It is a true Legend with a silly name that no one (even Bell dont anymore) use the Iroquois name but everyone calls it by the reverse of its designation instead!!!

God bless the Huey long may she reign.

curlyboy

Actually, US military still use the Iroquois name in official documents.

Also, the nickname “Huey” came from the original US Army designation, which was HU-1… this was changed in 1962 to UH-1 when Defense Secretary MacNamara ordered the USAF, USN, and US Army to create and use one single aircraft designation system.

An example is the H-43 Huskie… designated H-43 by the USAF, U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps versions were originally designated as the HTK, HOK or HUK, contingent upon their use as training, observation or utility aircraft.

From late 1962 on, the USAF version was HH-43, and the USN/USMC were TH-43, OH-43, and UH-43.

The Sikorsky S-55 was the HO4S for USN/USCG, HRS for USMC, and H-19 for USAF & US Army, but UH-19, HH-19, & CH-19 after 1962.

Meanwhile, training materials for operators and maintainers are under development for delivery through the Royal Navy’s Maritime Composite Training System.

Then we see the exercpt above from the Type 997 radar piece Swerve posted up and you do wonder. Here we see a radar, that is actually being installed in the fleet next year, that doesnt have a complete set of technical docs yet. Here’s hoping the O&M course for 997 is one of those ‘2 weeks with coffee and sandwiches’ jobs covering just ‘which hot-swappable modules to switch out to get the thing working again’ otherwise we might have a bit of a job getting the trainers up to speed and then a few lads ready to support it when it deploys the first time….which would be a shame!.

That is not as unusual as you might think… if you realize that they mean the RN-standard training manuals.

There will already be manufacturer-produced documents that cover all the technical info and recommended operation & maintenance procedures, so the “first class” of maintainers and operators will be able to run & fix them… and to find any changes that need to be made for the RN manuals.

I spent (mis-spent?) my 6½ years (after the 1½ years of schools) in the USMC repairing the AN/AAS-33A FLIR turrets for the A-6E Intruder.

When I got to the school for the system (October 1982), the school was still using the original manuals and program tapes (for the computer-controlled test bench) developed by Hughes (who made the FLIR) in 1978 (the year the system was approved for purchase), alongside the new NavAir manuals and program tapes.

The first generation of NavAir manuals and program tapes had been released to the schools & squadrons in 1981, but both the new material and the old were being used in the schools so the USN could decide what changes were needed for the first revision of the NavAir material.

Still getting new customers 50 years later (first flight 21 September 1961).

$13.5 billion is the current Navy estimate of the cost of CVN-80.

OK… I looked around, and found this August 2010 report which supports a $11.5 billion for CVN-78, $10.4 billion for CVN-79, and $13.6 billion for CVN-80… and lists reasons for the cost increases.

Not good.

Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier
Program: Background and Issues for Congress 24 August 2010 Congressional Research Service

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the latest US supercarrier (~100,000 tonnes) will cost $13.5 billion. If you can get a 65,000 tonne carrier for £2 billion (~$3 billion), that’s less than a quarter of the price!

The key question is affordability. Even the American are baulking at the cost of carriers these days.

Actually, that $13.5 billion* is total cost for “first-of-class”… which includes design & development and shipyard adjustments for the new systems and equipment, as well as the actual ship.

The actual “per-ship cost” is ~$9 billion*, which is what is budgeted for the second “Ford-class CVN”… CVN-79 JFK.

Yes, this IS rather more expensive than the ~$5 billion* per ship for the last couple of Nimitz-class CVNs (CVN-76 & CVN-77), but not what your cost quote tries to convince us of.

Additionally, the new equipment and other changes mean that, if things work as planned, CVN-78 will cost about $5 billion less in “life-time operating costs” than will CVN-77 (in part by reducing the ship’s crew from 3,200 to about 2,200)… so the “total-life purchase & operating cost” of CVN-78 should be about $1 billion less than CVN-77!

* FY2009 dollars

Yeah, but before the designation inflation of the last few decades, that really was a destroyer.

And some cruisers “of a few decades ago” were only ~3,000 tons… does that make every warship that size a cruiser?

You apply the generally-accepted on a multi-national basis name for the size/type of ship that is in current use when the ship is built, not a 50+ year-old designation!

Fantastic Carrier and a same to retire her early.

…..

I dont know but can she even dock at Toulon- probably can but I dont know Toulon to well. She almost certainly would have to have all updates and refurbs done in America – again another issue.

The two largest docks are both 422m x 40.66m (1,384′ 6″ x 133′ 4″).

The south-west dock at Toulon was enlarged in the 1960s with NATO funds specifically to be able to dock USN super-carriers (Forrestal/Kitty Hawk), but the Nimitz-class ships have a waterline beam of 134′ vs the 130′ of the earlier CVs.

However, the Joubert Dry dock at St Nazaire is 350m long and 50m wide (1,148′ 3″ x 164′). A Nimitz-class carrier is 1,040′ at the waterline and 1,092′ overall.

Vauban docks at Toulon:

Normal complement 36:
General-purpose wing:
2 x 12 fighter/attack fixed-wing (10+2 each to cover tanking duties)
1 x 3 AEW fixed-wing or helo
1 x 9 ASW/SAR helos

Surge complement 40:
Strike wing:
3 x 10 fighter/attack fixed-wing (0r 2 x 15 fighter/attack fixed-wing)
1 x 4 AEW fixed-wing or helo
1 x 6 ASW/SAR helos

Escort wing:
2 x 12 fighter/attack fixed-wing (10+2 to cover tanking duties)
1 x 4 AEW fixed-wing or helo
1 x 12 ASW/SAR helos

If you are flying Super Hornets then at least 1/4 of them are fitted for EA-18G kit (as are half the Aussie F/A-18F buy), and at least one aircraft per strike is carrying the ECM pods.