Obi Wan RussellWould have been nice aircraft. doesnt seem that the RN had a fighter in the 60s that could hold its own with a Mig-17 or 21 until the arrival of the Phantom….unless the Sea Vixen was capable
I think the Sea Vixen was a lot more capable than people give it credit for. It’s main drawback was lack of supersonic speed, though with hindsight this wasn’t a huge problem. The Sea Harrier fulfilled the same role in the 80s and 90s and had a similar top speed. The Vixen was effectively a flying wing design, and by all accounts was very manouvreable in ACM. Possibly it’s biggest drawback was the lack of guns, although it was originally designed to have four 20mm cannon under the nose, for some reason these were replaced in production aircraft by two retractable unguided rocket packs. The Red Top missiles which were it’s primary weapons were very reliable, a heat seeker with a longer range than the sidewinder and a capable AI radar on the aircraft itself. The Vixen was without doubt far superior to it’s RAF counterpart, the Javelin, which the junior service chose instead of the Vixen.
As for the P1154RN, although a STOVL aircraft, it was specified as being catapult capable in order to launch with a large payload. The Sea Harrier had the same problem, but by then the ski jump had been invented as a viable alternative. Arrested landing capability was included not for normal operations, but as a back up in case there were problems with the nozzles meaning a VL was unsafe (these were very early days of STOVL technology after all). In service normal operation would have been catapult launches and vertical landings, kind of the opposite of the STOBAR method around today, and a lot safer then that method too. Add your own acronym here! Cat launches means max weight takeoff which the STOBAR aircraft can only dream of, and vertical landings mean much safer recovery. The P1154RN would have joined air groups on the CVA-01 class mixed with CTOL Buccaneers and the CTOL successor to the Gannet, so it would have been a transitional time from all CTOL ops to STOVL ops, perhaps with the Buccaneer being replaced in the 80s by a second generation supersonic STOVL type as a follow on to the P1154RN/RAF jointly developed with US.
Obi Wan RussellIs leviathan in the spot where leeds castle is shown on google maps?
I believe so.
Obi Wan RussellThat last is a neat shot…
2 Counties (Fife & unknown), Leviathan, Centaur, and Victorious in the background.
And is that a 3rd County way in the rear left?
Well spotted. As far as I know the picture dates from around 1965-66. Leviathan was probably brought back into the no 3 Basin at Pompey to have yet more equipment removed. Centaur has been paid off by this time and is in use as an accomodation ship, probably playing host to Victorious’ ship’s company.
Obi Wan RussellTo be fair the individual components for a steam catapult such as fitted to 25 de Mayo could be copied and manufactured by any of a number of engineering firms worldwide, so access to the original British manufacturer is not that great an obstacle. The Argentine Carrier’s fate was sealed by the parlous state of the economy, precluding either aquisition of the parts or their installation, or indeed any serious attampts to overhaul the ship generally. She thus remained a Harbour Queen for the last decade of her life, officially in commission but realistically of little more value than an accomodation ship.
Some more pics; Arromanches (ex Colossus), Vikrant and Leviathan:
Obi Wan RussellVictorious didn’t have enough freeboard for a deck edge lift.
If she did have enough freeboard, it would be better to place the deck edge elevator aft of the island on the starboard side, similar to the Clemenceau class (displacing the aft lift). Keeping the lifts away from the landing runway is desirable, as is deleting the starboard catapult in favour of the waist position, as the island is too close to the JBD of the starboard cat. This deck layout could work of the island was repositioned further aft, though now we would be in the realm of a new build derivative of Victorious rather than a modification of vic herself. With a waist cat the starboard fore deck (fly 1) now becomes a permanent deck park, very important in a small carrier where space is at a premium. This is why British and French carriers migrated to this layout in the 50s and sixties (Eagle post 64, Ark post 70, Clemenceau and Foch as built).
Obi Wan RussellAs I understand it, hydraulic catapults were called accelerators rather than catapults, although I don’t know if this only came about after the introduction of the steam type. Prior to the refit around ’43 it was in a slightly raised section of deck, under where the port side Fulmar is in that shot. The steam coming out of the deck was afaik used for a relative wind indication only and is just to starboard of the accelerator’s platform.
It was RN practice to call the hydraulic catapults on carriers ‘Accelerators’ to differentiate them from the ‘Catapults’ fitted to Battleships and cruisers for launching Sea Planes, though why is unclear. The ‘1941’ deck layout of Victorious posted by F/A-18RN is actually the originally proposed rebuild layout for the Illustrious class for the 50s, prior to the advent of the angled deck. This rebuild was supposed to take four years and be applied to all six members of the class, but in the event only Victorious was converted due to rising costs (up from an original estimate of £7million/ 4 years to and evetual total of over £30million/ 8 years in 1958). The steam catapult was originally proposed to the RN in 1938, but due to the light weight of aircraft in service at the time it was not needed and the thought of diverting steam from the boilers was a step too far for the conservative Naval officers. Most takeoffs were unassisted at the time as well, the accelerators were used when launching a large strike where insufficient deck space was available for the first few aircraft to launch normally. Once enough deck space had been cleared the rest of the air group could make rolling takeoffs as normal. At that time as well RN aircraft using the accelerators launched in the horizontal, the attachment to the accelerator was by a trolley which attached behind the wings and underneath them to spools poinying backwards on the aircraft, so that at the end of the accelerator track the trolley would stop sharply and the aircraft would be released, in much the same way as aircraft attached to the catapults on capital ships. During the war most RN accelerators were converted to the ‘flush decked track’ of American catapults with wire bridle attachments, initially to operate American aircraft but also later British aircraft which were being built with American style catapult spools, and this method continued through to the late seventies with the RN.
Obi Wan RussellCould Super Etendards operate off 25 de Mayo with the Excocet?
That was ceratinly the plan. Calculations were done beforehand that showed it was certainly feasible. Super Etendards carried out trials aboard 25 de Mayo which confirmed this, though they also proved the ship’s catapult was in need of a major overhaul as well as her boilers and engines; they were in working order but well below what they were capable of. Post Falklands there simply wasn’t any money available for her refit and after 1988 she was laid up in port, officially in commission but in reality non operational. Her decommissioning in 1997 was a formality, prior to be sold for scrap two years later.
Obi Wan RussellP1154 was effectively two different aircraft, how much commonality there actually was between them is hard to say, but the two types employed different undercarriage for a start. The P1154RAF was a single seat low level supersonic attack aircraft, resembling a stretched Harrier (the name Harrier was chosen for this aircraft first, and avionics developed for it were later used in the Harrier GR1), whereas the P1154RN was a two seat carrier based supersonic interceptor with radar in the nose and tricycle undercarriage (the maun gears being housed in wing nacelles), and despite being a STOVL aircraft was still capable of catapult launches (to increase payload). Later in the 60s the P1154RN was used as the basis for a proposed single seat strike aircraft as part of Hawker Siddeley’s ongoing studies into STOVL strike aircraft.
Obi Wan RussellPrevious statements from the Russians indicate they want on order for at least 24 aircraft just to break even on production costs, whilst the Chinese just want a couple of aircraft for ‘trials’, ie to use as pattern aircraft for their own unlicenced production. It seems the Chinese are finding it difficult to solve the problems of navalising a land based aircraft themselves, so why don’t they just bite the bullet and order the 24 the Russians are stipulating, it’s not like they couldn’t afford them, and they would have a trials sqn in short order as well as a few pattern aircraft to keep their engineers happy.
Obi Wan RussellThe Numbers are as yet unknown, but as a rule of thumb the recent statement from Sukoi about the abortive proposed sale of SU-33s to China can eb used as a guide. The Chinese only wanted two originally with an option on another 50; The two would most likely have been used as pattern aircraft for the Chinese to copy and the ’50’ options would never have been ordered. The Russians saw through this and demanded a minimum order of 24 just to cover production costs, which naturally the chinese, having no intention of actually buying any more from the Russians, refused. So a minimum order of Mig 29Ks from the Russian Navy would presumably have to be a similar minimum number to be worthwhile, and to provide a useful air group for the Kuznetzov as well as attrition spares. I would be surprised if the order was for less than thirty aircraft myself, in the first batch at least.
Obi Wan RussellWith talk of all these carrier building projects going on in other countries, no matter how ambitious, the US navy should maintain the carrier fleet at the level it is now and maybe even expand it by a unit or two, to maintain the vast supremacy they currently enjoy.If for example China gets 3-4 carriers and their associated support/escort vessels active and decide to project power, in an area were America has interests, and according to the talk here of 1 American carrier per area, well imagine if all 4 Chinnese carriers are sent to the one area, well it would be a huge embarrasment for America to have to back off while reinforcements are called??Im rambling………….
Expansion would be a problem at the moment. There is only one shipyard in the US capable of building CVNs (Northrop Grumman’s Newport News Yard) and they are currently tied up with work on the new Ford class, the first of which is expected to cost up to $16 billion, although later units are likely to closer to half that amount. It take several years to build a CVN, so if you want to expand the fleet in the short term that means reactivating older carriers from reserve, which is quite an expensive proposition in itself. Considering the amount of work required to recommission JFK due to the neglect of her final years that would almost be a non starter. Delaying the decommissioning of carriers in service is another way to boost numbers, but until the Ford commissions this won’t make any difference. A possible way would be to authorise conventional propulsion carriers construction again which could be built at yards other than Newport News, In essence producing modern equivalents of the Kitty Hawk class, but this would still take several years to bear fruit. As said previously, as long as the F-35B is delivered the US can maintain a total over closer to twenty ‘flat tops’ with a high end/low end mix that gives greater flexibility of response than just a twelve to fifteen ship ctol CVN fleet.
Obi Wan RussellLong trials such as these exist to justify the jobs of a lot of pen pushers in peacetime. If Daring was required for combat tomorrow the missiles would be cleared for use practically overnight. Look at what was achieved in 1982. In wartime, the Beaureaucrats are the first casualties! In the meantime the trials are a job creation and sustainment scheme for the boffins and other support staff.
Obi Wan RussellThey are now – at last – talking about ending the “two wars” doctrine. Numbers of carriers will be influenced by that. Time the U.S. armed forces arrive in the post Cold War era. I am/was a military guy, but time that realism sets in. The British Empire was kept together by frigates, not by three-deckers. The U.S. utilization of resources the last 15 years is just abysmal.
“Presence” is the job of a frigate, not of a carrier battle group. There are no enemies out there requiring the presence of a carrier battle group. And those that are potentially out there – mostly China – would need more than one group in any case. I hope part of the carrier reduction will be a new home-base concept.
You can throw away a capabiility with the stroke of a pen. Takes decades and billions of dollars to get it back. Think long and hard before taking such decisions. Plenty of wasteful projects around that can be axed first if savings are needed. Also The Harrier/F-35B gives the US the option of sending a ‘Gator’ carrier to a trouble spot if required, doubling the number of flat tops available, so that helps with the overall force numbers. Calls to axe the F-35B in favour of more F/A-18 SH to equip the USMC are a bad idea, as iit halves the number of platforms that can be deployed off the bad guys doorstep.
Obi Wan RussellTo maintain one carrier forward deployed in each of the three ‘theatres of interest’, wherever they may be at a given time, requires nine carriers minimum (one deployed, one in refit, and one working up after refit, x3) plus one in long term refit/refuelling). reduce the numbers further and they would have to reduce committments or else prolong deployments, which has already been shown to be detrimental to ccrew retention. Sailors vote with their feet, and that in itself means the numbers of carriers probably won’t be seriously reduced.
Obi Wan RussellWell, I would hardly see a reason for both Su-33’s and Mig-29K’s. So, is the Rusian Navy going to retire its Naval Flanker???:confused:
Unlikely, the two aircraft were originally scheduled to serve side by side on the Soviet incarnation of the Kuznetzov class, with the SU-33s serving in the fleet defence role and the Mig-29s in the strike fighter roll akin to the F-18. The Su-33s will most likely stay on if the Migs are brought in to service in order to give the appearance of a much larger (and more capable) air group for ‘showing the flag’ purposes, which seems to be of higher priority to the Russian leadership at the present than actual combat capability. Kuznetzov has had to make do with a much reduced air group since completion due to the fall of the USSR and the resultant lack of aircraft production.
Sign In
