PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

S

Sczepan

Senior Member
VIP Professional
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Jeff Head said:
.....

You inspired me to make a better representation of my X-Deck design for the PLAN as described in my novel series.

So, here is the new pic...the 50-60,000 ton x-deck (conventional carrier takeoff and landing) design from my book, with up to 48 aircraft, modularly constructed on the top of large, modern, container ship hulls.
.....
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...

Jeff, didn't you see the possibility of collissions by the "crossing x-deck"? :confused:
To reduce the risk, you have to wait in landing operations that the aircraft before passed the "collision-point" and than the next plane could touch down, but so you win no more capacity compared to conventionell angled-deck designs;
in starting operations you have two decks - thats the same as conventionell angled-decks can make available;
so - excuse my stupid question - where is the big advantage of this creation?
 
S

Sczepan

Senior Member
VIP Professional
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Jeff Head said:
.....

You inspired me to make a better representation of my X-Deck design for the PLAN as described in my novel series.

So, here is the new pic...the 50-60,000 ton x-deck (conventional carrier takeoff and landing) design from my book, with up to 48 aircraft, modularly constructed on the top of large, modern, container ship hulls.
.....
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...

Jeff, didn't you see the possibility of collissions by the "crossing x-deck"? :confused:
To reduce the risk, you have to wait in landing operations that the aircraft before passed the "collision-point" and than the next plane could touch down, but so you win no more capacity compared to conventionell angled-deck designs;
in starting operations you have two decks - thats the same as conventionell angled-decks can make available;
so - excuse my stupid question - where is the big advantage of this creation?
 
Obi Wan Russell

Obi Wan Russell

Jedi Master
VIP Professional
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

The X-deck design offers better battle damage resistance, in as much as two landing areas with arrestor wires increases the chances of retaining one operational after a misslie or LGB strike, assuming they penetrate th ships defences. Also when landing on aircraft, the landings will obviously be staggered but with computer assistence this can be done with relative ease and close spacing between aircraft. Two sets of arrestor gear means aircraft landing on alternate landing strips can land at twice as fast a rate as a conventional CV theoretically because they don't have to wait for the gear to reset after the previous landing. Marshalling issues arise here of course but with two decks this isn't the same problem as on a conventional deck. If an aircraft has to use the crash barrier on one deck then normally all the aircraft in the landing pattern will have to circle burning precious fuel reserves until the deck can be 'unfoulled' whereas the X-deck ship could simply switch them to the other deck (and hope the barrier would not be needed again too soon!).
 
Obi Wan Russell

Obi Wan Russell

Jedi Master
VIP Professional
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

The X-deck design offers better battle damage resistance, in as much as two landing areas with arrestor wires increases the chances of retaining one operational after a misslie or LGB strike, assuming they penetrate th ships defences. Also when landing on aircraft, the landings will obviously be staggered but with computer assistence this can be done with relative ease and close spacing between aircraft. Two sets of arrestor gear means aircraft landing on alternate landing strips can land at twice as fast a rate as a conventional CV theoretically because they don't have to wait for the gear to reset after the previous landing. Marshalling issues arise here of course but with two decks this isn't the same problem as on a conventional deck. If an aircraft has to use the crash barrier on one deck then normally all the aircraft in the landing pattern will have to circle burning precious fuel reserves until the deck can be 'unfoulled' whereas the X-deck ship could simply switch them to the other deck (and hope the barrier would not be needed again too soon!).
 
Obi Wan Russell

Obi Wan Russell

Jedi Master
VIP Professional
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

The X-deck design offers better battle damage resistance, in as much as two landing areas with arrestor wires increases the chances of retaining one operational after a misslie or LGB strike, assuming they penetrate th ships defences. Also when landing on aircraft, the landings will obviously be staggered but with computer assistence this can be done with relative ease and close spacing between aircraft. Two sets of arrestor gear means aircraft landing on alternate landing strips can land at twice as fast a rate as a conventional CV theoretically because they don't have to wait for the gear to reset after the previous landing. Marshalling issues arise here of course but with two decks this isn't the same problem as on a conventional deck. If an aircraft has to use the crash barrier on one deck then normally all the aircraft in the landing pattern will have to circle burning precious fuel reserves until the deck can be 'unfoulled' whereas the X-deck ship could simply switch them to the other deck (and hope the barrier would not be needed again too soon!).
 
K

kickars

Junior Member
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Obi Wan Russell said:
The X-deck design offers better battle damage resistance, in as much as two landing areas with arrestor wires increases the chances of retaining one operational after a misslie or LGB strike, assuming they penetrate th ships defences. Also when landing on aircraft, the landings will obviously be staggered but with computer assistence this can be done with relative ease and close spacing between aircraft. Two sets of arrestor gear means aircraft landing on alternate landing strips can land at twice as fast a rate as a conventional CV theoretically because they don't have to wait for the gear to reset after the previous landing. Marshalling issues arise here of course but with two decks this isn't the same problem as on a conventional deck. If an aircraft has to use the crash barrier on one deck then normally all the aircraft in the landing pattern will have to circle burning precious fuel reserves until the deck can be 'unfoulled' whereas the X-deck ship could simply switch them to the other deck (and hope the barrier would not be needed again too soon!).
Click to expand...

X-deck is a great idea. But I have another thought, what if instead of an 'X' there is a '=' deck design, which means you can still remain 4 run ways design (two for landing, two for take off). And you can also avoid the cross road section of the 'X' design. What’s more the overall length and width of the deck would be pretty much the same as X-deck (extend the '=' deck to the very front of the hull). Becoz of the '=' deck design, there will be a long space between the four run ways (or u can say two very long run ways) which can be used for elevators, helicopters (both parking and landing/take off) and all other fixed wing planes' parking. Coz all the aircraft would be stored in the middle between the two long run ways, it should be pretty balanced as well I think.
 
K

kickars

Junior Member
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Obi Wan Russell said:
The X-deck design offers better battle damage resistance, in as much as two landing areas with arrestor wires increases the chances of retaining one operational after a misslie or LGB strike, assuming they penetrate th ships defences. Also when landing on aircraft, the landings will obviously be staggered but with computer assistence this can be done with relative ease and close spacing between aircraft. Two sets of arrestor gear means aircraft landing on alternate landing strips can land at twice as fast a rate as a conventional CV theoretically because they don't have to wait for the gear to reset after the previous landing. Marshalling issues arise here of course but with two decks this isn't the same problem as on a conventional deck. If an aircraft has to use the crash barrier on one deck then normally all the aircraft in the landing pattern will have to circle burning precious fuel reserves until the deck can be 'unfoulled' whereas the X-deck ship could simply switch them to the other deck (and hope the barrier would not be needed again too soon!).
Click to expand...

X-deck is a great idea. But I have another thought, what if instead of an 'X' there is a '=' deck design, which means you can still remain 4 run ways design (two for landing, two for take off). And you can also avoid the cross road section of the 'X' design. What’s more the overall length and width of the deck would be pretty much the same as X-deck (extend the '=' deck to the very front of the hull). Becoz of the '=' deck design, there will be a long space between the four run ways (or u can say two very long run ways) which can be used for elevators, helicopters (both parking and landing/take off) and all other fixed wing planes' parking. Coz all the aircraft would be stored in the middle between the two long run ways, it should be pretty balanced as well I think.
 
K

kickars

Junior Member
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Obi Wan Russell said:
The X-deck design offers better battle damage resistance, in as much as two landing areas with arrestor wires increases the chances of retaining one operational after a misslie or LGB strike, assuming they penetrate th ships defences. Also when landing on aircraft, the landings will obviously be staggered but with computer assistence this can be done with relative ease and close spacing between aircraft. Two sets of arrestor gear means aircraft landing on alternate landing strips can land at twice as fast a rate as a conventional CV theoretically because they don't have to wait for the gear to reset after the previous landing. Marshalling issues arise here of course but with two decks this isn't the same problem as on a conventional deck. If an aircraft has to use the crash barrier on one deck then normally all the aircraft in the landing pattern will have to circle burning precious fuel reserves until the deck can be 'unfoulled' whereas the X-deck ship could simply switch them to the other deck (and hope the barrier would not be needed again too soon!).
Click to expand...

X-deck is a great idea. But I have another thought, what if instead of an 'X' there is a '=' deck design, which means you can still remain 4 run ways design (two for landing, two for take off). And you can also avoid the cross road section of the 'X' design. What’s more the overall length and width of the deck would be pretty much the same as X-deck (extend the '=' deck to the very front of the hull). Becoz of the '=' deck design, there will be a long space between the four run ways (or u can say two very long run ways) which can be used for elevators, helicopters (both parking and landing/take off) and all other fixed wing planes' parking. Coz all the aircraft would be stored in the middle between the two long run ways, it should be pretty balanced as well I think.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Sczepan said:
Jeff, didn't you see the possibility of collissions by the "crossing x-deck"? :confused:
To reduce the risk, you have to wait in landing operations that the aircraft before passed the "collision-point" and than the next plane could touch down, but so you win no more capacity compared to conventionell angled-deck designs;
in starting operations you have two decks - thats the same as conventionell angled-decks can make available;
so - excuse my stupid question - where is the big advantage of this creation?
Click to expand...
The advantage is that the deck configuration gains the same advantage of conventional carrier operations just like you say, while doing so on a container ship hull, where the provisions for control and the superstructure are all located at the back of the ship in the middle of what would normally be a conventional carrier deck.

It wasn't a matter of somehow improving a conventional carrier design, it was a matter of working with a different hull and getting the same basic advantages available to a conventional configuration.

So, this design allows carrier operations to be conducted like a conventional carrier...and give some flexability for wind conditions with the crossing configuration, while doing all of that on a smaller, less expensive hull that can be produced modularly very quickly. Those are the advantages and hope I that helps the explanationand understanding.

Your question wasn't a stupid question at all, thanks for asking and allowing me to clarify.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Sczepan said:
Jeff, didn't you see the possibility of collissions by the "crossing x-deck"? :confused:
To reduce the risk, you have to wait in landing operations that the aircraft before passed the "collision-point" and than the next plane could touch down, but so you win no more capacity compared to conventionell angled-deck designs;
in starting operations you have two decks - thats the same as conventionell angled-decks can make available;
so - excuse my stupid question - where is the big advantage of this creation?
Click to expand...
The advantage is that the deck configuration gains the same advantage of conventional carrier operations just like you say, while doing so on a container ship hull, where the provisions for control and the superstructure are all located at the back of the ship in the middle of what would normally be a conventional carrier deck.

It wasn't a matter of somehow improving a conventional carrier design, it was a matter of working with a different hull and getting the same basic advantages available to a conventional configuration.

So, this design allows carrier operations to be conducted like a conventional carrier...and give some flexability for wind conditions with the crossing configuration, while doing all of that on a smaller, less expensive hull that can be produced modularly very quickly. Those are the advantages and hope I that helps the explanationand understanding.

Your question wasn't a stupid question at all, thanks for asking and allowing me to clarify.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top