Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 31

Thread: aircraft carrier question

  1. #1
    Patron wellman's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Dec 09
    Location
    minnesota
    Posts
    155

    aircraft carrier question

    Was there a different school of thought between carriers made for the usn compaired to one's made for the soviet navy or were they all basicly the same? If there is can one of you fine gentleman explain to me the differences?

  2. #2
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,728
    The length and orientation of the flight decks for starters. USN carriers are much larger (1000'), heavier (approx 100,000 tons) and do not have the "ski slope" bow. They can launch and recieve aircraft on a constant bases as well as helo ops on the fly. They launch by catapult and land by tail arrestor cable both jet aircraft and prop driven aircraft. Your USN carriers are also nuclear powered giving them unlimited range, ungodly speed, high manuverability and capable of being anywhere on the globe within a specified timeframe.

    Their size, range, speed and capacity (they can carry more aircraft on one platform then most countries can field at one given time) alone sets them apart from any other force at sea. These carriers are built with long legs and the means to support a crew of approxiamtely 6,000 sailors and air crews. They can stay at sea unlimited when replentished if need be.

    On paper, they are built to last a "lifetime" (50 years and in some cases more) if they fufill the requirements on maintenance.

    These are just some of the differences without going into protection and technology based aboard them. They are truely a sight to behold wether docked/moored or at sea particularly from an Engineering standpoint.

    In the next 10-15 years you will begin to see the Nimitz class carriers begin to come out of service having fufilled their lifespan and be replaced by the Gerald R Ford class with many improvements such as EMALS among others and the next class on the building ways.

    Anyone that has ever sailed upon one knows that they have sailed upon the true Queen of the Ocean second to none.

    Speed ofcoarse is "classified".
    Last edited by Dreadnought; 11 Aug 11, at 19:31.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  3. #3
    Patron wellman's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Dec 09
    Location
    minnesota
    Posts
    155
    Is that to say that soviet aircraft carriers will need to be replaced much sooner then ones used by the usn? wouldent this mean that when the Chinese do finish with the Varyag that they will have to build one them selfs or not have one at all? and what are the advantages of launching off a ramp vs. using a catapult?

  4. #4
    In Memoriam/Battleship Enthusiast Defense Professional USSWisconsin's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Dec 08
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    5,434
    Quote Originally Posted by wellman View Post
    Is that to say that soviet aircraft carriers will need to be replaced much sooner then ones used by the usn? wouldent this mean that when the Chinese do finish with the Varyag that they will have to build one them selfs or not have one at all? and what are the advantages of launching off a ramp vs. using a catapult?
    The USN experience with carriers is second to none - the Russian/Soviet carriers have been less numerous, smaller, and in service for much shorter periods - and funding to support them has been very limited. This makes the Russian carriers more expensive per sortie and less reliable. The life of a carrier is dependent on how well it is supported and cared for. Russian carriers have suffered from neglect and have had their useful lives reduced accordingly. For over 50 yrs, the USN has been very far ahead of any other country in carrier operations - in a class by itself.

    The ramp is cheaper as are the aircraft built to use it, the cat is more efficient and permits simultaneous landing and launch operations - as well as higher take off weights and more aircraft carried.
    "If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
    If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

  5. #5
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,728
    Quote Originally Posted by wellman View Post
    Is that to say that soviet aircraft carriers will need to be replaced much sooner then ones used by the usn? wouldent this mean that when the Chinese do finish with the Varyag that they will have to build one them selfs or not have one at all? and what are the advantages of launching off a ramp vs. using a catapult?
    Well, the RN (Royal Navy), USN (United States Navy) and the IJN (Imperial Japanese Navy) have had the most experience building CV's since the early 1930's. Germany (Kriegsmarine) developed the Graf Zepplin (their first CV) by the close of WWII. It was never finished, but was ceded to Russia as war repreations once Germany was defeated. The Soviets sailed it home loaded with farm and industrial machinery from both Poland and Germany and then used it for bomb tests. It was recently found (a few years back) sunk off Northern Poland. The Soviets really didnt build until the Cold War came about during the Korean War era. Since then, when the Soviet Union collapsed, their Navy was pretty much abandoned to rot. The Soviets (Russia now days) produced CV's inline with their Naval Doctrine pretty much sticking close to home waters where as the Brits, the US and Japan designed carriers for long distance naval presence which was what WWII dictated at the time. The US continuously progressed in CV building to this day and the RN has just restarted their own real CV program with the building of the new Queen Elizabeth class carriers which wont come online for the next five or so years with one possibly going to France to reduce both R&D and Construction costs.

    The Chinese already have another CV in building from their own yards. Chances are though they will not be on the scale of US carriers and probably stick to the 70,000 range as what Varyag is presently. Their Naval Doctrine will determine the size of their future CV program and more then likely stick to home waters for the next forseeable decade atleast IMO.

    Catapults in the USN are steam powered off of the Auxillary steam systems aboard and are maintenance intensive and stress the airframe of the aircraft when launching. The new class of USN CVN's are to be EMALS systems utilizing electro magnetic launch and recovery systems. This means improved performance and less stress to the airframes of their aircrafts meaning less costs to maintain them and perhaps longer lifespans of the aircraft in service.

    The Brits,Russia, the Chinese and now India will still use the "ski slope" launch requiring a jet to back up against a blast shield, run its engines up to maximum thrust and then launch causing more stress to the engines and higher mainenance costs to the aircraft. They will also still use an arrestor cable for landing which adds more stress to the aircraft keeping maintenance costs expensive.

    Putin had stated they plan to rebuild their Navy in the very near future and had pledged billions in funding. I guess we shall see now that many of their Admirals have shown interest in large carrier forces.

    One of the biggest sailings the Russian Navy was supposed to have ended before it started with the unexpected sinking of the submaine Kursk. This stopped everything until it was recovered.

    As far as service life goes though Russia did not spend any considerable time at sea with the CV's she has built, operated and sold with the few sailings of the Kuznetzov and one trip a few years back to Venezuala to visit Hugo Chavez. In which kind of showed the shape of their Navy considering they brought their own tugboat along with them "in case".

    The fuel spill they left during this journey off the coast of Ireland blatently showed that they have also become very sloppy with refueling at sea as reports showed and Ireland made their anger known to the Kremlin after it washed up on their shores.

    The Brits however have left open the possibility of adding the American EMALS system to their CV in building if its available and if their Naval Doctine dicates a constant presence at sea. There has already been speculation of retrofitting their CV with the system once building is complete. There has been no definitive answer on it though as to wether they will or they wont pursue EMALS but have shown interest in it.

    Sorry about the length of the reply, I can breathe now.
    Last edited by Dreadnought; 12 Aug 11, at 16:34.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  6. #6
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,818
    Quote Originally Posted by wellman View Post
    Was there a different school of thought between carriers made for the usn compaired to one's made for the soviet navy or were they all basicly the same? If there is can one of you fine gentleman explain to me the differences?
    USN uses aircraft carriers in a different way than what the Soviet navy envisioned for its own carriers.

    Aircraft carriers are the USN's capital ships. Everything else is built around them to support them. They are the center of the doctrine.

    Soviet carriers were to support their submarine fleet. Subs were the Soviet navy's capital ships. Soviet carriers, along with surface ships, were to assist the subs in getting to the open sea to conduct their missions.

    Or so I've read...
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  7. #7
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,728
    Soviet carriers were to support their submarine fleet. Subs were the Soviet navy's capital ships. Soviet carriers, along with surface ships, were to assist the subs in getting to the open sea to conduct their missions.

    *Then not many Soviet submarines went to sea throughout those years (which we know they did without these ships) because those CV's sat for years and years abandoned at their moorings.

    This is one glimpse of what many of their Naval hulls suffered during those years.

    http://russiatrek.org/blog/army/russ...veyard-photos/

    http://www.urbanghostsmedia.com/2011...ola-peninsula/
    Last edited by Dreadnought; 12 Aug 11, at 16:43.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  8. #8
    New Member phenom's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Aug 11
    Location
    India
    Posts
    8
    I think the USN aircraft carriers are designed for power projection and to take a central role in any conflict. Whereas the Soviet/Russian aircraft carriers play more of support role to other missile cruisers and ballistic missile submarines. The Soviet/Russian aircraft carriers are essentially heavy missile cruisers which can carry aircraft.
    The USN carriers' main weapons are the huge number of aircraft which they carry, and the missiles on board are for defensive purpose only. On Soviet/Russian carriers carry cruise missiles as their main weapons, with a far fewer number of aircraft (compared to USN carriers) for air superiority and fleet defense.
    In one of the article I read on Soviet military, it was said that the Soviet leadership were very confident of their ballistic missile capabilities and did not believe they needed supercarrier.

    Again, this is what I think, and I have been proven wrong sometimes....

  9. #9
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,728
    Quote Originally Posted by phenom View Post
    I think the USN aircraft carriers are designed for power projection and to take a central role in any conflict. Whereas the Soviet/Russian aircraft carriers play more of support role to other missile cruisers and ballistic missile submarines. The Soviet/Russian aircraft carriers are essentially heavy missile cruisers which can carry aircraft.
    The USN carriers' main weapons are the huge number of aircraft which they carry, and the missiles on board are for defensive purpose only. On Soviet/Russian carriers carry cruise missiles as their main weapons, with a far fewer number of aircraft (compared to USN carriers) for air superiority and fleet defense.
    In one of the article I read on Soviet military, it was said that the Soviet leadership were very confident of their ballistic missile capabilities and did not believe they needed supercarrier.

    Again, this is what I think, and I have been proven wrong sometimes....
    They are? Could you please indicate where these cruise missles are located in this pic of Admiral Kuznetzov?

    Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov|Kaleidoscope|chinadaily.com.cn
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  10. #10
    New Member phenom's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Aug 11
    Location
    India
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnought View Post
    They are? Could you please indicate where these cruise missles are located in this pic of Admiral Kuznetzov?

    Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov|Kaleidoscope|chinadaily.com.cn
    Well, this website gives details of Admiral Kuznetsov with photo of the location of missile silos.

    Carriers; Fully Loaded – Admiral Kuznetsov | Phoenix ThinkTank

    The cruise missile silos are apparently placed right underneath the flight deck.

  11. #11
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,728
    Quote Originally Posted by phenom View Post
    Well, this website gives details of Admiral Kuznetsov with photo of the location of missile silos.

    Carriers; Fully Loaded – Admiral Kuznetsov | Phoenix ThinkTank

    The cruise missile silos are apparently placed right underneath the flight deck.
    These would be anti-ship missles. A cruise missle would indicate something along the Tomahawk series of missles. These are more along the Harpoon series of missles the USN carries for anti-ship purposes. Many of these are slated to be removed in a "future" upgrade to allow more aircraft in the hangars. They are to be replaced with SAM missles if they do go through with the upgrade along with the powerplant and radars.

    According to the Russian Navy website, these improvements seem to be more or less "optimistic" since no concrete plans of this have appeared as of yet.
    Last edited by Dreadnought; 13 Aug 11, at 00:11.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  12. #12
    New Member phenom's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Aug 11
    Location
    India
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnought View Post
    These would be anti-ship missles. A cruise missle would indicate something along the Tomahawk series of missles. These are more along the Harpoon series of missles the USN carries for anti-ship purposes. Many of these are slated to be removed in a "future" upgrade to allow more aircraft in the hangars. They are to be replaced with SAM missles if they do go through with the upgrade along with the powerplant and radars.

    According to the Russian Navy website, these improvements seem to be more or less "optimistic" since no concrete plans of this have appeared as of yet.
    AFAIK P-700 Ganit is known as an anti ship cruise missile. One of its spin offs the P-800 was used as the base for Brahmos which is a cruise missile. Please correct me if I am wrong.

  13. #13
    New Member oscar156's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Jul 11
    Location
    Los Ageles, CA
    Posts
    20
    I'm just curious, if Japan continued to build aircraft carriers, how good would they be? Would they be on par with American carriers or be far less in capability.
    Last edited by oscar156; 13 Aug 11, at 00:41.

  14. #14
    Contributor Wayfarer's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Feb 10
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    498
    Sorry to add to the bombard of questions - but why haven't we seen an X shaped aircraft carrier or even a Y shaped one to increase the amount of aircraft that the carrier can put up if required.

  15. #15
    Ex-Wabber Defense Professional
    Join Date
    10 Dec 04
    Posts
    7,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Wayfarer View Post
    Sorry to add to the bombard of questions - but why haven't we seen an X shaped aircraft carrier or even a Y shaped one to increase the amount of aircraft that the carrier can put up if required.
    When you see crossed runways on land it's to minimize the crosswind component. You don't use intersecting runways simultaneously, you use the one that is most directly into the wind.

    On carriers, when you are running simultaneous TO&L ops, the aircraft takeoff from the bow (directly into the wind), and the landings are done on the angle. The space between is used for refueling and re-arming, and aircraft handling/parking.

    The angle is 9 degrees on a Nimitz class, which keeps the crosswind component down. I guess in theory you could have an angled deck port and starboard, you'd have to stagger the approaches carefully to maintain separation -the approaching aircraft would have to cross paths before touching down.

    Imo the risks outweigh the benefits.
    "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Aircraft carrier island question
    By Silent Hunter in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09 Feb 10,, 23:07
  2. Day Dreaming? Chinese Aircraft Carrier
    By socks in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 19 Oct 06,, 15:26
  3. OMG chinese aircraft carrier!!!!
    By astralis in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 17 Oct 06,, 19:49
  4. China unveils new aircraft carrier...
    By PubFather in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 04 Jun 06,, 00:52
  5. New Russian Aircraft carrier?
    By rickusn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 28 May 05,, 12:03

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •