Aircraft Carriers

Big CVs are always good to have, the danger comes when people become trapped into thinking 'Big or nothing', and some thing is always better than nothing as the RN showed in the Falklands. As much as I want to see the CVFs in service I would accept a larger number of smaller ships (eg 30,000tons) if the alternative was cancellation. Four Victorious sized CVs would provide a more flexible solution as they can be in twice as many places as two ships can (including in dock for repairs).

Obi Wan Russell said:

Big CVs are always good to have, the danger comes when people become trapped into thinking 'Big or nothing', and some thing is always better than nothing as the RN showed in the Falklands. As much as I want to see the CVFs in service I would accept a larger number of smaller ships (eg 30,000tons) if the alternative was cancellation. Four Victorious sized CVs would provide a more flexible solution as they can be in twice as many places as two ships can (including in dock for repairs).

Click to expand...

True, but >>>when you have 11Cv's and 11 LHA/LHD's..well what can you say? Sorry about the blatant nationlism

Just a quick question. I've heared/read several times that when landing on (US) CVs, the pilot shell try to catch the third cable from the four that are there.
Now after some not clear statements, is it the third from the aft, or starting from the foremost one??

No1 wire is the furthest aft, so they count them going forwards. The idea is to land with the hook in the middle of all four wires, and since the aircraft is moving forwards the next wire the hook comes to is number three.

Obi Wan Russell said:

No1 wire is the furthest aft, so they count them going forwards. The idea is to land with the hook in the middle of all four wires, and since the aircraft is moving forwards the next wire the hook comes to is number three.

Click to expand...

You know that CVN-76 has only three arresting wires. This design was because the 1st wire was seldom if ever used. In many cases I've seen the first wire removed from the deck.

bd popeye said:

I DonT sez:


I agree on three of the five points....As far as comando ships I guess that an LHA/LHD could esily be put in service as a commando ship. But a deticated ship would be better. One fitted to handle "Speical Forces", US Army and USAF helos. Also it could be fitted out for humanitarian efforts. i.e. speical berthing for civillian refugees and more hospital spaces.

As for a training CV. Up until '91 the USN always had a training CV until the ex-USS Lexington(AVT-16) was retired and turned into a musuem. The USN has done a good job rotaing CV's into the training cycle. If there were as training CV(AVT) there would be no need to move the training squadrons from coast to coastso they can get their new pilots training on board a real live CV. Some how today the USN mananges to do this but a training carrier would elevaite this problem.

Click to expand...

I tend to agree with you. My knowledge of naval affairs is sadly lacking, but it does seem to me to be a waste of an otherwise sound hull that could still be used, particularly in the GWOT. I like your idea of also using such ships as emergency accomodations in the event of disastors. One thing that has bothered me ever since hurricane Floyd (when all of coastal Georgia, Florida and the Carolinas were evacuated) and even more after Katrina, is: where to put people in an emergency. In the event that there is another major terror attack on a U.S. city, rapid accomadations, food and supplies will be badly needed. Having all of those things in a military ship means that it can go most anywhere in the world, and access many U.S. population centers directly. Just a thought, and I think you made a great point by bringing it up.

I'm guessing the aiming point on a three-wire installation would be between no.s1 and 2 wires (counting from aft).

....Phew, jumping in on page 32 . Personally I'd like to see some smaller carriers be deployed. Something with two 12 ship squadrons and a third 12 ship unit to handle ASW and AEW And ECCM. A nice smaller carrier with a nuke steam for solid cruising and gas turbines for supplemental higher speeds. Point defense by four Dutch Goalkeepers and a 48 round RAM VLS on each side. A nice VL Mica unit would complete the warm and fuzzy defensive feeling. No doubt I'd utilize 24 Dassualt Raphales to fill out the first two squadrons. For AEW I'd opt for the V-22AEW, two of them, two ECCM versions of the V-22, and 5 ASW V-22's.....

hi all!!!

The Soviet design aircraft carrier look pretty cool, example the Kiev Class, lots heavy weapons, such as SS-N-12 antiship missiles, SA-N-3 surface-to-air missiles and AK-360 CIWS.
THe question is....
1.Why do Soviet(Russian) Navy arm so much weapons on the carrier, compare to US carriers?
2.Soviet(Russian) Navy carriers have big island (the tower thing where command personal is), compaire to US carriers. Do it make Soviet(Russian) Navy carriers have a bigger radar blip?
3.Is Soviet(Russian) Navy carriers built to combat surface combatants face to face?
4.If a Soviet(Russian) Navy carrier vs a US carrier face to face who will win?

Well before awnsering to the questions you should know that the overall difference in almoust all naval matters between russia and rest of the world is huge. You cannot directly compare arguably similar size ships with each others as they are often mented for entirely different roles.

If you are interested about soviet aircraft carriers, I suggest that youi read the thread of "soviet aircraft carrier development" in the proffesional discussion area. In there I've tryed to explain the main reasons and differences of soviets efforst in shipborne naval aviation. A sort of short thumbrule is that Soviets never managed to get their aircraft carrier programs fully going on, there was always something to stall them. Thus they have had to make huge compromizes and sort of sneaking aircrafts silently to the ships...Only in the very last moments of the Soviet Union the full size conventional aircraftcarrier idea was offically adopted.

but here's a short awnsers to your questions:

1. Becouse soviet carries (Most notably Kievs) are continious developments of the Moskva design which was a helicopter carrier. The TTZ required the ship to perform other roles as well so ASW and Airdefence weapon systems were fitted. Moskvas were orginally toughted to carry SSMs as well but due weight limitations they never recieved any. Kievs where orginally intended to be bigger versions of the Moskvas to incorporate bigger helicopter fleet (and the new invention a V/STOL planes) and the mentioned SSM armament. The only option to increase the flightdeck required for the larger airwing was to extend it angled in the side of the Bridge making the new ships look falsely like a true carriers.

2. The same reason, soviet carriers except Kuznetsov should not be thinked as a similar type of carriers as the ones in USN.

3. Face to Face? mean are Kievs expected to use their Bazalts against othe rsurface ships? Ofcourse, why else would they carry them?

4. USN