Bager1968As for the Phalanx… on other boards there is discussion of this very point… with many noting that one feature the Saar 5 corvettes share with the LCS is “modular weapons”… specifically the Phalanx!
It is installed in a “quick-change” module that can be removed and replaced with a 76mm gun in just a few hours.
If this ship WAS conducting shore bombardment, then it would have had the 76mm gun, and not the Phalanx… leaving just the Barak system for missile self-defense.
Bager1968Here is what I have:
RCAN Bonaventure 1968, Melbourne 1980, Minas Gerais 1973…
and an updated M.G. with the upgraded Melb.
Note that while the Melbourne and Bonaventure (and Hermes) all had a 6.5° angle… and this was described by the RN as “the largest that can be fitten on this size of ship”… the Dutch put an 8.5° angle on M.G. when they modernized her for Brazil!
These drawings are from Conway’s Warships of the World 1947-1982 part 1 (Nato & Allied Navies).
Bager1968As posted on PPRuNe:
“WASHINGTON – One of two Marine Corps V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft on their way to England for international air shows landed in Iceland instead Monday after suffering compressor stalls in an engine.
The V-22 Osprey, shown here in flight over the North Carolina coast last year, was nearly canceled after two Osprey crashes in 2000 left 23 Marines dead. The incident was an unwelcome start to a trip the Marine Corps views as a demonstration of the helicopter-airplane hybrid’s ability to “self-deploy” overseas by refueling in midair and a chance to prove to an international audience that the Osprey’s problems are behind it.
The V-22, built by Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. of Fort Worth and Boeing Co.’s helicopter division, was nearly canceled after two Osprey crashes in 2000 left 23 Marines dead.
On Monday, the Marine Corps crew of three made the precautionary landing at Keflavik about four hours into a scheduled nine-hour flight from Goose Bay, Canada, to Farnborough, England, Marine spokesman Lt. Col. Scott Fazekas said.
A spare Rolls-Royce AE1107C turbofan engine will be flown to Iceland and swapped with the engine that suffered the stalls, he said. The engine was in England with mechanics sent to maintain the V-22s during their appearances at two air shows this weekend and next week.
“They’re going to replace the engine there on site,” Lt. Col. Fazekas said. “A compressor stall doesn’t necessarily require an engine replacement; they just decided to do that in this case.”
The V-22s are to perform this weekend at the Royal International Air Tattoo show in Fairford, England, and next week at the Farnborough International Airshow, the year’s major aerospace trade fair.
“It’s not the way you want to start a deployment tour, but on the other hand, this sounds like a low-tech issue,” said aerospace industry analyst Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group, a Washington-area consulting firm.
Bell spokesman Bob Leder said compressor stalls in such engines were “really nothing.”
“These kind of engine problems are very normal, not only within military aircraft, but in commercial aircraft,” he said.
Hans Weber, president of the California-based technology management consultancy Tecop International Inc., said compressor stalls “can be harmless, but they can also mean there is internal damage to the engine.”
Mr. Weber recalled that the pilot of a British Airways 747 that left Los Angeles last year with a load of passengers shut down one of his four engines because of compressor stalls and flew on to England.
Given the V-22’s troubled history, “We’re all very sensitized to worry about problems with the Osprey, sure,” Mr. Weber said. “But this might not be something to worry about. We have to see what ultimately they find out about what caused it.””
“Would these be the two Ospreys which were bearing up and down the Thames between Westminster and Tower Bridge this evening. Alternatel in ‘hover mode’ and ‘fixed wing’ mode? (I’m sure there are better descriptions for that…)
Hade an extraordinary noise!”
Bager1968“Incidentally the Italians also played about with a carrier – the Aquila (Eagle… heard that before, somewhere) which paralleled the Graf Zeppelin’s experience. It would’ve had Re 2001 fighters and Re 2001G Torpedo Bombers, and had it entered service, I suspect it would’ve had a torrid time in the Med. Much better to capture and operate from shore bases.”
Some sources say that the catapults & arresting gear from G. Zep. were removed in 1942 and installed on the Aquila. Comfirmed, or just standard guessing?
Bager1968Well, the A-4 with F404 and Blue Fox would be a CTOL Sea Harrier… but with long-range ASW and AEW assets to back it up, right?
Bager1968Actually, the Zep sank as she was being transferred to the USSR.
They had loaded her hangar and flight deck with lots of loot (including machinery), and hit some bad weather… and she rolled & sank!
😮 😮 😮
working from old data… just read the Wiki-Waki piece… which cites newly released documents!
It appears she really did make it to Leningrad… and was sunk as a target for aircraft in 1947!
:p
Bager1968Also: “Lot Weight: 0 KG”
Very light Lightning?
Bager1968Yes… after they had determined that they could not operate SuEs from her with a full payload, and found no other aircraft that could both carry the Exocet and launch from her with them!
With nothing but Skyhawks (non-radar versions at that time) they had no real combat air wing to justify spending a large amount of scarce cash for the propulsion plant re-build she desperately needed.
If they had been able to get their A-4 P&Q models upgraded with new engines and a good radar, maybe things would have been different. [they were ex-B&C models… like Singapore had and upgraded with the 10,800 lbst F404]
As it was, they had to wait (until 1995) for the USMC to retire their A-4Ms to get a model with a powerful engine (the P&Q had the ancient J65 (Bristol Sapphire) with a max of 8,400 lbst, while the ex-Ms [A-4AR] have the 11,200 lbst J52-408), which they then upgraded with the APG-66 radar [from the early model F-16s]. These were delivered from 1995.
Bager1968He is NOT referring to profit margins, but to the fact that a steady, regular building schedule allows the work-force to become very good at their jobs… which reduces delays, defects, mistakes, and bad planning or detail design work.
The way the UK government has handled things requires the shipyards to hire a lot of semi-skilled (or skilled in other fields) workers for a “3 at a time” contract… then let them go when the ships are done because there is no more work for them.
The most skilled (those who would be teaching the new hires in a proper setting) quickly find work elsewhere, and are not willing to give up their secure, steady jobs for another short-term (3-5 years then goodbye) MOD contract.
This means that the new hires have to teach themselves how to build the ships… while they are building them!
Any wonder there are problems?
Bager1968Considering the difference in power from 25 de Mayo’s cat and Vicky’s:
BS4; shuttle run 103ft; length 160ft; 40,000lb@78kt; Mod. Colossus & Majestics, Centaur, Albion, Bulwark, Hermes
BS4; shuttle run 145ft; length 200ft; 50,000lb@97kt; Mod Hermes, Ark Royal (1960), Victorious
then they might not need much speed at that!
Bager1968True… how would the Harriers have dealt with an Argie strike force of F-8 Crusader fighters (or Sea Vixen, if the US won’t sell them), Super Entards, and A4 Skyhawks… all with plenty of fuel to hang around a while?
Vicky could carry 10 Buccs, 10 Sea Vix, 5 Gannet, & 8 Wessex… they would probably have 8 F-8/Sea Vix, 8 SuE, 8 A-4, 5 Alize, & 5 Alouette III (or Wessex). This would allow for decent ASW protection and a strike package of 4-5 of each combat type. Could the SHAR 1 defend against that?
Bager1968Hmmmm… the Aircraft Carrier Operations section is labelled “Coming Soon”… maybe I can piece the data together from the Technical Specifications & External Payload & Airframe Configurations sections?
If it is any consolation, however, I am sure the Hornet could have launched from Vicky & Hermes with a nearly full payload :diablo:
Bager1968Thanks for the link, I will do that.
Thanks for forwarding it… I appreciate it.
Bager1968A major factor in a good attack plane is payload weight… which requires more strength in the airframe… adding weight to the aircraft… reducing thrust-weight ratio, which reduces range and degrades sustained maneuvering.
A really good fighter has a good thrust-weight ratio… which requires either a light airframe or a really powerful engine… which guzzles fuel, which reduces range.
Both types do require good short-term agility, but a great example of the differences is in the USN in Vietnam.
F-8 Crusader: great agility; good TWR (better with AB); little payload capability = best “dogfighter”.
F-4 Phantom: average agility; so-so TWR (ok with AB); good payload = great “all-around” aircraft.
A-6 Intruder: good agility; poor TWR (no AB); outstanding payload = great “heavy attack” plane.
A-7 Corsair: good agility; good TWR (no AB); great payload = good “bomb-truck”.
A-4 Skyhawk: great agility; good TWR (no AB); good payload = great “close-support” bird (which is why the USMC decided NOT to replace it with the A-7 like the USN did).
The airframe design has as much to do with mission suitability as avionics does… just look at the A-10 and Su-25… they are great close support aircraft that would be useless as fighters, even with the best AESA radar, fire-control & flight computers, and the best WVR & BVR missiles!
The Hornet design IS compromised as a fighter by the need to be strong enough to carry a heavy payload and to withstand the extra strain an aircraft undergoes in low-level flight (part of the design specs, even though current doctrine keeps them at a much higher altitude on bombing missions).
Bager1968Either mod should be combined with this version, IMHO!
:diablo:
Sign In
