After "Landing on" deck for WWII carriers, good or bad?

I had a crazy thought, and decided to share it here (don't I always), and here it is:

Could an elevated "Landing on" deck be practicle for the stern of a carrier?
I am wondering if a steel frame with a wooden deck could allow for launching and recovery at the same time without negating the deck park?

I have no idea, so am asking. I realize that there will be issues with an elevated after deck, including stack gasses, stability, extra elevators, and extra 'sail' area. All that being so, could such a thing be worth it, or total trash?
 
Are you implying a second (landing-on) deck above the regular (take-off) deck?

This would allow simultaneous take-offs and landings.
If you overshot the landing, would you grind to a halt on the forecastle or in the drink?
A higher aft deck poses the same stability problems as DDH 280 destroyer escorts. Iroquois Class DDHs have a huge, aluminum hangar, large enough for a pair if Sikorsky CH-124 Sea King helicopters. They were the second RCN class of ships fitted with Bear Trap haul-down systems. And they really needed haul-down systems in rough, North Atlantic weather. In strong winds and rough seas, they role 45 degrees! Attaching messenger cables was always a challenge when rolling that hard. Even walking on the deck, with your hands full of tie-down chains or fuel hose was a challenge! Once I fell on the wet deck and slid all the way to the gunwale! Good thing we had nets!
Oh! And there is that little problem with the occasional broken landing gear leg!

Master Corporal R. Warner, CD, BA, etc.
HMCS Athabaskan Helairdet 1980
HMCS Iroquois Helairdet 1984 and 1985
 
Are you implying a second (landing-on) deck above the regular (take-off) deck?
Yes. I know there was a better way to put it, but didn't know how to say it.

This would allow simultaneous take-offs and landings.
If you overshot the landing, would you grind to a halt on the forecastle or in the drink?
I wonder what would be the design choice if such a deck were tried, standard barrier or something more solid to prevent falling onto the flight deck from above?


A higher aft deck poses the same stability problems as DDH 280 destroyer escorts. Iroquois Class DDHs have a huge, aluminum hangar, large enough for a pair if Sikorsky CH-124 Sea King helicopters. They were the second RCN class of ships fitted with Bear Trap haul-down systems. And they really needed haul-down systems in rough, North Atlantic weather. In strong winds and rough seas, they role 45 degrees! Attaching messenger cables was always a challenge when rolling that hard. Even walking on the deck, with your hands full of tie-down chains or fuel hose was a challenge! Once I fell on the wet deck and slid all the way to the gunwale! Good thing we had nets!
Oh! And there is that little problem with the occasional broken landing gear leg!

Master Corporal R. Warner, CD, BA, etc.
HMCS Athabaskan Helairdet 1980
HMCS Iroquois Helairdet 1984 and 1985
It sounds, Sir, like you were in it! Have any good stories to share?
 
History showed both the Royal Navy and Imperial Japanese Navy tried something like that (HMS Furious, Courageous, Glorious after complete reconstruction into carriers in the late 1920's as well as Kaga and Akagi around the same time.) Both soon deleted the landing on deck and used it for parking and flying off aircraft as well, deleting the lower flying off decks, as these were either too short, or taking away too much valuambel hangar space later on, resulting in the rebuilding of the Japanese carriers mentioned.
 
History showed both the Royal Navy and Imperial Japanese Navy tried something like that (HMS Furious, Courageous, Glorious after complete reconstruction into carriers in the late 1920's as well as Kaga and Akagi around the same time.) Both soon deleted the landing on deck and used it for parking and flying off aircraft as well, deleting the lower flying off decks, as these were either too short, or taking away too much valuable hangar space later on, resulting in the rebuilding of the Japanese carriers mentioned.
I had thought that the Japanese ships had a lower "flying off" deck, beneath the flight deck, and had problems as stated and also were not usable in heavy seas?

My idea would be like that, sort of, but picture the carrier with a full length flight deck as normal, but then, in the stern, a second, higher, landing on deck, to avoid impacting the deck park and hanger decks, while allowing the main deck to be built high enough to avoid much of the problem of heavy seas.

Obviously, this wouldn’t work for the UK if they wanted to armor the ‘landing on’ deck, but what if they just armored the flight deck and built the ‘landing on’ deck like the US carriers did, which IIUC, were just wooden platforms.

With these differences, would this type of thing be able to work? Or still to top heavy and complicated? For moving planes from LO deck to lower decks, I was thinking the ‘deck edge’ elevators used on one of the US carrier (Ranger or Wasp, I can’t remember which). Would this save enough weight to be practical? Also, if this could be gotten to a workable point, would it be better if such deck edge elevators could deliver newly landed planes directly to the flight and hanger decks, or just one or the other?
 
Last edited:
My idea would be like that, sort of, but picture the carrier with a full length flight deck as normal, but then, in the stern, a second, higher, landing on deck, to avoid impacting the deck park and hanger decks, while allowing the main deck to be built high enough to avoid much of the problem of heavy seas.
I think all that really does is turn the forward end of the main deck into a "flying off deck" and turn the aft end (which you now can't land on because of the supports for the "landing on" deck) into an open-structured hangar, essentially replicating Akagi or Furious' OTL layout with a bit more of an American-style unenclosed hangar. It might have some minor advantages over the fully enclosed and armored hangars of, Akagi or Furious in terms of topweight, but like those you're already starting off in a pretty serious hole--unless you have a load of tonnnage, my impression is that double-stacked hangars are either short and barely achievable without killing topweight or tall enough for most airplanes and inturn nearly impossible to pull off. And then, of course, you have the same deck-length compromise between getting planes landed solidly on the LO deck while also having room to get off of the FO deck.
 
I think all that really does is turn the forward end of the main deck into a "flying off deck" and turn the aft end (which you now can't land on because of the supports for the "landing on" deck) into an open-structured hangar, essentially replicating Akagi or Furious' OTL layout with a bit more of an American-style unenclosed hangar. It might have some minor advantages over the fully enclosed and armored hangars of, Akagi or Furious in terms of top weight, but like those you're already starting off in a pretty serious hole--unless you have a load of tonnage, my impression is that double-stacked hangars are either short and barely achievable without killing top weight or tall enough for most airplanes and in turn nearly impossible to pull off. And then, of course, you have the same deck-length compromise between getting planes landed solidly on the LO deck while also having room to get off of the FO deck.
You could be right, and I have to agree that this crazy idea isn't going to be something anyone would want to try on a CVE or CVL type ship, so for the USA, just the Lexington class of pre-war carriers seem likely to have had the needed tonnage to even try this without risking the ships stability, or at the very least, try it out on them, and if they cannot handle the extra top weight, don't even think about considering trying it on a smaller hull.

Another thought, is what if this were initially retrofitted to existing carriers, with the design deliberately allowing for the quickest removal possible if the idea doesn't work out?

What improvements could be achieved (if any) by designing the ship from the keel up with the idea of an elevated LO deck?

Also, could the ELO be wider than the flight deck, as it doesn't have to conform to the hull? Would this potentially open up the rear of the flight deck to serve as historically (in terms of a deck park only), I wouldn't want to even think about trying to land a plane on what would amount to the lower level of a parking structure, and this a moving parking structure at that. Bow goes up, stern goes down, and I get a close encounter with the underside of the ELO deck. :eek:
 
So here is a crappy image, not made of the lexington class (cause I don't have such a drawing of those), but gives the general idea. Note the height of the ELO and the stack. I would think that this would need fixing, but hey.

ELO.bmp


I'll do the Lexington class, if someone can put a drawing of them up, or a link to such a drawing.
 
Last edited:
So here is a crappy image, not made of the lexington class (cause I don't have such a drawing of those), but gives the general idea. Note the height of the ELO and the stack. I would think that this would need fixing, but hey.

ELO.bmp


I'll do the Lexington class, if someone can put a drawing of them up, or a link to such a drawing.
Based upon the image above, and keeping in mind that the flight and ELO decks are wooden, could such a system have been workable for 1920's bi-planes? What about WWII (1930's and 1940's) aircraft?
I would also posit between 1 or 2 of the USS Wasp like deck edge aircraft elevators positioned near the front of the 'elevated landing on' deck on each side, depending on their capacity to keep up with landing aircraft. Rather, depending on the capacity of half the elevators to keep up with landing operations in training exercises, so as to be able to keep up even if one or more elevators were out of service.

754px-USS_Wasp_%28CV-7%29_deck_edge_elevator_with_SB2U_1940.jpg



In order to make use of the rear areas of the OTL flight deck, for a usable deck park, overhead clearence would have to allow for aircraft wings to fold and unfold.

800px-VT-6TBDs.jpg


Overhead view of Yorktown class flight deck and regular elevator layout.

Yorktown%20class%20flight%20deck.GIF


So the proposed "Elevated Landing On" deck would be built above the flight deck, basically from the stern to the stack.

Any thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Shadow Master said:
So here is a crappy image, not made of the lexington class (cause I don't have such a drawing of those), but gives the general idea. Note the height of the ELO and the stack. I would think that this would need fixing, but hey.

ELO.bmp


I'll do the Lexington class, if someone can put a drawing of them up, or a link to such a drawing.
Can you link that? I'm getting a "no image" box.:eek:

I'm also wondering why anybody would want to do this. The angled deck is simpler...
 
Can you link that? I'm getting a "no image" box.:eek:

I'm also wondering why anybody would want to do this. The angled deck is simpler...
Which ones are you not seeing the image for? In your post, I see the image, so I wonder if anyone else is not seeing the images.

I am thinking for the time frame of 1920-end of WWII, and this as an earlier (and more primitive) alternative to the angled flight deck.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The down sides vastly outweigh any up side. It would still be far to hazardous to operate a deck park under the elevated deck (imagine the carnage that a ramp strike could cause) and even if you did so the number of aircraft that could be staged would be considerably lower.
 
The down sides vastly outweigh any up side. It would still be far to hazardous to operate a deck park under the elevated deck (imagine the carnage that a ramp strike could cause)
I need to ask: "Ramp Strike" as in a crash landing, or bomb hits?

Also CalBear, can you tell me if you see all the images in my posts? The guy above my last post said that he couldn't see the image in his quote, but I still saw it.:(

and even if you did so the number of aircraft that could be staged would be considerably lower.
I have heard that twice now, and I still don't 'see' it. Why would the aft flight deck not still have the same, or at least very close to, the same utility as a deck park space wise? If the support for the ELO needed to be solid along the edge of the flightdeck, then that would definately affect the number of planes that could be staged as mentioned, but I was thinking more along the lines of a few heavy, well seperated, verticle supports, and then the under framework for the ELO. And these verticle supports being outboard of the OTL flightdeck. No go for reasons unknown (to me, anyway:p), but clear to others that know more?:D

I guess I could attempt to find this SpringSharp site I have heard of, and see if I can figure out how to use it. And then try out my idea there, if such a thing could even input into the program, and then I'll know, lol.

Thanks.
 
I need to ask: "Ramp Strike" as in a crash landing, or bomb hits?

"A ramp strike is a when an aircraft coming to land aboard an aircraft carrier impacts the rear of the carrier, also called the ramp, below the level of the flight deck."

Basically, when a plane misses low, the aircraft would fly under the "landing on" deck and crash right into the spotted aircraft underneath, unless the rear end of the deck is enclosed and structurally reinforced, which would require the same weight and strength as a hangar. In which case you're just even moreso re-inventing the "flying off deck" arrangement of Furious/Akagi IOTL, except even higher off the water and with even worse results for stability.

Also CalBear, can you tell me if you see all the images in my posts? The guy above my last post said that he couldn't see the image in his quote, but I still saw it.:(
I see them at home but not at work or my phone. Something's up with your hosting.
 
I need to ask: "Ramp Strike" as in a crash landing, or bomb hits?

Also CalBear, can you tell me if you see all the images in my posts? The guy above my last post said that he couldn't see the image in his quote, but I still saw it.:(

I have heard that twice now, and I still don't 'see' it. Why would the aft flight deck not still have the same, or at least very close to, the same utility as a deck park space wise? If the support for the ELO needed to be solid along the edge of the flightdeck, then that would definately affect the number of planes that could be staged as mentioned, but I was thinking more along the lines of a few heavy, well seperated, verticle supports, and then the under framework for the ELO. And these verticle supports being outboard of the OTL flightdeck. No go for reasons unknown (to me, anyway:p), but clear to others that know more?:D

I guess I could attempt to find this SpringSharp site I have heard of, and see if I can figure out how to use it. And then try out my idea there, if such a thing could even input into the program, and then I'll know, lol.

Thanks.

Springsharp's not really idealized for carrier sims, but yeah, it'll let you do a bit of playing around.
 
It's all of them for me (but I've been having such widespread problems seeing images on Bing...:rolleyes:) I specifically wanted to see your notional Lex.
 
Just an FYI but Springsharp's not a site it's a program that you download onto your computer. It's a great resource for playing around with warship design but it's optimized for certain kinds of ships and is, in any case, only a simulation.
 
So thinking on this a little more, the landing-on deck is going to slow recovery operations.

With a full-length deck, you land aft, taxi forward, and get parked. The guy behind you comes in shortly after and does the same.

With a landing-on deck, there's no room for that. You land, you taxi to the lift, it goes down, you move on, the lift goes back up, then the next guy can come in.

That means more aircraft circling uselessly overhead, burning fuel, with the carrier spending more time committed to steaming into the wind at flank speed.
 
"A ramp strike is a when an aircraft coming to land aboard an aircraft carrier impacts the rear of the carrier, also called the ramp, below the level of the flight deck."

Basically, when a plane misses low, the aircraft would fly under the "landing on" deck and crash right into the spotted aircraft underneath, unless the rear end of the deck is enclosed and structurally reinforced, which would require the same weight and strength as a hangar. In which case you're just even moreso re-inventing the "flying off deck" arrangement of Furious/Akagi IOTL, except even higher off the water and with even worse results for stability.

I see them at home but not at work or my phone. Something's up with your hosting.
Well, that probably kills off the "Stern Elevator" idea I was going to mention next, then. I don't know anything about carrier operations, as might be noted by my lack of familiarty with the term "Ramp Strike", but I was under the impression that during landing operations some form of 'barrier' would be raised, to catch a landing aircraft that either missed the arrestor wire or suffered a broken tail hook.

It's all of them for me (but I've been having such widespread problems seeing images on Bing...:rolleyes:) I specifically wanted to see your notional Lex.

Ah. Nothing really great, as all I did was take a drawing and copy paste the after portion of a yorktown class flightdeck, in a second, higher, 'elevated landing on' deck, and left it at that as a crude means to get accross the basics of the idea.

I am using dropbox for the images, on a windows XP computer.:(

Just an FYI but Springsharp's not a site it's a program that you download onto your computer. It's a great resource for playing around with warship design but it's optimized for certain kinds of ships and is, in any case, only a simulation.
Yep, I just discovered that, and the fact I need a much more complete level of knowledge about the proposed ships to even begin to make use of it, dang it!:mad::cool:

I suspect, though, that my crazy idea is not something that can even be simulated, as it is far 'outside the box', and I don't see version 2.1 doing it for me, unfortunately.
 
Last edited:
So thinking on this a little more, the landing-on deck is going to slow recovery operations.

With a full-length deck, you land aft, taxi forward, and get parked. The guy behind you comes in shortly after and does the same.

With a landing-on deck, there's no room for that. You land, you taxi to the lift, it goes down, you move on, the lift goes back up, then the next guy can come in.

That means more aircraft circling uselessly overhead, burning fuel, with the carrier spending more time committed to steaming into the wind at flank speed.
Ah. I don't know if this would be the case, though, unless the landing area needs to extend all the way to the rear of the stacks, which is where I was thinking the ELO would end.

My thinking was that the carriers had a barrier that would be raised and lowered to allow succesfully recovered planes to cross it, then raised again as the first plane moved forward to prevent the guy behind from making a mess of things. Also, I was thinking that for this idea, one would not access the ELO with standard 'interior' (for lack of a better term) AC elevators, but have at lease one matched pair of 'deck edge' elevators ala USS Wasp, and perhaps 2 such pairs for built in redundancy.

Would a 'taxi' area be possible, were the ELO to be extended to the forward edge of the island? So basically, everything aft of the stacks being the landing area, and then everything beside the island being the area to transit to the flight & hanger decks?
 
Top