PMN1Yes the Windsor was a very different beast to the Wellington / Windsor line, it shared the same geodetic construction (surely a backward idea by 1943!)
Ahh, but geodetic was the only thing the Vickers factories were tooled up for and it was causing headaches for MAP by the end of 1941, there was a suggestion of them making a geodetic version of the Buckingham just to keep them employed.
The time that the Wellington was in construction must have a lot to do with the inability of the factories to make anything else.
Makes you wonder why the Windsor got anywhere when the idea of Barnes Wallis’s ‘Victory Bomber’ had been floating around for so long, after all it would seem to make far better use of that ‘problem’ capacity than the Windsor ever could..
PMN1Vickers Windsor?
That was using a completely new fuselage, I was thinking minimum chnages as with Manchester/Lancaster.
PMN1After a quick search, it appears that the first aero engine manufacturedto use ethylene glycol cooling, was the RR Merlin B engine:
http://www.spitfiresite.com/history/articles/2007/08/rolls-royce-merlin-engine-development.htm
Ethylene glycol was first prepared in 1859.
According to Bill Gunston ‘So in 1935 Rolls-Royce followed the US lead and went for ethylene glycol cooling.’
PMN1Could the Harrier GR1 have been developed from the start with the larger wingspan of the Big Wing Harrier, the AV-16 or the AV-8B – presumably you would need the P.1127 to have an extended wingspan as well??
Does the engine power available at that time make it useful?
PMN1.
The Charles de Gaulle proved the point that there are no compromises with nuclear propulsion….you do the sums right or forget it. They, the French, started off with a relatively weedy submarine-derived reactor plant and ended up with a complicated multi-reactor propulsion fit who’s total output is easily shamed by modern GT fits. Consequently they had to compromise the CdeG design quite badly to keep any kind of worthwhile performance in the hull.
Can’t remember where this came from.
France is considering joining with Britain to buy a new carrier of British design. Actually, the French had planned to built a second nuclear powered carrier, but they are having so many problems with the first one that they are quite reluctant about building a second like the troubled “Charles de Gaulle”. Britain is building two 50,000 ton conventionally powered carriers, at a cost of $2.5 billion each. Under the proposed plan, France would order a third of this class, and bring down the cost of all three a bit. This project might not come off, because France wants a lot of the work to be done in French shipyards.
The new French nuclear carrier “Charles de Gaulle” has suffered from a seemingly endless string of problems since it was first conceived in 1986. The 40,000 ton ship has cost over four billion dollars so far and is slower than the diesel powered carrier it replaced. Flaws in the “de Gaulle” have led it to using the propellers from it predecessor, the “Foch,” because the ones built for “de Gaulle” never worked right and the propeller manufacturer went out of business in 1999. Worse, the nuclear reactor installation was done poorly, exposing the engine crew to five times the allowable annual dose of radiation. There were also problems with the design of the deck, making it impossible to operate the E-2 radar aircraft that are essential to defending the ship and controlling offensive operations. Many other key components of the ship did not work correctly, including several key electronic systems. The carrier has been under constant repair and modification. The “de Gaulle” took eleven years to build (1988-99) and was not ready for service until late 2000. It’s been downhill ever since. The de Gaulle is undergoing still more repairs and modifications. The government is being sued for exposing crew members to dangerous levels of radiation.
The cause of the problems can be traced to the decision to install nuclear reactors designed for French submarines, instead of spending more money and designing reactors specifically for the carrier. Construction started and stopped several times because to cuts to the defense budget and when construction did resume, there was enormous pressure on the builders to get on with it quickly, and cheaply, before the project was killed. The result was a carrier with a lot of expensive problems.
So the plan is to buy into the new British carrier building program and keep the “de Gaulle” in port and out of trouble as much as possible. The British have a lot more experience building carriers, and if there are any problems with the British designed ship, the French can blame the British.
PMN1A bit more from the times
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/markets/the_gulf/article4710599.ece
September 9, 2008
Dubai plans $200bn canal to bypass Strait of Hormuz
David Robertson
Dubai is studying plans to build a $200 billion (£114 billion) mega-canal that would allow oil tankers to bypass the Strait of Hormuz. The Gulf emirate is understood to be considering the idea as a means of reducing Iran’s influence on the flow of oil from the region.
About 17 million barrels of oil a day are transported through the strait, equivalent to 40 per cent of the world’s traded oil.
However, the proposed canal project would be fraught with difficulty. Oil tankers weighing more than 300,000 tonnes would need a route through the mountainous region between Dubai and its Indian Ocean coast.
“Many studies on this have been presented, but nothing is solid,” a senior official of the Dubai Government told Dow Jones yesterday
Iran has hinted repeatedly that, if threatened, it would target commercial vessels in the strait. The navigable tanker lanes are only six miles wide and any disruption could severely limit oil exports from the Gulf.
Engineers are understood to have presented the plans for a 112-mile canal to the Dubai Government. It would link the Gulf coast with the port of Fujairah on the Indian Ocean coast, crossing the Hajar Mountains with a network of enormous locks. The massive cost and complexity of the project is thought to have stalled a decision on the canal, but it could be a popular initiative with other Gulf states.
Iran’s location on the northern coast of the Strait of Hormuz effectively allows it to control the 90 per cent of Gulf oil that is exported by sea. Countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq are eager to find an alternative and could be persuaded to contribute to the project.
Mustafa Alani, of the Dubai-based think-tank Gulf Research Center, said: “Iran has clearly stipulated its intention to close the Strait of Hormuz in case of a military conflict in the region.”
Abu Dhabi is building a pipeline to Fujairah so its oil can avoid Hormuz. It will carry about 1.5 million barrels a day, but will not have the capacity to transport oil from Saudi Arabia or other producers.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article4710766.ece
September 9, 2008
Real value in pricey Gulf canal project
David Wighton: Business editor’s commentary
Dubai excels at projects that require more money than common sense (the world’s largest indoor snow resort, for example) but perhaps the ultimate swaggering demonstration of wealth is the proposal to build a canal across the emirate’s mountainous hinterland.
The project to link the Gulf with the Indian Ocean would cost more than $200 billion (£114 billion) but reduce journey distances by only about 100 miles.
The Suez and Panama Canals were built so ships did not have to circumnavigate entire continents. The Dubai to Fujairah channel would merely cut off the tip of Arabia.
The canal would, however, allow ships to avoid the Strait of Hormuz and avoid Iran’s influence over that treacherous stretch of water.
More than 90 per cent of the Gulf’s oil, which accounts for 40 per cent of the world’s traded supplies, must be transported through the Strait every day and Iran has made clear it will block the channel if threatened.
This would obviously be bad for oil consumers but it could turn ugly for Gulf producers so a $200 billion insurance policy might look attractive to states such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq.
As for the staggering sum involved, $200 billion is only what the United States is willing to pay to bail out its sickly mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Given the need to secure oil supplies from the Gulf, this canal could turn out to be just as economically important as supporting the US mortgage market. Perhaps we should all chip in.
PMN1A bit more from the times
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/markets/the_gulf/article4710599.ece
September 9, 2008
Dubai plans $200bn canal to bypass Strait of Hormuz
David Robertson
Dubai is studying plans to build a $200 billion (£114 billion) mega-canal that would allow oil tankers to bypass the Strait of Hormuz. The Gulf emirate is understood to be considering the idea as a means of reducing Iran’s influence on the flow of oil from the region.
About 17 million barrels of oil a day are transported through the strait, equivalent to 40 per cent of the world’s traded oil.
However, the proposed canal project would be fraught with difficulty. Oil tankers weighing more than 300,000 tonnes would need a route through the mountainous region between Dubai and its Indian Ocean coast.
“Many studies on this have been presented, but nothing is solid,” a senior official of the Dubai Government told Dow Jones yesterday
Iran has hinted repeatedly that, if threatened, it would target commercial vessels in the strait. The navigable tanker lanes are only six miles wide and any disruption could severely limit oil exports from the Gulf.
Engineers are understood to have presented the plans for a 112-mile canal to the Dubai Government. It would link the Gulf coast with the port of Fujairah on the Indian Ocean coast, crossing the Hajar Mountains with a network of enormous locks. The massive cost and complexity of the project is thought to have stalled a decision on the canal, but it could be a popular initiative with other Gulf states.
Iran’s location on the northern coast of the Strait of Hormuz effectively allows it to control the 90 per cent of Gulf oil that is exported by sea. Countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq are eager to find an alternative and could be persuaded to contribute to the project.
Mustafa Alani, of the Dubai-based think-tank Gulf Research Center, said: “Iran has clearly stipulated its intention to close the Strait of Hormuz in case of a military conflict in the region.”
Abu Dhabi is building a pipeline to Fujairah so its oil can avoid Hormuz. It will carry about 1.5 million barrels a day, but will not have the capacity to transport oil from Saudi Arabia or other producers.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article4710766.ece
September 9, 2008
Real value in pricey Gulf canal project
David Wighton: Business editor’s commentary
Dubai excels at projects that require more money than common sense (the world’s largest indoor snow resort, for example) but perhaps the ultimate swaggering demonstration of wealth is the proposal to build a canal across the emirate’s mountainous hinterland.
The project to link the Gulf with the Indian Ocean would cost more than $200 billion (£114 billion) but reduce journey distances by only about 100 miles.
The Suez and Panama Canals were built so ships did not have to circumnavigate entire continents. The Dubai to Fujairah channel would merely cut off the tip of Arabia.
The canal would, however, allow ships to avoid the Strait of Hormuz and avoid Iran’s influence over that treacherous stretch of water.
More than 90 per cent of the Gulf’s oil, which accounts for 40 per cent of the world’s traded supplies, must be transported through the Strait every day and Iran has made clear it will block the channel if threatened.
This would obviously be bad for oil consumers but it could turn ugly for Gulf producers so a $200 billion insurance policy might look attractive to states such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq.
As for the staggering sum involved, $200 billion is only what the United States is willing to pay to bail out its sickly mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Given the need to secure oil supplies from the Gulf, this canal could turn out to be just as economically important as supporting the US mortgage market. Perhaps we should all chip in.
PMN1The question of a CVF for the US came up on the PPRUNE board, dont have the link to there but have this link.
PMN1Talking of Russia and India
India Russia Billion Dollar Helicopter Deal To Be Signed Soon
File photo: Mi-171 helicopter
by Staff Writers
Delhi, India (RIA Novosti) Aug 14, 2008
The Indian Air Force said on Thursday that India will soon sign a contract with Russia to receive 80 Mi-17 Hip-H multirole helicopters.
Air Chief Marshal Fali Homi Major said preparations for signing the contract are now in their final stages. The deal is estimated at $1 billion.
Indian media earlier reported that the contract was under threat over Russia’s attempt to significantly raise the delivery price, and that negotiations were stalling.
A preliminary agreement to sell Mi-17 helicopters to India was reached in March 2007 at a meeting of the Russian-Indian intergovernmental commission on military cooperation.
The Mi-17 is a version of the Mi-8 airframe. The helicopter has a takeoff weight of 13 metric tons and can carry up to 36 people or a payload of 4 metric tons within the cargo compartment, or 4.5 tons externally. The helicopters have been supplied to 80 countries.
Source: RIA Novosti
PMN1Some very sad footage
PMN1Sorry, just realsied I put a typo in,
It should have been a civilian version of the HP57…
:o:o
PMN1While at the Portsmouth show today I went on board Largs Bay (LSD) and I must admit I was quite impressed. She is only a few feet shorter than Ocean and you get a fantastic view from that towering bridge. The rear deck is much larger than you think and a Lynx was dwarfed by it. The well dock is not as big as the Dutch ones which I have also been on but there is certainly plenty of space for vehicles.
One development which I haven’t seen discussed on here is that there is now a new large fabric ‘Shelter’ fitted semi-perminantly between the Main superstructure of the ship and the cranes. It really is quite large with a metal roller door and could easily hold two Merlins. I enquired to an RFA chap about it and he said as far as he was concerned that it should have had something like that from day one, but anyway all 4 vessels are to have them fitted. He did emphasise that it is being called a shelter and not a hanger as it has other uses as well. It should be able to cope with all sea conditions athough he did hint that a ‘beam on’ wave may not do it much good if they shipped one in a storm :diablo:
There have been ‘discussions’ coming out of your ears regarding hangers on the Bays here
http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/16788#reply-16788
http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/82329#reply-82329
and god knows how many other posts on warships1 that I cant find at the moment.
PMN1When the four countries reduced their orders in the mid 90’s, how did they avoid having to make penalty payments to the manufacturers?
PMN1Thanks for that.
PMN1Why a different name on warships1?
Sign In
