Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

Indeed OT, but ...
One addition should be allowed: the original torpedo bomber for the ship was the Fieseler Fi-167, no doubt inspired by the Fairey Swordfish and superior to the Swordfish's "successor" the Fairey Albacore.
See
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.
Yes, but I was speaking specifically to the time frame when the air group was contemplated in the 1939 to 1940 time frame. I believe after late 1938 it was Me-109s and Ju-87s.
 

chuck731

Banned Idiot
Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

How can IJN submarine did not do that kind of damage to USN when they have some of the most advance submarine during WWII?

If by advanced, you mean having the suite of characteristics that made submarines most effective, then with the exception of a inconsequentially small number of boats commissioned towards the end of the war, the IJN didn't have very advanced submarines during WWII. Their submarines were optimized for high speed, rough water surface running and long distance transits on the surface. As a result they were fast on the surface, but they were overly large, sat high in the water, is easily detected while on the surface. At the same time, their large size, poor maneuverability, inadaquate diving depth also made them easy to track and attack while under water.
 

Intrepid

Major
Accommodation and handling of aircraft for Graf Zeppelin:

upper hangar deck between first and second elevator: 13 Ju 87
upper hangar deck between second and third elevator: 10 Me 109 (8 activ, 2 reserve)
upper hangar deck aft of third elevator: 2 Fi 167

lower hangar deck between first and second elevator: 10 Fi 167
lower hangar deck between second and third elevator: 8 Fi 167
lower hangar deck aft of third elevator: 2 Fi 167

Ju 87 and Me 109 would land on their own wheels, but would be stored and catapulted on special racks.
Fi 167 would land, stored and take off on own wheels. The catapults had to be covered with plates to let the Fi 167 depart.

Sounds stupid, sounds it? And only 8 fighters ready for use!
 

Pointblank

Senior Member
You can now add South Korea to the list of nations that now wants aircraft carriers:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


SEOUL — The South Korean Navy believes it can deploy two light aircraft carriers by 2036 and expand its blue-water force to cope with the rapid naval buildups of China and Japan, according to a Navy source.

The service has been exploring ways of securing light aircraft carriers based on an interim feasibility study, the source said.

“It’s a hope,” the Navy source said on condition of anonymity. “There are no fixed requirements at the moment, but we’ve been studying ways of launching light aircraft carriers over the next two decades.”

Rep. Chung Hee-soo of the ruling Saenuri Party revealed the contents of a program in a feasibility report last week.

“To cope with potential maritime disputes with neighboring countries, we need to secure aircraft carriers as soon as possible,” Chung, a member of the National Assembly’s Defense Committee, said during a confirmation hearing Oct. 11 for Adm. Choi Yoon-hee, new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “For more active international peacekeeping operations, our Navy should have carriers.”

According to Chung, the Navy envisions three phases:

■The first is to equip the second ship of the Dokdo-class landing platform helicopter ship (LPH) with a ski ramp to operate short-range or vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft.

The flight surface of the landing ship is already sprayed with urethane, which can withstand the heat created by the aircraft during operations.

Dokdo, with the addition of a ski ramp, could be deployed before 2019, according to the report, which suggests the Navy procure used VTOL jets from the US, UK and Spain if needed.

■Second, the Navy could build an amphibious assault ship, similar to the Spanish Navy’s Juan Carlos, before 2019.

■Finally, the service aims to build two 30,000-ton light aircraft carriers between 2028 and 2036, the report said. The carrier is to have specifications similar to the Italian aircraft carrier Cavour, which can support about 30 aircraft.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
You can now add South Korea to the list of nations that now wants aircraft carriers:

Defence News said:
The first is to equip the second ship of the Dokdo-class landing platform helicopter ship (LPH) with a ski ramp to operate short-range or vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft.

The flight surface of the landing ship is already sprayed with urethane, which can withstand the heat created by the aircraft during operations.

Dokdo, with the addition of a ski ramp, could be deployed before 2019, according to the report, which suggests the Navy procure used VTOL jets from the US, UK and Spain if needed.
This is vey interesting indeed. Thanks for digging this up,

We now know that the Dokdo deck is alredy ready for STOVL operations. Though I have not seen any US or UK (in the past) Harriers crossdecking to her.

If I were the Koreans, I would build that second Dokdo with a ramp, then send the first one back in for a retrofit to add one to her. Presto, they have two STOVL sea control ships which are also very decent LPDs with a well deck. Then, they either purchase Harriers from other nations, particularly the US as she transitions to the F-35B or they buy the F-35B itself, as they then proceed towards their two light carrier in the late 2020s and into the 2030s.

Of course, this eventuality may well drive the JApanese to move forward with their 26DDH plans.

But the Koreans do not have constitutional difficulties doing this (as the Japanese do), and are able to play off both a Chinese and a Japanese threat.

Interesting indeed. We now have something else to watch over the next ten years! LOL!

They may want one but I do not think they can afford it.
ROK does not even have enough fund to place enough helos on their LPDs.
Well, they are finding the funds to build more KDX IIIs in the 2020s, and adding a ski-jump to the next DOkdo, and then retrofitting the exosting one would give them the capability at low cost.

I bet they can find some reltively cheap Harriers from INdia soon, and then later from the US...unless they go the F-35B route later.
 

duskylim

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Most news reports indicated the Varyag's engines were removed prior to the sale to china. Does this include the boilers or just turbines?

If the Chinese did put in entirely net sets of propulsion machinery, then I will have doubts about whether liaoning's power plant would really be all that good, or be up to the full spec of the original Kuznetsov design. Not to knock chinese engineering, but AFAIK, china has had no prior experience with heavy marine steam turbine and boiler system as powerful as those needed to drive the Liaoning to its originally designed top speed. Chinese experience with high pressure, high efficiency, high output marine steam systems would also be limited to the steam plants on a limited number of destroyers, ie much less than those of the soviet navy. If the soviets couldn't make kuznetsov's steam plant work well based on their 40 years of quite extensive experience in High performance marine steam propulsion, it would require direct evidence for me to believe the Chinese did better on far less experience.

High pressure, high efficiency, high output steam propulsion may not be state of the art in marine science, but it is nonetheless a esoteric specialty that had been difficult and troublesome to perfect for every navy that has tried it, regardless of the era, from the kriegsmarine during WWII to USN in the late 1960s. I would be highly surprised if liaoning's new plant would be trouble free.

While China might have limited experience while large marine steam turbine units, she has the most experience making modern ultra-supercritical coal-fired thermal powerplants, completing as many as 2 1000+ MW units a week during peak construction in the 2005-2010 period.

In fact China sets the standard in the construction of these type of steam power plants, and the average age and thermal efficiency of Chinese thermal power plants is much better than that of the US - and the margin is quite large.

The infrastructure to build these power/propulsion systems exists, probably better than anywhere else in the world, however, it is in the construction of the specialist marine types that experience will have to be gained.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Okay, I looked around, found some pics, did a little PS'ing on others, and here's some concept are for the Ski-Ramp Dokdo:


dokdo-ramp.jpg

 
Last edited:

SamuraiBlue

Captain
While China might have limited experience while large marine steam turbine units, she has the most experience making modern ultra-supercritical coal-fired thermal powerplants, completing as many as 2 1000+ MW units a week during peak construction in the 2005-2010 period.

In fact China sets the standard in the construction of these type of steam power plants, and the average age and thermal efficiency of Chinese thermal power plants is much better than that of the US - and the margin is quite large.

The infrastructure to build these power/propulsion systems exists, probably better than anywhere else in the world, however, it is in the construction of the specialist marine types that experience will have to be gained.

They may be able to burn them but sure not know anything about reducing emissions. Most of the smog emitted in mainland China is due to coal burning and Japan is providing various emission reduction technology since it's our neck on the line as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top