Military Review

Carrier Charles de Gaulle

54
"Charles de Gaulle" - the flagship of the French Navy fleet, the only active aircraft carrier of the French Navy and the first French surface combat ship with a nuclear power plant.


We go to sea together with the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle and see how he carries combat duty.

Carrier Charles de Gaulle


1. France is the second country after the United States, whose naval forces incorporate an aircraft carrier with a nuclear power plant. (Photo by Philippe Wojazer | Reuters):



2. The aircraft carrier is small compared to American counterparts. The length is 261,5 m, width 64,36 m, height 75 m. Displacement - more than 40 600 tons. (Photo by Philippe Wojazer | Reuters):



3. Approximately 1 holds the 959 man of the ship’s crew, as well as 800 infantrymen on armored personnel carriers. The area of ​​the runway reaches 12 000 sq.m. (Photo by Philippe Wojazer | Reuters):



4. Went to take off! Persian Gulf, 27 January 2016. (Photo by Philippe Wojazer | Reuters):



5. Launches from the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle can be made every 30 with. However, simultaneous takeoffs and landings are not provided for in the design. (Photo by Philippe Wojazer | Reuters):



6. Missiles for the deck aircraft Rafale M. (Photo by Philippe Wojazer | Reuters):



7. Maximum capacity - up to 100 aircraft for up to 7 days. (Photo by Philippe Wojazer | Reuters):



8. Installing the rocket on the deck fighter Rafale M, Persian Gulf, 28 January 2016. (Photo by Philippe Wojazer | Reuters):



9. The fleet of the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle includes the following types of aircraft and helicopters:

deck-based fighters: Rafale M;
Super Étendard attack aircraft;
DRLO airplanes: Grumman E-2 Hawkeye;
helicopters: SA-365.



10. The aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle in the Persian Gulf, 28 January 2016. (Photo by Philippe Wojazer | Reuters):



11. Power plant with a total power of 76 200 l. with. includes two nuclear reactors K15. Without a nuclear fuel reset, an aircraft carrier is able to constantly move at a speed of 25 nodes for 5 years. (Photo by Philippe Wojazer | Reuters):



12. French supersonic carrier-based attack aircraft Super Étendard is preparing for take-off. Persian Gulf, 28 January 2016. (Photo by Philippe Wojazer | Reuters):



13. Flew. (Photo by Philippe Wojazer | Reuters):



14. One of the difficulties of take-off is a short runway: even the most powerful jet engine will not be able to accelerate a full-armed aircraft to the speed necessary for separation at such a short distance. To do this, there is a catapult built into the deck. It gives fantastic acceleration, but this is reflected on the aircraft: to protect it from harmful effects, all Navy aircraft have a special chassis to withstand strong mechanical overloads when starting from a catapult.

For the takeoff of airplanes are two steam catapults C-13F, manufactured in France under the American license. With the length of the launch track 75 m, they accelerate aircraft weighing up to 25 t up to speed over 200 km / h with the launch rate of 1 aircraft per minute. (Photo by Philippe Wojazer | Reuters):



15. The runway of the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle. (Photo by Philippe Wojazer | Reuters):



16. The aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle. View from the height. Persian Gulf, 28 January 2016. (Photo by Philippe Wojazer | Reuters):



17. Deck-based fighters Rafale M. The cost of one Rafale aircraft is estimated at $ 85-124 million, depending on the configuration (2012 year). (Photo by Philippe Wojazer | Reuters):



18. The aircraft carrier's fuel reserve is 3 400 tons, ammunition - 550 tons. (Photo by Philippe Wojazer | Reuters):



19. The aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle in the Persian Gulf, 29 January 2016. (Photo by Philippe Wojazer | Reuters):



20. Taking off from landing fighters on such a small, and even floating strip represents a real test for both technology and humans. During the landing, the plane lowers the speed to 250 km / h, in case of a successful landing, the hook on the fighter's tail clings to the cable — an auto-finish — and stops the plane. Under the deck is a huge valve that sets the tension of this cable. (Photo by Philippe Wojazer | Reuters):



21. Deck attack aircraft Super Étendard. Persian Gulf, 29 January 2016. (Photo by Philippe Wojazer | Reuters):



22. (Photo by Philippe Wojazer | Reuters):



23. Fighter pilot Rafale, aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, January 29 2016. (Photo by Philippe Wojazer | Reuters):



24. Check missiles. Carrier Charles de Gaulle, Persian Gulf, 29 January 2016. (Photo by Philippe Wojazer | Reuters):



25. Takeoff! (Photo by Philippe Wojazer | Reuters):



26. The aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle. Combat duty in the Persian Gulf 29 January 2016. (Photo by Philippe Wojazer | Reuters):

Originator:
http://loveopium.ru/texnika/avianosec-sharl-de-goll.html
54 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Very old
    Very old 9 February 2016 06: 43
    +3
    The eye rejoices in such beauty

    Sadness - I can’t wait for the Russian AUG, it’s a long and costly business
    1. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 9 February 2016 10: 06
      +6
      Quote: Very old
      The eye rejoices in such beauty

      And the soul is glad that such beauty does not come out of the repair docks! lol
      1. avt
        avt 9 February 2016 10: 19
        +7
        Quote: Ingvar 72
        And the soul is glad that such beauty does not come out of the repair docks!

        Yes, it’s warming. laughing Somehow, in life with the Avman carriers, the Franks did not work out since “Bearna”, some kind of katsaveiki rivet kurguzi. Here the Angles quietly rebounded and degraded after the Second World War, but the Franks did not rise. ...
    2. vvp2412
      vvp2412 9 February 2016 12: 00
      +5
      This aircraft carrier is a chermet with nuclear power plants. He did not have time to go on the first voyage, as he was already rusty ....
      Read his story ..... One name Aircraft carrier ...
  2. Good cat
    Good cat 9 February 2016 06: 50
    +2
    That's why mattresses have, the French have, and we don’t? Do not answer this rhetorical question.
  3. Mera joota
    Mera joota 9 February 2016 07: 29
    21
    A funny reporter ... calls bombs rockets, fairy tales about 100 planes ... I think civilians are excusable ...
    But the photos are good, thanks for that ...
    1. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 9 February 2016 08: 04
      12
      Quote: Mera Joota
      calls bombs rockets, tales of 100 planes ...

      Exactly, it also pleased: "800 infantrymen in armored personnel carriers." smile Translation difficulties?
      1. Mera joota
        Mera joota 9 February 2016 10: 23
        0
        Quote: Vladimirets
        Translation difficulties?

        Not ... just plain civilian ...
      2. Gorodovik
        Gorodovik 9 February 2016 13: 26
        -2
        In fact, these are not fairy tales. Here the bottom line is that in the short term up to 100 aircraft on deck and in the hangar can accommodate. But not for long. And 800 foot soldiers can also. And also short term. There seems to be even a field hospital. In general, no matter how hail then the aircraft carrier is quite interesting. After all, our Kuznetsov even sailed less.
        1. Fregate
          Fregate 9 February 2016 18: 24
          0
          Quote: Cityman
          Here the bottom line is that in the short term up to 100 aircraft on deck and in the hangar can accommodate.

          Yes, it’s not real anyway. This reporter probably added up the deck and hangar areas and divided the area occupied by one plane and he got 100 smile And how to plant them I forgot to think. Probably something like that.
          1. Gorodovik
            Gorodovik 9 February 2016 20: 26
            -1
            It just seems so. Rafal is a very small fighter. And the attack aircraft they have no more. Putting them on deck does not seem difficult. And one moment. De Gaulle cannot land and take off the aircraft at the same time. Therefore, it is possible to occupy the landing strip while take-off is carried out and vice versa to take the take-off part while landing takes place. But still, I think he will be able to transport up to 100 aircraft as an air transport.
  4. magirus2000
    magirus2000 9 February 2016 08: 05
    +2
    And what for on the aircraft carrier "800 infantrymen on armored personnel carriers"?
    1. vvp2412
      vvp2412 9 February 2016 12: 01
      +1
      And to be! :)
  5. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 9 February 2016 08: 15
    17
    Quote: Good cat
    That's why mattresses have, the French have, and we don’t?

    Because we have, for very good reasons (the collapse of the country) and "thanks" to some individuals (hello to the hunchback), what was supposed to become a nuclear aircraft carrier (Ulyanovsk) remained on the stocks in a very controversial country (today's Ukraine). The French did not have such cataclysms and calmly decided to replace two aircraft carriers with the Clemenceau and Foch PTUs with a pair of nuclear ones. But since the cost of the nuclear power plant will still be higher, they did not calculate the strengths and decided to finish building one - the current Charles de Gaulle. Therefore, all sorts of insinuations are inappropriate. All the same, the maintenance of the Navy is a very costly thing, and the presence of an aircraft carrier in the fleet implies a combination of economic power with the argumentation of such existence.
    Quote: Mera Joota
    calls bombs rockets, tales of 100 planes ...

    Now guided bombs with a bunch of stabilizers are very similar to missiles. And a person very far from the specifics of weapons can very easily mix up wink And fairy tales about a hundred planes are not fairy tales. The normal functioning of the air group assumes the number of these on a given ship is within about 40 units. Those. takeoff, landing, rearmament operations. refueling. On our "Kuznetsov" there will be more than 50 of them. But it should be borne in mind that the "Kuznetsov" planes will be heavier for the French.
    Americans, due to their large size and displacement, assume the normal use of an air group of up to 80 units.
    BUT as an air transport, that is, exclusively moving from point A to point B without completing tasks, the same "de Gaulle" can fit in hangars and on the deck to the eyeballs and a hundred aircraft. And "Kuznetsov" too. And the Americans can do even more.
    8 people get into ZIL’s cabin, and it is designed for 3 with a driver wink

    And personally I don't like Charles de Gaulle. Parody of Americans with halved stats. And aesthetically he is ugly negative But the frogmen will go to play big politics hi
  6. GSVG 86-88
    GSVG 86-88 9 February 2016 08: 34
    +2
    it is hard to believe that 100 planes can be pushed onto it, well, if only in a disassembled state ...
    1. gray smeet
      gray smeet 9 February 2016 09: 04
      0
      there are 15 planes on the deck and will no longer push through (16 photos).

      Super Étendard attack aircraft - soon his old man is flying, and to rest ..
      His first flight in 1974, and began to develop it in the mid-50s ...- a veteran of the French Air Force. They wanted to withdraw from service in 2015, but as we see it continues to serve.

      The plane gained great fame during the Falkland War, during which the Argentinean Super Etendards, using Exocet anti-ship missiles (ASM), sank two British ships: the destroyer URO Sheffield and the container ship Atlantic Conveyor. used as an air transport without incurring losses.
    2. Bersaglieri
      Bersaglieri 9 February 2016 09: 43
      -1
      30- ultimate capacity
  7. Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri 9 February 2016 09: 42
    +3
    The photos are excellent, but the text is "blooper on a blooper". "There is a worldwide zest for the world."

    Surprised that Super Ethandars are still in service. As I recall, they planned to write them off by 2010.
  8. Professor
    Professor 9 February 2016 09: 52
    20
    "Rocket" is an AASM "HAMMER" 250 smart bomb made from an ordinary bomb. Cost $ 220


    PS
    Interesting bomb. The range when dropped from high altitude reaches 50-60 km. The satellite guidance system, inertial and infrared seeker provides accuracy of 1 (one) meter.

    Holds approximately 1 people

    If 1959 is roughly what does "exactly" mean? laughing
    1. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 9 February 2016 15: 13
      0
      Quote: Professor
      what then does "exactly" mean?

      Whether you, Professor, do not know, up to one thousandth. In general, what is the concept of "accommodating the crew"? Like coal for a bulk carrier. smile
  9. Taoist
    Taoist 9 February 2016 10: 43
    +1
    The question is what for such a pepelatsa nuclear power plant? It has an onboard supply of fuel for the air group for a maximum of three full refuelings. And in the end, drive any tanker. A training ship rather than a real combat ship. Well, designate the presence. Again, what for in the presence of multipurpose Rafals to keep separate "attack aircraft"? Even the Americans abandoned the idea of ​​"two types" in the end ... This place is very cramped - an aircraft carrier ...
    1. Professor
      Professor 9 February 2016 10: 47
      +8
      Quote: Taoist
      The question is, what kind of pepelats nuclear power plant?

      80-85% of the steam goes to catapults. No reactor, no catapults. Kuzya is an example. Both are steamboats, but Kuzi lacks steam even for turbines, and DeGol has plenty of steam.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 9 February 2016 10: 54
        +6
        Quote: Professor
        80-85% of the steam goes to catapults. No reactor, no catapults.

        Kitty Hawk, Forrrestal, Midway and Clemenceau clearly disagree with you. smile

        The main problem of AB with catapults is that its steam generating system (boilers or reactor) must have a reserve guaranteeing its normal operation during periodic steam extraction for catapults. Moreover, this selection is impulse, which boilers and the reactor are extremely disliked.
        1. Professor
          Professor 9 February 2016 11: 01
          +6
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Kitty Hawk, Forrrestal, Midway and Clemenceau clearly disagree with you.

          We agree, which is why they do not build more of such steamboats. hi
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 9 February 2016 13: 00
            +4
            Quote: Professor
            We agree, that’s why they don’t build more such ships

            They are not built at all for technical reasons. A conventional KTU is quite capable of ensuring the functioning of catapults, which provide takeoff of all types of aircraft. AV "America", for example, quietly worked with its air group in Vietnam, Lebanon, Libya and Iraq. The reasons for choosing the AEU are rather financial - with the current service life of the AEU, with all its disadvantages, it is still more profitable.
            Plus, AB with AEU in peacetime It turns out to be much more mobile - it can quickly make the transition across half the globe at a speed of about 30 knots without regular refueling and join forces already present in the region. In wartime, however, such a trick will not work - the escort still needs fuel.
            1. Professor
              Professor 9 February 2016 18: 46
              +1
              Quote: Alexey RA
              They are not built at all because of technical reasons

              No, not for these reasons. SU is not my faculty, but in vain: on the Kuze EMNIP 4 boilers. For full-fledged operation, a carrier-sized catapult the size of Nimitz needs 5 times more boilers. And to ensure the stroke of the colossus with a displacement of 2 times more than Kuzi, boilers are also needed. We will find where to put the boilers, but how much fuel oil will be needed for them ...

              Quote: Alexey RA
              The reasons for choosing a nuclear power plant are, rather, financial - with the current life of the AB nuclear power plant, with all its disadvantages, it still turns out to be more profitable.

              I’m not sure that fuel oil will be more expensive than a full cycle of a pair of nuclear reactors. Logistics with fuel oil is yes.

              Quote: Alexey RA
              In wartime, however, such a trick will not work - the escort still needs fuel.

              Rather, the problem is with jet fuel and ammunition. They must be constantly replenished.

              Quote: abc_alex
              That's how it turns out that Russians are to blame for any trouble? :)

              Do not write nonsense, but read the book of Mkarov. Everything is detailed there.

              Quote: abc_alex
              There, the readiness was less than 20%.

              The hull was more than 80% ready. Personally, he saw him on the zero slipway. By the way, it was cheaper to complete the building and launch it to water than to cut into scrap, but ...

              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              On the contrary, Ukraine almost begged us to buy this ship.

              So it was. This is also in the book of Makarov.

              Quote: Taoist
              By the way, why such figures about 85%?

              So we were taught.
              1. Taoist
                Taoist 9 February 2016 21: 10
                +1
                Well, I also learned something ... and in the fairy tale that two cylinders (albeit long ones) consume steam as a vocational school in 150000 l / s, I’m sorry, I can’t believe it ... When we mounted a prototype of our catapult on NITK, it was planned to supply it with steam from 1 small boiler ...
                1. Professor
                  Professor 9 February 2016 21: 35
                  +4
                  Quote: Taoist
                  Well, I also learned something ... and in the fairy tale that two cylinders (albeit long ones) consume steam as a vocational school in 150000 l / s, I’m sorry, I can’t believe it ... When we mounted a prototype of our catapult on NITK, it was planned to supply it with steam from 1 small boiler ...

                  Of course, you excuse me. My colleagues developed and installed the thread. How many sorties per hour can Nitka provide? What about Nimitz? wink

                  I need you to calculate how much steam is needed for the S-13-2 catapult with a piston weighing 3 tons, a diameter of 53 cm and a piston stroke of 90 meters? And so every 30-60 seconds to accelerate a plane weighing 36 tons to 259 km / h ...

                  Charles_de_Gaulle _-_ catapult
                  1. Taoist
                    Taoist 10 February 2016 15: 54
                    0
                    I can count it myself - of course I did not design the thread, but still served there ...
                    Even for such a cylinder, this is clearly less than 115 incl. (which is equal to the 1 capacity of the KVG-4 boiler) and this is 1 / 8 from the Kuznetsov boilers.
                    1. Professor
                      Professor 10 February 2016 16: 56
                      0
                      Quote: Taoist
                      I can count it myself - of course I did not design the thread, but still served there ...

                      The question is in force: How many sorties can an hour provide for Thread? What about Nimitz?
                      1. Taoist
                        Taoist 10 February 2016 21: 22
                        +1
                        In real life, the maximum performance of catapults is limited not by the steam output of the boilers - (even if a ton of steam goes out for one start - and this is a very high figure - one 4 KVG as I gave an example of this is 115 starts per hour), but by the ability to supply aircraft to the catapults - and here everything is very difficult. These are not shells - in real life, the same Nimitz will only be able to quickly raise the duty link - and everything else as in the good old days - from 30 minutes to the take-off of the group ... So YaSU is due to anything but not the requirements of steam production for catapults.
                      2. Professor
                        Professor 11 February 2016 09: 45
                        +1
                        Quote: Taoist
                        one KVG 4 as I have already cited as an example is 115 starts per hour

                        Let's lay out in the studio. I do not believe.
                      3. Taoist
                        Taoist 11 February 2016 09: 59
                        0
                        What kind of calculations do you want? Count. The specific gravity of water vapor is known - the working pressure is also multiplied by the volume of the cylinder - here is the steam consumption for one working cycle. The boiler steam output 115t / h is known. We divide it by the steam consumption per one working cycle and get the absolute value of how many working cycles per hour the given boiler will provide. (Again, take into account the simple fact that this is the maximum possible "rate of fire" in theory - in real life, the performance of the catapult will be limited not at all by the boiler's steam output, but by the speed at which aircraft are fed to it)
                      4. Professor
                        Professor 11 February 2016 10: 05
                        0
                        Quote: Taoist
                        Count. The specific gravity of water vapor is known - the working pressure is also multiplied by the volume of the cylinder - here you have the steam consumption for one working cycle.

                        Let's. What is the steam consumption per cycle?
                      5. Taoist
                        Taoist 11 February 2016 12: 56
                        +1
                        19.856 M3 cylinder volume rounded to 20
                        When using superheated steam at 300 ° C, the specific gravity of the steam will be about 5 kg per 1 M3 (there, of course, you need to make adjustments for the inlet pressure and its expansion during operation) - but we take the average value based on the operating parameters of the boiler.

                        in total, for 1 working cycle, the catapult cylinder will consume about 100 kg of steam. Adjusted for seal losses and incomplete expansion, maximum 200 kg. Those. a ton of steam is about 5 working cycles ... a lot ... but incomparable with the actual steam output of just one boiler. I think you were just misled. If you remember that "pre-nuclear aircraft carriers" were forced to go at full speed against the wind for the start and landing of aircraft. This at least means that the main steam consumption was consumed by their power plant and not by the catapults - the steam consumption for which, taking into account the cyclic operation and the presence of receivers, is absolutely insignificant.
                      6. Professor
                        Professor 11 February 2016 14: 08
                        +2
                        Quote: Taoist
                        19.856 M3 cylinder volume rounded to 20
                        When using superheated steam at 300 ° C, the specific gravity of the steam will be about 5 kg per 1 M3 (there, of course, you need to make adjustments for the inlet pressure and its expansion during operation) - but we take the average value based on the operating parameters of the boiler.

                        total for 1 working cycle the catapult cylinder will consume about 100 kg of steam. Adjusted for losses through seals and incomplete expansion of a maximum of 200 kg. Those. a ton of steam is about 5 work cycles ..

                        The calculation seems to be correct, but somehow I can not believe that 100-200 kg of steam have enough energy to accelerate an object weighing 36 tons to 259 km / h. What pressure should there be? request

                        Quote: Taoist
                        I think you were simply misled.

                        May be. I have not yet found these data with the Americans. I'll find it out.
                      7. Taoist
                        Taoist 11 February 2016 16: 25
                        +1
                        In vain I can’t believe it ... work is also considered to be a great success. According to the formula, we multiply the pressure by the change in volume. And from here the pressure there is big and not necessary - we have an acceleration track (relatively speaking, the barrel of our steam gun) is quite long. At one time, there were even pneumatic catapults - nothing was enough.
  10. spravochnik
    spravochnik 10 February 2016 09: 37
    0
    Quote: Professor
    Quote: abc_alex
    There, the readiness was less than 20%.

    The hull was more than 80% ready. Personally, he saw him on the zero slipway. By the way, it was cheaper to complete the building and launch it to water than to cut into scrap, but ...

    The general readiness was not more than 25%, until the readiness for the building in 80% there was more like cancer before the moon. And Ukrainians cut it and generally for nothing.
    1. Professor
      Professor 10 February 2016 14: 10
      +1
      Quote: spravochnik
      The general readiness was not more than 25%, until the readiness for the building in 80% there was more like cancer before the moon.

      I'm not talking about the overall readiness which was 18.3%, but about the readiness of the corps. After launching such a ship, thousands of people have been building up the wall for years. The hull on the slipway was almost finished. The aircraft carrier Varyag, for example, was launched on November 25, 1988, by the middle of 1991 its total readiness was 65% !!! (in 1992, 67%). And this is with full funding. Read the book of Makarov.


      Quote: spravochnik
      And Ukrainians cut it and generally for nothing.

      The site is strictly prohibited:
      b) Inciting ethnic hatred. The use of such words and derivatives as: crest


      PS
      http://bastion-karpenko.ru/11437/
  • ism_ek
    ism_ek 9 February 2016 13: 47
    -1
    Quote: Alexey RA
    Kitty Hawk, Forrrestal, Midway and Clemenceau clearly disagree with you.
    There weak catapults were installed. They are no better than a springboard.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 9 February 2016 15: 39
      +2
      Quote: ism_ek
      There weak catapults were installed. They are no better than a springboard.

      The Kitty Hawks were equipped with C-13s, which accelerated the aircraft weighing 33,5 tons to 128 knots.
      C-13-1s were installed on the Nimitzes, which accelerated an aircraft weighing 36,3 tons to 140 knots.

      The Kitty Hawks catapults can be judged at least by the fact that the same planes quietly operated from their decks as from the atomic AB - including the Tomkats, Vikings and Hokai.
  • maximghost
    maximghost 9 February 2016 12: 10
    +1
    Kuznetsov has problems with the SU, but not because it is raw or shaky, but because the USSR ended with high-quality parts and service ...
    1. Professor
      Professor 9 February 2016 12: 40
      +9
      Quote: maximghost
      Kuznetsov has problems with the SU, but not because it is raw or shaky, but because the USSR ended with high-quality parts and service ...

      SU Kuznetsova would not have pulled catapults even with ideal boilers. My colleagues went the other way, a springboard and a reduction in the combat load of the aircraft. Ulyanovsk was cut (to my great regret) since modern Russia (Chernomyrdin) refused to redeem him and Varyag. In Makarov's memoirs, negotiations are described in great detail. So they cut the first Soviet full-fledged aircraft carrier. hi
      1. spravochnik
        spravochnik 9 February 2016 14: 12
        0
        One of the most important reasons for using nuclear power plants on an AB is that you do not need to carry fuel for your own SU. The free space is used to increase the transportable supply of the air group (and therefore increase the operating time of the latter without replenishment).
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 9 February 2016 15: 41
          0
          Quote: spravochnik
          One of the most important reasons for using nuclear power plants on an AB is that you do not need to carry fuel for your own SU. The free space is used to increase the transportable supply of the air group (and therefore increase the operating time of the latter without replenishment).

          On the other hand, the specific gravity of nuclear power plants is the highest of all types of shipboard power plants. At one time they wrote that:
          ... the specific gravity of the Bainbridge installation with a capacity of 60 thousand liters. with. is about 50 kg / l. s, while steam-powered plants of the same capacity of American frig URO have a specific gravity of not more than 12 kg / l. s, and taking into account the on-board fuel supply (about 500 tons) - no more than 22 kg / l. with.
          1. spravochnik
            spravochnik 9 February 2016 16: 15
            +1
            Yes, it is heavy, but compare the volume occupied. And then, the specific gravity with regard to fuel can be considered in different ways, because the amount of fuel depends on the given TK range.
            1. Taoist
              Taoist 9 February 2016 18: 03
              0
              You want to say that the tank with fuel oil takes up more space than the reactor with its systems? ;-) I’m silent about the fact that fuel tanks can be built into any free volume, including use as structural protection elements, and the reactor itself requires protection ...
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 February 2016 17: 14
            +1
            Quote: Alexey RA
            the specific gravity of the Bainbridge installation with a capacity of 60 thousand liters. with. is about 50 kg / l. with

            Perhaps, but these are things of bygone days, the tradition of the distant past :))
        2. Taoist
          Taoist 9 February 2016 16: 24
          0
          Well, for some reason, this didn’t help Fosh ... the on-board supply of jet fuel for three gas stations for the air group ... on 2 days of combat work maximum.
          If the weight of the reactor (especially taking into account the weight of the biological protection) is transferred to fuel, it will be much more ....
  • Taoist
    Taoist 9 February 2016 16: 17
    0
    By the way, why such numbers about 85%? not so big expenses there. It’s easier to have a separate boiler for the catapult (or better, a gas generator system that allows a large boost). By the way, boosting a conventional boiler to increase steam production is faster and easier than nuclear power plants. You can’t quickly crack the reactor.
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 9 February 2016 16: 41
      0
      And the boiler must not be opened quickly. The composition of the catapult includes steam receivers, which must be filled. It’s just that the boiler should have a capacity that allows these receivers to fill up quickly enough.
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 9 February 2016 18: 00
        0
        So I'm just about that. A conventional boiler allows a large degree of forcing due to an increase in the intensity of fuel combustion. In YaSU - where a sharp increase in reactor heat generation is fraught with a loss of control and an explosion, steam production cannot be raised quickly. As a result, we must have constant excess productivity instead of just forcing the steam output of the boilers at the right time.
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 9 February 2016 10: 58
    +1
    And it is interesting to look at the photo of the Franco-aircraft carrier. But, as soon as there is a topic about France and its ships, I immediately have memories of their cowardly and ostrich position in the supply of PAID "mistrals" to Russia stop
  • abc_alex
    abc_alex 9 February 2016 13: 37
    +1
    Quote: Professor
    Quote: maximghost
    Kuznetsov has problems with the SU, but not because it is raw or shaky, but because the USSR ended with high-quality parts and service ...

    SU Kuznetsova would not have pulled catapults even with ideal boilers. My wheels went the other way, a springboard and a reduction in the combat load of the aircraft. Ulyanovsk was cut (to my great regret) since modern Russia (Chernomyrdin) refused to redeem him and Varyag. In Makarov's memoirs, negotiations are described in great detail. So they cut the first Soviet full-fledged aircraft carrier. hi



    How is it that the Russians are to blame for any trouble? :) What do you mean "refused to redeem"? Was Ulyanovsk completed? There the readiness was less than 20%.

    Write honestly: Russia did not begin to finance its construction and the whole program, it included, by the way, not only the ship, but also the same catapults and deck AWACS. Not "refused to buy back". Buy out the FINISHED product. And Ukraine could not provide any finished product for the Ulyanovsk project.
    Funding was stopped, because in the 90s there was nothing to eat in the country, miners knocked on helmets in Moscow, NPP personnel marched and roads blocked salaries in the state. they didn’t give the service for half a year.
    In your opinion, in this situation it was necessary first of all to give a damn lot of money to Ukraine to complete the construction of an aircraft carrier? To practice such an ornate form of suicide from the category, "Shob you killed yourself against the wall!" :)

    And about "Varyag" you have given up somewhere in an alternative history. Under the agreement on the division of the fleet, it became part of the Ukrainian fleet. And it was Ukrainian officials who sold it to the Chinese for scrap. Nobody really asked Russia.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 February 2016 17: 16
      +1
      Quote: abc_alex
      And about "Varyag" you have given up somewhere in an alternative history. Under the agreement on the division of the fleet, it became part of the Ukrainian fleet. And it was Ukrainian officials who sold it to the Chinese for scrap. No one really asked Russia

      On the contrary, Ukraine almost begged us to buy this ship.
  • Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 9 February 2016 14: 16
    0
    Russia in the 90s strenuously promoted its fleet, what did it care about new ships ??? Everyone, including the military, sold everything. I saw this. MINSK, NOVOROSSIYSK-went for nothing - at the price of scrap metal. France compared with Project 1143.2 wins only by the presence of catapults. AEU at the theater of the Frenchman’s actions does not give much advantage. By linear dimensions and types of weapons, it still looks frankly weak (I compare with 1143). Would the Yak-141 be brought up to date, what kind of Super Etandr is it? ??
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 9 February 2016 16: 49
      +6
      Quote: Dimon19661
      The Frenchman in comparison with the project 1143.2 wins only by the presence of catapults.

      Indeed, what little things - you think, in French you can base a full-fledged air group with full-fledged fighters, AWACS and PLO aircraft.
      Whether it’s the matter with us - only KVVP cars, inferior to their opponents from the decks of the United States and even France — and nothing more. And 12-16 PU KR DD, for the application of which necessarily ZSTSU. smile
      Quote: Dimon19661
      Would the Yak-141-what kind of Super Etandr be brought there in due time ???

      Gorgeous. That is, are you proud that the newest KVVP aircraft was finally able to overcome the French carrier-based multipurpose aircraft developed ... of the 50s of the twentieth century (for the Super Etandard is a modification of the Dassault Etandard fighter)? smile
      Quote: Dimon19661
      I saw this. MINSK, NOVOROSSIYSK-went for nothing, at the price of scrap metal

      Say thank you so often praised here Soviet-trained officers, who at first scored on normal basing and repair, preferring to increase the order for ships, rather than demanding a normal base (clinical cases - BRZK "Ural" and basing SSBN pr. 941). And then they sold their own fleet.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Conscience
    Conscience 9 February 2016 16: 27
    0
    cool - they’re flying around on coal - so much smoke behind the plane ...