There's a difference between sending a CV unescorted and making it RELIANT on escorts.
Ideal chinese carrier thread
- Thread starter Gollevainen
- Start date
- Status
well, I see, you studied a lot of this thing;
what do you think about an "<>" deck instead of the "x"-deck;
its like an reflection of the traditional carrier design with an secound angled deck at the right hand and the island in the middle of this rhombus-design;
(cut Jeffs idea in the middle and put the front part to the back, changing catapulte in front and the arrestor gears back - so you see what I mean)
the landing deck is back, created like a "V" from the stern and so there are two different landing stripes which could be used nearly simultan; if any planes crash or have to continue they have nothing in front and can do so without collision;
also the runways to start ar in (compared to landing stripes negative) "V" form, including one skijump (or lets be used two different catapultes instead) in the front of the ship; so these ship also could launch two planes nearly simultan, moved from left and right runway ....
edit:
and could launch 4 planes nearly simultan, if a catapulte is installed at the front of both "angled" landing decks ....
and could be used for simultan landing by using paralell land- and startways
:china:
what do you think about an "<>" deck instead of the "x"-deck;
its like an reflection of the traditional carrier design with an secound angled deck at the right hand and the island in the middle of this rhombus-design;
(cut Jeffs idea in the middle and put the front part to the back, changing catapulte in front and the arrestor gears back - so you see what I mean)
the landing deck is back, created like a "V" from the stern and so there are two different landing stripes which could be used nearly simultan; if any planes crash or have to continue they have nothing in front and can do so without collision;
also the runways to start ar in (compared to landing stripes negative) "V" form, including one skijump (or lets be used two different catapultes instead) in the front of the ship; so these ship also could launch two planes nearly simultan, moved from left and right runway ....
edit:
and could launch 4 planes nearly simultan, if a catapulte is installed at the front of both "angled" landing decks ....
and could be used for simultan landing by using paralell land- and startways
:china:
Attachments
-
Bild TR 001.jpg
Last edited:
Large oil tankers are a lot larger than even the US carriers, about a quarter of the Nimitz's length extra plus nearly twice as wide:
The Hellespont Metropolis has a length of 380 metres a beam of 68m and 24.5m draft and weighs in just under 442,000 dwt. The ship was built by South Korea’s Daewoo Heavy Industries.
The Hellespont Metropolis has a length of 380 metres a beam of 68m and 24.5m draft and weighs in just under 442,000 dwt. The ship was built by South Korea’s Daewoo Heavy Industries.
Ahh...but this is not an oil tanker...at least not the design I put forward based on the commercial vessel. That design is based on a container ship.
Neutral Zone
Junior Member
Yes, but if like the USN you have no shortage of escort ships then you can gain the maximum air potential of your carrier and use the escorts to provide all the ASW/anti surface/anti-air capability that you need. If you're a smaler navy then you'll need the big ship to have a greater degree of self reliance.
Yes indeed, something bigger is possible. One of the concepts the US has studied is the Mobile Offshore Base (MOB) which can move (albeit slowly) to its area of operations and then change its position once there. Very big...like 5,000 feet long and representative of a true offshore airbase with full facilities, as well as a provisioning point for Amphibiuos assault or other naval task forces. Depicted here:
But something like this is a long, long way off for the PLAN, and is only being studied in the US, probably never implemented
Ok, on the topic of supercarriers, here's someone else's idea:
Pretty cool me thinks.
And now for something completely different! Well almost. Some clever bloke already had my central bridge idea (each link is a different concept):
Pretty cool me thinks.
And now for something completely different! Well almost. Some clever bloke already had my central bridge idea (each link is a different concept):
Last edited:
Pointblank
Senior Member
We already tried the concept of a central island; it didn't work. That ship was HMS Furious, of 1917 vintage. The island caused turbulence for aircraft landing which made landing difficult for aircraft, and as such, in 1922, she went into drydock to have the island removed.
Also, the starboard landing strip roughly equates to vessels fitted with portside islands (two Japanese WWII CVs, Akagi and Hiryu), which suffered a higher accident rate tham conventional CVs. Islands are on the starboard side because pilots who encounter problems on landing have a tendancy to veer to port, and if there is an island in the way...
- Status