Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length.

[BarryM]

Sounds like we have the gun but no bullets.
Barry M

[Snowwolflair]

Is it me or does this caption from the web page strike anyone else as odd.
 
"Aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk launching a radar-guided, air-to-air missile during a live-fire exercise"
 

[dougal99]

Is it me or does this caption from the web page strike anyone else as odd.
 
"Aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk launching a radar-guided, air-to-air missile during a live-fire exercise"

just wrong, written by a sub-editor who has probably only heard about air-to-air missiles ergo all missiles are air-to-air 

[Snowwolflair]

The last time a US carrier got airbourne was on Dope off the coast of Vietnam.

[ardarossan]

Is it me or does this caption from the web page strike anyone else as odd.
 
"Aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk launching a radar-guided, air-to-air missile during a live-fire exercise"

U.S.S. Akron (ZRS-4) and her sister ship, U.S.S. 'Macon' (ZRS-5) were both U.S. Navy aircraft carriers equipped with Curtiss F9C Sparrowhawk biplane fighters. Therefore, I spropose that they would also have been capable of launching air-to-air missiles (if they had been invented).

Andy

[raflaunches]

Just seen a picture at work today from a BAE collegue of the 750 ton aft island being lowered into position, its amazing that they can lift that much with one crane!
I saw a list of fittings for the Queen Elizabeth which included over 1000 lockers, looks like the lads and lasses who will serve on her will have plenty of room compared to the older ships.

[Bob K]

There is no truth in the rumours that our second QE Class carrier is about to be renamed Prince of Cambridge, unlikely to reach full commisioned status until at least 2090.

[Marmoi]

If it's not gong to be commissioned till 2090, then it would probably be called "HMS King George VII" 

[TailUK]

He may not be known as George VII!  It has been a custom (although not a rule) for a monarch to choose a Regnal name.  The last King, George VI was using one of his middle names as opposed to his christian name, Albert!
Charles, Prince of Wales could also choose to use the name George. (Charles Philip Arthur George) As King Phillip is a little spanish,  King Arthur would be risable. King Charles III would work but as the first had his head lopped off and the second let London burn down he might choose not to tempt fate.  The Prince of Cambridge would be in a similar cleft stick.  King Alexander? Perhaps not or if he enjoyed the Jungle Book, King Louis.  Pretty safe bet he'll choose to be a George but perhaps George VIII because his Grandad was George VII.

[Snowwolflair]

Perhaps he is going to take a leaf out of the music world and be called  formerly known as Prince.
 
 

[dodes]

I do not know where the idea of 22 harriers came from for the Lusty, as I believe 6 harriers were the complement, although during the Falkland's escapade they manage to squeeze 12 onto Invincible. But I do know when she was at the Kosovo incident, after the first day and night there the Americans removed her out of the central hot area to guard the south borders due to her large size but relative small punch. I fact Invincible spent so much time buzzing around the Western Med half the fleet was harbour bound as she used up the fleets quota of fuel.

[raflaunches]

I do not know where the idea of 22 harriers came from for the Lusty, as I believe 6 harriers were the complement, although during the Falkland's escapade they manage to squeeze 12 onto Invincible. But I do know when she was at the Kosovo incident, after the first day and night there the Americans removed her out of the central hot area to guard the south borders due to her large size but relative small punch. I fact Invincible spent so much time buzzing around the Western Med half the fleet was harbour bound as she used up the fleets quota of fuel.

Hi Dodes


They could carry up to 22 Harriers but a normal complement of aircraft was 12 Sea Harriers and 10 Sea Kings. I wouldn't believe too much about the Americans removing her from the central hot spot, she was a relatively capable aircraft carrier that whilst they could not carry the same amount of aircraft as the American carriers, the Sea Harrier FA2 and the Blue Vixen radar they carried made up for the supposed loss of numbers. Not to have too much of a pop at the American navy but they did loose a lot of aircraft in the history of their super carriers, the F14 Tomcat is one example where they lost 50% of all aircraft flown in its entire service history! Not a very good track history really! Over Bosnia I think we only lost a couple of Harriers, how many aircraft did the Americans loose? The Harrier Carriers were not originally designed to be a true aircraft carrier but pushed through parliament disguised as through deck cruisers! Hopefully the new QE class will bring back the full capabilities of the old Ark Royal IV.

[frankv]

Not to have too much of a pop at the American navy but they did loose a lot of aircraft in the history of their super carriers, the F14 Tomcat is one example where they lost 50% of all aircraft flown in its entire service history! Not a very good track history really! Over Bosnia I think we only lost a couple of Harriers, how many aircraft did the Americans loose?

Not to be argumentative, but could you site your references for US losses in Bosnia and the service data for the TomCat?  My research has Tomcat losses at 19.8% over 20 some years.  (not bad when you consider the cutting edge design and how much the US flies its aircraft.)  [size=78%]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat  [/size][/size][size=78%]http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-serial-loss-st.htm[/size]
[/size]
In Bosnia I believe our losses were 1, F-16 and 1 F-117.  ( I could be wrong).


Regards,

[raflaunches]

Hi Frankv


Not at all, those mentioned in Wikipedia are aircraft that were shot down by enemy forces, the loss rate that I'm referring to include landing/take off accidents, mysterious structural failures or engine failures or even pilot error. The Tomcat had one of the worst loss rates of any US Navy aircraft, almost as bad as the F86 sabres which used to mysteriously explode after take off!  The problem the American navy suffered from was that their aircraft manufacturers would design a new aircraft and build maybe one or two prototypes but be accepted into service without thorough testing, therefore the Navy or Air Force would effectively test the aircraft for them but suffer all the accidents and losses incurred with any test aircraft from 1950s to 1980s that the USA built. The Tomcat was no different being designed and built in the 1970s I may have exaggerated the percentage however loosing almost twenty percent is an awful loss rate for any aircraft, see the following link for tomcat losses from 1970 to 2006;


http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-serial-loss-st.htm


If we lost that many type of aircraft there would be serious investigations into it!
Compared say to a Tornado GR 4 of which there are 142 examples which are flown on a regular basis, eg two sorties a day for about 60% of the aircraft in service with the RAF, there have been only one shot down (ironically by an US Patriot missile) and about two or three crashed due to accidents. The Tornadoes have been in service for over 30years of which 228 in RAF service originally built as GR1s of which 8 were shot down in the Gulf War. Considering as well that the Tornado in RAF service have achieved over 1000000 flying hours for a far lower number of aircraft built and has never achieved the loss rate of the US Navy F14s which achieved 141 losses in just over 20 years! Most of the information I have posted is from the world selling Aeroplane and FlyPast magazines.


Not to say that Americans don't build good aircraft just some of the ones built for their Navy could have been tested and developed better for them without loosing so many aircraft and sometimes aircrews.

[frankv]

Hi Nick,

http://www.topedge.com/alley/text/f14a/f14aloss.htm

I think if you read the wiki, you will find that the losses are mostly from accidents. 

As far as combat losses are concerned, I wasn't aware of any.  However, after a few googles. I see there was one combat loss.  Not a bad record.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat

"The U.S. Navy suffered its only F-14 loss from enemy action on 21 January 1991 when BuNo 161430, an F-14A upgraded to an F-14A+, from VF-103 was shot down by an SA-2 surface-to-air missile while on an escort mission near Al Asad airbase in Iraq. "

I can't claim to be an expert on what is acceptable as far as loss rate is concerned.

But considering the design dates from the Vietnam war, and was one of the first fighters to have variable geometry wings.  I think the planes record needs to be taken in contex.

Also, consider the number of sorties.  700 aircraft operating off of as many as 11 of 13 active carriers (in the 1980's) (note: base on what i have read, of the 13 active carriers in the 80s only the FDR and Midway were to small to operate the F-14.)

Anyhow , I realize this is mainly a U.K. Site, so I hope my defense of the F-14, and the US Navy's safety and combat record will not be taken as combative or trolling.

Regards,

Frank

PS: I have been lurking on this site for a while.  I should start posting some of my builds.  They would have been a more positive introduction to the community.

[raflaunches]

Don't worry about it Frank


After all its only a friendly debate- we all have our opinions and we are entitled to them, there have been some debates that have got quite out of hand over the years but it's nice to talk to someone with similar interests.
Hope you enjoy the forum and I look forward to your build threads. 
Regards


Nick

[dodes]

Hi Nick, the RMAS divers, gathered a lot of Rolex watches from lost pilots when recovering lost planes etc. The RAF kept the Salvage dept going.

[Netleyned]

Hi Nick, the RMAS divers, gathered a lot of Rolex watches from lost pilots when recovering lost planes etc. The RAF kept the Salvage dept going.

???


Ned

[Pondweed]

I am a bit confused here. 
 
HMS Dreadnought of 1906 was built in just 336 days, at 18,000 tons one of the most revolutionary warships of her era.

The present HMS Illustrious weighs in slightly more, 22,000 tons, and built in under two years.  A very compact aircraft carrier, her designed role involved STOL / VTOL harriers of which she carried up to 22.

What I really can’t understand is why the new 65,600 ton HMS Queen Elizabeth will take nine years from being laid down to sea trials, has been reverted to carrying STOL aircraft instead of the catapult launched planes her huge size was designed for, and which news reports this week state that although her hanger could accommodate 40 aircraft she will carry only a dozen. 

In hindsight why did we not build more Invincible class instead?

IIRC, Dreanought (1906) had over a 1000 men on her within a day or 2 of keel-laying and all the long-lead items had been laid on prior to this. In fact, it was like a giant mecano project as things like the  frames, etc, were pre-fabricated and ready to hand for assembly.

Other dreadnoughts not under similar political will to complete quickly took about 2 yrs from keel laying to completion.

I'd bet they could shorten the carrier build times if they put more men on her.

[Colin Bishop]

I think there was a deliberate decision taken to extend the building time in order to retain continuity of work and skills in the building yards. This has been done in the past as once you disband a core workforce it is very difficult to rebuild the skills base. That is why the UK no longer build large passenger vessels.
 
The Invincible class are very cramped ships, it is surprising just how small the hangar is and of course the flight deck is narrow. It's no accident that aircraft carriers are referred to as platforms as there is no substitute for deck area and hangar space to maximise operational versatility.
 
Colin

[raflaunches]

Another thing to consider is the UKs total yearly spenditure for defence in 1905 was just under 25%! A lot different to today's figures which also helps speed up building time considering the secrecy of the Dreadnought.

[ballastanksian]

The Dreadnaught had the main turrets from the Lord Nelson class Semi-dreadnaughts.  The turrets and guns often took as long as the rest of the ship to build due to their complexity. Another lamentable example from not having a battleship as a museum is that we cannot see the sheer intricacy of all the internal fittings for loading and handling ammunition etc as well as manoevring the turret.

A human/mechanical sybiotic relationship.

IMHO despite Britain not being the super power we were a century ago, we punch above our weight as regards helping others out, and these large carriers will be very useful for humanitarian work given their capacity. I hope that there will be found a need for one or two different types of specialist aircraft for early warning etc as the Americans have, just for modeling interest sake!

[McGherkin]

But we've lost the vertical landing facility of the Harrier. A very expensive "Upgrade"

 And are we going to be "Allowed" sight of ALL the software??????
  Regards  Ian.

Not true. The Harrier was STOVL - Short Take Off Vertical Landing. It couldn't take off vertically when loaded, hence the ski jump. After a mission when the bombs have been dropped and fuel has been used up, the Harrier would be light enough to land vertically.

The F35 Lightning II is exactly the same in that respect, it can still land vertically after a mission but instead of using a ski jump the deck is now long enough to do without. Most importantly the F35 is now able to fly supersonic. The Harrier never could get through the sound barrier. Also the stealth technology on the F35 is far superior, and it is designed to acquire a target from long range, shoot it down then 'disappear' from radar again. With the Harrier it was a constant case of shoot and avoid being shot. I am a great fan of the Harrier, but the F35 is superior in most ways - the only thing it can't do is VIFF, but as it's not a close range aircraft it's not a problem.

Will we get the full range of software with it? Yes. It's the Joint Strike Fighter and designed so that aircraft from the allied countries can fight together and be maintained/operated by the same people. So for example an RAF F35 breaks down and lands at a USAF airbase but the maintenance crews there are able to work on it, and vice versa. Also a lot of the systems were developed by BAE.


A lot of the delay with the QE class, as mentioned above, is due to the mid build attempt to change to CATOBAR (Catapult Assisted Take Off Barrier Arrested Recovery). Politics.

For ballastanksian the Advanced Early Warning system is provided by Sea Kings for the moment but I believe the intention is to 'dangle the cherry' from the Merlin in future.

[Bowwave]

The Fleet air Arm and RAF  could have has a fully  mach 2 capable VTOL  fighter back in the 1960s . This was the P1154  but the project was cancelled in 1966 . The F35 lightning  thrust vectoring system  has more in common  with the Soviet Yak 143 and Mirage 111V  than the original P1127   kestrel  design later known as the Harrier  and for the record  both the Soviet and French designs where later discontinued .
Bowwave 

[raflaunches]

For everyone's reference the F35 RAF/RN purchased prototype will be flying at RIAT at Fairford and Farnborough Airshows this July, since I might be working on this aircraft in the near future I'll try to be attending these Airshows.


The aircraft carriers still have a ski ramp for take off due to heavy weight of fully fuelled and 'bombed up' condition that the JSF will be flying in. I must admit I do have my doubts about the aircraft considering my experience with modern aircraft and the little electrical problems they can suffer, the amount of micro switches required to get the JSF to hover must be horrendous to ensure that are all working, just one failure and it'll refuse to hover. That's why the bifocating jet exhaust is controlled with fuel-draulics- one less thing to go wrong!


Still it'll be one impressive aircraft to see when it's operational, and who knows I might go on a carrier one day- I hope