Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)

Nice pic indeed Jeff. Is it a French Navy pic ?

Nice but i think she is not real, maximum that I have seen or known is 15/20 fighter.

For high intensity conflict definitely possible, not for Libya because it was not necessary, an army weakened and embargoed.

CVW " Groupe aérien Embarqué " today have :

Landivisiau Base
11F ( Flotilla ) and 12 F : 21 Rafale, one additional delivered end 2013.
17F : 14 Super-Etendard transformed on Rafale start in 2016.

Theoretical staffing : 14 by Flotilla.
In more 2 to St-Dizier AF Squ 2/92 Rafale OCU and one to Istres for test.

LANN BIHOUE Base :
4F : 3 E-2C

HYERES :
35 F helo Dauphin " Pedro " SAR in general CV detachment of 2.

And French Air force or Army lend 1/2 EC 725 or AS 332 but now Navy have some NH-90 can be use, helos for VERTREP.

Rafale Navy :
Order for 48 : 38 built, 4 lost, 10 F1 stored upgraded standard F3 between 2014/17.
About 2 " new " by year.

Before White book 2013, planned 58 but now for 2019 the number is 40, 3 Flotilla slightly less important.

I went ahead and added the Vlaidvostok to my site under the large, flat-deck Amphibious Ships section.


These are going to be strong ships for the Russian Navy.

One precision built to civilian standards ( French sure ) is less expensive but this ships are less resistant to damage.

AA US would be most resistant especially the San Antonio would have a special system for fire.

If anyone know more it is interresting...

Well, fellows, here's how the Queen Elizabeth is looking right now:


She's pretty far along. needs the sensors and ski ramp.

So, with a little art/ps work on how she looks now, I have been able to depict how she is going to look in a few months as she gets really close to launch:

Some view of Charles De Gaule last maintenance, in Toulon. Here 43° 6'59.59"N 5°55'29.17"E

Jeff Head said:

But the nuclear carrier is FAST. If she has time to get up to max speed, which may be as high as 50 knots or more, she may outrin the torpedo. Aslo the US is developing counter torpedo torpedos to attack oncoming torpedos too.

Click to expand...

Hydrodynamically, it would be nearly impossible for a displacement hull the size of a Ford class carrier go anywhere above their hull speed of around 40 knots. Power requirement to exceed hull speed for a displacement hull would be exorbitant. The shape of carrier hulls are not the best for moving above hull speed, and publicly available information suggests the nuclear power plants on the enterprise and Nimitz classes, while the most powerful ever installed on ships at around 280,000 shp, are no where near powerful enough to actually even reach the hull speed of these ships. Reasonable estimate put their absolute top speed in loaded condition at 35 knots.

chuck731 said:

Hydrodynamically, it would be nearly impossible for a displacement hull the size of a Ford class carrier go anywhere above their hull speed of around 40 knots. Power requirement to exceed hull speed for a displacement hull would be exorbitant. The shape of carrier hulls are not the best for moving above hull speed, and publicly available information suggests the nuclear power plants on the enterprise and Nimitz classes, while the most powerful ever installed on ships, are no where near powerful enough to actually even reach the hull speed of these ships.

Click to expand...

Well, you may say all you wish. I have talked to people I know personally who were on the particular carrier when it occurred.

Nobody is claiming that we are talking about a cruising speed here. We are talking about what the vessel could do when red lined in an effort to save the ship in an emergency. And in those conditions, they do perform.

Jeff Head said:

Well, you may say all you wish. I have talked to people I know personally who were on the particular carrier when it occurred.

Nobody is claiming that we are talking about a cruising speed here. We are talking about what the vessel could do when red lined in an effort to save the ship in an emergency. And in those conditions, they do perform.

Click to expand...

Then I advise you not to trust their tall tale, For what they are tell you is not just a respectful small and plausible lie, nor is it a lie relatively safe from being easily penetrated by around 20 minutes of study from scratch in basic hydrodynamics. I know a thing or two about hydrodynamics, it having been my major and profession. You can ask some other specialist in hydrodynamics to verify the near impossibility of their story if you so wish.

For a Nimitz hull to do 50 knots would require on the order of millions of horse power, an order of magnitude more than their power plants are known to be capable of. Such a power plant, if present, would require monstrous water scoops on the hull just for its own cooling needs. The power loading on each of the 4 shafts would be vastly beyond the capacity of any propellers that can fit under a ship with a mere 12 meter of draft to effectively transmit into the water.

Please don't repeat the tall tale. You've been doped.

chuck731 said:

Then I advise you not to trust their tall tale, For what they are tell you is not just a respectful small and plausible lie, nor is it a lie relatively safe from being easily penetrated by around 20 minutes of study from scratch in basic hydrodynamics.

Please don't repeat the tall tale. You've been doped.

Click to expand...

Sorry, chuck, the people I know are also people I trust and not given to "tall," tales.

I am an engineer by background, since the late 1970s doing design and engineering work. Quite a bit of it for major contractors to the US Navy, among other things, and know quite a bit about hyrdrodynamics. I understand that the conventional super carriers were built for a 33 knot design speed with 280,000 shp over the four shafts. I know that the nuclear carriers were designed for the same. although at first they were going to be 260,000 shp, they were later changed to 280,000 shp. I know that the power turbines running the shafts are designed for the same and that the nuclear carriers hull form was designed and optimized to run at max speed over long distances, since fuel was not an issue.

I also know that in the physical world, and with the right conditions where in an emergency situation the system is red lined and pushed beyond its design capabilities, that there is an area beyond the design parameters. You can push the limits and make things happen that book learning and theories would indicate are not plausible...but that they can be done just the same.

The old saying for many of us engineers, once you have been in the field for a long time and worked with the people who have to make all the finely designed stuff "work," is that everyone knows what BS really means, MS is "more of the same", and Phd is "piled higher and deeper." Education is a good thing...but it is not all things. Sort of like a green officer out of the academy, who has his head full of book learning, and theories, and the way things "ought," to be. They need a good NCO to keep them straight and from doing too much harm until they learn the way things really work.

The same holds for a lot of clinical engineering.

So, before you imply, or say that people I have known for many years are telling lies, or whoppers, or "doping," me, who are also people I trust, spend more time in the field with those types of folks.

I am telling you what they said. Sobelry and seriously. They were not joking, or "doping," or any other adjective you may want to attach to it. I know them well, and trust them, after many years. You, OTOH, are someone here on this forum, who is very new and not known, proven, or vetted in such a manner.

And that's fine. You have your position on this, and I have mine. As it is, I will go with those people I know and trust.

No need to continue OT on this. You are not going to embarrass me, hammer it into me, or otherwise change my perspective. I made a statement and you interjected your view...twice now. Folks can decide for themselves.