Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)

Jeff Head said:

All good points and equally something that could be accomplished. But to have two full wings of F-35Cs pop up from under the ocean on your doorstep...with full stores, full AEW capability, full ASW capability, AAW, etc....and other subs carrying that many troops and their equipment LCACs, tanks, etc...that would be very impressive too.

Anyhow, changing topics now for the Carrier thread, here are some pics I have been working on...and promising...about carrier hangar bays.

What do you think about this comparison. The info for all carriers is not easy to get a hold of, but I am working on the others (like the Brazilian, Thai, the new indegenous Indian, etc.).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

I'm looking at the heights in the hangar bays, 5.7 m, 6.1 m, 7.1 m, 7.6 m. What leads to the selection of these heights. I would expect radar aircraft to be the tallest, but E-2's fit into CdG, with 6.1 m. Why does USN need another 5 feet?

Why does USN need another 5 feet?

Click to expand...

That's how we roll..

Actually the basis for the Hangar design on USN CVNs is the Forrestal which was designed when it was felt that larger aircraft would be aboard CVs for nuclear missions. Also the hangar is higher for future use. And some aircraft fuel tanks are stored in the hangars overhead.

bd popeye said:

That's how we roll..

...the hangar is higher for future use. And some aircraft fuel tanks are stored in the hangars overhead.

Click to expand...

Exactly, popeye.

Here's a pic of one of the US Navy's Nimitz class hanager bays from the inside. To the left and up top you can see some of the racks holding fuel tanks above the aircraft.

tphuang said:

And considering how large Varyag's carrier is, it really should be able to carry a larger air wing than Charles De Gaulle class

Click to expand...

Part of it is the size of the aircraft. The Rafael is a lot smaller foot print than the SU-33 or J-15. 7 meters longer, 4 meter greater wingspan, etc.

yanyan25 said:

I think the height of the Varyag's hanger is more than 5.7m coz the Su-33's height is 5.9m.

Click to expand...

You are exactly right. That was a mistake on my part...doing cut and paste of Kuznetsov and ex-Varyag after Virkamaditya and did not get the change in height between them changed. Kuznetsov and the Chinese carrier are both 7.2 meters tall, or 23.6 feet.

That makes the differences not so great...and allowed me to correct a mistake. My bad, thanks yanyan!

I have updated the pic accordingly so if you refresh your screen you will see the new dims.

Thank you, Jeff and popeye. With this correction, the CV's can be divided into two groups: with a hangar with a height of less than 6.2 m and with a height of more than 7 meters. Interesting. But why? Did France chose a nuclear carrier and then didn't have the money to make her long and tall enough? Why is 5.7 m enough for the Indian navy?

I've just realized that the French Charles De Gaulle and the British QE class both have, or will have bow catapults which infringe on the landing strip -- that prevents simultaneous launch and recovery operations right?


Why would they design their ships like that, wouldn't it be wiser to move their cats on the starboard side of the bow? The US seems to have no trouble leaving a good amount of clearance between their port bow cat and the landing strip...


Also does anyone know how many steam catapults a ~60,000 ton conventional carrier can effectively support? I know the forrestal class had a full load of ~75,000 tons and had 4 cats.

Is it possible launching and recovering aircrafts the same time? I think too risky. does USN always practice?

Neither the RN or the MN have ever possessed carriers capable of simltaneous launch and recovery, and it has NEVER caused any problems. It seems to be an idea 'armchair admirals' are obsessed with. Normal deck operations are cyclical, you are either launching some planes, landing on some planes or respotting the flight deck ready for the next cycle. Even the US CVNs operate this way normally, often the forward deck (fly 1 in RN parlance) is full of parked aircraft and the two waist cats are used for launch. Both of these 'foul' the angled deck, but if an aircraft needs to be recovered in a hurry there will still be several minutes warning whilst it enters the landing circuit. Time enough for planes on the cats to be launched and the deck cleared ready for recovery. The people who run the flight deck are like chess players, always thinking several moves ahead.

Obi Wan Russell said:

Neither the RN or the MN have ever possessed carriers capable of simltaneous launch and recovery, and it has NEVER caused any problems. It seems to be an idea 'armchair admirals' are obsessed with. Normal deck operations are cyclical, you are either launching some planes, landing on some planes or respotting the flight deck ready for the next cycle. Even the US CVNs operate this way normally, often the forward deck (fly 1 in RN parlance) is full of parked aircraft and the two waist cats are used for launch. Both of these 'foul' the angled deck, but if an aircraft needs to be recovered in a hurry there will still be several minutes warning whilst it enters the landing circuit. Time enough for planes on the cats to be launched and the deck cleared ready for recovery. The people who run the flight deck are like chess players, always thinking several moves ahead.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the info.

If simultaneous recovery and launching isn't a factor there still remains the question as to why both CVF and CDG have catapults on the port side of the bow? Is there a gain in other areas (perhaps more deck space to park planes on the starboard bow?) or is it just personal preference.

Bltizo said:

Thanks for the info.

If simultaneous recovery and launching isn't a factor there still remains the question as to why both CVF and CDG have catapults on the port side of the bow? Is there a gain in other areas (perhaps more deck space to park planes on the starboard bow?) or is it just personal preference.

Click to expand...

A permanent deck park is always desirable. You can never have too much deck space on a carrier. If the forward cat was moved to starboard, there would be nowhere for deck parking without interfering with other ops. Since the inception of the angled deck era, there has been a gradual evolution in flight deck configuration moving flight ops to port and deck parking to starboard. Given the length of the cats needed for modern aircraft, either the island has to move aft (as in US CVNs) to provide wingtip clearance or the forward cat has to move to port. Deck parks are an indispensible fact of carrier operations, as most of the air group 'live' on deck. Only those aircraft required to undergo maintenance are moved down to the hangar, and only when disarmed and de fuelled. Aircraft are fuelled and armed on deck before flight ops, so aircraft elevator capacity should only be calculated on the empty weight of the aircraft, not max takeoff weight. An F-35B can fit onto the lift of an Invincible for example, and at about 13 tonnes empty is easily within the 18.5 tonne limits of the lifts.

Normal deck operations are cyclical, you are either launching some planes, landing on some planes or respotting the flight deck ready for the next cycle. Even the US CVNs operate this way normally, often the forward deck (fly 1 in RN parlance) is full of parked aircraft and the two waist cats are used for launch.

Click to expand...

Obi Wan.. the USN also uses the terms Fly 1,2 & 3..

In my time aboard ship the only time launches and recovery are taking place at the same time is during carrier qualifications. This is a time when each pilot is required to make a certain number of arrested landings. During this period on the Starboard (right) bow cat is used for launches as this keeps aircraft clear of the angle deck clear.