Verdun French Aircraft Carrier (images)

[alejandrogrossi]

On a slightly OT note, considering that the Clems had very high hangers. It might be possible to rework this down and spend the metal weight strengthening the deck for F4s.

Though strictly the cheapest longterm option is to sell the Clems to help fund the PA.58s.

This image was and streching version for Clem
"here is a ~30 foot stretched Clemenceau... the stretch includes the forward part of the angle deck, this gives a angle deck length of ~615' including the round-down at the stern, compared to the ~580' of my earlier mod and the original ~560'.
I moved the angle cat forward to match the stretch.
The forward elevator and island were not moved in relation to the rest of the hull, therefore the forward edge of the elevator is now 245' aft of the bow at the waterline, and is at the 30% point of the 820' waterline length.
So instead of a 869'4" overall length the new version has basically a 900' length, with a corresponding 55' increase in the length of the angle deck over the historic ships. We also have two BS-5A 199' catapults, along with two deck-edge elevators.
However, Clemenceau's boilers were rated for 640 psi @ 842 degrees F, compared to the British 400-440 psi @ 600-750 degrees F and the US 575-600 psi @ 850-900 degrees F for the Essex & Midway classes.
The higher pressure & temperature of steam means it would be possible to replace the catapults with the US C-11-1 (operating pressure 520 psi), which is actually a bit shorter than the BS-5 (240' total installed length with 215' stroke vs 268' total length with 199' stroke).
Clemenceau's elevators were rated at 33,000 lb capacity, and were ~54' long & ~34' wide.
The F-4J weighed 30,770 lb empty, and was 58' long, and 38' 5" wide (~28' folded).
This meant that the elevators would be marginal, and you would need the folding nose of the RN's Phantoms to fit onto the elevators.
The hangar was 499' "usable length" (I have seen 590' listed, but that was including the forward elevator and the engine shops aft), 72'-79' wide, and 23' high.

From here
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/war...roposed-stretching-the-clemenceau-t18713.html


I agree with your last sentence

 

[orlovsky]

However, Clemenceau's boilers were rated for 640 psi @ 842 degrees F, compared to the British 400-440 psi @ 600-750 degrees F and the US 575-600 psi @ 850-900 degrees F for the Essex & Midway classes.
The higher pressure & temperature of steam means it would be possible to replace the catapults with the US C-11-1 (operating pressure 520 psi), which is actually a bit shorter than the BS-5 (240' total installed length with 215' stroke vs 268' total length with 199' stroke).

I have been trying to make sense of the early catapult evolutions (bxs-1, bs4, bs5, c-11, c-7) and it is all quite confusing.

The Clems had a bs5 with 157 ft stroke that was operated up to 550 psi accumulator pressure, but at least before the F-8 refit, the performance was very similar to the bs5 with 151 ft stroke at lower pressure (350-400 psi?) and much lower than the length difference to the C-11 (520 or 550 psi?) would indicate. Lots of details in the excerpt from a french training doc from 1962 here: https://forummarine.forumactif.com/t4957p50-porte-avions-et-catapulte

For performance


The numbers often quoted are 10-15 kts higher than this, and F-8 (and F-18) operation would also be very marginal with this, so probably some improvement later on. Unclear though where it came from, maybe wet accumulators as mentioned in the doc.

Anyway, as the table shows, the bs5 could be operated at 550 psi (38,7 kg/cm2) already and C-11 would not help in that regard. Seems the higher pressure had already been tried on the bxs-1 and the C-11 was also not modified for higher pressure.

Has anyone information on the pressure used on RN carriers or HMAS Melbourne for bs4 or bs5 cats?

 

[alejandrogrossi]

However, Clemenceau's boilers were rated for 640 psi @ 842 degrees F, compared to the British 400-440 psi @ 600-750 degrees F and the US 575-600 psi @ 850-900 degrees F for the Essex & Midway classes.
The higher pressure & temperature of steam means it would be possible to replace the catapults with the US C-11-1 (operating pressure 520 psi), which is actually a bit shorter than the BS-5 (240' total installed length with 215' stroke vs 268' total length with 199' stroke).

I have been trying to make sense of the early catapult evolutions (bxs-1, bs4, bs5, c-11, c-7) and it is all quite confusing.

The Clems had a bs5 with 157 ft stroke that was operated up to 550 psi accumulator pressure, but at least before the F-8 refit, the performance was very similar to the bs5 with 151 ft stroke at lower pressure (350-400 psi?) and much lower than the length difference to the C-11 (520 or 550 psi?) would indicate. Lots of details in the excerpt from a french training doc from 1962 here: https://forummarine.forumactif.com/t4957p50-porte-avions-et-catapulte

For performance
View attachment 659632

The numbers often quoted are 10-15 kts higher than this, and F-8 (and F-18) operation would also be very marginal with this, so probably some improvement later on. Unclear though where it came from, maybe wet accumulators as mentioned in the doc.

Anyway, as the table shows, the bs5 could be operated at 550 psi (38,7 kg/cm2) already and C-11 would not help in that regard. Seems the higher pressure had already been tried on the bxs-1 and the C-11 was also not modified for higher pressure.

Has anyone information on the pressure used on RN carriers or HMAS Melbourne for bs4 or bs5 cats?

Orlovsky
As I put in my post, i copy de info from the link

 

[orlovsky]

Well, the interesting thing is: The C-11 was about 25 kts "stronger" than the short bs5.

A higher pressure bs5 should add 10-15 kts, a shorter C-11 should mean about 15 kts less. Which puts the Clems right between the two and into the region of the bs5a (longer waist cat of Ark Royal) and could launch standard F-4s at light weights (~25 kts wod for 4 sparrows and internal fuel).

The 75m catapults in the PA-58 would equal the C-7 in pressure and stroke length. So this carrier could catapult, for example, Tomcats.

The missing link in this is how the RN and probably also the MN and the RAN improved the bs4/bs5. But I could not find any information on the acculumator pressure and characteristics in Ark Royal (or CVA-01, for that matter).

 

[alejandrogrossi]

Well, the interesting thing is: The C-11 was about 25 kts "stronger" than the short bs5.

A higher pressure bs5 should add 10-15 kts, a shorter C-11 should mean about 15 kts less. Which puts the Clems right between the two and into the region of the bs5a (longer waist cat of Ark Royal) and could launch standard F-4s at light weights (~25 kts wod for 4 sparrows and internal fuel).

The 75m catapults in the PA-58 would equal the C-7 in pressure and stroke length. So this carrier could catapult, for example, Tomcats.

The missing link in this is how the RN and probably also the MN and the RAN improved the bs4/bs5. But I could not find any information on the acculumator pressure and characteristics in Ark Royal (or CVA-01, for that matter).

I hope this help for something

(ft)	(ft)	(ft-lb)	(LT)
Launch Assist Items	Pwr Stroke	Track Length	Max E	Cat Wt
UK BS4	103.0	160.0	17,000,000	275.0
UK BS5	151.0	220.0	30,000,000
UK BS6	250.0	320.0	38,197,700 *
US C7	253.0	276.0	42,000,000	352.0
US C11	211.0	225.0	36,096,827 *
US C11-2	150.0		23,500,000
US C13-0	249.8	264.8	54,000,000
US C13-1	309.7	324.8	69,422,255 *
US C13-2	306.8	324.8	75,000,000	478.0
US C13-3	246.0		60,744,473 *
US Notional 1953 Design			135,349,047 *	650.0

From there
http://www.mnvdet.com/CV-Cats&SkiRamps.html
Aparently the CVA1 would have the BS6
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/cva-01-and-sea-harrier.16859/

 

[Archibald]

The 75m catapults in the PA-58 would equal the C-7 in pressure and stroke length. So this carrier could catapult, for example, Tomcats.

CdG & Rafales, cough - truncated Nimitz catapults, cough.

I have long thought that work done on Verdun was not lost, just put on shelves - and dusted off 20-25 years later, circa 1980, for CdG.

Their basic concept - minus nuclear propulsion of course for the Verdun - are rather similar: of pushing a Clemenceau hull shape and dimensions to its limits and 45 000 tons.

Including a larger deck for 75 m long catapults; for larger, twin-jets aircraft (Phantoms in 1958, Hornets in 1978).

A good case can be make that the largest practical aircraft on a Clemenceau would be an A-7E Corsair II. Wikipedia tell me - Max takeoff weight: 41,998 lb (19,050 kg) overload condition.

In a sense, it would be like the USN sticking with Essex, Crusader for interception and A-7E for strike; eschewing any twin jet or aircraft heavier than 20 metric tons.

Rafale and Hornet were marginal on Foch (both were considered in the late 80's) - few AAMs and partial fuel only.

 

[alejandrogrossi]

The 75m catapults in the PA-58 would equal the C-7 in pressure and stroke length. So this carrier could catapult, for example, Tomcats.

I have long thought that work done on Verdun was not lost, just put on shelves - and dusted off 20-25 years later, circa 1980, for CdG.

Their basic concept - minus nuclear propulsion of course for the Verdun - are rather similar: of pushing a Clemenceau hull shape and dimensions to its limits and 45 000 tons.

Including a larger deck for 75 m long catapults; for larger, twin-jets aircraft (Phantoms in 1958, Hornet in 1978).

Using this two


I made this

Only top view

 

[orlovsky]

The problem with cats and planes is in the myriad of details.

The catapults evolved and depend on inputs, so tables are only valid for a very specific version. Here, for example, the wet version of the C-11-1 depending on steam pressure:


The C-13 used very high pressure, the C-13-2 (short version C-13-3 in CdG) has a larger cylinder bore, but operates at lower pressure than the C-7. Add to this the very benign characteristics of the swing wing, and a C-7 can launch an F-14A at 63k lbs (4 phoenix, internal fuel) with zero wod. Better than the F-4. And the Hornet is a much hotter plane than both without swing wing or blc.

 

[orlovsky]

The issue of the catapults is closely related to Verdun and other projects like Hermes refits or CVA-01. Don't know whether it merits a thread of its own, I'll just add this:

Returning to the table above and comparing with the bs5 from the McD F-4K report, the catapults have similar performance even though the british boilers provided much lower pressure:

Clem Ark
33k lbs 110 ~110
40k lbs 100 ~100

Some snippets on google books suggest that the Clems had (initially?) bs4 catapults. A later improvement is likely, otherwise the F-8 would have been extremely marginal.

According to Friedman, Postwar Naval Revolution: "The first British steam catapult , BS4 , could launch 30,000 pounds at 105 knots in its least powerful version". Length not mentionned.
Hobbs has for
Centaur: bs4 139 ft 40k lbs @ 94 kts
Victorious: bs4 145ft 50k lbs @97 kts (better than the slightly longer bs5)
Hermes: bs4 175 ft and 151 ft, both 50k lbs @ 94 kts (odd and from other sources, these lengths were only planned for the F-4)
Eagle and Ark: bs5 151 ft 50k lbs @ 91 kts, abs5 199 ft 50k lbs @105 kts (as in the F-4K charts)

And on some forums, there is the BS4 103ft with 40,000lb@78kt (which fits the Centaur data)

As the numbers are all over the place, I suggest the hypothesis that
- the change of bs mk4 to mk5 included an improvement, somewhere in the 10-15 kts region
- that change was probably retrofitted to the carriers still in service

Unfortunately, from the sources available, it is unclear what that change was.

 

[orlovsky]

...

Can I request the forums knowledge about anything to do with the ending context regarding -
the Defence Staff considered a smaller design, derived from Clemenceau, in which the after guns would have been replaced by Masurca before the project was finally abandoned in 1961.

I'd be very interested in knowing more about anything to do with this proposed/studied smaller design, derived from Clemenceau

Regards
Pioneer

The french Wiki entry has some (probably recently added) info based on Moulin Clem/Floch, which is not entirely clear: PA59 might have had the short bs5, but then this changed:

"C'est l'avant-projet du 30 août 1957 du conseil supérieur de la Marine qui fige les caractéristiques du PA 59 avec ces catapultes de 75 ou 100 mètres"
Note: "Jean Moulin, Les porte-avions Clemenceau et Foch, Marines Editions, 2006 (ISBN 978-2-915379-47-1), p. 224"

This may refer to the large version as a "PA59". For the improved Clem variant, 75m may be feasable by going to a configuration similar to Ark/Eagle. But 100m, that would be... interesting.

Maybe someone can check the reference?

 

[Archibald]

One thing is sure: the PA58 / PA59 designations are a mess. In theory, they were related to the year (thank you, Captain Obvious !) the reality is they covered many different carriers sizes and tonnages...

 

[Pioneer]

...

Can I request the forums knowledge about anything to do with the ending context regarding -
the Defence Staff considered a smaller design, derived from Clemenceau, in which the after guns would have been replaced by Masurca before the project was finally abandoned in 1961.

I'd be very interested in knowing more about anything to do with this proposed/studied smaller design, derived from Clemenceau

Regards
Pioneer

The french Wiki entry has some (probably recently added) info based on Moulin Clem/Floch, which is not entirely clear: PA59 might have had the short bs5, but then this changed:

"C'est l'avant-projet du 30 août 1957 du conseil supérieur de la Marine qui fige les caractéristiques du PA 59 avec ces catapultes de 75 ou 100 mètres"
Note: "Jean Moulin, Les porte-avions Clemenceau et Foch, Marines Editions, 2006 (ISBN 978-2-915379-47-1), p. 224"

This may refer to the large version as a "PA59". For the improved Clem variant, 75m may be feasable by going to a configuration similar to Ark/Eagle. But 100m, that would be... interesting.

Maybe someone can check the reference?

Thank you orlovsky


Regards
Pioneer

 

[BlackBat242]

On a slightly OT note, considering that the Clems had very high hangers. It might be possible to rework this down and spend the metal weight strengthening the deck for F4s.

Though strictly the cheapest longterm option is to sell the Clems to help fund the PA.58s.

View attachment 659630
This image was and streching version for Clem
"here is a ~30 foot stretched Clemenceau... the stretch includes the forward part of the angle deck, this gives a angle deck length of ~615' including the round-down at the stern, compared to the ~580' of my earlier mod and the original ~560'.
I moved the angle cat forward to match the stretch.
The forward elevator and island were not moved in relation to the rest of the hull, therefore the forward edge of the elevator is now 245' aft of the bow at the waterline, and is at the 30% point of the 820' waterline length.
So instead of a 869'4" overall length the new version has basically a 900' length, with a corresponding 55' increase in the length of the angle deck over the historic ships. We also have two BS-5A 199' catapults, along with two deck-edge elevators.
However, Clemenceau's boilers were rated for 640 psi @ 842 degrees F, compared to the British 400-440 psi @ 600-750 degrees F and the US 575-600 psi @ 850-900 degrees F for the Essex & Midway classes.
The higher pressure & temperature of steam means it would be possible to replace the catapults with the US C-11-1 (operating pressure 520 psi), which is actually a bit shorter than the BS-5 (240' total installed length with 215' stroke vs 268' total length with 199' stroke).
Clemenceau's elevators were rated at 33,000 lb capacity, and were ~54' long & ~34' wide.
The F-4J weighed 30,770 lb empty, and was 58' long, and 38' 5" wide (~28' folded).
This meant that the elevators would be marginal, and you would need the folding nose of the RN's Phantoms to fit onto the elevators.
The hangar was 499' "usable length" (I have seen 590' listed, but that was including the forward elevator and the engine shops aft), 72'-79' wide, and 23' high.

From here
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/war...roposed-stretching-the-clemenceau-t18713.html


I agree with your last sentence

The above is my work, the end result of some 15 years of tinkering with Clemenceau.

Note that I am strictly an amateur with no marine engineering/design training whatsoever (I am, however, a former USMC avionics tech on A-6Es & F/A-18As).

 

[alejandrogrossi]

On a slightly OT note, considering that the Clems had very high hangers. It might be possible to rework this down and spend the metal weight strengthening the deck for F4s.

Though strictly the cheapest longterm option is to sell the Clems to help fund the PA.58s.

View attachment 659630
This image was and streching version for Clem
"here is a ~30 foot stretched Clemenceau... the stretch includes the forward part of the angle deck, this gives a angle deck length of ~615' including the round-down at the stern, compared to the ~580' of my earlier mod and the original ~560'.
I moved the angle cat forward to match the stretch.
The forward elevator and island were not moved in relation to the rest of the hull, therefore the forward edge of the elevator is now 245' aft of the bow at the waterline, and is at the 30% point of the 820' waterline length.
So instead of a 869'4" overall length the new version has basically a 900' length, with a corresponding 55' increase in the length of the angle deck over the historic ships. We also have two BS-5A 199' catapults, along with two deck-edge elevators.
However, Clemenceau's boilers were rated for 640 psi @ 842 degrees F, compared to the British 400-440 psi @ 600-750 degrees F and the US 575-600 psi @ 850-900 degrees F for the Essex & Midway classes.
The higher pressure & temperature of steam means it would be possible to replace the catapults with the US C-11-1 (operating pressure 520 psi), which is actually a bit shorter than the BS-5 (240' total installed length with 215' stroke vs 268' total length with 199' stroke).
Clemenceau's elevators were rated at 33,000 lb capacity, and were ~54' long & ~34' wide.
The F-4J weighed 30,770 lb empty, and was 58' long, and 38' 5" wide (~28' folded).
This meant that the elevators would be marginal, and you would need the folding nose of the RN's Phantoms to fit onto the elevators.
The hangar was 499' "usable length" (I have seen 590' listed, but that was including the forward elevator and the engine shops aft), 72'-79' wide, and 23' high.

From here
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/war...roposed-stretching-the-clemenceau-t18713.html


I agree with your last sentence

The above is my work, the end result of some 15 years of tinkering with Clemenceau.

Note that I am strictly an amateur with no marine engineering/design training whatsoever (I am, however, a former USMC avionics tech on A-6Es & F/A-18As).

BlackBat242
So you are Badger in the other forum.
You do the refit of the Furious/Glorious sister CV.
Your work was amazing. Not only the draw, but with all the info.
I have some question for you
You said that this enlarge Clemenceau, must operated FG.1 Phantom (because the size of the lift you need the nose folding system)
How many FG.1, if you dismiss the Super Etendart as strike AC?
Only in AA role? Full loaded: like this, with 3 tanks


Could operate FG.1 in air to ground role

Sorry for all the question. I´m an amateur too.

 

[Archibald]

With mighty Speys and a nose perched THAT high, plus enlarged Clemenceaus - it must be feasible...

 

[GTX]

Not quite an Aéronavale one but this is one that Richard did years ago

 

[CV12Hornet]

@alejandrogrossi

While I unfortunately don't have direct takeoff performance figures for the F-4K, if comments I've seen about a "30%" improvement in takeoff speeds are correct then you could get the F-4K off the deck of these ships in just about any armament configuration you could think of.

The F-4J, which forms the basis of the F-4K, ranged on takeoff from 46,833 lbs, with a stall speed of 138 knots, with just four Sparrows, all the way up to 56,000 lbs with a stall speed of 151 knots with 8 500-lb bombs and two fuel tanks. Applying that 30% reduction gets you down to a stall speed ranging from 96.6 knots to 105.7, and the alternate loads listed get only modestly above 56,000 lbs, so we can safely assume the 56,000-lb/151-knot figure to be our upper limit.

http://alternatewars.com/SAC/F-4J_Phantom_II_SAC_-_August_1973.pdf

C-11s, for their part, could throw 70,000 lbs at 108 knots at the high end. So we've got quite a bit of margin here; one benefit of the Spey Phantom's extra thrust is higher max weight.

Air wing size is less optimistic. You'd get a modest increase in parking space on the flight deck, but with the same-size hanger there's only so much that can be done. And Phantoms are big planes. I think you could fit two Phantom squadrons, due to the minimal wing-fold of the Etendard meaning it's a surprisingly bulky plane for its size. But that's very much a guesstimate, as I don't have direct spotting data for the Etendard.

 

[Archibald]

Not quite an Aéronavale one but this is one that Richard did years ago

Anchors in the roundels would make it aeronavale

 

[GTX]

Anchors in the roundels would make it aeronavale

And maybe a different paint scheme ala:

 

[H_K]

@CV12Hornet Minimum catapult launch speeds for the Phantom FG1 are available here (page 183): https://www.avialogs.com/aircraft-m...597-ap101b-0901-15a-phantomfgmk1aircrewmanual

Basically launch speeds range from 140-150 knots in most operating conditions for launch weights of 51,000-56,000lbs (full internal fuel, centrerline tank, and 1,500lbs missiles for A2A or 6,000lbs bomb load for A2G).

Subtract 25kts wind over deck and you need a catapult that can launch those weights at 120-125kts.

 

[CV12Hornet]

@CV12Hornet Minimum catapult launch speeds for the Phantom FG1 are available here (page 183): https://www.avialogs.com/aircraft-m...597-ap101b-0901-15a-phantomfgmk1aircrewmanual

Basically launch speeds range from 140-150 knots in most operating conditions for launch weights of 51,000-56,000lbs (full internal fuel, centrerline tank, and 1,500lbs missiles for A2A or 6,000lbs bomb load for A2G).

Subtract 25kts wind over deck and you need a catapult that can launch those weights at 120-125kts.

Unfortunately, most of the document is paywalled, so I'll have to take your word for it.

Also unfortunately, I don't have an actual speed curve for the C-11, but that launch speed at that launch weight is probably achievable by the C-11.

 

[H_K]

@CV12Hornet Avialogs is free to sign up for… should be easy to open the document.

 

[CV12Hornet]

@CV12Hornet Avialogs is free to sign up for… should be easy to open the document.

Oh, good! I'll have to do that later, would prefer not to do so on my work computer.

 

[Archibald]

Anchors in the roundels would make it aeronavale

And maybe a different paint scheme ala:

I have an idea... that Phantom blue livery is not too far from late Aeronavale own blue.
Screw the green, and paste blue on it...

 

[alejandrogrossi]

@alejandrogrossi

While I unfortunately don't have direct takeoff performance figures for the F-4K, if comments I've seen about a "30%" improvement in takeoff speeds are correct then you could get the F-4K off the deck of these ships in just about any armament configuration you could think of.

The F-4J, which forms the basis of the F-4K, ranged on takeoff from 46,833 lbs, with a stall speed of 138 knots, with just four Sparrows, all the way up to 56,000 lbs with a stall speed of 151 knots with 8 500-lb bombs and two fuel tanks. Applying that 30% reduction gets you down to a stall speed ranging from 96.6 knots to 105.7, and the alternate loads listed get only modestly above 56,000 lbs, so we can safely assume the 56,000-lb/151-knot figure to be our upper limit.

http://alternatewars.com/SAC/F-4J_Phantom_II_SAC_-_August_1973.pdf

C-11s, for their part, could throw 70,000 lbs at 108 knots at the high end. So we've got quite a bit of margin here; one benefit of the Spey Phantom's extra thrust is higher max weight.

Air wing size is less optimistic. You'd get a modest increase in parking space on the flight deck, but with the same-size hanger there's only so much that can be done. And Phantoms are big planes. I think you could fit two Phantom squadrons, due to the minimal wing-fold of the Etendard meaning it's a surprisingly bulky plane for its size. But that's very much a guesstimate, as I don't have direct spotting data for the Etendard.

CV12Hornet
Thanks for all the data.
One question
How many planes are in 1 Sqn? 12 or 18? I think is the first, but Ii don´t temeber

 

[CV12Hornet]

CV12Hornet
Thanks for all the data.
One question
How many planes are in 1 Sqn? 12 or 18? I think is the first, but Ii don´t temeber

In this case I was thinking of 10-plane squadrons, like the Crusader squadron embarked on the Clemenceaus IOTL. Though with the folding nose you might be able to cram in 12-plane squadrons.

 

[NobodyOne]

I am not sure where I downloaded these images from. I think it might have been from the Photobucket link from "Badger1968" post.


RIPPER

What's the name of the book?

 

[orlovsky]

@alejandrogrossi

While I unfortunately don't have direct takeoff performance figures for the F-4K, if comments I've seen about a "30%" improvement in takeoff speeds are correct then you could get the F-4K off the deck of these ships in just about any armament configuration you could think of.

The F-4J, which forms the basis of the F-4K, ranged on takeoff from 46,833 lbs, with a stall speed of 138 knots, with just four Sparrows, all the way up to 56,000 lbs with a stall speed of 151 knots with 8 500-lb bombs and two fuel tanks. Applying that 30% reduction gets you down to a stall speed ranging from 96.6 knots to 105.7, and the alternate loads listed get only modestly above 56,000 lbs, so we can safely assume the 56,000-lb/151-knot figure to be our upper limit.

http://alternatewars.com/SAC/F-4J_Phantom_II_SAC_-_August_1973.pdf

C-11s, for their part, could throw 70,000 lbs at 108 knots at the high end. So we've got quite a bit of margin here; one benefit of the Spey Phantom's extra thrust is higher max weight.

Air wing size is less optimistic. You'd get a modest increase in parking space on the flight deck, but with the same-size hanger there's only so much that can be done. And Phantoms are big planes. I think you could fit two Phantom squadrons, due to the minimal wing-fold of the Etendard meaning it's a surprisingly bulky plane for its size. But that's very much a guesstimate, as I don't have direct spotting data for the Etendard.

There were some very optimistic assumptions for the Spey F-4 - before it was actually built. Would have to dig up the data, but in the end it was pretty much the same as an F-4J with the extended nosegear.

As for spotting, an essex class was estimated at 57 F-4 or 81 F-8 spots (actual airwing 75-90% of that). Playing around with the ship plans, I got a Clem with 41 Phantoms (which would be ~55-60 F-8) or 54 Etendards, so the Etendard is a bit cumbersome, roughly an F-8 or 3/4 of a Phantom spotwise.

No claim to beauty or very good accuracy, but here's an idea of a Clem full of Phantoms for maximum spotting.

 

[lordroel]

Not quite an Aéronavale one but this is one that Richard did years ago

Anchors in the roundels would make it aeronavale

You make the French wonder if they can build themselves good carrier fighters if they also buyt the F-4.

 

[Archibald]

Carrier fighters were different from land based ones. First the Aéronavale was no De Gaulle or Dassault, I mean they had bought American since 1939 and the Vought V-156F and still loved Uncle Sam.
Also the Aéronavale market was too small for a French type: the number of Aquilon jets (121 built) pretty much fixed the size of the fast-jet force until the Rafale days ( https://www.netmarine.net/aero/aeronefs/aquilon/index.htm )
- 71 Etendard IV + 42 Crusaders = 113
- 100 Jaguar M
- 71 Super Etendard
- and nowadays only 60 Rafale M.

This number pretty much doomed any atempt at a French naval fast jet, the two exceptions being the Etendard (thanks NATO LWF) and Rafale (thanks the AdA, and screw F-18s...)

 

[lordroel]

Carrier fighters were different from land based ones. First the Aéronavale was no De Gaulle or Dassault, I mean they had bought American since 1939 and the Vought V-156F and still loved Uncle Sam.
Also the Aéronavale market was too small for a French type: the number of Aquilon jets (121 built) pretty much fixed the size of the fast-jet force until the Rafale days ( https://www.netmarine.net/aero/aeronefs/aquilon/index.htm )
- 71 Etendard IV + 42 Crusaders = 113
- 100 Jaguar M
- 71 Super Etendard
- and nowadays only 60 Rafale M.

This number pretty much doomed any atempt at a French naval fast jet, the two exceptions being the Etendard (thanks NATO LWF) and Rafale (thanks the AdA, and screw F-18s...)

Well at least they buy American.

 

[H_K]

No claim to beauty or very good accuracy, but here's an idea of a Clem full of Phantoms for maximum spotting.

View attachment 669050

View attachment 669052

Great drawings. Could you redraw with an operational spot such as in the pic below?

My rough estimate is you could fit 8 F-4s in the starboard bow parking, 4-5 in the bow catapult parking, 1 on the front elevator, 3 along the island, 1 on the aft elevator, 1 right behind the aft elevator, and 1 in the wires… total 20 F-4s on the flight deck.

In the hangar I would remove 1 F-4 from each hangar bay to allow for movement in and out towards the elevators. Remove 1-2 more F-4s to allow for helicopter stowage. That would mean up to 14-15 F-4s in the hangar.

Total max theoretical air group would therefore be ~35 F-4s. However it is customary to leave some space margin, so more realistically up to 30 F-4s would be the maximum… less if you trade off some F-4s for other aircraft types (such as Alizés).

Say 24 F-4s, 6 Alizés, and 4 helos.

 

[orlovsky]

I haven't tried an all F-4 operational spotting as the strike weight of the F-4 would seem unrealistic for the Clems.

What I have tried is this: The heaviest actual loadout I have found was 10 F-8, 24 Etendards and 6 Alizés. This gets already quite dense, although in theory using US Navy spottings, it translates into roughly 28 Phantom spots / 70 % use.

But the hangar and the starboard bow park fit Phantoms just as well as Crusaders. Replacing the Crusaders 1:1 looks like this (Crusader outlines can be seen under the F-4s; density ~75%) :

 

[H_K]

@orlovsky Thanks. What software are you using for this by the way? (I used to use Paint.Net but have never found a perfect replacement for Mac OS)

 

[orlovsky]

An old version of paint that allows transparent copying. It's good enough for this and definately for my skills; for simplicity the aircraft are on the same "sheet" as I was just curious how the various spottings work out in comparison with the US carriers - the latter having various sources for numbers, but nothing for the Clems.

 

[Julio Garay Terrazas]

I dont remember where i get this image, but in the file data said year 2005.

 

[starviking]

I dont remember where i get this image, but in the file data said year 2005.

The image originally appears in Navies in the Nuclear Age.

 

[alejandrogrossi]

I am not sure where I downloaded these images from. I think it might have been from the Photobucket link from "Badger1968" post.


RIPPER

This are image of post 4
Are they diferent projects?
the so called Joffre, have an enlarge and more angle deck. A full displacement, have 1000t more
Any one have more info,.
Thanks

 

[H_K]

Any one have more info,.

The first image « Joffre » is not a real design. It’s a what-if, by Badger (aka @BlackBat242) I believe.

 

[BlackBat242]

Any one have more info,.

The first image « Joffre » is not a real design. It’s a what-if, by Badger (aka @BlackBat242) I believe.

You are correct... it is my version of PA-58 after a change of design during construction for more flight deck area to operate more/larger aircraft.