TinWingI’m familiar with all those web sites, and to be honest I still don’t see much more than a Ro-Ro ferry in HMNZS Cantebury. What have I said that you seem to take as being in some way anti-New Zealand? I know plenty of New Zealanders who agree with my view that NZ defence policy has became something of an empty gesture since deciding they didn’t need a combat air force and no more than a token maritime combat capability.
It remains to be seen if New Zealand’s non-combatant emphasis in defense procurement is the right choice. At this point, it appears to be a safe gamble.
The so called “MRV” does have more than a few advantages over requisitioned Ro-Ro ferry, mainly in terms of ready availability, but it is wrong to think of it as an amphibious ship, or even as a conventional naval vessel.
I am fascincated by the “Project Protector” ships, and would be very interested in drawings or plans of Canterbury or Atago.
TinWingDoes anyone smell HMS Invincible ??? If I an not mistaken, there were rumours about it being “gifted”/sold to India not very long ago …. :rolleyes:
It is still possible, although India’s refusal of the Harrier FA.2s probably precluded such a deal.
There is very little advantage to the UK in gifting the Invincible to India. Any government will be criticised for the environmental and weapons proliferation implications of such a move. It would be bad domestic politics in the UK. In any case, with the FA.2s going to scrap, there isn’t even a financial case that can be made for the transfer. Rolls Royce might benefit from a support contract for the long term support and service of the Olympus turbines, but low operational tempo of the IN means that such a contract would be relatively small.
Considering the likely slippage in the CV-F program, it would be far more desirable for the RN to canibalize the Invincible for spares until Ark Royal is finally retired, and then make the decision between preservation as a museum or a sink-ex.
TinWingNo matter what, F-18(garbage) or rafale cannot take off without cats. So mig29k is the only choice other than N-LCAfor now.
No, any modern fighter could easily take off from an aircraft carrier after a deck run or using a ski jump.
In other words, a Rafale or any Hornet could potentially take off from either Vikrant or Vikramaditya. By the same token, any MiG-29K, Su-33 or Naval LCA (if it ever comes to fruition) could potentially land on any American carrier or the CdeG – and it potentially could take off after a fairly long deck run.
The truth is that the MiG-29K was never the only choice for the Indian Navy. There were even reports that the Rafale M was the prefered choice of the Indian Navy. The truth is that the MiG-29K was the only choice that came with a “free” aircraft carrier.:lol:
TinWingnice shiny ship.
It sure is. It looks somewhat different than the earlier Tanjung Dalpele? Are the dimensions and tonnages any different?
The first ship of the four is the Makassar and the second is the Surabaya.
TinWingHey, it’s only 65million so far. Small change in wasting US’ taxpayer’s money. The XFV-12 or A-12 or RAH-66 or XB-70 or YA-7F or YC-14 cost a whole lot more, and didn’t amount to anything either. Hard to imagine somebody actually noticed.
For that money, you don’t even get the paint for the V-22 prototype.
What makes the DP-2 unique is that it has been under development since at least 1973.
TinWing😀
It will without a doubt be the slowest less maneuverable new generation jet on the market.
The only problem with that statement is that the F-35 is a generation later than the any competitor. The Eurofighter, Rafale and Gripen were all conceived in the 1980s – and so was the F-22. It even seems that the current Chinese J-10 program started long before the western media became aware of it.The F-35 is a product of 1990s planning, far more recent than any of the competition so far.
Western Europe will probably never produce an entirely new manned combat aircraft design ever again, so all of the “Euro canards” will eventually be replaced either with unmanned types or perhaps combat aviation will be abandoned altogeth in many European countries. Russia will most likely produce another combat type, but sadly the the current PAK-FA seems set to run into the same affordability issues as the far older American F-22. Perhaps China, Japan, South Korea or even India will produce indigenous F-35 competitor, but that remains a distant prospect.
So far, the F-35 is all alone in its “generation.” In a class of only one, the F-35 is head of its class.
TinWingHi guys,
I was wondering if anyone has any info on the proposed Royal Navy Type 19 frigate.
It was supposed to be a gas turbine-powered high speed frigate, but it was cancelled.
In “Rebuilding the Royal Navy” there is a drawing of a half powered Type 19 variant from a 1966 study called the “387 modified.” It would appear that this 30-32kt design only had two Olympus gas turbines as opposed to the 4 of the Type 19!
In any case, the 387 modified was most definintely not a Leander derivative. In fact, the beam was only 39 feet, narrower than any common hull frigate derivative, despite a length of 360 feet. Displacement was listed as 2,600 tons, but it isn’t clear if this is full load or standard?
Is a “387 modified” a Type 19? Not exactly, but its the closest thing I’ve seen so far.
The shipbucket drawings exagerate the foc’sul step, if only because they are based on the Leander class hull – and the Type 19 was not a Leander class derivative.
I haven’t seen Norman Friedman’s “British Destroyers and Frigates,” though.
Does anyone know for sure if there is a definitive Type 19 drawing in that book?
TinWingDue the lenghtly arms-wrestling, Kuznetsov actually benefitted for the time and had the latest weapon-systems to be ready ofr it.
It is not certain how beneficial the weapon-systems actually would have been.
TinWingYou think that with the 5th largest GDP (nominal) and officially the 2nd largest military budget in the world we’re a “minor power”? :rolleyes:
The term “minor power” is very appropriate for the modern United Kingdom. British support or opposition is no longer a deciding factor in world affairs. Moreover, despite a relatively large military budget, high procurement costs and wages have diminshed the effectiveness of the British military.
The UK and China have different security concerns. Our military concerns are “over there”, as our European partners present no real threat, whereas China is most concerned about its neighbours.
There is no real immediate threat in East Asia either. Japan or South Korea is no more likely to attack China than Belgium would attack the UK.:lol:
China does have a broader interest in preserving stability in the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa. China is no longer a net exporter of oil, but has massive oil and gas interests in many potential troublespots. China has gained broader global interests.
Carriers could be useful for China in the future, but only if it has a specific power-projection need. At the moment, I don’t quite see that need for China.
Long term military procurement is meant to fulfill long term needs. An aircraft carrier isn’t a short term purchase.
Taiwan is already within striking distance.
So was Hong Kong before the 1997 turn over.:lol:
TinWingIt may have been possible to improve this situation by improving the engines – e.g. better Conways or similar.
The problem is that bigger engines would require far larger inlets, which becomes a problem with the buried, wing root postion.
If newer Victors had been built in the ’60s, they could have been very useful.
Sadly, the fateful decision to reduce B.2 production had been made in 50s.
By the 1960s, Handley Page was doomed by government pressure to merge with another firm. Handley Page resisted the government, the government withheld contract and the firm was eventually liquidated.
As for weapons, how about an internally carried Polaris? :diablo:
An interesting concept, although the much smaller Skybolt was carrier externally. I wonder why internal carriage was rejected for Skybolt? Perhaps because of the B-52’s relatively small bomb bay?
TinWingThe Vigilante was fully carrier capable, thats why it operated of them reguarly.:rolleyes:
Indeed, but the Vigilante still had a dangerously high approach speed – without having to bring back any external stores.
Two other proposals for a land based interceptor version of the Vigilante to the air force makes a mockery of some of your claims, apparently the people who designed it seemed to think it was capable of the mission.
The Air Force didn’t buy the proposals, did it?
Maybe you could provide sources and numbers for the bring back weights, the C variant carried a significant quantity of recon sensors that would have created reasonably substantial weight.
The substantial weight of any early predeccessor of the AWG-9, with the many structural modifications necessary, and 6 Eagle missiles would be far greater than the recon package.
TinWing…yet it flew from carrier decks until it was withdrawn in 1979…
…but only as a recon platform….unarmed. It is also worth noting that it was outlived by its predecessor, the Skywarrior.
TinWingThe Vigilante was a fully carrier capable aircraft- period..
The Vigilante had a 150 knot+ approach speed, which is far too high for a modern carrier aircraft.
The B variant had 4 wing mounted hard points capable of taking 2000lbs each, the AIM-47 weighed 800lbs..
But it appear that this capacity was never actually employed operationally.
The reality is that a RA-5B would never have landed aboard the carrier with the bombs still on the pylons. Taking off with 8,000lb of bombs might also have precluded a full fuel load.
As previously stated, there would have been no “bring back” weight margin for a much heavier fighter version of the Vigilante to land aboard a carrier with 6 Eagle/Phoenix missiles.
You seem to have missed the point of the intended role of this series of aircraft, they were not intended to go one on one with Mig-21s but to carry long range missiles to bring down AShM carrying medium bombers- dog fighting was not a requirement…
Yes, but endurance figured prominently in the CAP mission, especially against bomber and patrol aircraft targets. The J79 powered Vigilante lacked both the power-to-weight ratio or a conventional fighter, and the the endurance of the speciallized long range CAP mission. It would have been the worst of both possible worlds.
The radome would probably have been sufficient and could have probably been enlarged without too much difficulty.
No it wouldn’t have. The Vigilante’s radome was entirely too small, and the forward cockpit bulkhead was too far forward for a large radar set.
Look at a photograph of the Vigilante. It should be entirely obvious.
TinWingI didn’t realise the Grand Slam could be carried internally.
Multiple sources claim that the Grand Slam could be carried internally, but there is no photographic evidence that it ever was? Correct me if I’m wrong.
I don’t know if any empty Grand Slam casings were retained for future use after the war, or why it was felt neccessary to accomodate the weapon?
TinWingThe USN put significant effort into creating such an interceptor, first there was the F6D Missileer that was cancelled in 1960 as being utterly useless as anything other than a missile truck (it was subsonic).
No, it was cancelled because it was yet another single role, single service aircraft. By the late 1950s, it was obvious that there were too many individual types of aircraft aboard carrier. It was equally obvious that there was a need for some commonality between very similar Air Force and Navy programs. This is precisely why MacNamara didn’t reverse the cancellation of the Missileer, and simulataneously forced the Air Force to accept the the Navy’s F-4 Phantom.
The F6D was speciallized for long CAP endurance, being the first application of the TF30. It also had the advantage of employing a relatively inexpensive, low development risk airframe. All of the risk was isolated to the very expensive and comprehensive radar and missiles. Subsonic performance also meant that Missileer imposed less of a burden upon carrier operations.
Then there was the F111B that was intended for the same role that was cancelled in 1967. The Tomcat was the final incarnation of a requirement that the USN first developed in the late 1950s.
It was only with the TFX and the F-111B that MacNamara’s drive for interservice commonality went awry.
MacNamara was right to cancel the FD6 airframe while continuing the development of the Missileer’s radar and missiles. The F-4 eventually because the Navy’s sole fighter, instead of sharing flight decks with the Missileer as originally planned.
Sign In
