[Post Reply] [*]  Page 7 of 11  [ 102 posts ]  Go to page « 15 6 7 8 911 »
Author Message
Rusel
Post subject: Re: CVA-01Posted: December 12th, 2011, 9:57 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 104
Joined: March 30th, 2011, 11:22 am
Location: Australia
Hi Thiel
have you seen Santiago's profiles over on Flickr
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Hawker+p1216
and also the discussion at Secret Projects
FLIGHTS OF FANTASY: What if the P.1216 went into production?
I'd reckon that if CVA-01 had been given the go ahead then there would have been a different mindset in the Ministry of Defence.
Perhaps TSR-2 and the Hawker p.1154 were also successful and so the aerospace industry had the cudos to keep its capacity.
Hawker's wealth of skill and experience would have been invaluable and perhaps CVA would have been built with such capability in mind.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Novice
Post subject: Re: CVA-01Posted: December 12th, 2011, 5:31 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3857
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:25 am
Location: Vrijstaat
I believe that if the RN got its carriers, it means it will get the home grown aircraft to go with it. Although it seems cheaper to buy American, consider the impact on the British economy of all those laid-off, skilled aviation workers. As mentioned above the aviation industry still carried a huge influence, on the politicians, hence the decision to equip the F-4K with the British Spey engine with the resulatnt escalation of cost, to the whole program.
Sorry BH for hi-jacking the thread for a discussion on economics and politics.

_________________
[ img ] Thank you Kim for the crest

"Never fear to try on something new. Remember that the Titanic was built by professionals, and the Ark by an amateur"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Bombhead
Post subject: Re: CVA-01Posted: December 12th, 2011, 5:38 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2299
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 7:41 pm
No probs Novice,I like the cut and thrust of lively debate. 8-)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
knut 75
Post subject: Re: CVA-01Posted: December 13th, 2011, 3:34 pm
Offline
Posts: 27
Joined: July 19th, 2011, 11:49 am
Hood

Just caught your CVA 01-2 in Gulf War update. Another masterpiece!

The F18 Hornet airgroup matches that carried by USS Midway and USS Coral Sea at the end
of the Cold War and seems entirely reasonable for a timeline in which the RN had purchased
both CVA 01 and CVA 02 and equipped them with F4s, Bucs etc.
Have you seen Sentinel Chicken's Thread on Whatifmodelers about the S3 Viking on CVA 01 (now removed with the Profile CGI pages) but available on UK Secret Projects as well, if not I will find a link.

http://www.airlinebuzz.com/forums/showt ... 444&page=5 Found it on Airlinebuzz

About fifteen years ago I managed to get a celebrated modelmaker to make me a display model
of CVA 01 to 1-600 scale. There is a photo on R Beedall's excellent site
http://frn.beedall.com/cvfimages/cvfmodel2.jpg
I had it equipped with the 1960s fighter attackers (drawings from Project Cancelled by Derek Wood)
P139 and the Westland WG 34-precursor to EH 101
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/835/wg34small.jpg/

I must try to get some better photos of the model, but it is stored away at present.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Hood
Post subject: Re: CVA-01Posted: December 13th, 2011, 9:50 pm
Offline
Posts: 5571
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am
I don't buy the Sea Tornado for several reasons;
The Sea Tornado would have had to been designed in the early 1970s when Tornado itself was developed, that puts it in the same timeframe in both design and first flights as the Hornet. The ADV began devlopment in 1976 and was only 80% common to the IDS, a navalised version would differ even more. The ADV entered service in 86 but wasn't debugged until after then. A marine version would perhaps not be ready until 87-89.
The Phantom was retained by the RAF until the late 80s early 90s so its possible the FAA would have done likewise had Ark Royal and Eagle not been decommissioned in the 70s or CVA had been built. So the government would have to make a conscious decision to develop three variants of the Tornado from the start, in fact that might have not only altered the basic design of the Tornado but would leave the UK footing the bill for developing the ADV and Sea Tornado. Would the Treasury and MoD of the late 70s and early 80s really have funded three variants at once? ADV relied on Saudi Arabian exports to recoup some costs but prospects of exports for a Sea Tornado are practically nil. Would Panavia even have gotten started had the UK pushed too far from the start for changes and a naval variant?

It's more likely the FAA always being the cinderella service compared to the RAF would have been told to get on with the F-4 and then arrange a replacement ad hoc when the Phantom fleet was too old to carry on and the replacement for CVA was still likely to be 10-15 years away. Then off the shelf would be the only answer. Re-opening and redesigning Tornado during the late 80s ore early 90s would be too late and costly. Some of BAe's small fighter projects like the P.1110 look promising but still for a solo project with no sales prospects its a non-starter.

My ultra-whiff would be the EAP built as a proper UK fighter analogous to the Rafale with a naval variant but thats not really practical in any sense.

Interesting discussion this.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Bombhead
Post subject: Re: CVA-01Posted: December 13th, 2011, 10:41 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2299
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 7:41 pm
Interesting indeed.We did discuss this at the start of the project and the winner of the competetive fly off was the Hornet.The sad reallity of course is that successive UK governments of both the red and blue systematically vandalised our aircraft industry.For some reason known only to our illustriously leaders we have always bought American even when there was a perfectly good UK design spoilt for the want of a few quid to develope.Trident,VC 10 ,TSR2 etc.The wonderful thing about hindsight is as we all know the ADV Tornado was not exactly the best fighter around.We have to remember that at the time RR was madly in love with MT so we would probably have got a good deal on the planes/license production.If you order as an F4 replacement for the RAF you get a better fighter,cheaper,and still get to keep your aircraft manufacturing industry.Operationally these carriers could well end up as a joint carrier task force with the US.Commonality of aircraft would be a big bonus.The good thing about drawing never builds is for once you get to be DNC for a few weeks,and thats why we went with the Hornet.And thanks Kim for the superb badge.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Rusel
Post subject: Re: CVA-01Posted: December 14th, 2011, 10:40 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 104
Joined: March 30th, 2011, 11:22 am
Location: Australia
If CVA is going ahead then an ideal WHIFF would be the sky populated with Hawker p.1121, TSR2 and Vickers 583s
Perhaps an airwing of 1121s and 583s would look good.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
TurretHead
Post subject: Re: CVA-01Posted: December 15th, 2011, 8:42 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 193
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:38 am
Location: End of a bad sci fi movie.
I don’t care about the Hornet or P.XYZ but thought I’d offer a few feedbacks on the drawing.

The platforms for the Phalanx guns look way to small. There isn’t much room for sailors to come out and maintain them and reload the gun. Similar platforms on the Nimitz class are much bigger. The starboard side platform for the Goalkeeper/Phalanx on the Invincible class should be a good indication of the floor space needed.

The top view Hornet drawings look a big odd with the folded wings. They look like they go straight up but on the real hornet they angle inwards so you should see some of the wing. Also the Hornet on the catapult is drawn with a cable attachment to the catapult eye and a cable hold back. This is not only impossible but also redundant as the Hornet has a bar catapult and hold back integrated into the nose gear.

But I think it’s a great drawing. The replacement of the Sea Dart with Seawolf, the Phalanx and the Hornets all scream Falklands experience! Which begs the question: when will you guys draw a Falklands CVA-01!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
knut 75
Post subject: Re: CVA-01Posted: December 16th, 2011, 12:48 pm
Offline
Posts: 27
Joined: July 19th, 2011, 11:49 am
The version of CVA 01 that first got me interested in the ship was featured in Jane's Fighting Ships 1963-4 and is also on Richard Beedall's website
http://frn.beedall.com/imagesbig/cva01-4.jpg

The drawing shows a an angle deck and two Seadart launchers aft-like contemporary US carrier designs. It also shows an artist's take on the various designs proposed for the Fighter Attacker component. Of course this version was overtaken by the version we are now familiar with. However, for anyone wanting an Alt Navy design it would still be fun.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Bombhead
Post subject: Re: CVA-01Posted: December 17th, 2011, 2:42 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2299
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 7:41 pm
Turret Head thanks for the comments.I see you had a point about the platforms so I made them larger with crew access ladders.As to the aircraft I can't see if you would actually view much if any of the underwing section as it would be obscured by the missile.Seeing as these ships would not have been laid down until at least 1968 and 70,and not commisioned until probably 1974 and 76 at the earliest.Had she been built she would have carried the F4s and Buccs in 82 anyway.However if we had 1 or 2 of these available IMO I don't think the Argentines would have invaded in the !st place.

[ img ]

[ img ]


Last edited by Bombhead on December 18th, 2011, 10:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 7 of 11  [ 102 posts ]  Return to “Never-Built Designs” | Go to page « 15 6 7 8 911 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


Contact us | The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]