Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
- Status
Neutral Zone
Junior Member
Great pics!
Isn't the CdG still laid up at the minute? Those Rafale pilots will probably be really keen to have the carrier experience. I'd also love to see them do a full length deployment on a USN CV, the French pilots would love the experience and they would be a good compliment to the Hornets.
Isn't the CdG still laid up at the minute? Those Rafale pilots will probably be really keen to have the carrier experience. I'd also love to see them do a full length deployment on a USN CV, the French pilots would love the experience and they would be a good compliment to the Hornets.
I'm not sure but I know the Cdg was in the shipyard for nearly two years. She came out. Then had to return for some more repairs. Sad..all that money spent on that single ship. In hindsight I shall say >>>The French should have stuck with conventional power. They could have easily built, equipped and manned two CVs by now with the money they spent on the Cdg in total.
Let that be a lesson to those who idly suggest this nation or that nation should casually switch from gas turbines to nuclear for their next carrier! I've noticed on another forum a discussion suggesting that PA2 should become PA2(N), simply because the price of oil is going to go up. Making PA2 nuclear powered would pretty much double the price of the ship, at a time when the French are struggling to pay for the basic design as it is. By opting for a modified CVF they demostrated they had learned their lesson about nuclear power for carriers.
Aero_Wing_32
Junior Member
Sadly, the french Charles de Gaules is still unavailable and under maintenance due to screw/propeller flaw... once again!
France would make a second major carreer... That s a terrible thing to see the country without any carrier available for years, now! What a misery!
France would make a second major carreer... That s a terrible thing to see the country without any carrier available for years, now! What a misery!
So very true. You just don't build CVNs. It takes time and experience to do so in an efficent manner.
So unless your country has been building CVNs for oh... about 50 years. And has built 11 of these as pictured below. Give the project some good years of R & D before you give it a go.
I found these photos on a Chinese website. They look very similar to an USN CVN-78 class. On the starboard side the ship has three elevators instead of two as on CVN-78..
What do you gents think??. I'll tell you one thing. That aircrfat crane is of no use where it is positioned on the starboard quater. Those cranes are used to lift aircrfat from the pier to a lowered elevator.
What do you gents think??. I'll tell you one thing. That aircrfat crane is of no use where it is positioned on the starboard quater. Those cranes are used to lift aircrfat from the pier to a lowered elevator.
If China's going to go from having no carrier to one that big, then I say "Good luck, for obvious reasons. Also, would a supercarrier-sized ship be feasible with conventional engines?
Sure..But conventional CV that size would be very costly to operate. As you may know the last two conventionally powered USN CVs, Kitty Hawk & John F. Kennedy both displaced over 80,000 tons.
- Status