In the 1965 assessment, the RAN mentions buying a new-build Foch repeat from the French, but immediately dismisses it without comment, preferring either buying a new-build (and far more expensive) CVA-01 or rebuilding an old Essex (at least as expensive as buying the French aircraft).

In my view, a Foch-type would have been the best option… it would be in service until ~2000, and would be capable of operating decent numbers of high-quality aircraft until it was retired!

My older brother started trying to make digital copies of our parent’s old slides (oldest ones from the early 1950s), and ran into problems with both of the “slide scanner” devices he bought (they produced crap images… color balance way off, unable to resolve some images, etc)… so he just did it the old-fashioned way.

He set up the projector & screen and just took digital photos of the screen… it works great. With later image editing, he has even managed to make some of them look better than the original!

He is using a Canon PowerShot S5IS.

The article is over 20 years old and the study over 37 years old!:rolleyes:

“the study over 37 years old”.

Really?

When the study included combats conducted in 1982?

According to my math, 2010 – 1982 = 28 years.

That said, your point is acknowledged.

Now, all of the air-air missile combats since 1982 do really need to be evaluated… I suspect that the numbers will change considerably, but that the result will still show that the vast majority of missile kills are WVR, and that most are with “short-ranged” missiles rather than “medium/long-ranged” ones.

No, the “A” should be cancelled and build just the “B” & “C”.

Yes… we are going to save massive amounts of money by canceling the least expensive version and buying more of the most expensive version.

Logical… flawlessly logical.

NOT!

I noticed no reheat in the vid. Does this mean that EMALS is even better than I’d hoped?

Also note the lack of any external stores whatever… an F/A-18E launching “clean” from a current CVN often doesn’t use afterburner either, due to the lower drag and much lower weight.

However, EMALS is intended to have a maximum launch energy of 122 megajoules, 29% more than the steam powered C-13 mod 1 & C-13 mod2’s approximately 95 megajoules.

That clause only prohibits appropriations of funds that are to be paid out over more than 2 years… to require Congress to be involved in the process at least every 2 years.

And since the US military budget is funded on a yearly basis, there is no problem.

Each year the next installment payment for multi-year programs is authorized in that year’s Defense budget, thus the yearly battles over the budget for multi-year programs.

Really?

Care to cite the section, paragraph, etc?