Ahh, my fingers must have stuttered… DCN it is.

Hmmm… I didn’t know Vicky had a starboard-angled deck!

Methinks that photo of the two Scimitars “popping wheelies” is reversed.

And what’s with that shot anyway… did they really pull the tail down to the deck in order to generate enough angle-of-attack lift to launch?

The Forrestal fire caused a number of changes in USN fire-fighting doctrine… relearning the lessons of WW2.

Yes, while there were more firefighters aboard, only 1 8-man firefighting team was stationed on the flight-deck (and 1 in the hangar bay), the others were on stand-by.

The general flight-deck crew was not trained in firefighting to save money… the lone man you see running with the extinguisher as the very first responder was an old-timer Chief Petty Officer, who remembered the lessons of war… quick action is better than delayed organized action.

According to the later analysis, he almost got the fire out before the first bomb exploded… 1 or 2 more men with extinguishers joining him at the start would have done the job, but “you need to wait for the trained experts” was how they had been taught!

After this, and the similar fires on the Enterprise & Oriskany within a couple of years, the USN began training everyone in the crew & air wings in firefighting.

There will be no need for a dedicated training carrier, the smaller air wings on fewer ships don’t need as many hours for carrier-qualification/requalification as before, especially with modern simulators for much of such training.

For a long time the USN has used whatever carriers are in post-overhaul workup (or recently returned from deployment) status afor training duties… remember that JFK did a Med cruise in 2002, and was in the Arabian Gulf in 1997, 1999, & 2004… there was no dedicated training carrier then.

Besides, the JFK hasn’t operated aircraft for several months, since she was de-certified for flight ops (arresting gear found to be unsafe before Feb. 20, 2006).

Note the comments & ship’s history here:
http://navysite.de/cvn/cv67.htm

My design is part of my alternate-history for Australia from the mid-1960s onward.

The drawings are incomplete, but you can see that it combines the A-4 Skyhawk with elements of the F-16 (and A-5/F-15 style intakes… although they are fixed-geometry which limits the top speed to mach 1.5-1.8).

Here is the story of the LCFA (actual historic parts are underlined):

Wedgetail FG.mk 1
Background
In March 1964, with the Mirage fighter being delivered to the RAAF, the Melbourne based Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation presented its idea for a locally designed and manufactured, advanced supersonic aircraft designed to meet both flying and weapons training needs. The RAAF jet trainer requirement was eventually fulfilled in 1967 by Macchi Trainers license built by CAC, and a number of 2 seat Mirages built by GAF in Melbourne, resulting in the CA-31 project being cancelled, effectively ending CAC’s indigenous designs.

I see no reason why the Aussie aircraft industry couldn’t combine their experience and knowledge of the Mirage III, CA-31, and the A-4 to develop the Lightweight Carrier Fighter {Australian} during the 1970s.

The beginnings would be an indigenous ~1969 project on the feasibility of providing the A-4G with a low-boost (30%) afterburner for its 9,300 lbst J52-P-8 (to achieve something on the order of 12,100 lbst).
The engineers would quickly determine that a better “cheap” solution would be to strengthen their mid-sections a little and install the newly-developed 11,200 lbst J52-P-408 just starting to be installed in the USMC’s new A-4Ms (1970), and the existing –G models (and a second order) were so modified.

However, they would also propose a separate long-term option… that of designing a “supersonic Skyhawk”!
This would apply the known aerodynamics and structure of the A-4 (and Mirage III) to a fully-supersonic aircraft… with a full-boost (45%) afterburner equipped J52-P-408 (producing ~16,400 lbst) and modern fighter avionics (to be the Magnavox APG-159 A-A radar of the F-5E [also just entering production]).
Having just approved a modernization program for Sydney & Melbourne, there was a need to provide more modern and capable fighter aircraft to equip them, and this seemed a perfect choice… especially as the only other suitable modern type was the Harrier, which at that time was a relatively unproven design with no radar.

Approval for the LCFA was given in 1971, and design work began immediately.
During the development phase, the US would be proceeding with the “LFX” competition, featuring the YF-16 & YF-17. The J101 engine for the YF-17 would look rather attractive to the designers, and they would therefore design the rear fuselage to accept this slightly larger diameter engine as an upgrade option (this would require that the engine-mount section of the aft fuselage be modified for the 33.5” diameter of the J101 [further adapted for the 34.5″ F404] rather than the 31″ of the J52). The prototypes, however, would have non-AB J52s (mounted in an adapter to allow for later replacement) for their initial flights.
The first prototypes would fly in ~1978, by which time the planned engine would have been changed to the F404-GE-100 (10,800 lbst/16,000 lbst AB), which is the production development of the J101.
The change to the APG-65 (24″ antenna vs the 28” of the F-18 Hornet) would also occur in 1978 requiring a hurried integration of the new radar before low-rate production begins in 1980. This variant of the APG-65 was first proposed for the AV-8B before 1980, but was rejected on grounds of cost (until the late 1980s) when it was installed in the AV-8B+.

Engine: F404-GE-100 (10,800 lbst/16,000 lbst AB)
Dimensions: Length 42 feet 5 inches (12.9 m); Span 28 feet 4 inches (8.6 m); Height 12 feet (3.66 m) +L.G.
Wing area: 268 square feet
Weight: ~12,000 pounds empty (~26,400 kg); ~22,500 lb gross, ~26,500 lb max
Speed: 1.5 Mach
Range: (w/2 x 300 gal. ext. tanks) 650 miles (1,080 km); (ferry ) ~2,000 miles (~3,300 km)
Armament: 2 x 30mm DEFA cannon (150 rpg);
10,000 lb weapons/fuel tanks on:
one underfuselage rack, capacity 1,588 kg (3,500 lb) [wet];
two inboard underwing racks, capacity of 1,020 kg (2,250 lb) each [wet];
two outboard underwing racks, capacity of 450 kg (1,000 lb) each [dry]:
4 dedicated AAM hardpoints (200 lb capacity each) [overwing pylons removable]
normal A-A load: 4 x AIM-9 & 2 x AIM-7; 2 x 250 & 1 x 333 Imp. G. drop tanks
normal A-G load: 2 x AIM-9; 2 x 1,000 lb bombs; 6 x 500 lb bombs; 2 x 250 Imp. G. drop tanks

These choices fit well with the as-historic choice of the F-18 to replace the Mirage III in the RAAF.

The 120 Wedgetail FG.mk 1 [formerly the LCFA] were produced from 1980-1987: 48 for the RAN (2-12 aircraft squadrons, 1-12 aircraft reserve squadron, 1-12 aircraft OCU [joint RAN/RAAF], and 13 “attrition reserve”), and 72 for the RAAF (4-14 aircraft squadrons and 16 “attrition reserve”). As the RAF received its last Hornets in 1990-92, 35 of their Wedgetails were assigned to 2 reserve squadrons (7 “attrition reserve”), and the remaining aircraft were transferred to the RAN to provide 1 reserve squadron (later transferred to active status for the 3rd CVR) and a repair/upgrade pool.

If you note the fibreglass caps on the pods, you will see that they are not gun pods, but rather sensor pods.

The lack of guns on the GR.9 is discussed in this thread:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=62971

The An-225 was never intended or designed “for makeshift airfields” as it was not a military transport!

It was specifically designed for the Soviet Space Program… to carry rocket components from the factories to the launch sites, and especially to transport the Buran (Soviet space shuttle) from its landing fields (like the US shuttle Buran required a really long, strong runway for landing) back to the launch site.

Therefore it would always be flying to/from large, well-built “modern” airfields.

You are thinking of (maybe) the An-124… which was designed as a military transport.

Jackonicko, could you tell us, with references we can access, just how “they’ve comprehensively f*cked up the Italian 767s”?