Is this the correct way to park planes on an aircraft carrier? Wouldn't this prevent one of the catapults from being used?
Is this the correct way to park planes on an aircraft carrier?
Is this the correct way to park planes on an aircraft carrier? Wouldn't this prevent one of the catapults from being used?
no they just play it like jenga
>Wouldn't this prevent one of the catapults from being used?
Once again, the ramp is proven to be king. All hail the ramp.
thats why the most powerful navy in human history uses ramps.
Yeah the british love their ramps
We do the same thing, so I guess so, given that the US is really the only country with serious modern carrier experience.
>the only country with serious modern carrier experience.
So many, many, carrier clashes since the second world war. Definitely haven't just sat them off shore and bombed people who are so dirt poor they can't afford shoes..
and? carrier operations are carrier operations.
Britain has arguably better carrier experience being they are the only ones to use them against an actual threat. Also come to think of it they have better submarine warfare experience and better helicopter ASW experience too...funny that
>an actual threat
For someone dissing WW2 experience you sure are proud of sinking a Brooklyn class light cruiser laid down in 1934 with a 1925 vintage Mk VIII** torpedo
Ignoring the Exocet's, Argentina's carrier, SSK's and supersonic jet aircaft?
The Argentine threat to the RN in open ocean was virtually nonexistent.
I enjoy the sincerity of your headcanon
Both fleets were armed with Exocet. Argentina had CATOBAR jets and patrol aircaft, the UK didnt.
>Argentina had CATOBAR jets
USS Phoenix's floatplane isn't a jet.
I was more thinking of Skyhawks and S2 trackers off of ARA Veinticinco de Mayo. She came within minutes of getting sunk without realising it. HMS Splendid was tracking her, had permission to engage and was sitting upwind waiting for her to turn into the wind and launch aircraft. She did and then aborted the launch due to a catapult failure. Shortly later the group was spooked off by another submarine contact -likely to be a Russian submarine trying to hoover up wartime SIGINT - and the following day she was called back to port have the Belrano was sunk.
How did I 'diss' WW2 experience? I'm sorry if your fragile ego was hurt. I was making the comparison between the Falklands and the whole 'parking offshore bombing no shoes' which I'm assuming is Iraq. No need to get so upset.
>It's another butthurt bong schizoposting to fight their increasing irrelevance on the world stage episode
Sitting back and deploying aircraft in relative safety is what carriers are supposed to do. What those planes do once they're off the deck is relatively unimportant for this topic.
That aside, though, if you only care about full-scale peer warfare, the closest anybody has come to doing that with carriers since WWII is in training exercises, and the US has vastly more experience with that than anybody else in the world as well.
In a war between peers you'd want experience using carriers against another navy, which only the British have done since WW2 that I can think of. Not like anyone from the Falklands war is still serving though.
operation praying mantis, technically
>Not like anyone from the Falklands war is still serving though.
There are a few actually.
That depends on the composition of your navy and the intent of your carriers, though. Fights against other navies aren't really the primary role of American carriers, our submarines are the main asset for that (which is why we've started giving attack subs battleship names) while our carriers are oriented much more toward supporting land operations. As I said before we also have a ton of experience with exercises, which may not quite represent the stresses of real combat but do give carrier crews a lot of practice in terms of launching, recovering, and resupplying aircraft at a fast pace, coordinating air operations, etc., and we've done them with basically every navy on Earth that doesn't completely hate us so we've got a lot of practice dealing with varying "enemy" fleets and tactics as well.
Why does it matter? Sortieing fighters out is sortieing fighters out.
The experience that matters isn't only the crew themselves, it's the whole armed forces having figured out who gets to decide what to send, to where, with what loadout and for what purpose, how long it can be there and what the ship actually does when those orders are issued. Russians had tank crews who could pull off a 360 backflip noscope and they all died because they had never tested the planning and command and logistics against a real enemy.
UK still hasn’t operated aircraft carriers in a meaningful way for the last two decades. Ark Royal‘s final air wing in 2011 included four Harriers.
The French navy has more institutional knowledge of aircraft carrier operation than the Royal Navy
>UK still hasn’t operated aircraft carriers in a meaningful way for the last two decades.
We bombed ISIS in Syria from HMS Queen Elizabeth last year. We went on a world tour operating at a high intensity the whole time seeing off hostile patrols from Russia and China.
>The French navy has more institutional knowledge of aircraft carrier operation than the Royal Navy
No one but a french person would say this because it's wrong.
>and bombed people who are so dirt poor they can't afford shoes..
Saddam was a billionaire and his army had shoes and all kinds of expensive weapons
What the planes do once they're off isn't relevant to carrier ops. It's getting them airborne and landed safely is the carrier's job. Keeping it and its planes up and running is much more relevant than having good pilots (to the CV, ofc its important to have good pilots). CVs are just a means to get the planes where they need to be, having good maintenance crews experienced with repeated launches, landings, and rearmings is more relevant than the quality of what the pilots their servicing are fighting
You do realize managing and operating planes to launch and recover for bombing goat frickers is still the same as for attacking enemy warships?
Carrier operations is about aircraft sortie rate and the us navy knows how to sortie their planes.
Us military aircraft have readiness rates higher during wartime than peacetime. Something most countries can't do.
Aren't the planes all parked on the deck like that for show? I mean, isn't this just a promotional photo for the Navy? I thought they would store the majority of the planes below deck unless they're scrambling to assemble a strike force.
they're cleaning the hangar deck
They're shuffled about depending on what you need to do but you would never keep them all out on the flight deck like that for anything other that some wacky surge load where you're not expecting to launch much more than a skeleton flight and are just in transport between ports.
Especially not on the elevators.
Odds are there isn't one correct way, it rather depends on what exactly you want to do. If you need to get a smaller number of aircraft in the air ASAP then you'd keep the catapults clear, but these layout may be better to get keep up a sustained launch rate since you have more aircraft ready on deck and still most of the catapults available (as you can see in both cases only one catapult is blocked, out of four for the upper and three for the lower). And neither will work if you also need to be able to have aircraft landing, so that scenario calls for yet another layout (with a lot less aircraft up on deck).
You rotate parking over 1 &2 or 3,4 and 5 to let catapults get serviced on different days
They are worried about breakdowns. The easiest way to fix something that is very difficult to fix is have a backup of it.
Really the redundancy effort being made is huge and quite significant for wargaming. "No confidence at all" would be a way to summarize it.