Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)

Jeff Head said:

No one is denying this, Asif, we are just all sharing our opinions. No need to get too worked up about it.

It's not about being named for Royalty, Asif. Everyone knows that the Royal family is just a figurehead and icon now.

It's about Royal Navy tradition, which does include a long history of those names for capitol ships. No one is saying that carriers are not capitol ships, because they are...but that does not limit their names to only those that have served in the last 80 years. So, from that perspective, there would be absolutely nothing wrong with those names.

Asif, IMHO, you are allowing your dislike for the Royal family and what they represent now, to color your feelings regarding the name of a ship. And that's fine, you have every right to your opinion, however derived. But surely that does not mean that that opinion applies to everyone else.

Certainly you have made it clear that you do not feel they should be called those names, and in fact seem offended by it. But there are many others, and not just outside the UK, who feel differently. They feel that these names are just fine.

Naming a ship is not an absolute fundamental truth...so what they "should" be called is rather subjective depending on one's opinion. In the end, we have to allow for other's opinion as long as they do not infringe on our natural rights.

But, as you say, the whole arguement is probably purely academic because the Royal Navy has already gone through its naming process and it's a done deal.

Click to expand...

No worries Jeff and Asif.. our time will come as well. I can almost guarantee you sometime in the not so distant future there will probably be a CVN call USS Barrack Obama.

delft said:

Surely the QE class is in the wrong category. There build as STOBAR's. And according to wikipedia there to be over 70k rather than 65k.

Click to expand...

I finally got the correct files uploaded to my own domain. HAd a duce of a time getting the old files to be replaced in the up;load process. Ultimately had to acutally go on the domain provider's server and phyiscally delete the old files and replace them with the new ones. So, here are those files:

Over on the UK Military News thread we have been discussing the fact that the UK Carriers are going to use an approach for landing their F-35Bs which will not be vertical.

We already know that they will use the Ski-Jump and the variable thrust nozzle to get airborne, but when landing they will use the thrust nozzle in a similar fashion to allow them to do a short landing with a process called Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL).

It's a process the UK and Royal Navy are desinging designed to land their F-35B aircraft that uses both the vertical thrust from the jet engine and lift from the wings. This will maximise the payload an aircraft can return with and stopping the financial waste that comes with dropping expensive weaponry in the sea in order to land vertically. They will enable the F-35B to land on the QE carriers with an increased weapon and fuel load

SRVL will be an interesting hybrid appraoch, making the QEs a hybrid STOBAR carrier.

No arrestor hooks or system, but if they are going to come in rolling, they will probably have some sort of barrier device to employ in case of trouble, as CATOBAR carriers do for any aircraft whose arrestor gear or landing gear may be damaged but which attempts to land anyway.

I thought it would be educational for members to understand how the barrier system works.

Basically you have a barricade whose stanchions lift out of the deck to the vertical positon where a very tough netting is fitted to them. The combined strength of all of the lines/netting that make up the barricade is strong enough to stop (or arrest) a US Navy aircraft coming in at landing speed or even higher.

Here are a number of pictures showing what the barricade it, numerous examples of it being used, and how it is erected on US super carriers to this day.

kwaigonegin said:

No worries Jeff and Asif.. our time will come as well. I can almost guarantee you sometime in the not so distant future there will probably be a CVN call USS Barrack Obama.

Click to expand...

Why wait for the USS Barack Obama ? Seven out of the ten Nimitz class carriers are named after former US presidents, one is named after a admiral, one after a congressman and one a senator. And the first 2 Gerald Ford class carriers are named after former presidents.

Franklin said:

Why wait for the USS Barack Obama ? Seven out of the ten Nimitz class carriers are named after former US presidents, one is named after a admiral, one after a congressman and one a senator. And the first 2 Gerald Ford class carriers are named after former presidents.

Click to expand...

Actually a picture of the USS Obama was already posted here on the sino defense forums, Jeff managed to catch a few shots while she was on a mission, maybe someone could ask him to repost????? Please Jeff?????

Jeff Head said:

Click to expand...

Here it looks like the airplane torn off that barricade ... I've always believed there are nets around (parts of) the flight deck of an aircraft carrier so that in situations like the picture shows the airplane wouldn't go straight away into the sea ... but is this true?

Jura said:

Here it looks like the airplane torn off that barricade ... I've always believed there are nets around (parts of) the flight deck of an aircraft carrier so that in situations like the picture shows the airplane wouldn't go straight away into the sea ... but is this true?

Click to expand...

Yes, the barricade is a last resort on the Catobar carrier, designed to accept a certain amount of damage in order to save the aircrew first, and aircraft second. You will note that the barrier is holding a Tomcat, big heavy bird, and that the barrier is designed to fail in a controlled method allowing the aircraft to dissipate energy by tearing away the barricade, but keeping the aircrew and bird on deck. Ejections and recovery at sea of aircrew are very iffy operations, with lots of opportunity for losing aircrew. There are nets/barriers on most carriers preventing "roll-offs, etc...

Air Force Brat said:

Yes, the barricade is a last resort on the Catobar carrier, designed to accept a certain amount of damage in order to save the aircrew first, and aircraft second. You will note that the barrier is holding a Tomcat, big heavy bird, and that the barrier is designed to fail in a controlled method allowing the aircraft to dissipate energy by tearing away the barricade, but keeping the aircrew and bird on deck. Ejections and recovery at sea of aircrew are very iffy operations, with lots of opportunity for losing aircrew. There are nets/barriers on most carriers preventing "roll-offs, etc...

Click to expand...

AFB, thanks for responding to my dumb question

EDIT
Empty weight: 43,735 lb (19,838 kg) for F-14 according to Wikipedia

INS Vikramaditya at port

QE Class will do the following depending on the mission and the weight it needs to carry

Vertical take off and vertical landing

Vertical take off and rolling landing

Short take off and vertical landing

Short take off and rolling landing

Most common one will be short take off and vertical landing

Check out the video of the F35B doing a short take off and vertical landing at 40 seconds

Check out this video on YouTube: