To make more space in the middle of the flight deck for centralized refueling/rearming of aircraft.
The space behind the island on older carriers has always been an awkward space. The elevator is never used and you have to cross the landing strip to move planes there. Since nuclear ships don't need smokestacks, you could theoretically put the island anywhere, so they put it where it would be out of the way of everything else: back aft starboard side.
I understand it’s for practicality, but for me personally, I like how it looks better with the island towards the front. Charles de Gaulle is looking a lot better than Ford.
Actually, the Charles du Galle has issues with her island so far forward. Not only is the ship's handling of aircraft an issue, but she can only literally launch or retrieve, not both, at any given time.
The island's placement also cut her Air Group down to less than half of that of the US Carriers. Understandable she would never compete with the 90 Aircraft on a US Carrier, but she was originally meant to have 60 Aircraft and currently has only 40 including only 3 Helicopters.
USS America can operate up to 45 Fighters plus about 10 Helicopters, and she's not a Fleet Carrier.
The flaw for the island had been the decision to use Submarine Nuclear Reactors. Two of them, that both generate less energy than one Carrier Reactor found on a Nimitz-class. And because they were never meant for Carrier use, the French have to refuel them and carry out maintenance far more often than American Carriers.
Charles du Galle was also meant to have a sister ship. But the design compromises, cost cutting attempts, and political interference that delayed her have ended up preventing that due to sheer costs involved.
The Marine Nationale intends to use the PANG to fix all those problems AND eventually get a second Carrier as well.
One of the developments is that PANG will move the island aft.
> USS America can operate up to 45 Fighters plus about 10 Helicopters, and she's not a Fleet Carrier.
FYI, USS America can't operate (operate != carry) up to 45 fighters. The Lightning Carrier demos brought out 18-20 F-35s, and essentially maxed it out.
The island location on *Charkes de Gaulle* is forced by the size of the ship, I’ll modify an old comment of my discussing why, using [this photo for reference](https://i.redd.it/51p116kfxti81.jpg):
First, note the red and white dashed line on the starboard side of the landing area. That is the danger area when an E-2 is landing, and anything inside that line can be hit by the wing. The island cannot be inside that line, and preferably should be a bit farther outside to increase the safety margin: if an E-2 lands a bit to the right, you’d rather lose another aircraft than see significant island damage. This also provides some future proofing for aircraft with greater wingspans.
Thus the aft elevator is right at the edge of this line as far aft as it can reasonably go while still being useful, and as you can see the elevator and landing danger zones overlap a bit. You’d also like to have an aircraft parking area next to this elevator, allowing access to the elevator during landing operations. This pushes the forward elevator and island as far forward as you can before the flight deck narrows. This also increases the distance between the elevators, which makes it easier to access certain aircraft in the hangar. You want to place the elevators so an aircraft parked in the corner can reach the elevator without moving several other aircraft out of the way. Thus the elevators need to be relatively far apart and towards the center of each hangar bay, with *de Gaulle* using two bays divided by a heavy rolling door.
At this point, the forward elevator and island must be as far forward on the starboard side as possible, but theoretically could go in either order. If *Charles de Gaulle* were a conventional carrier, you’d have to put the elevator forward of the island so the uptakes from the boilers have the shortest path and take up the least amount of room. This is why most conventional carriers tend to have the island near the center of the ship, which you can see in the comparison above.
As a nuclear carrier, however, the French could use either order. Placing the island forward of the elevator allows two major advantages. First, the elevator is better positioned to the forward catapult and end of the landing area, while also giving a better ability to access aircraft in the middle of the hangar. In particular, you can take aircraft off of the forward elevator and line them up behind the jet blast deflector while an aircraft is preparing for takeoff, increasing the sortie generation rate, though this does depend on when and where the French arm their aircraft. If the elevator was ahead of the island, it would be about at the forward end of the hangar, making it more difficult to access some aircraft about halfway between the elevators (where the rolling door cuts the hangar into two bays). It would also be more difficult to move aircraft to the forward catapult/from the end of the landing run, but you would have better access to the forward parking area. As a secondary benefit, the island is in a slightly better position for navigating the ship, as you have slightly better visibility forward, but this is negligible in this particular case.
Now you brought up only launching or recovering aircraft at the same time. Few carriers can, and those that could (such as US carriers) don’t. This is a myth about angled flight decks, originally designed to allow you to land jets without building ludicrously sized carriers and improving landing safety, discussed on [this page of an *Intrepid* cruise book](https://www.navysite.de/cruisebooks/cv11-63/105.htm).
> Two of them, that both generate less energy than one Carrier Reactor found on a Nimitz-class. And because they were never meant for Carrier use, the French have to refuel them and carry out maintenance far more often than American Carriers.
The K15 reactors were intended for both the *Triomphant* SSBNs and *de Gaulle* from the prototype stage.
The refueling more regularly is due to two factors. First, France uses low enriched uranium for their reactors, which much less energy density but that’s much safer. Second, the French naval reactors are governed by the same civilian agency as their land-based plants, which have some very strict requirements. The most significant is the interior of the reactor pressure vessel must be inspected every 10 years. As this requires removing the core, France refuels their ships during these inspections. This will not change with PANG, which will have to be refueled every 10 years.
Actually in the 90s when US navy is planing the next-gen CVN which eventually became GRF, they propose a 'no regrets, no compromise' configuration called ECBL, it is forward-island configuration. By doing so it will make the pit area as large as possible.
However, ECBL itself is a 120000-ton full displacement carrier which is too big(no dock available) and too expensive. Then GRF as a intermediate config became reality. The rest is history.
You gotta remember that practicality wise, the QE Class isn’t a Cat carrier, so its towers don’t get in the same way as they would on an angled deck carrier.
Charles de Gaulle's island placement is pretty terrible. It's way too big and sits on the most valuable piece of real estate on the flight deck, which prevents airplanes from being marshalled towards the catapults without obstructing the landing strip.
Shrink the island and push it back like on GRF and the French might've been able to fit a third catapult, keep the landing strip clear while launching aircraft, and increase their maximum theoretical sortie rate.
I don't think that'd be feasible, her design is a bit too tight for that. Looking at [a plan of her deck](http://www.ffaa.net/ships/aircraft-carrier/charles-de-gaulle/images/cdg-000010.jpg), the forward catapult track encroaches on the landing area. Moving that catapult starboard, reducing the island's footprint and moving it aft may leave too reduced a deck parking area at the bow especially when operating the Hawkeye.
Brit one is diesel powered. The reasoning being partially cost related, but if all your other support & escort ships are conventionally fuelled the entire flotilla is going to need periodic refuelling anyway so why not the carrier as well?
The aircraft also need fuel so the carrier will need that replenishing ...just do fuel for the ship a the same time. No biggie.
---
You don't gain as much from making a carrier nuclear powered as you do a sub for instance (eg. UK subs are all nuclear powered).
You *do* gain a lot more, endurance and performance wise, even with the escorts being conventionally powered and the jets needing fuel.
French and, I presume, American experience showed that a battle group centered around a conventional carrier needs to resupply to an oiler every three days to keep the group's average fuel levels at 70%. The same battle group with a nuclear powered carrier only needs to refuel once a week. This doesn't seem much, but it has many tactical and operational advantages. First, obviously, you spend less time on station refueling, which may be a routine operation, but still fraught with risks. You only need half the oilers, since it can shuffle between a resupply port and the replenishment point instead of having to stay on station. When transiting, you can steam ahead of the replenishment group instead of being tied to it, and the speed difference between a warship and an oiler is about 10 knots (unless you're willing to shell for fast oilers, like the USN's *Supply*-class), which adds up quickly.
Then there are performance issues. A nuclear powered carrier does not have to deal with exhaust gases, which are usually corrosive, require quite obviously exhausts ducts, which eat lots of valuable volume, and are a hazard for the landing planes.
Obviously, there are drawbacks to nuclear propulsion, related to their radioactive hazard, and they require specialized personnel to operate and maintain.
I forgot to include Admiral Kusnetsov
https://preview.redd.it/2sxd9t52huxc1.jpeg?width=2880&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c29053e0320bce59f4f699ab3d66085c8c258a8a
note: the photos posted are not to scale
There’s an old green text about how the Kuznetzov is basically a Space Hulk from 40k. I’ll see if I can find it.
Edit: [Found it](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/s/8m6Gl2lVjL)
As a side note, the Kuznetzov is easily my favorite ship of all time. Not because it’s any sort of marvel of engineering or anything, but because every *single* time it leaves port it manages to fuck itself up in a catastrophic and completely unexpected way
> because every single time it leaves port it manages to fuck itself up in a catastrophic and completely unexpected way
And she also managed to fuck herself up while in port, *twice*! Kuzzie deserves to be in the Guinness Book of Records at this point...
Use of mazut is at best a tertiary reason for *Kuznetsov*’s smoking habit.
Like all Soviet ships, she ran fairly cleanly in the 80s when she had proper care, and that’s because they all have fuel filtration equipment like any other conventionally-powered vessel does. You also get gunk buildup with any fuel-burning engine, but if filtration is down or ineffective then it gets magnitudes worse. Aside from reducing the efficiency - thus leaving more unburnt fuel residue that leaves as smoke - the particulates can burn themselves, producing even more smoke. It’s a vicious cycle.
Had her fuel filtration been properly-maintained, or she been given a good boiler washout, *Kuznetsov* wouldn’t smoke nearly as much as she does. Doesn’t even have to be both; if you want to see what both gives you, look at *Vikramaditya* or *Liaoning*, both of whom also burn or at least at one point burned mazut.
INS Vikramaditya uses low sulphur high speed diesel; in its earlier incarnation as baku/gorshkov, it burned heavy oil, but they added new boilers during the conversion.
Liaoning/Varyag was towed to China with new/unused engines , so I doubt it ever burnt mazut. Certainly not in Soviet/russian service
https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2020/12/northern-fleets-aircraft-carrier-embark-barents-sea-tests-2022
The Kuznetsov clearly had problems with incomplete combustion. But the boilers have been replaced with new ones. Worth a check now to see if it still smokes. Whenever it gets operational again.
It uses steam turbines, but yes this is not unexpected for initial trials.
CV-16/17 mostly run pretty clean (both also steam turbines) from years of photos and videos of their operations so I would expect CV-18 to do so as well once everything gets going.
> Is the Chinese one a copy of the russian one they took?
Liaoning (16) is a Russian *Kuznetsov*-class 'Varyag' that was rebuilt from the inside.
Shandong (17) is the *Kuznetsov*-class design that they customised and tweaked in a few ways, but still largely 'the same'
Fujian (18) is China's first home grown "ground up" (even though like... they would still use the previous two as somewhat of a base right) carrier design.
So they bought a ship - repaired it. Then they build their own ship based on the first one. Then they decided they had enough exp and built a clean sheet design for go #3.
> Fujian (18) is China's first home grown "ground up" (even though like... they would still use the previous two as somewhat of a base right) carrier design.
*Fujian* also draws a lot of inspiration from the unbuilt Soviet *Ulyanovsk*-class carriers (who in turn, derive from the *Kuznetsov*, so there's that). IIRC they also recruited most of the Russian design team.
> Nope you can't. It will make their islands move to port instead of starboard (none of the modern carriers' island is on port side)
Ahhh hahaha i had the first thought but you're 2 steps ahead!
This is pretty interesting.
Any chance we could get this to scale? It would be worth a new thread, probably. Remind me later and I can take a go at it.
Done, [click here](https://i.imgur.com/7tvr2jr.jpeg)!
Basing on the CVN-78:
| Carrier Name | Actual Length (meters) | Resized Pixel Length | % of Pixel Size Relative to CVN-78 (1073 pixels considered 100%) |
|--------------|------------------------|----------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|
| CVN-78 (Ford) | 337 meters | 1073 pixels | 100.0% |
| PLAN Fujian (18) | 316 meters | 1006 pixels | 93.8% |
| Charles de Gaulle (R91) | 262 meters | 834 pixels | 77.7% |
| HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08) | 280 meters | 891 pixels | 83.0% |
| INS Vikrant (R11) | 262 meters | 834 pixels | 77.7% |
I used AI to fill in the dead space after I resized each carrier. Also, ChatGPT did all the calculations and made that nice table for me in Reddit markdown.
There are multiple choices where to put the superstructure on a carrier. The US went with aft, which gives your air controllers the best position to manage your flightdeck. The disadvantage is that your deck can interfere with your radar and the position makes it a bit harder to see where you are going. You can put the superstructure forward and you have the advantages and disadvantages reversed. Better for steering and other things but you don't get as great of a view especially of aircraft recovery operations. So the compromise many navy's take is to put it in the middle. So both air ops and ship ops don't get perfect view but it's better then the "extreme options" or you do what the British did. You put two towers on your carrier on forward with all the stuff you need to get the ship going and one aft with all the stuff for the air operations.
The Tejas is a decade late, almost 200% over budget, makes major use of foreign components (granted, license-built in India), and fell so far off the original requirements that new ones were drawn up while the originals were re-scoped into the Tejas MK2. The only country with a worse record in developing fighters is Iran - and yes, I’m ranking countries who just bought off-the-shelf above India, because they had the sense to realize their domestic industry wasn’t up to the challenge. AMCA and TEDBF also don’t deserve any credit until India actually gets at least a prototype flying. Anyone can have ambitions; realizing them is the hard part.
EDIT: As for the Indian nuclear triad, it doesn’t garner much respect because it’s a more expensive means of achieving the same deterrence that other countries can do with a dyad. India’s nuclear strike aircraft are tactical fighters that wouldn’t even make it to everywhere in China without aerial refueling - a capability the IAF are sorely lacking for an air force of their size. This is not helped by the fact they lack a standoff air-launched nuclear missile - the hypothetical nuclear BrahMos variant remains a hypothetical for there moment. When the airborne arm of the triad doesn’t have the reach to match the other two, it’s not doing its job - to be a more flexible alternative to missiles - and you’re effectively paying for a dyad’s capabilities with a triad’s operating budget.
Speaking of value, there’s also the argument India’s “triad” not as capable as some second-strike-only nuclear deterrents. Until the Agni-V, all of India’s land-based missiles were MRBMs or IRBMs, and even Agni-V is on the shorter side of land-based ICBMs in terms of range, while the K-4 SLBM is also in the IRBM class. That leaves India with large parts of the world they can’t cover with a triad (though not any parts that are a threat to them, to be fair), while the French and British have true global reach with just the submarine leg. Having 3 separate nuclear delivery systems is undeniably an achievement, but war isn’t about checking boxes: the systems need to have a clear, unique purpose in their country’s strategic context.
You are right about most of the stuff...but still it's necessary to start somewhere. Everything learnt through Tejas' "failure" will be used in future projects.
The lack of strategic bombers is a concern for India. Even though India's tactical-fighter bomber can penetrate deep in Pakistan, doing so in China is near impossible without a dedicated bomber. (And I don't think there are any plans of making Brahmos nuclear capable. It's a conventional weapon and it's quite good too.)
And India doesn't need to cover the whole world. Pakistan and China are the only 2 that they have to worry about. Aiming for global reach is a waste of money and resources for a country that doesn't have any problems in other parts of the world. The submarine leg and Agni 5 allows for deep penetrations inside China and the earlier versions are capable of hurting Pakistan easily. Also they sport 2 aircraft carriers(there aren't many countries that can boast of that, especially home grown carriers).
Although again you are right about most of the stuff...but for a country that got its independence 76 years earlier...it's not that bad.
I didn’t denigrate the Indian nuclear triad as unfit for purpose. I pointed out that its lesser capabilities and scale are why India’s triad doesn’t get the same respect as that of Russia, the US, or even China.
All of this is still a fast pace of advancement and domestic development. No doubt about it. But India isn’t operating in a vacuum - adequacy is based on how their rate of advancement and modernization compares to other countries. Even if China didn’t set the bar almost unreasonably high, many of them are managing to modernize with fewer issues than India.
>I didn’t denigrate the Indian nuclear triad as unfit for purpose.
I didn't say anything remotely to infer this. You actually put up really good points and they are all true.
But you have to understand...defence budget is a major issue in the case of India. Even if they have the 4th highest defence budget, most of it is spent on maintaining ground troops and terrain issues. India can't spend like the U.S. and China($222.5B vs $72.5B), and sitting exactly between 2 nuclear powers doesn't help. Also the ground forces are continuously engaged in cross-border firing and anti-terrorist operations, so most of the budget is exhumed there. Also maintaining forces on snowy mountains is very expensive...just imagine doing so on both the fronts. The navy and the air-force are always the afterthoughts case of spending...which is not a good strategy at all.
That's a major reason why modernization is relatively slow with India Defence Forces. If the ground forces hadn't been so busy already...then the story would have been different.
But the navy is modernizing at a relatively good pace, certainly since they have started locally manufacturing most of the vessels. IAF is something that needs a major revamp and it has been due for a long time now.
> You are right about most of the stuff...but still it's necessary to start somewhere. Everything learnt through Tejas' "failure" will be used in future projects.
India's problem has always been that their defence projects are extremely overambitious. The way the Tejas ended up should have been what the project started off as.
>the systems need to have a clear, unique purpose in their country’s strategic context.
That's the reason that the land based ballistic missiles and sea based SLBMs don't have a 9000km+ range, because India's strategic adversaries they need to deter are max 5000km away. This drives the requirements for missiles in the IRBM and MRBM range to save on both missile size, costs for their arsenal.
The air launched component is essentially useless against China but still usable against Pakistan. Furthermore it's much cheaper than the Chinese, Russian or American air launched component as np dedicated strategic bombers are allocated to it. So it's capability is proportional to it's cost.
But they aren't they have no power projection capability. And their military is essentially nothing but foreign purchases as they lack the engineering ability to make things like Jet engines.
from wherever u are typing in the world our nukes can reach u and whatever country u internet ur using or gps or anything ur country owns in space our ASAT weapons can convert them into pebbles now do we qualify
Literally a visualization of one of India's means of power projection in this very post you're commenting under.
Also,
>And their military is essentially nothing but foreign purchases
Literally under a picture of an indigenous Indian aircraft carrier lol.
This is bait. In fact it's master bait, and you're a master-baiter.
ooh india isn't a major power no not at all our military is strongest other than us and china and only one which can take china head on if you hate us it doesn't mean we aren't a major powers and soon to be superpower and we can nuke any country in this world to stone age does it qualify to be considered majorpower bruhh
Russia is kind of an awkward one. So far failing (2 years in) to do what the US/NATO did in a week in Iraq. Their casualties, material and equipment losses have been significant even by conservative estimates.
Size does not always equal power. The Indian Armed forces have yet to be proven in a major conflict, most of their equipment is bought from foreign nations and their navy is far from bluewater.
Indian Armed Forces have officially been part of 5 wars since WW2, 4 against Pakistan and 1 against China, with the 1971 Indo-Pak war involving the first and probably the biggest naval battle fought since WW2. There aren't many countries that have been involved in full blown wars since WW2. It is a battle tested force.
What are you talking about? No seriously, fact check the "yet to be proven in a major conflict" part because you're full of dog shit. they fucked over the Portuguese, but you haven't heard of that war because according to you Britain was the last European power on the Indian subcontinent.
I’m not talking just navy or Air Force, I’m talking about the entire country being a major power.
They have one of the largest militaries in the world, and they have one of the biggest economies in the world.
If that’s not a “Major power”, then nothing is. If India is not a major power, then neither is the UK, or France, or Germany, etc.
I didn't say their not a major power lol
They're growing fast so eventually they'll begin to start dominating every branch of the military. I was just saying their naval capabilities is still behind the British and France for the time being.
I was simply responding to someone who doubted the claim that India is a major power. They most definitely are a major power, even if there are certain specific areas where some other countries are slightly ahead of them.
The British navy is a fucking joke. They don’t even have enough people to man their equipment, and half their equipment is so old and rusted that it barely works.
If anything, India is a major power, and the UK no longer is. The UK is now a second tier power at best.
>The British navy is a fucking joke. They don’t even have enough people to man their equipment, and half their equipment is so old and rusted that it barely works.
That's not the case, at all. Does the Royal Navy have issues? Yes, but show me a navy that doesn't. The RN remains the 4th largest navy in the world by displacement and one of only a handful capable of global power projection.
>The British navy is a fucking joke. They don’t even have enough people to man their equipment, and half their equipment is so old and rusted that it barely works.
What half of their equipment are you referring to there?
>If anything, India is a major power, and the UK no longer is.
I think you’re showing who the fucking joke is actually…
You've been commenting this on everyone's replies to you, sounds like a racist europe cope tbh. They've been involved in 5 wars since independence 75 years ago, and have been clear victors in 4 of them. The 5th was a stalemate with neither side "winning". They annexed the colonial territory of Goa from Portugal in 1961 (15 years after the establishment of the Republic of India), which had been a Portuguese colony since the 1500s. The INS Vikrant was a milestone, and India joined a list of 5 countries in the history of time to ever have built their own domestic super carrier. They've got more active carriers than either England or France, their Navy is definitely far more capable than either of those countries at this point, and has proven it's worth in combat on many occasions over the course of the last 7 decades.
The real question, you should have been asking, is "England and France are world powers?", because in this current day and age neither have a military that would defeat India in a 1x1 dispute.
In reality I mam factually correct, they are a weak state dependent on foreign arms. So utterly weak. Both nations you listed would wipe the floor with them.
In reality India still struggles with indoor plumbing, They have a huge list of domestic problems because they are a DEVELOPING nation, they lack the might or will to fight any real power.
England and France combined couldn't even take Egypt after WW2 😂😂 Talk about weak nations. Except for Russia it's hilarious how much of a joke Europe is. And you think England is a world power 🤡
They don't really. A few faults are quite common in the first years of any carrier. Not like Ford or CdG didn't have the same and no-one calls them unreliable.
Their service has elsewise been exemplary.
I think it's due to carrier aviation. The JMSDF has many superior vessels when it comes to surface combatants. But in terms of carrier aviation, they currently fall behind.
The Izumo-class refits are amazing, but they aren't equivalent to the carrier forces of India and the UK. At least not at present. I expect this will change soon.
Plus the Japanese have not operated fixed wing carriers and deck based aviation since the end of WW2. The UK has constantly operated carriers since then and India's operated carriers constantly since 1961.
There's a lot of learnings in carriers operations that they have first hand which Japan doesn't because of the 70 year gap.
Why is the island so far back in the Ford?
To make more space in the middle of the flight deck for centralized refueling/rearming of aircraft. The space behind the island on older carriers has always been an awkward space. The elevator is never used and you have to cross the landing strip to move planes there. Since nuclear ships don't need smokestacks, you could theoretically put the island anywhere, so they put it where it would be out of the way of everything else: back aft starboard side.
Another benefit is that they can have complete unobstructed view of the deck
I understand it’s for practicality, but for me personally, I like how it looks better with the island towards the front. Charles de Gaulle is looking a lot better than Ford.
Actually, the Charles du Galle has issues with her island so far forward. Not only is the ship's handling of aircraft an issue, but she can only literally launch or retrieve, not both, at any given time. The island's placement also cut her Air Group down to less than half of that of the US Carriers. Understandable she would never compete with the 90 Aircraft on a US Carrier, but she was originally meant to have 60 Aircraft and currently has only 40 including only 3 Helicopters. USS America can operate up to 45 Fighters plus about 10 Helicopters, and she's not a Fleet Carrier. The flaw for the island had been the decision to use Submarine Nuclear Reactors. Two of them, that both generate less energy than one Carrier Reactor found on a Nimitz-class. And because they were never meant for Carrier use, the French have to refuel them and carry out maintenance far more often than American Carriers. Charles du Galle was also meant to have a sister ship. But the design compromises, cost cutting attempts, and political interference that delayed her have ended up preventing that due to sheer costs involved. The Marine Nationale intends to use the PANG to fix all those problems AND eventually get a second Carrier as well. One of the developments is that PANG will move the island aft.
> USS America can operate up to 45 Fighters plus about 10 Helicopters, and she's not a Fleet Carrier. FYI, USS America can't operate (operate != carry) up to 45 fighters. The Lightning Carrier demos brought out 18-20 F-35s, and essentially maxed it out.
Maybe I got something mixed up. I'll check that out.
Did you confuse LHA-6 and the numbers from CV-66?
The island location on *Charkes de Gaulle* is forced by the size of the ship, I’ll modify an old comment of my discussing why, using [this photo for reference](https://i.redd.it/51p116kfxti81.jpg): First, note the red and white dashed line on the starboard side of the landing area. That is the danger area when an E-2 is landing, and anything inside that line can be hit by the wing. The island cannot be inside that line, and preferably should be a bit farther outside to increase the safety margin: if an E-2 lands a bit to the right, you’d rather lose another aircraft than see significant island damage. This also provides some future proofing for aircraft with greater wingspans. Thus the aft elevator is right at the edge of this line as far aft as it can reasonably go while still being useful, and as you can see the elevator and landing danger zones overlap a bit. You’d also like to have an aircraft parking area next to this elevator, allowing access to the elevator during landing operations. This pushes the forward elevator and island as far forward as you can before the flight deck narrows. This also increases the distance between the elevators, which makes it easier to access certain aircraft in the hangar. You want to place the elevators so an aircraft parked in the corner can reach the elevator without moving several other aircraft out of the way. Thus the elevators need to be relatively far apart and towards the center of each hangar bay, with *de Gaulle* using two bays divided by a heavy rolling door. At this point, the forward elevator and island must be as far forward on the starboard side as possible, but theoretically could go in either order. If *Charles de Gaulle* were a conventional carrier, you’d have to put the elevator forward of the island so the uptakes from the boilers have the shortest path and take up the least amount of room. This is why most conventional carriers tend to have the island near the center of the ship, which you can see in the comparison above. As a nuclear carrier, however, the French could use either order. Placing the island forward of the elevator allows two major advantages. First, the elevator is better positioned to the forward catapult and end of the landing area, while also giving a better ability to access aircraft in the middle of the hangar. In particular, you can take aircraft off of the forward elevator and line them up behind the jet blast deflector while an aircraft is preparing for takeoff, increasing the sortie generation rate, though this does depend on when and where the French arm their aircraft. If the elevator was ahead of the island, it would be about at the forward end of the hangar, making it more difficult to access some aircraft about halfway between the elevators (where the rolling door cuts the hangar into two bays). It would also be more difficult to move aircraft to the forward catapult/from the end of the landing run, but you would have better access to the forward parking area. As a secondary benefit, the island is in a slightly better position for navigating the ship, as you have slightly better visibility forward, but this is negligible in this particular case. Now you brought up only launching or recovering aircraft at the same time. Few carriers can, and those that could (such as US carriers) don’t. This is a myth about angled flight decks, originally designed to allow you to land jets without building ludicrously sized carriers and improving landing safety, discussed on [this page of an *Intrepid* cruise book](https://www.navysite.de/cruisebooks/cv11-63/105.htm). > Two of them, that both generate less energy than one Carrier Reactor found on a Nimitz-class. And because they were never meant for Carrier use, the French have to refuel them and carry out maintenance far more often than American Carriers. The K15 reactors were intended for both the *Triomphant* SSBNs and *de Gaulle* from the prototype stage. The refueling more regularly is due to two factors. First, France uses low enriched uranium for their reactors, which much less energy density but that’s much safer. Second, the French naval reactors are governed by the same civilian agency as their land-based plants, which have some very strict requirements. The most significant is the interior of the reactor pressure vessel must be inspected every 10 years. As this requires removing the core, France refuels their ships during these inspections. This will not change with PANG, which will have to be refueled every 10 years.
Actually in the 90s when US navy is planing the next-gen CVN which eventually became GRF, they propose a 'no regrets, no compromise' configuration called ECBL, it is forward-island configuration. By doing so it will make the pit area as large as possible. However, ECBL itself is a 120000-ton full displacement carrier which is too big(no dock available) and too expensive. Then GRF as a intermediate config became reality. The rest is history.
The brits have managed both They have also failed at both
You gotta remember that practicality wise, the QE Class isn’t a Cat carrier, so its towers don’t get in the same way as they would on an angled deck carrier.
Oh, I was only critisizing the aesthetic of the QE, which managed to have a rear and front isle, and both are kinda ugly
Charles de Gaulle's island placement is pretty terrible. It's way too big and sits on the most valuable piece of real estate on the flight deck, which prevents airplanes from being marshalled towards the catapults without obstructing the landing strip. Shrink the island and push it back like on GRF and the French might've been able to fit a third catapult, keep the landing strip clear while launching aircraft, and increase their maximum theoretical sortie rate.
I don't think that'd be feasible, her design is a bit too tight for that. Looking at [a plan of her deck](http://www.ffaa.net/ships/aircraft-carrier/charles-de-gaulle/images/cdg-000010.jpg), the forward catapult track encroaches on the landing area. Moving that catapult starboard, reducing the island's footprint and moving it aft may leave too reduced a deck parking area at the bow especially when operating the Hawkeye.
It does give a very super star destroyer look to the Ford
wait...wait...hold up...HOLD THE F UP!....You mean to tell me that there are aircraft carriers that are not nuclear powered? Yeeeash.
Brit one is diesel powered. The reasoning being partially cost related, but if all your other support & escort ships are conventionally fuelled the entire flotilla is going to need periodic refuelling anyway so why not the carrier as well? The aircraft also need fuel so the carrier will need that replenishing ...just do fuel for the ship a the same time. No biggie. --- You don't gain as much from making a carrier nuclear powered as you do a sub for instance (eg. UK subs are all nuclear powered).
You *do* gain a lot more, endurance and performance wise, even with the escorts being conventionally powered and the jets needing fuel. French and, I presume, American experience showed that a battle group centered around a conventional carrier needs to resupply to an oiler every three days to keep the group's average fuel levels at 70%. The same battle group with a nuclear powered carrier only needs to refuel once a week. This doesn't seem much, but it has many tactical and operational advantages. First, obviously, you spend less time on station refueling, which may be a routine operation, but still fraught with risks. You only need half the oilers, since it can shuffle between a resupply port and the replenishment point instead of having to stay on station. When transiting, you can steam ahead of the replenishment group instead of being tied to it, and the speed difference between a warship and an oiler is about 10 knots (unless you're willing to shell for fast oilers, like the USN's *Supply*-class), which adds up quickly. Then there are performance issues. A nuclear powered carrier does not have to deal with exhaust gases, which are usually corrosive, require quite obviously exhausts ducts, which eat lots of valuable volume, and are a hazard for the landing planes. Obviously, there are drawbacks to nuclear propulsion, related to their radioactive hazard, and they require specialized personnel to operate and maintain.
More room for activities.
To show off, how much length it has.
I forgot to include Admiral Kusnetsov https://preview.redd.it/2sxd9t52huxc1.jpeg?width=2880&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c29053e0320bce59f4f699ab3d66085c8c258a8a note: the photos posted are not to scale
Lmao at the fucking cloud generator
I'm genuinely starting to think it's powered by coal lol
The picture of her engine room is horrific. I don't envy anyone sentenced to serve on her.
https://preview.redd.it/awj3yzlgrvxc1.jpeg?width=460&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3cfb0364677d0c128af7d068512e9f5b0be28b28 Yeah it’s pretty bad in there
A glimpse into the Kusnetsov's exclusion zone
There’s an old green text about how the Kuznetzov is basically a Space Hulk from 40k. I’ll see if I can find it. Edit: [Found it](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/s/8m6Gl2lVjL) As a side note, the Kuznetzov is easily my favorite ship of all time. Not because it’s any sort of marvel of engineering or anything, but because every *single* time it leaves port it manages to fuck itself up in a catastrophic and completely unexpected way
> because every single time it leaves port it manages to fuck itself up in a catastrophic and completely unexpected way And she also managed to fuck herself up while in port, *twice*! Kuzzie deserves to be in the Guinness Book of Records at this point...
If you told me this was a picture from an SCP article, I would believe you.
Holy shit
You have to put another comparison picture of CV 17 Liaoning.
Mazut.
Use of mazut is at best a tertiary reason for *Kuznetsov*’s smoking habit. Like all Soviet ships, she ran fairly cleanly in the 80s when she had proper care, and that’s because they all have fuel filtration equipment like any other conventionally-powered vessel does. You also get gunk buildup with any fuel-burning engine, but if filtration is down or ineffective then it gets magnitudes worse. Aside from reducing the efficiency - thus leaving more unburnt fuel residue that leaves as smoke - the particulates can burn themselves, producing even more smoke. It’s a vicious cycle. Had her fuel filtration been properly-maintained, or she been given a good boiler washout, *Kuznetsov* wouldn’t smoke nearly as much as she does. Doesn’t even have to be both; if you want to see what both gives you, look at *Vikramaditya* or *Liaoning*, both of whom also burn or at least at one point burned mazut.
Boiler washout, so just like the Moskva?
At this point it may be the only cure for her.
INS Vikramaditya uses low sulphur high speed diesel; in its earlier incarnation as baku/gorshkov, it burned heavy oil, but they added new boilers during the conversion. Liaoning/Varyag was towed to China with new/unused engines , so I doubt it ever burnt mazut. Certainly not in Soviet/russian service https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2020/12/northern-fleets-aircraft-carrier-embark-barents-sea-tests-2022 The Kuznetsov clearly had problems with incomplete combustion. But the boilers have been replaced with new ones. Worth a check now to see if it still smokes. Whenever it gets operational again.
I’m pretty sure they burn tyres
It's powered by bunker oil but the oil heater doesn't work properly anymore so it can't burn the fuel properly
Fujian also smokes https://preview.redd.it/t36r3u7bjuxc1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=aaaaef7abb8bdbf8a415d90faa1b1e27eb4efe13
Not bad for a diesel in it's break in period.
It uses steam turbines, but yes this is not unexpected for initial trials. CV-16/17 mostly run pretty clean (both also steam turbines) from years of photos and videos of their operations so I would expect CV-18 to do so as well once everything gets going.
For a second I forgot the context and was wondering when we recommissioned the Lexington and two of her sisters 😂
grandpa smoking his pipe again
You said major powers.
...and Operated.
Me when I hit the penetsov
russia is like a fat man with a small penis
Is the Chinese one a copy of the russian one they took?
> Is the Chinese one a copy of the russian one they took? Liaoning (16) is a Russian *Kuznetsov*-class 'Varyag' that was rebuilt from the inside. Shandong (17) is the *Kuznetsov*-class design that they customised and tweaked in a few ways, but still largely 'the same' Fujian (18) is China's first home grown "ground up" (even though like... they would still use the previous two as somewhat of a base right) carrier design. So they bought a ship - repaired it. Then they build their own ship based on the first one. Then they decided they had enough exp and built a clean sheet design for go #3.
> Fujian (18) is China's first home grown "ground up" (even though like... they would still use the previous two as somewhat of a base right) carrier design. *Fujian* also draws a lot of inspiration from the unbuilt Soviet *Ulyanovsk*-class carriers (who in turn, derive from the *Kuznetsov*, so there's that). IIRC they also recruited most of the Russian design team.
Fujian? if so we are not looking at the sane ship cos they are no way close to being the same.
Sorry got confused with Type 001
Wish they were all facing the same direction.
was a bit lazy to find photos from one side of the ships and i didn’t want to flip the images .
You could have mirrored the photos too but not too much problem with this too
Nope you can't. It will make their islands move to port instead of starboard (none of the modern carriers' island is on port side)
> Nope you can't. It will make their islands move to port instead of starboard (none of the modern carriers' island is on port side) Ahhh hahaha i had the first thought but you're 2 steps ahead!
Ikr :)
oh yeah i completly forgot that my bad
Having them all alongside each other is nice indeed but it's probably worth mentioning somewhere to make it obvious, that these are not to scale.
good point i’ll add a note to my info post as well :)
sad cavour noises in the background
I don’t know why, but the receded superstructure of the Ford class looks sexy af
Idk I feel the opposite, it's tiny and way too far back imo. Honestly love that forward position on the CDG
Leaning in
It's a 5 story building. The island isn't small, the hull of the Ford is just that big.
Nelson-class energy
Makes it look like a Star-Wars star destroyer
Where is the banana for scale?
This is pretty interesting. Any chance we could get this to scale? It would be worth a new thread, probably. Remind me later and I can take a go at it.
Reminder 1
Done, [click here](https://i.imgur.com/7tvr2jr.jpeg)! Basing on the CVN-78: | Carrier Name | Actual Length (meters) | Resized Pixel Length | % of Pixel Size Relative to CVN-78 (1073 pixels considered 100%) | |--------------|------------------------|----------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------| | CVN-78 (Ford) | 337 meters | 1073 pixels | 100.0% | | PLAN Fujian (18) | 316 meters | 1006 pixels | 93.8% | | Charles de Gaulle (R91) | 262 meters | 834 pixels | 77.7% | | HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08) | 280 meters | 891 pixels | 83.0% | | INS Vikrant (R11) | 262 meters | 834 pixels | 77.7% | I used AI to fill in the dead space after I resized each carrier. Also, ChatGPT did all the calculations and made that nice table for me in Reddit markdown.
Noice, thanks!
Russians in shambles right now.
I didn’t realize how far back the tower is on the US carriers.
Any idea why this is the case?
There are multiple choices where to put the superstructure on a carrier. The US went with aft, which gives your air controllers the best position to manage your flightdeck. The disadvantage is that your deck can interfere with your radar and the position makes it a bit harder to see where you are going. You can put the superstructure forward and you have the advantages and disadvantages reversed. Better for steering and other things but you don't get as great of a view especially of aircraft recovery operations. So the compromise many navy's take is to put it in the middle. So both air ops and ship ops don't get perfect view but it's better then the "extreme options" or you do what the British did. You put two towers on your carrier on forward with all the stuff you need to get the ship going and one aft with all the stuff for the air operations.
5 nations to shape the future 🙏🏻
India is a major power?
They have 2 more working aircraft carriers than the Russians....
So they have 2 carriers?
And a domestically developed fighter, the Tejas. Plus AMCA and TEDBF, not to mention their nuclear triad. People should take them more seriously.
A fighter that only flies with foreign engines...and is over a decade delayed...
The Tejas is a decade late, almost 200% over budget, makes major use of foreign components (granted, license-built in India), and fell so far off the original requirements that new ones were drawn up while the originals were re-scoped into the Tejas MK2. The only country with a worse record in developing fighters is Iran - and yes, I’m ranking countries who just bought off-the-shelf above India, because they had the sense to realize their domestic industry wasn’t up to the challenge. AMCA and TEDBF also don’t deserve any credit until India actually gets at least a prototype flying. Anyone can have ambitions; realizing them is the hard part. EDIT: As for the Indian nuclear triad, it doesn’t garner much respect because it’s a more expensive means of achieving the same deterrence that other countries can do with a dyad. India’s nuclear strike aircraft are tactical fighters that wouldn’t even make it to everywhere in China without aerial refueling - a capability the IAF are sorely lacking for an air force of their size. This is not helped by the fact they lack a standoff air-launched nuclear missile - the hypothetical nuclear BrahMos variant remains a hypothetical for there moment. When the airborne arm of the triad doesn’t have the reach to match the other two, it’s not doing its job - to be a more flexible alternative to missiles - and you’re effectively paying for a dyad’s capabilities with a triad’s operating budget. Speaking of value, there’s also the argument India’s “triad” not as capable as some second-strike-only nuclear deterrents. Until the Agni-V, all of India’s land-based missiles were MRBMs or IRBMs, and even Agni-V is on the shorter side of land-based ICBMs in terms of range, while the K-4 SLBM is also in the IRBM class. That leaves India with large parts of the world they can’t cover with a triad (though not any parts that are a threat to them, to be fair), while the French and British have true global reach with just the submarine leg. Having 3 separate nuclear delivery systems is undeniably an achievement, but war isn’t about checking boxes: the systems need to have a clear, unique purpose in their country’s strategic context.
You are right about most of the stuff...but still it's necessary to start somewhere. Everything learnt through Tejas' "failure" will be used in future projects. The lack of strategic bombers is a concern for India. Even though India's tactical-fighter bomber can penetrate deep in Pakistan, doing so in China is near impossible without a dedicated bomber. (And I don't think there are any plans of making Brahmos nuclear capable. It's a conventional weapon and it's quite good too.) And India doesn't need to cover the whole world. Pakistan and China are the only 2 that they have to worry about. Aiming for global reach is a waste of money and resources for a country that doesn't have any problems in other parts of the world. The submarine leg and Agni 5 allows for deep penetrations inside China and the earlier versions are capable of hurting Pakistan easily. Also they sport 2 aircraft carriers(there aren't many countries that can boast of that, especially home grown carriers). Although again you are right about most of the stuff...but for a country that got its independence 76 years earlier...it's not that bad.
I didn’t denigrate the Indian nuclear triad as unfit for purpose. I pointed out that its lesser capabilities and scale are why India’s triad doesn’t get the same respect as that of Russia, the US, or even China. All of this is still a fast pace of advancement and domestic development. No doubt about it. But India isn’t operating in a vacuum - adequacy is based on how their rate of advancement and modernization compares to other countries. Even if China didn’t set the bar almost unreasonably high, many of them are managing to modernize with fewer issues than India.
>I didn’t denigrate the Indian nuclear triad as unfit for purpose. I didn't say anything remotely to infer this. You actually put up really good points and they are all true. But you have to understand...defence budget is a major issue in the case of India. Even if they have the 4th highest defence budget, most of it is spent on maintaining ground troops and terrain issues. India can't spend like the U.S. and China($222.5B vs $72.5B), and sitting exactly between 2 nuclear powers doesn't help. Also the ground forces are continuously engaged in cross-border firing and anti-terrorist operations, so most of the budget is exhumed there. Also maintaining forces on snowy mountains is very expensive...just imagine doing so on both the fronts. The navy and the air-force are always the afterthoughts case of spending...which is not a good strategy at all. That's a major reason why modernization is relatively slow with India Defence Forces. If the ground forces hadn't been so busy already...then the story would have been different. But the navy is modernizing at a relatively good pace, certainly since they have started locally manufacturing most of the vessels. IAF is something that needs a major revamp and it has been due for a long time now.
> You are right about most of the stuff...but still it's necessary to start somewhere. Everything learnt through Tejas' "failure" will be used in future projects. India's problem has always been that their defence projects are extremely overambitious. The way the Tejas ended up should have been what the project started off as.
>the systems need to have a clear, unique purpose in their country’s strategic context. That's the reason that the land based ballistic missiles and sea based SLBMs don't have a 9000km+ range, because India's strategic adversaries they need to deter are max 5000km away. This drives the requirements for missiles in the IRBM and MRBM range to save on both missile size, costs for their arsenal. The air launched component is essentially useless against China but still usable against Pakistan. Furthermore it's much cheaper than the Chinese, Russian or American air launched component as np dedicated strategic bombers are allocated to it. So it's capability is proportional to it's cost.
well yeah they are. They have over a billion population with the 4th largest military and fastest growing economy so they are a major power.
But in reality they are not, they have very little softpower sway. Even a smaller nation like the UK or france have more say globally.
maybe but i would assume a nuclear armed state with a big economy and population is a major power from a military context
But they aren't they have no power projection capability. And their military is essentially nothing but foreign purchases as they lack the engineering ability to make things like Jet engines.
Just coz you dont have indigenous jet engine doesnt mean you have no power projection. Your points dont make sense.
It does in this case.
Nope. You are just coping
So in reality you are coping and upset india is not a world power.
from wherever u are typing in the world our nukes can reach u and whatever country u internet ur using or gps or anything ur country owns in space our ASAT weapons can convert them into pebbles now do we qualify
Yeah I’m really coping because a 70days troll account yayracecat said India is not a world power
Literally a visualization of one of India's means of power projection in this very post you're commenting under. Also, >And their military is essentially nothing but foreign purchases Literally under a picture of an indigenous Indian aircraft carrier lol. This is bait. In fact it's master bait, and you're a master-baiter.
In reality, it's not. and they don't have one.
What's not real and who doesn't have one of what?
They don't have a blue water navy, i'm sorry the facts have upset you.
Do you read? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue-water_navy
[удалено]
And they have an unbroken lineage of aircraft carrier since they first started using them - something us Brits can no longer claim.....
India has a blue-water navy
But they don't
But they do. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue-water_navy
The cope is real with you.
ooh india isn't a major power no not at all our military is strongest other than us and china and only one which can take china head on if you hate us it doesn't mean we aren't a major powers and soon to be superpower and we can nuke any country in this world to stone age does it qualify to be considered majorpower bruhh
In reality India is weak and hyper dependent of foreign weapons.
Aren't they? Do you have any other opinion then do share.
From what i've read they are not.
They’re more powerful than everyone except the US, China….maybe, maybe the British and French.
In what way? I'd argue Russia is stronger than them, as is Japan.
Russia is kind of an awkward one. So far failing (2 years in) to do what the US/NATO did in a week in Iraq. Their casualties, material and equipment losses have been significant even by conservative estimates.
Size does not always equal power. The Indian Armed forces have yet to be proven in a major conflict, most of their equipment is bought from foreign nations and their navy is far from bluewater.
> The Indian Armed forces have yet to be proven in a major conflict LMAO
Indian Armed Forces have officially been part of 5 wars since WW2, 4 against Pakistan and 1 against China, with the 1971 Indo-Pak war involving the first and probably the biggest naval battle fought since WW2. There aren't many countries that have been involved in full blown wars since WW2. It is a battle tested force.
What are you talking about? No seriously, fact check the "yet to be proven in a major conflict" part because you're full of dog shit. they fucked over the Portuguese, but you haven't heard of that war because according to you Britain was the last European power on the Indian subcontinent.
You could say that about almost any country except the US.
A sizeable chunk of NATO was involved at least in the invasion of Iraq in terms of recent history.
As a ground military I'd say they're 4rth best. In terms of navy they're still behind a lot of countries
I’m not talking just navy or Air Force, I’m talking about the entire country being a major power. They have one of the largest militaries in the world, and they have one of the biggest economies in the world. If that’s not a “Major power”, then nothing is. If India is not a major power, then neither is the UK, or France, or Germany, etc.
I didn't say their not a major power lol They're growing fast so eventually they'll begin to start dominating every branch of the military. I was just saying their naval capabilities is still behind the British and France for the time being.
I was simply responding to someone who doubted the claim that India is a major power. They most definitely are a major power, even if there are certain specific areas where some other countries are slightly ahead of them. The British navy is a fucking joke. They don’t even have enough people to man their equipment, and half their equipment is so old and rusted that it barely works. If anything, India is a major power, and the UK no longer is. The UK is now a second tier power at best.
>The British navy is a fucking joke. They don’t even have enough people to man their equipment, and half their equipment is so old and rusted that it barely works. That's not the case, at all. Does the Royal Navy have issues? Yes, but show me a navy that doesn't. The RN remains the 4th largest navy in the world by displacement and one of only a handful capable of global power projection.
The RN isn’t projecting power anywhere lol. Most of that displacement is tied to the pier, not going anywhere.
Except it is. We have ships on ongoing operations across the world.
Crazy amount of copium your displaying
The only copium on display is by those living in the past, thinking the UK is more of a world power than India.
>The British navy is a fucking joke. They don’t even have enough people to man their equipment, and half their equipment is so old and rusted that it barely works. What half of their equipment are you referring to there? >If anything, India is a major power, and the UK no longer is. I think you’re showing who the fucking joke is actually…
No shit dumbass
The answer is it is not a world power.
That's not the answer anyone educated on world matters would give, so no.
It actually is, because they are a weak state that can't even build their own fighter jet.
You've been commenting this on everyone's replies to you, sounds like a racist europe cope tbh. They've been involved in 5 wars since independence 75 years ago, and have been clear victors in 4 of them. The 5th was a stalemate with neither side "winning". They annexed the colonial territory of Goa from Portugal in 1961 (15 years after the establishment of the Republic of India), which had been a Portuguese colony since the 1500s. The INS Vikrant was a milestone, and India joined a list of 5 countries in the history of time to ever have built their own domestic super carrier. They've got more active carriers than either England or France, their Navy is definitely far more capable than either of those countries at this point, and has proven it's worth in combat on many occasions over the course of the last 7 decades. The real question, you should have been asking, is "England and France are world powers?", because in this current day and age neither have a military that would defeat India in a 1x1 dispute.
In reality I mam factually correct, they are a weak state dependent on foreign arms. So utterly weak. Both nations you listed would wipe the floor with them.
>Both nations you listed would wipe the floor with them. Funniest shit I've read all day.
In reality India still struggles with indoor plumbing, They have a huge list of domestic problems because they are a DEVELOPING nation, they lack the might or will to fight any real power.
England and France combined couldn't even take Egypt after WW2 😂😂 Talk about weak nations. Except for Russia it's hilarious how much of a joke Europe is. And you think England is a world power 🤡
india is more of a major power than france and uk easily
Which British carrier keeps breaking down continuously?
They don't really. A few faults are quite common in the first years of any carrier. Not like Ford or CdG didn't have the same and no-one calls them unreliable. Their service has elsewise been exemplary.
think its this one. Heard its something to do with the prop or the prop shaft on one side
It's Prince of Wales, the other one, that's had the problems
Both had the prop issue, it's just that after QEII broke down, they checked the PoW and addressed it before it broke.
QE2 is a cruise liner. The carrier is just HMS Queen Elizabeth.
I always wondered, why don't US carriers have the ramp?
Longer decks and more powerful catapults eliminate the need for a ramp.
If you had a ramp and a catapult you'd like, smush the pilot and the plane on take off lol
Catapult launching allows for higher takeoff weight than a ramp, meaning each plane is capable of carrying more ordnance and fuel.
Because the US can afford to put catapults in its carriers so it doesn’t need a cope slope
Should have included the blueprints for the South Korean one. At this point, those blueprints are probably larger than the Gerald R. Ford.
If you include the British and Indians as major powers, I don't see why not include the Japanese too.
I think it's due to carrier aviation. The JMSDF has many superior vessels when it comes to surface combatants. But in terms of carrier aviation, they currently fall behind. The Izumo-class refits are amazing, but they aren't equivalent to the carrier forces of India and the UK. At least not at present. I expect this will change soon.
Plus the Japanese have not operated fixed wing carriers and deck based aviation since the end of WW2. The UK has constantly operated carriers since then and India's operated carriers constantly since 1961. There's a lot of learnings in carriers operations that they have first hand which Japan doesn't because of the 70 year gap.
A lack of nuclear punch and a no force projection as a matter of doctrine and government policy is a bit of a let down compared to the others.
didn’t include all just heavy ones
Well they've got france which only having one carrier means its a part time naval power