Shipbucket

Should the airwing perhaps include F-4s, A-7s, and/or F/A-18s?

ghost792 wrote:Should the airwing perhaps include F-4s, A-7s, and/or F/A-18s?

Nope. Friedman gives the airwing as 10 F-14A, 12 A-6D/E, 4 E-2C, 10 SH-3A, 8 LAMPS III, 2 KA-6D, & 4 EA-6B.

I wouldn't put it bast the SH-3A being a typo for S-3A, and the early CV-TCBL had a broadly similar airwing except it only listed 7 SH-3H for ASW.

Edit: this is not to say that I wouldn't expect an all F/A-18 airwing eventually, and with 24-36 aircraft, but to start with, we have an idea of her airwing.

TimothyC wrote:

ghost792 wrote:Should the airwing perhaps include F-4s, A-7s, and/or F/A-18s?

Nope. Friedman gives the airwing as 10 F-14A, 12 A-6D/E, 4 E-2C, 10 SH-3A, 8 LAMPS III, 2 KA-6D, & 4 EA-6B.

I wouldn't put it bast the SH-3A being a typo for S-3A, and the early CV-TCBL had a broadly similar airwing except it only listed 7 SH-3H for ASW.

Edit: this is not to say that I wouldn't expect an all F/A-18 airwing eventually, and with 24-36 aircraft, but to start with, we have an idea of her airwing.

Ah, I didn't realize Friedman had given an airwing.

ghost792 wrote:Ah, I didn't realize Friedman had given an airwing.

It's in the appendixes where he lists off critical values for both ships that got built and ships that were just proposals.

acelanceloet wrote:
so, that's it. I will keep this one until I start on the top and the 'other side' views, if there is an upload session in the meantime this one goes up
you guys content now? haha

No fully really
I still thinking that your drawing lack:
- US Flag
- Few Sided "open-bay"
- Maybe few small deck-detail around the "bridge-railling" (lights...).
- Your radar Mast continue to look stange (But I'm not going to argue with you eternally on this)
After this is finished

-if you look at my other drawings, you will see I never use flags. that's just something I don't do. it is not an important detail, so it does make no sense to keep asking for it.
on the other points: I am beginning to get irritated with you. if you would give it as comments, with arguments for it and not saying the same again and again, while I say exactly why I do not do it like that....... it feels like you are commanding me around, while you have not neccesarely something useful to say. please stop that, as the more you keep asking like that, the less I will do.

Actually Timothy, the argument could be made to include F/A-18s and A-7s in the airwing drawing.

About thirty years ago, back in high school, I got my hands on about two years worth of issues of Naval Aviation News that were about to be thrown away by the HS library. One those was the July 1979 issue, with an article on the CVV. Seven years ago I scanned the article into my computer and posted it in a discussion on warships1. I've seen it floating around on the web ever since then.

Page 4 of the article compares the CVV with the Midway, a follow-on Kennedy design and a follow-on Nimitz. In the CVV column under aircraft capability, it lists the F-14, F/A-18, A-7E, A-6E, KA-6D, EA-6B, S-3A, ASW helo (LAMPS III had not yet been selected), E-2C and an undefined reconnaissance aircraft.

Since NAA was/is published by the Navy, it would count as an official publication/article. If anyone wishes to see it, I would be willing to put it back up on photobucket.

Go ahead (I'd love to have the highest quality of it that I can). I still think that the capability for all of those aircraft is there, just that they might not be embarked on a standard airwing.

or, that they might not be embarked from the beginning. note that the F/A 18 more or less replaced the intruder and the corsair, and later even the tomcat partially, so it is unlikely those would be shipped at the same time.
note that I am certain she could take A-7 corsair II's, but did not put them on the final version because, as timothy says above me, they would not be shipped in the standard airwing according to friedman.

Sorry Colombamike (I got tired about this, and ace. is to (Shall a master of finding about details and draw them almost correctly every single time or use time on funny discussion or shall he draw the ship as it is stated in his ref.s.))

When we have a never build vessel, and there is very little information about what it have and look like, we can oly draw the ship like Ace. has done. We can't make a drawing where we are drawing in details that has not been speculated in the concept it self. for if we start to draw details on a concept vessel by looking on a other vessel it will be a personal drawing of a Never-Built design.

(the problem with Never build design, is that if you design in a railing or life-raft like ace. has done. But in 2 - 3 year suddenly get hold of new realesed information from the navy about there shall not be anything there. then the entire drawing is suddenly wrong!)

But from time to time there happens that some never build vessel has been described as to have similar layout as a specific vessel. first then you can start to really add details.

this is a Never build section not real world section.

That means that we draw only what we know about the vessel and never about our speculation!

It's like if I am going to draw Fridtjof Nansen class frigates as fully armed concept, as I did once. They are all correct, but there is only one that fits in Never build, they other is Personal design.