Not sure that deck layout makes sense to me. The landing strip is angled too strongly, making for an awkward approach path (for an unmanned aircraft especially) and runway end crop. Seems an extreme compromise to facilitate simultaneous landing and launch operations, even though the requirement for such is markedly reduced by the long endurance of U(C)AVs and the lower fixed wing ops tempo of a LHA. The in-line landing and launch version would seem to be more practical, the obviously egregious J-15s not withstanding.
The specific details of the CGI like the exact length of the ship and the exact angle of the runway are obviously done at the artist's own discretion, but the overall configuration is one which I think is viable.
Things I would change include:
- Shortening the ship a a fraction. Currently the ship is far too long and large it would displace like 60k tons looking at it. 50k ton tops seems more reasonable.
- Make the angle of the landing strip less significant, maybe up to 10 degrees instead of the current 14 degrees.
- I would move the entire "launch section" of the carrier -- i.e.: including the jet blast deflector and the catapult -- backwards so that it overlaps with the landing strip. Moving it backwards will allow the ship to be shorter (and displace less).
Now, some might see the "overlap" between the catapult and the landing strip to be a compromise as it would not allow "simultaneous launch and recovery".
However, simultaneous launch and recovery afaik is rarely practiced even by the USN. Instead, aircraft are launched cyclically whereby multiple aircraft are launched successively, and then multiple aircraft are recovered successively.
The purpose of the angled flight deck is to allow the recovery of aircraft to occur while the rest of your aircraft on the deck are spotted on the bow.
For a large LHD, you won't be asked to conduct massively high tempo fixed wing operations like a true carrier of equivalent displacement. Even in a "UCAV carrier" airwing loadout (more UCAV heavy and helicopter light), it probably won't carry
that many UCAVs such that a single catapult won't be able to do sufficient launch and recovery cycles for a ship of its role.
It all goes back to what purpose this ship is meant to fulfill.
IMO, it is meant to be a large LHD primarily still -- but which has catapult and arresting gear and other modifications applied such that it can conduct sufficient fixed wing operations in support of its LHD role but to such a degree that it doesn't fundamentally compromise its LHD role.
That's why I think this ship won't be as large as 60k tons, and why I think it won't have more than one catapult, and also why I think its a flight deck design and overall size and ship design won't be what you expect of an "optimized UCAV carrier" or "optimized aircraft carrier" -- because a ship of that design would likely undermine the ship's ability to conduct its LHD role. After all the RFP still speaks of having a well deck.
Putting it another way, based on the way this ship has been described by the various insiders in the last few days, I see it as "LHD first, UCAV/fixed wing CATOBAR second".
Not "UCAV/fixed wing CATOBAR first, LHD second".
