The demise of the Sea Harrier

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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