TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Re: Aircraft Carriers II
Need to get osprey tankers for LHA and CVN.
Need to get osprey tankers for LHA and CVN.
PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
Re: Aircraft Carriers II
Yes and I am sure the Royal Navy is taking notes here if not already on board
Royal Navy are experts with these kind of configuration, depending on the scope of the missions they can use vertical take off or ship borne rolling vertical landing
Actually it's quite complicated because a team of logistical experts needs to establish what load configurations need to be lifted which then dictates the type of landing and take off to be performed
The load configurations in turn depends on the threat level and nature, so the whole thing has to be established for a whole range of scenarios in minimum time
But the Royal Navy can pull on decades of Harrier experience and skills that have been pioneered during that time, the difference is this time they are dealing with a super sonic 5th generation aircraft
The rolling take off has benefits since it can lift more and causes less strain on the engine, vertical lift requires huge power requirements which drain the overall lifetime of the engine the turn around time also decreases, rolling take off it's also not too harsh on the flight deck due to less heat laying down on the deck
And due to operating the F35B the Royal Navy will be able to "surge" two carrier battle groups simultaneously, something they could not achieve with F35C, so overall in terms of capability F35B is not a bad choice of aircraft for the scope of Royal Navy missions
Yes and I am sure the Royal Navy is taking notes here if not already on board
Royal Navy are experts with these kind of configuration, depending on the scope of the missions they can use vertical take off or ship borne rolling vertical landing
Actually it's quite complicated because a team of logistical experts needs to establish what load configurations need to be lifted which then dictates the type of landing and take off to be performed
The load configurations in turn depends on the threat level and nature, so the whole thing has to be established for a whole range of scenarios in minimum time
But the Royal Navy can pull on decades of Harrier experience and skills that have been pioneered during that time, the difference is this time they are dealing with a super sonic 5th generation aircraft
The rolling take off has benefits since it can lift more and causes less strain on the engine, vertical lift requires huge power requirements which drain the overall lifetime of the engine the turn around time also decreases, rolling take off it's also not too harsh on the flight deck due to less heat laying down on the deck
And due to operating the F35B the Royal Navy will be able to "surge" two carrier battle groups simultaneously, something they could not achieve with F35C, so overall in terms of capability F35B is not a bad choice of aircraft for the scope of Royal Navy missions
Re: Aircraft Carriers II
The UK developed two versions.
The first was the Harrier for the Air Force, the GR.1 (which was upgraded to the GR.3) of which a total of about 150 were built (including the trainer version) which became operational in 1969. The Royal Air Force operated Harriers of one type or another for 41 years.
The second was the Sea Harrier, FRS.1 (which became the FA.2) for the Navy (which was also used by the US Marines at first as the AV-8B and the Indian Navy) of which a total of 56 were built which became operational in 1979. The Royal Navy operated Sea Harriers of one type or another for 31 years.
'
The Indian Navy also built 30 FRS.51, which were very similar to the UKs FRS.1. They were delivered in 1983 and became operational in 1984. the Indians have been operating Harriers now off of two carriers for 30 years. The initial 10 Matadors for Spain were built to the FRS.1 standard. And then, the US adopted the Harrier and 110 AV-8As were built for the US Marines. So, the UK built a total of about 360 Harriers for its use and that of three allies.
The US adopted the Harrier from the British Navy Sea Harrier for use on its large Amphibious Assault Carriers. To begin with, as stated, the US had 110 AV-8A harriers built, which were from the FRS.1 design. But in use, the US Marines came up with a number of very innovative design and other upgrades and changes. A deal was worked out with the UK to build the new AV-8B (which was upgraded and built new as the AV-8B II+ in the US, Spain and Italy) by McDonald Douglas. The AV-8B became operational in January 1984. The US, Italy, and Spain all use the AV-8B. A total of about 350 of these were built. Then, in one of those historical quirks, the UK, who had sent the initial Harrier design to the US, then also adopted the new US design. This was ultimately built and used by the UK for both Air Force and Navy in the later years. About 150 of those were built. So, all in all, about 500 Harrier IIs were built and the US still uses close to 200 of them for operations, training and tests, the Italians have about 30, and the Spanish about 20.
With the Harrier IIs operating off of 10+ US Tarawa and Wasp Class vessels for the last 30 years, the US has actually now logged far more time with the Harrier than the British.
While the Harrier II+ is an improved version with a lot of US input (and specifically US Marine input) the critical design is British and the fact that the US adopted that aircraft and has used it so extensively (which is not a normal practice for the US military) is just a further testament of the unbelievably good design it has been.
And now you know...the rest of the story.
Some interesting notes about overall Harrier operations.
The UK developed two versions.
The first was the Harrier for the Air Force, the GR.1 (which was upgraded to the GR.3) of which a total of about 150 were built (including the trainer version) which became operational in 1969. The Royal Air Force operated Harriers of one type or another for 41 years.
The second was the Sea Harrier, FRS.1 (which became the FA.2) for the Navy (which was also used by the US Marines at first as the AV-8B and the Indian Navy) of which a total of 56 were built which became operational in 1979. The Royal Navy operated Sea Harriers of one type or another for 31 years.
'
The Indian Navy also built 30 FRS.51, which were very similar to the UKs FRS.1. They were delivered in 1983 and became operational in 1984. the Indians have been operating Harriers now off of two carriers for 30 years. The initial 10 Matadors for Spain were built to the FRS.1 standard. And then, the US adopted the Harrier and 110 AV-8As were built for the US Marines. So, the UK built a total of about 360 Harriers for its use and that of three allies.
The US adopted the Harrier from the British Navy Sea Harrier for use on its large Amphibious Assault Carriers. To begin with, as stated, the US had 110 AV-8A harriers built, which were from the FRS.1 design. But in use, the US Marines came up with a number of very innovative design and other upgrades and changes. A deal was worked out with the UK to build the new AV-8B (which was upgraded and built new as the AV-8B II+ in the US, Spain and Italy) by McDonald Douglas. The AV-8B became operational in January 1984. The US, Italy, and Spain all use the AV-8B. A total of about 350 of these were built. Then, in one of those historical quirks, the UK, who had sent the initial Harrier design to the US, then also adopted the new US design. This was ultimately built and used by the UK for both Air Force and Navy in the later years. About 150 of those were built. So, all in all, about 500 Harrier IIs were built and the US still uses close to 200 of them for operations, training and tests, the Italians have about 30, and the Spanish about 20.
With the Harrier IIs operating off of 10+ US Tarawa and Wasp Class vessels for the last 30 years, the US has actually now logged far more time with the Harrier than the British.
While the Harrier II+ is an improved version with a lot of US input (and specifically US Marine input) the critical design is British and the fact that the US adopted that aircraft and has used it so extensively (which is not a normal practice for the US military) is just a further testament of the unbelievably good design it has been.
And now you know...the rest of the story.
Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views
Chuck, several of those pictures I posted earlier were of brand new construction themselves, so again, you are making presumptions and then go off commenting based on those presumptions when the presumption was faulty to begin with.
Listen, you can say whatever you want...it's a public forum. My issue with you was simple, and had nothing to do with all the directions you are trying to turn the discussion now.
You said that the plating on the Indian Carrier (when looking at the bow particularly) looked like it had been hammered into place by hand. I called that hogwash and still do.
As I said, that is just plain hogwash and represent a completely slanted, unreasoned statement (most probably based on a pre-conceived negative bias of the Indians themselves)...which is why I responded as I did. They may have inferior methods to some of the really modern facilities...but I do not believe they are as far behind as you presume.
One thing I know for sure, they did not have blokes up there on scaffolding using sledges to hammer those plates in place and form them...which is what this discussion was about from the get go.
Other posters: Sorry for the OT, but I needed to respond to Chuck.
Chuck, several of those pictures I posted earlier were of brand new construction themselves, so again, you are making presumptions and then go off commenting based on those presumptions when the presumption was faulty to begin with.
Listen, you can say whatever you want...it's a public forum. My issue with you was simple, and had nothing to do with all the directions you are trying to turn the discussion now.
You said that the plating on the Indian Carrier (when looking at the bow particularly) looked like it had been hammered into place by hand. I called that hogwash and still do.
As I said, that is just plain hogwash and represent a completely slanted, unreasoned statement (most probably based on a pre-conceived negative bias of the Indians themselves)...which is why I responded as I did. They may have inferior methods to some of the really modern facilities...but I do not believe they are as far behind as you presume.
One thing I know for sure, they did not have blokes up there on scaffolding using sledges to hammer those plates in place and form them...which is what this discussion was about from the get go.
Re: Aircraft Carriers II
JS Hyuga, DDH-181 ASW Carrier
JS Ise, DDH-182 ASW Carrier
JS Izumo, DDH-183 Large ASW/STOVL Carrier
Building up a nice fleet.
Here's what the Japanese can deploy now (soon with the Izumo) :
JS Hyuga, DDH-181 ASW Carrier
JS Ise, DDH-182 ASW Carrier
JS Izumo, DDH-183 Large ASW/STOVL Carrier
Building up a nice fleet.
danielchin
Junior Member
Re: PLAN Carrier Construction
sister ship already！！？？
via =GT ... look what's behind !??
sister ship already！！？？
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
Re: PLAN Carrier Construction
Thats a ski jump clearly a carrier module!
So I think we have a carrier right there and possible LHD at JNCX!
via =GT ... look what's behind !??
Thats a ski jump clearly a carrier module!
So I think we have a carrier right there and possible LHD at JNCX!