[Post Reply] [*]  Page 2 of 3  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 »
Author Message
Rowdy36
Post subject: Re: Light Attack CarrierPosted: June 10th, 2014, 10:33 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 934
Joined: August 1st, 2010, 7:51 am
Location: Perth, Australia
Looks good with the Hawks :)

Regarding the radars, it would most likely depend on when it was commissioned and what kind of budget the navy has for upgrades. I'm no expert myself but I'd imagine any carrier or large surface combatant built after 1980 or so (especially after 1982) would have Type 1022 rather than Type 965M (the bedstead looking one) and from the late 80's perhaps Type 996 rather than Type 992 (the long white one on the aft mast). This would give a similar setup to the Invincible class. Having said that though, what you have fitted is by no means outside the realm of possibility so no need to change if you don't want to :)

_________________
[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Bombhead
Post subject: Re: Light Attack CarrierPosted: June 10th, 2014, 10:25 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2299
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 7:41 pm
Superb stuff Monty, a real treat to my old mince pies. 8-)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
BCRenown
Post subject: Re: Light Attack CarrierPosted: June 10th, 2014, 11:48 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 184
Joined: May 15th, 2011, 2:33 pm
Location: Newfoundland, Canada
Thanks for all your help guys. Drawing this 'modern stuff' has been a real learning experience.

Light Attack Carrier with updated radar:

(Click image for for size)
[ img ]

_________________
Keep well and keep drawing,

Monty


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Obsydian Shade
Post subject: Re: Light Attack CarrierPosted: June 19th, 2014, 12:19 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 796
Joined: August 13th, 2010, 5:44 am
Contact: Yahoo Messenger, AOL
I've long considered the Hawk 200 series as the basis for an light carrier based platform, and alternative to the Harrier, but the hobgoblin of the series has always been range, though the Hawk 208 does have a refueling probe. (Of course, you'd need some sort of platform to actually carry the fuel.) Otherwise, you have a very short ranged attack platform, and point defense fighter.

_________________
We can't stop here--this is Bat country!

If it's close enough to cast a shadow, I think the flying house wins initiative.

Bronies are like the Forsworn. Everyone agrees that they are a problem but nobody wants to expend the energy rooting them out.

"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way."


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
shippy2013
Post subject: Re: Light Attack CarrierPosted: June 19th, 2014, 5:54 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 657
Joined: March 26th, 2013, 7:44 pm
Location: Nottingham. United Kingdom
A naval version of the hawk 200 series I see no reason why you couldn't come up with some form of conformal tanks to address the range issues. Payload might be more of a concern but it depends on what you intend doing as a hawk can carry upto 5 500lb Dumb and guided bombs/missiles, gun pods, and even aa weapons.

_________________
Ships in the yard...

River and Hunt class Mine sweepers

FD scale..
AVRO Shackleton all marks WIP
C17 Globemaster III (UK Version) (US Version no rush up for grabs) (mostly done)
C5 Galaxy somewhere between 75 and 85% (WIP)
E3 Sentry RAF, French, USAF Saudi inc KE3 and RE3 and NATO (WIP)
KC135, RC135, EC135 and other various modifications.......(WIP)
AU.. Commonwealth of New Cromer.... 1.1% see link below
http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewto ... =14&t=5079


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Thiel
Post subject: Re: Light Attack CarrierPosted: June 19th, 2014, 7:07 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5375
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
Personally I'm still leaning towards the A-4. From what I've been able to read the A-4, especially the later Super Skyhawk and Fighting Hawk, in the attack role compared to the Hawk.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Cybermax
Post subject: Re: Light Attack CarrierPosted: June 19th, 2014, 9:24 pm
Offline
Posts: 331
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:41 pm
There was a Supersonic Hawk proposal for the South Korean AF. I guess it is not out of the realm of what-ifs for a Naval version.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... 727.0.html


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Obsydian Shade
Post subject: Re: Light Attack CarrierPosted: June 20th, 2014, 9:26 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 796
Joined: August 13th, 2010, 5:44 am
Contact: Yahoo Messenger, AOL
A modernized A-4 would be superior to the Hawk in about every regard, by virtue of the A-4 being designed as a carrier based strike aircraft from the start. No matter what capabilities are added to it, the Hawk can never escape its origins as a trainer. I love the aircraft--it's cute and sexy as hell, but it's still just a trainer that's had extra capability shoehorned in.

I once considered a fighter version of the A-4 for an AU, for a country only capable of operating small aircraft off a carrier, (I think it was going to an Essex) but never got that far on developing the idea. While a fighter A-4 would be limited, it could still with the right radar give some air coverage to the fleet. In range, it's certainly superior to the Hawk.

_________________
We can't stop here--this is Bat country!

If it's close enough to cast a shadow, I think the flying house wins initiative.

Bronies are like the Forsworn. Everyone agrees that they are a problem but nobody wants to expend the energy rooting them out.

"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way."


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
shippy2013
Post subject: Re: Light Attack CarrierPosted: June 20th, 2014, 10:13 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 657
Joined: March 26th, 2013, 7:44 pm
Location: Nottingham. United Kingdom
Just an idea but what about a navalised F5 or F16. The F16 was considered for carrier ops at one piont not sure as to.the reason it wasnt pursued probably to do with the US wanting the larger more capable F14 and F18. Not to sure about the F5. Both are small, fairly agile and can carry reasonable pay loads.

_________________
Ships in the yard...

River and Hunt class Mine sweepers

FD scale..
AVRO Shackleton all marks WIP
C17 Globemaster III (UK Version) (US Version no rush up for grabs) (mostly done)
C5 Galaxy somewhere between 75 and 85% (WIP)
E3 Sentry RAF, French, USAF Saudi inc KE3 and RE3 and NATO (WIP)
KC135, RC135, EC135 and other various modifications.......(WIP)
AU.. Commonwealth of New Cromer.... 1.1% see link below
http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewto ... =14&t=5079


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Light Attack CarrierPosted: June 20th, 2014, 10:15 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7227
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
IIRC, in it's original concept, the F-5 was meant as carrier aircraft as well. (and of course, YF-17....... was not that far from an F-5 in size and shape)

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 2 of 3  [ 22 posts ]  Return to “Non-Shipbucket Drawings” | Go to page « 1 2 3 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests


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


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