IIRC, the after turrets from USS Arizona were removed and used to create a coast artillery battery on Oahu. I checked on wikipedia, and it says that this was the case:

“The aft turrets, #3 and #4, were moved to become United States Army Coast Artillery Corps Battery Arizona on the west coast of Oahu and Battery Pennsylvania on Mokapu Point.[7] The #2 turret guns were later installed aboard the battleship USS Nevada (BB-36) in the fall of 1944;[8] Nevada then used those guns against the Japanese islands of Okinawa and Iwo Jima.[9]”

Given the enormous cost of building battleship guns and turrets, I wonder if, way back in the early part of the 20th century, the War Department had a policy of utilizing the guns/turrets from scrapped or demobilized battleships as shore batteries. It certainly appears that way.

Perhaps the main problem caused by retiring the Viking is that loss of tanking ability – I don’t know why nobody has ever thought of using the C2/E2 airframe for an organic AAR role.

Perhaps the speed difference is too great…the navy feels its safer to buddy fuel from Super Hornets than use a turbo-prop.

She only missed out ‘Thatcherism’ 😀

Well thats understandable, seeing as how it didn’t come from mainland Europe……I guess you missed the main point.

With the continued improvements in the AEGIS system that have been made, and the unlikelihood that Russian BACKFIREs are going to be a legitimately serious threat anymore, I’d think that the air defense environment around the carrier is still quite potent.

I agree that the loss of the S-3s was a big mistake. The Super Hornets are quite capable with AIM-120C7/D though, and the AESA radars(especially in the EA modes that will be available).

Plusn the continuing significant improvements to the E-2….the Hawkeye 2000 currently in the fleet and the E-2D which will come on line shortly.

All these systems used collaboratively make a much more potent defense than the F-14/AIM-54, IMHO.

WRT to undersea defense of the fleet, the picture is a little less clear……perhaps the USN has made a strategic decision to move away from using airborne assets like the S-3 and is relying more on submarines. One questions the wisdom of this decision based upon the rate at which the sub force is declining in numbers, but then again, so has the main threat (Soviet). Perhaps Virginia class SSN’s are a significant order of magnitude more capable, ala the AEGIS, E-2D, AIM-120C7/D, AESA SH, so that the Navy feels perfectly comfortable not having S-3’s?

Northwest and American couldn’t sustain it …i think Delta more so than United will eventually withdraw

Delta CEO Richard Anderson has publicly stated that Delta was giving Qantas almost 100 passengers a day (on average). Given that the 777 in the Delta configuration only holds 268, Delta only has to attract 30-40 more pax a day to pass 50% load factors…..then throw in peak travel times/heavy demand…..then throw in cargo. And this is a relatively high yield market for Delta compared to other places they compete (ie., the North Atlantic). Finally, Delta now (with Northwest) has a huge Pacific prescence to go with their extensive U.S. domestic network (much more expansive than Northwest’s.

Meanwhile Qantas is in the process of introducing the A380 into service….which has roughly 100 more seats than the 744, and they are losing 100 pax a day, and facing new competition which is sure to depress yields.

V is a boutique operation for Branson and UAL is on life support. I see UAL not only exiting this market, but eventually exiting the marketplace altogether.

Its also very interesting that the article that spawned this thread was about a 777 delivery.

I came up with about the same figure that you did, 750t.

Well, this is a very crude analysis, but:

The wing loading on a A346 is about 173. This figure is arrived at by dividing the maximum gross takeoff weight by the wing area. 814,000 lb/ 4707 sq ft = 172.93.

The same calculation for the current version of the A380 yields a wing loading of about 136. 1,235,000 lb / 9100 sq ft = 135.71

If one were to run the A380 wing loading out to the same approximate value of the A346, keeping the wing area the same yields a takeoff weight of about 1,574,000 lb.
(1,574,000/9100=172.97)

1,574,000 lb would be about a 27% weight increase from the baseline of 1,235,000.

As stated, this is rather crude, however, some possible further “quick” evaluation might involve plugging in a number for passenger density and trying to come up with how many passengers might be carried by a 1.57 million pound A380. If the fuselage were stretched, the empty weight would go up, and things like beefed up landing gear might be required also. We don’t know how “beefy” the existing landing gear are.

I would note that the current wing area for legacy 747s is 5,500 sq ft, thus the A380 with it’s 9100 sq ft wing is a significant increase.

These considerations aside, on the basis of lackluster sales and the worsening worldwide economy, a larger A380 doesn’t seem to be warranted. Then again, some carrier that is insulated from business reality might want a larger airplane just for the attention it would gain. I doubt Airbus could justify building just a few though, they would have to commit to a larger production run, and that doesn’t appear to be in the offing soon since the current model is languishing.

Bottom line, on the basis of the wing area alone, Airbus built the A380 with considerable growth potential, at least 27% is easily attainable IHMO. The 80 meter box requirement could easily be modified. Someone already posted the news article about LAX basically having to close the airport to allow A380 movement since the wings overhang adjacent taxiways and runways with insufficient separation. If the airport is basically closed already, a 30%larger A380 wouldn’t be that much more of a problem!

I think you’ll find a lot more Brits are pro-US rather than pro-Europe.

We just don”t make a lot of noise about it.

But we should.

Moggy

Didn’t Margaret Thatcher say, “All the greatest threats to humanity in the 20th century came from Mainland Europe: Fascism, Communism, Socialism.” Or some such (I paraphrased).