Bager1968Yes, but what do you expect as the “common service” name, with a nose like that?
Remember the A-10 is officially the “Thunderbolt 2″… that is what appears on most official USAF documentation, but everyone worldwide (including 99.5% of USAF personnel) call it the “Warthog” based purely on its appearance.
As the Platypus is often described as “a patchwork of parts of other animals”, I think it is a perfect name for an aircraft with the body of a Su-30 and the nose of an F-111!
Bager1968The big difference between the Bucc and the Phantom was in their T/O & Landing speed… the Bucc used a bleed-air surface-blowing technology that produced a significantly lower T/O & Landing speed… even after the RN lengthened the nose gear of the FG.Mk.1 (F-4K) to do the same.
I do not know the figures, but just consider that the Bucc could launch from the “long” BS-4 [Vicky & Hermes post-66] and “short” BS-5 cats [Eagle & Ark bow] with a full bomb load, while the Phantom required the “long” BS-5 [Eagle & Ark angle] to do the same (although it could use the “short” one on the bow when only carrying an A-A load).
Bager1968If you want to talk Viking retirement & numbers reduction, then I agree with you that things are going bad… although I do dispute the “90” number.
While 90 was true with F-8s, A-7s, A-4s, & S-2/E-1s,… when my USMC A-6E squadron was assigned to CVW-2 on the USS Ranger CV-61 from 1985-1987, we had 24 F-14A (VF-1 & VF-2), 24 A-6E (VA[AW]-145 & VMA[AW]-121), 10 S-3A (VS-38), 4 EA-6B (VAQ-131), 4 E-2C (VAW-116), 6 SH-3H (HS-14), 1 C-2, & 1 EA-3B for a total of 74 aircraft.
BTW, the Viking was good for far more than ASW… in Gulf War 1 (1991) they were used in the classic “Scout Bomber” role… attacking Iraqi small craft and dock facilities with 250lb bombs, and searching for small craft at sea with both radar and its FLIR turret.
The “color weather radar” of the S-3 (designed to allow it to sub-hunt in and around bad weather) has proved exceptional at surface-search… sometimes picking out from background (backwater?) clutter downed aircrew floating in their life-vests (without radar reflectors being used)!
The S-3B was also qualified with Harpoon ASMs, and was fitted with a satellite data-link that could have been adapted for GPS weapons-guidance.
Bager1968“There are none so blind as those who refuse to see”
That seems to apply to a certain person on this thread!
After numerous postings from several people of explanations and examples of EXACTLY WHY supercruise is not only desirable, but will significantly alter how A-A combat occurs, and clearly explaining the advantages of supercruise, he still insists “Everyone wants it and noone really knows why.”!
Lots of people know EXACTLY why they want it… including anyone who has read the info and explanations posted on this thread… apparently either this person refused to read those posts, or he refuses to believe anything which conflicts with his own beliefs!
Bager1968AH, but they said fighter aircraft (F designator), while the F/A-18E/F is a fighter/attack [multi-role] aircraft, so they weren’t even considering it in the calculations!
Just like someone once explained a reference to an Australian “Warrior fighter aircraft” as maybe referring to the proposal to buy the A-5 Vigilante instead of the F-111… completely ignoring the fact that the A-5 was a pure attack aircraft being considered for purchase in a bomber contract with NO fighter element at all!
I doubt that the Pentagon considers the Rafe to be better in all roles than the F-35 [which wasn’t mentioned either], all they were talking about is just the fighter function… where the F-35 and F/A-18E/F are truly not as good as the Rafe, Typhoon, or the latest block of J-10. They are both, however, better ground-attack aircraft than any of the other aircraft mentioned… it all depends on the role you are examining!
The USN has, with both the F-35C and F/A-18E/F, deliberately chosen to sacrifice some fighter capability in order to gain a very good attack function in the same airframe (to reduce purchase, training, maintenance, and logistic costs)!
This does not mean that they have “made a hash of carrier aviation”, just that they have chosen to have ALL tactical aircraft good at both jobs (for greater mission flexibility), rather than have one type excellent at A-A and mediocre at A-G, and vice versa (which limits flexibility).
If you need large numbers (more than half your ship’s tactical complement) for one type of mission [A-A] in the early days of a conflict and fly mostly A-G missions later, the current fleet can meet those plans without having to shuffle aircraft, flight crews, and support personnel between ships and bases in order to assemble enough aircraft to meet needs!
A half-fighter/half-attack fleet would need more ships to provide the numbers for each mission than a dual-purpose aircraft fleet does. The only time you would need to provide massive numbers of both types at the same time is if the US and China or India were to go to war full-force… in which case the nukes would probably fly, making “who wins” an irrelevant question!
Remember the days of seperate “Attack” and “ASW” carriers… where the CVS ships needed a CVA around to defend against enemy surface & air attacks, while the CVA needed a CVS to protect against enemy sub attack?
So does the USN, and they would rather be able to deploy fewer CVs to each conflict as this keeps more available for other problems that might appear.
Bager1968I never said that the Vicky couldn’t operate Buccs… just that the Hermes had just been modified to operate them. Vicky had been operating them since the early 1960s. Note the sentence: “so there was little loss of capability by “replacing” Vicky with Hermes (same types of aircraft, but fewer).”
Phantomizing the Vicky would have required FAR more than you list.. the catapults would have to be replaced with longer and more powerful ones, for a BIG start!
type: shuttle run: overall length: capacity: ships
BS4: 103ft: 160ft: 40,000lb@78kt: Mod Majestics, Centaur, Albion, Bulwark, Hermes
BS4: 145ft: 200ft: 50,000lb@97kt: Mod Hermes, Ark Royal (1960), Victorious
BS5: 151ft: 220ft: 50,000lb@91kt: Eagle 1964, Ark Royal 1970
33,000lb@150kt
BS5: 199ft: 268ft: 50,000lb@105kt: Eagle 1964, Ark Royal 1970 (on angle)
If you look at the flight deck layout of Vicky, this places the starboard catapult in conflict with the forward elevator and Island. In order to install the longer cats needed, Vicky would also have to delete the starboard bow cat and install the longer one on the angle… which would require a lot of work!
Lifts:
HMS Victorious = 58ft long x 40ft wide (fwd lift) & 54ft long x 34ft wide (aft lift) both with a 42,000lb capacity
HMS Eagle= 54ft long x 44ft wide (fwd lift) & 54ft long x 33ft wide (aft lift) both with a 40,000lb capacity
If the Phantom has a folded span of less than 40″, then Vicky’s lifts are fine. If the span is greater than that then the forward lift needs to be widened as well, which would increase the bow catapult-lift conflict.
And as for Phantoms “operating” from Hermes… only with a very light payload… little more than its A-A missiles OR 2 full drop tanks! NOT both, and certainly not with a large bomb-load!
Bager1968But as I said… and apparently you misunderstood… such a wing would be much heavier than a conventional wing structure, thus reducing useable payload.
It would also be (having many moving parts) a significant source of malfunctions, which would reduce its effectiveness in combat and greatly increase maintenance hours (reducing availability and increasing logistics support requirements… more cargo flights).
It would also be much more susceptable to battle damage than a simpler, stronger conventional structure. This would be very bad for a combat aircraft, right?
One more problem… much of a modern fighter’s fuel is carried in its wing structures, and this concept would use up a lot of that volume for the shape-altering equipment… which would significantly reduce the aircraft’s range.
4 very good reasons this is not a good idea for a combat aircraft, and you still think that some kind of conspiracy is involved in keeping this from being used?
Bager1968Ummmmm…. weight? reliability? vulnerability to battle damage?
Bager1968Secondary explosions and fire often do far more damage than the original hit!
Bager1968The Russian Minister of Defence has said “2009 at the earliest”…
Of course, the Arabian media are the best source for classified Russian aircraft flight info, now aren’t they!!
:p :p :p
Bager1968Dang, and here I am, stuck in the western US… male, single, really into aircraft (having done my 8 years in the USMC fixing the avionics on the darned things), and a certified diver as well!!! 😀
I would not only help carry your gear, I would be “down below” with you!!!
😉
Bager1968Someone earlier commented that they had a concern about top-weight.
The masts, while large, are actually pretty light. They are mostly empty space, being simply plating over a framework. The plating controls the return angle of the reflected radar pulses, and also prevents corrosion of components… actually aiding in reliability (and keeping the weather off of the repair workers).
The funnels are also, of course, mostly empty space, so they don’t weigh much either.
Bager1968Well, since the lower engine was beneath the wing, and the upper engine was behind the wing (therefore closer to the back end)… good question?
Logic would say that the upper engine’s exhaust should be brighter, but the real question is not where the engine itself is located, but rather where the reheat module is located… as this is sometimes mounted on the engine body and sometimes a lengthy exhaust tube is between the two!
Perhaps the lower reheat module is closer to the outer end than is the upper one?
Bager1968She operated until 1967 when following a trivial fire after routine shipyard work, the government ordered her decommissioned. Many of her crew were transferred to HMS Hermes, then recommissioning.
This was as result of 2 factors:
1. The FAA had started acquiring Phantoms (F-4K/FG.mk.1), and Vicky was determined to be too small to be modified to operate them.
2. This was just after the cancellation of the CVA-01 project, and the MOD had decided that long-range land-based strike aircraft (F-111K) would make carrier-based Tac-air unnecessary. The decision had been made to focus primarily on keeping the Ark Royal & Eagle in service, and the Hermes had just completed a refit that allowed her to carry the Buccaneer, so there was little loss of capability by “replacing” Vicky with Hermes (same types of aircraft, but fewer).
Of course, the “can’t operate Phantoms” excuse was also used to decomission Eagle (“she can’t now & it would cost too much to modify her”) despite the fact that she had already been operating them for years!
The simple fact is that the MOD had decided to start reducing the carrier fleet, and the Vicky, being the oldest of the 4 strike carriers, was just the first victim… within 10 years, all 4 were gone: Eagle in 1972, Ark Royal in 1978, & Hermes had been re-designated as a “Commando Carrier” in 1971 (and as “Helicopter ASW carrier” in 1975, but was saved by the introduction of the Sea Harrier, and is still in service in the Indian Navy).
Bager1968Like the UH-1? Do you say that the USMC’s long-fuselage, twin-engine, four-blade, all-digital/computerized UH-1Y is really a new helicopter, or an “upgrade”, when compared to the original short-fuselage, single-engine, twin-rotor, analog/no-computer UH-1B model?
UH-1B Specifications
Length: 39′ 7″ 12.0 m
Height: 14′ 7″ 4.4 m
Wingspan: 44′ 13.4 m
Empty Weight: 4,369 lb 1,981 kg
Gross Weight: 8,500 lb 3,854 kg
Propulsion
No. of Engines: 1
Powerplant: Lycoming T53-L-11
Horsepower (each): 1100
Performance
Range: 260 miles 418 km
Cruise Speed: 126 mph 202 km/h 109 kt
Max Speed: 147 mph 236 km/h 127 kt
Climb: 2,660 ft/min 810 m/min
Ceiling: 16,900 ft 5,150 m
UH-1D Specifications
Length: 41′ 10′ 12.5 m
Height: 14′ 6″ 4.4 m
Wingspan: 48′ 14.6 m
Empty Weight: 4,939 lb 2,239 kg
Gross Weight: 9,499 lb 4,308 kg
Max Weight: 9,500 lb 4,308 kg
Propulsion
No. of Engines: 1
Powerplant: Lycoming T53-L-11
Horsepower (each): 1100
Performance
Range: 260 miles 418 km
Cruise Speed: 130 mph 209 km/h 112 kt
Max Speed: 148 mph 238 km/h 128 kt
UH-1N Specifications
Length: 57′ 3.25″ 17.4 m
Height: 14′ 10.25″ 4.5 m
Wingspan: 48′ 2.25″ 14.6 m
Wingarea: 1,871.9 sq ft 173.8 sq m
Empty Weight: 6,000 lb 2,721 kg
Max Weight: 11,200 lb 5,079 kg
Propulsion
No. of Engines: 2
Powerplant: Pratt & Whitney (Canada) PT6T-3B Twin Pac
Horsepower (each): 1800
Performance
Cruise Speed: 115 mph 185 km/h 100 kt
Max Speed: 127 mph 204 km/h 110 kt
Climb: 1,320 ft/min 402 m/min
Ceiling: 13,000 ft 3,962 m
UH-1Y SPECIFICATIONS
Weights
Empty weight 5,369kg
Maximum useful load 3,021kg
Maximum gross weight 8,390kg
Hover out of ground effect gross weight 7,817kg
Engines
Type 2 x T700-GE-401C engines
Maximum continuous power 1,546shp
Performance
Long range cruise speed 250km/h
Maximum continuous power speed 293km/h
Dash speed 304km/h
Dive speed 367km/h
Maximum rate of climb 12.8m/s
One engine inoperable rate of climb 3.8m/s
Vertical rate of climb 5.1m/s
Service ceiling 6,100m
Maximum cross wind 65km/h
Maneuverability -0.5g to +2.8g
Endurance 3.3 hours
Mission radius with 990kg payload 241km
Fuel Capacity
Maximum internal usable fuel 1,333 liters
Fuel capacity incl. 2 auxiliary tanks 2,021 liters
Maximum internal fuel 1,172kg
Sign In
