TinWingYou consistently ignore two things:
1) India, even if sometimes too polite to bang on about it, deeply resents the USA GIVING (not selling) weapons to Pakistan at the same time as trying to make a profit from selling (not giving) weapons to India. There’s a feeling that money India pays for US weapons might subsidise Pakistans military.
The US taxpayers are paying for all of the US weapons going to Pakistan. In truth, the same US taxpayers will subsidize the financing of any US defense purchases made by India.
Believe me when I say that the US taxpayers will pay a high price for any weapons transaction made with either India or Pakistan.
) Indias armed forces are keen on achieving as much technological independence as possible. How would buying US weapons help in that aim? Take into account the UK JSF problems, among others.
We all know how the “technological indepenence” is going? Do I dare mention the Arjun tank or Trishul SAM?
The real problem is that India remains unwilling to privatize its defense sector, or even to hire the Western executives who could turn around failing domestic defense programs.
TinWingLike most Americans, I feel a profound indifference to the passing of the only unelected president in history. Perhaps the Carter administration was truly the low-point of American history, but Ford’s failed presidency paved the way for the near economic collapse under Carter. Perhaps Ford’s greatest political sin wasn’t pardoning Nixon, but in failing to step aside for the nomination of Ronald Reagan in 1976. In the years after his presidency, many Republicans never forgave Ford for insisting on a doomed run that literally handed the presidency to the indecisive, ineffectual and pessimistic “Jimmy” Carter.
So how should Americans remember Gerald Ford?
Perhaps we should remember him as a man who was so well regarded by his colleagues in congress that he was elevated by a bi-partisan vote to the vice-presidency, despite the political scandals of the era…..Gerald Ford was a very pleasant, well liked man, and we should leave it at that.
TinWingbeen partial to the Grumman F9F-6/7/8 series… the swept-wing Cougar.
I know it was not quite as good as the Fury-4, but it was always well-liked by the USN pilots, as the F9F-6 actually had better carrier handling characteristics than the straight-winged F9F-5 Panther.
The Cougar was extremely popular with its crews, who admired it for its ease of piloting, its superb carrier handling capabilities, and its robust construction.
Admittedly, it was a “designed for Korea” fighter that entered service in late 1952 (and left in 1959, except the trainers and reserve units), but it always was (and still is) one of my favorites.
Now if they had built the proposed F9F-8N night fighter (the two-seat F9F-8T trainer with the AN/APS-50 radar installed), then I would have a contender.
The success of the Cougar shows that Britain’s switch to axial flow engine development was technologically premature. Few would deny that the Rolls Royce Avon was eventually a success, but the licence produced Rolls-Royce Tay variant that powered both the Panther and Cougar was more than adequate for the era – and less problematic.
Of course, it would interesting to compare the Cougar and Hunter as advanced trainers. It would be even more interesting to ponder which type would have won in a hypothetical dogfight?
TinWingHawker Hunter!
The F-86 and MiG-17 were produced in far greater numbers, but both types were terribly flawed in handling characteristics. The MiG-17 was especially dangerous in high speed maneuvers.
The definitive version of the Hawker Hunter had some of the best, most docile handling characteristics of any early swept wing fighter. A Hunter trainer could be used to teach spin recovery technique to test pilots – and in many ways the Hunter still remains a superior trainer to the latter Hawk.
Of course, the Hunter had many early problems and never had a decent fuel fraction. Few would deny that the Hunter was superior to any F-86 derivative, but many would argue that degree of superiority was too slight to justify the development costs of what amounted to an interim, sub/transonic fighter.
TinWingMany posts showed interest in the Jeanne de Arc.
Here are plans of this ship:
http://www.servicehistorique.sga.defense.gouv.fr/02fonds-collections/banquedocuments/planbato/planbato/Plans/planbato.php?id=446
I hope it works. Try with right klick and then load down.
The plans are very detailled and show every chair and bed as planned.
On these pages you can change to Foch, Clemenceau and other designs with wonderful plans.
These seem to be the plans of the original design with the big Masurca Magazine. Does anybody know how they have been used in reality?
This site has been updated in the last month or so, and many plans have been added including Jeanne D’Arc and the destroyer Suffren. There are still many pre-1965 plans missing, but at least we know that full drawings still exist for many unbuild French projects like the cancelled PA58 “Super Carrier.”
TinWingThe USN’s reduced manning initiatives that they trialled on a few ships are a step in the right direction, but the methodology used in designing the current crop of US warships assumes a level of available manpower that is simply not feasable for many smaller navies.
Redesigning the Burkes for a 40% crew reduction, which is what we are talking about in the AWD, wasn’t really feasable.
Unicorn
I think the manpower issue is overstated. In effect, isn’t Australia replacing 6 Perry-class frigates with only 3 AWD hulls?
TinWingThe RAN will not operate the F35 in the VSTOL variant.
The RAAF will operate them, probably in the following mix.
1 Sqdn F35 VSTOL
2 Sqdn (may be disbanded)
3 Sqdn F35 CTOL
75 Sqdn F35 CTOL
77 Sqdn F35 CTOL
2 OCU mix of both types (may be renamed 2 Squadron)The RAN has neither the manpower nor the resources to set up an air wing organisation that duplicates the RAAF, they will simply operate the F35 off the LPAs (for which reason I suspect that the Navantia design will win out, its large enough to operate a detachment of the F35B, where the Mistral is not).
Unicorn
I do wonder how the 24 aircraft Super Hornet order will change to potential F-35 force structure? I really don’t see how it would be feasable to operate more than two, or at most three, F-35 squadrons along with an OCU. I also wonder if a smaller F-35 buy will force the choice of a single variant?
TinWingVery doubtful. A tanker is easier to convert, yes, in terms of structure and real work being done. But on the matter of strength, shear forces, torsion and bending moments it’s a LOT more complex. The structure has to carry a lot more weight with a lot less material. Warships are cluttered by bulkheads and walls to divide the forces, a tanker has only the hull to carry all those forces (and that hull is made from cheaper steel).
I would think that “matter of strength, shear forces, torsion and bending moments” would be determined at the outset, and would dictate the placement and size of the “plug.”
The matter with lengenings is the engine capacity. A ship has a very defined length from the beginning as that length is in relation with your bowwave and stern wave. Those waves create a big force that your engines have to counter. If the effect of the bowwave strengtenes that stern wave, you come into a peek, that means that with a lot more engine power you will reach a very small speed increase. If you can chose your length to stay away from these peaks then you will have a relatively high speed for a relatively low powered engine.
So by lengthening the ship you can mess up this equation and slow down the ship considerably (or require a very high powered engine which will consume more to retain your current speed). All together not favorable unless you can make a sufficient lengtening so that you go over the peak and come into the next area. Then you’ll need a slightly stronger engine to retain your speed. Hull friction has to be taken in account too of course. So putting a plug is not as simple as cutting and pasting…
Some of the first tankers to be “cut and plugged” were WWII vintage T-2 types. These tankers were quicker than the their modern counterparts to begin with, so the stretch didn’t reduce speed below operational norms. Modern commercial tankers typically make 15-16kts, not the 19 knots that the old T-2s were capable of.
Do you know of any instances where a “cut and plug” stretch resulted in a vessel which was slower or less economical than expected?
TinWingIndeed! There are quite a few airframes at AMARC (E2C Hawkeye for example) available for sale that have used up all their carrier cycles but have plenty of airframe life left for operation off a runway.
In contrast, there are a few land-based, new-built E-2C airframes that have never seen a carrier deck – Japan being the most important land-based operator.
Something to think about….
TinWingI was reading this thread and noticed that I had no idea if there was there ever was in the history of Aircraft Carriers any case of expansion through cutting and plugging? I know this is done regularly in the civilian side, but what about in the VC arena?
Regards
Hammer
Just such a proposal was made for a life extension of the Invincible class, but it was rejected in favor of the new built CV-F.
My best guess is that “cutting and plugging” an aircraft carrier, or any other existing warship, would be uneconomic because of the structural complexity. Tankers are far simpler.
TinWingIf this had been taken up, could we have seen containerisation earlier?
Coal is a bulk commodity, and I have a hard time envisioning the economic containerization of a bulk commodity.
In a way, it is surprising that containerization didn’t come earlier, though. Before the advent of sealed containers, an astounding percentage of cargo was stolen or damaged by dock workers. Turnaround times in port were also astoundingly long – one reason why tramp steamers persisted as long as they did.
TinWingSpanish Hornets are standard Hornets, so carrier capable; in fact, the Spanish Air Force occasionally does simulated carrier landings on conventional land strips. A medium sized carrier could operate them,…and possibly even the future “navalised” typhoon (has anyone heard anything more about this?). However, I very much doubt any spanish government funding such a project for our armed forces, unless,…
…some years ago I read a very interesting article in the spanish magazine “avion revue” where the future of the Spanish Navy aerial component was analised in depth,…it basically proposed the idea of The Air Force and The Navy sharing a common jetfighter and the carriers as “floating airbases”, operating together,…it could be possible and the savings in public money of this formula appeared to be great,…but, politically and practically,…very difficult.
The lifespan of a F/A-18 airframe is determined both by the number of overall flight hours and the number of carrier deck landings. Operators like Spain will evenutally run out of flight hours, but their airframes have never seen any deck landings. (Ignore the fact that Spain bought some ex-US surplus Hornets. I’m just talking about original deliveries.)
So, it would be practical for a land based Hornet operator like Spain to use even high houred airframes in a carrier based role – assuming there was a suitable carrier platform.
TinWingOr they could buy some of the 100 or so S-3 which are or soon will be available for sale. The USN is retiring the type. About half of the airworthy examples are currently stored, & the rest will be retired within 2 years or so. On average, they have well over half their airframe life remaining. There are plentiful spares in stock, & the engines are still in production, IIRC. The US is offering them for sale, as is (minus a few avionics, at worst) or refurbished.
The S-3 is even less applicable to small carrier operations than the E-2C. For instance, the take-off performance of the S-3 is insufficient for a STOBAR carrier, even a fairly large one.
TinWingQuoting Austin at BR: regarding P-17a
India Today in its present issue has reported that IN has sent out RFI to Europe and Russian shipyard to build 7 Frigate of P-17A class.
Out of the 7 Ships to be built of the P-17A class , One will be built in the foreign yard and the remaining 6 in the Indian ones namely GRSE & MDL.
Each ship will cost 4000 crore , and a ship with much better stealth compared to the P-17 is being sought.
The article was written by Sandeep Unitthan
1. The continued “outsourcing” of shipbuilding doesn’t say much about the state of India’s shipbuilding industry.
2. It is perplexing that the RFI didn’t include South Korea – or perhaps even China?
TinWingHow about the new MEKO CSL…modular, stealthy, high-speed. Supposedly this design will now replace the proposed Visby+ and Visby++ designs.
—–JT—–
Does anyone have any information about the main gun depicted on the Meko CSL drawing? It looks like the 57mm MK3 stealth mounting, but it is far larger?
Sign In
