Bager1968The name Superfortress was a deliberate reference to the new B-29 being much bigger and better than the B-17 “Flying Fortress”, as all of you should know! So yes, there WAS an aircraft named “Fortress” before the “Superfortress”.
Bager1968And so another potentially informative thread degenerates into another infantile flame war!!!
I have long had an interest in the affairs of both the Indian and Pakistani Navies, and once upon a time had thought to use this forum to keep updated on them.
However, it has been a while since I bothered looking at any thread dealing with either country’s Navy, Army, or Air Force, due to the compulsive flaming conducted by citizens of both countries.
I only read this one because it was new, and I had hoped to learn something before the childish name-calling began, but here we are….. 4 days into the discussion, and the tantrums have already started!
Is this something genetic, that makes impossible the posting of more than a given number of replies without taking a shot at the other country?
It matters not who started it this time, both have started their share of flaming, and with many different culprits for each nationality.
While I was raised to respect all cultures and races for their own unique virtues and differences, my opinion and viewpoint of both Pakistanis and Indians has been severely degraded by the uncontrolled and undisciplined conduct displayed by both nationalities on this forum!
I find myself losing hope that a Nuclear War can be avoided between them if there is this degree of unreasoning, blind, compulsive hatred between their peoples.
There is a saying, that reasonable people can solve problems without resorting to violence, but it now appears doubtful that either people is capable of reason concerning the other, since even when discussing their own affairs they cannot keep from defaming the other!
Bager1968Another take on the DDL I got frome someone’s website (I can’t remember whose):
“Pre-History: The DDL Project
The DDL project was started in the mid 1960’s to produce an Australian designed and built replacement for the older destroyers of the Daring and Battle classes. Originally the project had aimed to produce a class of ships with varying equipment fits which could be used effectively in the difficult Confrontation operations that the RAN was involved in at the time. In 1967 the Royal Navy showed an interest in the project, but it quickly became apparent that requirements would not sufficiently similar for a joint project to be possible. In 1969 it was decided to emphasise anti-air warfare more in the design requirements which inevitably led to a larger more sophisticated design. Finally between 1970 and 1971 YARD Australia (Yarrow Admiralty Research Department Australia) produced a preliminary design. In its final incarnation the ship had grown from a simple 1,500 ton vessel to one in the order of 4,200 tons. The ships were armed with a Standard SAM system, medium gun (probably the United Defence 5in/52cal Mk.45) advanced electronics and a pair of embarked medium helicopters (despite a stated RAN requirement for only one). Also to be noted was a propulsion system consisting of two Olympus and two Tyne gas turbines (the same machinery set as the Type 42 DDGs under design in the UK at the time).
At this point (1971-3) it was intended to build 3 to start with (direct replacements for the Daring class, expected to be completed in the late 1970s) and to follow this with further vessels later to replace the River class DEs. Jane’s 1972-73 gave an estimate of 8 to 10 vessels in total.
By the early 1970s it was clear that the entire project was in trouble, with the cost of the vessels escalating rapidly. This lead to a decision by the Lance Barnard, Defence Minister of the Whitlam Government, to defer the order for the first 3 vessels on 22 August 1973, with the programme to be reassessed in 1974 while looking into foreign designs. Translated this meant that they had cancelled an indigenous option and were now looking into foreign alternatives.
In retrospect it is a great pity that the DDL project was cancelled. Despite the cost, in the DDL, the RAN had the preliminary design for a vessel that was every bit as capable as any contemporary foreign design and tailor made for Australian service. In 1973 the Australian shipbuilding industry had completed a successful series of 6 DEs and were ready for further work to keep the yards going. The cancellation of the DDLs meant a lot of lost jobs, and what little design experience there was in Australia moved overseas. In effect the Whitlam Government put an end to indigenous escort development.”
Bager1968By the third day, the news was showing a long line of trucks (obviously police from the flashing lights in their grills) towing air-boats and lined up waiting to put them in the water from one of the freeway on-ramps in New Orleans. From how long it took for them to get there, I would guess that they came from south Georgia (US, not the other one) or south Florida.
An Officer from the Bataan said that the disaster authorities were only using his helicopters, not the landing craft, the troop quarters, or the 60-bed trauma center in his ship. He was unhappy about this, and felt that the civilians running the show didn’t understand all his ship could provide.
In general, many of us are very unhappy about the lack of readiness shown by this disaster. Many agencies have known for many years how vulnerable the area (especially New Orleans) is to a hurricane greater than catagory 3, but little money has been spent to prepare. This situation has been recognized for over 15 years (and discussed on several TV programs), but the politicians of both parties didn’t want to spend large amounts of money on things that might never be used, and which they couldn’t use to get votes right then.
Bager1968During the 1600s and into the early 1700s, the western Indian Ocean was the scene of much European-based “Privateer/Pirate” activity. (Privateer is the term for a civilian ship’s master who has been authorized by one nation to raid the shipping of another nation. The document is called a “Letter of Marque and Reprisal”, and is supposed to regulate his activity.) In reality most Privateers were virtually indestinguishable from Pirates (Captain William Kidd was one such, and most of his activity took place between Madagascar and India). The English, French, Dutch, and Portugese were all involved with this.
In earlier centuries, there was much sea-borne trade, and therefore also pirate-like activity, in the Indian Ocean by Arab sailors, all along the African, Middle Eastern, and Indian coasts (and ocean areas between). This activity gave birth to the legends of Sinbad (according to other legends). A search of Arabian and East African histories would also be fruitful for your interest.
Bager1968Copied from other thread:
>The DDL [Light Destroyer](Daring DD & River DE replacement) is described (with a decent “artist’s conception”, not a line drawing) in Conway’s two volume “Fighting ships 1947-1982″, in the Australian section. It looks a lot like an enlarged US Knox class frigate, (also described as resembling Sheffield) with (bow to stern) a 5” gun, a large radar antenna in the bridge, a tall thick mast, a low wide exhaust, SM-1 mk 13 launcher & director, full-width hangar, and helicopter deck.
displacement: 4,200 t. normal, ~5,000 t. full
length 425″ waterline, beam 48″, depth 22″ (normal)
2 shafts COGAG, 2-Olympus & 2 Tyne, 50,000 shp, 30 knots, range 6,000 nm @ 18 kn
1-mk 13 SM-1 launcher, 40 missiles, 6 SSM
1-5″/54 mk 42, 4-35 mm Emerlec (2×2)
6-12.75″ (324 mm) mk 32 ASW torpedo tubes (2×3)
2 helicopters
210 crew (peacetime)
The design study started in 1966, detailed design work started in 1970, with the first keel-laying to start in June 1975 (others at two year intervals) at Williamstown DYd. The cost was estimated as $A 118 million (59.2 million pounds) each in 1972 currency (includes design and support costs).The decision was deferred when the Labour party won the 1973 elections, and the programme was cancelled in 1974.<
No, this design was started either after, or together with the type 42. This is shown by the fact that the first type 42 (HMS Sheffield D80) was laid down 15 January 1970, just as detailed design work was starting on the DDL. The type 42’s design probably contributed to that of the DDL.
The basic fallout between the RAN and RN was that the RAN wanted US weapons, having just accepted three US Charles F. Adams DDGs in 1965 (2) and 1967 (1). The RN wanted the Sea Dart, of course, and the RAN wanted the US mk 13 “Tartar” SAM launcher. They had different internal requirements, and with the differences in radar, sonar, and other systems (the RAN wanted to install its home-designed Mulloka sonar, and US radar), there was too much difference to keep the costs down as far as desired.
The RN pulled out, and instead ordered the type 22 frigates (the first, HMS Broadsword was ordered 8 February 1974 & laid down 7 February 1975).
The RAN placed the programme on hold in 1973, and cancelled it in 1974. They then ordered their version of the US Oliver Hazard Perry FFGs.
Bager1968Don’t forget about the F2G. It was a late-war progect using the 2,800 h.p. Pratt & Whitney Wasp Major (used in the B-50 (upgraded B-29) and B-36. A really baad bird… very fast, and an even bigger nose!!!
Bager1968Yes, certain of them are…….. fixated, let’s say.
However, the India vs Pak, PLA vs the west, Rus vs the west, etc here have me avoiding certain threads (and ignoring certain posters) like they were Borg!
That said, I do appreciate the very wide spread of views, nations, and viewpoints on the Key forums. While I may disagre with many of them (and think others are crackers), they do let me see how other nations are thinking and how they see things.
Remember Sun Tzu’s saying about knowing yourself and your opponent (potential or actual)?
Bager1968Guys, I also post on this forum:
http://p216.ezboard.com/bwarships1discussionboards
and we need more Latin American/African Navy participation. I recently asked if there was interest in such a section, and while the response was generally favourable, I was informed that a couple of years ago they cancelled their Latin American Navies section due to a general lack of posting or information on anything other than ship transfers from the UK, etc.
If some of you show up, and start posting info and starting discussions, we might get the L.A.N section back. One note, this board is more tightly regulated than this one, and flame-wars and uncivil behavior are not welcome. For most of you, this would not be a problem, as you are good people.
These are the sections currently open:
Battleship Vs Battleship: The Discussion Board For The True Queen Of The Seas.
Should Battleships Be Back In Service?: Will Future Fire Support Programs Be Enough? Or Do We Need The Battlewagons Back?
The United States Navy: “Don’t Tread On Me” The historical along with current aspects of the largest navy in the world.
The Royal Navy: All About The Royal Navy: Past, Present And Future
The European Navies: The navies of Europe
The Commonwealth Navies: The navies of nations spawned by Great Britain.
The Asian Navies: Navies of the Western Pacific Nations.
Aircraft Carriers: The “New” Queen Of The Seas, The Largest Most Powerful Warships Ever Designed
Fighting Ships Of The World: Surface Ships From Every Era
Submarines: Submarines of every nation and era.
Designing A Navy/Ship: You know how to build a ship better then the designers, show it here.
The Land Forces: Armies of the World
The Air Forces: Air Forces of the World.
The Naval Fiction Board: Have a tall tale? Possibly thoughts on a book? A great place to get a first impression of your idea.
The Politics Of War: Enter At Your Own Risk!! Very Lightly Moderated
Naval Help: Have a question about a Navy or a Naval-related area? Try here.
The Asian Navies section is usually where the Indian Ocean Navies are discussed.
There is also access to a technical section called NavWeap (naval weapons), where a lot of detailed info is available.
Just thought you might like to take a look.
Bager1968Ja W. I have just sent it to you, let me know if you don’t get it, we will all know if you do….
Bager1968Just an observation….. but how does an aircraft designed purely as a low-level nuke striker and photo bird suddenly morph into something capable of taking on one of the most maneuverable supersonic fighters of the 1960s (MIG 21) in air-air combat?
This: “I know it’s off a simulator, but it looked nice! A TSR.2 of 43 Squadron RAF bounces an Iraqi MiG-21 http://www.flightcraft-simulations…./mig-chase1.jpg“
is exactly the level of TSR2 worship that really bothers those who have followed the service histories of the world’s combat aircraft.
While it probably would have become a fairly effective conventional strike aircraft (with significant airframe mods and wing-size/shape changes), no miracle of aerospace engineering could have given it even minimal fighter characteristics (even with larger/better wings, it is too long to be very maneuverable).
It would have been the ultimate example of the “Missile Carrier Fighter”! Long-range missiles only, at that. It would truly become the UKs version of the F-111, with the only air-air capability being provided by either the AIM-54 Pheonix missile, or a new UK equivalent. It probably would have had just as long and troubled a development and initial use history as the F-111 also.
The subject of the UK financial, economic, and political situation in the mid 1960s has been the subject of much discussion on this forum:
http://p216.ezboard.com/fwarships1discussionboardsfrm3
due to the cancellation of the Royal Navy’s CVA-01/02 aircraft carriers (replacements for Victorious & Ark Royal) at virtually the same time as the TSR2 axing. The consensus is that, with the economic situation in the UK at the time, the UK could not afford both programs at the same time, and sustaining either one by itself would have required under-funding all of the social programs that both parties were bribing the populace with to get their votes.
The only politically acceptable option for both parties was to kill both of the programs, and devote the funds to “civilian” economic programs and extending the “social safety net” to take care of the “Working (voting) Class”.
Bager1968In July 1939, the USN activated its first mono-plane carrier fighter squardon, VF-3, with 9 examples of the Brewster Buffalo (F2A-1) (prototype ordered in 1936, production ordered in June 1938). The remaining 44 of the order were sent to Finland. The next Buffaloes recieved by the USN were F2A-2s (and later F2A-3), in September 1940.
The next USN mono-plane carrier fighter was the Grumman F4F-3 (fixed-wing), which equipped its first squadrons in December 1940 (prototype ordered in 1936, production ordered in August 1939). The improved F4F-4 (folding wing) began deliveries in November 1941 (when they began to replace the last bi-plane fighters in the USN).
Therefore, when the Movie “Divebomber” was made, there were still many USN combat squadrons flying the Grumman F3F, since there was only one squadron with monoplane fighters from July 1939 to September 1940!
Bager1968The Tango-Tango cockpit has a straight line down the back from the top-center, while the original has a slight outward curve down the back!
My first impression, even before I saw the mention of it was that they had used a modified canopy from a P-63 King Cobra, or similar.
Bager1968Besides, while some of us can scan images and e-mail them as attachments, we have problems posting them on boards (due to various factors). Ja W. obviously has this procedure well in hand, so I’ll let him do it, with many thanks.
It is 10:23 pm where I am, I’ll get them to you early tomorrow afternoon (my photocopy is not good, I need to visit the library and get a better one to scan & send).
Bager1968The DDL [Light Destroyer](Daring DD & River DE replacement) is described (with a decent “artist’s conception”, not a line drawing) in Conway’s two volume “Fighting ships 1947-1982″, in the Australian section. It looks a lot like an enlarged US Knox class frigate, (also described as resembling Sheffield) with (bow to stern) a 5” gun, a large radar antenna in the bridge, a tall thick mast, a low wide exhaust, SM-1 mk 13 launcher & director, full-width hangar, and helicopter deck.
displacement: 4,200 t. normal, ~5,000 t. full
length 425″ waterline, beam 48″, depth 22″ (normal)
2 shafts COGAG, 2-Olympus & 2 Tyne, 50,000 shp, 30 knots, range 6,000 nm @ 18 kn
1-mk 13 SM-1 launcher, 40 missiles, 6 SSM
1-5″/54 mk 42, 4-35 mm Emerlec (2×2)
6-12.75″ (324 mm) mk 32 ASW torpedo tubes (2×3)
2 helicopters
210 crew (peacetime)
The design study started in 1966, detailed design work started in 1970, with the first keel-laying to start in June 1975 (others at two year intervals) at Williamstown DYd. The cost was estimated as $A 118 million (59.2 million pounds) each in 1972 currency (includes design and support costs).The decision was deferred when the Labour party won the 1973 elections, and the programme was cancelled in 1974.
Sign In
