Carriers - Deck Islands
If the designator followed the original list shown here, it ought to be CVV.
Not to be pedantic or anything!
CVV was of course also that strange Carter-era attempt at a smaller carrier, which funnily enough had a CTOL (cat and traps) fit.
i'm plumping for CVF meaning Carrier, Fixed Wing, Fighter? USN and later, RAN squadrons used the following designations:
V for fixed wing (someone once told me the original word was 'vehicular' when applied to the carrier itself), H Helicopter, F Fighter, S anti-submarine, C Composite, A Attack, T Training. I think Q was for spooky stuff.
E.g. the RAN squadron VF 805 was fixed wing, fighter. HC 723 was Helicopter, Composite (several types and roles).
So as not to confuse the Americans, Australia's old HMAS Melbourne was designated as a CVS: Carrier, Fixed Wing, Anti-submarine.
Speaking of islands, I remember Melbourne's being bloody close to my starboard wingtip when hook up or boltering in an S-2.
V for fixed wing (someone once told me the original word was 'vehicular' when applied to the carrier itself), H Helicopter, F Fighter, S anti-submarine, C Composite, A Attack, T Training. I think Q was for spooky stuff.
E.g. the RAN squadron VF 805 was fixed wing, fighter. HC 723 was Helicopter, Composite (several types and roles).
So as not to confuse the Americans, Australia's old HMAS Melbourne was designated as a CVS: Carrier, Fixed Wing, Anti-submarine.
Speaking of islands, I remember Melbourne's being bloody close to my starboard wingtip when hook up or boltering in an S-2.
Last edited by Captain Dart; 12th Jan 2016 at 08:35.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
V for fixed wing (someone once told me the original word was 'vehicular' when applied to the carrier itself)
"The following is taken from "United States Naval Aviation 1910-1995, Appendix 16: US Navy and Marine Corps Squadron Designations and Abbreviations":
On 17 July 1920, the Secretary of the Navy prescribed a standard nomenclature for types and classes of NAVAL VESSELs, including aircraft, in which lighter-than air craft were identified by the type "Z" and heavier-than air craft by the letter "V". The reference also speculates that: "The use of the "V" designation has been a question since the 1920s. However, no conclusive evidence has been found to identify why the letter "V" was chosen. It is generally believed the "V" was in reference to the French word volplane. As a verb, the word means to glide or soar. As a noun, it described an aeronautical device sustained in the air by lifting devices (wings), as opposed to the bag of gas that the airships (denoted by "Z") used. The same case may be regarding the use of "Z". It is generally believed the "Z" was used in deference to Count Ferdinand von Zeppelin. However, documentation has not been located to verify this assumption."
)fLBQ4GC4fn,Q~~/s-l400.jpg)
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NFO's have commanded carriers as well.
But they are brown shoes. 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Far from being a legal requirement, the RN historically has a very disappointing history of carriers being commanded by big gun or small ship admirals/skippers and seldom by naval aviators to the detriment of the aviation contingent. Their operational failures for this reason are legion and part of the history books. Worse, it now looks as if the new "carriers" air groups are to be "led" by Air Force rather than Naval commanders.
I wish you guys well, and you might be able to make it work, but this sounds like an unworkable set up to a guy from across the pond.
But as it's not the case (or going to be the case) in the UK, we don't have to worry about it.......
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Next to Ross and Demelza
Age: 53
Posts: 1,236
Received 61 Likes
on
25 Posts
Actually, I thought the name Dave originated on this very forum.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting commets ladies & gemtlemen - but why are the QE islands so much BIGGER?
Do our naval friends require the sea spray in their faces so they can set the correct tack or somesuch?
Maybe its for people who don't like submarines......................
Do our naval friends require the sea spray in their faces so they can set the correct tack or somesuch?
Maybe its for people who don't like submarines......................
Each of those islands has five uptakes of various sizes running through it as well as a number of downtakes / vent spaces. That takes up a significant amount of space if you think about the size of trunking required for air mass flow rates, lagging, access and maintenance space around it. CVNs don't really need to consider that.
Because the antennae arrangements are less "trick" there are more equipment rooms. There are also some arrangements in the islands that we've included to make things easier for the chockheads / bombheads to do their thing, whereas the USN do something else.
There's a different philosophy between Ford and QE, primarily driven by one being a CVN, so you can go all out to minimise the deck area taken on the flightdeck, which helps their method of deck operation. Looking at Ford, I'd be surprised if there was much there other than the handlers room (where the Ouija board lives) FF party ready room, bridge, admirals bridge, PriFly and various radar and comms equipment rooms.
On QE, because you have to position (and size) the islands relative to certain other things (and structure below), you've already paid the penalty for deck area, so you can reap benefits elsewhere (eg less demanding sensor integration).
Because the antennae arrangements are less "trick" there are more equipment rooms. There are also some arrangements in the islands that we've included to make things easier for the chockheads / bombheads to do their thing, whereas the USN do something else.
There's a different philosophy between Ford and QE, primarily driven by one being a CVN, so you can go all out to minimise the deck area taken on the flightdeck, which helps their method of deck operation. Looking at Ford, I'd be surprised if there was much there other than the handlers room (where the Ouija board lives) FF party ready room, bridge, admirals bridge, PriFly and various radar and comms equipment rooms.
On QE, because you have to position (and size) the islands relative to certain other things (and structure below), you've already paid the penalty for deck area, so you can reap benefits elsewhere (eg less demanding sensor integration).
Why have islands at all? Make it totally flat with UAV radar and cameras off out of the way; blow the exhaust out of the side and tow a Waitrose ship to increase replenishment intervals.
Maybe a hydraulically raised bridge for entering and leaving harbour to keep the sailors happy.
Bas Naval Architects - the best at a sensible price
Maybe a hydraulically raised bridge for entering and leaving harbour to keep the sailors happy.
Bas Naval Architects - the best at a sensible price
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Bas, already tried I believe by the IJN.
In Akagi 's predecessor, Hōshō, the hot exhaust gases vented by swivelling funnels posed a danger to the ship, and wind-tunnel testing had not suggested any solutions. Akagi and Kaga were given different solutions to evaluate in real-world conditions. Akagi was given two funnels on the starboard side. The larger, forward funnel was angled 30° below horizontal with its mouth facing the sea, and the smaller one exhausted vertically a little past the edge of the flight deck. The forward funnel was fitted with a water-cooling system to reduce the turbulence caused by hot exhaust gases and a cover that could be raised to allow the exhaust gases to escape if the ship developed a severe list and the mouth of the funnel touched the sea.
Wiki
In Akagi 's predecessor, Hōshō, the hot exhaust gases vented by swivelling funnels posed a danger to the ship, and wind-tunnel testing had not suggested any solutions. Akagi and Kaga were given different solutions to evaluate in real-world conditions. Akagi was given two funnels on the starboard side. The larger, forward funnel was angled 30° below horizontal with its mouth facing the sea, and the smaller one exhausted vertically a little past the edge of the flight deck. The forward funnel was fitted with a water-cooling system to reduce the turbulence caused by hot exhaust gases and a cover that could be raised to allow the exhaust gases to escape if the ship developed a severe list and the mouth of the funnel touched the sea.
Wiki
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
They also built a couple with bridges on opposite sides the deck for operating in tight formation. The idea being that one operated a left hand pattern and the other a right hand pattern. Didn't work out, too confusing for the pilots......
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Japanese were copying the design of HMS Argus
In November 1916, the ship's design was tested in a wind tunnel by the National Physical Laboratory to evaluate the turbulence caused by the twin islands and the bridge over them. They were found to cause problems, but no changes were made until the ship was nearly complete. In April 1918, Argus was ordered to be modified to a flush-decked configuration after the sea trials of the carrier Furious had revealed severe turbulence problems caused by her superstructure. The ship was given a bridge underneath her flight deck, extending from side to side, and she was fitted with a retractable pilot house in the middle of the flight deck for use when not operating aircraft.[3]
