The fourth carrier’s flight deck, island layout, and the positions of its three elevators are an adaptive optimization of the Ford-class flight deck layout, based on China’s carrier aircraft spotting method and aircraft dimensions.
There will almost certainly still be crosses drawn on the deck.
Although the island has been moved nearly ten meters aft, the increased deck width means that the island is farther away from the runway. But in any case, it would already have been difficult to fit three aircraft spots at the rear. Instead, there may well be room for one aircraft spot in front of the island.
Also, the fourth carrier’s main flight deck is probably about four meters wider than that of the Ford class.
However, even setting aside issues such as the length of the carrier-based aircraft, whether the parking positions are placed farther outboard, meaning whether the aircraft tails overhang the deck, could largely cancel out the effects of this design. In effect, the added deck width would simply “cover” the portion of the aircraft that would otherwise be overhanging.
Whether the aircraft overhang the deck or not, this will not increase the effective number of aircraft that can be parked. No matter how wide the deck is, it still cannot create a third row of carrier-based aircraft. The real difference lies in the remaining space needed for aircraft movement paths within that area. If the usual aircraft arrangement is maintained, the available space in this area may be no different from that of the Ford class.
If it adopts a Ford-class-style arrangement with aircraft overhanging the deck edge, then the space available for aircraft handling within the effective area would increase.
However, since the fourth carrier’s island is positioned slightly farther to starboard and aft, the overall length of the triangular area should be better than that of the Ford class.
