Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: GonzoGOP
I found this picture of CdG next to the Enterprise. It just doesn't seem to have the right proportions. It is sort of what a kid might draw an CVN to look like. Even the Kuznetsov, not exactly a successful ship by any stretch of the imagination, at least looked like it could mess you up. I know she is a serious fighting ship but the CdG just doesn't have that "you are so dead if you screw with us" look of the US CVN's. Even tied to the dock in San Diego a pair of Nimitz class carriers just scream Don't Tread on Me.


23 posted on 09/24/2009 8:13:14 PM PDT by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world, and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]


To: GonzoGOP
I found this picture of CdG next to the Enterprise. It just doesn't seem to have the right proportions.

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.

24 posted on 09/24/2009 9:03:18 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Hello, Mr. President we honor you today For all your great accomplishments, we all doth say "hooray!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

To: GonzoGOP

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.


25 posted on 09/24/2009 9:38:07 PM PDT by Sequoyah101 (Half of the population is below average)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

To: GonzoGOP

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.....


27 posted on 09/24/2009 9:44:57 PM PDT by Kozak (USA 7/4/1776 to 1/20/2009 Reqiescat in Pace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson