Have cats ever been fitted to a carrier that wasn't steam or nuclear powered?

Would anyone else like to comment on my points regarding the connection between the new carriers and littoral capability?

Apparently not - frustrating isn't it?

You couldn't call either of them classics, however, the special effects in the new one are top notch.
Here's a
Teaser

WEBF in some sort of order -

1. No carrier with cats has ever been other than steam / nuclear powered. Mind you, the only carriers that haven't been steam or nuclear have been STOVL jobs, like CVS, the Spanish & Italian ships and the Thai one.

2. It won't be CODLAG, it'll be some sort of integrated electric system (acronym not yet invented!)

3. You're correct - amphib and carrier strike are closely linked. But, you can use a carrier without the need for the Amphibs. Basically, the capability argument is too difficult to get past the treasury, (let alone for the DEC & IPTs to understand).

SASLESS, Nimitz class great idea but, Portsmouth is not deep or wide enough, it will not fit under the Forth Bridge and will not fit up Plymouth Sound either. So manpower aside, there is no-where in the UK where it could get alongside without being shunted out of the way by the Queen Mary etc. and no dock large enough to repair/refit! So either it goes back to the US for maintainance (JCA all over again!) or let the French repair it at Lorient!

I'm sure I have seen a picture of the Nimitz at Portsmouth somewhere, maybe DRJ or 'trade journal' (read spotter's mag!)

I might be wrong, and it would have been some time ago as, IIRC, there were Phantoms embarked.

It most certainly was at Portsmouth, but anchored in the Solent! That would be a great draft.....three years of liberty boats!

I've never seen a Nimitz at Portsmouth, however, they would frequently anchor in Spithead. I think the last carrier to actually go alongside would have been an Essex or (at a pinch) a Midway. Portsmouth has a very narrow harbour mouth and the channel would need to be heavily dredged.

Thank goodness, though the old goldfish memory was failing me. Next numpty questions are:

A) The picture showed visitors on board, would they have been shipped (floated/bussed/armada of small boats) out?
B) Is it beyond comprehension to dredge the channel given the huge investment in the new carriers?

I'll call for the taxi now...:confused:

They would run a tender service from ship to shore. No mean feat when you have a crew of 5,000 plus visitors to manage. The harbour is being dredged for CVF of course, but the Nimitz has a deeper draft then even a CVF. The problem with dredging is that you have to keep at it, its not a one off job and therefore costs dosh which seems to be in very short supply.

It's not just the depth but the width as well. Historic buildings on both sidea and once alongside, no room for the ferries to get past and no room up harbour to turn either. Anyway, we still do not have a dock large enough. I understand that the CVF will be put together in Rosyth because that is the only dock long enough. Apparently it was the same one that was extended to take the Hood! I'll post a link if I find one.

CVF is being put together in Rosyth for two reasons :

1. Its next door to Gordon constituency
2. Harland & Wolff don't have the technical capability to build at that scale anymore (and have a poor recent record with non-upkeep RN/RFA work), Fort Victoria, Argus. They do have the biggest dock in the UK though, 550 x 90m and no bridge to get under.

Biggest carrier in Portsmouth harbour (not Spithead Charlie) in recent years was probably FS Clemenceau (32000 te, 230m long) in the late 90s.

Concur with Navaleye - maintaining a channel suitable for Nimitz would be very expensive. In terms of beam however, they're similar ships. CVF has been as high as 76m, but is down to about 68 now I think. Nimitz is ~ 76m at the flightdeck.

Widger,

Would you consider a "Wet Lease" arrangement on a Nimitz class carrier....we will provide the ship, ship's crew, up keep, and the Brits provide the aircraft, squadron personnel, RM's, helicopters, etc.?

Sorry, nowhere to put the beer barrels..... :)

No ACRB, no sorties.......

I have the perfect solution for Pompey's harbour. Equip a car ferry with catapults in the car hold, and a platform with arrestor wires on top a la the early carriers converted from colliers etc. Fling 'em out the front of the car deck, get them to land on the flat bit on top. Fits snugly in the harbour, and what's more can also ferry troops and equipment overseas. Between cruises the Navy can get a bit of the investment capital back on cross-channel runs... CVRORO anyone?

Mr. Jerome Rivière complimented in his turn DCN for his satisfying assessment and his results, which exceed the hopes: the decisions of the Government, supported by the Parliament, were the maid.

Has anyone ever seen a Babelfish translation that wasn't ridiculous? And can someone post a link to the French text so we can read it?

http://www.nightmarefactory.com/UA8048.jpg
I am 'ow you say? verry pleased to 'ave satisfied ze Minister

Apart from Portland.



Widger is quite correct, Pompey has been dredged to its limit....anymore and the Historic buildings either side will fall into the Solent. That was why the Old Aircraft Carriers were based in Guzz. Despite the hard turn at Drakes Island.

It was reported that the Portsmouth CVF study said the biggest problem were the undersea cables that would have to be relaid if the entrance was made much deeper. Costs a lot apparently.

Don't the CVN's moor in Stokes bay?