But yeah, from what I read it makes a lot of sense.
I have to check, but the tonnage is 50% bigger but the dimensions are roughly similar. Personally I would like be on a tour on of your new ships when it's built. Unfortunately that will never happen.GrahamKennedy wrote:It's remarkable to think that a multi billion dollar nuclear aircraft carrier is used as a car ferry sometimes.
Talking of scale, one of the construction blocks from the new UK carriers. Gives an interesting impression of the scale of it when you can actually see the innards.
And a US carrier is more than half as large again...
Huh? No angled deck? Guess that's decides whether we'll be getting the B or C.GrahamKennedy wrote:*snip image*
Captain Seafort wrote:Huh? No angled deck? Guess that's decides whether we'll be getting the B or C.GrahamKennedy wrote:*snip image*
Not really. It's about half the complement of a Nimitz on two-thirds the displacement. Given that a smaller ship will naturally have a greater proportion of its volume taken up by machinery, that's pretty good. It's about the same as the Charlie G, on the same displacement and with larger aircraft.Atekimogus wrote:No expert here, but why only 40 aircraft? Isn't that kinda few considering the size?
^2Mikey wrote:I was wondering about that myself. Namely, "Why would the UKoGBaNI adopt a carrier design without an angled flight deck?"
So it can fit in the garage. Alternativly, Because this way it's not like the French one.Mikey wrote:I was wondering about that myself. Namely, "Why would the UKoGBaNI adopt a carrier design without an angled flight deck?"
If you had mentioned this statement on its own, my mental response would likely have been, "That makes sense for a limey carrier."Griffin wrote:Because this way it's not like the French one.
Probably not, considering the abandonment of the Harrier.Tholian_Avenger wrote:Does it being designed for vertical and short take off operations have something to do with that decision?
That might actually be part of it, given that we were originally going to equip them with F35Bs.Mikey wrote:Probably not, considering the abandonment of the Harrier.Tholian_Avenger wrote:Does it being designed for vertical and short take off operations have something to do with that decision?
The CVF is actually about the same size as the Forrestal class.Captain Seafort wrote:Not really. It's about half the complement of a Nimitz on two-thirds the displacement. Given that a smaller ship will naturally have a greater proportion of its volume taken up by machinery, that's pretty good. It's about the same as the Charlie G, on the same displacement and with larger aircraft.Atekimogus wrote:No expert here, but why only 40 aircraft? Isn't that kinda few considering the size?
What's the plan now? Does the Typhoon have a naval variant/STOL variant?Captain Seafort wrote:That might actually be part of it, given that we were originally going to equip them with F35Bs.Mikey wrote:Probably not, considering the abandonment of the Harrier.Tholian_Avenger wrote:Does it being designed for vertical and short take off operations have something to do with that decision?
No. The idea's been mooted, and the takeoff run is certainly short enough, but I suspect the problem would be the cost of reinforcing the undercarrage and frame to hold up to an arrested deck landing. Plus, of course, the continuous arguments over whether either of the carriers will be CATOBAR.Mikey wrote:What's the plan now? Does the Typhoon have a naval variant/STOL variant?
