On the utility of carriers

[GrahamKennedy]

It's remarkable to think that a multi billion dollar nuclear aircraft carrier is used as a car ferry sometimes. But yeah, from what I read it makes a lot of sense.

Talking of scale, one of the construction blocks from the new UK carriers. Gives an interesting impression of the scale of it when you can actually see the innards.



And a US carrier is more than half as large again...

[McAvoy]

It's remarkable to think that a multi billion dollar nuclear aircraft carrier is used as a car ferry sometimes. But yeah, from what I read it makes a lot of sense.

Talking of scale, one of the construction blocks from the new UK carriers. Gives an interesting impression of the scale of it when you can actually see the innards.



And a US carrier is more than half as large again...

I have to check, but the tonnage is 50% bigger but the dimensions are roughly similar. Personally I would like be on a tour on of your new ships when it's built. Unfortunately that will never happen.

[Captain Picard's Hair]

Nimitz class supercarrier, official length: 332.8m
Refit Constitution class Enterprise: 305m according to DITL specs.

[GrahamKennedy]

It was tonnage/volume that I had in mind... 60,000 tons to 90,000+.

I found a comparison of them:



Not that far off in terms of flight deck dimensions, though that doesn't say much about the waterline length/beam or the draft.

[Captain Seafort]

*snip image*

Huh? No angled deck? Guess that's decides whether we'll be getting the B or C.

[Mikey]

I was wondering about that myself. Namely, "Why would the UKoGBaNI adopt a carrier design without an angled flight deck?"

[Atekimogus]

*snip image*

Huh? No angled deck? Guess that's decides whether we'll be getting the B or C.

No expert here, but why only 40 aircraft? Isn't that kinda few considering the size? Or is the ship so expensive that they made a cut on aircraft?

[Captain Seafort]

No expert here, but why only 40 aircraft? Isn't that kinda few considering the size?

Not really. It's about half the complement of a Nimitz on two-thirds the displacement. Given that a smaller ship will naturally have a greater proportion of its volume taken up by machinery, that's pretty good. It's about the same as the Charlie G, on the same displacement and with larger aircraft.

[Tholian_Avenger]

I was wondering about that myself. Namely, "Why would the UKoGBaNI adopt a carrier design without an angled flight deck?"

^2

Does it being designed for vertical and short take off operations have something to do with that decision?

[Griffin]

I was wondering about that myself. Namely, "Why would the UKoGBaNI adopt a carrier design without an angled flight deck?"

So it can fit in the garage. Alternativly, Because this way it's not like the French one.

[Mikey]

Because this way it's not like the French one.

If you had mentioned this statement on its own, my mental response would likely have been, "That makes sense for a limey carrier."

Does it being designed for vertical and short take off operations have something to do with that decision?

Probably not, considering the abandonment of the Harrier.

[Captain Seafort]

Does it being designed for vertical and short take off operations have something to do with that decision?

Probably not, considering the abandonment of the Harrier.

That might actually be part of it, given that we were originally going to equip them with F35Bs.

[McAvoy]

No expert here, but why only 40 aircraft? Isn't that kinda few considering the size?

Not really. It's about half the complement of a Nimitz on two-thirds the displacement. Given that a smaller ship will naturally have a greater proportion of its volume taken up by machinery, that's pretty good. It's about the same as the Charlie G, on the same displacement and with larger aircraft.

The CVF is actually about the same size as the Forrestal class.

Forrestal:
60,000+ tons
326 meters x 77 meters flight deck.

CVF:
64,000 tons
280 meters x 70 meters flight deck

Also the Nimitz class carrier hasn't carried 90 aircraft in a long time. Currently:

22-24 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets
22-24 F/A-18A/C Hornets
5-6 EA-18G Growlers or 4 EA-6B Prowlers
4 E-2C Hawkeyes
6-8 SH-60 or HH-60 Helicopters

That is 59 to 66 aircraft including helicopters. Though you could count C-2 Greyhounds though too. But they average 3-4 of them.

[Mikey]

Does it being designed for vertical and short take off operations have something to do with that decision?

Probably not, considering the abandonment of the Harrier.

That might actually be part of it, given that we were originally going to equip them with F35Bs.

What's the plan now? Does the Typhoon have a naval variant/STOL variant?

[Captain Seafort]

What's the plan now? Does the Typhoon have a naval variant/STOL variant?

No. The idea's been mooted, and the takeoff run is certainly short enough, but I suspect the problem would be the cost of reinforcing the undercarrage and frame to hold up to an arrested deck landing. Plus, of course, the continuous arguments over whether either of the carriers will be CATOBAR.

The bottom line is that the Royal Navy is locked in (and apparently loosing) yet another war with its oldest and most dangerous enemy - the Treasury.