That was ceratinly the plan. Calculations were done beforehand that showed it was certainly feasible. Super Etendards carried out trials aboard 25 de Mayo which confirmed this, though they also proved the ship’s catapult was in need of a major overhaul as well as her boilers and engines; they were in working order but well below what they were capable of. Post Falklands there simply wasn’t any money available for her refit and after 1988 she was laid up in port, officially in commission but in reality non operational. Her decommissioning in 1997 was a formality, prior to be sold for scrap two years later.

Not to mention they couldn’t get parts for the catapults from their original maker (if they were still in business) as the UK placed sanctions on all military equipment to be sold to Argentina.

See above. 😉

lol, i don’t really see how a very expensive V-22 would be any better then replacing the sea kings with merlins. The V22 is still going to suffer issues regarding operational altitude due to not being pressurised anyway.

Scooter, can’t you just edit extra stuff into one post rather then making 4 posts in a row?

India’s indigenous N-sub secret is out
Mail Today Bureau
New Delhi, February 13, 2009

The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has added a feather to its cap. It is delivering on schedule— in 2009— India’s first indigenously built nuclear powered submarine (SSBN) as it had promised at the beginning of the United Progressive Alliance’s (UPA) term in office.

The secret of the indigenous nuclear submarine programme seems to be finally out. Defence minister A. K. Antony has confirmed what was being speculated all this while – that the country is ready to launch the third arm of its nuclear triad.

India is getting a batch of submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBM) and submarine- launched cruise missiles (SLCM), ready to wed with the SSBNs, which would presumably be nuclear tipped. This would, in turn, underline the deterrence posture of the nuclear weapons programme providing it a failsafe ‘second strike’ capability.

But this would also entail fundamental change in the country’s nuclear weapons policies for the peculiar nature of nuclear submarine deployment.

A nuclear submarine remains submerged underwater for most of its deployment period thus making communication difficult especially in times of a national emergency.

A nuclear submarine commander is therefore armed with a separate launch regimen that is qualitatively different from those used above ground.

Hence, when India launches its nuclear submarine, reportedly three, it would have to put in place launch codes that would provide a degree of autonomy to the commanders. This, in turn, would change the deployment pattern of at least a portion of the country’s nuclear forces to ‘ready arsenal’. This would require a political decision.

The Indian development is important in terms of the changing Chinese deployment by which they are modernising their nuclear submarine fleet, putting into waters the refurbished Xia class and a new Jin class.

The country had been working on the submarine, coyly termed Advanced Technology Vehicle (ATV) since 1985. The design is reportedly based on the old Charlie II- class submarine – a former Soviet make.

The programme was bedevilled with problems in developing a reactor suitable for the platform and then, building a containment vessel for the reactor. The attack submarine design is said to have a 4,000- ton displacement and a single- shaft, home- built nuclear power plant.

The estimated speed of the vessel is 12- 15 knots on surface, and 30- 34 knots submerged.

The reactor is of the pressurised water variety.

The nuclear submarine would beef up the country’s presence in the Indian Ocean.

It brings to fruition a programme that was kicked off under the leadership of the late Rajiv Gandhi who had leased a Charlie- class nuclear submarine that was renamed in 1988 as INS Chakra.

http://indiatoday.digitaltoday.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28908&sectionid=4&issueid=92&Itemid=1

“Secret” only in the details. 😉

The USN would never call a warship the size of O.H. Perry as a Destroyer! 😮

Please look up the displacement of an OHP class frigate, and then the displacement of the Charles F. Adams class of destroyers. 😉

With regards to both the UK FSC program and the US CG X program, the simple answer is, no one knows.

FSC could be anything from repeat T23’s to a modified T45.

Another thought, why not take the Gibb’s and cox work from their effort at the Australian requirement, scale it up to somewhere between DDG-51 and Tico size and then combine it with the CODLOG propulsion architecture (obviously suitably modified for the DDG application) from the LHD-8. Or use the hull design from the KDX-3 but again with propulsion changes?

If they really want to stick out how about a DDG1000 hull and machinery plant fitted out with Aegis and Mk41?

Whatever the cruiser concept should be abandoned, and before anybody gets started on the Ticos, they are not cruisers they are large destroyers and there is no need to replace them with anything more than destroyers.

The whole USN CG-X saga is worryingly reminiscent of RN attempts to build new cruisers after WW2 and we all know where that ended. The USN has not built a proper cruiser for decades and they should not start now.

Couldn’t you say that the last US built cruiser was the USS Long Beach? she was the last one built on a proper Cruiser hull form anyway. 😉

I’m sure the Admiralty are hoping to get all the escorts that are promised under SDR as well. When they find they arent going to get them they’ll start to realise what they need C3 to be!.

For some reason i think they worked that out when the T22’s and early T23’s started to be decommissioned without replacement. 😉

Ain’t this the ship that was documented by the Discovery guys while it was under construction :D. I fell in love with super carriers after that programme.

I would have sworn that was stennis. 😉

Nevermind, wiki says it was truman so i’m going to assume its accurate.