19kilo10Sorry. Just didnt put 2 an 2 together there!:eek: I wonder if its anything like the old US Pershing 2 missile. I understand it had a radar in its nose……..
19kilo10I’m assuming the ballistic a/s missile must have some sort of terminal guidence/ maneuver capability. Otherwise hitting a moving ship sized target from over 1000km away with a ballistic non-nuke sounds kinda “iffy”. I would imagine AEGIS would see them alot farther away than they would a supersonic sea skimmer.
19kilo10Not really up to speed on it, but does the AEGIS system have any sort of ABM capability?
19kilo10Probably because you have nothing that any of the apprentices to the designers doesn’t have more of… outside of your blind belief that you know more than anyone else.
And for your enlightenment, I’m not British, and I have always thought that both CVF designs were too small and too slow… and too compromised by “fitted for but not with” and “dual-use CV/LHA” constraints.
However, I understand why the politicians chose those options, so I’m content for this ally of my country to get ships that are better than what they had the last 30+ years.
I’ll leave the detailed design to the professionals, in any case.
Seems you have the same kind of blind belief I have, just in the opposite direction. Glad we are so similar in our dispositions.
19kilo10The Two Island design goes back to the Malta with an aft island for radar mast and radar guided gun sights, Technically the US CVN are twin Island designs as they carry a similar radar tower aft of the Island. Some of the CV-52 designs actually had split island with seperate funnels to ease the pressure of trunking into one island structure.
The BMT/Thales design (yes it was designed by the traditional designers in Bath) actually had the long Island in line with Invincible, they evolved the Twin Island structure along with the broad deep sponsons as the optimum design for the gas turbine powered CVF to ensure efficieint flight operations, the hanger is uncluttered by trunking, the deck edge lifts service the fore and aft areas of the hanger and each are potected by an island stucture and sponson when in use. The Flyco postion is located for maximum view of the flight operations and the Navigational island has a decent view for ship operations.
Of course we wont see how effective it will be till the next decade when flight operations go into full swing, but it will be interesting to see how they compare.
Surprised Kilo isnt having kittens about CVN-78 as they have moved the island even further aft and changed its shape to an angular wedge
I AM having kittens about CVN-78. Its going to be named the FORD for petes sake!!!!!!! A politician who was not elected to the Presidency!!!! Honestly……They will be having them named after corporate sponsors next. (USS Bank of America?!)
19kilo10Even when the RAF moved Australia on the maps to ‘prove’ they could operate anywhere in the world without needing carriers? I don’t recall the Navy being in the driving seat when CVA 01 was cancelled, or all the Type 82s which would have escorted them.
Truth is this government has made some poor decisions about defence across the board, trying to take money out but retain some capability in every area there was before. The real problem is the strategic nuclear deterrent – monumentally expensive and doesn’t deter anything. It’s always prevented the Navy developing a balanced conventional force in my opinion.
I’d have liked to see the carriers operating Tejas or Sea Gripen myself, we might have been able to afford more than half a dozen.
All but one of the Type 82s…….I’v allways thought Bristol was a neat ship. Shame the RN didnt do more with her.
19kilo10But i do. The real critical part of ops is the landing, not the take-off. The better visual Flyco gets of the ops, the better. Have you seen how far back aft is the island on the Fords?
And ship control ahead, near the bow, totally make sense as well, as it gives direct view of where and how the ship is going during maneuvers in port.
Cameras and displays are good… but ask the americans that want an expanded bridge on LCS2 to better see where they go during maneuvers in port if a well placed bridge is not important!But of course, the main advantage is that due to its conventional propulsion, a CVF would have wasted more deck space with a single island, which would have had to be longer and bigger, than with two separated ones.
Landings are not “controled” from FLYCO. The landings are “controled” by the lso. From his position ON THE SIDE of the island ALL THAT IS NEEDED is an unobstructed view of the flight deck. And every one I have talked to, including a neighbor who commanded a CVN (I live in Virginia Beach…..the East coast CVNs are all based in Norfolk, 12 miles away) have said that they have absolutly no problem coning the ship from the after location of the island, because they have an unobstructed view. Again I know why the Brits did what they did, the design is set, its gonna have 2 islands. I still think its the wrong design, but, for some reason, I was not consulted.
19kilo10Now comes the fun part! Soon Chinese pilots will start the learning process and flying off her. They are gonna have a blast!
19kilo10‘In regards to the twin island layout,one of the advantages is said to be reduced air turbulence across the flight deck’
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/ this link has a lot of info.
I’m sorry….but that article is nonsense when it comes to the “advantages” of two islands. (Ok CVF fanboys…..rip into me. I know I’m a troll cause I dont agree with you.) That article would have you believe that 2 islands take up less deck space than one……sorry, dont buy it. The whole “FLYCO is more optimaly placed aft” is more nonsense. The air boss is on the SIDE of the island, and as long as he has an unobstructed view of the flight deck, he’s pretty good to go forward, amidships, or aft. The pilots are flying a set pattern around the CV, and its pretty much between them and the LSO as far as landings go…….again he is on the SIDE of the island looking out over the flight deck. Now this whole line I’m taking is pretty moot, as the design is set and its gonna be what it is. Its a pretty typical British design and I wish them well with it. Now the fanboys can rip into me for being a “troll” ie, not agreeing with them, but nothing, NOTHING is going to change my mind on this matter, just as I’m positive that their minds will not be changed in this matter. (I call them fanboys because they take the SLIGHTEST criticism of the CVF design personally as if I had just taken a d**p on the dead relatives grave. But I’m tired of keeping my peace, so……IMO, which really means nothing in the greater scheme of things, CVF is a seriously flawed design.)
19kilo10True….but it does show the Lockheed had some experience with commercial a/c.
19kilo10Where the hell are you getting those figures from? Why would the F35c be cancelled?
Not sure if you are aware of whats going on in the States……but Sen McCain has stated he will introduce a bill that would kill the program. Not sure how much support he would have, but………the US is broke. Deffence WILL be cut……….just a matter of how much.http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/pentagon-cutting-f-35-would-be-complicated-costly-20110808
19kilo10Hi Trident!
They sure may have found a way around not using Ro-Ro but you cannot say that this feature (if available at a competitive prices) would not be a very nice thing to have and as weel as I’ve put here before, a major “operational cost cutter” for them…
About “Efficiency”, it is YOUR assumption that the civilianized KC390 would be less efficient than civil aircraft designed more than two decades ago… There is one thing your logic seems to be forgetting, buying a used plane, (or car, ship, motorcycle, whatever…) is always significant riskier and potentially more expensive in terms of maintenance, whoever you buy them from, then buying a brand new one from the factory dealer showroom. Now if the cargo airlines have settled into going down this road before, they did it because there were at a time a good number of pretty new airframes available in the market at reasonable (give away!) prices.
Now look back at the last 6-year period: there have not been ANY major airliner aquisition programs for the US major airlines, which has seen them using their old pax configured aircraft much longer than before and turning these into even worse fleet renewal prospects for the cargo corporations to convert. In this scenario they might have to rething buying used aircraft due to the sheer unavalability of good airframes. And if you go new-built, why not buy a far more suited aircraft than a converted many thousand-cycle old lemon?
Personally I think that the cargo market of the next 10 years or so ought to be significantly different than the one that existed when the C-130s and C-160 where in production (I’m voluntarily ignoring the C-130J because it carries with it all the structural inefficiencies of the original Hercules design of the 1950s. Also let’s not forget Lockheed has absolutely NO practical experience in supporting commercial aircraft around the world since the demise of the SuperConstellation (let’s just leave the little-selling Electra out of this, OK?), a much different situation from Embraer’s, do you agree? The KC390 may really end up being a “feeder” aircraft but it will certainly feed very large intercontiental hu2hub freighters such as the 777 freighter or, who knows, maybe the initially proposed A380 Cargo version…
Let’s see how this shapes up… 🙂
Regards,
Hammer
L1011?
19kilo10I know they would probably ALL volunteer to go over there, but……….hadnt those guys done enough?! They did their bit. Give them a break……..after the OBL raid they should have been withdrawn from overseas for at least a year. IMO.:(
19kilo10Looks like 31 killed. :(:mad:
19kilo10I tend to agree with you. I just cant see the RAF wanting SH when the Typhoon could be made to do the same missions. Still…..interesting time we live in.
Sign In
