The demise of the Sea Harrier

[Henry J Cobb]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/03/28/navy28.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/03/28/ixhome.html
> A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said: "With the demise of the
> Sea Harrier, the Royal Navy will be left with a capability gap. But we
> believe that that is an acceptable risk."

-HJC

[Prowlus]

It was announced last year that the shar will be scrapped . waste of a
good radar though
oh well just pray that the RN doesn't face a threat from nations
flying Rafales, gripens, J-10s or whatever advanced combat aircraft
their budgets allow
Personally I think the RN should have participated in the harrier II
program instead of that stupid EH-101 merlin overpriced POS

[Andrewstep1234]

>Personally I think the RN should have participated in the harrier II
>program instead of that stupid EH-101 merlin overpriced POS

I agree the Merlin is overpriced, but aren't all military projects when they
first come out. I don't think any nation has come up with a successful project
on time and on budget. I also don't think the Merlin is a POS. It is
adaptable and capable, it's just not worth losing the Harrier for.

[phil hunt]

On 29 Mar 2004 15:57:27 GMT, Andrewstep1234 > wrote:
>>Personally I think the RN should have participated in the harrier II
>>program instead of that stupid EH-101 merlin overpriced POS
>
>I agree the Merlin is overpriced,

How much does it cost compared to other helicopters?


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

[Henry J Cobb]

phil hunt wrote:
> On 29 Mar 2004 15:57:27 GMT, Andrewstep1234 > wrote:
>>>Personally I think the RN should have participated in the harrier II
>>>program instead of that stupid EH-101 merlin overpriced POS
>>
>>I agree the Merlin is overpriced,
>
> How much does it cost compared to other helicopters?

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FREH101.htm
> RAF price for 22 Merlin HC Mk3s put at 500 million Pounds.

http://www.helis.com/news/2002/eh101last.htm
> This was followed in March 1995 by a further order worth £500 million
> for 22 utility variants to be known as Merlin HC Mk3.

That's £23 million each or $41 million each.

http://www.aviationtoday.com/cgi/rw/show_mag.cgi?pub=rw&mon=0801&file=0801defup.htm
> MH-60R Procurement Postponed
> In addition, the difference between the cost of remanufacturing
> existing helicopters and producing all-new aircraft—$27 million per
> copy versus about $31 million per copy—was smaller than previously
> thought.

-HJC

[John Keeney]

"Andrewstep1234" > wrote in message
...
> >Personally I think the RN should have participated in the harrier II
> >program instead of that stupid EH-101 merlin overpriced POS
>
> I agree the Merlin is overpriced, but aren't all military projects when
they
> first come out. I don't think any nation has come up with a successful
project
> on time and on budget.

P-51 & F-117?

[John Keeney]

"Andrewstep1234" > wrote in message
...
> >Personally I think the RN should have participated in the harrier II
> >program instead of that stupid EH-101 merlin overpriced POS
>
> I agree the Merlin is overpriced, but aren't all military projects when
they
> first come out. I don't think any nation has come up with a successful
project
> on time and on budget.

P-51 & F-117?

[John Keeney]

"Andrewstep1234" > wrote in message
...
> >Personally I think the RN should have participated in the harrier II
> >program instead of that stupid EH-101 merlin overpriced POS
>
> I agree the Merlin is overpriced, but aren't all military projects when
they
> first come out. I don't think any nation has come up with a successful
project
> on time and on budget.

P-51 & F-117?

[Mike Kanze]

John,

The joke goes like this: "On time, within scope, within budget - pick any
two of the three."

--
Mike Kanze


"John Keeney" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Andrewstep1234" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >Personally I think the RN should have participated in the harrier II
> > >program instead of that stupid EH-101 merlin overpriced POS
> >
> > I agree the Merlin is overpriced, but aren't all military projects when
> they
> > first come out. I don't think any nation has come up with a successful
> project
> > on time and on budget.
>
> P-51 & F-117?
>
>

[Tiger]

Henry J Cobb wrote:

> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/03/28/navy28.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/03/28/ixhome.html
> > A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said: "With the demise of the
> > Sea Harrier, the Royal Navy will be left with a capability gap. But we
> > believe that that is an acceptable risk."
>
> -HJC
>
So what the hell is left to call a FLEET AIR ARM???????? Might as well
put some damn Fairley Fulmars and Swordfish on their ships to at least
pretend Naval aviation is alive and well.

[Guy Alcala]

Tiger wrote:

> Henry J Cobb wrote:
>
> > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/03/28/navy28.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/03/28/ixhome.html
> > > A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said: "With the demise of the
> > > Sea Harrier, the Royal Navy will be left with a capability gap. But we
> > > believe that that is an acceptable risk."
> >
> > -HJC
> >
> So what the hell is left to call a FLEET AIR ARM????????

Joint Force Harrier, until the JSF enters service. And all the helos.

Guy

[Ken Duffey]

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
> "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>
>>Joint Force Harrier, until the JSF enters service. And all the helos.
>
>
> Problem is that these seem unlikely to stop, say, a couple of
> Super Etendards loaded with Exocet missiles, approaching
> too low to be detected by the radar of the destroyers...
>
> After the Flakland war, Sea Harriers were modified to carry
> AMRAAM to give the fleet a BVR defence capability against
> such attacks. Apparently it is losing that now.
>
> --
> Emmanuel Gustin
> Emmanuel dot Gustin @t skynet dot be
> Flying Guns Books and Site: http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/
>
>

I take your point Emmanuel - but 'modified' is a bit of an
understatement for the major redesign that resulted in the SHAR FA.2.

BTW, there is a good article in the latest issue if Air Forces Monthly
on the decommissioning of 800 Naval Air Sqn and its Sea Harier FA.2's.

They painted ZD613/127 with a striking red 'arrowhead' design on the
upper wing surface to mark the occasion.

Ken Duffey

[Guy Alcala]

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

> "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
> > Joint Force Harrier, until the JSF enters service. And all the helos.
>
> Problem is that these seem unlikely to stop, say, a couple of
> Super Etendards loaded with Exocet missiles, approaching
> too low to be detected by the radar of the destroyers...

Which is why, post Falklands, they bought Sea King AEW.2s (and now AEW.7s).
A Harrier GR.9 has equal low altitude capability as the SHAR FRS.1 -- the
latter's radar was unusable when looking down over land or rough sea and/or
at low level, the GR.9 lacks one. OTOH, if such a go-it-alone war such as
the Falklands were to happen, you can bet that the ASRAAM would be cleared
for GR.9 use in very little time.

Of course, the RN is taking the calculated risk that they will be always
fighting as part of a coalition which will provide any CAP required, as has
been the case in the last several conflicts, until the JSF enters service.
As a practical matter, with the exception of Falklands - the Sequel, I can't
imagine them needing to fight a war on their own -- there just aren't that
many scattered British territories where only the Brits are directly
concerned, and where they could go it alone with a reasonable chance.

> After the Flakland war, Sea Harriers were modified to carry
> AMRAAM to give the fleet a BVR defence capability against
> such attacks. Apparently it is losing that now.

Yes, but the critical lack then was AEW capability, not the lack of BVR
missiles. BVR is nice but not essential for that conflict, given the
limited Argentine capability.

Guy

[Prowlus]

Guy Alcala > wrote in message >...
> Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
>

>
> Which is why, post Falklands, they bought Sea King AEW.2s (and now AEW.7s).
> A Harrier GR.9 has equal low altitude capability as the SHAR FRS.1 -- the
> latter's radar was unusable when looking down over land or rough sea and/or
> at low level, the GR.9 lacks one. OTOH, if such a go-it-alone war such as
> the Falklands were to happen, you can bet that the ASRAAM would be cleared
> for GR.9 use in very little time.


Didn't they axe that idea of ASRAAMS on the GR.9 instead giving the
missles to the long suffering F.3 Tornados instead so that they could
use them as a way of "self defence" just incase they find themselves
caught up with real fighters whille performing their SEAD mission?

[Pechs1]

Guy-<< So what the hell is left to call a FLEET AIR ARM????????

Joint Force Harrier, until the JSF enters service. And all the helos.
>><BR><BR>

When they got rid of the conventional CVs, they lost their true ability at sea
control. The JSF, altho whizbang, will not perform like a CV based A/C...in
terms of legs, capability, etc..Like the aluminum surface ships that got beat
up in the Falklands, it looks good on paper, it is cheaper but it won't do the
complete job.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Frijoles]

Similarly configured, the STOVL JSF has better legs than the E/F Hornet --
the jet that will fill the lion's share of the duty on "conventional
carriers." It will also have a lower RCS, and similar or better weapons
system.

Does this mean we shouldn't have big deck CVs -- nope. It just means there
will be more platforms available to put tacair at sea.


"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
> Guy-<< So what the hell is left to call a FLEET AIR ARM????????
>
> Joint Force Harrier, until the JSF enters service. And all the helos.
> >><BR><BR>
>
> When they got rid of the conventional CVs, they lost their true ability at
sea
> control. The JSF, altho whizbang, will not perform like a CV based
A/C...in
> terms of legs, capability, etc..Like the aluminum surface ships that got
beat
> up in the Falklands, it looks good on paper, it is cheaper but it won't do
the
> complete job.
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye
Phlyer

[Henry J Cobb]

Frijoles wrote:
> Similarly configured, the STOVL JSF has better legs than the E/F Hornet --
> the jet that will fill the lion's share of the duty on "conventional
> carriers." It will also have a lower RCS, and similar or better weapons
> system.
>
> Does this mean we shouldn't have big deck CVs -- nope. It just means there
> will be more platforms available to put tacair at sea.

Aren't the Super Hornets supposed to be the tankers for the JSFs? ;-)

-HJC

[Woody Beal]

On 4/23/04 13:04, in article
et, "Frijoles"
> wrote:

> Similarly configured, the STOVL JSF has better legs than the E/F Hornet --
> the jet that will fill the lion's share of the duty on "conventional
> carriers." It will also have a lower RCS, and similar or better weapons
> system.
>
> Does this mean we shouldn't have big deck CVs -- nope. It just means there
> will be more platforms available to put tacair at sea.
>
>

Comparing apples to apples though, it will have less range than the A or C
models which can carry more payload and will be more capable. Better to
scrap the STOVL and buy more A's and C's instead--especially now that the
airframe is 2500-3000 lbs overweight.

--Woody

> "Pechs1" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Guy-<< So what the hell is left to call a FLEET AIR ARM????????
>>
>> Joint Force Harrier, until the JSF enters service. And all the helos.
>>>> <BR><BR>
>>
>> When they got rid of the conventional CVs, they lost their true ability at
> sea
>> control. The JSF, altho whizbang, will not perform like a CV based
> A/C...in
>> terms of legs, capability, etc..Like the aluminum surface ships that got
> beat
>> up in the Falklands, it looks good on paper, it is cheaper but it won't do
> the
>> complete job.
>> P. C. Chisholm
>> CDR, USN(ret.)
>> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye
> Phlyer
>
>

[John R Weiss]

"Woody Beal" > wrote...
>
>> Similarly configured, the STOVL JSF has better legs than the E/F Hornet --
>
> Comparing apples to apples though, it will have less range than the A or C
> models which can carry more payload and will be more capable.

I'm confused...

How can the JSF have better legs than the Hornet E/F but less range than the
Hornet A/C?!? Are we disallowing drop tanks and/or external/non-conformal
stores?

Please "picture" (configure) those 3 apples...

[Guy Alcala]

John R Weiss wrote:

> "Woody Beal" > wrote...
> >
> >> Similarly configured, the STOVL JSF has better legs than the E/F Hornet --
> >
> > Comparing apples to apples though, it will have less range than the A or C
> > models which can carry more payload and will be more capable.
>
> I'm confused...
>
> How can the JSF have better legs than the Hornet E/F but less range than the
> Hornet A/C?!? Are we disallowing drop tanks and/or external/non-conformal
> stores?
>
> Please "picture" (configure) those 3 apples...

He means the F-35B has shorter legs than the F-35A/C, not the F-18A/C.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

Prowlus wrote:

> Guy Alcala > wrote in message >...
>
> > Which is why, post Falklands, they bought Sea King AEW.2s (and now AEW.7s).
> > A Harrier GR.9 has equal low altitude capability as the SHAR FRS.1 -- the
> > latter's radar was unusable when looking down over land or rough sea and/or
> > at low level, the GR.9 lacks one. OTOH, if such a go-it-alone war such as
> > the Falklands were to happen, you can bet that the ASRAAM would be cleared
> > for GR.9 use in very little time.
>
> Didn't they axe that idea of ASRAAMS on the GR.9 instead giving the
> missles to the long suffering F.3 Tornados instead so that they could
> use them as a way of "self defence" just incase they find themselves
> caught up with real fighters whille performing their SEAD mission?

Yes they did. Now re-read the following:

> A Harrier GR.9 has equal low altitude capability as the SHAR FRS.1 -- the
> latter's radar was unusable when looking down over land or rough sea and/or
> at low level, the GR.9 lacks one. OTOH, if such a go-it-alone war such as
> the Falklands were to happen, you can bet that the ASRAAM would be cleared
> for GR.9 use in very little time.

They decided that the GR.9 will not now be equipped or cleared for ASRAAM, just like the GR.1/3 wasn't equipped or cleared
forAIM-9s until the Falklands, when it was re-wired and cleared for them inside of 2 weeks from the word go. It's amazing
how quickly you can accomplish something in wartime, given serious enough need. Do I think they will ever do this? Only if
Argentina is stupid again.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

Woody Beal wrote:

> On 4/23/04 13:04, in article
> et, "Frijoles"
> > wrote:
>
> > Similarly configured, the STOVL JSF has better legs than the E/F Hornet --
> > the jet that will fill the lion's share of the duty on "conventional
> > carriers." It will also have a lower RCS, and similar or better weapons
> > system.
> >
> > Does this mean we shouldn't have big deck CVs -- nope. It just means there
> > will be more platforms available to put tacair at sea.
> >
> >
>
> Comparing apples to apples though, it will have less range than the A or C
> models which can carry more payload and will be more capable. Better to
> scrap the STOVL and buy more A's and C's instead--especially now that the
> airframe is 2500-3000 lbs overweight.

How are you going to put an F-35A/C on an LHD? And how are the other countries
with navies who are planning to buy it (the Brits, Italians, etc.) going to put
an F-35A/C on their STOVL carriers? How are you going to operate F-35A/Cs from
FOLS/FARPS? The weight problems are clearly there now, but then that's par for
the course for just about every a/c; we'll have to see if they can pare it down.
There was a good article in AvLeak recently on what steps were being taken to
prune the weight. I forget all the details, but apparently one area where they
think they're going to be able to save a fair amount of weight is on the
(production vice development) engine, with the usual knock-on effects elsewhere.

Guy

[Frijoles]

Nice try. Applying your rationale Woody, we should also ___can the Navy
variant. Just think about what kind of performance we could get from the
'C' without the weight penalties for cat and trap...

"Woody Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/23/04 13:04, in article
> et, "Frijoles"
> > wrote:
>
> > Similarly configured, the STOVL JSF has better legs than the E/F
Hornet --
> > the jet that will fill the lion's share of the duty on "conventional
> > carriers." It will also have a lower RCS, and similar or better weapons
> > system.
> >
> > Does this mean we shouldn't have big deck CVs -- nope. It just means
there
> > will be more platforms available to put tacair at sea.
> >
> >
>
> Comparing apples to apples though, it will have less range than the A or C
> models which can carry more payload and will be more capable. Better to
> scrap the STOVL and buy more A's and C's instead--especially now that the
> airframe is 2500-3000 lbs overweight.
>
> --Woody
>
> > "Pechs1" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Guy-<< So what the hell is left to call a FLEET AIR ARM????????
> >>
> >> Joint Force Harrier, until the JSF enters service. And all the helos.
> >>>> <BR><BR>
> >>
> >> When they got rid of the conventional CVs, they lost their true ability
at
> > sea
> >> control. The JSF, altho whizbang, will not perform like a CV based
> > A/C...in
> >> terms of legs, capability, etc..Like the aluminum surface ships that
got
> > beat
> >> up in the Falklands, it looks good on paper, it is cheaper but it won't
do
> > the
> >> complete job.
> >> P. C. Chisholm
> >> CDR, USN(ret.)
> >> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye
> > Phlyer
> >
> >
>

[Frijoles]

What is "...more capable?"

"Woody Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/23/04 13:04, in article
> et, "Frijoles"
> > wrote:
>
> > Similarly configured, the STOVL JSF has better legs than the E/F
Hornet --
> > the jet that will fill the lion's share of the duty on "conventional
> > carriers." It will also have a lower RCS, and similar or better weapons
> > system.
> >
> > Does this mean we shouldn't have big deck CVs -- nope. It just means
there
> > will be more platforms available to put tacair at sea.
> >
> >
>
> Comparing apples to apples though, it will have less range than the A or C
> models which can carry more payload and will be more capable. Better to
> scrap the STOVL and buy more A's and C's instead--especially now that the
> airframe is 2500-3000 lbs overweight.
>
> --Woody
>
> > "Pechs1" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Guy-<< So what the hell is left to call a FLEET AIR ARM????????
> >>
> >> Joint Force Harrier, until the JSF enters service. And all the helos.
> >>>> <BR><BR>
> >>
> >> When they got rid of the conventional CVs, they lost their true ability
at
> > sea
> >> control. The JSF, altho whizbang, will not perform like a CV based
> > A/C...in
> >> terms of legs, capability, etc..Like the aluminum surface ships that
got
> > beat
> >> up in the Falklands, it looks good on paper, it is cheaper but it won't
do
> > the
> >> complete job.
> >> P. C. Chisholm
> >> CDR, USN(ret.)
> >> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye
> > Phlyer
> >
> >
>

[Thomas Schoene]

Pechs1 wrote:

> Like the
> aluminum surface ships that got beat up in the Falklands, it looks
> good on paper, it is cheaper but it won't do the complete job.

Pechs, I'd have thought you'd been around long enough to know better.
Please name one ship lost in the Falklands due to aluminum construction.

Can't be done, because there are none. The Type 42s (Sheffield, Coventry)
had steel construction. The Type 21s (Ardent, et al) had aluminum
superstructures but were lost to catastrophic damage -- 500- and 1000-lb
bombs detonating well inside the ship don't care much about construction
materials.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

[David Nicholls]

It is of note that the weather conditions during the Falklands war were such
that it was (on occasions) outside the operating limits of launch/recovery
of fast jets on conventional CV's (re the previous 54,000 ton Ark Royal).
At no time did the Hermes and Invincible stop Sea Harrier ops.

David Nicholls
RN rtd.

"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
> Guy-<< So what the hell is left to call a FLEET AIR ARM????????
>
> Joint Force Harrier, until the JSF enters service. And all the helos.
> >><BR><BR>
>
> When they got rid of the conventional CVs, they lost their true ability at
sea
> control. The JSF, altho whizbang, will not perform like a CV based
A/C...in
> terms of legs, capability, etc..Like the aluminum surface ships that got
beat
> up in the Falklands, it looks good on paper, it is cheaper but it won't do
the
> complete job.
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye
Phlyer

[Pechs1]

icepack-<< Similarly configured, the STOVL JSF has better legs than the E/F
Hornet - >><BR><BR>

Yep, but not better than the CV based JSF...

The conventional CVs will not have a pack of STOVL JSFs onboard.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

Woody-<< Better to
scrap the STOVL and buy more A's and C's instead- >><BR><BR>

Agree or build for export for those countries that can't afford a CV...and the
USMC, of course..

The cost of s CV ain't in the hull, but in the onboard systems. A small deck
CVEN that is capable costs almost the same as a big deck CVN, w/o the aircraft
capability of the CVN...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

Icepick-<< Nice try. Applying your rationale Woody, we should also ___can the
Navy
variant. Just think about what kind of performance we could get from the
'C' without the weight penalties for cat and trap... >><BR><BR>

Nice tryx2..the weight and payload penalties for short takeoff/vertical landing
far outweigh those for a cat and trap.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Woody Beal]

On 4/24/04 4:39, in article ,
"Guy Alcala" > wrote:

> John R Weiss wrote:
>
>> "Woody Beal" > wrote...
>>>
>>>> Similarly configured, the STOVL JSF has better legs than the E/F Hornet --
>>>
>>> Comparing apples to apples though, it will have less range than the A or C
>>> models which can carry more payload and will be more capable.
>>
>> I'm confused...
>>
>> How can the JSF have better legs than the Hornet E/F but less range than the
>> Hornet A/C?!? Are we disallowing drop tanks and/or external/non-conformal
>> stores?
>>
>> Please "picture" (configure) those 3 apples...
>
> He means the F-35B has shorter legs than the F-35A/C, not the F-18A/C.
>
> Guy
>
>

Precisely. Sorry for the ill-defined comm-brevity, JR.

--Woody

[Frijoles]

You are incorrect. On JSF, both 'penalties' are about 2500#. And if you're
an Air Force bubba who wants the 'C' instead of the 'A' you get to pay 25%
more in unit flyaway cost.


"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
> Icepick-<< Nice try. Applying your rationale Woody, we should also ___can
the
> Navy
> variant. Just think about what kind of performance we could get from the
> 'C' without the weight penalties for cat and trap... >><BR><BR>
>
> Nice tryx2..the weight and payload penalties for short takeoff/vertical
landing
> far outweigh those for a cat and trap.
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye
Phlyer

[Frijoles]

Didn't say they 'it' did, nor did I say 'they' would. But to put all the
clever Navy sophistry in perspective -- STOVL JSF is better than E/F Hornet
in substantial ways. Thus, the U.S. is going to put significant tacair
capability on a variety of ships apart from the CV. Doesn't obviate the
capabilities of bigger decks with more aircraft, but does create more tacair
capable platforms.

"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
> icepack-<< Similarly configured, the STOVL JSF has better legs than the
E/F
> Hornet - >><BR><BR>
>
> Yep, but not better than the CV based JSF...
>
> The conventional CVs will not have a pack of STOVL JSFs onboard.
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye
Phlyer

[WaltBJ]

Ref: Aluminum construction - I should think that the incident with the
Belknap would have put the kibosh on aluminum construction. After the
collision they could have rebuilt it with a flight deck - the AL
superstructure was damn near zeroed.
Walt BJ

[Guy Alcala]

WaltBJ wrote:

> Ref: Aluminum construction - I should think that the incident with the
> Belknap would have put the kibosh on aluminum construction. After the
> collision they could have rebuilt it with a flight deck - the AL
> superstructure was damn near zeroed.
> Walt BJ

Pretty much did. But all the ships with same in the Falklands that were
hit had already been designed and/or completed, i.e. the Type 21s and the
Sir Lancelot class LSLs. Photos of Sir Tristram are particularly
interesting. The superstructure was softened and distorted due to the
fire, but everything below the weather deck (the hull was steel) was
essentially intact, so they were able to use her as an accomodation ship
in the Falklands after the war, then transport her back to the UK (can't
remember if she was towed or put on a barge ship) and replace the
superstructure (with a steel one, I think) along with the other repairs
required.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

Frijoles wrote:

> Didn't say they 'it' did, nor did I say 'they' would. But to put all the
> clever Navy sophistry in perspective -- STOVL JSF is better than E/F Hornet
> in substantial ways. Thus, the U.S. is going to put significant tacair
> capability on a variety of ships apart from the CV. Doesn't obviate the
> capabilities of bigger decks with more aircraft, but does create more tacair
> capable platforms.

There's even some talk of the next generation of MPS ships having flight decks
that can operate them:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20040423-1311-arms-naval-us.html

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

David Nicholls wrote:

> It is of note that the weather conditions during the Falklands war were such
> that it was (on occasions) outside the operating limits of launch/recovery
> of fast jets on conventional CV's (re the previous 54,000 ton Ark Royal).
> At no time did the Hermes and Invincible stop Sea Harrier ops.

Well, they did on several occasions and had much reduced ops for a few days at a
time in at least two periods, but it was typically due to fog. If they
couldn't see to fly, the Argentine pilots couldn't see to attack.

Guy

[Thomas Schoene]

Guy Alcala wrote:
> David Nicholls wrote:

>> At no time did the Hermes and Invincible stop Sea Harrier ops.
>
> Well, they did on several occasions and had much reduced ops for a
> few days at a time in at least two periods, but it was typically due
> to fog. If they couldn't see to fly, the Argentine pilots couldn't
> see to attack.

OTOH, the carriers were not always in the same weather as the mainland, or
the islands themselves. Pilots from Argentina could take off and find
targets in places like San Carlos Water, even when weather at the carriers
was remarkably bad.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

[Thomas Schoene]

WaltBJ wrote:
> Ref: Aluminum construction - I should think that the incident with the
> Belknap would have put the kibosh on aluminum construction. After the
> collision they could have rebuilt it with a flight deck - the AL
> superstructure was damn near zeroed.

Pour burning aviation fuel over any structure like that and it's going to be
totaled. Aluminum just accelerated the process.

But Belknap *was* the impetus for the reduction of aluminum in USN ships.
The problem was that the next class of ships built (the Ticonderoga-class
cruiser) was required to be based on the Spruance hull, which could not
carry the necessary payload with a steel superstructure. Thus, the Ticos
still had aluminum.

The Burkes, the next clean-sheet design for the USN, are almost all steel.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

[Henry J Cobb]

Thomas Schoene wrote:
> But Belknap *was* the impetus for the reduction of aluminum in USN ships.
> The problem was that the next class of ships built (the Ticonderoga-class
> cruiser) was required to be based on the Spruance hull, which could not
> carry the necessary payload with a steel superstructure. Thus, the Ticos
> still had aluminum.
>
> The Burkes, the next clean-sheet design for the USN, are almost all steel.

And now the speedboat requirements for the LCS have them going back again.

http://www.epicos.com/News/NewsItem.asp?IdArticle=11933
> The Lockheed Martin team design employs a steel and aluminum structure
> which is optimized to reduce construction cost, weight, and pitching
> moment. Top speeds approach 60 knots depending on the ship's
> configuration.

-HJC

[Guy Alcala]

Thomas Schoene wrote:

> Guy Alcala wrote:
> > David Nicholls wrote:
>
> >> At no time did the Hermes and Invincible stop Sea Harrier ops.
> >
> > Well, they did on several occasions and had much reduced ops for a
> > few days at a time in at least two periods, but it was typically due
> > to fog. If they couldn't see to fly, the Argentine pilots couldn't
> > see to attack.
>
> OTOH, the carriers were not always in the same weather as the mainland, or
> the islands themselves. Pilots from Argentina could take off and find
> targets in places like San Carlos Water, even when weather at the carriers
> was remarkably bad.

One of the periods where the Brits (and Argentines) cut back on their flying
was prior to the landings; during the other, the weather at San Carlos and on
the southern approach (Fitzroy etc.) was the determining factor as to whether
the Brits flew. If the AAF couldn't see to find the targets, the Brits didn't
worry about them. Clapp says he looked out (from Fearless anchored in San
Carlos Water) towards Fanning Head every morning to judge cloud ceiling and
visibility; when it started low, it tended to stay low all day. The Brits
couldn't even fly helos from SCW across Wickham Heights to Fitzroy on some
days, the visibility was so bad.

Guy