| Shipbucket http://67.205.157.234/forums/ |
|
| Western Canada, Independence day CVS http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=250 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Maple-leaf-Warrior [ September 25th, 2010, 4:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | Western Canada, Independence day CVS |
The Flagship of my AU Western Canadian Republic. Commisioned in 1997 in the Canadian Forces Maritime Command. The Crew voted to join the "Western Militia Command" and pledged their aliegence to the President of Western Canada on April 6th, 2016, Two Days after Western Canada announced it's Independence. Comments and Criticism are very welcome! ![[ img ]](http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/7900/cvs.png)
|
|
| Author: | Vossiej [ September 25th, 2010, 5:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Western Canada, Independence day CVS |
Interesting is that kind of flightdeck, however I think you throw away a lot of aircraft parking space this way. |
|
| Author: | acelanceloet [ September 25th, 2010, 8:18 am ] | |
| Post subject: | Re: Western Canada, Independence day CVS | |
Interesting is that kind of flightdeck, however I think you throw away a lot of aircraft parking space this way.
yes indeed, but this config was intended for an as long as possible runway in an as short as possible ship. btw, that thales mast isn't suitable for this ship. that is in an highly advanced phased array radar for an ship used for air defence, which this ship obviously is not. I would use an APAR+ SMART-L at max..... also I doubt you could fit hawkeyes on a ship this size. but I'm not sure about that..... |
||
| Author: | Mitchell van Os [ September 25th, 2010, 11:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Western Canada, Independence day CVS |
Hawkeye comes close to the bridge, but can be possible if i look in paint. For the rest, indeed my thales mast is to advanced, and probaly useless on this ship, you can better use smart+L and some other radar added. |
|
| Author: | TimothyC [ September 25th, 2010, 12:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Western Canada, Independence day CVS |
You're not going to see strike Intruders, much less the A version on a ship in the 201* |
|
| Author: | acelanceloet [ September 25th, 2010, 12:49 pm ] | |
| Post subject: | Re: Western Canada, Independence day CVS | |
Hawkeye comes close to the bridge, but can be possible if i look in paint.
the problem is not recovery but launching and parking the thing. I doubt it is possible, and the original concept has only hornets and helicopters on board.
|
||
| Author: | erik_t [ September 25th, 2010, 3:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Western Canada, Independence day CVS |
The clear hangar bay height of the VSS designs (on which this is based) never exceeded 20'1", compared to the 25' of Forrestal (the first E-2 carrier) and later. This, unfortunately, has been found to be a serious design pressure and is not a number you can handwave into a 20% increase. E-2s are not an option for you unless you're willing to accept a permanent deck park (which was effectively the case with the AJ Savage). I suspect launch and recovery will be fine, although parking is already severely constricted on this design. |
|
| Author: | Novice [ September 25th, 2010, 5:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Western Canada, Independence day CVS |
If you are that set on having some kind of AEW aircraft maybe you should look into the RN soloution which was having the radar on a SeaKing helicopter. |
|
| Author: | TimothyC [ September 25th, 2010, 9:35 pm ] | |
| Post subject: | Re: Western Canada, Independence day CVS | |
If you are that set on having some kind of AEW aircraft maybe you should look into the RN soloution which was having the radar on a SeaKing helicopter.
If you go that route, the various EV-22 designs would be a better fit. There was even one that put the radar above the fuselage (instead of inside it) so that the craft could fly above 15000 feet or so and stay pressurized. |
||
| Author: | Demon Lord Razgriz [ September 26th, 2010, 12:21 pm ] | |
| Post subject: | Re: Western Canada, Independence day CVS | |
The clear hangar bay height of the VSS designs (on which this is based) never exceeded 20'1", compared to the 25' of Forrestal (the first E-2 carrier) and later.
The height of the radome can be solved if the E-2 was modified to have the radome lower like on the Russian rival to the E-2.
This, unfortunately, has been found to be a serious design pressure and is not a number you can handwave into a 20% increase. E-2s are not an option for you unless you're willing to accept a permanent deck park (which was effectively the case with the AJ Savage). I suspect launch and recovery will be fine, although parking is already severely constricted on this design. |
||
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|