dark light

PMN1

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 240 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: 1952 aircraft carrier #2030650
    PMN1
    Participant

    http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Own%20designs/CV1952designBatchIIBatchIII.gif

    Out of interest, for your Batch II and Batch III, why didn’t you extend the port side sponson forward of the gun/missile sponson as you did with the starboard sponson aft, electing in the Batch III to have the overhang aft of the missile sponson and bringing that forward in the process?

    So ultimately having a flight deck shape something along the lines of the US carriers.

    in reply to: CVF Construction #2032762
    PMN1
    Participant

    A space programme, a nuclear weapons programme, an ABM porgramme and a carrier programme and as you say, people complain when WE dont give enough….:(:mad:

    And according to the Times of India, Indian defence chiefs have approved $11bn of funds to boost the country’s submarine fleet. The cash is intended to see India become the first non-Western nation to deploy long-touted, much feared “air independent propulsion” (AIP) submarine technology.

    in reply to: CVF Construction #2032822
    PMN1
    Participant

    India has got larger armed forces than Britain, and we are giving them aid? Come off it!

    .

    A space programme, a nuclear weapons programme, an ABM porgramme and a carrier programme and as you say, people complain when WE dont give enough….:(:mad:

    in reply to: CVF Construction #2032955
    PMN1
    Participant

    Mount Peasant works two-way, you know. If they were to capture it, for a thing, they wouldn’t have to launch their planes from Tierra del Fuego and have 5 minutes for the attack before running on Bingo fuel.
    That already would be a game-changer factor.

    Argentina has had quite some time to do something about that but there has not been one whisper from anywhere that they are equipping to do so and these days even ludicrous rumours go round the world in minutes.

    in reply to: CVF Construction #2033146
    PMN1
    Participant

    I’ve always liked the design too. I wonder if there are any downsides to it though. The French and Americans seem to choose between either better flight control or better ship control with their island placements, so it makes me wonder why they’ve never tried the 2 island design. Is it due to downsides or have they just decided against it/not bothered?

    The USN did with its 1945 Fleet Carrier design.

    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v136/paul1/FollowontoEssexclasscarrier.jpg

    The abandoned islands altogether then came back to a single island.

    in reply to: CVF Construction #2033292
    PMN1
    Participant

    From today’s telegraph, elsewhere i’ve read that foreign aid is right up on the top of people’s lists on what to cut, so will the coalition listen??

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/7884333/Navy-carrier-costs-could-school-Africans.html

    Navy carrier costs ‘could school Africans’

    Two thirds of children in Africa not currently in primary school could be educated for the cost of two new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy, Britain’s development secretary has suggested.

    Andrew Mitchell said that Britain would continue to fund and support the campaign for universal primary education around the world but that it could not increase its spending without saving elsewhere.

    He added that all governments should reassess their spending priorities and that if Britain were to modify its plans for two new aircraft carriers, it could single-handedly achieve the aim of 1 GOAL.

    The World Cup organisers’ legacy project aims to provide the 72 million children out of school around the world with a primary education by 2015, an ambition that forms part of United Nations development goals. Mr Mitchell was speaking at a summit of world leaders hosted by South Africa’s president Jacob Zuma ahead of the World Cup final to raise awareness of 1GOAL and push leaders to honour their commitment to extending education. Western donors have pledged to spend £7.3 billion a year to get 32 million African children into primary education.

    His comments follow strong hints from Defence Secretary Liam Fox that he will seek to withdraw from the order for the “Cold War era” aircraft carriers in an attempt to plug a defence budget black hole. The cost of the project so far is £4.9 billion.

    Mr Mitchell said Britain funded primary education for 4.8 million children in the UK and five million around the world but much more could be done “for the cost of the aircraft carriers”. “Achieving that goal for children everywhere to go to school is extremely important”.

    in reply to: Fantasy CVA01 fleet #2033848
    PMN1
    Participant

    Talking of the Counties and Sea Slug

    British Destroyers and Frigates: The Second World War and After Norman Friedman

    P190

    (by 1958?) A proposal to add a second helicopter died because it would have required a complete revision of superstructure arrangements in the building drawings.

    There was considerable interest in modifying the missile stowage. The tube magazine arrangement, called Phase 1, used 290ft of the ship, from the centreline of the missile launcher to the fore end of the magazine at the foremast. Phase II envisaged a forward launcher and a total capacity of sixty-two missiles, including fourteen on an endless-chain loader. Phase III, as envisaged in 1959, would use a US style twin revolver loader (as in the Mk10 system on the Leahy and Belknap cases) carrying twelve missiles on each revolver. Presumably they were a projected further development of Seaslug with an integral booster, the NIGS or SIGS mentioned below. Forward of the revolvers would have been further stowage for thirty-six missiles, for a total of sixty in a space only 129ft long. There were several other proposed arrangements.

    The Phase II idea does suggest a launcher in B position, or removal of all guns.

    Phase III suggests a complete redesign of Sea Slug or its abandonment for a new missile.

    Also

    http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5634.0/highlight,slug.html

    in reply to: Impressive Weapons Load 2 (again) #2396528
    PMN1
    Participant

    64,000lbs of bombs on a VC-10? It would have needed 20,000 feet of runway. 😮

    I suspect they would have used the 40,000lb engine that Vickers was saying would be available by 1968 for the Poffler ALBM carrier – upto 8 Skybolts…..

    Another possible load for a VC-10 variant (this time the ‘Modular VC-10’) was upto 18 air-to-air missiles for long range stand off interception – it was called Red Barrel and seem similar in concept to the US Project Aerie using C-135 and 24 AAM-N-10 missiles. The pictures for the Red Barrel variant show it carrying CF.299 missiles.

    in reply to: Impressive Weapons Load 2 (again) #2396532
    PMN1
    Participant

    Would be interesting to see those photos if there are any. Please share if you can find some! 🙂

    ‘fraid not, the pods are mentioned in Chris Gibson’s Vickers VC-10: AEW, Pofflers and other Unbuilt Variants’, a very interesting book btw on what may have been possible with the VC-10.

    Incidentally, one of the MR versions of the VC-10 was to use them two of them each carrying upto 6 lightweight homing torpedoes.

    I’ve also seen them briefly mentioned on the Vectors site IIRC saying that development work was done but they never got to the hardware stage.

    in reply to: Impressive Weapons Load 2 (again) #2400961
    PMN1
    Participant

    Vickers developed external pods for its Valiant bomber each carrying 6 x 1,000lb bombs.

    Extended versions of these each with 8 x 1,000lb bombs were proposed for a VC-10 bomber variant with each aircraft carrying 8 pods – now that would have been interesting.

    in reply to: 1952 aircraft carrier #2034607
    PMN1
    Participant

    According to Brown, draft requirements for what became the Colossus class were agreed in December 1941.

    If the design process for these had started sooner, could this impact the laying down of the Audacious class?

    I doubt if the RN would like it but could they be forced into not laying down as many?

    in reply to: Fantasy CVA01 fleet #2034626
    PMN1
    Participant

    For escorts I would have liked to see a heavily modified T-82 with the Sea Dart and 4.5 Forward, 2x Ikara amidships like the RAN Hobart and a Hanger for 2 Lynx or 1 Seaking aft.

    Does anyone know if an amidships Ikara layout was considered for the Type 82?

    in reply to: Falklands what if #1998666
    PMN1
    Participant

    How about throwing in a few of the HSD Underwater to Surface Guided Weapons – development started in 1969 and it seems by the early 1970’s, problems with sea-skimming had been solved.

    in reply to: CVA01 and CVV compared #2000615
    PMN1
    Participant

    .funny how witht hte new CVs they RN got the lifts right but messed up the island(2) again. Would the CVV have been able to handle the F-14?

    What’s the problem with two islands, the US was going to use them on the follow on to the Essex class.

    in reply to: CVA01 and CVV compared #2000650
    PMN1
    Participant

    The sponson supporting the Alaska Highway itself was very large and intended to deflect heavy seas from the aircraft movements on the highway. the design has often attracted criticism for not mounting a deck edge lift forward, retaining an inboard lift (of the new ‘scissors’ design) instead. In fact these features were directly influenced by the operational experience of the RN’s carriers in their primary operation areas, eg the Bay of Biscay and the Northern Atlantic.

    How about a larger deck edge lift aft, would that have been useful?

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 240 total)