Buger: I’d be intereasted ion seeing the crew quarters as well, I believe that they are really modern.

Far be it for me to put a person down, this idea does have its merrits. Sadly there is no way that the IJ’s would ever be returned to service.

USS Iwo Jima had served as a mine countermeasures command ship, it was in this role that she suffered a sever fire in her boiler room that lead to her final de3commissioning and stiking from the register. These ships still use boilers and it’s a good bet that these boilers are very unsafe now, most would be rusted through.

As for the other classes, manpower would be one problem, as would arming and equiping the thing. but the biggest problem would come from the Government!

yes the Soim and the Super Galeb have a similar linage but I think production closed a couple of years ago.

I read about the G-4M not long ago in AFM, interesting project. As for the single seater, wasn’t that supposed to replace the single seat G-22’s?

Comparing this to the Hawk is very dangerous, the Hawk has had a lot of money invested in it, if this machine had half as much money invested in it, we’d see a different plane now.

Ok Ardian lets pick holes in your comments now!!!

Yes the conventional carrier cost less than a CVN but, the CV cost more to operate. The support system is greater since it needs resupply far more frequently.

Not intirley true mate, CVN’s still need resupply of Aviation fuel, stores and supplies for both detached aircraft and ship’s compliment, thus operations work out about the same. And if you try to claim about fuel costs for a CV over the fuel costs of a CVN remember that the fuel rods needed in the CVN’s are far more expencive than the fuel needed to propel a CV arund the world in a year. This is why the UK opted for conventional power and why France is now looking at this propulsion for it’s new carrier.

The CV can not withstand the punishment the large CVN can. So while the percentage of armor might remain similar, the total amount is greater than it is for CV’s.

Where do you get this idea from? The amount of armour in a CV/N is dependant on the requirement of the government that is paying for the ship. Basically you’d be saying that the USS John F Kennedy is at more of a risk to damage than the USS Carl Vinson? Sounds like a Mr Hankey claim.

A 50,000 ton CV is not significantly shorter than a CVN!

Finally some truth, of a sort. In fact a 50k ton carrier may not be any shorter than a CVN, like I said before, it depends on the requirements of the government and the aircraft deployed.

The CVN can better isolate ammunition magazines and fuel bunkers.

More garbage, hmm glad it’s garbage night here, I can toss this out with it!!! Have you ever seen the bunkerage on CdG? Sao Paulo has a good Bunkerage as well, as does I susspect Kuznetsov and just about every other carrier in existance!

The USS Nimitz Class carriers have a total of forty amumition magazines!

Where did you hear that? I never saw that many.

Such a increase in carriers must reflect an increase in aircraft production! I don’t see that happening, either. Currently, the US Navy plans to purchase only one squadron of F-35’s for the eleven CVN’s it expects to have when the F-35’s become operational.

Umm that’s not true either, the USN has a constant stream of a/c coming off their various production lines and where do you get 11 carriers from? The USN is maintaning a 12 carrier fleet. One based in Yokosuka Japan, two in dry dock on both coasts, and two on each coast on an operational down time/turn around. The other five are out on patrol, with one in the med, one off Taiwan, one in the North Atlantic, one in the Indian Ocean and one in the South Pacific.

The problem is manpower! Currently, the US Navy is about 10,000 people short of what is needed. The was the problem the Navy had back in the 1980’s when President Regan started building the 600 warship Navy.

Hoorah finally something that resembles truth! The problem is the constant war between defence forces and corperations, Corperate organisations pay far more and offer far more holidays than the Defence world. Who wants to receive a call at a strange time of the night telling them that they are required to go over and fight a war in a place most have never heard of and may never come back from. No, better to get a good nights sleep in your bed and let those other strange people fight their silly battles, mean while I sit at my desk and get paid so much money that i can go over seas to a fun place and have a holiday (see the flaw in this thinking)?

Maybe mate, but you never know. It would be a great rival to the A-380 and yes I do agree about the cargo capacity

They’re are talking about Fokker 50’s which were still being delivered new to airlines up until Fokker’s collapse in 1997, so there is still some fairly new airframes about

Well now that makes a world of difference!!! Pitty I was rather looking forward to flying on an old F-27 once again.

I painted a few of the ANSETT Fokker F27,s when i worked at at Fokker in the 70’s

Lucky Bugger!!!

ANSETT also had a few F28’s

Yeah they sure did, then they went to East West, and then to Air Nuigini.

Also saw the F50’s being painted

That would have been in the Mid 80’s and in the new Blue and White colours, these too went to East West but then Ansett bought them back and used them under Kendell at the time Kendell bought the CRJ-145’s which were sent back a few months later due to the sale. IIRC those F-50’s are now serving in Adelaide with the local charter over there but a couple made their way out of Australia.