dark light

Bager1968

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 451 through 465 (of 3,360 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Onther Fine Pilot Makes Final Flight #997970
    Bager1968
    Participant
    in reply to: Dassault Avon powered Mirage IIIO prototype #2268681
    Bager1968
    Participant

    A very big and hardy WELCOME to you Pioneer !!! I love your images on other forums, and the Mirage III powered by the Avon engine is a beauty of an aircraft. :eagerness:

    Note Pioneer joined the forum 8 years ago (4 years before you) and has over 6 times as many posts as you here.

    in reply to: Japanese Plastic Model Trolls the Chinese Military #1997222
    Bager1968
    Participant

    But since they are not delusional, they realize that a war limited to China and Japan would result in China surviving mostly intact, but with Japan being destroyed as a military force, leaving any possible anti-China alliance that much weaker.

    They know that the only way to stand against a much stronger enemy is for all the weaker neighbors to stand together.
    No matter how much they hate the guy next door, the outside group trying to take over the neighborhood is more of a threat.

    Especially so since South Korea and the other nations are much stronger compared to Japan than they were in the 1930s… and thus can stand together against Japan if needed.

    in reply to: INS Vikramaditya: Steaming towards Induction #1997224
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Yes, they extended both sides of the flight deck to maintain side-to-side balance of weights.

    They got the added benefit of more aircraft parking & handling area.

    in reply to: Invade the Falklands #1997226
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Start buying those LPDs and the UK will know there is only one reason you are buying them… and will increase the forces on the FIs, as well as further preparations to stop any invasion force from managing to get even onto the beach.

    It really does seem that some posters in this thread believe that the UK will be blind, deaf, and stupid… will not recognize the only realistic reason those ship, aircraft, & missile purchases are being made, and will not maintain even their present watchfulness.

    Nearly all the suggested plans rely totally on this completely unrealistic view of the UK posture for their success… and thus show how illogical and impossible success for those plans is.

    in reply to: Famous Aussie WW2 pilot dies #999738
    Bager1968
    Participant
    in reply to: INS Vikramaditya: Steaming towards Induction #1997391
    Bager1968
    Participant

    how come the island is so far away from the edge?
    if they move it out, they can have more room for planes.

    They didn’t move it… it is still in the same location as it was for the first 20+ years of the ship’s existence. What they did do was to extend the flight deck outboard of the island.
    Here is a photo of the ship while she was in service with the USSR navy.

    You do understand that the island is a massive structure with a very large weight, don’t you?
    Trying to move it outboard would require a massive amount of work (including major changes in the hull below the flight deck where the island sits), taking a long time, and requiring major changes to the other side of the ship to add a lot of weight to counterbalance the weight shift from moving the island outboard. This would cause more problems with how deep the ship sits in the water, and so on.

    in reply to: USMC sqns on USN strike carriers. #1997703
    Bager1968
    Participant

    I’ve been reading through the deployments, especially in the Vietnam era and have noticed some interesting things.

    There are many deployments in the mid 60s on the big carriers where CVWs have a Crusader and Phantom squadron. But the same doesn’t happen with the transition from Skyhawk to Corsair II, one deployment the CVW will have all Skyhawk sqns and the next will have all Corsair sqns.

    The Phantoms were the “all-weather BVR fleet-defense” fighter (replacing the F3H Demons), and the Crusaders were the “limited-all-weather WVR dogfighter” (replacing the F11F Tiger and the F4D Skyray)… they were partners, not competitors. The USN had a history of having a “hi-lo” fighter type pair aboard their carriers from the late 1940s on, and when the F-14 replaced the F-4 as the “all-weather BVR fleet-defense” fighter the F-4 dropped to the “low” slot (replacing the F-8), because of its “strike-fighter” capabilities.

    The shift from the Skyhawk to the Corsair II required a significant investment in support equipment and personnel… a new engine type (TF41), new avionics, and so on. ~90% of the A-4 support equipment was usable for A-6s (same J52 engine), E-2s, and so on (radios, etc). With the delay required to fit the new support equipment it was easy to just assign two light attack squadrons with the same aircraft, to reduce logistics burden and personnel needs.

    Another is that the 61 rebuilt F8B (F8L) and 87 rebuilt F8C (F8K) don’t seem to have been deployed on carriers, but the 225 rebuilt F8D&E (F8H&J) did get deployed on the last Essex class cruises. Perhaps the F8L&K went to the Marines or USN reserve sqns?

    Interesting.

    Exactly… the Marines and Navy Reserves got the rebuilds of the earlier models and the sea-going Navy got the rebuilds of the later models.

    in reply to: Boeing 727 #1002451
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Regs for scheduled airline service are not the same as for special-purpose aircraft.

    in reply to: USMC sqns on USN strike carriers. #1997794
    Bager1968
    Participant

    I’d love to know how regular embarking USMC sqns on carriers was in the 70s and 80s.

    Go to this website: http://navysite.de/carriers.htm

    Click on the name of the carrier you want to look at, then scroll down until you find a sentence like

    Click here to get a view of the deployments of USS ORISKANY

    Click on the hyperlink and you will get a chronological table of the carrier’s deployments, which will include squadron designation and aircraft type.

    Taking the first deployment of CV-34 as an example, we find:
    Date of Departure: May 15, 1951; Date of Return: October 4, 1951; Cruise Book: N/A; CVW: CVG-4; Squadrons (Aircraft): VF-43 (F4U-5); VF-62 (F2H-2); VA-45 (AD-2); VMF-122 (F2H-2); VC-4 Det. 8 (F4U-5N); VC-12 Det. 8 (AD4-W); VC-33 Det. 8; VC-62 Det. 8-51 (F8F-2P); HU-2 Det. 8 (HO3S-1); Tail code: F; Area of Operations: Mediterranean; Battle Group: N/A; Operations/Exercises: Operation Beehive; Ports of Call: Augusta, Sicily, Italy; Athens, Greece; Iraklion, Crete, Greece; Tripoli, Lybia; Naples, Italy; La Spezia, Italy; Cannes, France; Izmir, Turkey; Genoa, Italy; Gibraltar

    So, in 1951 USS Oriskany CV-34 deployed with one Marine Corps F2H Banshee jet fighter squadron aboard (VMF-122).

    Her next deployment with a Marine squadron was in 1962, with VMF-232 (F8U-1E) {F-8B Crusaders}.

    in reply to: Daily Mail story #1007543
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Yep… the Daily mail is a bit slow… we discussed it in December 2009.

    http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?96092-B17-spared-by-109-pilot-in-WW2-link

    in reply to: Northrop F-5EM/FM Tiger II #2272375
    Bager1968
    Participant

    The F5EM/FM were upgraded with new radar (Grifo-F), all-new avionics, a new cockpit with MFDs, and so on from 2001 to 2009.

    They can now utilize Derby BVR missiles, Pirahna & Python WVR missiles, Litening 3 FLIR/laser pod, etc.

    It would make no sense to conduct yet another modernization when the Brazilian Air Force is fighting to get a new fighter to replace first the Mirage 2000s and eventually the F-5s.

    in reply to: Zumwalt taking shape……….. #1998161
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Plus, considering the 155mm gun is very common weapon. You will likely have many more options in regards to ammunition.

    Almost all of which have separate shell and propellant… which makes an auto-loading gun much heavier, slower-operating, and complex (thus less-reliable) than the fixed ammo used by 76mm & 127mm naval guns.

    That’s what killed the British attempt at a naval 15mm gun using Army ammo a few years ago.

    in reply to: HMS Mermaid's engines? #1998348
    Bager1968
    Participant

    From memory they should have been Admiralty Standard diesels. The Leopard/Salisbury propulsion fit incorporated eight units of the ASR1 type and Mermaid was very closely related.

    The 1973-74 Jane’s Fighting Ships entry says “similarity in hull and machinery with “Leopard” class.”

    This agrees with Jonesy’s memory.

    Elsewhere I found this:

    Machinery: Diesel-reduction: 8 VVS ASR1 diesels, 2 English Electric reduction gearboxes, 2 shafts w/CP props

    in reply to: Aden 25 – why discontinued #2273766
    Bager1968
    Participant

    There were initial problems with cartridge ignition, I understand. With such fast-firing guns, primer ignition has to be very precise. All of the revolver cannon developed until then had used electric primers, which are more precise than percussion ones. But the 25×137 NATO ammo chosen for the Aden 25 only uses percussion priming, so the gun design had to be adapted to cope with that. This was eventually managed, but the belt angle problem was so fundamental that it couldn’t be resolved.

    http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/sreply/354329/WW2-Fighter-Armament-Effectiveness

Viewing 15 posts - 451 through 465 (of 3,360 total)