Also remember that CVV was criticized by the USN for having reduces stores capacity over previous full-sized carriers (on a per-plane carried/per crewman basis), meaning a reduced endurance compared to the rest of the USN full-sized CVs.
Also note that CVF-CTOL design reflects a pre-EMALS configuration, where a “donkey boiler” to genetate steam for the catapults is added “down deep” in the hull in addition to the GTs & diesels for propulsion/service electrical load generation.
The living standards are also very different… which accounts for crew quarters on CVF for ~1,500-1,700 men (600-800 ship & 900 air wing) taking up as much or more volume than on CVV for ~4,000 (2,000 ship & 2,000 air wing {500 less ship’s crew than USS Midway}).
On CVF junior enlisted personnel share six berth cabins (2 high bunks) with large and comfortable bunks and adjacent toilet facilities and showers.
junior rates:
senior rates (E-5/6 equivalent):
On CVV, most lower enlisted (E-6 and below) men sleep in 100+ person berthing compartments (narrow racks stacked 3-4 high, with small lockers, curtains for privacy, and communal toilet facilities and showers).
Here is a description from 2007 of a USN CV enlisted berthing compartment from a visiting USAF enlisted man: “Since I’m in the military, I was able to not only see the parts of the ship that the civilian media tour covered, but I also visited the photo lab (and media shops), enlisted “head” (restrooms and showers), and berthing – the ship’s sleeping quarters.
I was shocked! Each bed, or rack, is about six feet long, three feet wide, and each one is separated from the rack above it by only two feet. The racks are stacked three high along the walls; there are about fifty to sixty men in one room. I asked the MC3 who took me to the berthing “where do you put your clothes?” He lifted the mattress and revealed about twenty small compartments. He also pointed out a small locker that was about six inches wide, two and a half feet tall, and three feet deep. After talking to a few of the sailors for a while I went back to my DV state room to sleep. “
http://www.andersen.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123065252
pic from aboard USS Midway CV-41 (upgraded in 1970 to current USN standard, this was what newer USN carriers had through the 1980s
Would the flight deck size of the CVA-01 permit the landing of an F-14?
I know the midways had to fly F-4’s because the F-14 was considered too heavy for operations on that ship class. Would the same apply to the CVA-01’s?Voodoo
Actually, no.
USS Midway (CV-41) was perfectly capable of operating the F-14 from her flight deck* (thanks to her 2 C-13 catapults and stronger arresting gear installed in her 1966-70 modernization specifically to handle F-14s), but USS Coral Sea (CV-43) only had C-11 catapults, which could not achieve the required “end speed” with the F-14’s weight.
The reason they were not assigned to CV-41 was the hangar height.
An article in the July 1979 Naval Aviation News (describing the proposed CVV) tells why, in a footnote to a table of dimensions for CV-41, “follow-on CVN-68, “follow-on CV-67″, & CVV, referencing hangar heights (CV-41 17′ 6″, CVV 24′ 6″, CV-67 25′, CVN-68 25′ 6”):
“This is insufficient clearance to perform required maintenance on the F-14 (landing gear drop-check and ejection seat removal)”.
Apparently, Grumman wasn’t required to design the aircraft to fit CV-41… or they assumed her hangar was higher. Grumman may not even have been aware that the ship-side of the USN wanted CV-41 to operate the F-14.
Remember, Midway’s modernization started in February 1966 (completing in January 1970), and Grumman was awarded the win in the “new Fleet Air Defense Fighter” competition in January 1969, with the base design they had been working since 1966 with Navy money.
Here is a small copy (hard to read), I have large scans of the entire article if anyone wants me to e-mail them.
* a former USN F-4 & F-14 pilot has confirmed that F-14s did land & take off from CV-41 on a few occasions.
The USN has adopted GTu power for its Wasp-class LHDs, which displace 40k+ tons and is thus larger than any of the above, with the possible exception of the new Indian carrier(s).
No… only on USS Makin Island LHD-8… the first 7 are all steam-powered with DFO-burning boilers.
LHD-8: 2 × 35,000 hp gas turbines (GE – LM 2500+) & 6 × 4,000 kW diesel generators (Fairbanks Morse Engines)
Note the angled intake/exhaust structures.
Here is a good comparison between Sao Paulo and Minas Gerais… note that while MG was originally a very close cousin of Melbourne, her 1956-60 modernization in Holland made her flight deck rather different… and with an even greater degree of angle in the landing path.
Sign In
