Good to see they were able to watch "Rowan & Martin's Laugh In" and "All In The Family" no matter where they were.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Ship Photo of the Day
- Thread starter Randy Daytona
- Start date
USS Arlington (AGMR-2)
1965-1970
Was the USS Saipan (CVL 48) before conversion. My gramps served as the suppo off Yankee Station.
Actually....I'm pretty sure this pic is not of the USS Arlington (AGMR-2) but of the USS Wright (CC-2), a similar conversion of a Independence-class light carrier. The difference? All the pics I can find of the Arlington are missing the antenna structure between the first and second funnels behind the island and she has GMR in front of the 2 on her bow. I've even found pictures of the Wright labeled as the Arlington online even when searching. It is made even more confusing by them both having the same hull or pennant number of 2 and an apparently identical antenna layout on their flight deck. The only other difference I can see is that the Arlington has cutouts for gun mounts on the two front corners of her flight deck while the Wright does not. It is really hard to tell the difference and when you look up both ships in Google both ships are included in both ships results.
I had to look it up but AGMR is Major Communications Relay Ship (Auxiliary) and CC is Command Ship (and also battlecruiser, though that was never used). No idea what the practical difference there was between the two, if there was it was probably internal.
A pic of the USS Arlington (AGMR-2):
Good catch, I agree the picture I had was definitely the USS Wright. Having the same hull number led to the confusion.
The practical difference seems to be that Wright was NECPA and the Arlington was Apollo missions and Tonkin Gulf in service
HMS Repulse was a Renown class battlecruiser constructed during WW1. An absolutely beautiful ship, she was ordered on 30 Dec 1914, and commissioned on 18 Aug 1916 - less than 20 months. Amazing construction. She only saw 1 battle during WW1, was busy during the intervening years and then escorted the last convoy to Singapore. She was sunk along with Prince of Wales as part of the ill-fated Force Z on 10 Dec 1941. That said, she had an excellent captain and dodged the first attack of 8 torpedoes, the 2nd attack caught her in a pincer which saw 4 torpedoes hit and sink the ship.
Was listening to Drachinifel today (his most excellent naval history podcast is released every Sunday - or on Saturday if you subscribe on Patreon - and as naval officers, you should!) and he discussed the attack in regards to air power advocate Billy Mitchell. It is said that Mitchell demonstrated the obsolesce of the battleship with his attacks on captured German warships. However, Mitchell's proposals were multi-engine heavy bombers attacking from altitude which were almost wholly ineffective against maneuvering ships - it was dive bombers and especially torpedo bombers that were deadly. However, heavy bombers belonged to the Army Air Corps while torpedo and dive bombers belonged to the Navy - so he ended up advocating for the least effective form of attack. (In the sinking of the 2 capital ships, the torpedo bombers scored 8 hits, while the bombers only 2 - neither of which was significant.)
Length: 794 ft, 1.5 in, Beam: 90 ft, Displacement: 34,600 long tons.
Powerplant: 4 steam turbines had 112,000 SHP through 4 shafts and gave 31.5 knots.
Armor: 9" belt, 4" deck
Main Armament: 6 (3x2) 15" / 45 caliber Mark I's throwing a 1,938 lb shell out to 33,550 yards, multiple smaller guns.
The battlecruiser HMS Repulse leading other Royal Navy capital ships during maneuvers, circa the late 1920s. The next ship astern is HMS Renown. The extensive external side armor of Repulse and the larger "bulge" of Renown allow these ships to be readily differentiated.
Repulse, circa 1916–1917, after post-trials alterations
Repulse entering Vancouver Harbour during her world tour with Hood and other ships of the Special Service Squadron, 1924
Repulse departing from Singapore on 8 December 1941
Was listening to Drachinifel today (his most excellent naval history podcast is released every Sunday - or on Saturday if you subscribe on Patreon - and as naval officers, you should!) and he discussed the attack in regards to air power advocate Billy Mitchell. It is said that Mitchell demonstrated the obsolesce of the battleship with his attacks on captured German warships. However, Mitchell's proposals were multi-engine heavy bombers attacking from altitude which were almost wholly ineffective against maneuvering ships - it was dive bombers and especially torpedo bombers that were deadly. However, heavy bombers belonged to the Army Air Corps while torpedo and dive bombers belonged to the Navy - so he ended up advocating for the least effective form of attack. (In the sinking of the 2 capital ships, the torpedo bombers scored 8 hits, while the bombers only 2 - neither of which was significant.)
Length: 794 ft, 1.5 in, Beam: 90 ft, Displacement: 34,600 long tons.
Powerplant: 4 steam turbines had 112,000 SHP through 4 shafts and gave 31.5 knots.
Armor: 9" belt, 4" deck
Main Armament: 6 (3x2) 15" / 45 caliber Mark I's throwing a 1,938 lb shell out to 33,550 yards, multiple smaller guns.
The battlecruiser HMS Repulse leading other Royal Navy capital ships during maneuvers, circa the late 1920s. The next ship astern is HMS Renown. The extensive external side armor of Repulse and the larger "bulge" of Renown allow these ships to be readily differentiated.
Repulse, circa 1916–1917, after post-trials alterationsRepulse entering Vancouver Harbour during her world tour with Hood and other ships of the Special Service Squadron, 1924
Repulse departing from Singapore on 8 December 1941
Wanna get really pissed off on a Sunday afternoon? Look up what the Chinese scrap people are doing to the wrecks of Force Z.
AIRMMCPORET
Plan “A/B” Retired
THE LOOTING OF FORCE ‘Z’
The plundering of British warship wrecks and the maritime graves...
www.keymilitary.com
With the Prince of Wales mentioned above, thought a few photos of the new Prince of Wales and sister Queen Elizabeth would be nice.
Any thoughts if the Royal Navy can, and will, eventually put arresting gear and catapults on these ships?
Any thoughts if the Royal Navy can, and will, eventually put arresting gear and catapults on these ships?
The Royal Navy doesn't have any Carrier hardened aircraft (F-35C...something with a launch bar and tailhook), so I doubt they would add ALRE or Catapults to their existing carriers. This may change in future carrier builds...
Assuming the UK did spring for catapults and F-35C’s, which class of US carriers would you find it most comparable to?
The QE comes in at 88k tons, whereas, NIMITZ class comes in at 97k tons, and FORD class comes in at 110k tons. So a bit smaller than a NIM class..maybe a Kitty Hawk Class CV, although with 2 islands, that doesn’t leave a lot of room for aircraft.
I did notice that although quite large in tonnage, the Queen Elizabeth class only has 2 elevators compared to American carriers.
Interesting to note that the British equivalent to the Midway class, the Malta class, had 2 islands as well, although that was a structural issue due to the ship’s design.
Not sure why. That retrofit would be bloody expensive, and only work for airplanes they don’t have. Depending on how the ship is structured, it may not even be possible (I don’t know.)
A better idea might be to put together a plan to eventually acquire F-35Cs and build their own CATOBAR carrier. Still expensive, but lasts longer.
Outside the box, has anyone ever experimented with catapult assisted launch on a ski jump? Might permit launching with heavier loads, although the B doesn’t have a launch bar, so likely OBE.
Like @sevenhelmet already said, cost. They actually did plan to convert at least one of the ships at one point during their construction to have catapults and gear but then quickly backtracked when the cost came in at an estimated £1-2 billion, which would have likely been more one they tried to do it, something the UK can ill-afford when just buying the carriers in the first place was a stretch for them.
And for what the Brits use them for I am not sure how much more all that really 'buys' them either. There are a lot better places the Brits ought to put what limited funds they have.
You'd have to go back a ways, to the converted Essex-class CVS's or the Independence-class CVL's. While they are decent-sized they have some constraints like less aircraft, weapons and crew capacity that limit them The ship's crew is only ~672 with a max of about 1600 with an air wing and/or Marines are on board. While a lot of stuff is automated, an RN officer who was on the crew of one described the partially automated weapons handling system that used a fraction of the folks we did, you can only work a crew that size so much.
Not that I am aware of, though they did demonstrate the F/A-18E for the Indians on a ramp when they were considering buying them.
Thanks for the detailed response- I believe we discussed a STOBAR option awhile back and that was not realistic.
For the numbers you quoted, was that a steam or EMALS price and/or would a downsized catapult system big enough for large UAV’s be affordable?
For the numbers you quoted, was that a steam or EMALS price and/or would a downsized catapult system big enough for large UAV’s be affordable?
I’m not even sure that would work. There’s a reason US CVNs have flat catapults. Trying to shoot something on a curve is hard. It’s not impossible, but the cat track would have to be straight while the launch ramp is curved.