Aircraft Carriers

[Joe C-P]

I'd agree with that, but why would BIG rudders work OK when going astern on BIG ships when proportionally similar size rudders don't work so well on smaller vessels?

Perhaps I should post this on a model boat Forum? 

Some of the earlier carriers did have forward arrestor wires for emergency landings if the after end of the flight deck was damaged, but they weren't generally intended to sail in both directions. Ships can steam in reverse, and the rudder would have to be locked if the ship is sailing afterward with any speed, lest it be damaged.
The USN's Lexington and Saratoga did have fine sterns, but that was because they were started as fast-sailing battlecruisers.

[Spey_Phantom]

ive been toying with this idea for a few years now, and i got the idea during the period when piracy was largly a problem in Somalia and the Phillipenes. but what would the plausability and usefullness be for a Counter Insurgency carrier (or COIN-Carrier).

for the ship, based on the Sea Control Ship concept, i was thinking something like a modern day light aircraft carrier (something the size of an Invincible-class or HTMS Chakri Naruebet but with a straight deck). with EMALS catapults now being cheaper and easier to build then classic steam catapults, but with only half the output and power of those fitted to the new Ford-class of a US Carriers. these would be powerfull enough to launch light COIN aircraft, such as Navalised Super Tucano's and drones.

at first i thought this was a good idea, but i think in reality it would make more since to use helicopter carriers such as LHD's and amphibious assault ships.

[AeroplaneDriver]

Interesting concept with a lot of Whiffing potential.  A ship like that that is intended for small scale COIN/anti piracy work could be built to commercial standards and therefore cheaper.  It will be interesting to see what comes out of the RN's search for smaller scale EMALS for the QE Class carriers. See what the cost and power requirements are going to be like when you no longer need it to fling a fully loaded F-35C airborne.

With climate change leading to sea level rise over the coming generation it's easy to come up with a scenario where coastal piracy becomes an ever increasing problem in less developed nations. 

[Doug K]

.....and then of course we have the " lower flying off deck" on some interwar carriers. Effectively, taking off from the hanger deck;allowing the ship to simultaneously land aircraft on the main flight deck while fighters were taking off on the lower deck or to speedily fly off her aircraft from both decks.

Akagi had 3 decks on total when she was first built

[scooter]

.....and then of course we have the " lower flying off deck" on some interwar carriers. Effectively, taking off from the hanger deck;allowing the ship to simultaneously land aircraft on the main flight deck while fighters were taking off on the lower deck or to speedily fly off her aircraft from both decks.

Akagi had 3 decks on total when she was first built

And some US carriers had hangar deck mounted cats before BuShips and BuAir felt they were too much for little return

[PR19_Kit]

  It will be interesting to see what comes out of the RN's search for smaller scale EMALS for the QE Class carriers. See what the cost and power requirements are going to be like when you no longer need it to fling a fully loaded F-35C airborne.

Their original requirement was for a smaller EMALS than the ones fitted to the Fords. My ex-employers quoted it before selling off the whole EMALS division elsewhere and losing interest in that field. 

[ysi_maniac]

Sovietized Victorious



Perhaps you can help me: Would it have any meaning, such weird conbination of radars, antenae, sensors, etc...?

[ysi_maniac]

Clemenceau/Foch with superstructure from fregate Suffren (I love that bulb )

First is scaloramed to equal length. Suitable to be built with the models Hellet produced under label "Cadet'

Second in constant scale



https://app.photobucket.com/u/ysi_maniac/a/1e375ab6-24f2-4acb-b799-4c19e793f76b

[ysi_maniac]

Sovietized Victorious

Just to give you an idea

[dy031101]

Recently I've been toying with the idea of jet-capable ships based on RP1's drawing and the below.



Excerpt from RP1's note on her drawing:

I think that, if room is left for workshops (i.e. the aircraft can be supported, not just operated), then it is possible to fit 5 * 583V and 1 * Sea King in the hangar, or 5 * Sea Harrier in the hangar, or  6 * VJ-101 in the hangar.  In the latter two the SK would have to stay on deck...... some shuffling would be needed to maintain operations......

I thus took the aft half of Chakri Naruebet as a starting point, but with Yak-141 in mind:



The starting size is about 134.5 ft x 78 ft (excluding the elevator).  It will be enlarged as I wish to incorporate at least one helicopter into the accommodation rather than keeping it on the flight deck.  Due to my lack of imaginations, though, I have two questions:

1. How much of extra space should I set aside for workshops?  The scope of flight operations is confined to going after maritime patrol aircraft.

2. Do you see aircraft-shuffling doable (since, as with RP1 regarding her drawing, there is only one elevator and the Yak-141 fortunately has folding wings)?

Thanks in advance.