Shipbucket

WOW! Just...wow, man! These are just unbelievably incredible. I hate to ask you to do even more work, but do you think you could do an entry on the Novgorodian carrier aircraft at some point?

I understand a lot of these designs are based on actual Soviet never-were carriers, but it just seems odd to me that the Novgorodians would bounce between ski-ramps and catapaults. One would think they would choose one design and stick with it.

Needless to say these are all fantastic images nevertheless.

_________________
DeviantArt

Fantastic!

Thank you guys.

To awnser few questions:
Only carrier which has both catapults and ski-jump ramp is the newest project 23000 class which doesen't have steam cats but EMALS. With those the force and speed of the launch can be controlled and adjusted far more accurately than steam catapults.
As with British and Americans in RL, AV-RKKF in this AU also had to learn to master the launch and recovering of early jet fighters from the hard way. The I-6 and I-9 were adaptions of the land-based fighters and indeed had all the short-commings that arrow-winged fighters had. First proper fighter developted for carrier operations was the I-27 which had similar crancked-delta wings as in F-4, altough the plane was alot smaller. The next generation I-23 had VG wings as they gave even superior STOL characteristics. The 4th gen fighter I-34 pushed the limits even further with its integral blended-wing-body arragment.

The 3-shaft arragment seems to be quite popular in RL Soviet shipdesign, especially in the large combatants like carriers and battleships. Interesting enough is that none of the ships that actually emerged into reality did not have tripple screws (aside some of the smaller ones) but often adopted either 2 or 4 shafts.
You just haven't read the descriptions of the carriers, the awnser is quite obviously explained there. Just like in OTL Soviets, the Ski-jump was orginally fitted for the I-41 (Yak-41 in RL) VSTOL fighters. In Novgorod, the first ship to have ski-jump is the Project 11430 class. As with the Soviets, Novgorod found out that conventional aircrafts with good STOL characteristics can also take of by using the Ski-jump and thus the follow-on pr. 11432 had arrestor wires for recovering conventional planes. At first it was only inteded for the AEW aircrafts but during the 90's and early 2000's it was decided that the I-41 would be replaced with the I-55, small conventional fighter with superior capabilities compared to the VSTOL I-41. As the Project 11430 and Project 11432 have gas-turbines and no steam boilers, catapults were impossible to adopt.

_________________
Shipbucket mainsite, aka "The Archive"
New AU project "Aravala"

Nice work on the carriers!

I accept that explanation. Still, I was curious and I went looking to see what US RTL work on an emal actually shows the current status is. They are not going to combine an emal and a ramp.

https://www.quora.com/Military-Why-dont ... -ski-jumps

The upshot is that I learned something new. The USN really doesn't like ramps because the required clear takeoff run eats up flight deck hardstand parking space. It is not that a cat/ramp combo doesn't work. The Russians use the compromised ramp alone because if a catapult packs it in, they still want to be able to launch Sukhois and the ramp is cheap, simple and idiot proof. The Russians like idiot proof. The Americans accept the added risk of a mechanical casualty in the catapult, because the cats allow the Americans to launch fast and heavy in rough all weather conditions. Ramps are more weather sensitive, launch rates are slower and there are attendant added risks. (see below.)

Either logic works. The kicker is that I know the "kick" the conversion of horizontal lift to vertical shove that the ramp provides through altering the plane's thrust line, also radically changes the A of A for a burdened aircraft as it points nose up. The Russian pilots run a much greater risk at full load of stall and flameout, thus plunge into the sea, as they come off the Kuznetsov's ramp than their VSTOL American counterparts do (YAK 141 vs F-35 C) on a roll off from a flat decked amphib. A cat throw would make this problem much worse by extending that shove UP and extending the time the A of A is nose high. That is why the Russians use 3/4 loads on the navalized Sukhoi, specialized carefully checked engines, and that compromised ramp alone. There are lift/thrust conversion limits, just as there are cat throw limits. They certainly are not stupid. They know what their airframes can take and what their pilots can do.

Did you really type that question into Google and use Quora as a source? Let's see some analysis from Friedman et al... using the equivalent of YaHoo answers is not acceptable.

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)

Hi, Gollevainen. Nice designs, as ever. May I ask a couple of questions? First, Why, in some CVs, the island is placed close to the edge of the hull (like in Project 73K, Project 69AV, Karl Marx or even helicopter carriers like Project 68) and in others, it is placed in a more centered position (like in Lenin, Orel or Frunze). Second, Why your 1957 Kuril had an open bow, if some of your previous designs already had the enclosed hurricane bow. And the last one, can you told us something about the aircraft which is directly over the bridge of your 1955 Servormorsk (I suppose that it must be the B-3, but I´m not sure) and what kind of propulsion arrangement had? Thanks and cheers.

If you want Norman Friedman, just remember that he is not post 1983 when it comes to carrier aviation and carrier operations. Most of the questions I raised come in the crucial 1939-1965 period and the final one is post 1983 (Falklands War) and even in the pre-1983 details Mr. Friedman gets a lot of things about aircraft carriers wrong.

For example:

https://archive.org/details/74462TheAngledDeckCarrier

Straight from the USN after the Intrepid conversions. Not the way Friedman describes it at all in his illustrated History, when he describes what the angled deck did for USN aircraft operations, you'll notice? It, in the 1955 time frame in this film, even gives the cogent reasons for why the ski-ramp, a future British development, is not preferred at all down to the present for the navies who have mastered CATOBAR technology.

Anyway, the Quorum answers, especially from the Indian contributor, are actually quite correct and accurate. The myth about Russian aircraft not being able to jump the ramp with full loads is an example. They can. It is just a bit risky for peacetime operations and I have already noted that the Russians aren't stupid.

Deftly stepping aside from internet expertise, Golly, I'd note that a number of your radars seem like they may not have sufficient clearance to rotate.

They are, of course, beautifully rendered drawings.