That is why the “AV-8B+” is so-named, despite having only the main wing & tail surfaces in common with the AV-8B (the entire fuselage is re-designed & new-build, the avionics are mostly-new, and the engine is an uprated version).

By every measure in the previous aircraft-designation history, it should have been the “AV-8D”, but it was much easier to sell it to Congress as an “upgrade to the AV-8B” than to admit it was a new version of the Harrier II.

It was much easier to sell the “Super Hornet” as a new version of the existing F/A-18 Hornet line than to admit it was a totally new airframe & engine combo with only (most of) the avionics in common.

As an interesting side note, the F-100 “Super Sabre” was originally designated the “Advanced F-86E”, then the “Sabre 45” (referring to the wing-sweep angle), and was only designated “F-100” on December 7, 1951 [after the contract was issued for the developmental aircraft (YF-100) on November 20, 1951].

For trainable turrets on WW2 fighters, see the following aircraft:
(single engine) Boughton-Paul Defiant,
(twin-engined) Northrop P-69 Black Widow, various Junkers & Heinkel.

The main problem was weight, since they wanted multiple guns in a powered mount, but the advantage of trainable guns was clearly recognized.

The Hind has to aim the whole airframe at the target, while the Apache does not… it can continue to maneuver while shooting. The range and rate-of-fire advantages you mention are of most use in ambush or passing-shot encounters, while the trainable gun is best used in a maneuvering type engagement.

Yes, A-A missiles are the best choice, but the USMC chose the AIM-9 for its W & Z model Cobras, due to a greater range and already having it in their inventory.

When the helicopter is expecting the fighters, it can actually have the advantage, as the USAF learned in the late 1980s in the USMC tests which led to mounting the AIM-9 on their Cobras (the AH-1W had a positive simulated kill ratio over USAF F-16s in those tests, but the Zoomies claimed the Grunts weren’t “playing fair” by hiding behind hills & buildings and in gullies & canyons).

Well, that is after 100 times that particular wire was caught by the hook.

This means that (in the few remaining 4-wire carriers) #1 wire is almost never changed, #2 wire is changed a bit more frequently, #4 is next-most, and #3 is changed nearly as often as the others combined.
In the 3-wire carriers, #2 is the most-changed, #3 next, and #1 least.

Of course, all are kept properly greased to prevent corrosion, regardless of how long they are in place… and visible rust and frayed/broken strands are also factors in unscheduled replacements.

Also the ability of the Apache’s gun to train well off-axis (and the helmet-mounted sight) makes it far easier to hit a moving target… advantage AH-64 in A-A gun battles, but the Hind would definitely destroy anything it hit more quickly!

I really like the Kamov with the pods, though!

Much like the modern “digital” patterns, the irregular, small shapes break up the lines and edges of structures better than larger color blocks, making determination of shape, size, orientation, etc. much harder for observers.

In some circumstances, they can also create a disorienting effect similar to that produced by a kaleidoscope or a spinning spiral.

But the Agusta-Westland website is NOT the Keypublishing military aircraft discussion board, now is it Flex???

First time I’ve seen it here.

“I am lost here? Would a CVF escort of 1-2 T 45’s with 2-3 Frigates plus a 1-2 Submarines (Astute?) be typical for a RN Carrier Battle Group?”

Scooter, that would be fine if the only thing you were going to be doing was just those 2 CVF BGs, and 2 LSD/Bay-class RFA amphib groups with one T-45 & 2 Frigates each!

Unfortunately, that leaves nothing for any other duties at all… and the RN currently uses as many Destroyers/Frigates for single-ship anti-piracy/show-the-flag/disaster-relief missions as it does for escorting CVS Illustrious/Ark Royal, LPH Ocean, LSD Albion/Bulwark, LSL, etc.

Unless something changes, either in procurement numbers or in reducing UK commitments/presence world-wide, there simply won’t be enough escorts to go around after ~2015!

Originally Posted by TinWing
“France’s purchase of the F-8 was probably a mistake, since the order was placed at the very end of the production run, just as the USN was phasing out the F-8. In truth, France’s F-8s were probably obsolete from the day they were ordered.”

As for it being “near the end of its life” when France ordered it in 1962: The first fleet squadron to get the Crusader was VF-32 based at NAS Cecil Field, which got its first planes in March of 1957, and the first operational deployment of the Crusader was during the Marine amphibious landing in Lebanon in July of 1958. (only 4 years before the French order)
For a time, the Crusader was the leading MiG-killer over Vietnam, accounting for a total of 18 confirmed victories. All of them occurred within a two-year span (1966-1968).
The last Crusader MiG kill took place on September 19, 1968, when Lt Anthony Nargi of VF-111’s Det II destroyed a MiG-21.

By the last year of the Vietnam war (1973), only four Navy fighter squadrons flew the F-8: VF-24 and VF-211 from the Hancock and VF-191 and VF-194 from the Oriskany. All of them flew the F-8J upgrade of the F-8E.
The last Crusader cruise took place in 1976 with VF-191 and VF-194 aboard the Oriskany.

The last RF-8G cruise took place aboard the USS Coral Sea in March of 1982. On March 29, 1987, the last Crusader reserve squadron (VFP-206) finally retired its last RF-8G (146860).

Even though the F-8E(FN) were the last new Crusaders built, that seems to be an awful lot of service after France bought it!!

The F-18 was not available until ~1982, and production runs were booked pretty solidly for at least 6 years after that. Then politics got in the way…

And of course, the F-14 also didn’t exist in when the French ordered the F-8!