[br`lorance]

Originally posted by Mr Snuggles
Looks like it was actually named after someone better. You won't really hear me dispute that.

[jobsfancy]

Originally posted by Sandman
Looking more closely at the design, the exterior plane lift doesn't strike me as a good idea. A lucky hit there and the whole carrier is crippled. Virtually all big carriers(in fact, I think it is all) have edge elevators instead of "interior" ones...mostly because Edge elevators don't hinder flight operations(as much).

[saruxanset]

Originally posted by Vanguard


Well, I don't know about these carriers. But you might just be able to land an A380 on a Nimitz class under absolutely optimal conditions.

The carrier would have to be moving at 31 knots into a steady 40 knot gale. And the A380 would have to be very light with no cargo and no fuel.

With that combination, stall speed could be as low as 80 knots. So the plane would have a relative speed of only 15-20 mph when it touches the deck. You could probably stop in less than 500 feet at that speed.

Of course it would be completely stupid. You are risking 5000 lives on the carrier to (possibly) save a couple of hundred on the plane. But it might be possible. A380's wingspan is 261 feet. You don't think that'd clip anything?

[pupyississido]

Originally posted by Agathon
Can anyone tell me why Britain needs aircraft carriers? I'm stumped. I can't see the Argies bothering with the Falklands again, and apart from that there seems no reason. To me it doesn't seem any more sensible than if Her Majesty's government had ordered a fleet of 5,000 combine harvesters. It's proven to be an effective tool for implementing foreign policy.

[Obgrfbke]

The French have a nuclear carrier, so I'm not sure they need these oldschool non-nuclear British pieces of ****. Especially with gas prices the way they are.

[Tumarimmicdak]

What's the distance to the conning tower or any other raised element of the flight deck?

[MwhwF6bp]

I'm looking forward to the USS Harrison...or does it already exist?

[Txaizdxx]

Does the Charles de Gaulle have a really large, bulbous front to the ship?

[Vkowefek]

Originally posted by Vanguard


Well, once the deck is taking off some of the weight, the speed of the ship might allow you to stop very short. Maybe.

Anyway, you can do it in Grand Theft Auto. If a A380 is in such immediate danger that it needs to put down right now on an aircraft carrier, then it's still screwed, as the carrier wouldn't have enough time to clear it's deck of aircraft.

[antilt]

Our current aircraft carriers will be 30+ years old by then, so it is a timely replacement given our force projection requirements.

What we do need to do however is to stop treating our army as a bunch of minimum wage cannon fodder that can be sent willy-nilly into the battlefield with substandard or non-existent equipment.

Seriously, our army is treated like the equivalent of dogshit on your shoe - it is a ****ing embarrassment the way our government doesn't give a **** about our armed forces in this country...

All we need to do is downgrade our nuclear deterrent to a minimum level (as that is something we are slated to spend at least £10bn in the coming years on keeping it up to date at its current levels), and that could pay for all the upgrades necessary in all our armed forces - including these aircraft carriers!

Oh, and that figure for the carriers...

Probably double or triple it by the time the MOD has got its incompetent hands on it and the carriers are finally delivered...

[ñàéäèíã]

C-130 has 132 feet wingspan.

The A380 is almost exactly twice as wide as a C-130 in wingspan. There's no way it'd land on a carrier, it wouldn't fit.

[hansen384cbh]

Originally posted by Joseph
A C-130 was landed on one of the older carriers some years ago, but they did not try to take off. It may have been the Enterprise, just don't remember. Not only did it land, but it took off as well

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...ry/q0097.shtml

(includes footage)

Better vid: