Posted on 09/24/2009 7:12:52 PM PDT by Yo-Yo
I hate to say this but if they went down together and they only found one pilot, the other one is probably still in the plane or drowned after getting out. Not much information to go on(as it should be with any military event until investigation is complete). I hope and pray he is alright.
Problems are inherent. They decided to use their standard sub reactor. Even though they used two of them, the amount of power needed to push a torpedo shaped sub underwater does not compare to the amount needed to push a much bigger carrier.
Especially as building dock space was limited, so the ship is shorter and fatter than it should be, giving a higher block coefficient.
Plus the "hotel load" power requirement for a carrier is much greater than a sub with a limited crew and machinery.
If that's not enough, when they divert steam to the catapults, they lose a knot.
It doesn't. As I mentioned above the problem was trying to build a ship the same length as the previous Clemenceau class but 50% heavier.
The Clemenceau was a successful attempt to produce a smaller ship with an improved "Essex SCB-125" layout. By replacing the two forward lifts with one better placed with respect to the forward catapult and clear of the landing area, they were able move one of the forward catapults to amidships.
With the Charles de Gaulle everything goes pearshaped.
The longer forward catapult pushed the location of the forward lift aft, where it would cut into the landing area. That means the lift has to be moved to the deck edge, displacing the island superstructure forward (where the CAG does not want it), the new location of the island means the forward catapult has to stay on the port side, where it cuts into the landing area, meaning no simultaneous landing/takeoff operation.
Compare what can be done with the original layout and a bit more hull length as in the 60s British CVA-01 design
The longer flightdeck means the forward lift can be moved aft, and still be clear of the landing deck. And the forward catapult can be located on the starboard side, well clear of the landing deck.
You’re kidding right? The thing is hardly putting out a wake. And what is it with the muckledung yellow and splotchy deck coloring? The thing looks like it has been sitting off Algers or Morocco for years blistering in the sun.
Sheesh. Not enough to protect the carrier let alone a battle group.
HAHAHAHA I count about 30 aircraft on the DECK of the Enterprise. Comapared to seven for the DeGaulle. I guess all the space is taken up by the wine cellar.....
Click on pic for past Navair pings.
Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
The only requirement for inclusion in the Navair Pinglist is an interest in Naval Aviation.
This is a medium to low volume pinglist.
Having served on US carriers and seeing planes and pilots lost at sea, there is nothing funny in this story.
PS: Viva la France!
I saw a show that had footage of the high speed rudder tests of the USS Reagan and seeing a ship that large moving that fast and banking through turns like that was amazing.
/mark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.