Japanese Warship Kaga is becoming an aircraft carrier

[huanghong]

First of all, CDG have the first cat on the edge of the slipway, that was not used for landing, and you land at the centerline, and of course it is "Obstructed" if you put a E-2C on it, it won't affect flight operation. At that point, either the aircraft have arrested, or have to pull up because if you can't pull up at Cat 1 position, you are going directly into the sea.

Again, just answer me this, if CDG can't do both, why they go for Angled Deck to begin with?

Also, Cat 2 on Nimitz also touches the slipway in case you have not noticed

View attachment 924453

Also, dude, the normal eye can see that the Cat 2 on the Nimitz is barely touching the edge of the angled deck, whereas the majority of the Cat 1 on the CDG is on the angled deck, even close to the centerline.
I think you are comparing an elephant to a chicken.

 

[jhungary]

Also, dude, the normal eye can see that the Cat 2 on the Nimitz is barely touching the edge of the angled deck, whereas the majority of the Cat 1 on the CDG is on the angled deck, even close to the centerline.
I think you are comparing an elephant to a chicken.
View attachment 924454View attachment 924455

lol, that's a very good "I am wrong and they do use Cat 2 on Nimitz when aircraft lands"

And again, you are using a E-2 and a F-18, of course it is going to be heavily obstructed if you park an E-2 on it, it will be the same on Cat 2 in Nimitz

You still had not answer me why the French uses angled deck design if Cat 1 is blocking the angled deck and as you said "Obstructing the flight operation"? Instead you said "Why the french not use angled deck as it will not obstruct the flight operation when you had an abort." Which is the exact things you said is going to happen if Cat 1 is in used...

 

[huanghong]

lol, that's a very good "I am wrong and they do use Cat 2 on Nimitz when aircraft lands"

And again, you are using a E-2 and a F-18, of course it is going to be heavily obstructed if you park an E-2 on it, it will be the same on Cat 2 in Nimitz

You still had not answer me why the French uses angled deck design if Cat 1 is blocking the angled deck and as you said "Obstructing the flight operation"?

lol, dude, since the French are not prepared to take off and land at the same time as you say, they can certainly put the CAT on the angled deck.
The angled deck offers better conditions for landing and re-launching than a straight deck, so why didn't the French use it?

 

[jhungary]

lol, dude, since the French are not prepared to take off and land at the same time as you say, they can certainly put the CAT on the angled deck.
The angled deck offers better conditions for landing and re-launching than a straight deck, so why didn't the French use it?

If they did not prepare to take off and land at the same time, why not just use anxial deck?

I mean, you aren't going to launch aircraft anyway, why use angled deck when you are going to clear the deck anyway? So you pay more to have more of the deck length and have to do serious recalculation to balance the ship (as the deck is angled) so you can do stuff that you don't plan to do??

LOL

 

[huanghong]

lol, can you fly? I can, I have a private pilot license.

Cross wind doesn't blow you off course, it flips you upside down. Either you are that incompentent and can't use the rudder to control your craft flying into the wind, or the wind is strong enough to blow you up



And what cause the obstruction in case of aborted landing and have to do a TOGA that angled deck is trying to avoid.

The thing that you are accusing the CDG would have, Cat 1 blocking the approach. So you tell why they build an angle deck yet build a cat that would obstruct said deck operation, as you claim?



lol. but they do. Well, not launching but parking with the Blast Defector on at the Cat 2 position while someone is landing, which basically is the same thing. (Probably did take off after the plane landed and video stopped, I don't know)

At 0:35 also screen capped it so you can't say you can't find it

View attachment 924456

lol, man. Thank you for the screenshot, it is ample evidence that the CAT did not intrude into the angled deck at all when the aircraft landed.

 

[jhungary]

lol, man. Thank you for the screenshot, it is ample evidence that the CAT did not intrude into the angled deck at all when the aircraft landed.

Dude, that's an F-18, it will if you launch a E-2, like the one on the CDG you refer to. You are talking about 24.5m wingspan on a E-2 versus 13m Wingspan F-18. That's not a 10m clearence.....

 

[huanghong]

Dude, that's an F-18, it will if you launch a E-2, like the one on the CDG you refer to. You are talking about 24.5m wingspan on a E-2 versus 13m Wingspan F-18. That's not a 10m clearence.....

dude, so you should give me a screenshot of the plane invading the deck on the cat instead of this counterexample.
Also, the wingspan is two wings, so that's 5m. . . .

 

[jhungary]

dude, so you should give me a screenshot of the plane invading the deck on the cat instead of this counterexample.
Also, the wingspan is two wings, so that's 5m. . . .

You ask me to show you prove that Cat 2 is used in landing, and I show you prove that it did. I can't do everything you need to meet me half way, you show how Cat 1 on CDG is obstructing the landing.

Also, you still have not answer why the French choose angled deck and then, as you said, build a cat to obstruct it so it cannot be use when plane lands, so why use angled deck if they do stuff that they don't plan to do?

 

[huanghong]

If they did not prepare to take off and land at the same time, why not just use anxial deck?

I mean, you aren't going to launch aircraft anyway, why use angled deck when you are going to clear the deck anyway? So you pay more to have more of the deck length and have to do serious recalculation to balance the ship (as the deck is angled) so you can do stuff that you don't plan to do??

LOL

Dude, if you use a direct access deck, then you need to leave room for a failed landing and take off again, so the number of parking spaces on the deck will be reduced.lol

You ask me to show you prove that Cat 2 is used in landing, and I show you prove that it did. I can't do everything you need to meet me half way, you show how Cat 1 on CDG is obstructing the landing.

Also, you still have not answer why the French choose angled deck and then, as you said, build a cat to obstruct it so it cannot be use when plane lands, so why use angled deck if they do stuff that they don't plan to do?

Yes, because I was misled by you when you declared that CAT2 invaded angled decks. However, the screenshot you gave proves the opposite of what you said.

 

[jhungary]

Dude, if you use a direct access deck, then you need to leave room for a failed landing and take off again, so the number of parking spaces on the deck will be reduced.lol

So you are saying you can't launch aircraft from the slipway because the cat is blocking the slipway, but you can park there so it can increase the parking space??

Aren't both the same thing? So are you saying, if you launch aircraft from that cat, it will obstruct the slipway, but it won't be affect if you park aircraft on it??

Yes, because I was misled by you when you declared that CAT2 invaded angled decks. However, the screenshot you gave proves the opposite of what you said.

Dude, Cat 2 is ON the taxiway there, you can see the defector lies right on the edge there, CDG cat 1 is about half the length of the defector into the taxiway, so if Cat 2 on Nimitz is not blocking, how is that Cat 1 on CDG is blocking?

I didn't misled you, what you said does NOT make sense, like most other of what you said.

 

[huanghong]

So you are saying you can't launch aircraft from the slipway because the cat is blocking the slipway, but you can park there so it can increase the parking space??

Aren't both the same thing? So are you saying, if you launch aircraft from that cat, it will obstruct the slipway, but it won't be affect if you park aircraft on it??


Dude, Cat 2 is ON the taxiway there, you can see the defector lies right on the edge there, CDG cat 1 is about half the length of the defector into the taxiway, so if Cat 2 on Nimitz is not blocking, how is that Cat 1 on CDG is blocking?

I didn't misled you, what you said does NOT make sense, like most other of what you said.

dude, when did I say that the gate refers to the location of the CAT?

 

[jhungary]

dude, when did I say that the gate refers to the location of the CAT?
View attachment 924464

What gate? I never even used the word gate for the whole conversation

The F-18 in this case already "intruded" the taxiway, so how can you park there and not launch aircraft from there??

Dude, you don't make any sense don't you?

 

[huanghong]

So you are saying you can't launch aircraft from the slipway because the cat is blocking the slipway, but you can park there so it can increase the parking space??

Aren't both the same thing? So are you saying, if you launch aircraft from that cat, it will obstruct the slipway, but it won't be affect if you park aircraft on it??


Dude, Cat 2 is ON the taxiway there, you can see the defector lies right on the edge there, CDG cat 1 is about half the length of the defector into the taxiway, so if Cat 2 on Nimitz is not blocking, how is that Cat 1 on CDG is blocking?

I didn't misled you, what you said does NOT make sense, like most other of what you said.

Dude, what do you mean by "you can see the defector lies right on the edge there"?
In your screenshot the CAT2 does not go into the angled deck at all, while the de Gaulle's CAT is at least half on the angled deck.

What gate? I never even used the word gate for the whole conversation

The F-18 in this case already "intruded" the taxiway, so how can you park there and not launch aircraft from there??

Dude, you don't make any sense don't you?

Dude, apparently I marked the e-2 location, so why are you talking about the F-18E?

 

[jhungary]

Dude, what do you mean by "you can see the defector lies right on the edge there"?
In your screenshot the CAT2 does not go into the angled deck at all, while the de Gaulle's CAT is at least half on the angled deck.

Do you know what is "Right on the edge"?

Dude, apparently I marked the e-2 location, so why are you talking about the F-18E?

Dude, that F-18 would have been on the Cat 2, and CDG is as you said no where as big as a Nimitz, again, your logic is, you can't launch aircraft there but you can park aircraft there?

How does that make sense? Every aircraft have to park at the cat before launch, you are saying there are space to park aircraft on the deck, but not launching them?? If you can park aircraft near the slipway, you can launch them.

 

[huanghong]

Do you know what is "Right on the edge"?



Dude, that F-18 would have been on the Cat 2, and CDG is as you said no where as big as a Nimitz, again, your logic is, you can't launch aircraft there but you can park aircraft there?

How does that make sense? Every aircraft have to park at the cat before launch, you are saying there are space to park aircraft on the deck, but not launching them?? If you can park aircraft near the slipway, you can launch them.

Dude, how do you feel about this passage? ? Apparently the USN disagrees with you. lol
he navies of the two NATO allies know each other well and have participated in countless joint operations over the years. The French say that the pace is a bit more intense on a US carrier.

“Our challenge is the intensity and the speed” of the manoeuvres, a French pilot tells me.

“One of the major differences between us is scale. The Charles de Gaulle launches all the planes and then recovers them. We can do both at the same time. We operate at a higher rate” Commander Steven Thomas, the second in command, tells me. His official title is “Air Boss” and he wears a T-shirt emblazoned with it, as well as a smaller “mini boss,” to distinguish that he is not the top dog. Culture shock number three -- the French would never wear a self-deprecating T-shirt that pokes fun at their rank.