Aircraft Carriers

I think we can all be glad that scenario never unfolded. It just seemed to me that warfare has become so unbalanced inasmuch as the Wests' adversaries have little to put 'in harms way' other than a few deranged fanatics so I was trying to be generous to them in a what if scenario.

Found another promising design from the 70s contemporary with the SCS, this sketch dates from around 1973 for a "Helicopter carrying Through-deck Heavy Cruiser', and the politicians bought that description!

The space on the fo'c'sle to starboard of the Sea Dart launcher was originall reserved for four MM38 Exocets, which would have made the ship more of a parallell with the Soviet Kiev design, but these were dropped for cost reasons and the fact that not only could the Sea Dart double up as an SSM if needed but also the Sea Harriers were expected to carry anti ship missiles (not officially at the time, and though the picture is dated 1973 and shows Harriers on deck, no sanction for operating the Invincibles as anything other than Helicopter carrying cruisers was given until 1975 when the Sea Harrier was ordered). Also missing from the picture is the Ski Jump which hadn't been designed at the time.

Obi Wan. Did you post a pic somewhere of a proposed JMSDF CV? It was a drawing of course. If so where did you get that? From that book you mentioned??



Uploaded with

Anyway the hangar of that CV was done by someone who thinks you can just cram as many aircraft in a Cv hangar as you want. There is no room in that hangar to do certain maintenance checks. Like jacking up an aircraft to check the landing gear. Of course I realize that is just a drawing.

bd popeye said:

Obi Wan. Did you post a pic somewhere of a proposed JMSDF CV? It was a drawing of course. If so where did you get that? From that book you mentioned??

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Anyway the hangar of that CV was done by someone who thinks you can just cram as many aircraft in a Cv hangar as you wnat. There is no room in that hangar to do certain mainatance checks. Like jacking up an aircraft to check the landing gear. Of course I realize that is just a drawing.

Click to expand...

Found that pic whilst trawling the net recently. I agree about the Hangar being too crowded, that and other flaws were why I posted it in the Fake pictures thread along with the 'PS' Osumi pic. The CV pic is interesting for the depiction of the aircraft types, exactly as you yourself predicted earlier in this thread, in JMSDF markings giving a glimpse of what may yet be. The CV itself is, like most of the Chinese carrier artists impressions that turn up from time to time, just a fanboys dream.

Obi Wan sez;

The CV itself is, like most of the Chinese carrier artists impressions that turn up from time to time, just a fanboys dream.

Click to expand...

ff Hey Obi Wan, I just got the Original Star Wars trigoly on DVD. It is remastered with some improved scenes since the last re-release in '97. There are even some additions to the plot so the film lines up with episode III. Check it out!ff

Anyway you are so right about "fanboys" dreams. Anybody that studies CV's long enough can come up with a drawing. But if you never served on one and or have no idea how they operate well... you try to stick X number of JSF in a hangar . It's not going to work. There is so much more to it than that. There has to be safety lanes in case of fire and so the ships crew can move freely about.. Room enough to do maintance. Room to store "yellow gear" Room for the crew to move large objects from one end of the ship to the other. The hangar is just not a place to cram as many aircraft as possible.

The biggest flaw I see in the hangar depicted in the JMSDF CV drawing is that it is one big hangar. No divisional doors. That division is needed in case of fire.

I'm still surprised nobody since WW2 has designed a CV with a double Hangar (as in the old Eagle and Ark Royal) as a solution to the problem of increasing hangar space. US CV hangars have a height of 25 ft, but few aircraft types need that much, whereas most small carriers make do with 17ft 6in and with the advent of Gas Turbine Driven Alternators (GTDA) for propulsion, a ship so fitted will have machinery that takes up a lot less internal volume (the Gas Turbines can be installed in the Island or at the stern doing away with the need for trunking to and from the bowels of the ship). Add to this the development of EMALS (Electo Magnetic Launch Systems, catapults that use powerful Electro Magnets to accelerate aircraft to launch speed, as will be fitted to the CVN21 class, CVN-78 onwards) and the need to accomodate bulky steam boilers and turbines is removed from CV design freeing up internal volume for better crew accomodation, increaed weapons storage, and if a higher freeboard is accepted a second hangar deck can be incorporated. Oh well, maybe next time....

well planes in WWII didn't weigth as much as the modern jets does, and they required only a small portion of current ordanance and supply material that modern planes does.

the the conscructial difficoultyes. You can imagine it yourself: Think of a huge skycraper with two huge (few times the footballfield) and wide storeys in topfloor with no supporting collums. The side walls have to support not only the both hangar decks and the massive strech from the weight of the aircrafts but the whole flightdeck strench as well. Everyone who knows even the slightest of basic construction physic can tell you how difficoult it is to build to fullfill the sufficient requirements for hars military service.

Obi wan sez;

I'm still surprised nobody since WW2 has designed a CV with a double Hangar (as in the old Eagle and Ark Royal) as a solution to the problem of increasing hangar space. US CV hangars have a height of 25 ft, but few aircraft types need that much, whereas most small carriers make do with 17ft 6in

Click to expand...

One reason they are so high is that the USN stores fuel tank in certain parts of the overhead in the hangar. When I was on the Midway we had the same size air wing as the Kennedy and the hangar was quite adaquate. I can't think of any aircraft that could not fit in the hangar.

Gollevainen said:

well planes in WWII didn't weigth as much as the modern jets does, and they required only a small portion of current ordanance and supply material that modern planes does.

the the conscructial difficoultyes. You can imagine it yourself: Think of a huge skycraper with two huge (few times the footballfield) and wide storeys in topfloor with no supporting collums. The side walls have to support not only the both hangar decks and the massive strech from the weight of the aircrafts but the whole flightdeck strench as well. Everyone who knows even the slightest of basic construction physic can tell you how difficoult it is to build to fullfill the sufficient requirements for hars military service.

Click to expand...

Nonetheless, it can and has been done. The old Ark Royal and Eagle had double hangars and could accomodate large heavy aircraft like the F-4 Phantom and Buccaneer S2, which are as large and heavy (if not heavier) than modern types like the F/A-18 without any major problems. My point was that the pressures on internal volume are different now to what they were even a decade ago (the need for large machinery spaces associated with Steam turbines and their boilers for example) and perhaps designers could take this opportunity to rethink accepted aspects of carrier design, such as a single hangar deck. The CVF 'twin islands' concept is one step in this direction, and a return to twin hangars at some point should be considered too in my opinion.

Eagle and Ark Royal didn't had douple hangars in the jet age. only portion of the old second hangar was left for workshop and Eagle never operated Phantoms. Never the last those two ships aren't good examples of any 'good carrier' innovations, becouse they were too small for their task and air crew. Possiply douple hangar would work on small carriers, but beam and length of supercarriers, it would have downfall effects on its stability and strengthness not to mention a nigthmare for the desingers.

Eagle operated Phantoms for trials purposes in 1968 when 700Psqn were embarked. All that was required for fulltime Phantom operations were refitting water cooled Jet Blast Deflectors and bridle catchers to her catapults (which were otherwise identical in size and power to Ark Royals) and upgrading her Arrestor gear to DAX II standard (she had 3 DAX I and one DAX II systems fitted), total estimated cost of upgrade in 1970 prices was £5million compared to £32million needed to upgrade Ark Royal to operate Phantoms 1967-70 (incidentally, the same modifications at the same price would have made HMS Hermes Phantom capable too, and had been planned for her 1968 upgrade. She already had the same catapults and Arrestor gear as Eagle which she had recieved in her 64-66 refit, and had cross decked American F-4Bs from USS Ranger in 1962). Approx 20% of the lower Hangar's starboard side in both ships was devoted to workshop space which still left a valuable area for aircraft parking. On Ark the Upper hangar was used primarily for Phantoms (Sea Vixens in Eagle, a similar sized Aircraft) and Buccaneers dominated the lower Hangar. Gannets and Helos squeezed into the upper hangar mainly. I wasn't proposing double hangars for supercarriers (90'000tons+) but for smaller vessels, CVF size and less (65,000tons down to 20,000tons) where I believe it could make a substantial contribition in certain cases.

From left; Eagles double hangar decks in1966, Arks hangar decks in the mid 70s, and three shots of 700P NAS conducting trials aboard Eagle in 1968.