Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Could Gas Turbines Been Used In A Super Carrier?  
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3672 posts, RR: 2
Posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5490 times:

With all the bad feelings Japan has about having the GW being base in there port due to it's Nuclear propulsion, I wonder, could a carrier between a Kitty Hawk and Nimitz class carrier sizes or even bigger than a Nimitz class carrier, been design with 8 or more LM 2500 or LM 5000. Eight LM 5000 would be more than enough to keep a 110000 ton ship speed up with a Nimitz class ship. A gas turbine powered super carrier could have easily replaced the Kitty Hawk. I know Nuclear is a better option due to fuel saving, but could there have been a TG powered carrier to replace the Kitty Hawk?

31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2368 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5447 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Sure you could. And four or five LM6000s would also be a heck of a lot smaller (and less trouble to live with) than a pair of A4Ws. It'd be a darn sight cheaper to build too.

But you give up a huge amount of range and time on station, since you're now having to lug fuel for the carrier as well as the (very fuel hungry) aircraft. Or accept that you've always got an oiler tagging along.

This was basically what happened with the Kennedy, which is basically a conventionally powered Kitty Hawk. Although the Kennedy used steam turbines instead of gas turbines (that ends up being rather bulkier than gas turbines, but somewhat more fuel efficient).

Given the amount of electricity generated in Japan by nuclear means (about a third now, planned to increase to over 40% by 2015), the opposition to nuclear propulsion is a bit puzzling. Although there's a fair bit of opposition to nuclear electricity generation as well.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 984 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5413 times:



Quoting Rwessel (Reply 1):
Given the amount of electricity generated in Japan by nuclear means (about a third now, planned to increase to over 40% by 2015), the opposition to nuclear propulsion is a bit puzzling

Indeed. The U.S. Navy probably has the best safety record of anyone in the world when it comes to nuclear power, civilian utilities included. The Navy has operated over 150 nuclear-powered vessels since 1954 with zero nuclear incidents.


User currently offlineBladeLWS From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5379 times:

For a ship that size to be fueled by conventional means is no efficient for military use. You need to put all that fuel somewhere and they adds weight and takes of space for other stuff.

A super carrier needs to be able to have the range, on station time, and sustainable speed in a battle environment. Having to tag an an oiler behind makes that oiler a sitting duck for anyone wanting to stand a carrier in a hostile operations area.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8328 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5366 times:

I served on the USS Long Beach during her first two deployments to WestPac during the Vietnam War. When we left long Beach (out home port) we basically set our course and turned up the speed. It taught me a pretty powerful lesson - a nuclear powered ship can be deployed and can move great distances rather fast, without the burden of refueling.

The only tactical disadvantage is the need for long term planning. On our second deployment is was calculated that if we keep our speed down a bit and limit travel a bit it was possible to get another deployment out of her before re-coring the reactors. That didn't keep us from an R&R trip to Perth (where I met my wife), but it did show the need for long term planning.


User currently offlineRwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2368 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5359 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Rwessel (Reply 1):
This was basically what happened with the Kennedy, which is basically a conventionally powered Kitty Hawk. Although the Kennedy used steam turbines instead of gas turbines (that ends up being rather bulkier than gas turbines, but somewhat more fuel efficient).

OK, I'd like to totally rewrite that... Other than a total brainfade, I have no explanation.

The Kennedy is basically an upgraded Kitty Hawk (some people consider it the same class, some not), but it was laid down as a nuke (the rest of the Kitty Hawks are conventionally powered), using four A3Ws. The cost of the Enterprise (and Long Beach) caused the Kennedy to be finished with a conventional steam power plant instead.


User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4017 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5261 times:

The new Royal Navy carriers will be powered by Rolls-Royce Marine Trent MT30 36 MW gas turbines - two of them, I think.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 2):
The Navy has operated over 150 nuclear-powered vessels since 1954 with zero nuclear incidents.

Oooh, don't say that!

1972 - 500 gallons of radioactive coolant was accidentally released into the Thames river, near New London, Connecticut, while being transfered from USS Dace to the submarine tender USS Fulton.

1975 - Sturgeon-class submarine USS Guardfish was contaminated with radioactive coolant residue after dumping it overside and having the wind blow it back. This had happened several times before and the dumping of coolant at sea was discontinued.

1975 - Submarine tender USS Proteus discharges radioactive coolant into Apra Harbour, Guam.

1978 - USS Puffer accidentally released 500 gallons of radioactive water into Peuget Sound.

Now, they aren't huge accidents, but they are accidents.


User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3546 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5257 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Moo (Reply 6):
Now, they aren't huge accidents, but they are accidents.

...and more recently this.....

http://www.guampdn.com/apps/pbcs.dll.../20080802/NEWS01/80802023/1002/rss



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4017 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5254 times:



Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 7):

...and more recently this.....

Ouch, didn't know about that one! Cheers.


User currently offlineCURLYHEADBOY From Italy, joined Feb 2005, 940 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5250 times:



Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 7):
and more recently this.....

http://www.guampdn.com/apps/pbcs.dll...2/rss

" July 17: Radioactive water spills on a sailor working on the submarine after a water leak buildup breaks a valve."

Damn, that's having a bad day! I hope he is ok.....



If God had wanted men to fly he would have given them more money...
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7563 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 5091 times:

Think Queen Mary 2, it's 50% heavier than a Nimitz, tops out at 30 knots if you dropped it's proplusion system into a lighter hull it should easily be able to propel it to CVN like speeds. I was told the CVF designers in the UK looked at using the same system as Queen Mary but for some reason decided against it.

User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3672 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4990 times:



Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 10):
Think Queen Mary 2, it's 50% heavier than a Nimitz, tops out at 30 knots if you dropped it's proplusion system into a lighter hull it should easily be able to propel it to CVN like speeds. I was told the CVF designers in the UK looked at using the same system as Queen Mary but for some reason decided against it.

They should gone with it. The CVF much lighter than the QM2, so if the QM2 can reach 30 knots, imagine how fast a ship that is more than two times lighter, could cruise on the QM2 engines.


User currently offlineAlien From Romania, joined Oct 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4972 times:



Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 10):
Think Queen Mary 2, it's 50% heavier than a Nimitz,

No it is not. QM2 Displacement apx. 76,000 tons, Nimitz clas apx 95,000 tons.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 10):
I was told the CVF designers in the UK looked at using the same system as Queen Mary but for some reason decided against it.

It was dropped for two very good reasons. Much reduced resilience to battle damage and relatively unproven design.

Quoting Rwessel (Reply 5):
but it was laid down as a nuke

No, Congress debated whether it should be a nuke prior to construction. They decided to burn dead dinosaurs rather than split atoms before the JFK was laid down.You don't just plunk boilers into a hull on a whim.

Quoting Moo (Reply 6):
Oooh, don't say that!

Say it. There has never been an incident of any consequence.

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
I wonder, could a carrier between a Kitty Hawk and Nimitz class carrier sizes or even bigger than a Nimitz class carrier, been design with 8 or more LM 2500 or LM 5000. Eight LM 5000 would be more than enough to keep a 110000 ton ship speed up with a Nimitz class ship.

With enough money and enough compromise anything is possible. This is one that you don't to do. If the Japanese don't like it you can always base the fleet, the Marines and the money they pump into the local economy at Guam.

It's not just range. Where do you get the steam to run the catapults? How do you trunk the uptakes, exhausts, insulation and attendant exhaust chillers through the hanger deck and vent it without interfering with flight operations?


User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5714 posts, RR: 44
Reply 13, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4924 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Alien (Reply 12):
No it is not. QM2 Displacement apx. 76,000 tons, Nimitz clas apx 95,000 tons.

Difference is not so great, QM2 is 76,000 Tonnes and Nimitz class approx 95,000 short tons or aprox 88,000 Tonnes
But other points are valid.
Despite what some think QM2 is not turbine powered but is of a CODAG-Electric design. Combined Diesel and Gas turbines driving electric systems.
The turbines are only used to provide the extra power for high speeds and do not run all the time.
Further to Alien's point of where do you put all the uptakes, exhausts etc for the turbines, this is an issue in liners as well. QM2 solves this in a way not especially convenient to carrier opps, the turbine engines are housed on the top deck at the foot of the funnel.

The proposed RN CVF also use a CODAG-Electric system but they will not have the steam plant requirements that current USN CV ops require.

Cheers



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4017 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4834 times:



Quoting Alien (Reply 12):
Say it. There has never been an incident of any consequence.

I certainly disagree with this, every single one of the incidents I highlighted were 'of consequence' because there were high levels of radioactivity released during each and every one of them.

Now, in the context of this thread, each and every one of those incidents strengthens Japans position, especially considering the latest incident may have resulted in radioactivity being released in their own port.

I'd love to hear what you think would constitute an 'incident of consequence' if releasing high levels of radioactivity isn't...

Quoting Alien (Reply 12):
It's not just range. Where do you get the steam to run the catapults?

You boil it. Its not rocket science.

Or you stop using steam - the Royal Navy CVF program has a contigency to be converted to electromagnetic catapults if so required.

Quoting Alien (Reply 12):
How do you trunk the uptakes, exhausts, insulation and attendant exhaust chillers through the hanger deck and vent it without interfering with flight operations?

You direct them up through the islands - as the CVF design does indeed do.

Neither of your issues are exactly show stoppers.


User currently onlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3989 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4827 times:

The new Royal Caribbean cruiseship Oasis of the seas has the weight of a Nimitz class aircraft carrier and then some... from what i can understand:


Class and type: Oasis Class cruise ship
Tonnage: 220,000 GRT
Displacement: app. 100,000 tons
Length: 1,181 ft (360 m)
Beam: 154 ft (47 m)
Height: 213 ft (65 m) above water line
Draft: 30 ft (9 m)
Decks: 16 Passenger Decks
Installed power: 8 Wärtsilä V12 Engine @ 17,500 hp each
Propulsion: 3 × 20 MW Asea Brown Boveri Azipod, all azimuthing
Speed: 20.2 kn (37.4 km/h/23.2 mph)
Capacity: 5,400 passengers double occupancy (about 7,300 including third and fourth passengers)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oasis_of_the_Seas


User currently offlineJohns624 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 927 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4816 times:



Quoting Alien (Reply 12):
If the Japanese don't like it you can always base the fleet, the Marines and the money they pump into the local economy at Guam.

End of discussion-there's the answer. With Japan building up her armed forces, we should let them take over more of our Asian responsibility. Everyone has been dumping on the Germans for not coming to the fore, but the Japanese have been skating for much longer...


User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3672 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4777 times:



Quoting Alien (Reply 12):
No it is not. QM2 Displacement apx. 76,000 tons, Nimitz clas apx 95,000 tons.

Yes my ship is bigger in net tons, but in gross tons the QM2 whip us buy 44000 ton.


User currently offlineCURLYHEADBOY From Italy, joined Feb 2005, 940 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4735 times:



Quoting Moo (Reply 14):
Neither of your issues are exactly show stoppers.

I believe the real show-stopper is strategy.
As correctly pointed out by a poster above, nuclear power means you don't have to refuel.
As a consequence, an immensely valuable strategic asset which a carrier is, can have unlimited range, can sail at high speeds without considering fuel consumption and (possibly the most important thing) doesn't have to rely upon a tanker ship or friendly harbor, so that the enemy can't wipe you out of the operations theatre just by cutting your fuel supplies.
Nuclear has its own disadvantages, and probably is not the most cost-efficient solution, but a supercarrier is a class of its own, and for what it's worth it, nuclear is the best solution.

My 2 cents  Smile



If God had wanted men to fly he would have given them more money...
User currently offlineAlien From Romania, joined Oct 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4666 times:



Quoting StealthZ (Reply 13):
Difference is not so great, QM2 is 76,000 Tonnes and Nimitz class approx 95,000 short tons or aprox 88,000 Tonnes

Tons and Tonnes, I always get mixed up, but you get my point.

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 13):
The turbines are only used to provide the extra power for high speeds and do not run all the time.

Consequently fuel economy goes in the toilet and if you don't use exhaust chillers, the heat signature can be spotted from the moon.

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 17):
Yes my ship is bigger in net tons, but in gross tons the QM2 whip us buy 44000 ton.

Agree, but the number for this thread that matters is displacement, not weight. Simply put, how much water do you have to push out of the way to move the ship at a given speed.

Quoting CURLYHEADBOY (Reply 18):
and probably is not the most cost-efficient solution,

Above a certain tonnage for high speed cruising, there is no equal to nuclear propulsion. It provides power to spare to drive the ship at 33 knots, power the ships systems and provide plenty of steam for four catapults. It just cannot be done very efficiently with either diesels or gas turbines.


User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4017 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4611 times:



Quoting CURLYHEADBOY (Reply 18):
As correctly pointed out by a poster above, nuclear power means you don't have to refuel.
As a consequence, an immensely valuable strategic asset which a carrier is, can have unlimited range, can sail at high speeds without considering fuel consumption and (possibly the most important thing) doesn't have to rely upon a tanker ship or friendly harbor, so that the enemy can't wipe you out of the operations theatre just by cutting your fuel supplies.

Unfortunately, propulsion is not the only thing an aircraft carrier (or other ship or boat such as a submarine) has to rely on to remain functional - there is also aircraft fuel, food, ordnance and other expendables that have to be replenished to keep the aircraft carrier in operation.

So the opportunity to remove your supply lines still exists, and is still as prudent as before.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7563 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4571 times:



Quoting CURLYHEADBOY (Reply 18):
As correctly pointed out by a poster above, nuclear power means you don't have to refuel.
As a consequence, an immensely valuable strategic asset which a carrier is, can have unlimited range, can sail at high speeds without considering fuel consumption and (possibly the most important thing) doesn't have to rely upon a tanker ship or friendly harbor, so that the enemy can't wipe you out of the operations theatre just by cutting your fuel supplies.

It's always going to have to rely on a tanker for it's escorts and avgas. Now that the US no longer have nuclear powered escorts the carrier battle group will always need a tanker, which kinda eliminates the advantage of being nuclear powered...

Quoting Alien (Reply 12):
It was dropped for two very good reasons. Much reduced resilience to battle damage and relatively unproven design.

Please explain, I would have thought QM2 powerplant would have been better than having a 100 plus metre long shaft, also by the time Queen Elizabeth is launched QM2 will have been sailing for about 10 years, any problems with the power plant would have been sorted by then.


User currently offlineCURLYHEADBOY From Italy, joined Feb 2005, 940 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4568 times:



Quoting Moo (Reply 20):
Unfortunately, propulsion is not the only thing an aircraft carrier (or other ship or boat such as a submarine) has to rely on to remain functional - there is also aircraft fuel, food, ordnance and other expendables that have to be replenished to keep the aircraft carrier in operation.

So the opportunity to remove your supply lines still exists, and is still as prudent as before.

You are correct Moo, but I wasn't trying to say that nuclear propulsion makes a carrier invincible.
If I may add something to what you correctly pointed out, it also has to rely upon its battle group. Can you imagine - for example - a Nimitz-class carrier going to Battle with no AEGIS cruisers providing AA shielding? And those ships need fuel, so that fuel shortage is and will remain a problem even for a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.
This said, the advantages of not having to refuel the carrier itself remain: you remove a soft spot from the whole concept, the most valuable asset can remain on station for a very extended period of time, and that's a strategic advantage you don't want to miss when you spend 4,5 billion $ for a ship.
So, even though the USN could technically power its carriers with gas turbines, they went and will go for nuclear. If the Gerald R. Ford-class will be eventually built, they will be powered by a couple of Bechtel A1B reactors.



If God had wanted men to fly he would have given them more money...
User currently offlineCURLYHEADBOY From Italy, joined Feb 2005, 940 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4564 times:



Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 21):
It's always going to have to rely on a tanker for it's escorts and avgas. Now that the US no longer have nuclear powered escorts the carrier battle group will always need a tanker, which kinda eliminates the advantage of being nuclear powered...


see my above post, sorry but I posted shortly after you and couldn't read your post.



If God had wanted men to fly he would have given them more money...
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10110 posts, RR: 97
Reply 24, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4527 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Rwessel (Reply 1):
But you give up a huge amount of range and time on station, since you're now having to lug fuel for the carrier as well as the (very fuel hungry) aircraft. Or accept that you've always got an oiler tagging along.

You'll always have that, IMO.
Propulsion fuel is just one of a whole range of constraints that demand that the US nuclear carriers also have a whole plethora of support ships following them that have to be escorted too, and none of which steams at 30kts+....

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 2):
The U.S. Navy probably has the best safety record of anyone in the world when it comes to nuclear power, civilian utilities included.

The RN might dispute that....  Wink

Quoting BladeLWS (Reply 3):
You need to put all that fuel somewhere and they adds weight and takes of space for other stuff.

Wrong and wrong.
Bunker fuel will be stored in double bottom tanks which are required by regulation, and are bugger all use for anything else other than ballast, (which the fuel will also provide)  Smile.

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 11):
The CVF much lighter than the QM2

No it isn't. They are very similar. Don't confuse space with weight.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 10):
I was told the CVF designers in the UK looked at using the same system as Queen Mary but for some reason decided against it.

They did. It was rejected for commercio-political reasons mainly (not helped by the fact that the systems engieers were too risk-averse)

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 21):
I would have thought QM2 powerplant would have been better than having a 100 plus metre long shaft,

 checkmark  Much.
Easier to build.
Easier to maintain.
Much greater layout flexibility
Dramatically better manouevrability.
Maybe next time, eh?  Smile

Quoting Alien (Reply 12):
It was dropped for two very good reasons. Much reduced resilience to battle damage and relatively unproven design.

Those were the reasons published. Neither is a valid reason. Both are misiformation.

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 13):
QM2 solves this in a way not especially convenient to carrier opps, the turbine engines are housed on the top deck at the foot of the funnel.

Mmmm..  scratchchin 
I wonder where the GTG's are on CVF...  biggrin 

Quoting Moo (Reply 14):
You direct them up through the islands - as the CVF design does indeed do.

Not quite.
I'd go so far as to say CVF virtually does away with uptakes, by the positioning of the prime movers....  Smile

Quoting Alien (Reply 19):
Above a certain tonnage for high speed cruising, there is no equal to nuclear propulsion. It provides power to spare to drive the ship at 33 knots, power the ships systems and provide plenty of steam for four catapults. It just cannot be done very efficiently with either diesels or gas turbines.

That's true, but within a day you'll have left behind the fleet of vessels that you still need with it in order to conduct aircraft operations, and provision 6 000 people...  Smile

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
Could Gas Turbines Been Used In A Super Carrier?

Very Easily.

Rgds


25 Alien : When you do not have to feed a 260,000 HP engineering plant that is running at close to full power much of the time your logistics issues just become
26 Astuteman : That's not actually completely correct. See my earlier reply. ??? Props and rudders are every bit as vulnerable as a pod IMO. This is an incorrect in
27 KiwiRob : how often has a nimitz actually been in a combat situation where it was in danger of being attacked? I think there is a big difference in being in ac
28 Flighty : Compared to what? You are ignoring dozens of incidents of interest, most importantly classified incidents, unless you are confident you know those to
29 Alien : And just imagine how much more often and how many more ships you would need and how often you need to stop for replenishment if you had to feed the c
30 Astuteman : Don't dispute this. But the constraint of a supply fleet is the constraint of aa supply fleet, whatever the size I personally don't fancy going to se
31 KiwiRob : What I said is relevant when you take it into context with what you said.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Could Gas Turbines Been Used In A Super Carrier?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Fuel Used In Space Launchers? posted Mon Dec 12 2005 16:43:31 by Keta
What Your Favorite Super-carrier posted Fri Mar 19 2004 02:29:51 by 747400sp
New Classified 'Skunk Works' UAV Used In Iraq posted Fri Jul 11 2003 22:43:33 by AvObserver
A-10's Being Used In Iraq? posted Tue Mar 25 2003 04:23:04 by SSTjumbo
What Planes Are Being Used In Afghanistan posted Fri Mar 1 2002 12:49:26 by Tommy the cat
Explosives Used In Modern A-to-surface Bombs? posted Sat Nov 17 2001 22:07:35 by Wardialer
Luftwaffe Will Get 2 Used A340s In 2010 posted Sat Mar 1 2008 02:25:41 by Columba
Boeing Deal Could Send India $1 Billion In Work posted Fri Dec 21 2007 07:35:42 by Stitch
Blue Angels Super Hornets In 2008 posted Mon Sep 24 2007 07:28:22 by EBJ1248650
Could 767 Replace All 135 Types In US Service? posted Mon Feb 19 2007 21:57:50 by AviationAddict

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format