Aircraft Carriers III

navyreco said:

Personally I think it may be a difficult project for Russia. Building two halves of a Mistral class under close supervision of DCNS (who said it wasn't always "easy") is one thing... but a 80,000 + tons CVN...

Click to expand...

I agree!

I just do not see this happening. Are the Russians actually planning a CVN clone of a RN QE2 class? ..Several times since 2008 the Russians have announced their plans to build carriers.. so far, as I've stated several times on line, not one piece of steel has been cut.

Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)

...and....

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I rest my case...

navyreco said:

Russia’s Future Aircraft Carrier Project 23000E Storm Will Be Nuclear-Powered According to OCK

Personally I think it may be a difficult project for Russi. Building two halves of a Mistral class under close supervision of DCNS (who said it wasn't always "easy") is one thing... but a 80,000 + tons CVN...

Click to expand...

Just more talk.

As with anything stupendous that the Russian press or even officials say these days...I will wait until they are actually cutting metal and fabricating something in the yard before I believe they are actually doing it.

And even then, the time frame may well be at least 2x whatever they forecast at that time.

CAD drawings and study models don't count?

test bd said:

I agree!

I just do not see this happening. Are the Russians actually planning a CVN clone of a RN QE2 class? ..Several times since 2008 the Russians have announced their plans to build carriers.. so far, as I've stated several times on line, not one piece of steel has been cut.

Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)

...and....

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I rest my case...

Click to expand...

Quite frankly, popeye...that picture looks much more like fanboy art to me.

If you are going to go to the trouble of building a nuclear powered 80,000+ ton carrier...IMHO, you will absolutely find a way to make it CATOBAR, not STOBAR.

To me, the article is just talk, accompanied by an unrealistic piece of fan art.

Now...the Russian military may well be doing future studies for an aircraft carrier. But the US, France, the UK, Russia, China, India, etc. are all doing that. It's what planners and research people in the military do. I do not believe for an instant that whatever they are doing has generated that particular design. IMHO, that's just a picture to go along with a tale.

All the warship maneuverability and for their size US CVN are incredible.

Does someone know how many G's a bolter would create if you went up a ski ramp? I would guess an approach speed of 125 Kts so even a slow transition to a 30 degree incline might get some hefty loads on pilot and landing gear. These would be dead loads rather than shock or impulse forces too. A gear designed to take a 5G shock would not be as beefy as one designed to stay intact with 5G's of constant (ie, more than 1 second) load.

A very crude estimate based on 125Kts, a 200 foot long ramp, and a 30 degree exit angle gives me around 3-4 G's. This assumes an even G loaded curve profile to the ramp. Not too bad I guess. Are landing gears usually designed to a base load strong enough to take that?

strehl said:

Does someone know how many G's a bolter would create if you went up a ski ramp? I would guess an approach speed of 125 Kts so even a slow transition to a 30 degree incline might get some hefty loads on pilot and landing gear. These would be dead loads rather than shock or impulse forces too. A gear designed to take a 5G shock would not be as beefy as one designed to stay intact with 5G's of constant (ie, more than 1 second) load.

Click to expand...

Well, for the larger STOBAR carriers (ie. Russia, China, India, England) they operate with an angled deck and a bolter would not use the ski-ramp to bolt.

They would be landing along the angled deck, and then bolt off the end of the angled deck. Same is true for all US nuclear CATOBAR carriers, the French carrier, and the Brazilian Foch.

For the few remaining carriers like the US LHD/LHA vessels, the Cavour, the Juan Carlos, etc, their landings are occurring vertically and would not be bolting in any case.

Jeff Head said:

Well, for the larger STOBAR carriers (ie. Russia, China, India, England) they operate with an angled deck and a bolter would not use the ski-ramp to bolt.

They would be landing along the angled deck, and then bolt off the end of the angled deck. Same is true for all US nuclear CATOBAR carriers, the French carrier, and the Brazilian Foch.

For the few remaining carriers like the US LHD/LHA vessels, the Cavour, the Juan Carlos, etc, their landings are occurring vertically and would not be bolting in any case.

Click to expand...

That hypothetical Russian carrier has ramps on both the straight and angled decks without any alternate routes. I have seen this illustration where the ramp on the angled deck is more obvious. On current Russian carriers, yes, the angled deck is flat. I guess we should find out if the illustration is just fan art vs an official release.

FORBIN said:

All the warship maneuverability and for their size US CVN are incredible.

Click to expand...

All US nuclear carriers are REALLY put through their paces during qualification trials. Here's the USS Eisenhower during its high speed qualification trial...turning with an F-18 aboard:



Now, with a fill deck load of aircraft and personnel, unless it is an immediate life or death emergency to save the ship (which is why they test them that way) you would avoid such high speed maneuvers.



But,here's a pic of the USS Ronald Reagan, CVN-76, during normal exercises with a deck load of aircraft making a pretty sharp turn. Look at that turn compared to the length of the carrier and you can see that they are very maneuverable.