PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

Subetei said:

What are the operational advantages of one bow and one waist cat, as opposed to two bow cats? Caveat: on a Liaoning size carrier

Click to expand...

Well, if all you have is two bow cats, or one at the bow and one at the waist, the differences can be summarized as follows:

With both at the bow, you can conduct joint launches using both cats while simultaneously recovering aircraft. You cannot have two cats operational and recover aircraft at the same time when you have one of your two at the waist.

However, that said, with one at the bow and one at the waist, you can, as others have said, spot a several aircraft on the bow in the unused portion while launching from both bow and waist.

The US Navy has two cats at both positions and therefore maximizes the benefit of both conditions.

Jeff Head said:

With both at the bow, you can conduct joint launches using both cats while simultaneously recovering aircraft.

Click to expand...

That wasn't passible even with the first supercarriers, because the lefthand cat occupied the landing area (watch the fool lines on the carriers). That is possible from the CV 63 on. And on smaler carriers like French or Chinese it isn't possible.

The beginning of the lefthand bow cat on supercarriers from CV 63 on is turned a little bit to the right to clear the landing area. You need space to do this. And you havn't this space on the most carriers except the large supercarriers.

I am very curious, as this is something I never quite understand if some of you could enlighten me :


Why does the modern aircraft carriers always look top heavy with the deck overhanging the hull?? Why doesn't the hull be build right to the edge of the deck like the oil tanker does?






Imaghine if the hull is actually build right to the edge of the deck -


The aircraft carrier would have TWICE the volume thus twice the carrying capacity while occupying the same footprint, carrying twice more aircrafts, ammos, food and supplies prolonging the combat effectiveness and perhaps more room for defensive weapons too!

So what's the reason for not doing it?

Intrepid said:

That wasn't passible even with the first supercarriers, because the lefthand cat occupied the landing area (watch the fool lines on the carriers). That is possible from the CV 63 on. And on smaler carriers like French or Chinese it isn't possible.

The beginning of the lefthand bow cat on supercarriers from CV 63 on is turned a little bit to the right to clear the landing area. You need space to do this. And you havn't this space on the most carriers except the large supercarriers.

Click to expand...

In a smaller carrier the size of Liaoning saving space by using shorter EM cats build into the ski ramp will also solve this problem.

Ultra said:

I am very curious, as this is something I never quite understand if some of you could enlighten me :


Why does the modern aircraft carriers always look top heavy with the deck overhanging the hull?? Why doesn't the hull be build right to the edge of the deck like the oil tanker does?

Imaghine if the hull is actually build right to the edge of the deck -

The aircraft carrier would have TWICE the volume thus twice the carrying capacity while occupying the same footprint, carrying twice more aircrafts, ammos, food and supplies prolonging the combat effectiveness and perhaps more room for defensive weapons too!

So what's the reason for not doing it?

Click to expand...

Because it would drastically increase the resistance of water, hence decrease the the speed -- which is important to generate enough wind speed on deck.
Ship speed is related to fineness of the hull (length to width ratio). So to get the speed with a reasonable amount of power, you need the hull to be as fine as you can get.

Ultra said:

I am very curious, as this is something I never quite understand if some of you could enlighten me :


Why does the modern aircraft carriers always look top heavy with the deck overhanging the hull?? Why doesn't the hull be build right to the edge of the deck like the oil tanker does?

Imaghine if the hull is actually build right to the edge of the deck -

The aircraft carrier would have TWICE the volume thus twice the carrying capacity while occupying the same footprint, carrying twice more aircrafts, ammos, food and supplies prolonging the combat effectiveness and perhaps more room for defensive weapons too!

So what's the reason for not doing it?

Click to expand...

Money? Not quite twice the power, not quite twice the costs, and less flight deck real estate than necessary to make full use of all the available aircraft

Ultra said:

Why does the modern aircraft carriers always look top heavy with the deck overhanging the hull?? Why doesn't the hull be build right to the edge of the deck like the oil tanker does? [...] So what's the reason for not doing it?

Click to expand...

Midway got additional blisters, which widend the hull to 44 meters beam in the waterline (more than Nimitz-class). The ship was more rolling in heavy sea than any other carrier and quite unsafe for air operations.

Intrepid said:

That is possible from the CV 63 on.

Click to expand...

I am talking about US carriers from the last 50 years. Did not think I needed to make that apparent...but since you raised the issue. Let me do so.

Intrepid said:

...on smaller carriers like French or Chinese it isn't possible.

Click to expand...

Of course it isn't possible on the CDG. It only has one catapult on the bow and I was talking about launching using both cats forward and while simultaneously landing.

Ultra said:

I am very curious, as this is something I never quite understand if some of you could enlighten me :

Imagine if the hull is actually build right to the edge of the deck -

The aircraft carrier would have TWICE the volume thus twice the carrying capacity while occupying the same footprint, carrying twice more aircrafts, ammos, food and supplies prolonging the combat effectiveness and perhaps more room for defensive weapons too!

So what's the reason for not doing it?

Click to expand...

No, it is not the same footprint.

It is the same looking down...but it is a LOT bigger at the waterline and below it...and this makes all the difference.

To land and launch aircraft safely...and rapidly...you need good air flow over the deck. Also, carriers' mobility (speed) is one of their principle defenses.

When you significantly increase the size of the hull at and below the waterline, you significantly increase the water resistance along the hull and require significantly more power to overcome it and reach the speeds necessary for these things.

The US carriers have been optimized, by very professional shipbuilders over decades, to maximize the capabilities I just spoke of.

They know what they are doing and this is why.

You reach a point of significant diminishing returns...and HUGE amounts of extra power requirements by doing the type of thing you propose..

So, the US super carriers are maximizing their ability to sortie aircraft (take-off and land) and their ability to rapidly move through the water.

That's why.

Ultra said:

I am very curious, as this is something I never quite understand if some of you could enlighten me :


Why does the modern aircraft carriers always look top heavy with the deck overhanging the hull?? Why doesn't the hull be build right to the edge of the deck like the oil tanker does?

Imaghine if the hull is actually build right to the edge of the deck -

The aircraft carrier would have TWICE the volume thus twice the carrying capacity while occupying the same footprint, carrying twice more aircrafts, ammos, food and supplies prolonging the combat effectiveness and perhaps more room for defensive weapons too!

So what's the reason for not doing it?

Click to expand...

Aircraft carriers are a lot wider at the flight deck than the biggest oil tankers, giving the impression of a narrow waterline width (which is actually close to 40 meters widest, or about twice the width of my house).

Also,

This pic shows the maximum dimension of ships that can pass through various canals.
even the widest of them, chinamax, only allowed 65m beam max, with the new panama and suez at 49 and 50m respectively. The Nimitz class ship would be 76.8m widest at flight deck level.