Author Topic: Naval Pictures Forecastle: Laying siege to the poop deck! (Read 252365 times)

Sabelkatten · « **Reply #1260 on:** 28 January 2018, 09:51:42 »

I'm guessing the old Harrier is pretty bad when it comes to stealth given the giant air intake... I don't know how much of that you could "build away" today?

OTOH if you want an aircraft for fleet defense stealth might be of a lesser concern. After all if you need to defend is sort of a given that the enemy's found you! :D

Nightlord01 · « **Reply #1261 on:** 29 January 2018, 07:27:01 »

Quote from: Sharpnel on 28 January 2018, 02:21:29

It's the F35B that's too costly. RAN couldn't afford them when a squadron of six planes is going to cost about US$750+ million.

Quote from: Wrangler on 28 January 2018, 00:37:45

I really wish Australia had reinforced their LHA's with F-35B capable flight deck. It must be too costly to do it.

It isn't either of those things. :-)

The Royal Australian Navy has a requirement to conduct amphibious ops in both war and peace time, these ships were acquired to satisfy that need, not to be an aircraft carrier. There's a lot of conjecture regarding the wisdom of the move, but that's not for this forum.

Quote from: Sabelkatten on 28 January 2018, 09:51:42

I'm guessing the old Harrier is pretty bad when it comes to stealth given the giant air intake... I don't know how much of that you could "build away" today?

OTOH if you want an aircraft for fleet defense stealth might be of a lesser concern. After all if you need to defend is sort of a given that the enemy's found you! :D

The Harrier has a pretty big RCS, this is true, but that wouldn't prevent that style of aircraft being developed with more advanced design, as this would be using RCS suppression technologies. The truth is that demand for VSTOL aircraft is incredibly low, even with the F-35 partners included, and that both drives price and the overall production numbers. No one buys VSTOL if they don't have a conventional carrier because they are substantially less capable than a conventional fighter, even the same model! They have shorter legs, lower payload limits, longer training cycles and higher maintenance costs. VSTOL is an out an out loser in every comparison except "launch from limited space without catapults".

Sabelkatten · « **Reply #1262 on:** 29 January 2018, 08:03:38 »

Well, the Harrier wasn't designed for carrier duty from the outset... As is we might (unfortunately) see a return of the thinking that produced it originally.

I am Belch II · « **Reply #1263 on:** 29 January 2018, 08:28:12 »

The Harrier isn't a stealthy aircraft or is it a fighter. But many different planes start doing roles that they were not designed for. It took the Falklands to give the Harrier some fame.

worktroll · « **Reply #1264 on:** 29 January 2018, 13:27:59 »

Quote from: Wrangler on 28 January 2018, 09:07:48

I'm surprised a company hasn't come up with low-cost version of the F35 that's akin to the Harrier.
The soviets did, with their Yakovlev YAK-38

The Soviet's the Yak-141 Freestyle which ironically was where the F-35 came from. #P

The Yak-38 wasn't a cheap Harrier - it was a technology demonstrator pressed into appearing to be in active service. Minimal combat capacity, less range, and even less reliability. Plus it used lift engines, which are just Bad Ideas.

The Yak-141 was too much for Soviet metallurgy & technology. If you were going to work on something, it'd be the place to start, but again relied on lift engines.

Kidd · « **Reply #1265 on:** 29 January 2018, 13:43:42 »

Quote from: Sabelkatten on 29 January 2018, 08:03:38

Well, the Harrier wasn't designed for carrier duty from the outset... As is we might (unfortunately) see a return of the thinking that produced it originally.

Having VTOL strike bombers pop up from random patches of forest clearing to engage ~~Soviet~~ Russian tank columns? ;D

Fat Guy · « **Reply #1266 on:** 29 January 2018, 15:04:21 »

Delivering a nuclear weapon after all the airfields have been taken out actually.

kato · « **Reply #1267 on:** 29 January 2018, 16:16:14 »

Quote from: Fat Guy on 29 January 2018, 15:04:21

Delivering a nuclear weapon after all the airfields have been taken out actually.

That was actually the previous concept. Cancelled in '66/'67 with Flexible Response. Subsonic VTOL was only one of multiple avenues explored, the others were ZELL (RATO) and SATS (CATOBAR). Germany was about to start fielding its first SATS squadron with 14 catapult-modified F-104G right when NATO cancelled NMBR-3.

Quote from: Sabelkatten on 29 January 2018, 08:03:38

Well, the Harrier wasn't designed for carrier duty from the outset...

Kestrel did its first carrier landing tests on Ark Royal in 1963 - two years before the RAF decided to buy it.

Kidd · « **Reply #1268 on:** 30 January 2018, 01:54:47 »

USS Missouri sailing past USS Missouri

Daryk · « **Reply #1269 on:** 30 January 2018, 04:06:21 »

That's a great shot!

Feenix74 · « **Reply #1270 on:** 30 January 2018, 04:27:11 »

No pressure on filling Dad's big shoes . . .

DoctorMonkey · « **Reply #1271 on:** 30 January 2018, 04:30:57 »

Quote from: Feenix74 on 30 January 2018, 04:27:11

No pressure on filling Dad's big shoes . . .

I fear they would need the same battle honour as the Royal Marines - The Whole Globe

Nightlord01 · « **Reply #1272 on:** 30 January 2018, 05:28:22 »

Quote from: Kidd on 30 January 2018, 01:54:47

USS Missouri sailing past USS Missouri

Ahh Mighty Mo, I've never seen a more intimidating sight. She's what every little warship wants to be like when they grow up. :-)

DoctorMonkey · « **Reply #1273 on:** 30 January 2018, 05:51:14 »

Quote from: Nightlord01 on 30 January 2018, 05:28:22

Ahh Mighty Mo, I've never seen a more intimidating sight. She's what every little warship wants to be like when they grow up. :-)

That or Warspite, another battleship turned nuclear submarine lineage

Kidd · « **Reply #1274 on:** 30 January 2018, 06:32:50 »

Alright, more Mighty Mo then. I know we all love main battery shots but here's something a little different... pew pew...

And some of the usual for good measure

Wrangler · « **Reply #1275 on:** 30 January 2018, 19:37:02 »

Littorio Class Battleships firing their guns.

I am Belch II · « **Reply #1276 on:** 30 January 2018, 20:08:17 »

Quote from: Wrangler on 30 January 2018, 19:37:02

Littorio Class Battleships firing their guns.

The thing that stands out so much on the Littorio is the aft turret sitting so high off the deck. Nice good battleships, not as good as the other powers, but still nice ships.

glitterboy2098 · « **Reply #1277 on:** 30 January 2018, 20:46:10 »

Imagine what it'll be like crewing the CVN-80 Enterprise. Two famous carriers to live up to, even if you ignore the connections to a popular SciFi franchise. :)

marauder648 · « **Reply #1278 on:** 01 February 2018, 12:08:49 »

HMS Illustrious.

Sharpnel · « **Reply #1279 on:** 01 February 2018, 13:28:18 »

USS America (CV-66) in her last moments above water

Kidd · « **Reply #1280 on:** 01 February 2018, 14:08:53 »

Quote from: Sharpnel on 01 February 2018, 13:28:18

USS America (CV-66) in her last moments above water

My first (very badly done) model ship was CV-66 :(

I'm surprised ANY pics are in public domain, given the sensitive nature of a carrier SINKEX. This pic alone speaks a bit about what was and was not tested...

marauder648 · « **Reply #1281 on:** 01 February 2018, 14:26:16 »

I thought they scuttled her, she looks in too good a condition to be part of a Sinkex, as in she's not on fire or got holes in her.

DoctorMonkey · « **Reply #1282 on:** 01 February 2018, 14:32:27 »

From Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_America_(CV-66)#Post_decommissioning_service

Quote

After the completion of the tests, [/size]America[/color][/size] was sunk in a controlled [/color][/size]scuttling[/color][/size] on 14 May 2005 at approximately 11:30[/color]

marauder648 · « **Reply #1283 on:** 01 February 2018, 14:49:48 »

Oh nice. I still think they need to do a sinkex with one of the Iowas though.

Kidd · « **Reply #1284 on:** 01 February 2018, 14:55:24 »

Scuttled or sank in this particular case is somewhat academic. Though it was claimed that the Navy were surprised at the damage she took.

Quote from: marauder648 on 01 February 2018, 14:26:16

I thought they scuttled her, she looks in too good a condition to be part of a Sinkex, as in she's not on fire or got holes in her.

Thats what I thought...

Weirdo · « **Reply #1285 on:** 01 February 2018, 14:56:39 »

Quote from: marauder648 on 01 February 2018, 14:49:48

Oh nice. I still think they need to do a sinkex with one of the Iowas though.

Bite your tongue! >:(

Though as much as it pains me to think of it, if they can't get her into a permanent drydock, a sinkex might be a better fate for Texas than rusting away in a swamp...

Kidd · « **Reply #1286 on:** 01 February 2018, 15:02:12 »

Compared to scrapping, IMHO a Sinkex is one last worthy service a capital ship can perform for its country.

for example, I would have thought the USN would be interested to see what a supersonic SSM would do to a carrier. Or a ballistic missile.

Weirdo · « **Reply #1287 on:** 01 February 2018, 15:10:04 »

A shame such a test would be classified "Shoot yourself before reading", as dropping a ballistic missile into a carrier would make for one HELL of a YouTube video.

glitterboy2098 · « **Reply #1288 on:** 01 February 2018, 17:57:53 »

if we had non-nuclear ballistic missiles, i'm sure someone would have at least proposed that. but we already know what nukes can do to ships, and i doubt that china would be willing to loan us one of their new anti-ship missiles for such a thing. (we really don't have anything comparable)

Dragon Cat · « **Reply #1289 on:** 01 February 2018, 18:42:29 »

There’s also a problem with US carriers being nuclear sinking them as targets not an option sending all that waste into the drink. It would be political suicide for anyone who authorised it