Guess the ship

Well done guys!

Low right: A Suncraft

Nigerian OTTER LANDING CRAFT(UTILITY)

http://beegeagle.wordpress.com/2011/07/23/some-riverline-warfare-combatants-of-the-nigerian-military/

top right is a rnzn protector class opv.

for the last one i pass. most likely a service craft or a small patrol craft but a small landing craft is also possible.

Indeed

Low right: A Suncraft

top right is a rnzn protector class opv.

for the last one i pass. most likely a service craft or a small patrol craft but a small landing craft is also possible.

2 left- see how good you are!

You guys are really good- the guys on Facebook have no idea and are messaging me privately to get the answers.

Anzac Class (Modified) HMAS Perth
F-310 KNR Fritjorf Nansen
City Class Logistics Support vessel- BRP Dagupan City

Top left – anzac class frigate? :confused:
Top middle – Nansen Class Frigate? :confused:

Bottom left is a Besson class LSV….very likely the Phillipines version.

second top is a Nansen class.

You need room for maintenance… pulling the rotor head, etc.

The F-14 could have been operated from Midway due to the C-13 cats she got in 1966-70 (Coral Sea kept her C-11-1s throughout), but the Tomcat was not cleared for Midway because the low hangar height “was too low to allow required maintenance… ejection seat removal and landing gear drop checks… to be performed”.

“Clear Hangar height” (height to the bottom of the drop tank racks, light fixtures, piping, etc) of the Nimitz class is 25′ 6″.

Is the Merlin that tall?

No, Midway’s hangar height is 17′ 6″, while CVF’s varies from 23′ to 29′.

Why would the RN need such tall hangers for the CVF’s?

“Clear Hangar height” (height to the bottom of the drop tank racks, light fixtures, piping, etc) of the Nimitz class is 25′ 6″.

Why would the RN need such tall hangers for the CVF’s?

Merlins.

No, Midway’s hangar height is 17′ 6″, while CVF’s varies from 23′ to 29′.

Crew accommodation standards are quite different as well… Midway had group berthing with blocks of 6-8 bunks (stacked 3-4 high, with small lockers) separated from others by curtains for junior crew and petty officers, while CVF has 6-man cabins (bunks 2 high, with doors and large lockers) for junior crew and petty officers.

Of course, this actually balances out, as CVF needs about half the crew of Midway, but has crew spaces using twice the volume per man.

Why would the RN need such tall hangers for the CVF’s?

Midway:

CVF:

Well, the USS Midway Deck received extensive modifications to its Flight Deck. As for the larger hanger I am not sure but maybe the US Carrier has more height??? :confused:

No, Midway’s hangar height is 17′ 6″, while CVF’s varies from 23′ to 29′.

Crew accommodation standards are quite different as well… Midway had group berthing with blocks of 6-8 bunks (stacked 3-4 high, with small lockers) separated from others by curtains for junior crew and petty officers, while CVF has 6-man cabins (bunks 2 high, with doors and large lockers) for junior crew and petty officers.

Of course, this actually balances out, as CVF needs about half the crew of Midway, but has crew spaces using twice the volume per man.

Because that’s the way they were designed?

Midway: hangar width 85′, hull width 113′ (the later, wider dimensions are all over various sizes of bulges). Difference 29′ (14.5′ on each side). Hangar 75.2% of hull width.

CVF: hangar width 95′, hull width 128′. Difference 33′ (16.5′ on each side). Hangar 74.2% of hull width.

The hangar widths are the same percentage of hull width, with CVF’s hull being wider.

The length is the key… the USN always placed a premium on high speed for carriers, and their WW2 CVs were always 2-3 knots faster than their RN counterparts. This continues today, with CVF being a good 6 knots slower than the Midway class.

To achieve the higher speed without an overly-large propulsion plant, you need a longer, narrower hull… which Midway has, compared to CVF.

Add in the Midways being originally designed for aircraft that needed much less complex repair/maintenance facilities, and more of the hangar deck is available for the hangar.

Midway was also designed for maximum aircraft capacity… they were expected to carry “everything you can fit in”.

CVF was designed around a pre-determined air group size. Thus, there was no attempt to fit a larger hangar in CVF than that needed for the planned air group, as “there should never be any attempt to fit more than the planned complement of aircraft”.

Midway (as designed): hangar 692′; hull length 900′; flight deck 968′. Hangar 76.9% of hull length, 71.5% of flight deck length.

CVF: hangar 535′; hull length 865′; flight deck 928′. Hangar 61.8% of hull length, 57.6% of flight deck length.

Also, let’s not forget the USS Midway was a WWII designed Carrier. While, it was extensively modified it is not a Super Carrier of the Modern Age. Unlike the the Nimitz or Quesn Elizabeth Classes………..:D

Umm, why is the midway longer then CVF and have a hanger that is larger by ~7200 square feet, from about 15,000t less displacement?

Because that’s the way they were designed?

Midway: hangar width 85′, hull width 113′ (the later, wider dimensions are all over various sizes of bulges). Difference 29′ (14.5′ on each side). Hangar 75.2% of hull width.

CVF: hangar width 95′, hull width 128′. Difference 33′ (16.5′ on each side). Hangar 74.2% of hull width.

The hangar widths are the same percentage of hull width, with CVF’s hull being wider.

The length is the key… the USN always placed a premium on high speed for carriers, and their WW2 CVs were always 2-3 knots faster than their RN counterparts. This continues today, with CVF being a good 6 knots slower than the Midway class.

To achieve the higher speed without an overly-large propulsion plant, you need a longer, narrower hull… which Midway has, compared to CVF.

Add in the Midways being originally designed for aircraft that needed much less complex repair/maintenance facilities, and more of the hangar deck is available for the hangar.

Midway was also designed for maximum aircraft capacity… they were expected to carry “everything you can fit in, crowding is OK”.

CVF was designed around a pre-determined air group size. Thus, there was no attempt to fit a larger hangar in CVF than that needed for the planned air group, as “there should never be any attempt to fit more than the planned complement of aircraft”.

Midway (as designed): hangar 692′; hull length 900′; flight deck 968′. Hangar 76.9% of hull length, 71.5% of flight deck length.

CVF: hangar 535′; hull length 865′; flight deck 928′. Hangar 61.8% of hull length, 57.6% of flight deck length.

Umm, why is the midway longer then CVF and have a hanger that is larger by ~7200 square feet, from about 15,000t less displacement?

Well, the USS Midway Deck received extensive modifications to its Flight Deck. As for the larger hanger I am not sure but maybe the US Carrier has more height??? :confused: