Search this Topic:
Jun 14 17 9:22 AM
HMS Pinafore wrote:Again a bit off thread.
The Phantoms would probably not need replacing until the mid 1980s. The F-15C Eagle looks very attractive, and can also be built under license with the proposed 'Strike Eagle' (F-15E) as a future Buccaneer replacement (in the 1990s).
In the 1970s I'd probably go for a major upgrade for the Skyhawks (Agave radar for the navy planes) to tie them over until the new carriers arrive a decade later. At that point Barataria can go for either a) F/A-18 Hornet (most expensive), b) Super Etendard (left hand drive), c) Skyhawk with F-16 radar and another upgrade.
Ideally I'd like to try and go for a common fleet of aircraft for the navy and the air force CAS roles (baggete if I adopted the Etendard).
Jun 14 17 10:40 AM
Jun 14 17 12:24 PM
Jun 14 17 6:04 PM
Jun 14 17 7:48 PM
Jun 15 17 12:08 AM
Jun 15 17 5:29 AM
borys68 wrote:If you can cram more Rafales onboard a BSAC 220 than F-18s than this could be the best choice. And it would be 80s and not 70s tech.
Jun 15 17 5:58 AM
alspug wrote:The common aircraft for both the fleet and CAS is likely to end up as either the USN solution (F-18) or the US Marine solution . Harrier AV-8Bplus . Both have the same radar and weapons options . Just the Harrier has lower speed and range but higher flexibility . The choice of aircraft will decide the carrier solution . Honestly I think the Midway class is the smallest that is worth having and even if built without the extensive armour it is going to be expensive . Instead of three carriers it is likely to be two . Off topic it would be interesting to see if it would be worthwhile building two docks big enough to take the carriers and actually build them in the docks using imported components . Instead of the Steam plant it might be interesting to have a combined steam and gas turbine arrangement with the steam plant used for normal steaming and the gas turbines to give the burst of speed needed for aircraft ops . Figure a 45,000 to 55,000 ton carrier with 3 deck edge lifts . Two on starboard and one to port . full angled flightdeck , heck why not buy the entire Midway design .
CVV carried a smaller airgroup than existing supercarriers (i.e. about 60
compared with about 90 for the nuclear-powered Nimitz class or the
conventional-powered Kitty Hawk-class aircraft carriers) and had two
steam catapults rather than four and three arrestor cables instead of four. The
CVV also had a less powerful power plant, with steam turbines fed by six
boilers generating 100,000 shaft horsepower (75,000 kW) in a two-shaft
arrangement, compared with the 280,000 shaft horsepower (210,000 kW) delivered
to four shafts of the larger carriers, giving a speed of 28 knots (52 km/h)
compared with over 31 knots (57 km/h). While slower than earlier carriers, this
was still sufficiently fast to keep up with carrier task forces. Not all of the
design features in the CVV were less capable than earlier carriers, however, as
the carrier was planned to have improved protection for the ship's magazines
and to be protected against under-keel explosions.
Clear hangar height 24.5'; angle deck length 714';
hangar area 5,750m2
Jun 15 17 6:06 AM
Jun 15 17 10:50 AM
henshao wrote:Is it really off-thread though? We (or at least I) are calling into question the entire construction of the Baratarian air forces. Like a game of dominoes, you have all that water to traverse, which implies carriers, which implies carrier aircraft, which implies, which implies. Putting all your eggs into short-legged land-based fighters seems to be putting the cart ahead of the horse. Although the Phantom and the Bucc are both naval aircraft, they are cat-launched aircraft, which implies carriers of a certain size. I mean, what in the world are Skyhawks bringing to the table for Baratarian objectives? Persecuting speeders on the one national highway? The Harrier is firmly in the 70's and with plenum chamber burning in the place of afterburning I'm confident a supersonic version would make decent interceptors possible on small carriers.
But, if you must, I still say take the Mirages over the Skyhawks. When a random wing spar fails and grounds your Phantom fleet for 30 days, you'll still have interceptors available.
Jun 16 17 9:28 AM
Jun 16 17 10:23 AM
Jun 16 17 11:31 AM
Jun 16 17 11:43 AM
HMS Pinafore wrote:and look to pairing down the numbers of types to 2 (if possible).
Jun 16 17 1:26 PM
Jun 16 17 2:29 PM
NewGolconda wrote:And there Fred, is the real issue with the Baratarian simulation, if you ask me. A country with that size military - lets say 2.5 times Australian spending, would design and build domestically more than 50% of its kit.
The new strike aircraft would be called the Bae, BA-4A Bat, and look something like a cross between a Draken and a Dagger.
Jun 16 17 3:17 PM
Jun 16 17 4:11 PM
HMS Pinafore wrote: The national anthem comes with arm actions (as in the film 'Water').
Jun 16 17 8:41 PM
Jun 16 17 8:45 PM
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.