PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

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.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

bd popeye said:

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.

Click to expand...

Popeye, justifiably so!

The US super-carrier, catapault take-off and arrested landing design is the most proven and worthy design available for nations that can afford that large a design and can afford the size of air wing that makes that design so formidable. There is none better.

But for a country that may be seeking to emulate the catapault take-off and arrested landing functionality for less cost and with a smaller air wing...this is simply a possibility...and a possibility from a fictional novel at that. That's all.

I have had people ask me (on this forum and elsewhere to flesh out the represnetation is all and thought I would post it here.

Pointblank said:

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.

Click to expand...

Turning into the wind works fine for any design as well...this design just lends some additional functionality in that regard while allowing the modular conversion from existing container ship designs to be more easily and quickly accomplished...which is the main point.

Pointblank said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well a modern CVE is exactly the concept here. This is a smaller, less expensive, more quickly produced design than current full size, catapault take-off and arrested landing carriers. But, it has the advantage of being able to add many of the same capabilities and features of the conventional carrier, in a smaller package.

The World War II CVE was not made from container ships like what we see today, because they did not exist. They were made from either military conversions, or from commercial merchant ships. To take those exact designs and try to apply them today would not work as well today due to the ordinance, fuel, and capacities required to maintain air ops with modern aircraft in a modern threat environemnt. But this type of conversion from a modern container ship, in concept is the same type of thing and could fulfill that role in a modern environment.

Finally, in the end, this design is simply put forth in a fictional book. Meant to lend reality to the story about perhaps what might be possible...but not reality, and not an actual design currently under consideration by any actual navy that I know of.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

bd popeye said:

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.

Click to expand...

Popeye, justifiably so!

The US super-carrier, catapault take-off and arrested landing design is the most proven and worthy design available for nations that can afford that large a design and can afford the size of air wing that makes that design so formidable. There is none better.

But for a country that may be seeking to emulate the catapault take-off and arrested landing functionality for less cost and with a smaller air wing...this is simply a possibility...and a possibility from a fictional novel at that. That's all.

I have had people ask me (on this forum and elsewhere to flesh out the represnetation is all and thought I would post it here.

Pointblank said:

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.

Click to expand...

Turning into the wind works fine for any design as well...this design just lends some additional functionality in that regard while allowing the modular conversion from existing container ship designs to be more easily and quickly accomplished...which is the main point.

Pointblank said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well a modern CVE is exactly the concept here. This is a smaller, less expensive, more quickly produced design than current full size, catapault take-off and arrested landing carriers. But, it has the advantage of being able to add many of the same capabilities and features of the conventional carrier, in a smaller package.

The World War II CVE was not made from container ships like what we see today, because they did not exist. They were made from either military conversions, or from commercial merchant ships. To take those exact designs and try to apply them today would not work as well today due to the ordinance, fuel, and capacities required to maintain air ops with modern aircraft in a modern threat environemnt. But this type of conversion from a modern container ship, in concept is the same type of thing and could fulfill that role in a modern environment.

Finally, in the end, this design is simply put forth in a fictional book. Meant to lend reality to the story about perhaps what might be possible...but not reality, and not an actual design currently under consideration by any actual navy that I know of.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

bd popeye said:

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.

Click to expand...

Popeye, justifiably so!

The US super-carrier, catapault take-off and arrested landing design is the most proven and worthy design available for nations that can afford that large a design and can afford the size of air wing that makes that design so formidable. There is none better.

But for a country that may be seeking to emulate the catapault take-off and arrested landing functionality for less cost and with a smaller air wing...this is simply a possibility...and a possibility from a fictional novel at that. That's all.

I have had people ask me (on this forum and elsewhere to flesh out the represnetation is all and thought I would post it here.

Pointblank said:

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.

Click to expand...

Turning into the wind works fine for any design as well...this design just lends some additional functionality in that regard while allowing the modular conversion from existing container ship designs to be more easily and quickly accomplished...which is the main point.

Pointblank said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well a modern CVE is exactly the concept here. This is a smaller, less expensive, more quickly produced design than current full size, catapault take-off and arrested landing carriers. But, it has the advantage of being able to add many of the same capabilities and features of the conventional carrier, in a smaller package.

The World War II CVE was not made from container ships like what we see today, because they did not exist. They were made from either military conversions, or from commercial merchant ships. To take those exact designs and try to apply them today would not work as well today due to the ordinance, fuel, and capacities required to maintain air ops with modern aircraft in a modern threat environemnt. But this type of conversion from a modern container ship, in concept is the same type of thing and could fulfill that role in a modern environment.

Finally, in the end, this design is simply put forth in a fictional book. Meant to lend reality to the story about perhaps what might be possible...but not reality, and not an actual design currently under consideration by any actual navy that I know of.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Pointblank said:

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.

Click to expand...

Isn't that about the time when it was believed by virtually all plane designers that enclosed cockpits would make the pilots fall asleep? times change, technology changes, scale changes.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Pointblank said:

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.

Click to expand...

Isn't that about the time when it was believed by virtually all plane designers that enclosed cockpits would make the pilots fall asleep? times change, technology changes, scale changes.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Pointblank said:

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.

Click to expand...

Isn't that about the time when it was believed by virtually all plane designers that enclosed cockpits would make the pilots fall asleep? times change, technology changes, scale changes.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Jeff Head said:

Well a modern CVE is exactly the concept here. This is a smaller, less expensive, more quickly produced design than current full size, catapault take-off and arrested landing carriers. But, it has the advantage of being able to add many of the same capabilities and features of the conventional carrier, in a smaller package.

The World War II CVE was not made from container ships like what we see today, because they did not exist. They were made from either military conversions, or from commercial merchant ships. To take those exact designs and try to apply them today would not work as well today due to the ordinance, fuel, and capacities required to maintain air ops with modern aircraft in a modern threat environemnt. But this type of conversion from a modern container ship, in concept is the same type of thing and could fulfill that role in a modern environment.

Finally, in the end, this design is simply put forth in a fictional book. Meant to lend reality to the story about perhaps what might be possible...but not reality, and not an actual design currently under consideration by any actual navy that I know of.

Click to expand...

A CVE is not meant for duty in a heavy combat environment; the concept is designed for lighter combat duties to free up the larger fleet carriers for more important tasks. Such duties of a CVE is convoy escort duty, ASW, etc.

What you are trying to model is the Merchant Aircraft Carrier from World War II. The ships were mostly tankers and bulk carriers modified with flight decks and a island to replace the superstructure, and maybe a aircraft lift. Such ships were meant for light duties only, namely, providing a CAP against maritime patrol aircraft, and performing ASW duties in a convoy.

I think the problem is that your designs are suffering from 'mission creep', meaning, you haven't properly defined what sort of missions a ship is supposed to do. Trying to fit too many roles onto a small ship will result in the ship becoming larger and more unwieldy in use. Remember: you need to specify what type of missions a ship will perform BEFORE you design the ship. Remember what kind of roles each type of ship will perform. Some missions, such as providing a CAP over a convoy will not need a large fleet carrier to do the job; a smaller light carrier or a ASW carrier with VSTOL fighters might be more than sufficient for the task. Design the ship for the missions it will perform, not fit a mission to a random design. Explain to me WHY you think a light aircraft carrier needs to operate in high risk operations, when all previous operations with light aircraft carriers are mostly ASW, and convoy escort, besides two instances in the Falklands War (although the light ASW aircraft carrier operated with a larger light fleet carrier), and earlier in World War II with the Battle off Samar.

planeman said:

Isn't that about the time when it was believed by virtually all plane designers that enclosed cockpits would make the pilots fall asleep? times change, technology changes, scale changes.

Click to expand...

Same reasoning why a central island won't work; it has been demonstrated in actual operations that a central island creates turbulence around the island which makes landing aircraft extremely difficult. This is one of the reasons why all post-World War II and future aircraft carriers all have their islands, no matter how big or small, on the starboard side.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Jeff Head said:

Well a modern CVE is exactly the concept here. This is a smaller, less expensive, more quickly produced design than current full size, catapault take-off and arrested landing carriers. But, it has the advantage of being able to add many of the same capabilities and features of the conventional carrier, in a smaller package.

The World War II CVE was not made from container ships like what we see today, because they did not exist. They were made from either military conversions, or from commercial merchant ships. To take those exact designs and try to apply them today would not work as well today due to the ordinance, fuel, and capacities required to maintain air ops with modern aircraft in a modern threat environemnt. But this type of conversion from a modern container ship, in concept is the same type of thing and could fulfill that role in a modern environment.

Finally, in the end, this design is simply put forth in a fictional book. Meant to lend reality to the story about perhaps what might be possible...but not reality, and not an actual design currently under consideration by any actual navy that I know of.

Click to expand...

A CVE is not meant for duty in a heavy combat environment; the concept is designed for lighter combat duties to free up the larger fleet carriers for more important tasks. Such duties of a CVE is convoy escort duty, ASW, etc.

What you are trying to model is the Merchant Aircraft Carrier from World War II. The ships were mostly tankers and bulk carriers modified with flight decks and a island to replace the superstructure, and maybe a aircraft lift. Such ships were meant for light duties only, namely, providing a CAP against maritime patrol aircraft, and performing ASW duties in a convoy.

I think the problem is that your designs are suffering from 'mission creep', meaning, you haven't properly defined what sort of missions a ship is supposed to do. Trying to fit too many roles onto a small ship will result in the ship becoming larger and more unwieldy in use. Remember: you need to specify what type of missions a ship will perform BEFORE you design the ship. Remember what kind of roles each type of ship will perform. Some missions, such as providing a CAP over a convoy will not need a large fleet carrier to do the job; a smaller light carrier or a ASW carrier with VSTOL fighters might be more than sufficient for the task. Design the ship for the missions it will perform, not fit a mission to a random design. Explain to me WHY you think a light aircraft carrier needs to operate in high risk operations, when all previous operations with light aircraft carriers are mostly ASW, and convoy escort, besides two instances in the Falklands War (although the light ASW aircraft carrier operated with a larger light fleet carrier), and earlier in World War II with the Battle off Samar.

planeman said:

Isn't that about the time when it was believed by virtually all plane designers that enclosed cockpits would make the pilots fall asleep? times change, technology changes, scale changes.

Click to expand...

Same reasoning why a central island won't work; it has been demonstrated in actual operations that a central island creates turbulence around the island which makes landing aircraft extremely difficult. This is one of the reasons why all post-World War II and future aircraft carriers all have their islands, no matter how big or small, on the starboard side.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Jeff Head said:

Well a modern CVE is exactly the concept here. This is a smaller, less expensive, more quickly produced design than current full size, catapault take-off and arrested landing carriers. But, it has the advantage of being able to add many of the same capabilities and features of the conventional carrier, in a smaller package.

The World War II CVE was not made from container ships like what we see today, because they did not exist. They were made from either military conversions, or from commercial merchant ships. To take those exact designs and try to apply them today would not work as well today due to the ordinance, fuel, and capacities required to maintain air ops with modern aircraft in a modern threat environemnt. But this type of conversion from a modern container ship, in concept is the same type of thing and could fulfill that role in a modern environment.

Finally, in the end, this design is simply put forth in a fictional book. Meant to lend reality to the story about perhaps what might be possible...but not reality, and not an actual design currently under consideration by any actual navy that I know of.

Click to expand...

A CVE is not meant for duty in a heavy combat environment; the concept is designed for lighter combat duties to free up the larger fleet carriers for more important tasks. Such duties of a CVE is convoy escort duty, ASW, etc.

What you are trying to model is the Merchant Aircraft Carrier from World War II. The ships were mostly tankers and bulk carriers modified with flight decks and a island to replace the superstructure, and maybe a aircraft lift. Such ships were meant for light duties only, namely, providing a CAP against maritime patrol aircraft, and performing ASW duties in a convoy.

I think the problem is that your designs are suffering from 'mission creep', meaning, you haven't properly defined what sort of missions a ship is supposed to do. Trying to fit too many roles onto a small ship will result in the ship becoming larger and more unwieldy in use. Remember: you need to specify what type of missions a ship will perform BEFORE you design the ship. Remember what kind of roles each type of ship will perform. Some missions, such as providing a CAP over a convoy will not need a large fleet carrier to do the job; a smaller light carrier or a ASW carrier with VSTOL fighters might be more than sufficient for the task. Design the ship for the missions it will perform, not fit a mission to a random design. Explain to me WHY you think a light aircraft carrier needs to operate in high risk operations, when all previous operations with light aircraft carriers are mostly ASW, and convoy escort, besides two instances in the Falklands War (although the light ASW aircraft carrier operated with a larger light fleet carrier), and earlier in World War II with the Battle off Samar.

planeman said:

Isn't that about the time when it was believed by virtually all plane designers that enclosed cockpits would make the pilots fall asleep? times change, technology changes, scale changes.

Click to expand...

Same reasoning why a central island won't work; it has been demonstrated in actual operations that a central island creates turbulence around the island which makes landing aircraft extremely difficult. This is one of the reasons why all post-World War II and future aircraft carriers all have their islands, no matter how big or small, on the starboard side.