00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

[Blitzo]

The translation was just ChatGPT with minor edits, haha.

It’s probably because the blueprint happened to exist, and the use of it as a "size floor". They made a similar estimate for a future CV, for which the CV-67 would be a suitable basis. The conclusion here is much simpler: to have a more efficient CV, its size needs to be bigger. (pictured below is plan for a 326m carrier, probably in the 90k tons class)

I just found it odd that they chose to use CV-67 as a base to start off with, I wondered if there was some meaning to it.
I suppose if it's because they happened to find a CV-67 schematic then it makes sense.

Incidentally, on the matter of how a future CV may look like in terms of deck configuration, assuming something that is 90k tons (a bit smaller than a CVN), I actually think having the two starboard elevators positioned so there is one in front of the island and one behind the island would make a bit more sense.
The idea being that you don't want the forward elevator to be directly adjacent to a catapult launch position, assuming a three elevator setup with two starboard and one port (adapting their image, something like below)
It would also mean the island and smokestack would naturally be in a more central hull position closer to the main powerplant.

 

[00CuriousObserver]

I just found it odd that they chose to use CV-67 as a base to start off with, I wondered if there was some meaning to it.
I suppose if it's because they happened to find a CV-67 schematic then it makes sense.

Incidentally, on the matter of how a future CV may look like in terms of deck configuration, assuming something that is 90k tons (a bit smaller than a CVN), I actually think having the two starboard elevators positioned so there is one in front of the island and one behind the island would make a bit more sense.
The idea being that you don't want the forward elevator to be directly adjacent to a catapult launch position, assuming a three elevator setup with two starboard and one port (adapting their image, something like below)
It would also mean the island and smokestack would naturally be in a more central hull position closer to the main powerplant.

He placed a great importance on the parking area in front of the island. So like shown below, but also includes some of area in front of the 1&2 catapults

 

[Blitzo]

He placed a great importance on the parking area in front of the island. So like shown below, but also includes some of area in front of the 1&2 catapults

Yes, the area forward of the islands is quite important for aircraft to spot and taxi forwards during cyclical operations for a launch cycle, though from what I've read, being able to use the elevators during a launch cycle is fairly important as well.

Though one difference between the Nimitz vs Ford comparison in terms of available flight deck area, is that the Ford redesign opens up more total flight deck area on the total starboard side inclusive of the bow/amidships and aft continuously, while the CV configuration is a bit less obvious in benefit.

The total in green would be the starboard continuous flight deck area removed behind the bow catapults and not overlapping onto the landing strip, with yellow and blue lines indicating separation between "zones". But the orange area is also somewhat relevant as those spaces would likely be in play for bow catapult launches in a launch cycle (where the landing strip and waist catapults would be in use for taxiing aircraft and launching aircraft with the bow catapults anyhow).


That said, it's only a minor observation, but for the specific flight deck geometry depicted, I suspect if the benefits of a non-bow catapult adjacent elevator might be worth the slight loss of flight deck acreage if one was looking at only "forward of the island" (with the change being far smaller if it was configured ala Nimitz to Ford, where neither of the configurations for those classes had a bow elevator that was fully adjacent to the bow catapult).