Search results for query: *

Forum search Google search

  1. Keep the Essex class as a strike carrier

    sad ain't it?

  2. Keep the Essex class as a strike carrier

    a link to it was posted about 10 pages back.. so here is a new link https://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/SearchNRetrieve/Interface/ViewImage.aspx?B=1565492

  3. Keep the Essex class as a strike carrier

    according to the Australian Essex proposal it was thought possible to install a version of the C-7, or a stronger version of the C-11 either being 250 feet in length.

  4. Keep the Essex class as a strike carrier

    yeah that is how tight things were

  5. Keep the Essex class as a strike carrier

    nope, full on deployment until qualified.

  6. Keep the Essex class as a strike carrier

    some good info in this

  7. Keep the Essex class as a strike carrier

    Well navalising it is going to add 1000 pounds to the weight at least... and here we are back at the F-11 which was roughly the same size and could carry all the same avionics and engine.

  8. Keep the Essex class as a strike carrier

    a google translate of a French source on that https://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=fr&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ffaa.net%2Fprojects%2Fhornet%2Fhornet_fr.htm&sandbox=1

  9. Keep the Essex class as a strike carrier

    The French could have operated full meal deal Hornets if they wished, it would require adding ins some structural reinforcement of the flight deck. They DID look into it as stop gap until Rafale was available... it was killed for mostly political reasons.

  10. Keep the Essex class as a strike carrier

    As I recall one of the initial requirements for what became the F/A-18 was being able to launch from an Essex, and from what I recall of the Oriskany reactivation plan they just didn't have squadrons available for her; not that she could not operate them. So it looks like depending on the mix...

  11. Keep the Essex class as a strike carrier

    not talking about my modification of it, which would have been cool, but the straight OTL Super Tiger... with the J-79 she weighed about 250 pounds less than the J-65 regular Tiger, so the navy saying she. was "to heavy" for carrier usage (though technically correct if fully loaded AND launched...

  12. Keep the Essex class as a strike carrier

    This is why so many are semi obsessed with the Super Tiger; it really was the right form factor for a lot of functions of both the USN and her allies. But the way the USN killed it precluded her being considered by the RN and the French test pilot pooching the landing put them off of...

  13. Keep the Essex class as a strike carrier

    anything with a static weight over 35,000 pounds was sketchy AF off of Clem or Foch.. F-8 was about as tubby as could lift off reliably and at that it put substantial strain on the cats and deck. So maybe at really, really light weights

  14. Keep the Essex class as a strike carrier

    and the A-4M were built in '79/80... a LOT of fresher parts available

  15. Keep the Essex class as a strike carrier

    saw this and had to post

  16. Keep the Essex class as a strike carrier

    This is why the USN not buying super Tiger bites the West as a whole in the ass.

  17. Keep the Essex class as a strike carrier

    wouldn't have had the BS5.. as I recall the spec was for boilers of almost double the pressure of Ark and Eagle.. no idea how long but per foot they should have pretty close to C-11-1 performance.

  18. Keep the Essex class as a strike carrier

    As I understand it the '54 medium carrier study would have been a 45,000 pound deck with a hangar nearly as large as Eagle.. so quite serviceable into the 80's.

  19. Keep the Essex class as a strike carrier

    seagripen is already under development.

  20. Keep the Essex class as a strike carrier

    Because it was available and they could operate effective aircraft for their needs... SeaGripen would have been a blast on her Though it would have been a good idea to also drop the $30 mil it would have taken to buy Varyag from the Ukrainians.. the PRC spent $25 mil
Top