Re: FT-Fighters and launch bays

At 10:04 PM -0400 6/6/01, Richard and Emily Bell wrote:
>
>Wet navy carriers have different problems.  The reason as many 
>planes are on the
>deck as there are is to make room in the hanger deck for servicing. 
>As a gross
>percentage of total tonnage, the Nimitz carries a pittance.  Less 
>than five percent
>of its mass is its airgroup (unless the average carrier aircraft is 
>fifty tonnes).
>At one point per fighter, the typical FT:FB1 carrier usually triples 
>that number.

Funny how they carry a larger air group. 80+ aircraft... The Ark 
Royal carrier that the NAC uses only has 36...
>
>If your cargo space has the facilities to fuel and arm the fighters, 
>it is a launch
>bay without the external hatch, so it will be almost as expensive.

Aye...

>
>Did they operate more fighters than they were designed to, or did 
>they previously
>operate fewer sea harriers due to budget constraints?

Its my understanding that Carrier ops have wiggle room as to the 
number of aircraft you can operate. Typically British WWII carriers 
didn't have any deck parking, the US went with deck parking in 
addition to below deck parking. Combine that with the arrangements of 
the armour and deck numbers (US had 2 below deck aircraft areas vs 1 
for the British iirc) and we had more larger air groups.

Its my understanding that the Hermes and Invicible operated more 
aircraft than they normally did. Whether that was budget constraints 
or just making due, I don't know, but they did have more aircraft 
there for combat. I think a trip over to sci.mil.navy is in order....

--
- Ryan Montieth Gill		DoD# 0780 (Smug #1) / AMA / SOHC -
- ryan.gill@SPAMturner.com  I speak not for CNN, nor they for me -
- rmgill@SPAMmindspring.com	     www.mindspring.com/~rmgill/ -
- '85 Honda CB700S  -  '72 Honda CB750K  - '76 Chevy MonteCarlo  -