On the utility of carriers
- Graham Kennedy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 11561
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
- Location: Banbury, UK
- Contact:
On the utility of carriers
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...
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...
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...
Re: Funny pics
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.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.
And a US carrier is more than half as large again...
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
-
- Rear Admiral
- Posts: 4042
- Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:58 am
- Location: Right here.
Re: Funny pics
Nimitz class supercarrier, official length: 332.8m
Refit Constitution class Enterprise: 305m according to DITL specs.
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
- Graham Kennedy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 11561
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
- Location: Banbury, UK
- Contact:
Re: Funny pics
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.
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.
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...
- Captain Seafort
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15548
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
- Location: Blighty
Re: Funny pics
Huh? No angled deck? Guess that's decides whether we'll be getting the B or C.GrahamKennedy wrote:*snip image*
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
-
- 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
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
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
-
- Lieutenant Commander
- Posts: 1193
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:10 pm
- Location: Vienna
Re: Funny pics
Captain Seafort wrote:Huh? No angled deck? Guess that's decides whether we'll be getting the B or C.GrahamKennedy wrote:*snip image*
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?
I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favorite store on the Citadel.
- Captain Seafort
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15548
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
- Location: Blighty
Re: Funny pics
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.Atekimogus wrote:No expert here, but why only 40 aircraft? Isn't that kinda few considering the size?
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
- Tholian_Avenger
- Lieutenant jg
- Posts: 356
- Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:51 am
- Location: Here, just past there.
Re: Funny pics
^2Mikey wrote:I was wondering about that myself. Namely, "Why would the UKoGBaNI adopt a carrier design without an angled flight deck?"
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
Re: Funny pics
So it can fit in the garage. Alternativly, Because this way it's not like the French one.Mikey wrote:I was wondering about that myself. Namely, "Why would the UKoGBaNI adopt a carrier design without an angled flight deck?"
Bite my shiny metal ass
-
- 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
If you had mentioned this statement on its own, my mental response would likely have been, "That makes sense for a limey carrier."Griffin wrote:Because this way it's not like the French one.
Probably not, considering the abandonment of the Harrier.Tholian_Avenger wrote:Does it being designed for vertical and short take off operations have something to do with that decision?
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
- Captain Seafort
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15548
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
- Location: Blighty
Re: Funny pics
That might actually be part of it, given that we were originally going to equip them with F35Bs.Mikey wrote:Probably not, considering the abandonment of the Harrier.Tholian_Avenger wrote:Does it being designed for vertical and short take off operations have something to do with that decision?
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
Re: Funny pics
The CVF is actually about the same size as the Forrestal class.Captain Seafort wrote: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.Atekimogus wrote:No expert here, but why only 40 aircraft? Isn't that kinda few considering the size?
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"
-
- 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
What's the plan now? Does the Typhoon have a naval variant/STOL variant?Captain Seafort wrote:That might actually be part of it, given that we were originally going to equip them with F35Bs.Mikey wrote:Probably not, considering the abandonment of the Harrier.Tholian_Avenger wrote:Does it being designed for vertical and short take off operations have something to do with that decision?
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
- Captain Seafort
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15548
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
- Location: Blighty
Re: Funny pics
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.Mikey wrote:What's the plan now? Does the Typhoon have a naval variant/STOL variant?
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.