Carriers - Deck Islands
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carriers - Deck Islands
Looking at some newish pics of CVN-78 Ford I was struck by how much smaller the deck island is compared to the "Nimitz" class
And then the new RN QE's have TWO islands - both larger than the Fords for a much smaller carrier
Any idea why?
Did the plans get stuck in the photocopier??
And then the new RN QE's have TWO islands - both larger than the Fords for a much smaller carrier
Any idea why?
Did the plans get stuck in the photocopier??
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps because the Americans have been building proper carriers for a while, and know what they're doing*
*apologies for the oxymoronic turn of phrase!
Of course, it doesn't need a chuffing great funnel either.
Interesting that USS Gerald R. Ford was laid down in Nov '09 and will enter service in March '16. H.M.S. Queen Elizabeth was laid down in July '09 - and will be comissioned in 2017...
*apologies for the oxymoronic turn of phrase!
Of course, it doesn't need a chuffing great funnel either.
Interesting that USS Gerald R. Ford was laid down in Nov '09 and will enter service in March '16. H.M.S. Queen Elizabeth was laid down in July '09 - and will be comissioned in 2017...
Last edited by Willard Whyte; 11th Jan 2016 at 18:06. Reason: minor points of grammar and brevity
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
So only being a year behind isn't too shabby in my book. And the other one will only be a year or two behind the first.
Maybe they need more room for the "goofers" to watch the crashes 
On a more serous note, I have seen the FORD up close in person and you can readily see how different and how far aft the island is. The FORD island was shaped to reduce radar cross section and was moved back to optimise deck aircraft operations. And yes a much smaller space for "goofers" or in US terminology "Vultures Row"
Remember the UK carriers will require trunking for gas turbine exhaust- this influnces island placement and size. A nuclear carrier does not require this.
The UK carriers decided to split ship naviagtion (bridge) and flight operations.
Here on the UK carriers: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) - Naval Technology
"Advantages of the two island configuration are increased flight deck area, reduced air turbulence over the flight deck and increased flexibility of space allocation in the lower decks. The flight control centre in the aft island is in the optimum position for control of the critical aircraft approach and deck landings."
On a more serous note, I have seen the FORD up close in person and you can readily see how different and how far aft the island is. The FORD island was shaped to reduce radar cross section and was moved back to optimise deck aircraft operations. And yes a much smaller space for "goofers" or in US terminology "Vultures Row"
Remember the UK carriers will require trunking for gas turbine exhaust- this influnces island placement and size. A nuclear carrier does not require this.
The UK carriers decided to split ship naviagtion (bridge) and flight operations.
Here on the UK carriers: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) - Naval Technology
"Advantages of the two island configuration are increased flight deck area, reduced air turbulence over the flight deck and increased flexibility of space allocation in the lower decks. The flight control centre in the aft island is in the optimum position for control of the critical aircraft approach and deck landings."
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Ford class island is also 20 ft taller and was moved aft and slightly outboard relative to the Nimitz class. The idea behind the Ford class was to maximize the acreage of the flight deck to maximize both sustained and surge sortie generation. Sustained sortie generation is supposed to be 30% higher than the Nimitz class with the surge rate even higher. The new electromagnetic catapults (vs the usual steam catapults) are critical to supporting the higher sortie rates.
QE class have a much smaller complement of aircraft aboard and they are STOVL, so they all have to use the single launch ramp, as compared to four catapults on the Ford. Perhaps (I really have no idea) sortie generation is driven by the number of aircraft on board all using STOVL type operations, and so the deck area is not the driving criteria, allowing use of more deck area for the islands. Maybe.
QE class have a much smaller complement of aircraft aboard and they are STOVL, so they all have to use the single launch ramp, as compared to four catapults on the Ford. Perhaps (I really have no idea) sortie generation is driven by the number of aircraft on board all using STOVL type operations, and so the deck area is not the driving criteria, allowing use of more deck area for the islands. Maybe.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The UK carriers decided to split ship naviagtion (bridge) and flight operations.
What the hell, maybe the Royal Marines can have a cordoned off section to themselves too...
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The UK carriers decided to split ship naviagtion (bridge) and flight operations.
Last edited by KenV; 11th Jan 2016 at 18:44.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
However, looking at the Andrew's success in carrier innovations - angled deck, catapults, optical AIDS, ski jump etc - I wouldn't cast scorn until the concept has been practiced in operations.
It would also be worthwhile to consider relative sizes and volumes vs flight decks to see what, if any, penalty is accrued.
It would also be worthwhile to consider relative sizes and volumes vs flight decks to see what, if any, penalty is accrued.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, looking at the Andrew's success in carrier innovations - angled deck, catapults, optical AIDS, ski jump etc - I wouldn't cast scorn until the concept has been practiced in operations.
"When I left you, I was but the learner; now *I* am the master."
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Interesting that USS Gerald R. Ford was laid down in Nov '09 and will enter service in March '16. H.M.S. Queen Elizabeth was laid down in July '09 - and will be comissioned in 2017...
What does 'CVF' stand for. Google doesn't come up with an answer.
Also it seems to be a very short range ship - "CVF holds food, fuel and stores for an endurance of seven days between replenishments."
CC
Also it seems to be a very short range ship - "CVF holds food, fuel and stores for an endurance of seven days between replenishments."
CC
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
What does 'CVF' stand for. Google doesn't come up with an answer.
Also it seems to be a very short range ship - "CVF holds food, fuel and stores for an endurance of seven days between replenishments."
CC
Also it seems to be a very short range ship - "CVF holds food, fuel and stores for an endurance of seven days between replenishments."
CC
When I read about that some time ago I wondered if that was a good idea or not. USN does not view separating command of ship operations from command of flight operations as a good idea. Which begs a question. Is the captain of RN carriers a black shoe (a navy ship driver) or a brown shoe (a naval aviator)? By law USN carriers must be commanded by a naval aviator, and the skippers being brown shoes, they don't want to be separated from flight ops. So having two islands that separate the command functions like that just would not fly in USN. I'm not suggesting such separation is bad, but that it just would not work the way USN carriers are organized.
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. What they could know about Naval operations is utterly beyond me! Or, I suspect, them.
It's not a happy prospect.
CV is not an acronym for Carrier Vessel. It stands for aircraft carrier - the programme was properly known as Future Aircraft Carrier. There's a long convoluted history of the designation CV going back to the very early days of carrier aviation and heavier than air vs lighter than air operations. It is only contemporary halfwits (not anyone posting here) who feel the need to assign a word for every letter in a designation and make things up. A bit like those (of a window-licking persuasion) who describe CVS as Carrier Vertical Strike.
It's just like the internet spods who invented the acronym CATOBAR which makes no sense whatsoever. It only arose in the early noughties when the F35 programme decided (arbitrarily) to designate the "A" version as CTOL. Until then, for decades, CTOL (as in conventional take-off and landing) was understood to refer to cat and trap ops on a ship. STOVL was well established and made sense, STOAL/STOBAR came along to describe the C130/Forrestal trial and later Russian ops on Kuznetsov. The spods made up a nonsensical acronym to describe cat and trap, because they couldn't differentiate between that and land-based ops.
Fords island is where it is to overcome the pinch point to starboard of the arrester engines, which prevents recovered aircraft accessing the (large-ish) chunk of deck area aft of that during a recovery. The new layout maximises the amount of deck area that you can recover, spot and chain aircraft in a single serial before shutting down. Which minimises unpowered moves and handlers needed.
However, I'd be interested in the navigational view from that bridge - another driver for where QE forward island is positioned, together with uptakes (and their separation) and EM emitters and their separation. Could be the USN are paying lots of money for smart antennae to overcome that whereas the RN doesn't need to because other factors drive you towards two separate structures. EMI was a major concern in the early design phases.....
On endurance, that seven days is (like USN carriers) primarily aimed at the air wing consumables, based on high-intensity operations. The overall ships fuel, vittles' etc totals are considerably more plentiful.
It is unlikely that the air-wing commanders will be RAF. Don't confuse the owner of the F35 programme in MoD MB, or the Carrier Strike capability Air Cdre with Wings on the ship.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
NAB,
The meaning of CVF may be a made up acronym to fit in with the historic CV nomenclature, but it isn't just on the Internet. That page is from the House of Commons Defence Committee Future Carrier and Joint Combat Aircraft Programmes: Second Report 2005-2006.
The meaning of CVF may be a made up acronym to fit in with the historic CV nomenclature, but it isn't just on the Internet. That page is from the House of Commons Defence Committee Future Carrier and Joint Combat Aircraft Programmes: Second Report 2005-2006.
I know. And where do you think the researcher putting it together got it from?
Not the MoD.
Doesn't reflect well on the HCDC.
One has to confront these things, lest they gain acceptance through use. A bit like people saying "could of" vice "could have".
Not the MoD.
Doesn't reflect well on the HCDC.
One has to confront these things, lest they gain acceptance through use. A bit like people saying "could of" vice "could have".
Not yet. Hence the need to correct it.
If left uncorrected you end up with things like "Lightning" or "Sea Lightning", when everyone knows it's actually called "Dave".
If left uncorrected you end up with things like "Lightning" or "Sea Lightning", when everyone knows it's actually called "Dave".
Not_a_boffin wrote:
That stupid name is only used by 'Internet spods', MSFS geeks and spotters....
Military aircrew refer to it as the F-35B.
If left uncorrected you end up with things like "Lightning" or "Sea Lightning", when everyone knows it's actually called "Dave".
Military aircrew refer to it as the F-35B.