How big do Ctol Carriers Need to be?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2

hybrid RE:How big do Ctol Carriers Need to be? 1/25/2004 5:09:57 AM

Um....really depends on the number of craft you're operating and whether you're using catapults or ramps. Also depends on TYPE of aircraft. You could make a much smaller aircraft carrier, for instance, if you're using turboprop/prop driven planes (such as escort carriers which were converted freighters during WWII).

Quote Reply

Mark F RE:How big do Ctol Carriers Need to be? 1/25/2004 7:22:27 AM

In the postwar era the ex-RN Colossus/Majestic carriers proved to be the smalled carriers practical for jet operations as they could (just) handle aircraft like the A-4 Skyhawk and Sea Hawk. They can not however, handle anything bigger, nor can they handle that many aircraft. The French Foch class could handle somewhat larger and more modern aircraft but even then they could not efficienty handle today's smallest CTOL jets - the Rafale and Hornet. Essentially Charles de Gaulle is about the smallest practical CTOL carrier, and even she could have benefited nicely from a 20 meter stretch (and another reactor) IIRC.

Quote Reply

Massive RE:How big do Ctol Carriers Need to be? 1/25/2004 11:04:53 AM

So a ship of Foch size could operate F-35 CTOL naval variant?

Quote Reply

french stratege 23000 t minimum but above 33OOO is better for efficiency 1/25/2004 6:15:40 PM

Yes in fact, but you can also have a smaller ship .Before the fifties aircraft carrier didn't have oblique landing track on the deck.You need 205 m to land a F18 and a stable ship.The practical minimal size is so a 23000 t ship if fitted with stabilisation system and few F18 like aircraft (better to combine CTOVL like harrier and F18/E2C because when the F18 will be catapulted no F18 aircraft could land).Such a ship could have for example 2 EC, 10 F18, 12 harriers and 3 ASW/rescue helo.But you have a very good stabilisation sytem to use CTOCL like F18,it if big waves on the sea.And also good lift and deck storage management to free the landing track quicly. But the ship is more efficient if bigger and especially have an oblique track to free catapult. For an F18 (or Rafale) you need a 75 m catapult at full load.If you want to use a catapult and landing track in the same time you need 260 m at least so an aircraft carrier like Foch about 33000 t.After that the other problem is space on the deck.A Foch can handle 30 F18 (if refited with a 75 m catapult instead of 50m) and CdG 40 because for the almost same lenght it is larger which explain its displacement of 40 000 T: the deck went from 8000 M2 surface in Foch to 12000 m2 in Cdg.In theory you could use F18 or Rafale on a 18000 t ship without oblique track if you equiped it with automatic landing system, vector trust and better engine.But no E2C and catapult about 50/60 m so no use at full load for the aircraft.

Quote Reply

Jack Tar RE:23000 t minimum but above 33OOO is better for efficiency 1/26/2004 5:23:06 AM

Just out of interest. Didn't they have to lengthen the Flight deck of the CDG so they could operate fully laden Rafale's safely?

Quote Reply

french stratege RE:23000 t minimum but above 33OOO is better for efficiency 1/26/2004 4:27:08 PM

No for the Rafale. There was a problem of safety margin for E2C in night landing if they arrest on the third arresting hook (last cable).So they added 5 meters to be in accordance with the specification. But some US carriers before Nimitz class didn't meet this specification.

Quote Reply

Jack Tar RE:23000 t minimum but above 33OOO is better for efficiency 1/27/2004 8:28:54 AM

Ah! I see! I knew they had to lengthen it for some reason, but I couldn't remember why. Thanks for the info French Stratege.. Also, out of interest, what kind of a launch rate can be sustained by the CDG as compared to a Nimitz??

Quote Reply

southern cross majestic 1/27/2004 5:24:20 PM

somebody before mentioned that the RN majestic class carriers could not operate anything larger than an A-4 Skyhawk, but when the Royal Australian Navy got their second majestic, they put an angled flight deck on it and were able to operate trackers (similar to the US navy COD).

Quote Reply

Mark F RE:majestic 1/27/2004 5:31:41 PM

The Tracker is piston engined. I was referring to jet combat aircraft.

Quote Reply

french stratege RE:23000 t minimum but above 33OOO is better for efficiency 1/29/2004 3:14:16 AM

two catapult so a launch rate half of a nimitz (but the same landing rate).Two aircraft each 30 s.

Quote Reply

1 2