Reply to thread

Message

I agree. I would guess that the reason is that most of the aircraft envisaged for these ships would be either helicopters or Osprey variants that can't really benefit from barrier landings. Only the Carrier Dock Aviation (CDV) and CDVlong (a stretched version of CDV) would carry fixed-wing fighters, and CDVlong would have had a reverse-angle through-deck arrangement that could even handle fixed-wing aircraft to a limited degree. In any case, these were seen mainly as support carriers, removing ASW aircraft from the big carriers to free space for more strike aircraft.

In one of the other briefs I have on this concept, the author shows a bunch of alternative flight deck arrangements:

no superstructure and full-length flight deck
no superstructure but only a partial flight deck
side island superstructure
STOVL deck forward, VTOL pad aft
large (multi-spot) VTOL deck aft
VTOL pads fore and aft
VTOL pad aft only

Sadly, no explanation is given for why the STOVL forward option was chosen.

<blockquote data-quote="TomS" data-source="post: 87727" data-attributes="member: 1484">I agree.&nbsp; I would guess that the reason is that most of the aircraft envisaged for these ships would be either helicopters or Osprey variants that can't really benefit from barrier landings.&nbsp; Only the Carrier Dock Aviation (CDV) and CDVlong (a stretched version of CDV) would carry fixed-wing fighters, and CDVlong would have had a reverse-angle through-deck arrangement that could even handle fixed-wing aircraft to a limited degree.&nbsp; In any case, these were seen mainly as support carriers, removing ASW aircraft from the big carriers to free space for more strike aircraft. In one of the other briefs I have on this concept, the author shows a bunch of alternative flight deck arrangements: no superstructure and full-length flight deckno superstructure but only a partial flight deckside island superstructureSTOVL deck forward, VTOL pad aftlarge (multi-spot) VTOL deck aftVTOL pads fore and aftVTOL pad aft onlySadly, no explanation is given for why the STOVL forward option was chosen.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TomS, post: 87727, member: 1484"] I agree. I would guess that the reason is that most of the aircraft envisaged for these ships would be either helicopters or Osprey variants that can't really benefit from barrier landings. Only the Carrier Dock Aviation (CDV) and CDVlong (a stretched version of CDV) would carry fixed-wing fighters, and CDVlong would have had a reverse-angle through-deck arrangement that could even handle fixed-wing aircraft to a limited degree. In any case, these were seen mainly as support carriers, removing ASW aircraft from the big carriers to free space for more strike aircraft. In one of the other briefs I have on this concept, the author shows a bunch of alternative flight deck arrangements: no superstructure and full-length flight deck no superstructure but only a partial flight deck side island superstructure STOVL deck forward, VTOL pad aft large (multi-spot) VTOL deck aft VTOL pads fore and aft VTOL pad aft only Sadly, no explanation is given for why the STOVL forward option was chosen. [/QUOTE]

Verification