I’m aware of what each entail in present/near future and what that means in terms of the size of the job. One clear difference is that Gorshkov was ‘beyond economical repair’ for the Soviet navy while Varyag was a case of construction interruptus. Point is, how meaningful are such ‘X% complete’ expressions to begin with.

The phrase ‘Beyond Economical Repair’ in this context, ie in relation to the post Soviet Union Russian Navy can be misleading, as they were basicalll y broke so even normal maintenance and operation were beyond their means at the time. Quite a few of their larger fleet units (eg cruisers and Kirov class ‘battle cruisers’) were also ‘Beyond Economical Repair’ during the 90s but have since been returned to service as the economy of Russia improved. By most Navie standards, the repairs required to return Gorshkov to service without major modification would have been reasonable and affordable.

On the subject of percentages, Gorshkov was 100% complete prior to sale, then she was stripped back probably to less than 60% complete and has been playing catch up with Varyag ever since. Unseen items such as internal wiring and plumbing account for a large amount of that percentage, and Gorshkov needed a lot of rewiring and re plumbing, a lot more than was realised when the refit started.

Thanks for this obi wan very interesting but not what I asked. How many F35c’s (in total) + masc, helix etc and yes I know it’s hypothetical can a cvf hold on deck, under deck etc, potentially. Ps I liked your Churcillianness there 🙂

I swear I have days when Churchill would look like a Pinko Commie Liberal social worker compared to me! Especially on the subject of the RN and Carriers…;):D:diablo:

Total capacity by my calculations utilising both deck park and hangar is 36 F-35C, four MASC and six Merlin, 46 aircraft in total. Other combinations (eg in LPH role) are possible too, as is mixing both carrier and LPH (eg 12-24 F-35Cs, four MASC, 12 Merlin HC4/ Chinook HC2/4, 6+ Apache/ Lynx Wildcat). Smaller helos such as Lynx take up less space when folded, as does Apache. Unless Chinook gets folding rotors it will take up much more space than Merlins for example. All part of the Tailored Air Group concept, or ‘Golf Bag’ approach as some Admirals refer to it.

[QUOTE=cockneyjock1974;1804451]

It is quite hard to answer, as parking in the hangar takes… imagination, literally.
But with a Dave C folded being 9.3 meters wide instead of 10-something, some space is gained.
I’m pretty sure you could pack 40 F35C on a CVF if you really wanted to, and perhaps try and do some more. But there are inherent disadvantages in crowding up the decks too much.

I know that the RN prefers to store its aircraft below decks more so than the USN (90 aircraft) and that the French can take up to 40 aircraft on their carrier which is approximately 20,000 tons lighter than ours. You are correct though its a difficult one to answer.

This one has been doing the rounds for years, time to knock it on the head. It springs from just before WW2, the Illustrious class carriers were designed to carry their entire air group (36 aircraft, funny how that number keeps coming back) in the hangar as the carrier’s primary defence against air attack was supposed to be her armoured flight deck and AA batteries, not her own CAP fighters. During the war, as American aircraft and procedures made their way to the RN, deck parks became normal procedure, and the Illustrious class air groups increased in size to about 54 aircraft (the Implacables could ship 84, Indomitable somewhere between). This meant as with US carriers RN carriers kept their aircraft on deck between sorties unless specifically needed in the hangar for maintenance. Aircraft only move to and from the hangar defuelled and disarmed for safety reasons, and this has been the case in the RN right through to the present day (including the Invincibles!). So the idea of the air group size being decided by the hangar size is a concept the RN abandoned around 1942/43.

With the CVS, these ships were designed to accomodate nine Sea Kings in the hangar, but without any significant enlargement added first five Sea Harriers to the mix, then ultimately (around 1996-2006) an air group of up to 7 FA2s, 7 GR7s, 6 Merlins and 3 SK ASaC7s. How? Deck Parking! The CVFs will folow a similar philosophy; although the Hangar is huge there is no need nor any requirement for the entire air group to fit in there. The Flight deck included very generous deck parking arrangements and I see no problem fitting 36 F-35Cs, four MASC (whatever they end up being) and not forgetting the six ASW Merlins that are standard fit on RN carriers.

sorry to repeat myself, don’t think I got an answer last time.

Can any one tell me why the French CVN and our CVF have 2 cats what goes into thinking on these things. Why not 3 Iguess 4 would be a space issue? Just wondering.

Space is the main reason, and two are sufficient really. Most of the time US CVNs only use two anyway, if Fly one is in use as a deck park the the two cats on the angled deck are the only ones available. According to a friend of mine who served on five different US carriers including Midway, Hancock and Nimitz, the ship he was on that had the most efficient launch and recovery cycles was Midway with only two cats (both forward). Four cats on a Nimitz or similar class allows a greater degree of redundancy, but only very rarely would all four be in use. You’d have to get a significant number of the air wing into the air before enough deck space was freed up to allow the use of all four cats. On the CVFs and the CdG, the forward island reduces the space available for a starboard forward cat (wingtip clearance being the issue, you are either fouling the island or fouling the aircraft on the port forward cat). It may be easier to add a third cat to the waist (on the angled deck, inboard of the current waist cat), but it would still be a squeeze and was probably hard to justify on cost grounds. Two is enough for the needs of the air group as envisaged. To date, no British or French Carrier has had more than two cats and has managed fine with that number.

Yup.. havent you noticed that only us westerners are allowed to wield a big stick and no one else is allowed?

But at least the old girl has been put to use… how long has the hull sat around? 30yrs?

Construction began in the late 80s. It’s the mileage that counts, not the years. The USN’s Iowa class Battleships had over 40 years in the water when recommissioned in the 80s, but only just over a decade’s worth of service each before they were mothballed in the 50s. So in terms of wear and tear, they were only ten to fifteen years old when brought back. USN CVs and CVNs are designed for a service life of fifty years, larger hulls can last longer anyway compared to frigates for example, though even then if they looked after any warship can serve for several decades. Varyag hasn’t steamed a mile under her own power yet, and after all the work that has been done on her she should be good for at least thirty years of sea going service.

Typhoons to Lossiemouth, Tornados to Marham, Lucheurs to the Army!:eek:;):D

And where do you the think the ‘Fleet’ will be whilst the carrier is hanging around with the Amphibs? The truth is the DDGs and FFGs will be wherever the Carrier is, and proceeding at her pace. THAT will be the RN’s ‘Fleet Speed’ plain as.

Cruising speed will be as with the Invincibles, around 20knots. The Invincibles did that on one engine/shaft for economy. They could engage the other three engines and other shaft at short notice, eg when flying off Harriers, and once engaged they could reach 30knots in just over a minute. Launching four Harriers takes about another minute then the ship returns to cruising speed. Note although officially limited to 28 knots, they could achieve 30. The older Hermes at 28,000 tonnes could make 28 knots on 80,000 shp. The Invincibles at 20,000 tonnes were quoted at the same speed despite having 110,000 shp on tap, now known to be deliberately misleading. The T45s were also quoted at a lower speed than we know they can achieve, and I expect the same will be true of CVF…