ATL USN carriers.

Some ideas for alternate pre-WWII aircraft carriers.
So, pictured below are a pair of carrier drawings. The first {top} picture is of OTL Yorktown class USN carriers, while the second {Bottom} picture is a badly done concept of what I want to have a discussion about.






yorktownclassflightdeck.gif






yorktownclassflightdeck.gif



The second image is for a much improved Yorktown class, with either 5 larger that OTL aircraft elevators pictured, or 8 OTL sized elevators and one larger one at the stern. The concept is another one of my half-baked ideas, namely that the USA decides to experiment with underway {full speed} recovery of seaplanes by tenders equipped with a sea-level stern mounted aircraft elevator. These experiments would probably start with the modification of a Langley type carrier, but if successful, then get included on fleet carriers. This in turn then leading to the adaptation of edge of flight deck aircraft elevators instead on ones like OTL.

The hoped for result is that the carriers air wing now can be shuttled back and forth between the flight and hanger decks three or so times faster than OTL, and that the USN can operate limited numbers of very long range {compared to OTL carrier borne aircraft} scout wings, and that this in turn leads to the development of some interesting experiments to make a submersible seaplane tender to offer forward deployable refueling capabilities for the PBY-type carrier borne seaplanes.

I tentatively have in mind the USN building the first two Yorktown class as OTL, but then, in 1936 ordering a second pair {as opposed to just the USS Hornet in 1939}, in response to the Japanese repudiation of the London Naval treaty in 1935. This second pair would be the version I envisioned above. Unless of course, someone else can give a better/more realistic and entertaining ATL carrier.
What does this do for the future of carrier design up to and throughout the war? How about post war?
Any interest in this set of ideas?

 
Last edited:
Sorry, I had some problems with image shack, and then had to get a paper written. Now that the images are looking like they are going to be ok, any thoughts?
 
First off, a disclaimer: I am not, nor pretend to be an expert on ship design.

Having said this, I'll venture to ask about the stability of this ship. I see you doubled the island and added all those AA mounts. Plus those 8 elevators(?) on the side and the one in front. I can't imagine all this helps ship stability. Why the large island BTW? What is inside?

Additionally, TBH, the ship looks a bit ugly from above...
 
First off, a disclaimer: I am not, nor pretend to be an expert on ship design.
Not to worry, I'm not either, lol.

Having said this, I'll venture to ask about the stability of this ship. I see you doubled the island and added all those AA mounts. Why the large island BTW? What is inside?.
I look at modern carriers and wonder the same thing.
I read somewhere that todays carriers needed to have more room for the airgroups command and control capabilities, or some such thing, and that there was some thought about having two seperate 'islands', one for conning the ship, and the other for the airgroup.

Plus those 8 elevators(?) on the side and the one in front. I can't imagine all this helps ship stability.

I wanted to get a justification for the 'edge-of-deck' elevators to take place pre war, and the large elevator in the stern was the chosen birdge. Esentially, once you have one elevator at the end {edge} of the flight deck, this then sparkes the idea to move the other elevators to something like modern carriers elevators arrangement.

Additionally, TBH, the ship looks a bit ugly from above...
It sure does.:mad:

Any thoughts on what these carriers would have been good for in the war? They would probably displace something quite close to the Lexington class carriers, but would not really carry more aircraft than the OTL Yorktown class carriers. They would just be able to move them around quite a bit faster. That and be able to roost a PBY or 2 for long range recon.
 
Last edited:
Waaaaaay too many elevators - each creates a weakpoint and besides they'd (theoretically) move so many aircraft at the same time that you'd end up with traffic jam on deck...
 
Experience has proved that small islands are best. Also there is no need for so many lift. In those days navies ranged a strike for takeoff and topped it up from planes bought up from the hangar, but not many compared to the deck range. Having 9 lifts isn't going to make any positive difference. Nor do I think you can have a lift at the stern although don't quote me on that.
 
Elevators, even oputboard ones, take up quite some internal space, otherwise dedicated to storage of aircraft. Two or three is the logical number on any sort of CV, other than a super carrier with a flightdeck of more than 300 meters. (And even then an angled flightdeck is a must, as the elevators will otherwise obstruct fligthoperations, unless you intend to use VSTOL.)

All those deckedge elevators increase topheavyness, as does the far too large island. The hull simply is too small to mount this on, as the ship is in serious danger of flipping over when wind is comming from the side. Better would be to drasically reduce the island, or have no island at all as compensation for the wish to put all elevators on the side. (If you don't want to increase the hull itself.)

There also are far too many sponsons in the midship area, suggested to be intrended for 40mm quads. (Which at the time Yorktown was designed did not exist.) This increase in surface of the hull above the water, adds to instability seriously, as long as no counter is created below the waterline. Removing all sponsons woudl help a bit but leave the carrier less able to defend itself. Perhaps this can be compensated as in today's CVBG's, where the CV itself hardly has defenses of her own and has to rely on escorting warships for protection.
 
Just a thought - if you add torpedo buklges under the water line that would counter a little of the "TOP WEIGHT", provide torpedo protection but probably slow down the ship considerably.

Get rid of the front elevators (at least), but 1-2 outboard elevtors might work. 1-2 - opposite the island

Island has to be smaller (said before).

IMHO - too many guns - logistic to keep them supplied with ammo must be hell.
 
The hoped for result is that the carriers air wing now can be shuttled back and forth between the flight and hanger decks three or so times faster than OTL, and that the USN can operate limited numbers of very long range {compared to OTL carrier borne aircraft} scout wings, and that this in turn leads to the development of some interesting experiments to make a submersible seaplane tender to offer forward deployable refueling capabilities for the PBY-type carrier borne seaplanes.

Carrying seaplanes will just cut into the other services that typical carrier provides to the battle group. This drawback would have become evident in the naval wargames and would have been abandoned. The design and upkeep of such a waterline elevator would be interesting, but useless tonnage loss.
 
I may be completely wrong, but wasn't it USN practice to stow and service most active aircraft on the flight deck, with the hangar deck used mainly for major repairs and to house "spare" aircraft, etc? If so, what really is the advantage of so many offset hangars? Also, I really don't get the extra large island. It doesn't seem necessary, might affect stability, and would present a hindrance to flight operations.
 
feels a lot like an IJN design philosophy with the same drawback, pack as much as you can into a given hull, then watch it capsize in a moderate wind.

I doubt if torpedo bulges would affect the top hamper effect, too much potential sail area.

Amongst other issues, until the 40mm and 5/6 inch HA with proximity fuze are availably in numbers the defence of a carrier depends a lot on mobility, and dodging incoming attacks. a lot of 1930's light AA will not help with this and really add nothing to defence against the main threat to a carrier - either dive bombing or a sub.

Increasing the elevator cycle time is only one component of the. The US issue was less launching a/c than coordinating different squadrons and carriers once they were in the air. That the US had in the acceptable column, their view being that getting a strike off fast was more important than getting it off big.
 
I may be completely wrong, but wasn't it USN practice to stow and service most active aircraft on the flight deck, with the hangar deck used mainly for major repairs and to house "spare" aircraft, etc?

IIRC it's only true for jet-era. Before that planes had to be stowed in hangars, because otherwise you ended up with damaged aircrafts' propellers every time wind picked up too much.
 
Amongst other issues, until the 40mm and 5/6 inch HA with proximity fuze are availably in numbers the defence of a carrier depends a lot on mobility, and dodging incoming attacks. a lot of 1930's light AA will not help with this and really add nothing to defence against the main threat to a carrier - either dive bombing or a sub.
What about Oerlikon/Hispano 20mm autocannons?
 
Three major problems at first glance.

Way too many elevators - they take up weight, space, have to be maintained, and are weak spots. Its pointles as there is a limiting factor due to how fast the ordnance can come up on the ammo lifts and get fitted to the planes. To do this any faster needs a LOT more crews - where are they going to live?

The island will make the ship horribly unstable. Even with the OTL WW2 sizes, and bulges and assymetric design and fuel storage et al there were problems. In any case, a WW2-era ship doesnt need a huge hangar. The only thing that wasnt alowed for in the RN and USN designs was space for an Ops room, and they managed these OK. A long island causes problems with the airflw over the flight deck (NOT a trivial problem), and you only have an axial deck, so its going to get nasty. Even with modern designs, the idea is two small islands rather than one huge one.

All those AA guns look cool, but they are concentrated in two areas. Given the poor local control of light AA until the end of the war, there were actually practical advantages in having it all over the ship where it would fit. Adding more light AA has two problems. First, where are you going to store the ammo and the extra gun crews, second why is there a complete revision on prewar USN AA doctrine (USN AA was usually a lot lighter than RN designs, at least up until 1942). Changes in doctrine dont just 'happen', they are driven either by direct analysis of battles or much infighting that goes on for years.
In fact the light AA design of your ships is poor in location, in that its all optimised for a direct beam attack, which was rarely done. Dive bombers attack down the ship. Even torpedo planes rarely attacks from directly on the beam (ideally they would do a hammer and anvil).
 
IIRC it's only true for jet-era. Before that planes had to be stowed in hangars, because otherwise you ended up with damaged aircrafts' propellers every time wind picked up too much.
I do not believe your information is accurate.
During WWII, the normal US navy practice was to keep the bulk of the aircraft on the flight deck. The hanger deck was used for maintenance and "overflow" when they needed more elbow room on the flight deck.
Remember, when operating, a prop is moving through the air FAR faster than any wind speed ever recorded on this planet.

You may have gotten confused information from the normal practice of securing flight surfaces (rudders, flaps) so a wind-gust doesn't attempt to articulate the surface.

Tim
 
IIRC it's only true for jet-era. Before that planes had to be stowed in hangars, because otherwise you ended up with damaged aircrafts' propellers every time wind picked up too much.

I'm not sure if the propellers would allowed to feather when the plane was in storage. If the wind picked up too much I think you would have to worry about damage to the wings or tail before the propeller.
 
IIRC it's only true for jet-era. Before that planes had to be stowed in hangars, because otherwise you ended up with damaged aircrafts' propellers every time wind picked up too much.


Sorry, this is incorrent. Aircraft were stowed on deck regularly, things like outriggers and so on were specifically designed to allow this.
Their was more wear and damage to aircraft stored this way, hence the reason the RN normally didnt employ a deck park (the worse weather the RN operational areas usually had was also a factor in this), but that is basically a consequence of leaving an aircraft out in the weather, nothing more.
 
So ok, nobody likes the elevators. Next question is where to put the lesser numbers of elevators everyone is calling for. I want to keep edge-of-deck, but if not the four locations originally posited, then where?

The Island, I could see not enlarging it, but cannot really see cutting it to less than OTL size in top image. I only made it bigger because I read that the midway class couldn't handle all the planes {about 130 IIRC} that they carried, and just assumed that this was because of lack of space. My bad. AFAIK, the yorktown class carriers didn't have any issues with the islands they had {although, I might be mistaken about that too, lol} so I don't see the need to "Drastically reduce" the size of the island below the OTL size.

As for the AA, I have to agree that just having them in the imdship section is not right, but I was too lazy to cut and paste them in the rest of the 4 positions. Besides, I thought for sure someone was going to suggest adding the extra guns at some point, so I could just wait till they were requested.;)

The disappointing {for me} aspect of the thread so far is the {almost} complete lack of comment on the seaplane elevator. Does anyone have any input to share on this? At the least, I would want to have experiments with such an elevator, if for no other reason than to be able to butterfly in the edge-of-deck postioining of the other elevators years before OTL.

On the whole, it looks like my proposed changes to the yorktown class are not finding a favorable reception, lol. That being the case, can anyone give me some ideas for improvements that fall short of the Essex class, but still represent an improvement over the Yorktowns?
 
So ok, nobody likes the elevators. Next question is where to put the lesser numbers of elevators everyone is calling for. I want to keep edge-of-deck, but if not the four locations originally posited, then where?

How about where you have them now but half the size?

Or if you go down to three, then unless you have some foresight in the angled deck then forward of the island port and starboard and aft the island starboard?
 
The disappointing {for me} aspect of the thread so far is the {almost} complete lack of comment on the seaplane elevator. Does anyone have any input to share on this? At the least, I would want to have experiments with such an elevator, if for no other reason than to be able to butterfly in the edge-of-deck postioining of the other elevators years before OTL.

What do you want seaplanes for on a full carrier, seaplanes showed their limitations in 1914 so there is really no need to restrict a full carrier to being able to operate them...RN decisions on them post WW1 were not a good idea.
 
Top