Page 12 of 12

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2019, 14:30
by zhangmdev
Those non-nuclear "super-carriers", USS Forrestal (CV-59), USS Saratoga (CV-60), USS Ranger (CV-61), USS Independence (CV-62), USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63), USS Constellation (CV-64), The USS America (CV-66) , USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67). It is remarkable how quickly they are forgotten. Forrestal was somewhere close to 80,000 ton, way bigger than anything Russian and Chinese are having now, or will have, if ever, in the near future.

http://militaryvetshop.com/History/airc ... riers.html

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2019, 14:38
by weasel1962
The current cv-16/17 are comparable to cv-41. Cv-18 will likely be about forrestal class size. Forrestal was launched in the 50s, almost 70 years ago. Thats a long time.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2019, 14:45
by weasel1962
weasel1962 wrote:Hornetfinn is right. USN had 6 cvn and 9 CV during desert storm deploying cvn-71 and 5 CV (cv-41, 60, 61, 66 and 67) for the fight. There were 2-3 more Cv/cvn that could in theory deploy but did not.

The CV that did not deploy were cv-59, 62, 63, 64. Cvn back then were 65, 68, 69, 70 and 72.


Should be PMI not hornetfinn.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2019, 14:48
by weasel1962
hornetfinn wrote:Besides Taiwan, I can see several other scenarios where Chinese carriers might be useful. There are quite many potential reasons to fight near China (like South China Sea) and one interesting would be Africa where China has been rather active. There could well be some armed conflict where aviation might be needed and carriers would be perfect for that. Even current STOBAR carriers could be very useful there.


The other Soviet role for their cvbg was boomer escort. Back then and today, ssbns would be aggressively stalked. A cvbg can sanitise a fairly big area allowing access for boomers.

Consider the current PLAN CV bases are vis their boomer bases.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2019, 14:53
by pmi
mixelflick wrote:15 big flat tops, or say 11 and 4 amphibious assault ships? I suppose you can call all of them "aircraft carriers", but I don't remember us having 15 CVN's, or even 15 large ones, with a few of those being (non) nuclear powered ???


There were 13 flat top gators active at the time; all 7 LPHs, the 5 LHAs & Wasp (LHD1) was commissioned in 89.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2019, 00:54
by weasel1962

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2019, 19:35
by marsavian
The sad story of Admiral Kuznetsov which makes you appreciate what a well suited combination are the QE carriers with F-35B using similar ski ramps.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... uilt-80026