Does kinda make me wonder how fast a coaxial Lynx would be, once fitted with BERP tips... tail rotor is what, 10% of installed power?
Sometimes it's the small details that tells you which nation owns the item. For submarines, it's sails.
Hm. Wiki - and I am in no way expert on helicopters, so all I can do is a quick search around - says:
Or the position of the forward planes. And all this decides the overall form of the ship that you ultimately see.
I think Royal Anne would be the most likely if the DDR named it.
Oh, I do like Royal Charlotte!
You do realize the amount of jokes around this and Prince Charles that would go round and round for years?
You say that like it's a bad thing!You do realize the amount of jokes around this and Prince Charles that would go round and round for years?
Only that it's unlikely to pass any serious political consideration, precisely because of the risk
That's also quite large - I literally thought about Gannet revival with new electronics, but they all require arresting gear. That takes space on the deck and prevents normal operation of the Harriers.
The Brits need to learn that just because a good name can have jokes made off of it doesn't make it a bad name.Only that it's unlikely to pass any serious political consideration, precisely because of the risk
Ordinarily I'd say CL-84, but that's on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain now. But I'd still say Tilt-wing aircraft over helicopter AEW. You just can't get a helicopter high enough to get outside the range of antiship missiles.
The aforementioned SCAT concept may have some potential here (practically build it around the Pegasus - although it looks like a Dune ornithopter, totally unearthly craft), but the location of the radar dish looks a bit unsympathetic to the radar wellbeing.
And suddenly there would be US ships with those large tubes of anti-ship missile containers, Soviet-style?
Some kind of Talos modification? Or it's too small?
There's a surprising level of convergence between the supersonic anti-ship version of the UGM-89 Advanced Cruised Missile and the P-700 Granit, though that was expected to enter service in 1979.
That's... solvable. Although this particular design seems to look better with a single mast, I think. Modern style, all that.
Navy? Not Air Force?
A Royal Yacht needs three masts, in order to fly the Royal Standard, the flag of the Lord High Admiral, and the Union Flag.
You could (and both services would) argue the case. I just want to see supersonic bombers in US Navy white-over-blue colours!
No, more likely the US would keep making or converting real cruisers, so as to have Talos available for shorter-range AShM in addition to heavy SAM use. So all the old Baltimore-class cruisers and maybe earlier cruisers would get converted to Albany-class. Maybe even re-convert the Boston-class to Albany-class spec so they lose the forward 8" guns entirely, or maybe just rebuild the aft end for Talos like the Galveston-class. I would not go earlier than the 4 survivors of the Astoria/New Orleans class for cruisers to convert into Talos ships, and even they'd probably be really tight.And suddenly there would be US ships with those large tubes of anti-ship missile containers, Soviet-style?
USAF's self-professed mission is dropping nukes on the Soviets.
Since the 1980s maritime strike (including aerial minelaying) has been an official secondary mission of the USAF, and in fairness during that decade they did train fairly seriously for that, mainly with B-52, B-1, and even A-10 (primarily in the form of the ANG in that case) squadrons. However, after the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s, the USAF leadership increasingly ignored their legislated responsibilities in that regard. There have been a few signs of life recently, but more along the lines of waving a (very) rusty saber for the most part.
And before that? 60s-70s?
Especially with substantial carrier fleet.
Worse than that. Every RN platform that NATO loses needs to be replaced, then countered. So (big handfuls) there's a deficiency of 140ish escorts, 40ish submarines, and 6-10 carriers, before adding in any expansion.
It's technically been a shared mission of the USAF and USN since 1947. It never really came up because the assumption was that the USN would deal with ships at sea - using submarines and carrier aviation - well before they got close to the United States.
The keyword here is "large". Although config 4 looks like something more compact, but the general question is whether a radar + pegasus + fuel + cockpit can be packaged into roughly 1.5 Harrier size or it is all in vain.
Okay, I wasn't sure if you wanted to include that.
Yes but no. As a ramjet, Talos would not be anywhere near as fast or as long ranged if flying down low.
Okay, so the expansion numbers would be ~6x the size of the RN our timeline? 1x to replace what was lost, then countering 1:1.
Exactly. So the USN would likely own the antiship mission, even if it meant using large "patrol bombers" like Hustler or P6M Seamaster.
And that's my question. A Harrier is only ~12k-14klbs empty, ~20klbs vertical MTOW. You'd need an AEW plane that is no more than ~18klbs empty to fly on a single dry BS100, and that doesn't leave much room for fuel.
If you go with the 5x expansion for the RN, then something like that. Though not necessarily all with the USN – I'd expect that other NATO countries would also respond.
It was clear pre-WW2, when the Army Air Force handled continental defence with landplanes like the B-17 and Ventura while the Navy had seaplanes to follow the fleet. But it became apparent during WW2 that (a) maritime air works better in the Navy, and (b) long range landplanes work really well in the maritime environment.
I'd fully expect that. Remember the exercises where the USN did mirror image strikes against Petropavlovsk – and, one assumes, elsewhere. Remember the legends of ARK ROYAL and the East Coast Rampage? At some point something like that is going to freak US leadership right the frick out.
The requirements are assumed to be identical to Harrier - ski-jump takeoff, vertical or rolling landing, maybe external fuel tanks. Make sure it can operate in exactly the same conditions. Kind of Harrier-based Gannet is exactly what I think about, if it is possible. If one can fly it off Invincible, it would be marvelous.
Yes, something like that. I also supposed the same flight profile as Soviet Granit or possible adaptation of the Sea Dart - high cruise, low terminal as a stopgap before a new missile is completed.
The question of balance with France is interesting as well. Cross-channel ballistic missile batteries on both sides? Air defense? French nuclear strategy? Would the French army have actual invasion plans, considering a possibility of Soviet assault through West Germany? Would all this spur development of dedicated US/French SSGNs? To counter adversary carrier groups?
I'd still expect the USN to try to be that big alone. Belgium/Netherlands/Denmark have the problem of the North Sea being the British lake. France can at least put their major Navy units west of the Channel.
Exactly my point. I'm guessing mid-late 1960s for the East Coast Rampage to happen, and USAF starting major patrol flights by 1975.
I think it's doable with a 35klbs dry engine, just so you can lift enough fuel to have a decent endurance. Crew of 3, just like the Gannet, because ideally you'd be using the same systems between both AEW planes. Put the radome between the cold nozzles. Much straighter wing than a Harrier, not more than "Boeing sweep" (~35deg?), and much longer with a fold halfway out. I'm assuming folded dimensions more or less equal to a Harrier, so the wing is much less anhedral by measure but still comes to ~3ft of the ground at the wingtip. Massive flaps and leading edge slats for high lift devices, again much like a modern airliner wing.
That's a possibility.
I've long assumed that the "red line" for French nuclear use was when a Soviet Army Maneuver Group ended up ~30min from the French border. The exact time would be based on the process/reaction time of their nuclear forces to execute the orders, including weapon flight time. "Nuke this Maneuver Group before they set foot on French soil."
Bet they would dust off the actual German engineers involved in planning, huh. Both sides, actually. Like the German scientists.
Right, Pilot plus 2 radar operators makes 3.
Yes, if we can use a newer/better radar that'd be a huge improvement. But Gannets stuck around into the 1970s or early 1980s.
Likely.
On the flip side, making an acceptable AEW that happens to be VSTOL using an increased-dry-thrust BS100 et sim would appeal for logistical reasons.
It would definitely help in terms of getting the engine output up to levels that would allow VTOL/ski jumping with a large amount of fuel onboard.
SSGN needs only to enter it's missile launch range (which is hundreds of miles for any type of missile, TASM or Granit) and get a satellite signal with carrier group coordinates for a launch. They would probably get their patrol sectors and be prepositioned on a very early stage of any conflict situation.
Gotcha. So ~60 airframes or so if we do a combined design, else building ~24 fixed wing and ~48 helos. (You need more helos for AEW cover than you need fixed-wings)
Makes sense for the big carriers, except for how few you're building.
I think it's possible, you just need a stupid high thrust engine to come together in time. I mean, Gannet is about the right weight, we're just needing a bigger engine to make liftoff with a full load of fuel.
Ideally yes, but if the conflict kicks off suddenly like Pearl Harbor or Red Storm Rising the deployed boats need to get to their zones and so do the surge boats.
Hannover, could work, because George I to Victoria were from the House of Hannover and George I to William IV were Kings of Hannover as well as whatever the UK was called at the time. However, its territory was in the BRD rather than the DDR.Habsburgs are Austro-Hungarian, nothing even close to Germany!
All navy ship names are decided by the Queen personally, so DDR wouldn't bother with a name.
Royal Anne is for Princess Royal, which is one of the possible names for a yacht.
But I did consider "Hannover" (in a somewhat dubious gesture to Germany) or Royal Charlotte for Victoria's grandmother, who was also a German princess.
In the end it would, probably, be the Caledonia. Because the larger of two yachts would be just right to sooth the Scottish ego
More or less exactly how I thought about it. Hannover is good historically, but could seem like an overly political considering it's exact location (does DDR lay claim to it? Does the British Crown lay claim to it? Lots of questions, all unnecessary). Royal Anne as a default version of the eldest reigning Queen's daughter. Royal Victoria - creates an ambiguity between Victoria and both her mother and her daughter, hence I reverted to her grandmother, but that causes a conflict with the Prince of Wales which @Scott Kenny found very amusing and rightfully so. Caledonia in this way seems a good compromise, making the yacht related to the existing Britannia and geographically a good reference to IRL Hebridian Princess often chartered for the same role by the Queen. Hibernia could work as well, but that would be a magnet to Irish bomb attempts.
Forward deployed land-based ASW and AEW squadrons could use the same aircraft as well.
Where would you place the radar? Gannet has it below the fuselage (although there was a study for a conventional dish), but with the Pegasus-style engine it may be problematic.
Could you elaborate, please? I heard this mentioned several times, but I can't pinpoint what exactly happened and when?
