Modelling > Scenarios
Realistic alternative RAN FAA options
jcf:
The Ford was actually kind of craptastic, from the formal acceptance test reports:
When carrying ordnance and/or drop tanks the Ford's flight characteristics were even worse and you could
forget about going Mach 1 even in a dive.
;D
It's one of those cases of "looks cool, too bad its meh". :icon_fsm:
M.A.D:
--- Quote from: GTX_Admin on July 11, 2022, 01:55:17 AM ---
--- Quote from: M.A.D on July 10, 2022, 04:25:40 PM ---Please don't take this as personal criticism my dear Volkodav, on reading this interesting thread again, I can't help wonder how big and heavy the Sea Vixen was and was it not already past it's prime by the early 70's....🤔
--- End quote ---
Sea Vixen stats:
Length: 55 ft 7 in (16.94 m)
Wingspan: 51 ft 0 in (15.54 m)
Height: 10 ft 9 in (3.28 m)
Empty weight: 27,950 lb (12,678 kg)
Performance compared to A-4G:
Sea Vixen
Maximum speed: 1,110 km/h
Range: 1,270 km
Service ceiling: 48,000 ft
Rate of climb: 46 m/sA-4G Skyhawk
Maximum speed: 1,086 km/h
Range: 644 km
Service ceiling: 47,900 ft
Rate of climb: 28.5 m/s
Though having said that, it was a much bigger bird being nearly 3 times heavier. Both entered service in the mid-late 1950s.
--- Quote from: M.A.D on July 10, 2022, 04:25:40 PM ---
--- Quote ---5. The UK offered HMS Hermes (in her CTOL configuration) to Australia in the mid 60s
--- End quote ---
Please excuse my ignorance, but in real-world terms, was such an offer ever made as such?
--- End quote ---
Interesting question. I see the mention of this repeated all over the place but can't see any formal reference to it. Interestingly enough, in 1964 the RAN stated the following in relation to options for a new carrier to replace the HMAS Melbourne (see Para 33):
CFBV
--- End quote ---
Thanks GTX
MAD
Old Wombat:
Just been looking back over this thread &, as Greg mentioned, what if we'd looked at Essex-class carriers earlier?
Actually before the Majestics? After all, there were incomplete late (big) Essex's sitting idle in American slipways waiting to be scrapped (we could, almost, have bought the hulls for scrap-value & then had them completed) & the Labour government had turned more to the USA for military assistance than the UK, so it makes some level of sense.
jcf:
--- Quote from: Old Wombat on July 12, 2022, 09:34:47 PM ---Just been looking back over this thread &, as Greg mentioned, what if we'd looked at Essex-class carriers earlier?
Actually before the Majestics? After all, there were incomplete late (big) Essex's sitting idle in American slipways waiting to be scrapped (we could, almost, have bought the hulls for scrap-value & then had them completed) & the Labour government had turned more to the USA for military assistance than the UK, so it makes some level of sense.
--- End quote ---
Only two were still were cancelled while still under construction.
This is the state of the CV-46 USS Iwo Jima when cancelled in 1946, scrapped in place in 1949.
CV 35 USS Reprisal was further along when cancelled in 1945, but still far from being a ship.
The hull was floated out later that year to clear the slip, and scrapped in 1949.
Completing either would have been horrifically expensive, particularly CV-46.
Jonesthetank:
Stretching the narative slightly further, how about the USN decides to proceed with more Midway class carriers (as the last three were cancelled), allowing them to offer the RAN one or two of the earlier Essex class ships as the new Midways enter service?
The RAN would be hit with the cost of any SCB style modernisations, but would end up with more capable carriers than the Majestics, before and after any rebuilds.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version