Island Migration?

Post a reply

Confirmation code
Enter the code exactly as it appears. All letters are case insensitive.

BBCode is OFF
Smilies are OFF

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Island Migration?

Re: Island Migration?

by Seasick » Fri Jan 27, 2012 1:30 am

The funnel grew taller to get rid of the exhaust. CVN got rid of it entirely. JFK had an angled stack. The Nimitz class island was a bit taller than the Enterprise's and the overhang on the island was eliminated (along with scanfar).

Re: Island Migration?

by ussafs3 » Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:19 am

Forrestal was designed and laid down without a fixed island. It wasn't until the angled deck was adopted that the aviators stopped demanding a flush deck carrier. The large fixed island also solved the problem of stack gases disrupting airflow over the flight deck.

The Northhampton was converted into a command cruiser to take over flag duties from the carriers since without islands they would lack flag accomodations.

Re: Island Migration?

by Tracy White » Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:38 pm

The USN has had a rather continuous battle between the "air group" and the ship drivers from the beginning. There have been many designs that sought to eliminate the island entirely (USS United States is one such example) but they keep coming back (which I'm glad about, actually). During WWII, the "long hull" essexes originally had shorter flight decks to improve the firing arc of the AA guns, but it impacted the air operations enough that they canceled the change after three carriers and retrofitted two of them to have the original length added. I would say that the USN has traditionally favored the air groups heavily in their balance.

Re: Island Migration?

by Seasick » Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:07 am

The Nimitz class has TV cameras IIRC.

The island has been shrinking for years, Enterprise tried to minimize the footprint of the island but it was still in the way. The island in the Ford class goes way back out of the way. Its in the best position. The elevator aft of the island will be eliminated and the two before island spaced further apart. The radars that allow the aircraft to land themselves without human input benifit greatly by the new position of the island.

Re: Island Migration?

by USS California BB44 » Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:38 pm

The modernized Essex class ships had this feature as well.

Re: Island Migration?

by chuck » Mon Jan 16, 2012 4:07 pm

Filipe Ramires wrote:Put the ship handling bridge beneath the flight deck on the bow....Ryujo style! Problem solved!!! However, don't ever open the windows otherwise the Admiral will get soaked!!! :big_grin:

Actually, I believe every American carrier since the Forrestal indeed has a secondary conning position in the extreme bow, with windows on the flat part of the bow under the flight deck.

I imagine on the Ford class, the unfavorable position of the bridge for ship handling purposes would be partially offset by strategically placed TV cameras that would give the captain a virtual view from a more favorable spot than his actual bridge.

Re: Island Migration?

by Filipe Ramires » Mon Jan 16, 2012 3:30 pm

Put the ship handling bridge beneath the flight deck on the bow....Ryujo style! Problem solved!!! However, don't ever open the windows otherwise the Admiral will get soaked!!! :big_grin:

Re: Island Migration?

by chuck » Mon Jan 16, 2012 2:44 pm

There are two conflicting demands on island placement. Ship handling demand the bridge be placed quite far forward, and flight deck management demand the island be placed far back.

The French let ship handling trump deck management and placed the island on Charles DeGualle far forward. Part of the reason given was the Island on the French ship can actually shelter parts of the flight deck used for flight prep from a head sea. The Russians resorted to an awkward compromise by making the island on the Kutnesov very long, thus putting the navigation bridge further forward and flight deck control center further back. The british didn't compromise and gave their QE class 2 islands. One forward for ship handling, and a separate one farther back for flight deck operations.

It appears the USN decided to let flight operation trump ship handling by moving the island far back.

Re: Island Migration?

by USS California BB44 » Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:07 am

Ok. Thanks. :wave_1:

Re: Island Migration?

by Timmy C » Sat Jan 14, 2012 2:09 pm

It's to create more contiguous room on the flight deck - i.e. a larger unimpeded area so that cycles can be conducted quicker and more efficiently. I recall one article that mentioned how flight deck crews complained about the current location of the island and how it is in a very poor spot for efficient refuelling/rearming aircraft. By moving the island back, it is hoped to increase sortie generation rates.

Island Migration?

by USS California BB44 » Sat Jan 14, 2012 10:57 am

On USN CVs it seems that the island keeps slowly migrating to the stern with each successive class. Why is this? On the Ford class, the placement of the island almost looks as though it could pose a hazard to landing aircraft.

Top