I really would like to know what kind of counter measures or AD measures it has should its jets fail to do their job ( highly unlikely I geuss ).
What ship?, HMS Ocean?.
And is it possible to breach the defensive bubble of a advanced ( US ) carrier ?
Yes, if you can overwhelm its defences with weapons and countermeasures, it wouldn’t be easy though.
Ja, HMS Ocean was based on a Invincible hull and built to commercial standards, it was a MOD money saving exercise, but it can’t have been that successful as they cancelled a second Ocean on cost grounds!
Richard Beedall’s HMS Ocean page covers the story better than I can. http://frn.beedall.com/ocean.htm
Missed opportunity- HMS OCEAN
I think HMS Ocean should have been designed as a Invincible class replacement rather than a one off LPH.
Rather than expensive refits to improve the Invincible’s aviation capabilities, the RN could have started operating its Harriers off a much improved design and relegated the Invincible’s to LPH duties until enough improved Ocean’s had entered service.
The Ocean class should have been 30kt capable, ski-jump equipped, 25,000t light carriers operating 25 aircraft. It should have been a improvement on the Invincible’s in every way, cheaper to build, more affordable to operate, easier to crew, have a better layout (flightdeck, hanger, accessibility, weapons) and it should have been built in greater numbers (4+ ships).
The Netherlands is supposedly thinking about getting an LPH/LHD.
I think this is the design they are considering http://www.scheldeshipbuilding.com/enforcer/
The Enforcer hull is based on the RNLN LPD “Rotterdam” with a flightdeck instead of the superstructure.
Well I know one country that doesn’t need their carrier, Thailand, during the Tsunami crisis she just sat there tied up alongside. The whole reason they bought her was for disaster relief so they claimed, we when a disaster came, she wasn’t there, so they should sell her off, there are a few countries that could use her and would be willing to pay a good price for her.
HTMS Chakri Naruebet always did seem to be more of a status symbol than a useful asset, I don’t know why they bothered with the AV-8As, they should have spent the money on helicopters.
Video gallery here http://www.f22-raptor.com/media/index.html#
I think the usage of the word need is wrong, want is probably more appropriate, a carrier as with most other military force today is about what the countrys rolein the world is, If north korea wanted a similar role to the USA,it would arguably need an aircraft carrier.
Good point, I think most countries ‘want’ them but can’t justify the need or expense for them.
I will edit the question to want/need.
This is the Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems website http://www.darpa.mil/j-ucas/
I think UCAVs might take over alot of the targets assigned to cruise missiles before they replace manned aircraft.
A decent article that raises some neat points about certain much talked about aspects of a carrier fleet but it really leads to nowhere…
I have to agree, its a little late for any Joint Strike Carrier program between Britain, France and the USA, its a nice idea though.
I guess as long as the STOVL JSF goes ahead, the US can use its LHAs and LHDs as standby carriers anyway, so I think they will want to stick to 100,000t supercarriers for the forseeable future.
Looks like a Directable Infra Red Counter Measures (DIRCM) turret under the APU exhaust.
Great pics, the only out of date Typhoon I know of has a propellor on the nose 😉
Check out Jozef Gatial’s excellent TSR2 pics to see what we missed out on. http://www.planespictures.com/index.php?c=1&t=2&p=0
I think the biggest problem for British post war aviation was the fact that the services couldn’t settle for a good design, they always wanted something better.
This lead to lots of state of the art programs, which were vunerable to cost miscalculations and immature technology, which in turn left them easy prey to critics.
Quote from Distiller’s link-
Rascal’s four engines will probably be similar to the F100 power plants found on F-15 and F-16 fighters. At high temperatures, they would be cooled with water and liquid oxygen sprayed directly into the inlets. This technique improves thrust but keeps the engines at an acceptable temperature and provides oxygen for combustion. It is called mass injection precompressor cooling and was tried successfully in the 1950s. The technique would let the F100-type engines propel the craft to Mach 6.
Does that sound to good to be true?
Maybe a Aurora type aircraft does exist if this technique works, it seems alot more practical than ram/scram jets.
Sea Harrier in 800 Squadron decommissioning colour scheme