Aircraft Carriers

[Jschmus]

The US Army are going to buy the HMS Queen Elizabeth?   

[tigercat]

Worlds first Aircraft Carrier to pay Council Tax


http://www.bobhenneman.info/china.htm


Also WHIF aircraft carriers that almost were


http://www.worldnavalships.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6055&highlight=aircraft+carriers

[Thorvic]

At least that cover picture shows the latest configuration of HMS Queen Elizabeth, most of the on-line artwork is dated to last year or earlier.

(I know because i have been trying to build the ship and just as i had the hull details just about completed i noticed these newer CGI images appearing in the latest publications with various tweaks to the layout  . So i have had to do a bit of tweaking too. Still this new view nicely shows off the aft mast and i can see that i will need to make a slight adjustment to it this weekend )

G

[dy031101]

Although this question is inspired by parasite fighter topics, I'd figure this to be more or less applicable to the conventional carriers as well: of all the aircraft accommodated by a carrier, would there be some that are actually held as attrition replacements?  If so, usually what percentage would be allocated?

[Hobbes]

I'd say no. Aircraft on a carrier are too few for any to be held in reserve. Attrition reserves are held on land bases.

[Weaver]

Although this question is inspired by parasite fighter topics, I'd figure this to be more or less applicable to the conventional carriers as well: of all the aircraft accommodated by a carrier, would there be some that are actually held as attrition replacements?  If so, usually what percentage would be allocated?

Not these days, but some of the early carriers had dismantled aircraft aboard which would, presumably, only be re-assembled to make up for losses.

[deathjester]

Although this question is inspired by parasite fighter topics, I'd figure this to be more or less applicable to the conventional carriers as well: of all the aircraft accommodated by a carrier, would there be some that are actually held as attrition replacements?  If so, usually what percentage would be allocated?

Not these days, but some of the early carriers had dismantled aircraft aboard which would, presumably, only be re-assembled to make up for losses.

There's an idea - lets ask Lockheed if we can have some of the F-35's as kit planes!

[Jschmus]

Although this question is inspired by parasite fighter topics, I'd figure this to be more or less applicable to the conventional carriers as well: of all the aircraft accommodated by a carrier, would there be some that are actually held as attrition replacements?  If so, usually what percentage would be allocated?

Not these days, but some of the early carriers had dismantled aircraft aboard which would, presumably, only be re-assembled to make up for losses.

Actually, during the last years of the USN's F-14 Tomcat ops, each squadron that deployed tended to permanently hangar a couple of birds as spares.  I know this was done aboard USS Theodore Roosevelt in 2005-2006 during their last cruise with VF-31 and VF-213.  When those two squadrons returned to Oceana in March 2006, their mechanics worked overtime to get 22 birds airworthy for the return flight.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Navy/Grumman-F-14...-Tomcat/1015786/L/

(I know there are only 19 birds in that shot, but it was the first image I could find of the event)
That's the last time that many F-14s were in the air together (except maybe in Iran).  After that, VF-213 reorganized as VFA-213 and transitioned to the F/A-18F.  VF-31 held onto their Tomcats through the fall airshow season, then transitioned to the F/A-18E.

[RLBH]

would there be some that are actually held as attrition replacements?  If so, usually what percentage would be allocated?

Supposedly, that's why the big USN supercarriers in the Bad Old Days had such huge air wings: the hope was that an Alpha Strike of 90+ airframes had a fighting chance of getting through to a heavily-defended Soviet target and some of them making it back.

[nebnoswal]

G'day all,

This is my first topic I've started here, so hopefully I've done it correctly (and got it in the right area). 

I'm developing a "what if" based on a post WW2 Australia (not another one I hear someone sigh  ).  I'm looking at the RAN acquiring the USS Oriskany in 1962-3.  Whilst sticking with its usual air wing of F8's and A4's, I'm looking at an alternative for the A1.  Would it be conceivable to fly the Blackburn Buccaneer off a modified Essex CV?  The Oriskany had the SBC-125A upgrade completed in 1959, which included installation of the C-11-1 catapult, the same as on the Coral Sea which launched F4 and F/A-18 just fine, so there should be no problem with launching.  Hanger height is not a problem either.  My concern is the weight of the Bucc and the weight distribution on landing.  The deck was still wooden, with an aluminium decking cover.

Can anyone offer any advice?

[pyro-manic]

It seems reasonable to me. The deck could be reinforced fairly easily, and the Oriskany was used to test the E-2, which weighs a similar amount to the Buccaneer. As long as they weren't coming back fully loaded, I can't see a problem. Would be cool to see Buccs in RAN colours!

[Weaver]

Given how much agonisingly complicated rebuild work has been done to RW carriers, surely it's not unreasonable to suggest that they could replace the deck with a stronger structure anyway.

[Joe C-P]

Weight up high affects stability, and higher displacement increases draft and reduces freeboard. Between these you end up with greater rolling and wetter decks. As the classic example, this made the Midways less effective than their size suggests.

Also remember the length of the landing deck. Even with arrestor wires, the bigger the aircraft the more deck space it needs to stop.

I'm not saying no, I'm only saying do your research. And if the Bucc can't make it, I'll bet you can find something more out of left field as replacement for the A-1. Perhaps the OV-10?

[Cliffy B]

Remember that while Lexington was operating as a training carrier she regularly operated A-6 Intruders during carrier qualifications.  I know the aircraft are in a "light" config during those but they handled just fine in all aspects aboard.  I don't know the exact numbers but I'd expect an Intruder and a Bucc to be on par on with each other in both size and weight.  I know the Essexes off Vietnam didn't operate A-6s but that doesn't mean that they couldn't have if given the right mods.  I'd definitely say Buccs off a modified Essex is at least a plausible idea.

[Thorvic]

Well they were rebuilt to accomodate the Skywarriors so i think Bucc would be OK, although at the time quoted they would be S1 variant, its more likely the RAN would opt for Tracker & Tracer as Gannet replacements rather than a secondary strike unit.

At the time it was still hoped the F-4B Phantom would replace Crusader but the trial showed it unsuitable for the smaller carriers until the propossed F-4HL or F-4FVS (VG) were created.

G