This is NOT the Aircraft Carrier you are looking for...

reply to post by teachtaire


What's lighting a sub on fire got to do with anything we've been talking about? Lol

reply to post by Stealthbomber


C:

*EDIT* Just send the crown prince troll of Nigeria $5mil USD and he will send you a 5 point plan outlining how to bring down the oil industry and ruling global elite.

reply to post by teachtaire


Yeah alright, I'm a troll because I disagree with what you have to say. You caught me..

Originally posted by Stealthbomber
reply to post by teachtaire

 

Yeah alright, I'm a troll because I disagree with what you have to say. You caught me..

Nonono.

You?!

A troll?!?!?!

Don't flatter yourself. Trolling is a fine art that takes many years to master.

Even becoming a troll involves long exhausting tests that take place over years.

But if you send $5mil to the crown prince troll of Nigeria, the testing process can be started! And you may one day become one of his acolytes and minions.

Originally posted by teachtaire
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

I'm guessing a small nuclear reactor.

That is what the catapults were designed to run on, extra juice from a nuclear reactor.

Ii guess this is as good a place to jump in here as any. Catapults were designed to run on steam. It doesn't matter how the steam is produced. The basic engine design of the US ship of the line has not changed in about 150 years. The USS Nimitz power plant is the same as a battleship had in 1890, the same as the Great White Fleet Teddy Roosevelt sent around the world. The Navy designed the catapults around an available resource; the steam was already there. But the infrastructure to deliver that steam to the catapults is immense. It basically takes a whole story beneath the flight deck to house the equipment.

(I'm not being pedantic here. Bear with me.) You make steam by heating up water. You can heat up water with coal, with oil, or with nuclear power. Everything from the point the steam is made on is the same. The point is that the catapults don't run on nuclear power. Putting in ANOTHER nuclear reactor is not going to happen. Sorry, but that's just silly.

Now, as far as the Izumo is concerned--it DOES NOT run on steam. It's a conventional gas turbine engine. It's more or less like an automobile. An engine powered by gas (or diesel or whatever) has a turbine that acts like the cylinders and turns the shaft through a series of gears (the transmission) and clutches that turns the propellers.

No steam. No catapults.

Now to claim that the catapult is "hidden" and unless you've been on board and can prove they are not there, then they might be is a silly argument. There isn't even the provision for catapults. There is no infrastructure. The ship is just not big enough. It displaces HALF what an American LHD (Landing helicopter Dock) does. It has enough room for a whopping 14 helicopters. Could you replace those choppers with F35B VTOL craft to allow you to "steam" (sorry) over to an island claimed by China and bomb the crap out of a fishing village or an "occupational force?"

Sure. You don't need retrofitted ramps or catapults to do that. You could do that now. So you really don't need to buttress your issue with those sorts of arguments. You need to keep that ship as it is presented without your imagination claiming what it might could perhaps do in the future and deal with it. Could it be used offensively? You bet.

But they'd have to be pretty stupid to do it. And, I think we can all agree, the Japanese are not stupid. The difference here is what amounts to staying power. An American CVN at 100,000 tons carries just shy of 100 aircraft. It travels in a "Strike Group" of as many as a dozen other ships that provide defense and supplies. A single carrier has more firepower than 80% of the world's air forces. It is capable of bombing a large area 24x7. With two CVNs, there is air superiority within 24 hours. With three, they own the skies. You may as well surrender because you'll never get a plane or a rocket off the ground. (I'm sorry if you do not like that. That's not the issue here.)

Now let's return to the Izumo. With 14 helicopters, or even retrofitted with a handful of VTOL fighters, how does that compare? Can it defend territorial waters? Sure. It can park off the coast of an island and look menacing. But it's no match for anything serious, and further, it cannot defend itself. It has no Aegis system. Unlike an LHD that has tanks and Marines, it cannot mount an invasion. It's vulnerable.

So to answer the questions that have come up:

Could it be retrofitted with a ramp? Sure. It would take a few years.
Does it and could it have a catapult system? No. Give it up.
Could it be used offensively? Yes, but extremely limited. Whatever 14 choppers can do
Does it have "secret stuff?" Unlikely, but even if it does, meh?

So pay attention to Zaphod. Really.

reply to post by teachtaire


Seems like your doing a bit trolling yourself..

reply to post by schuyler


I was referring to the current technology for the catapults. Not the old tech.

Besides that, nuclear reactors are glorified steam reactors.

Nuclear = steam punk.

And now for something completely different.



*NOTE* I could be wrong, I only know a few nuclear engineers and a handful of physicists. Only one person at a particle accelerator, only a governor, and maybe a couple of designers at NASA. Plus one of the people that signs off on the budget for the fed.

Originally posted by Stealthbomber
reply to post by teachtaire

 

Seems like your doing a bit trolling yourself..

Yes, but unlike most trolls I do it for humor and your amusement rather than trying to brow beat or bully.

I'm a good troll.

Originally posted by Stealthbomber
reply to post by Tardacus

 

Your talking about minimums though, that would be aircraft be without any weapons and very little fuel, good luck invading a country like that.

It says the minimum take off and landing distances are for an aircraft at maximum take off and landing weight which is 60,000lbs. The weight of the unarmed aircraft with no fuel is approximately 29,000lbs.

planes.findthebest.com...

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity
The British navy couldn't get political approval for it's new aircraft carriers in the 1970's (Invincible class), so it re-designated them as "Through Deck Command Cruisers", a designation far more creative than that of the Japanese Navy today.

27,000 tons though ? That's a fleet aircraft carrier ! And it's a nice looking ship too.

Get some F-35's ordered for it, or better still some Rafale-M's

27,000 tons was a fleet carrier in World War II. The only fleet carriers currently in service below 30,000 tons that come to mind are the Sao Paulo (24,000t standard, 34,000t full load), Guseppe Garibaldi (10,000t standard, 13,000t full load), and Cavour (27,000t standard, 30,000 full load). High 30,000 - 50,000t seems to be the new standard everywhere but the USN these days.

Given the lack of catapult systems, arresting gear, or a 'ski jump' bow, I'd be inclined to say these ships are going to be pure helicopter carriers. Retrofitting any of those systems would require an almost total rebuilding of the ship (I almost said 'from the waterline up, then I remembered that the catapults either need steam, or the ship needs enough generating capacity to use an EMLS). They might operate V/STOL strike planes from the deck, but the operational compromises needed to make that work have never really been popular. If I were the Koreans or the Chinese, I'd be more worried about what kind of helicopters these ships might carry. I don't *think* there's a naval version of the Apache out there, but one never knows...a helicopter strike wing certainly isn't a *technical* impossibility.

reply to post by Brother Stormhammer


*WTF* Right click the box and select "open link in new tab" IDK what the hell is up with that.

Here is an image I uploaded for your viewing pleasure.


Note all the jets lying around.

Sorry I can't give you schematics.

Or a roster of actual jets.

Not.




img.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by teachtaire


At least you find it funny anyway that's the main thing. I wasn't trying to belittle you, just stating an opinion that's different from your own. But since you want to appeal to authority with your friends at NASA and that then I guess you know better.

reply to post by Stealthbomber


That isn't authority and they aren't my friends per se. They are the experts, not me.

I only stated that to let you know that I don't *only* troll/am one who gets his information off of Wikipedia.

Sorry? It is fairly obvious when I'm being humorous. Even black hats crack up around me. Or at me. Either way.


*EDIT* wait a minute, you were just being sarcastic. You think I'm lying about knowing those people.

reply to post by teachtaire


I don't get my information from Wikipedia either. And no I wasn't being sarcastic, if that's what your friends tell you and you believe it then that's fine

reply to post by teachtaire


Also I don't think your lying about knowing those people but even if you were it's not like I can find out so ill just take your word for it.

reply to post by Stealthbomber


I'm not trying to impress you.

I support the government most of the time.

But since you seem to need assuring that I'm an honest man:

img.abovetopsecret.com...

*edit* I'm just happy he didn't punch me in the face after that. Yup. I trolled the governor.


Meaning there is only one degree of separation between me and the president. Pretty funny if you think about it. Although, I'd use other people as I know as examples of the one degree of separation.

reply to post by teachtaire


That wasn't sarcasm, but I think you thought I was being sarcastic. It's actually really hard to tell the difference through messages but I assure you I don't need you to prove who you are, it doesn't bother me in the slightest

reply to post by Stealthbomber


You don't need to know who I am, only whether or not I can be honest.


*NOTE* hope you got a look at that picture before I took it down.

reply to post by teachtaire


That's a pretty good set of images. Thanks. And it shows the basic problem. That deck is a logistical nightmare. There is room for 14 aircraft, but you can't recover and take off at the same time. There's too much in the way. You've basically got five spots (marked by the "K"s) you need to deal with. There's a single elevator. Yikes!

FYI for fun: American CVNs tried to automate all this with computers and failed. Of course there are a hundred objects to track. In flight ops they have a table model of the flight deck where they manually move models of the aircraft around as they move on the deck in real time below.

If you want to get an idea of what carrier life is like, check out the PBS movie: www.imdb.com...

reply to post by teachtaire


The honest troll? Lol I believe you can be honest and don't think until that prince of Nigeria stuff you were trolling this site. I've been known myself to do a bit of trolling, although not on this site mainly on Facebook UFO groups lol but that's another story in itself.