Fury, with its completely redesigned fuselage and totally new wing, and the 7,700 lb.s.t. J65-16 (Sapphire 100) also “easily slid into supersonic flight” (to quote one of its pilots), and with 4-20mm cannon was more effective than the USAF Sabres in gun combat (FJ-4 was also fitted with Sidewinders).
I really wish the USN had adopted the redesigned Sapphire-200 series engine (available from 1954), as the 9,700 lb ASSa.4 or the 10,200 lb.s.t. (improved to 11,000 lb) ASSa.7 (1956) would have been very nice for the FJ-4! And if they had included the F-86D/K radar as well…
If the RAAF had ordered a radar-equipped Sabre with the 200-series Avon RA.14 (9,500 lb.s.t.)(1954) or RA.24 (11,000 lb.s.t.)(1957) also… [fix that Sea Venom problem]!!
Someone mentioned the F-86’s lack of afterburner. There actually were F-86 models with afterburners… the most powerful was late-series F-86Ds (with the all-weather radar in the large nose), which had a J47-33, rated at 5,550 lb.s.t. (7,650 lb.s.t. with afterburner)… which was not a real improvement over the non-afterburning Avon or J65-16!
Bager1968So why am I not surprised at all that a thread about subsonic 1950s fighters becomes about supersonic Mig-21s and the 1960s & 1970s India-Pakistan wars?
It would be nice if the obsessed partisans could stay on their own threads, if they can’t stay on subject.
Bager1968“Dinant is a town in France.”
Pathfinder, the Flemish would not be happy with you.
Dinant is a town in Belgium.
Tourist information about the city of Dinant in Belgium.
http://www.trabel.com/dinant/dinant.htm
Bager1968Well, that’s exactly what the Demo’s leadership said just a few years ago…
1. that we could save a lot of money by making the USN buy F-35Bs,
2. flying them off of modified LHD & LHA(R) class ships, and
3. reducing the number of CV/CVNs
Since we have more than the rest of the world combined, we obviously have too many.
I am just taking the Democrat’s own words as being their plan, nothing more!
Bager1968Sure it can… if that payload figure includes 5 drop tanks on the F/A-18 and none on the Eagle…
Bager1968Having re-checked the specs on the J32 Lansen, I would have to agree that it belongs here… level flight max speed was subsonic, even if it was capable of mach 1.2 in a dive (that being the “max permissible speed”)!
Bager1968And the “the military budget is too large” section of the Democratic party (and a few misguided Republicans) has repeatedly tried to force smaller carriers on the USN, starting with the SCS & CVV proposals of the mid-1970s.
When the USMC got approval to install the AIM-120-capable APG-65 radar on its carriers in ~1990, the same elements immediately began a chorus of “put ski jumps on the LHA/LHDs and we can retire some Supercarriers”.
The same chorus sang again with the approval for production of ths F-35 was given.
You can say all you want about how adding jump-ramps will improve the capabilities of the LHDs and the F-35Bs operating from them, but the USN will not do it, because those same “small-carrier” songbirds are now in control of Congress!
Simply put, it is “either supercarriers or jump-ramps on LHDs”, and F-35Cs & F/A-18E/Fs operating off supercarriers (with E-2Ds, etc) are more effective than half as many (or fewer) F-35s (and no AEW&C support) per ship operating off LHD(ramp)s!
Bager1968Tiddles, I only frequent two others, one of which is somewhat infamous…
http://www.pprune.org/forums/index.php
Another, which has a lot of sub-sections, is :
http://p216.ezboard.com/bwarships1discussionboards
especially the RN and Air Forces sections.
One for more historic (old) aircraft:
http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB2/index.php
and another broad-based one:
http://groups.expo.st/grp/sci.military.naval
These last 2 I haven’t really looked at, I just have their links.
I don’t know about the “dozens” part, I may have exaggerated a bit.
I have followed links posted on replies here and elsewhere to at least 6 more forums, but didn’t save their links because I hardly have enough time to fully peruse the ones I currently visit, much less add more.
Also, I have seen references to at least 5 or 6 more that I have never visited, that likewise talk about current military/aviation/naval subjects.
So, anyone else have links to other forums for Tidles?
Bager1968The two of you seem to list several Sabre & Sabre derived aircraft:
1) F-86E
2) Canadair Sabre MK5
3) FJ-4 Fury
but what about the Commonwealth CA-27 Sabre?
The version of the Sabre with the most powerful engine (Rolls-Royce Avon RA.7 rated at 7,500 pounds of thrust), served for the last of the 1950s & first half of the 1960s.
The engine was so powerful that on the first prototype’s first flight, August 3, 1953, it exceeded the speed of sound! Oh, right, you said “subsonic fighter”…. 😀
I have always been partial to the Grumman F9F-6/7/8 series… the swept-wing Cougar.
I know it was not quite as good as the Fury-4, but it was always well-liked by the USN pilots, as the F9F-6 actually had better carrier handling characteristics than the straight-winged F9F-5 Panther.
The Cougar was extremely popular with its crews, who admired it for its ease of piloting, its superb carrier handling capabilities, and its robust construction.
Admittedly, it was a “designed for Korea” fighter that entered service in late 1952 (and left in 1959, except the trainers and reserve units), but it always was (and still is) one of my favorites.
Now if they had built the proposed F9F-8N night fighter (the two-seat F9F-8T trainer with the AN/APS-50 radar installed), then I would have a contender.
This brings us to the McDonnell F3H-2 Demon series. This was an excellent subsonic all-weather general-purpose fighter, with an AN/APG-51 airborne intercept radar set. It had 4-20mm cannon (often 2 were removed), and carried Sidewinder AAMs. The F3H-2M was the first aircraft to carry the Sparrow AAM!
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f3hdemon.html
What about the Venom/Sea Venom? They seem to have been well-regarded by the RAF/RN, even in comparison to the Hunter?
Or the SAAB J29 Tunnan?
Sign In
