Aircraft Carrier and Aircraft Limits

cherry blossom · May 29, 2020

Katsuragi wasn't a conversion. She was a member of the Unryu Class, which was developed from Hiryu and Soryu. By 1942, the IJN probably knew that designs such as Taiho were better but laid down the Unryu Class because they could be built faster. The photograph shows the effect of a hit on Katsuragi by a 2000 lb GP bomb. The destruction of the flight deck obviously rendered her useless as an aircraft carrier but the good feature of the design was that the 115 mm main deck had prevented serious damage below. Thus Katsuragi had a short post-war career as a repatriation ship Japan's Last Aircraft Carrier, IJN Katsuragi – Byron Hartshorn.

The weak flight deck and low hangar would, however, have made it really hard to have rebuilt the Unryu Class to operate jets Rebuilding the Unryo Class to operate jets.

pinehilljoe · May 29, 2020

Zipper730 said:
Based on operational aircraft, it's interesting they had more bombers than fighters. That said, I don't know what the remaining 26 planes were.
At least the number of fighters eclipses the number of each bomber category. They're on the right track.
Now that's what I'm talking about: 72 fighters escorting 30 bombers. Generally I would favor a ratio of around 2:1 for fighters to bombers.

USN Early in the War the mix was about 30-40-12 of F4Fs, SBDs, and Torpedo Bombers. Late war to combat the Kamikaze the compliment was about 72 fighters and a mix 30 SBC2 and TBF.

Zipper730 · Jul 28, 2020

Admiral Beez said:
No, this is a 1950's invention. Flight deck - Wikipedia

Actually the angled flight-deck concept appeared to have begun in the UK in 1944-1945. I'm not sure when the first people in the United States thought of the idea.

On this note, were there any unorthodox carrier designs that were conceptualized from the first carrier to the 1960's?

GrauGeist · Jul 28, 2020

Unorthodox, like some U.S. carriers could catapult an aircraft from a launch station below deck?
There was also a few carriers (mainly Japanese if I remember right) that had multiple flight decks at one point.

DarrenW · Jul 28, 2020

pinehilljoe said:
Late war to combat the Kamikaze the compliment was about 72 fighters and a mix 30 SBC2 and TBF.

Envisioned at the end of November 1944, Admiral McCain's "Big Blue Blanket" allowed for 20-24 Hellcats over each task group, with an additional four pairs positioned no higher than 3,000 feet and just outside the AA screen. The two F6Fs on each side of the task group were called "Jack Patrols" Their job was to intercept low-flying Kamikaze or "snoopers" that got in under the radar coverage.

The "usual" composition for the enlarged fighter squadron was (65) F6F-5s, (4) F6F-5Ps, and (4) F6F-5Ns. To do this each large carrier fighter squadron was doubled in size, with authorized pilot strength increased from 54-105 aviators. the larger compliment of fighter planes (73) automatically meant fewer dive bombers and torpedo planes. Therefore SB2C and TBM squadrons were reduced to 15 planes each. McCain found this unacceptable and pressed for more fighters. The US Navy was convinced that the Hellcat could sub-plant the SB2Cs in the dive bombing role and the Admiral seriously considered eliminating all Dauntless from CVs and all Avengers from CVLs but the plan was never fully implemented.

The Bunker Hill had an all fighter compliment for a time (100 F6Fs assigned to VF-8 and VF-4) but there were complications as pilots were often tasked to fly multiple missions in a row and there was even talk of mixed squadron formations, which over time would have resulted in poor unit morale and pilot exhaustion. Luckily the experiment was short lived, as in less than a month VF-8 went stateside after completing it's tour of duty at sea.

Source: Hellcat: The F6F in World War II (Tillman)

Admiral Beez · Jul 28, 2020

Zipper730 said:
Maximum catapult end-speeds,

Japan can be criticized for not developing them, but did the British use their catapults often?

Admiral Beez · Jul 28, 2020

DarrenW said:
The Bunker Hill had an all fighter compliment for a time (100 F6Fs assigned to VF-8 and VF-4) but there were complications as pilots were often tasked to fly multiple missions in a row and there was even talk of mixed squadron formations, which over time would have resulted in poor unit morale and pilot exhaustion.

Why not have 300 pilots for the 100 Hellcats?

ThomasP · Jul 28, 2020

Hey Zipper730,

Does this fit your "unorthodox" definition?

"Project Habakkuk - Wikipedia"

DarrenW · Jul 29, 2020

Admiral Beez said:
Why not have 300 pilots for the 100 Hellcats?

More is always better but I'm not sure if those numbers were logistically feasible at the time, if ever. Besides, the Bunker Hill example was a unique situation and if it became standard throughout the navy there definitely would have been a need for more pilots to man the increasingly larger number of fighters (especially with the accelerated ops tempo from January 1945 onward).

Zipper730 · Aug 10, 2020

I'm curious about the maximum width at the waterline for aircraft carriers: It seems that the US generally settled at around 132-134' at the waterline and 252-257' at the waterline. I know that since WWII we had ships that could no longer cross through the Panama Canal. What's the maximum waterline and flight-deck width that could've gotten through the Suez before they widened it in the past couple years?

GrauGeist · Aug 10, 2020

I beleive the Essex Class carriers were some of the last to be able to fit (barely) through the locks.
If memory serves right, they had to remove the lamp-posts along the locks in order for the carrier to clear.

pinehilljoe · Aug 11, 2020

GrauGeist said:
I beleive the Essex Class carriers were some of the last to be able to fit (barely) through the locks.
If memory serves right, they had to remove the lamp-posts along the locks in order for the carrier to clear.

Correct, the Midways were the first not to fit

Zipper730 · Aug 12, 2020

What was the maximum width that could get through the narrowest part of the Suez prior to the widening of it over the past couple years or so?

GrauGeist · Aug 12, 2020

The Panama canal's locks were 110 feet wide (not sure the new width/depth) of the locks.
Essex Class carriers were 93 feet wide at the waterline.

The Suez Canal, I'm not sure.

Snautzer01 · Aug 12, 2020

They should ask the dutch to invent something. Temp barriers to lift water level is kid stuff to them.

ThomasP · Aug 13, 2020

During WWII the Suez Canal had a navigation channel that (at low tide) was a minimum of 110 ft wide by 42'6" ft deep at the bottom, and 197 ft wide at a depth of 33 ft deep below the water's surface. It had a minimum shore-shore distance of 440 ft, but the shore-shore distance could be much greater along some of the canal (such as in the areas of the lakes).

During WWII the British considered the maximum allowable draft of a ship to be 34 ft if it was to safely transit the canal. HMS Nelson had (I think) the deepest draft (at 31 ft) and the widest beam (at 106 ft) of any RN ship that passed through the canal during the war.

During the design stage HMS Vanguard (laid down 1941, launched 1944, commissioned 1946) had her beam increased to 108 ft in order to keep the draft below 34 ft at normal full load, just so that she could pass through the Suez Canal.

elbmc1969 · Sep 2, 2020

DarrenW said:
Envisioned at the end of November 1944, Admiral McCain's "Big Blue Blanket" allowed for 20-24 Hellcats over each task group, with an additional four pairs positioned the Admiral seriously considered eliminating all Dauntless from CVs and all Avengers from CVLs but the plan was never fully implemented.

AEW Avengers were under development. They would have orbited 50+ miles up the threat axis at 5000 ft or lower. Their radars could detect aircraft almost as low as the sea surface, providing much more warning of low-level attacks.

Admiral Beez said:
Why not have 300 pilots for the 100 Hellcats?

When the RN enlarged its air groups, they ran out of places for the pilots and mechanics to sleep! The accomodations for the entire crew became horrifying.

Fitting an extra 200 pilots would be a nightmare. Remember, you also need food and water for them ...

Admiral Beez · Sep 13, 2020

DarrenW said:
More is always better but I'm not sure if those numbers were logistically feasible at the time, if ever.

Zipper730 said:
What was the maximum width that could get through the narrowest part of the Suez prior to the widening of it over the past couple years or so?

Forget Suez or Panama, here's the hangar space our aircraft carrier needs.... approximately 200 fighter; I count about 75 Hellcats and 125 Corsairs.

GrauGeist · Sep 13, 2020

Admiral Beez said:
Forget Suez or Panama, here's the hangar bay we need....

View attachment 594840

Looks like one of the Blimp hangars at Tustin

GregP · Sep 14, 2020

For those of you who might be interested, here's a file on the history of Aircraft Carriers. Not complete, but a good start.

The first trial of an angled flight deck seems to be 1952 on HMS Triumph.

Aircraft Carrier and Aircraft Limits

Senior Airman

Staff Sergeant

Chief Master Sergeant

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Staff Sergeant

Major

Major

Senior Master Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Chief Master Sergeant

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Staff Sergeant

Chief Master Sergeant

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Honourably banned

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Airman

Major

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Major

Attachments

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads