PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

nice idea, I'm leaning towards smaller carriers too.

Re the catapult, since the foredeck is too narrow to have aircraft parked on it and still operate the catapult it could actually be much thinner still making a lot more room for defensive weaponary. Just a thought.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

nice idea, I'm leaning towards smaller carriers too.

Re the catapult, since the foredeck is too narrow to have aircraft parked on it and still operate the catapult it could actually be much thinner still making a lot more room for defensive weaponary. Just a thought.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

nice idea, I'm leaning towards smaller carriers too.

Re the catapult, since the foredeck is too narrow to have aircraft parked on it and still operate the catapult it could actually be much thinner still making a lot more room for defensive weaponary. Just a thought.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

25-30,000 tons multihull SWATH with COGAG all-electric drive to waterjets.

HHQ-16 VLS and 76mm GP between catapults, wich are slightly uphill.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

25-30,000 tons multihull SWATH with COGAG all-electric drive to waterjets.

HHQ-16 VLS and 76mm GP between catapults, wich are slightly uphill.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

25-30,000 tons multihull SWATH with COGAG all-electric drive to waterjets.

HHQ-16 VLS and 76mm GP between catapults, wich are slightly uphill.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

planeman said:

nice idea, I'm leaning towards smaller carriers too.

Re the catapult, since the foredeck is too narrow to have aircraft parked on it and still operate the catapult it could actually be much thinner still making a lot more room for defensive weaponary. Just a thought.

Click to expand...

Why not just make the deck rectangular? The hull underneath of course needs to be hydrodynamic, but the deck can be whatever shape is most useful.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

planeman said:

nice idea, I'm leaning towards smaller carriers too.

Re the catapult, since the foredeck is too narrow to have aircraft parked on it and still operate the catapult it could actually be much thinner still making a lot more room for defensive weaponary. Just a thought.

Click to expand...

Why not just make the deck rectangular? The hull underneath of course needs to be hydrodynamic, but the deck can be whatever shape is most useful.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

planeman said:

nice idea, I'm leaning towards smaller carriers too.

Re the catapult, since the foredeck is too narrow to have aircraft parked on it and still operate the catapult it could actually be much thinner still making a lot more room for defensive weaponary. Just a thought.

Click to expand...

Why not just make the deck rectangular? The hull underneath of course needs to be hydrodynamic, but the deck can be whatever shape is most useful.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Because extra deck surface wouldn't be cost effective. It'd require larger hulls to support all the extra weight, lowering speed, endurance, increasing costs, etc.

Even with the drawing as it is, there's really no way of knowing if such a carrier would be possible. No one tried it yet. Perhaps the strain on the side hulls would just be too great. Who knows what sort of structure and how much reinforcement it'd be needed to support such a deck on such hullform.

BTW, planeman, good call on narrowing the foredeck. There's more problems, of course... with perhaps not enough deck space for handling many planes at once. The positions of the weapons elevators are perhaps not ideal... As i said, hangar may prove to be too large for such a small ship...

If i may suggest, for your carrier, use as many elevators (carrying two planes) as there are catapults. It takes less time for a catapult to launch two planes than it takes an elevator to make one round...