Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)

Status
Not open for further replies.

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
In it's final form the Vigalante was a Photo RECON bird. Unarmed and very fast.

back in the day ships would put on air shows for the crew. One was called fast and slow. A Phantom would be seen nearing the ship at landing speed about 160 knots. Off in the distance you cold see this little speck. That was an Vigilante By the time the Phantom would reach the ship the Viggie would pass the Phantom at at least mach 1 ! It was so low you could see the air foil on the water. Awesome sight.

The Viggie.. some video from the Big E back in the 60s and other older video.

[video=youtube;oYR8QByIOKY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYR8QByIOKY[/video]
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Huntington Ingalls shipbuilding announced today that the new US nuclear powered super carrier, and first in its class, the USS Gerald R. Ford, CVN-78, had reached the 90% structurally complete milestone.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Also posted on the Ford Class Carrier thread. Three or four more lifts and they will be putting the Island on this baby, scheduled for Spring of next year. She will launch sometime late next year too.
 

Lezt

Junior Member
Look, the facts are simple.

Steam Cats, and now EM Cats can launch heavier aircraft with fuller loads into the air than a Ski Jump can, and do so reliably (for the steam cats as proven by time) and with maintenance cost that are very acheivable and stable.

Carriers exist to put the most and best aircraft into the air that can attack other targets and defend the carrier force and the attaclking aircraft if necessary.

To date, there is no better system to do that in terms of reliability and maintenance than a cat.

Ski-jumps exist for countries who either cannot afford a cat, or who have not figured out how to make one work...or who mnake a conscience decision that they do not need all that a cat offers.

In most cases, if they knew how, and if they could afford it, they would choose a cat over a jump for the reasons stated above.

Popeye has spent many many years wotrking on the decks of carriers. He understands the practical.

The practical rules in the end because all of the theories, assumptions, calculations against known issues, etc. are proven one way or the other in the real world. A good officer puts very high regard on his NCO personnel precisely because of this issue. An officer comes out of an academy understanding all of the theory...and that is good. But the theory has to be applied in an environment where personnel live and breathe...get fatigued, have issues, etc. And that is what an NCO has lived and breathed...and so he can advise an officer on what will actually work and get the job done while keeping the force alive and as intact as possible. Until the officer has those years of experience, if he is wise, he listens to good NCOs.

Same is true in Engineering. An Engineer understands a lot of theory about materials, equations, dynamics (potentially) and force application...and that too is good But a good field mechanic understands the reality of the real world.

I am an engineer, and have learned this lesson. it is one my Dad taught me (God rest his soul) long ago as I was in college.

We all know what BS stands for.

MS stands for "More of the Same", and PHD stands for "Piled Higher and Deeper."

A good engineer will understand the implications of this little saying and listen to the field folks and avoid a lot of rework, money and potential accidents until he/she gets the field experience themselves and undertsands that what is good in theory certainly does not always work in the reral world.

Theory and calculations always try to account for every variable imagineable...but, invariably, there are some that they do not "imagine," and have to go back to the drawing board to factor them in. People who have "been there and done that," for years on end, know a lot about the "unimaginable."

Anyhow, both systems work for what they are designed for pretty much. Nations and militaries have to choose what their goals are, what they can afford, and what they are trying to accomplish and then choose between the two.

They are not neccessarily mutually exclusive, but to date, if one can have cats, they generally pick to have as many as possible and to use as much as possible of the deck to be able to line up aircraft to launch from them. In that scenario, the redundancy of a ski-jump and its limitations compared to a cat and its reliability and mantainability have shown to date to mean that people who can do so, use cats exclusively.

Jeff, I do agree with you, when you have Cats why need ski? Cats allows you to launch bigger and heavier aircraft than a ski or ski-cat combo, thats a fact.

I would disagree thou that it is really affordable. The thing engineering had taught me is that economics speaks the final word. What generates the steam if you cannot afford nuclear power? how many man hours do cleaning the desalination filters take? Not everyone is the USN who can afford all of this. Definitely, there is not that many nations who can afford a million usd a day to operate one of these US super carriers - which works really well.

In an actual war, coastal battleships and monitors are not that useful, yet nations chose to build them. So why would nations not want to build something in between a Nimitz and a Illustrious which can provide fleet air defense and strike capabilities unlike the russian ski designs which can really provide only fleet air defense. Sure it does not perform as well as the US CVN designs, but you can operate it at a fraction of the cost.

It is also a philisophy of war as well, WW2 have shown that carriers will sustain battle damage; even the USN nowaday's philosophy is to keep that possibility at ZERO. Can CVN-65 still maintain aircraft launch capability if she suffered what CV-6 had from Leyte Gulf or Hornet especially on deck? Had her cats or steam plant be gone with a ski, she could be patched up and lightly armed aircraft be launched. without a ski, its back to the drydock.
 

delft

Brigadier
It has never been my intention to insult any member of this forum. Never ever...although I do remember the crybaby incident. Please except my sincere apologies for any item that I may have posted that insults any member of this forum

Ok.. this is for you gentlemen with a desire or knowledge in mathematics and engineering. This PDF is from this year..2012!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The above PDF is only 13 pages but it goes through all sorts of equations about Ski Ramps and the mathematical formulas. A must read for you members interested in aeronautical engineering and mathematical equations.

It is not biased at all towards the USN. it was written by two Spaniards, José-Luis Hernando and Rodrigo Martínez-Val
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid.

My daughter went there in the summer of 2011..the U of Madrid that is.

Enjoy..
The paper shows shows some simple flight mechanics formulae but this doesn't show how the two ways of launching aircraft allows or doesn't allow you to save money on building flattops for using equivalent aircraft.
The old defense of using cats and traps is that it is cheaper to build STOL performance into the ship than into the aircraft as in the STOVL aircraft for the QE class.
So how can the operation of an aircraft carrier be improved? I remember reading the remembrance of a F-16 fighter pilot who was ordered to fly to intercept the aircraft that fell on 9/11 in Pennsylvania that she prepared to use her check list ( 20 minutes? ) when she was ordered by her lead pilot not to waste time on that. It seems to me that at least most of the check list of J-20 is run by the board computer. With proper and robust sensors, also concerning ordnance carried, visual inspection on the flight deck can be reduced. With sensors around the aircraft and suitable beacons around the flight deck the navigation of the aircraft over the flight deck can be automated and be sufficiently precise to use automatic coupling to the cat shuttle. Launching aircraft can so be largely automated and speeded up, with a reduction in flight deck crew.
By choosing a tricat ship with cats in the ski ramp you might get a smaller ship with a wider deck than the Ford class and a wider hangar deck, with a single Thorium reactor for power and gas turbines for auxiliary power when the Thorium reactor fails, costing half the price of a Ford and with, perhaps a little more than, half the capabilities. All to be developed around 2030?

Btw is Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, i.e. Technical University of Madrid, the same as the U of Madrid?
 
Last edited:

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
thanks for your response delft.

Btw is Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, i.e. Technical University of Madrid, the same as the U of Madrid?

I'm not sure. I'll ask my daughter next time I speak to her.

Some of what you posted about will be incorporated in the USN CVN-78.

As for the tri-hull..I'm not sure about that. Even with reduced manning you still need a hull that can accommodate the crew, stores, ammo and aircraft fuel.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
I would disagree thou that it is really affordable.
Nothing to disagree with here. I know it is expensive. Most nations simply cannot afford it.

Ultimately, right now, the US, France, the UK, Russia, China, and perhaps India are the only nations which have a chance to do so...and most of them have to make very serious economic decisions to move forward. As it is, the US is committed for the long haul, and France has its nuclear carrier. Having said that, steam does not have to be produced by nuclear reactors. The US Navy, the UK, Australia, and others used systems for many years to get the steam and could do so today if desired. For example, the QE class, when they were planning on Cats (which has changed now) was not going to be nuclear powered.

.So why would nations not want to build something in between a Nimitz and a Illustrious which can provide fleet air defense and strike capabilities unlike the russian ski designs which can really provide only fleet air defense. Sure it does not perform as well as the US CVN designs, but you can operate it at a fraction of the cost.
The answer is that they not only will, but they are doing so. See my very popular site:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to see all of the World's current, operational or building carriers. There you get an excellent cross section of what numerous nations are doing and what choices they are making in terms of the types of technology they would like to employ. It is very possible that either China, Russia, of even India will employ a Ski-Jump carrier at the bow with one or two cats at the waist as a bridge to an all cat carrier in the future. But, to date, no one has done that yet.


.It is also a philisophy of war as well, WW2 have shown that carriers will sustain battle damage; even the USN nowaday's philosophy is to keep that possibility at ZERO. Can CVN-65 still maintain aircraft launch capability if she suffered what CV-6 had from Leyte Gulf or Hornet especially on deck? Had her cats or steam plant be gone with a ski, she could be patched up and lightly armed aircraft be launched. without a ski, its back to the drydock.
Actually, the US philosohpy is certainly not to expect ZERO damage. Of course they would like to have no damage and will do what they can to avoid it, but the US regularly and very seriously trains for battle damage and how to handle it.

As to whether US Super Carriers can take that type of damage and keep operating, you need only look at the three cases of very serious fires on US super carriers in the modern era (on the USS Oriskany, the USS Forrestal and the USS Enterprise) to understand that they can.

These had multiple detonations of 500 lb and 1000 lbs ordinance on deck and through the flight deck, berthing spaces, and into the hangar spaces. The crews fought valiantly and saved the ships. The US Navy learned a lot from these experiences and know that they can take that sort of damage and keep operating. In fact, they have been designed to do so, and the personnel are trained in spades for it. Just ask popeye about that training on board ship.

Here's one exmaple:

The USS Forrestal incident[/quote said:
In the USS Foreestal indicent, 134 crewmen were killed and 161 seriously injured. There were nine large explosion from 1000 lb and 500 lb bombs which blew through the flight deck and showered burning fuel into berthing spaces and into the hangar bay.

It started at 1050 (local time) while preparations for a second strike against North Vietnam were being made. An unguided 5.0 in Mk-32 "Zuni" rocket on an F-4B Phantom II, was accidentally fired due to an electrical power surge during the switch from external power to internal power.

The rocket flew across the flight deck, striking a wing-mounted external fuel tank on an A-4E Skyhawk awaiting launch. The Zuni Rocket's warhead safety mechanism prevented it from detonating, but the impact tore the tank off the wing and ignited the resulting spray of escaping JP-5 fuel, causing an instantaneous conflagration. Within seconds, other external fuel tanks on aircraft overheated and ruptured, releasing more jet fuel to feed the flames, which began spreading along the flight deck.

The impact of the Zuni had also dislodged two of the 1,000 lb bombs which lay in the pool of burning fuel. The fire team's chief, Gerald Farrier immediately smothered the bombs with a PKP fire extinguisher in an effort to knock down the fuel fire long enough to allow the pilots to escape. The pilots, still strapped into their aircraft, were immediately aware that a disaster was unfolding, but only some were able to escape in time.

According to their training, the fire team normally had almost three minutes to reduce the temperature of the bombs to a safe level, but the chief did not realize taht the bombs were already critically close to cooking-off until one of them split open. On seeing this, the chief, knowing a lethal explosion was imminent, shouted for the fire team to withdraw but the bomb exploded seconds later – a mere one and a half minutes after the start of the fire.

The detonation destroyed several aircraft with their remaining fuel and armament, blew a crater in the armored flight deck, and sprayed the deck and crew with bomb fragments and burning fuel. The on-deck firefighting contingent took the brunt of the initial blast; all were killed instantly with the exception of three men who were critically injured but ultimately survived.

Sailors and Marines controlled the flight deck fires by 1215, and continued to clear smoke and to cool hot steel on the 2nd and 3rd levels until they were under control by 1342. But the overall fire was not declared completely defeated until 0400 the next morning, (18 hours) due to additional flare-ups

Ultimately 21 aircraft were destroyed, with the loss of life and injuries mentioned above.

Here's how it looked during the fir and explosions:

USS_Forrestal_fire_1_1967.jpg

Here's how the carrier looked right after the incident:

forrestal4.jpg

And here's the Forrestal a month later, sailing back towards the US:

USS_Forrestal_about_one_month_after_1967_fire.jpg

Very reminiscent of things like the USS Enterprise, CV-6 went through in World War II.

So, yes, modern US carriers can take battle damage,very significant damage, and keep on fighting.

How much damage?

Well, one measure would be to look at the assessements done on the SINKEX (Sink Exercise) conducted against the USS America after her decommissioning. To trest her abilities to take damge, she took everything that could be thrown at her for 2-3 days in terms of direct fire from guns, anti-surface missiles, torpedoes, etc. Ultimately, an EOD crew went onboard the ship and set large scutting charges to put her down.
 
Last edited:

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
How much damage? well, look at the assessements done on the SINKEX (Sink Exercise) conducted against the USS America after her decommissioning. She took everything that could be thrown at her for 2-3 days in terms of direct fire from guns, anti-surface missiles, torpedoes, etc. Ultimately, a IOD crew went onboard the ship and set large scuttling charges to put her down.

Yep they had to scuttle Miss"A".. seems nothing would sink here. I have to wonder..was an MK50 ADCAP torpedo used during the sinkex?? That was in May 2005. That info must be top secret because no photos or videos have ever been released. Why? the lessons learned from that SINKEX will be studied and some if not all incorporated into present and future CVN designs.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Yep they had to scuttle Miss"A".. seems nothing would sink here. I have to wonder..was an MK50 ADCAP torpedo used during the sinkex?? That was in May 2005. That info must be top secret because no photos or videos have ever been released. Why? the lessons learned from that SINKEX will be studied and some if not all incorporated into present and future CVN designs.
I have to wonder if they tried at least one Mk-48 ADCAP heavy weight. Those are monster weapons designed to break the back of vessels.

Yes, all of the details are classified way up the chain...and understandably so. And yes, you can bet the CV-78 Ford Class are benefitting in their construction from the lessons learned...lessons, that to my knowledge in this modern age, no other nation has access to.

Perhaps we shared with the Brits on the construction of their QE Class. Who knows?

Miss "A" served her country well, right to that fateful end...teaching us things all the way.

Probably also helped in the construction of the new America Class as well in terms of strengthening and helping mitigate the kind of damage Miss "A" took.
 

hkbc

Junior Member
Yep they had to scuttle Miss"A".. seems nothing would sink here. I have to wonder..was an MK50 ADCAP torpedo used during the sinkex?? That was in May 2005. That info must be top secret because no photos or videos have ever been released. Why? the lessons learned from that SINKEX will be studied and some if not all incorporated into present and future CVN designs.

Wonder if they tried to send a torpedo directly into the stern? Didn't the soviets deploy wake homing torpedoes in their subs as a way to disable large surface ships (i.e. carriers)?

On the whole big, broad beamed, well sub divided ships are pretty hard to send to the bottom witness the Bismarck where the Royal navy used it for target practice, after disabling it, with shells a lot bigger and heavier than anything used today (400 claimed hits by 16in, 14in and 8in shells) for over an hour before it finally capsized after torpedoes were sent into both sides.
 

delft

Brigadier
Re cats in ski ramp:
Just a back of the envelope calculation - If the velocity of a ski ramp launched aircraft is to be two-third of a flat deck cat launched aircraft and weight and acceleration are the same then the length of the cat in the ski ramp will be about half the length of the cat in the flat deck, about fifty meters, which is about the length of the ramp in Liaoning.
The aircraft can be launched without using A/B and if one engine fails during launch the cat can increase its power to compensate and send the aircraft into the air with sufficient speed to fly away, maybe even without the surviving engine using A/B. To be calculated and tested.
So that means saving 50 meters in the length of the ship ( that shouldn't mean the ship will have to operate above its Froude speed; what is the Froude speed for a ship with a length of 280 meters? ).

The propulsive efficiency of a single screw vessel is much more than that of a twin screw and a quadruple screw vessel is somewhat worse still. My hope is that with one screw beneath the main hull and a screw beneath each side hull of a tricat the loss of efficiency compared with a single screw vessel will be minimized.
I remember reading in the proceedings of the 9th (?) USN Naval Architecture Conference (?) somewhere late '60's a description of the design of a container vessel with twin engines driving co-axial screws ( the forward one with four blades, the aft one with five blades and a smaller diameter, to prevent damage due to cavitation ). If such co-axial screws were driven each by a pair of super-conducting E-motors, the whole powered by several gas turbines or - in the case of a flattop or a cruiser - by a Thorium reactor, the result will be compact and efficient.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top