Bager1968I doubt they would “license-build” anything… remember the contract the Chinese signed to buy the Varyag specified that it would be used only for “commercial purposes”… and specifically forbade reactivating it “for military purposes”.
The Soviets had already laid down the next generation of aircraft carrier… larger than Kuznetsov, with catapults.
Here are a couple of artists conceptions of the Ulyanovsk… which was scrapped after the fall of the USSR.
If the Chinese buy any design from the Russians, this would be it.
Bager1968Albert, that picture of a Victor just reinforces Aerodynamik’s statement about Sea Vixens refueling from Victors… but he was asking about what they did before any Victors were converted as tankers!
Bager1968No, flex… as stated by others earlier (not much earlier) in this thread, Switzerland is the launch customer… Singapore is the second one to buy it.
Bager1968Thanks Arthur & famvburg for reminding me of the apparent irregularities in the Harrier’s original designation.
I think it was designated in the V (short/vertical take-off/landing) series, regardless of it seeming to fit in with the attack aircraft series. The AV-8A Harrier had undergone considerable development and modification from the earlier AV-6A Kestrel, and therefore was rightly assigned a new number… as should have been done with the AV-8B/B+{should have been AV-8D} and F/A-18E/F/G.
The Ryan V-8 “Fleep” was a 1-man STOL aircraft with a wing similar to a hang glider, was built in 1956 but did not enter service, and was no longer in the DOD inventory in 1962, thus that number was “free” for further use. Note the re-using of at least 2 other pre-1962 V designations:
pre-1962
V-1 Convertiplane (McDonnell)
V-2 (Sikorsky)
V-3 (Bell)
V-4/5/6/7 unknown
V-8 (Ryan)
post-1962
OV-1 (A0-1) Mowhawk (Grumman, observation STOL aircraft)
V-2 (AC-1) Caribou (D.H.C., later C-7)
V-3 designation reserved for Army STOL
XV-4 Hummingbird (Lockheed, research aircraft)
XV-5 Vertifan (Ryan)
AV-6 Kestrel (Hawker-Siddley)
V-7 (AC-2) Buffalo (D.H.C., later C-8)
AV-8 Harrier (BAE/McDonnell-Douglas)
V-9 Hot Cycle (Hughes)
OV-10 Bronco (Rockwell, observation)
V-11 Marvel (MSU)
XV-12 (Rockwell, supersonic VSTOL fighter developmental aircraft)
V-13 unassigned
V-14 unassigned
XV-15 Tiltrotor (Boeing, test aircraft)
AV-16 (BAE, proposed supersonic Harrier)
XV-17A (US Army, details unknown)
V-18 Twin Otter (D.H.C.)
V-19 reserved for USN
V-20 Chiricahua (Pilatus, PC-6)
V-21 reserved for USN
V-22 Osprey (Boeing)
V-23 Scout (Skytrader, US Army)
data from:
http://www.driko.org/usdes_v.html
http://www.driko.org/des.html
Another aircraft which should have been in the V-series is the Vought-Hiller-Ryan XC-142… which was a 4-engine “tilt-wing” transport which looked similar to a C-2 sized C-130. While it was begun before 1962, it served as a test aircraft into the 1980s.
Bager1968“Right, so they allocated new F- numbers to navy aircraft & the Freedom Fighter, to bring them up to exactly 100 behind the old USAF F- numbers, by selectively including models cancelled years ago, keeping dual designations for aircraft of which there were both air force & navy models, etc. So they fixed it.”
Wrong.
The only aircraft in both Navy and USAF service in 1962 was the Phantom… and the USAF dropped the (January 1962) F-110 Spectre designation and name, so there was no “dual designation”!
The F-5 was formally designated on August 9, 1962, when planning for the new designation system was nearly complete, so the USAF knew what numbers were still available.
All but 2 of the Navy models that received a new designation on September 16, 1962 were still in service in one form or another… whether in active combat squadrons [F3H/F-3 Demon, F4H/F-4 Phantom II, F4D/F-6 Skyray, F8U/F-8 Crusader, & F3D/F-10 Skynight]; reserve combat squadrons [FJ/F-1 Fury]; or as a training aircraft [F9F/F-9 Cougar (reserve fighter squadrons also) & F11F/F-11 Tiger (and with the Blue Angels)].
The last F2H/F-2 Banshees were withdrawn from service in 1961, and placed in Navy storage for re-activation in an emergency, therefore they needed to fit the current paperwork… as they were officially a “war reserve” asset.
The only real exception was the F2Y/F-7 Sea Dart (testing ended in 1957, but the 3 prototypes were still in Navy storage in 1962). No one really knows why this one was included, this is the only one that could possibly fit your theory… and 1 example does not prove any theory!
The website I referred to in my earlier post contains service histories of each type… and specifically lists what they were being used for when the designations changed.
“100 numbers behind” has nothing to do with anything, it is a coincidence.
Of course a certain type of mind cannot accept the existance of coincidences, and must find or manufacture a reason why someone must have planned it (no matter how far-fetched or ridiculous)! :rolleyes:
I recently divorced myself from someone who thought that way, imagine my frustration running into one here.
Bager1968Considering the French carrier experience is with 2 – 32,800 ton CVs built in the 1950s, and 1 – 40,600 ton CVN that took 10 years to complete, had to be modified before it could operate the intended aircraft, then had her propellor break apart in the middle of the Atlantic, finally passing trials after 2 more years… I wouldn’t really trust them to get it right either.
The UK completed the last Invincible class ship in 1985, which is hardly recent enough to be encouraging.
Spain has built 2 small escort-type carriers (the largest 13,400 tons).
The only other European nation with current experience in building carriers is Italy… which is the one helping India. Seems fine to me.
Bager1968For a decent explanation of the USAF/USN designation systems look here:
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/uscombataircraft.html
and click on fighter aircraft (or bomber aircraft) and then on USAF designations or Navy designations to read all about it.
Officially, the 1962 reorganization of the designation system was to deal with both existing aircraft and new ones… all new designations would follow the new rules, and start over from #1 (except where those numbers were used for redesignated USN aircraft).
That is why the new Northrop fighter was designated F-5, and placed in the middle of the redesignated USN fighters, and why the B-1 is the B-1… it was the first new bomber design after the 1962 reorganization.
As for the AV-8… that is a correct designation (sort of), V (vertical {non-helicopter} take-off/landing aircraft) – A (“modified” for attack duties)… 8th vertical aircraft design.
The AV-8B, now, should have had a new number… just like the E/F/G Hornet should have.
Bager1968I question your assumption that Vikramaditya will have poor reliability… do you not know that her entire propulsion plant has been replaced with new-build boilers & turbines of fully modern design?
Or that virtually all other systems have been fully overhauled or replaced?
In addition, the missile magazines that used to fill her bow have been replaced with holds for other stores, making her capable of sustaining combat operations far longer than when she was Adm. Gorskov? This is why her hangar was not enlarged.
The 16 Mig-29 number is the initial purchase contract only… note that the site you quote also mentioned an option to acquire 30 additional Mig-29 aircraft by 2015 is also included in the contract. This means that there will likely be more available for the normal increase in carried aircraft that all navies do in wartime.
Vikramaditya is getting the equivilant (or better) of the USN Service Life Extension Program overhaul after only 7 years of service (1987-1994) and 10 years of storage… a 4-5 year full modernization and conversion!
The USN gave their carriers 4 year complete modernizations by the 30-year mark in order to get a 40-50 year life… Viraat has been around 47 years with only piecemeal modernizations.
I am not surprised that Viraat is experiencing reliability problems… since she first commissioned in 1959 she had only a 2-2 year overhauls and 2-1 year refit in the first 30+ years of her life (commissioned in Indian service in 1989)… how many 1-year or more overhauls has she received since then?
Bager1968The beast that is replacing them is the F-22 that is now in service (at least as many Raptors are now in operational status as all the NightHawks ever built), with a higher payload, longer range, much higher speed, and a good air-air capability as well.
Bager1968The corrosion problem is taken care of on true naval aircraft by coatings, inspection/cleaning access to virtually all parts of the airframe, and by using lower corrodability (and higher-weight) materials.
Guess how many of those could easily be done on an F-15 variant? That’s right… permanently fixed load-bearing skin panels where access panels would be needed and easily corrodable low weight materials are integral parts of the F-15.
To change these elements would result in a total redesign of the structure (also needed for stress-loading for catapult launches & arrested landings)… which would have been affordable in place of either the F-14 or F/A-18E/F programs, but not in addition to either one, which would be the case now.
Just something else you need a time machine to make feasable.
Bager1968To the list of “Ameri-Canards” (although not flown, only proposed) is this competitor to the F-15 in the “FX” competition in the late ’60s-early ’70s:
The Convair (General Dynamics) F-106X.
😀
Bager1968Part of that may also be the operating environment… the air in Iraq/Afganistan is usually a bit less turbulent than the North Atlantic weather that Canuck helos tend to fly in!
Bager1968This has been hashed out several times before… the RN has no intention of selling Invincible to anyone!
Statements have been made by the MOD that Vince is to be kept until at least 2010.. and that she is being kept in order to help keep Ark & Lusty operational.
In other words (implied so as to not upset Parlaiment) she is a parts source for the other 2, and who wants to buy a stripped hulk?
Bager1968Well, that shot looks good… VF-96 I see, but there is only one problem.
The large tail letters indicate which Air Wing an aircraft belongs to… and each air wing is only assigned to one carrier at any time.
There is no possibility of that photo being taken before 1966, because no F-4 carried the NG tail letters before Hermes started her refit on 24 Feb 1964… when she got the longer port catapult. Therefore, that photo had to be taken after May 1966!
History of 1960s F-4B Phantom deployments with tail letters NG:
CV-61 Ranger
August 5, 1964 – May 6, 1965
VF-92 (F-4B)
VF-96 (F-4B)
CVN-65 Enterprise
October 26, 1965 – June 21, 1966
VF-92 (F-4B)
VF-96 (F-4B)
November 19, 1966 – July 6, 1967
VF-92 (F-4B)
VF-96 (F-4B)
January 3, 1968 -July 18, 1968
VF-92 (F-4B)
VF-96 (F-4B)
In 1963 the Air Wing designated NG was indeed assigned to the Ranger, but here is the list of aircraft aboard Ranger in early 1963… and there are no F-4s aboard at all!
November 9, 1962 – June 14, 1963 (NG)
VF-91 (F8U)
VF-92 (F3H)
VA-93 (A4D)
VA-94 (A4D)
VA-95 (AD-7)
VAH-6 (A3D)
VAW-11 Det.M (E-1B)
VFP-63 Det.M (F8U-1P)
HU-1 Det.M (UH-2B)
[this list uses the pre-1962 unification designations… the AD-7 is the A-1J in the post-1962 scheme]
The first deployment of Ranger with Phantoms :
August 5, 1964 – May 6, 1965 (NG)
VF-92 (F-4B)
VF-96 (F-4B)
VA-93 (A-4C)
VA-95 (A-1J and A-1H)
VA-94 (A-4C)
RVAH-5 (RA-5C)
VFP-63 Det M (RF-8A)
VAW-11 Det M (E-1B)
VAH-2 Det M (A-3B)
HU-1 Unit M (UH-2A)
VAP-61 Det (RA-3B)*
VQ-1 Det (EA-3B)*
This data is from 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
Sorry, but your story and photo are not correct… unless you believe the USN is participating in the RN’s grand coverup so deeply that they are altering the records of ship & aircraft deployments!
I accept that that photo is authentic… and shows an F-4B (or J) on Hermes… AFTER May 1966!
Bager1968Hermes cross-deck with CV-61 Ranger was in January 1963, in the Western Pacific.
VA-95 participated… with their A-1 Skyraider prop-driven attack aircraft.
No mention of F-4s, however I doubt that they could have for the simple reason that she only had 35,000lb arresting gear, and the F-4B weighs 28,000 pounds empty. This means that they would have very little reserve fuel, etc. in order to land, but this is possible.
More important, though, is that the F-4’s take-off speed is considerably faster than that of the Buccaneer… in excess of 120 knots, even with a weight of 38,500 pounds combat weight (fuel and missiles only)… which the short BS-4 could not achieve (40,000lb@78kt), even with 25-27 knots ship speed. Was there 15+ knots wind speed?
Yes, Buccs did fly from Hermes before she got the extended BS-4 cat, but only in a test role… not operationally.
“C” Sqdn (Test squadron for Buccaneer Mk1 prototype) – test flying and development of weapon system and sea trials in HMS HERMES, VICTORIOUS & ARK ROYAL.
I do believe that with the longer BS-4 cat and the upgraded arresting gear she got in 1966 that Hermes could operate the Phantom FG Mk.1 [in fighter mode only… maybe with a light bomb load], especially with the FG Mk.1’s modifications (larger flaps & more bleed-air to the boundary layer control to reduce landing speed; longer nose gear leg increasing angle-of-attack to reduce take-off speed).
The problem is, with the already small air wing, having to use some Buccaneers as tankers means a very small strike package.
1966-1967
809 sqn. 7 Buccaneer S2
892 sqn. 12 Sea Vixen FAW2
849 sqn. B flt. 4 Gannet AEW3, 1 Gannet COD4
826 sqn. 5 Wessex HAS3
Ships Flight 1 Wessex HAS1 (SAR)
As the Phantom is larger than the Sea Vixen, and with tanker Buccs:
10 Buccaneer S2 (extra 3 specifically for tanker duties)
8 Phantoms FG Mk.1
4 AEW3 Gannet
1 COD4 Gannet
5 HAS3 Wessex
1 HAS1 Wessex
The best-case would be: 2 Buccs & 2 ‘Tooms down for maintenance, 2 Buccs tanking the ‘Tooms… only 6 Phantoms and 6 Buccaneers for a maximum strike… not really useful.
Much better would have seen the RN buy the Spey-powered 2-seat F-8 Crusader (smaller than the Sea Vixen) that had been offered in 1964… Hermes could have had an air group of:
10 Buccaneer S2
12 Crusader F Mk.1
4 AEW3 Gannet
1 COD4 Gannet
5 HAS3 Wessex
1 HAS1 Wessex
With no need for tanking: 2 Buccs & 3 “Two-saders” down for maintenance… 8-S2 & 9-“Two-sader”. Strike package of 33% more Buccs & 50% more fighters (than with the F-4… 33% more Buccs & the same # of fighters as with Sea Vixen). All told, much better.
Sign In
