If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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... BRBR 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 |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
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 - BRBR 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 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
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/m...-naval-us.html Guy |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Malaysian MiG-29s got trounced by RN Sea Harrier F/A2s in Exercise Flying Fish | KDR | Military Aviation | 29 | October 7th 03 06:30 PM |
Malaysian MiG-29s got trounced by RN Sea Harrier F/A2s in Exercise Flying Fish | KDR | Naval Aviation | 20 | September 16th 03 09:01 PM |
Here's to Arafat's Speedy Demise | robert arndt | Military Aviation | 0 | September 12th 03 07:45 AM |
Harrier thrust vectoring in air-to-air combat? | Alexandre Le-Kouby | Military Aviation | 11 | September 3rd 03 01:47 AM |
Osprey vs. Harrier | Stephen D. Poe | Military Aviation | 58 | August 18th 03 03:17 PM |