Aircraft Carriers III

kwaigonegin

Colonel

Sea state 9. Even the mighty super carrier is nothing but a tiny dot compared to the power of the sea.
You learn to quickly respect the sea once you go through something like this.
I've seen sailors puke and cried out to their mommies. No lie.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
@bd popeye Getting the new system based on he new Electrical System and on the electro-magnetic operation will be a good thing.

Once perfected...and they will perfect it...it will be easier to maintain...easier to adjust...more adjustable...and more reliable in the end than the existing system. Those are all good things.

The US wants to get to the point where it can make the most out of this technology, all the way from EMLs to rail guns...and they are working hard to make that happen.

Those are advantages and the US, who is not at war, and who is not likely to be in any serious naval war at least for a few mor years, if not 10-15, has the time and the inclination to continue adding to its own technological lead in these areas.

So, I believe it is a good thing and worth the effort and the cost.

yes, the old system works.

But a newer better system can be developed from this and the US has the will, the tech, and the money, to make it happen.

I'm all for it.

The frst carrier in the new class has a lot on its plate...and I am okay with some slippages to make this new tehnology work.

Remember all of those Essex class carriers being refit...some of them taking years to refit...to get to the new technology of the 1950s.

Well, we are now getting a new class of carriers to 21st century technology.

That's never cheap or easy...particularly when you are the first to do it.

But they will do it...and before we know it, we will have three carriers (Ford, Kennedy, and enterprise) operating at that new threshold with others following, replacing the NImitz carriers one by one pvert the next 40+ years.

I'm okay with that though I certainly will not live to see them all. I will feel it a miracle to live to see the Enterprise launched. But seeing the ford out at sea is a first step that I am fine with.
 
google translation of
Chaudières et catapultes : les enjeux techniques du prochain porte-avions
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:
Même le socialiste de gauche Benoît Hamon - qui n’oublie pas qu’il est Brestois - est pour. La construction d’un nouveau porte-avions (PA) sera l’un des dossiers du prochain président de la République. Des études préliminaires pourraient être lancées, pour un coût d’environ 100 millions d’euros par an durant le futur quinquennat. Certains plaident pour un feu vert à la construction vers 2020, qui pourrait aboutir à une mise en service opérationnelle vers 2035… Tout cela reste encore flou. Une chose est certaine : il ne s’agit pas de construire un second porte-avions, mais bien un successeur au Charles-de-Gaulle, même s’il est possible que pendant une période de tuilage, la Marine aligne deux PA. Autre quasi-certitude : le bateau sera construit à Saint-Nazaire, et non à Brest comme son prédécesseur.

Restent de sérieuses questions techniques et industrielles à résoudre : les réacteurs nucléaires et les catapultes.

Le PA Charles-de-Gaulle embarque deux réacteurs nucléaires à eau pressurisée de type K15 : ce sont les même qui équipent les SNLE de la classe Triomphant et que l’on retrouvera sur les nouveaux SNA Suffren. Les K15 sont d’une puissance de 150 MW et il a fallu en installer deux sur le PA Charles-de-Gaulle, au vu de la masse du bateau (40 000 t). C’est à peine suffisant, de nombreux marins ont pu l’observer. Ainsi les Nimitz américains ont deux réacteurs de 550 MW chacun (soit 3,7 plus que le Charles de Gaulle) pour un déplacement 2,6 supérieur.

Pour les concepteurs du prochain PA français, la question est donc : faudra-t-il installer 3 réacteurs K15 ou développer un nouveau réacteur ? Trois K15 prendrait beaucoup de place et nécessiterait de construire un bateau très grand… et très lourd. L’hypothèse est peu probable. Développer à grands frais un nouveau type de réacteur ? Sans doute trop cher… L’idée serait plutôt d’aller vers un K15 +, mais l’amélioration obtenue aura vite des limites. Parallèlement, il faudra penser aux réacteurs des futurs SNLE-3G, qui remplaceront les Triomphant.

Enfin, l’un des enjeux les plus urgents est de maintenir les compétences des industriels, que ce soit chez Areva TA, DCNS ou au CEA. L’idée d’un porte-avions à propulsion classique, comme les deux futurs PA de la Royal Navy est sur la table mais elle a peu de partisans dans la marine et l’industrie. On le voit, l’équation est difficile à résoudre.

D’autant que s’y ajoute celle des catapultes. La France ne construit pas ce type d’équipement, indispensable à la mise en œuvre du groupe aérien embarqué. Les catapultes du Charles-de-Gaulle ont été achetées aux Etats-Unis et il en ira de même pour son éventuel successeur. Sauf que l’US Navy est en train d’abandonner la technologie des catapultes à vapeur pour une nouvelle génération de catapultes électromagnétiques. Or, on n’en connaît ni le prix à l’achat, ni la puissance électrique nécessaire pour les mettre en œuvre. Où l’on retrouve la question des réacteurs nucléaires…

Difficile dans ces conditions d’estimer le coût du prochain PA - sans doute entre 4 et 6 milliards d’euros. Comme le dit Benoît Hamon, c’est « très très cher ».

Actualisé : Un très bon connaisseur du dossier - que je remercie vivement - nous précise que « les deux réacteurs K15 installés sur le CDG sont plus que suffisants mais ils n’ont jamais pu être utilisés à pleine puissance, parce que la ligne propulsive - ce qui reçoit la vapeur des réacteurs et pousse le bateau - est sous-dimensionnée. Elle ne peut absorber la poussée que pourraient générer les réacteurs, un peu comme une boite de vitesse qui ne saurait transmettre toute la puissance d’un moteur ! »

Il ajoute qu’ « environ 40% de la puissance du réacteur est utilisée pour les utilisateurs autres que propulsion et catapultes : moteurs électriques, radars, chauffage, cuisine, appareils divers et réseau électrique domestique. Il reste donc 60% (temps normal) ou 70% (circonstances exceptionnelles, en poussant la marcje à 110% pendant quelques heures) pour propulser le navire et catapulter ».

Au vu des essais réalisés sur le CDG, il resterait donc « entre 15 et 20% de puissance inutilisée parce que non exploitable par la ligne propulsive. La puissance de deux K15 est donc suffisante pour propulser un navire de 55 ou 60 000 tonnes. Au-delà, il faut effectivement "doper" les K15 mais il y a de la marge ».

Actualisé 2 : En complément, on peut lire cet article sur le blog le fauteuil de Colbert.
"Even the left socialist Benoît Hamon - who does not forget that he is Brestois - is for. The construction of a new aircraft carrier (AP) will be one of the files of the next president of the Republic. Preliminary studies could be launched, at a cost of about 100 million euros per year during the next five-year period. Some are calling for a green light for construction around 2020, which could lead to an operational commissioning around 2035 ... All this remains vague. One thing is certain: it is not a matter of constructing a second aircraft carrier, but rather a successor to Charles de Gaulle, although it is possible that during a period of tiling, the Navy aligns two PAs. Another quasi-certainty: the boat will be built in Saint-Nazaire, not in Brest as its predecessor.

There remain serious technical and industrial questions to be solved: nuclear reactors and catapults.

PA Charles-de-Gaulle has two nuclear reactors with pressurized water type K15: these are the same ones that equip the SNLEs of the Triomphant class and that will be found on the new SNA Suffren. The K15 have a power of 150 MW and it was necessary to install two on the Charles-de-Gaulle PA, given the mass of the boat (40 000 t). It is hardly enough, many sailors have been able to observe it. Thus the American Nimitz have two reactors of 550 MW each (ie 3.7 more than the Charles de Gaulle) for a higher displacement of 2.6.

For the designers of the next French PA, the question is: will it be necessary to install 3 K15 reactors or develop a new reactor? Three K15 would take up a lot of space and would require building a very large boat ... and very heavy. The hypothesis is unlikely. Developing a new type of reactor at great expense? Probably too expensive ... The idea would be to go towards a K15 +, but the improvement obtained will soon have limits. At the same time, it will be necessary to think of the reactors of the future SNLE-3G, which will replace the Triomphants.

Finally, one of the most pressing issues is to maintain the skills of industrialists, whether at Areva TA, DCNS or CEA. The idea of a conventional propulsion aircraft carrier, as the two future Royal Navy PA is on the table but has few supporters in the navy and industry. As can be seen, the equation is difficult to solve.

All the more so as that of the catapults. France does not build this type of equipment, which is essential for the implementation of the on-board air group. The Charles-de-Gaulle catapults were bought in the United States and the same will happen for his possible successor. Except that the US Navy is abandoning the technology of steam catapults for a new generation of electromagnetic catapults. However, neither the purchase price nor the electrical power required to implement them are known. Where we find the question of nuclear reactors ...

Difficult in these conditions to estimate the cost of the next PA - probably between 4 and 6 billion euros. As Benoît Hamon says, it is "very very expensive".

"The two K15 reactors installed on the CDG are more than sufficient but they could never be used at full power because the propulsion line - Which receives the steam from the reactors and pushes the boat - is undersized. It can not absorb the thrust that the reactors could generate, much like a gearbox that can not transmit all the power of an engine! "

He adds that "about 40% of the power of the reactor is used for users other than propulsion and catapults: electric motors, radars, heating, cooking, various appliances and domestic electrical network. So it remains 60% (normal time) or 70% (exceptional circumstances, pushing the marcje to 110% for a few hours) to propel the ship and catapult.

In view of the tests performed on the CDG, it would therefore remain "between 15 and 20% of unused power because it can not be used by the propulsion line. The power of two K15 is therefore sufficient to propel a ship of 55 or 60,000 tons. Beyond that, it is necessary to "doper" the K15 but there is margin ".

Updated 2: In addition, one can read this article on the blog the chair of Colbert."

(the last sentence linked to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)
 
Jan 24, 2017
Dec 30, 2016
now
Navy stays with new technology for landing jets on carriers

source is NavyTimes
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


only now noticed USNI News
Navy Sticking With Advanced Arresting Gear in Next Carrier
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
related:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Despite congressional doubts,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, and almost
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, the US Navy has now locked in two controversial high-tech systems for all three of its
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. First, a week ago,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
a review of alternative systems had decided to stick with General Atomics’
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(AAG) for all three flattops. Today, General Atomics announced it had also won a $533 million sole-source contract to install its
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(EMALS) on the third and final ship, the USS Enterprise.

The three carriers won’t be entirely identical. In order to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, for example, the Kennedy (CVN-79) and Enterprise (CVN-80) won’t have the high-powered and high-cost Dual Band Radar used on the Ford (CVN-78). (DBR was originally designed for the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
). But the three ships will share the crucial new systems that define the Ford carriers as a class, replacing hard-to-maintain hydraulics and steam with electrical power:
  • new nuclear reactors to produce more power;
  • a new electrical system (including problematic Main Turbine Generators) to distribute all the energy;
  • EMALS to launch planes off the deck without steam catapults; and
  • AAG to help planes land without hydraulic arresting gear.
In the future, the Ford‘s enhanced electrical system should also be able to accommodate upgrades like defensive jammers and laser weapons more easily than the older Nimitz class. Here and now, however, because Ford is the first new class of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers since the USS Nimitz joined the fleet in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, adding all these revolutionary technologies in a single ship has had
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, according to the Navy, but AAG continues to lag behind. Given AAG’s developmental troubles on the Ford, the Navy had considered going back to the old-school Nimitz-class Mark 7, Mod 3 hydraulics for the Kennedy and Enterprise. But doing so would have been a big step backward for the entire design philosophy.

The combination of EMALS to launch and AAG to land is meant not only to be easier to maintain than the old steam and hydraulic systems, but also to be able to keep up a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in combat. Whether that will work in real life is something we won’t know until the Ford begins
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
at sea.
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
I like it !
For 2 first no doubt and also for my friend Popeye ;)


5 Best Aircraft Carriers of All Time


The real litmus test for any man-of-war is its capacity to fulfill the missions for which it was built. In that sense George Washington, a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, may not be "superior" to USS America, the U.S. Navy's latest amphibious helicopter carrier, or to Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force "helicopter destroyers"—a.k.a. light aircraft carriers—despite a far more lethal air wing and other material attributes.

Anyone who's tried to compare one piece of kit—ships, aircraft, weaponry of various types—to another will testify to how hard this chore is. Ranking aircraft carriers is no exception. Consulting the pages of Jane's Fighting Ships or Combat Fleets of the World sheds some light on the problem. For instance, a flattop whose innards house a nuclear propulsion plant boasts virtually unlimited cruising range, whereas a carrier powered by fossil fuels is tethered to its fuel source. As Alfred Thayer Mahan puts it, a conventional warship bereft of bases or a coterie of logistics ships is a "land bird" unable to fly far from home.

Or, size matters. The air wing—the complement of interceptors, attack planes and support aircraft that populate a carrier's decks—comprise its main battery or primary armament. The bigger the ship, the bigger the hangar and flight decks that accommodate the air wing.


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Nor, as U.S. Navy carrier proponents like to point out, is the relationship between a carrier's tonnage and number of aircraft it can carry strictly linear. Consider two carriers that dominate headlines in Asia. Liaoning, the Chinese navy's refitted Soviet flattop, displaces about sixty-five thousand tons and sports twenty-six fixed-wing combat aircraft and twenty-four helicopters. Not bad. USS George Washington, however, tips the scales at around one hundred thousand tons but can operate some eighty-five to ninety aircraft.

And the disparity involves more than raw numbers of airframes. George Washington's warplanes are not just more numerous but generally more capable than their Chinese counterparts. U.S. flattops boast steam catapults to vault larger, heavier-laden aircraft into the wild blue. Less robust carriers use ski jumps to launch aircraft. That limits the size, fuel capacity, and weapons load—and thus the range, flight times and firepower—of their air wings. Larger, more capable carriers, then, can accommodate a larger, more capable, and changing mixes of aircraft with greater ease than their lesser brethren. Aircraft carriers' main batteries were modular before modular was cool.

And yet straight-up comparisons can mislead. The real litmus test for any man-of-war is its capacity to fulfill the missions for which it was built. In that sense George Washington, a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, may not be "superior" to USS America, the U.S. Navy's latest amphibious helicopter carrier, or to Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force "helicopter destroyers"—a.k.a. light aircraft carriers—despite a far more lethal air wing and other material attributes. Nor do carriers meant to operate within range of shore-based fire support—tactical aircraft, anti-ship missiles—necessarily need to measure up to a Washington on a one-to-one basis. Land-based implements of sea power can be the great equalizer. Like any weapon system, then, a great carrier does the job for which it was designed superbly.

And lastly, there's no separating the weapon from its user. A fighting ship isn't just a hunk of steel but a symbiosis of crewmen and materiel. The finest aircraft carrier is one that's both well-suited to its missions and handled with skill and derring-do when and where it matters most. Those three indices—brute material capability, fitness for assigned missions, a zealous crew—are the indices for this utterly objective, completely indisputable list of the Top Five Aircraft Carriers of All Time.

5. USS Midway (CV-41):

Now a museum ship on the San Diego waterfront, Midway qualifies for this list less for great feats of arms than for longevity, and for being arguably history's most versatile warship. In all likelihood she was the most modified. Laid down during World War II, the flattop entered service just after the war. During the Cold War she received an angled flight deck, steam catapults, and other trappings befitting a supercarrier. Indeed, Midway's service spanned the entire Cold War, winding down after combat action against Saddam Hussein's Iraq in 1991. Sheer endurance and flexibility entitles the old warhorse to a spot on this list.

4. USS Franklin (CV-13):

If Midway deserves a place mainly for technical reasons, the Essex-class carrier Franklin earns laurels for the resiliency of her hull and fortitude of her crew in battle. She was damaged in heavy fighting at Leyte Gulf in 1944. After refitting at Puget Sound Navy Yard, the flattop returned to the Western Pacific combat theater. In March 1945, having ventured closer to the Japanese home islands than any carrier to date, she fell under surprise assault by a single enemy dive bomber. Two semi-armor-piercing bombs penetrated her decks. The ensuing conflagration killed 724 and wounded 265, detonated ammunition below decks, and left the ship listing 13 degrees to starboard. One hundred six officers and 604 enlisted men remained on board voluntarily, bringing Franklin safely back to Pearl Harbor and thence to Brooklyn Navy Yard. Her gallantry in surviving such a pounding and returning to harbor merits the fourth position on this list.

3. Akagi:

Admiral Chuichi Nagumo's flagship serves as proxy for the whole Pearl Harbor strike force, a body composed of all six Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) frontline carriers and their escorts. Nagumo's was the most formidable such force of its day. Commanders and crewmen, moreover, displayed the audacity to do what appeared unthinkable—strike at the U.S. Pacific Fleet at its moorings thousands of miles away. Extraordinary measures were necessary to pull off such a feat. For example, freshwater tanks were filled with fuel to extend the ships' range and make a transpacific journey possible—barely.

The Pearl Harbor expedition exposed logistical problems that plagued the IJN throughout World War II. Indeed, Japan's navy never fully mastered the art of underway replenishment or built enough logistics ships to sustain operations far from home. As a result, Nagumo's force had too little time on station off Oahu to wreck the infrastructure the Pacific Fleet needed to wage war. And, admittedly, Akagi was lost at the Battle of Midway, not many months after it scaled the heights of operational excellence. Still, you have to give Akagi and the rest of the IJN task force their due. However deplorable Tokyo's purposes in the Pacific, her aircraft-carrier force ranks among the greatest of all time for sheer boldness and vision.

2. HMS Hermes (now the Indian Navy's Viraat):

It's hard to steam thousands of miles into an enemy's environs, fight a war on his ground, and win. And yet the Centaur-class flattop Hermes, flagship of a hurriedly assembled Royal Navy task force, pulled it off during the Falklands War of 1982. Like Midway, the British carrier saw repeated modifications, most recently for service as an anti-submarine vessel in the North Atlantic. Slated for decommissioning, her air wing was reconfigured for strike and fleet-air-defense missions when war broke out in the South Atlantic. For flexibility, and for successfully defying the Argentine contested zone, Hermes rates second billing here.

1. USS Enterprise (CV-6):

Having joined the Pacific Fleet in 1939, the Yorktown-class carrier was fortunate to be at sea on December 7, 1941, and thus to evade Nagumo's bolt from the blue. Enterprise went on to become the most decorated U.S. Navy ship of World War II, taking part in eighteen of twenty major engagements of the Pacific War. She sank, or helped sink, three IJN carriers and a cruiser at the Battle of Midway in 1942; suffered grave damage in the Solomons campaign, yet managed to send her air wing to help win the climatic Naval Battle of Guadalcanal; and went on to fight in such engagements as the Philippine Sea, Leyte Gulf, and Okinawa. That's the stuff of legend. For compiling such a combat record, Enterprise deserves to be known as history's greatest aircraft carrier

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
in case you didn't know UK defense ministry confirms aircraft carrier will be late
The lead ship of Royal Navy’s new aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth, will miss the spring time frame set for its seagoing trials, UK’s minister for defence procurement acknowledged on Tuesday.

Speaking before Parliament’s Defence Select Committee, minister Harriet Baldwin said that she could not give an estimate on when exactly the carrier would set sail but it is likely that this will happen in the summer.

Construction of HMS Queen Elizabeth cost the UK over £3 billion and the ship is now late for the second time. Back in 2014, when the first seagoing Captain of the Royal Navy’s new aircraft carrier HMS Queen was appointed, the Royal Navy said the carrier would start trials in 2016.

HMS Queen Elizabeth and sister-ship HMS Prince of Wales are the biggest ships the Royal Navy has ever built at 65,000 tonnes. The 280-meter STOVL (short take-off and vertical landing) ships will both be capable of carrying 36 F-35B Lightning II stealth jets.

In preparation for the arrival of the first carrier, the UK invested around £100m in Portsmouth Naval Base improving the jetties, dredging the main harbour channel, buying new tugs, fenders, sponsons, gangways, providing a high-voltage power supply, erecting navigational aids.
source is NavalToday
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Top