Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Abraham Gubler" data-source="post: 62890" data-attributes="member: 1361"><blockquote data-quote="r16">can't call myself knowledgeable on carriers but USS Forrestal seems to be more impressive and USN seems satisfied with the eventual outcome .</blockquote>Ahh yeah... How impressive was the USS Forestall in 1951? In 1953? In 1955? Heah why not compare the USS United States to the USS Ronald Reagan and ask why would the US Navy be upset with the outcome? You know there is a fourth dimension and its called time...Then of course a carrier isn't just a ship its the air wing as well. As detailed in Jared A. Zichek's excellent &quot;Secret Aerospace Projects of the U.S. Navy: The Incredible Attack Aircraft of the USS United States, 1948-1949&quot; the US Navy was planning on a very impressive and large strike aircraft for the USS US. Because the carrier was canceled this aircraft was delayed and shrunk and later emerged as the A3D Skywarrior.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Abraham Gubler, post: 62890, member: 1361"] [quote="r16"] can't call myself knowledgeable on carriers but USS Forrestal seems to be more impressive and USN seems satisfied with the eventual outcome . [/quote] Ahh yeah... How impressive was the USS Forestall in 1951? In 1953? In 1955? Heah why not compare the USS United States to the USS Ronald Reagan and ask why would the US Navy be upset with the outcome? You know there is a fourth dimension and its called time... Then of course a carrier isn't just a ship its the air wing as well. As detailed in Jared A. Zichek's excellent "Secret Aerospace Projects of the U.S. Navy: The Incredible Attack Aircraft of the USS United States, 1948-1949" the US Navy was planning on a very impressive and large strike aircraft for the USS US. Because the carrier was canceled this aircraft was delayed and shrunk and later emerged as the A3D Skywarrior. [/QUOTE]

Verification