It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

French carrier in Norfolk

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Does anyone here know the displacement and relative size of the CVNX-1 and the CVNX-2 compared to the Nimitz Class.




posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   
There are no real numbers that have been released yet. Will be as big as Nimitiz class or maybe slightly larger or smaller.



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jetsetter
There are no real numbers that have been released yet. Will be as big as Nimitiz class or maybe slightly larger or smaller.


It won't be any larger than the current Nimitiz, it will either be the same size or short by a few meters thats it. The answer is simple, if the new carrier was larger, that would mean the current dry docks etc wouldn't be any good.

- Phil



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by gooseuk
[
It won't be any larger than the current Nimitiz, it will either be the same size or short by a few meters thats it. The answer is simple, if the new carrier was larger, that would mean the current dry docks etc wouldn't be any good.

- Phil


yo gooseuk, if u could wat maximum size of aircraft carrier can it be humanly made. like 2000 ft length or more? i see some oil tankers thats even bigger than the current Nimitz carriers.



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Lad,

I wish I could answer that question, I wouldn't have a clue, as I am not an engineer nor sadly do I work full time with the navy types, but I do know that at present Carriers are close to the limits that the materials and ship building techniques can currently manage, I believe Orangetom works with these monsters on a day to day basis, he may have more information.

Sorry I couldn't help
- Phil



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 07:28 PM
link   
I couldn't find any info that's why I asked, but they better not be smaller than the current Nimitz class. I’m not for this smaller, lighter, faster concept.



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 11:14 PM
link   
It will be able to handle more aircraft. It will not be smaller.



posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 04:22 AM
link   
They wont be smaller. However they will handle more planes. The navy is retiring the F14 fleet as it is at its lifetime practical usage and replacing themn with the super F18 Hornets. A smaller airplane which will take up less space on the deck and in the hanger bays. You gotta admit the F14 is a large airplane for a carrier deck.
Ships today are constructed and every piece of equipment in them is measured for dimensions by a technique called photogrametry. Laser dimensions are taken of the compartments and every piece of equipment and the dimensions crunched in laptop comptuers then downloaded to a large mainframe. The airplane dimensions are taken and crunched too. They have a pretty good idea how much room is in any particular space and how many airplanes will go in them. It is a great construction tool. The designers and engineers know the exact dimension of every ship in the Navy and the differences in ships in a series of designs.
This information is being used to plan how to more effeciently store more planes on board..and change designs to accomodate support equipment and planes.
It is really cool to watch these guys work..taking these dimensions and put them one by one into a laptop.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 04:39 AM
link   
excluding some new breakthrough in construction materials or design.
They are about at the natural limit in size of a modern Aircraft Carrier. The other natural design limit is of course ....Costs. This factor alone will slow down or stop any constrution...period.
Remember now folks...along with size and construction costs..you need to factor in support facilitys. This meaning the piers. Large carriers cannot just pull up to any piers and tie up. This means for many countries building new pier facilities...not a inexpensive proposition by far. You dont want a large carrier tieing up at a small pier and in bad weather ripping the pier to pieces. This means heavy duty well made pier facilities. Then also think about drydocking. Not any drydock will handle a large carrier. This is another limitation ..designers would be foolish not to factor this in .
At one time Americas carriers were limited in size to the width and length of the Locks at the Panama Canal. This was discontinued with the Nimitz class carrers when they decided to port different carriers at the east and west coasts on a permanent basis.

When you see nations building aircraft carriers ..and think how small some of them are...you need to work in some of theses not so visable factors also. Many of these nations do not have mission requirements as does America nor do they have the support structures mentioned. Their designers and engineers have worked alot of this in for the life expectancy of these ships.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 04:47 AM
link   
Actually I have heard the future carriers (and also the todays ones) will all have fewer planes than before, because of cost savings.



posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 06:06 AM
link   
Ive heard that too about carrying less planes...but to my knowlege the new CVN21s will be designed with carrying more planes in mind.
Not that they will always carry more planes but the facilities are there.

You see longbow..I know of instances where the mission requirements were changed for a nuclear carrier to rescue missions ..they removed most of the aircraft ..fixed wing and installed rotary wing aircraft...helicopters. This happened after a partcularly difficult Carribean Hurricane.
Your correct though about costs...this will be "the" key factor in the future.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Because of the smaller bridge they will able to handle more aircraft on deck and launch more sorties.



posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Think we're building 2 as better technology will give the availability currently offered by 3 through-deck cruisers (??:puz
.

Current 'carriers' are tiny!

www.nationmaster.com...:USS-Stennis-HMS-Illustrious.jpg

France had plans to build 1 big carrier in addition to CdeG but cost ($4Bn!!) and performance issues mean they might buy 2 British carriers!

How NOT to Build an Aircraft Carrier
by James Dunnigan
December 7, 2003

'France is considering joining with Britain to buy a new carrier of British design. Actually, the French had planned to built a second nuclear powered carrier, but they are having so many problems with the first one that they are quite reluctant about building a second like the troubled "Charles de Gaulle".

The new French nuclear carrier "Charles de Gaulle" has suffered from a seemingly endless string of problems since it was first conceived in 1986. The 40,000 ton ship has cost over four billion dollars so far and is slower than the steam powered carrier it replaced.'


www.strategypage.com...



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Currently, the Charles de Gaulle is the largest warship in Western Europe.

However, in 2012 Britain is getting TWO new aircraf carriers, both of which will be even larger than the Charles de Gaulle, weighing just over 60,000 tonnes each.

But we'll have two of them, not just one.

The French ship keeps breaking down. The British are much better at building aircraft carriers than the French.

[edit on 29-7-2005 by AdamB]



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by AdamB
Currently, the Charles de Gaulle is the largest warship in Western Europe.

However, in 2012 Britain is getting TWO new aircraf carriers, both of which will be even larger than the Charles de Gaulle, weighing just over 60,000 tonnes each.

But we'll have two of them, not just one.

The French ship keeps breaking down. The British are much better at building aircraft carriers than the French.

[edit on 29-7-2005 by AdamB]


You may get two. But I am guessing one is what Britain will get. The problem is that there is not enough personal to actually crew the ship.



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 05:58 AM
link   
I thought the complement of the new carriers would be about 600 + air wing making them up to about 1,200. Invincible class carriers have a crew of about 1,000 of which 350 is airwing. Hardly looks like a looming manning nightmare.



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Ah, I love to hear the word "Norfolk"... Those Carriers will always have a place in my hart...



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   
In his basic format Jetsetter is correct ...and Cilandak manning is always a problem. We are talking about specific manning requirements. Not just pilots but deck handlers to move aircraft, do maintainence..all kinds of maintainence, people trained to do engine room work..purify the fuel supplies which are pumped from tanks purified and sent to the upper decks and into aircraft fuel tanks...etc etc etc...all of this. Even cooks. These people must be trained not just for thier specific jobs but often cross trained for other tasks as well. All have to be trained and qualified and then maintain their qualifications.
Every sailor on a US Navy ship is also trained to fight fires. This is a huge change after the near disaster on the USS Forestall during the Vietnam days. A very intresting documentary to watch if you ever get the chance.
Remember ..you must acquire and train and then qualify all of these people in time to ship out to sea..then you must maintain a ready force to become replacements even when the ship is out to sea. This never ends as people get out of the Navy. Not just the US Navy .but all Navys have this continuing dynamic in motion and must constantly project for trained replacements. A daunting task for any Navy.
Depending on the size and budget of a nation this can be a huge undertaking. A undertaking for which the general public has no clue. Remember too ..in any Navy we are not just talking about Aircraft Carriers...as the carriers often replenish at sea...fuel...supplies..and associated logistics. This is called under way replenishing and often a very dangerous task in itself. I am sure there are ex sailors who frequent this board who are on more intimate terms with this process than myself. The point is these people too have to be trained and qualified in thier respective tasks on thier respective ships.
Navys have a huge problem keeping qualified people...against a civilian economy. Huge maning problems..any Navy.

Just some info for your consideration.
Orangetom



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 06:07 AM
link   
Granted, getting and keeping people is a big problem. My point was the crews'll be smaller,t the airwing'll be bigger but we're still talking hundreds rather than thousands of people. I am a little confused though that the RN seems to be ramping down its carrier aviation right before it's going to take possession of the kind of carrier capability its been desperate for for decades. I hope they know what they're doing but it seems to me like they'll lose a significant ammount of expertise right before they're going to need it.

The dangers of replenishment at sea story (RAS). One of the problems associated with RAS was and is ships rocking side to side as they're underway. The 'pivot' point is always somewhere at or below the water line but the cable connecting two ships is generally at deck height or higher. The result is, as ships roll the distance between the points where the cable connects to each ship grows and shortens. In the olden days a combination of sea keeping and skilled operators conspired to keep the cable length constant but sometimes the sea got the better of them and 'stuff' would disapear into the murky depths, or, if you go it really wrong, be catapulted into the grey underside of a cloud never to be seen again. Today automatic clutches and so on help out tremendously but RAS can still be pretty hair raising.



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Ahh...excellent that you seem to be on better terms with the process called Under Way Replenishing. Years ago I saw a video of this process and the emergency breakaway of a large line shipping fuel or oil from one ship to the other. I was floored when they did the breakaway. I realized how incredibly dangerous this process was to the crew handling the lines. I was speechless the first time I viewed this.

Yes you are correct about the manning proportions. The designers have been trying for some time now to put in more automated equipment therefore reducing the manning requirements for the basic ships compliment. The designs appear to be for more people in the air wings and less manning the ship itself. Automation/computer controls is the way to accomplish this task.

Thanks for your reply,
Orangetom



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join