Because NNP means that all the fuel volumes in the ship are now able to hold aviation fuel.
That's one I doubt. Handling hydrogen sucks. Making hydrogen is extremely energy intensive, and storing the stuff is miserable because hydrogen will just seep out of the steel pipes and tanks! Not to mention the absolutely lousy density of the stuff, LH2 is just short of 15 liters per KG.
Maybe?
I wouldn't call it a vanity project. Going to nuclear power significantly increases your aviation fuel and ordinance storage. Going off of memory, but IIRC when the USN was comparing the Enterprise to Kitty Hawk, Enterprise could carry some 50% more aviation fuel and I want to say 20-30% more ordinance. So for a small carrier, that's a big increase in your capability. And if doing so let's you remove a supply ship from your task force, you may end up with a net positive in crew requirements and costs.
2150 tons munitions and 1.95 million gallons aviation fuel in JFK, 2520 tons munitions and 2.72 million gallons aviation fuel in Enterprise, so generally correct.
That doesn't chanve what I've said. The advantage of maneuverability which the carrier has is moot since the space in which the imaginary Taiwanese CSG could maneuver in is so small. It's not like they will send their CSG to SCS to protect Taiwan. Similar problem applies to Korean CVX, but there are two very important distinctions : First the ROKN is much more capable than ROCN and the gap will only widen further and second, NK maritime surveillance capabilities are absolutely incomparable to PLA maritime surveillance and tracking capabilities.
for me still quite unsure about the pros and cons of nuclear powered carriers in the non-US case. the US is exceptional as it has a large labor pool to draw from.
My mental image of the CONOPS was for the Taiwanese carrier to lurk east of the island, leaving the straits to submarines and aircraft (and a crapton of naval mines).
That I was not aware of.
He was referring to the US$1.75 billion agreement with France in the early 1990s for 6 Lafayette class ASW frigates (the Kang Ding class in the ROCN), which were built in France 1993-1998.
The original program for for 6 builds and 10 options, so the planned pre-scandal total for 16 Lafayettes. I dare say that the procurement of a dozen very operable Knox class frigates put an end to further units as much as the apparent corruption. Besides, there was apparently (and still is?) a statutory limit on the number of ROCN frigates at 22 total units. With the extra US FFG-7 hulls, Taiwan is fully stocked up on frigates.
It's true that corruption was prevalent in East Asia and each of the democratic Far East states had their own share of corruption related histories when it comes to arms procurement (Lockheed Scandal in Japan and how Northrop greased Jun Administration in order to sell F-20), but the Kang Ding scandal was anything but unexceptional, even in Far East standards.
No, last we heard it was in the Midway size range.
Yeah it says 60,000 - 75,000 tons.
the 60-75,000 tons is being claimed by Haku-Mason on twitter, who has a history of being not the most accurate source.
Nimitz class are 93m (stroke)
As part of their SCB-110 refits, the Midway class were fitted with C-11 cats, which had a total length of 225', and a stroke of 211'. When Midway herself received her SCB-101.66 refit, the C-11 cats were replaced with longer C-13 cats that were 265' long with a stroke of 250'. However, that extra 40' did push the port cat and JBD into the angled deck. You can see it in the image below.
Thank you!
There's actually pros and cons to the two island set up. On the pro side, it allows you to optimize both your ship handling (with the forward island) and your flight operations (with the aft island). Compare this to the USN with our single islands. When designing a carrier with one island, a choice has to be made: either place the island more forward to make ship handling and navigation easier, or place it more aft to make controlling flight operations easier. The US chose to go with an aft island to prioritize fight operations, at the cost of accepting huge blind spots forward and to port of the ship. The two island layout drastically reduces those blind areas without sacrificing aviation capabilities.
