Aircraft Carriers III

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
That hypothetical Russian carrier has ramps on both the straight and angled decks without any alternate routes.

On current Russian carriers, yes, the angled deck is flat. I guess we should find out if the illustration is just fan art vs an official release.
Well, I felt we were talking about existing carriers only...since only on an existing carrier do you have bolters.

And that Russian news story picture is purely fiction. It is certainly not any existing carrier...and I will go out on a limb and say that that design will never be built as shown.

As I say, if they are going to spend the money and effort to build an 80,000+ ton carrier with nuclear power (as they say) it will be CATOBAR, and certainly nothing like that. dfor that reason and several more obvious reasons (like the foolishness of not having a bolt route from the angled deck), it is pure fan boy stuff IMHO.
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


SAN DIEGO (NNS) -- The Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS George Washington (CVN 73) arrived in San Diego to conduct a 10-day hull swap with the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) as part of a force structure change, Aug. 10.

Ronald Reagan (RR) will relieve George Washington (GW) as the Navy's only forward-deployed aircraft carrier in Yokosuka, Japan, and GW will return to Newport News, Virginia, for a mid-life refueling complex overhaul (RCOH) following a deployment around South America.

"I would like to thank our Sailors and their families," said Capt. Timothy Kuehhas, GW's commanding officer. "To ensure the success of this historic hull swap, the Sailors aboard the three ships and their families have had to remain flexible to ensure the Navy's carrier fleet is manned effectively. Key personnel, especially those related to unique systems, will remain with their ships. For training of new crews, each ship will go through a tailored syllabus following the crew swap."

RR was one of the first responders during Operation Tomodachi in 2011 after the earthquake and tsunami, establishing a strong tie between the ship and the community of Japan. In addition, RR recently completed a maintenance period where it had many of its systems upgraded.

"Our relationship with Japan is vital to U.S. national security interests abroad," said Kuehhas. "Providing USS Ronald Reagan forward in Japan ensures the United States is best positioned to honor our security commitment to Japan. Our forward-deployed naval forces in U.S. 7th Fleet, along with their counterparts in the Japan Self-Defense Forces, comprise the core capabilities needed by the alliance to meet our common strategic objectives."

Following the turnover and personnel swap between RR and GW, RR will conduct a flight deck certification and tailor the ship's training availability before departing the Southern California operating area to proceed to the U.S. 7th Fleet area of responsibility.

USS George Washington has been forward deployed in the U.S. 7th Fleet area of responsibility since August 2008, and is returning to Newport News to undergo its RCOH. Maintenance efforts will include: refueling the ship's two nuclear reactors, modernization and repairs to the propulsion plant, restoring ship service life margins, and system/equipment repair and/or replacement, as well as war-fighting modernization.

For more news from USS George Washington (CVN 73), visit
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
This is big news...and good news for India. We need more details:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Vikram-joint-07.jpg

Naval Today said:
USA and India have formed a Joint Working Group for possible co-operation in the field of aircraft carrier technologies in the future.

The collaboration, which will result in building aircraft carriers, is expected to significantly boost the Indian Navy’s capabilities.

Indian Defence Minister Shri Manohar Parrikar released the information of the Joint Working Group in a written reply to Shri KC Tyagi and Shri P Bhattacharya in Rajya Sabha.
 

damitch300

Junior Member
Registered Member
And you think that these days a huge ass 110.000 tonnes carrier can manouvre so fast that it evades a missile or aircraft?
You must be bolocks...
You can try but the result wont be satisfying

Might be for older missiles but the newest from 80s on wont be fooled.
They are either sea skimmers or drop downers and a sharp turn wont differ much from those angles.
Especially with the speeds that they come in with.

This is like the NOST trainings i had.
INCOMING TORPEDO. PREPARE FOR IMPACT. (Ship turns)
And BANG BANG BANG. One small hole lets fix it.
Yeah right hahahaha.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
And you think that these days a huge ass 110.000 tonnes carrier can manouvre so fast that it evades a missile or aircraft?

You can try but the result wont be satisfying

Might be for older missiles but the newest from 80s on wont be fooled.

Especially with the speeds that they come in with.
Those maneuvers would be done in conjunction with chaff and decoys being launched.

In conjunction with that...they can most certainly be effective.

Of course, the most effective things they will be doing will be using their anti-air missiles and CIWS guns, The second most effective will be the electronic warfare being used to jam or disable the missiles. Then, third would be the chaff, decoys, and maneuvering.

They would seek to use them all if they have to in defense of the vessel.
 
All US nuclear carriers are REALLY put through their paces during qualification trials. ...

related:
Pentagon Directs Shock Tests on Carrier Ford
The Pentagon rejected a US Navy plan to carry out shock and survivability tests on the second ship of its new aircraft carrier design, and instead directed the service to test the first ship — even though doing so may delay the ship's first deployment by at least half a year.

In an Aug. 7 memo to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, Frank Kendall, the Pentagon's top acquisition official, ordered the "full ship shock trial" (FSST) to be carried out on the Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), first of a new class of carriers and expected to enter service in 2016.

The ship is in the final stages of construction at Newport News Shipbuilding in Virginia.

The Navy had wanted to wait until the second ship, the John F. Kennedy (CVN 79), was available, but that carrier isn't expected to enter service until late 2022 or 2023. Among other issues, the Navy argued that the time taken to perform the tests on the Gerald R. Ford would delay the ship's first deployment.

Virtually all new ship designs undergo shock testing, where real explosives are set off close to the ship, which is then examined to see how well it withstood the stresses. The tests, however, are not always performed on the first ship to enter service.

When the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers entered service in the early 1990s, for example, the third ship, John Paul Jones, was the ship selected for shock tests, and more recently, the Mesa Verde, third ship of the San Antonio-class amphibious transport docks, carried out shock tests for the class in 2008.

Quoting directly, Kendall's memo directs the Navy to:

  • "Execute the FSST for the CVN 78 Class using the lead ship, CVN 78. The FSST shall be conducted prior to the initial operational deployment of CVN 78.
  • "Fully fund the CVN 78 program in the FY 2017 Navy budget submission to complete the component shock testing program and to execute the FSST as directed.
  • "Complete the Total Ship Survivability Test (TSST) using CVN 78 prior to initial operational deployment, as currently planned.
  • "Provide me the detailed plan to implement this direction at the CVN 78 Annual Defense Acquisition Board In-Process Review in December 2015."
In the memo, Kendall acknowledged the tests would impact the ship's schedule:

"The FSST and the TSST will be conducted to ensure the survivability of the CVN 78 design is understood [sic] prior to beginning operational deployments. The operational implications of any delay to CVN 78 entering the CVN deployment cycle caused by scheduling the FSST prior to initial deployment are acknowledged and were considered."

Cmdr. Thurraya Kent, spokesperson for the Navy's acquisition directorate, declined comment on the memo other than to say, "the Navy's been notified of the decision regarding Full Ship Shock Trials and will move forward as directed."
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General
And you think that these days a huge ass 110.000 tonnes carrier can manouvre so fast that it evades a missile or aircraft?
You must be bolocks...
You can try but the result wont be satisfying

Might be for older missiles but the newest from 80s on wont be fooled.
They are either sea skimmers or drop downers and a sharp turn wont differ much from those angles.
Especially with the speeds that they come in with.

This is like the NOST trainings i had.
INCOMING TORPEDO. PREPARE FOR IMPACT. (Ship turns)
And BANG BANG BANG. One small hole lets fix it.
Yeah right hahahaha.

I guess you have never heard of the Falklands war and HMS Glamorgan

A land based Exocet was launched by Argentina and was aiming straight for HMS Glamorgan when in the last few second Glamorgan turned away and went full speed causing the missile to hit port side preventing it from hitting the centre and middle avoiding a deep penetration which would have split the warship in half

The result was HMS Glamorgan survived the war as was a result of the late turn it made

Moral of the story, if you add up all the small factors like CIWS, chaft and flare, electronic jamming and aggressive manoeuvres all increase the chances of survival and increasing the chances of survival is what war is about and on occasions it could make the different between winning or losing

And lastly I think your comment was really immature read forum rules reply accordingly
 

Obi Wan Russell

Jedi Master
VIP Professional
Just to add to the above comment, Changing course when under missile or torpedo attack essentially reduces a big target to a small one, most warships having a length to beam ratio of 10:1, eg a 500ft long destroyer becomes a 50ft wide target if she turns away from the incoming missile/torpedo. Also a strike on the stern will be far less catastrophic than a hit on the side (unless you happen to be in the helo hangar at the time, as happened to the Glamorgan).

Remember HMS Sheffield was hit amidships as she didn't receive enough warning time to turn the ship or deploy chaff. She was hit in the vitals and even with no detonation the burning rocket motor still set the ship on fire. Glamorgan had just enough warning time to turn away, and as she was heeling over to port the missile skidded on her helo deck and impacted in the hangar. Turning away is still a valid countermeasure.
 
Top