PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

bd popeye

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Hi guys!:) I took a little holiday from the forum..I'm back.

I can't see how that x deck CV would work. It would be an air traffic controller nightmare. The deck handling of aircraft would be difficult and require IMO a highly trained crew...Not to mention pilots that are in a landing pattern that no CV pilot has ever attempted. Looks nice. But I don't see it working smoothly. It takes more than computers and electronic gizmos to operate a real aircraft carrier....It takes highly trained sailors that have an actual heart beat.
 
bd popeye

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Hi guys!:) I took a little holiday from the forum..I'm back.

I can't see how that x deck CV would work. It would be an air traffic controller nightmare. The deck handling of aircraft would be difficult and require IMO a highly trained crew...Not to mention pilots that are in a landing pattern that no CV pilot has ever attempted. Looks nice. But I don't see it working smoothly. It takes more than computers and electronic gizmos to operate a real aircraft carrier....It takes highly trained sailors that have an actual heart beat.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

bd popeye said:
Hi guys!:) I took a little holiday from the forum..I'm back.

I can't see how that x deck CV would work. It would be an air traffic controller nightmare. The deck handling of aircraft would be difficult and require IMO a highly trained crew...Not to mention pilots that are in a landing pattern that no CV pilot has ever attempted. Looks nice. But I don't see it working smoothly. It takes more than computers and electronic gizmos to operate a real aircrfat carrier....It takes highly trained sailors tht have an actual heart beat.
Click to expand...
The idea of that design is not to try and land two patterns simultaneously, but to use one side or the other depending on optimum wind conditions and to have the ball on either one side or the other, not on both.

As to launching, you could use both forward cats on each side in a similar fashion as to how US carriers launch from the fore and waist positions now.

Again, that design was not meant to somehow improve current operations on the deck, but to lend a similar capability to a modular design built upon a container ship hull.

And, to top it all off...remember, that design is simnply the result of a fictional techno-thriller book...not an operational design being considered by any active Navy.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

bd popeye said:
Hi guys!:) I took a little holiday from the forum..I'm back.

I can't see how that x deck CV would work. It would be an air traffic controller nightmare. The deck handling of aircraft would be difficult and require IMO a highly trained crew...Not to mention pilots that are in a landing pattern that no CV pilot has ever attempted. Looks nice. But I don't see it working smoothly. It takes more than computers and electronic gizmos to operate a real aircrfat carrier....It takes highly trained sailors tht have an actual heart beat.
Click to expand...
The idea of that design is not to try and land two patterns simultaneously, but to use one side or the other depending on optimum wind conditions and to have the ball on either one side or the other, not on both.

As to launching, you could use both forward cats on each side in a similar fashion as to how US carriers launch from the fore and waist positions now.

Again, that design was not meant to somehow improve current operations on the deck, but to lend a similar capability to a modular design built upon a container ship hull.

And, to top it all off...remember, that design is simnply the result of a fictional techno-thriller book...not an operational design being considered by any active Navy.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

bd popeye said:
Hi guys!:) I took a little holiday from the forum..I'm back.

I can't see how that x deck CV would work. It would be an air traffic controller nightmare. The deck handling of aircraft would be difficult and require IMO a highly trained crew...Not to mention pilots that are in a landing pattern that no CV pilot has ever attempted. Looks nice. But I don't see it working smoothly. It takes more than computers and electronic gizmos to operate a real aircrfat carrier....It takes highly trained sailors tht have an actual heart beat.
Click to expand...
The idea of that design is not to try and land two patterns simultaneously, but to use one side or the other depending on optimum wind conditions and to have the ball on either one side or the other, not on both.

As to launching, you could use both forward cats on each side in a similar fashion as to how US carriers launch from the fore and waist positions now.

Again, that design was not meant to somehow improve current operations on the deck, but to lend a similar capability to a modular design built upon a container ship hull.

And, to top it all off...remember, that design is simnply the result of a fictional techno-thriller book...not an operational design being considered by any active Navy.
 
bd popeye

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Thanks for that explanation.:) I realize that design is from you book..

Maybe I'm to stead fast in my thinking on a Cv design..I of course prefere the design of a USN CV..My preference!

And of course my favorite design The USS Midway CV-41. This picture is from the '70's.
 
bd popeye

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Thanks for that explanation.:) I realize that design is from you book..

Maybe I'm to stead fast in my thinking on a Cv design..I of course prefere the design of a USN CV..My preference!

And of course my favorite design The USS Midway CV-41. This picture is from the '70's.
 
bd popeye

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Thanks for that explanation.:) I realize that design is from you book..

Maybe I'm to stead fast in my thinking on a Cv design..I of course prefere the design of a USN CV..My preference!

And of course my favorite design The USS Midway CV-41. This picture is from the '70's.
 
P

Pointblank

Senior Member
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Jeff Head said:
The idea of that design is not to try and land two patterns simultaneously, but to use one side or the other depending on optimum wind conditions and to have the ball on either one side or the other, not on both.

As to launching, you could use both forward cats on each side in a similar fashion as to how US carriers launch from the fore and waist positions now.

Again, that design was not meant to somehow improve current operations on the deck, but to lend a similar capability to a modular design built upon a container ship hull.

And, to top it all off...remember, that design is simnply the result of a fictional techno-thriller book...not an operational design being considered by any active Navy.
Click to expand...


1. It is easier to actually turn into the direction the wind is going. A ship can change direction you know, it is not a static airfield where this would make more sense.

2. If you want to modify a current container ship, go along the lines of the World War II concept, the Escort Aircraft Carrier (CVE). The concept has already been tried before, and it worked fairly well for the situation at hand.
 
P

Pointblank

Senior Member
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Jeff Head said:
The idea of that design is not to try and land two patterns simultaneously, but to use one side or the other depending on optimum wind conditions and to have the ball on either one side or the other, not on both.

As to launching, you could use both forward cats on each side in a similar fashion as to how US carriers launch from the fore and waist positions now.

Again, that design was not meant to somehow improve current operations on the deck, but to lend a similar capability to a modular design built upon a container ship hull.

And, to top it all off...remember, that design is simnply the result of a fictional techno-thriller book...not an operational design being considered by any active Navy.
Click to expand...


1. It is easier to actually turn into the direction the wind is going. A ship can change direction you know, it is not a static airfield where this would make more sense.

2. If you want to modify a current container ship, go along the lines of the World War II concept, the Escort Aircraft Carrier (CVE). The concept has already been tried before, and it worked fairly well for the situation at hand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top