On the utility of carriers

In the real world
Post Reply
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 11561
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK
Contact:

On the utility of carriers

Post by Graham Kennedy »

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.

Image

And a US carrier is more than half as large again... :shock:
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
User avatar
McAvoy
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 6225
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Re: Funny pics

Post by McAvoy »

GrahamKennedy wrote: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.

Image

And a US carrier is more than half as large again... :shock:
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.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
Captain Picard's Hair
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 4042
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:58 am
Location: Right here.

Re: Funny pics

Post by Captain Picard's Hair »

Nimitz class supercarrier, official length: 332.8m
Refit Constitution class Enterprise: 305m according to DITL specs.
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wonderous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross... but it's not for the timid." Q, Q Who
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 11561
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK
Contact:

Re: Funny pics

Post by Graham Kennedy »

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

I found a comparison of them:

Image

Not that far off in terms of flight deck dimensions, though that doesn't say much about the waterline length/beam or the draft.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15548
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Funny pics

Post by Captain Seafort »

GrahamKennedy wrote:*snip image*
Huh? No angled deck? Guess that's decides whether we'll be getting the B or C. :(
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: Funny pics

Post by Mikey »

I was wondering about that myself. Namely, "Why would the UKoGBaNI adopt a carrier design without an angled flight deck?"
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
Atekimogus
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 1193
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Vienna

Re: Funny pics

Post by Atekimogus »

Captain Seafort wrote:
GrahamKennedy wrote:*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? :wink:
I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favorite store on the Citadel.
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15548
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Funny pics

Post by Captain Seafort »

Atekimogus wrote: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.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
User avatar
Tholian_Avenger
Lieutenant jg
Lieutenant jg
Posts: 356
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:51 am
Location: Here, just past there.

Re: Funny pics

Post by Tholian_Avenger »

Mikey wrote: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?
6 Star Admiral of the Loyal Water Buffaloes and Honorable Turtles
User avatar
Griffin
Commander
Commander
Posts: 1209
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:52 pm
Location: Yorkshire!

Re: Funny pics

Post by Griffin »

Mikey wrote: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.
Bite my shiny metal ass
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: Funny pics

Post by Mikey »

Griffin wrote: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."
Tholian_Avenger wrote: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.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15548
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Funny pics

Post by Captain Seafort »

Mikey wrote:
Tholian_Avenger wrote: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.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
User avatar
McAvoy
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 6225
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Re: Funny pics

Post by McAvoy »

Captain Seafort wrote:
Atekimogus wrote: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.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: Funny pics

Post by Mikey »

Captain Seafort wrote:
Mikey wrote:
Tholian_Avenger wrote: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?
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15548
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Funny pics

Post by Captain Seafort »

Mikey wrote: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.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
Post Reply