Matrix Games Forums

Great graphic. It's a couple years old but popped up again today. From Reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/co ... t_carrier/

It's interesting that the number of elevators has decreased at Ford. It would be interesting to look at the calculations. Decreased number of airplane sorties due to better ammunition accuracy and the aircraft's probability of overcoming enemy air defenses/fighters?

FilitchM2 wrote: Wed Nov 09, 2022 5:55 pm It's interesting that the number of elevators has decreased at Ford. It would be interesting to look at the calculations. Decreased number of airplane sorties due to better ammunition accuracy and the aircraft's probability of overcoming enemy air defenses/fighters?

Having more deck space actually allows more sorties. I recall a detailed discussion on the way this works on another forum a few months ago but can't find it.

I suspect a fairly detailed analysis showed that the elevators aren't the main bottleneck. If you watch detailed videos of intensive carrier ops, repeatedly having to reposition spotted aircraft on deck and in hangers was the killer.

Cool image. Thanks.

I note the Midway has a different size in its two iterations despite showing as the same length. I'm not a carrier guy: did the Midway grow in length after its update?


Ref the elevators: I wonder how much battle damage is assumed in the design? Meaning, without more elevators, if one (or more) is damaged, how will that affect operations? Or, is the assumption that any battle damage will result in the carrier being inoperative (or sunken)?

c3k wrote: Wed Nov 09, 2022 11:16 pm Cool image. Thanks.

I note the Midway has a different size in its two iterations despite showing as the same length. I'm not a carrier guy: did the Midway grow in length after its update?


Ref the elevators: I wonder how much battle damage is assumed in the design? Meaning, without more elevators, if one (or more) is damaged, how will that affect operations? Or, is the assumption that any battle damage will result in the carrier being inoperative (or sunken)?

Good point. If you need more space - just lift one elevator up and use it as part of deck.

c3k wrote: Wed Nov 09, 2022 11:16 pm Cool image. Thanks.

I note the Midway has a different size in its two iterations despite showing as the same length. I'm not a carrier guy: did the Midway grow in length after its update?

From Wiki:
On 28 June 1955, the ship sailed for Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, where Midway underwent an extensive modernization program (SCB-110, similar to SCB-125 for the Essex-class carriers). Midway received an enclosed hurricane bow, an aft deck-edge elevator, an angled flight deck, and steam catapults, before finally returning to service on 30 September 1957.[3]

and

returning to Alameda on 23 November to enter San Francisco Bay Naval Shipyard on 11 February 1966 for a massive modernization (SCB-101.66), which proved expensive and controversial. The flight deck was enlarged from 2.8 to 4 acres (11,300 to 16,200 square metres (122,000 to 174,000 sq ft)), and the angle of the flight deck landing area was increased to 13.5 degrees. The elevators were enlarged, moved, and given almost double the weight capacity. Midway also received new steam catapults, arresting gear, and a centralized air conditioning plant. Cost overruns raised the price of this program from $88 million to US$202 million, and precluded a similar modernization planned for Franklin D. Roosevelt. After Midway was finally recommissioned on 31 January 1970, it was found that the modifications had worsened the ship's seakeeping capabilities and ability to conduct air operations in rough seas, which made further modifications necessary to correct the problem.[3

So I don't think the hull was lengthened but the flight deck was expanded by a bunch and lengthened, which apparently made her seakeeping worse.

Had an uncle that served on the Midway post-modernization. He said in heavy seas, the extended flight deck caused the ship to roll enough to exceed even wartime safety parameters for unsecured aircraft to be on deck. He said it was caused by the weight of the new angled flight deck being greater than expected. Bad engineering.

This site has some good detail...

https://www.navypedia.org/ships/usa/us_cv_midway.htm

Most of the comments on the reddit page match those I have seen before elsewhere on the interwebs about the change in elevators.

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/co ... es_have_3/

Found this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JalZx6kCUMI

tylerblakebrandon wrote: Thu Nov 10, 2022 2:06 pm Found this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JalZx6kCUMI

OK, it makes some decent linkages I suppose but his reasoning for why the HMS Queen Elizabeth has two elevators cost me a mouthful of coffee and some paper towels --- Because the Queen had two birthdays and the Brits like islands... sheesh

Gunner98 wrote: Thu Nov 10, 2022 2:58 pm

tylerblakebrandon wrote: Thu Nov 10, 2022 2:06 pm Found this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JalZx6kCUMI

OK, it makes some decent linkages I suppose but his reasoning for why the HMS Queen Elizabeth has two elevators cost me a mouthful of coffee and some paper towels --- Because the Queen had two birthdays and the Brits like islands... sheesh

Gotta' have some fun with it!

Pics and videos by X. Vavasseur on a visit to the carrier USS Gerald R. Ford.

https://twitter.com/xaviervav/status/15 ... uku5gsAAAA



The plane took off from this base in the Atlantic coast.

Amazing, you can almost fit three Essex Class into the volume of a Ford!

FilitchM2 wrote: Wed Nov 09, 2022 5:55 pm It's interesting that the number of elevators has decreased at Ford. It would be interesting to look at the calculations. Decreased number of airplane sorties due to better ammunition accuracy and the aircraft's probability of overcoming enemy air defenses/fighters?

Unless the aircraft are broken and need to be worked on, they usually keep them chained to the deck, so the number of elevators doesn't really impact the sortie rate. The most important variable is deck space. That's part of why American carriers have gotten bigger and bigger. More deck space is more room to work, more room to store aircraft, more room to hang munitions, more room for launching and recovering, etc.

One of the new technologies in the Ford class was that the elevators would be electromagnetically powered instead of steam. That should make them less susceptible to breaking down and they also can move much faster. The munitions elevators are powered similarly. There was a bit of a scandal under the previous administration because the President made a (poorly informed IMO) public fuss about the problems they were having during the shakedown cruise with some of the new technologies they were employing on the Ford class, including the electromagnetic elevators.