Shipbucket

The decision to go with either CATOBAR or STOVL was not an easy one, and in the end after evaluating British documents on the CVF development I decided to go with STOVL, but with catapults fitted to launch AWACS. I tend not to think too much about what convinced me to that decision because it had me in doubt a lot of times, but in the end it must have been the claimed higher sortie rates, and that STOVL aircraft are slowly closing in on conventional ones in terms of capability, whereas the first STOVL aircraft were evidently not as capable.

Compared to a CATOBAR, a STOVL with arrestor wires would have the following advantages:
-A larger airwing (more parking space on deck)
-A potentially higher sortie rate (more landing spots and more takeoff spots, except when the CATOBAR aircraft need to be launched\recovered)
-More versatility as to staging forward airbases

And these disadvantages:
-less capacity for CATOBAR airplanes
-less capable STOVL planes are the primary aircraft

A lot of the other advantages and disadvantages come down to cost efficiency. For an easier comparison, I estimated both types to cost the same for the desired capability.

I just went to look at the possibility of going with both a catapult up front and a ski-jump, which would have been a great option considering this position does not obstruct the runway. Unfortunately though, the wing span of the AWACS is rather wide and as of such this option is not possible.

As I was about to finish this post, Ace joined in with some good advice again, which I'll adress immediatly. I agree with you, it was much more difficult than I thought it would be. You wouldn't believe all the things I scribbled down on notepaper before I actually went to start this. Carriers may be difficult but they are so vital to my fleet's strategy ICly, and I just love planning them out. It's a challenge I guess; I just had to draw one.

I will look at each of your points tomorrow and see how to adress them. Two things I already noticed are indeed clearance of the landing deck and personnel access. But tomorrow is a new day.

the best idea for all you are doubted about is using an existing design and try things out with that. if you understand why an layout is like that, you are ready to do large modifications, and if you get that working you can do an ground up.

and well, that is basically how both designing and real shipbuilding works

Andorianus wrote:I wasn't certain if it would, but I did think about it. The attack aircraft you see here is based upon an existing aircraft so it can't suddenly switch to jet engines; I will have to think about either forgoing stealth or changing to a newly designed aircraft powered by high-bypass turbofans. A couter-rotating propeller definately can't be good for stealth, but is it bad enough to absolutely ruin it? Would a ducted fan help maybe?

I would like to see what this existing aircraft is. And yes, it would spoil it, or at least it throws in an engineering complication that's unnecessary. I'd stick to turbofan engines.

I would like to see what this existing aircraft is.

Specially for klagldsf, I drew the version history of the attack aircraft. V1 on the left, followed by V2 and the new aircraft which is now more loosely based upon the previous versions (I intended the newest plane to be like the V2 but with a different "skin", but it turned out more different from the V2 in the same way as Predator C is different from Predator B).

I also worked on the carrier a lot but there still is quite a bit that needs to be done. Does anyone have references on how crew access lanes are done on other carriers? I could not find much on this part. The island and maintenence area will also be redone shortly, as I want to integrate them more closely, in the hope it will leave just a bit more parking space on deck and a VLS position that does not obstruct the approach lanes.

Also going to redo the AWACS\tanker.

EDIT: As I just figured out, Majhost does not upload an image that shares the same name with a previous image. I'll see if I can remedy this.
EDIT2: Fixed

if you have permanent deck parck, you are not laying out your carrier efficiently.
personel acces is done by an walkaround at the flight deck edge (and by some hatches, but that is mostly emergency)

if you have permanent deck parck, you are not laying out your carrier efficiently.

This is a good point, ideally the space would overlap with the launching spots. But I can not find too much other use for the space on deck and I believe there are already enough launch\recovery areas and elevators. If you have any advice on what to do with this, I'd like to know. Please note that not all deck parking is permanent however; for example, the parking spots overlapping landing spot 6, landing spot 3, the part labeled "3 jets here", and the seemingly empty area at landing spot 5, are all flexible parking spots.

Is the gallery deck all I need for crew access lanes? Are there no corridors on deck or anything? That helps a lot.