Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 1 of 3  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 »
Author Message
Kiwi Imperialist
Post subject: Supercarrier ChallengePosted: October 27th, 2023, 12:03 pm
Offline
Posts: 321
Joined: December 10th, 2014, 9:38 am
[ img ]
USS Enterprise (CVN-65) at Hunters Point Naval Shipyard

Welcome to the Supercarrier Challenge, a special two-month Shipbucket conclusion to 2023! Your objective is simple: depict the largest type of warship afloat. Before posting a submission, please do read the requirements and rules. Challenge veterans will note a change to Rule 2. A top-view is required alongside the standard side-view. You may also include a front-view or internal hangar view. Also, don't forget to start early! Entries will close on Thursday, 28 December - that's half way between Christmas Day and New Years Eve. Depending on where you live and your commitments, you may be too busy to complete an entry at that time of the year. Please limit the content of your entries to the actual submission. If you wish to elaborate on the art you have created for this challenge, consider doing so in the Personal Designs section of this forum or on the Shipbucket Wiki. If you have an idea for a future challenge, remember to share it in the Future Challenge Ideas/Suggestions thread. Don't be afraid to share an idea which has been suggested by someone else. It shows that multiple people are interested in that topic.

Design Requirements
  1. Your submission must depict a fictional aircraft carrier - a watercraft which has a full-length flight deck and is able to launch, recover, and house fixed-wing aircraft.
  2. Full load displacement should exceed 70,000 long tons (78,400 short tons or 71,123 tonnes).
  3. The aircraft carrier must be laid down during or after 1946.

Challenge Rules
  1. Each participant may submit a single image.
  2. The image should be a Shipbucket template modified to include the participant’s art and, optionally, one of the following: ship badge, unit insignia, manufacturer logo, national flag, or naval ensign. Other elements, including data sheets and scenic elements, are not permitted. If you have specifications and blocks of text, please include them as text in your post and not in the image itself.
  3. One side-view and one top-view of the participant's ship are required. Optionally, an opposing side-view, a front-view and an internal hangar view may be included. All other views are prohibited.
  4. All views must depict the same individual ship in the same paint scheme, markings, and configuration (e.g. masts extended).
  5. All art must be in Shipbucket scale and conform to the Shipbucket style guidelines.
  6. A textual description accompanying each submission is permitted, but not necessary.
  7. Non-serious entries, or entries substantially deviate from the challenge requirements, are not allowed.
  8. Off-topic posts will be reported to the relevant authorities.

This challenge will run until Thursday 28 December 2023, ending at 23:59 UTC-12 (International Date Line West).
A countdown timer can be found at this link.


A poll will be held after this date to select a winner. When it opens, please provide honest and meaningful scores for each entry. Responses which grant maximum scores to a select group of entries, and minimum scores to all other entries, will be deleted. Members of the community who manipulate the results in such a fashion may also be subject to a permanent ban. Scores will be allocated in two categories, each with a scale of 1 to 10:

  • Drawing Quality - The overall quality of the drawing. One might consider detailing, shading, and accuracy.
  • Design Quality -The quality of the design presented, irrespective of drawing quality. One could consider feasibility, practicality, and realism.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Kiwi Imperialist
Post subject: Challenge Rule 3 UpdatedPosted: October 28th, 2023, 12:55 am
Offline
Posts: 321
Joined: December 10th, 2014, 9:38 am
Challenge Rule 3 Updated
I have updated Challenge Rule 3 of the Supercarrier Challenge to read: "One side-view and one top-view of the participant's ship are required. Optionally, an opposing side-view, a front-view and an internal hangar view may be included. All other views are prohibited." You can now include a side-view showing the opposite side of your aircraft carrier.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Charguizard
Post subject: Re: Supercarrier ChallengePosted: October 28th, 2023, 9:12 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 424
Joined: January 28th, 2017, 1:17 am
Location: Santiago Basin
If you're having trouble iterating your ship, answer these questions and they will help you guide you:

https://privatepastebin.com/?d4883ec54a ... 9ZgHexVdr1

I'll post my own document in its current state as an example:

https://privatepastebin.com/?18b5d34e3a ... Y2jNnFckLq

_________________
w o r k l i s t :
Hatsuyuki-class Escort Ships . . . <3


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Gollevainen
Post subject: Re: Supercarrier ChallengePosted: December 26th, 2023, 6:47 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 4714
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:10 am
Location: Finland
Contact: Website
[ img ]

This is a left-over of a left-over AU idea which was refitted for the supercarrier challenge over the past holiday season.

_________________
Shipbucket mainsite, aka "The Archive"
New AU project "Aravala"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Corp
Post subject: Re: Supercarrier ChallengePosted: December 26th, 2023, 8:27 pm
Offline
Posts: 110
Joined: November 14th, 2014, 4:13 am
So for this challenge I was stumped on what to do and scoured my archives for some of the more novel "Never-weres" of carrier designs, after two failed starts with "Conceptual CV", a concept for a reverse angle carrier designed to reduce the need for deck spotting, and the infamous Stealth Monohull from the CVX program. While both of these were neat, I feel like I have a reputation to uphold and they both felt a bit too conventional for a mega challenge such as this. After all, reverse-angle and stealth carriers are both things that have graced these forums before and by better artists than me. For this challenge I needed something that SB hadn't seen the likes of before and I finally struck gold with a 1990s paper, "Future Aircraft Carrier Technology Vol 1" *. Among the topics discussed in the layout was full form, the paper suggests a that a future carrier could be built on a Nimitz-derived hull, "a New large monohull", smaller LHA sized hulls, or a "Large Semi-Submersible Hull. From the, sadly brief descriptions in the paper I realized I'd found my choice. Although there was no illustration and details were scant, I felt that I had just enough to go on. I feel that it's important to note that although the appearance and layout are purely speculative, Dimensions/Figures and some design quirks were taken directly from the report. I'm not exactly happy with the result artistically, (specifically I don't like the bow/stern sections of the struts or the fact most of the drawing ended up as just solid slabs) but I had fun drawing it which is what matters. Also if this seems like the ridiculous carrier you've seen, the paper I took this from briefly discusses the potential for a ship *twice* the size of the one I used as the basis for this.
*(A Volume 2 allegedly exists but has so far eluded my efforts to find it. Even a search while logged into DTIC turned up nothing)


[ img ]


The Essex Class is a Class of 6 nuclear powered aircraft carriers in service with the US Navy. The ships are unique in both size, (An empty displacement of over 300,000 tons makes the Essex Class are largest warships ever built.) but also in their configuration as the ships are of a semi-submersible SWATH design. The ship's structure is composed of large hangar deck perched above two 125 foot diameter pressure hulls containing the ship's engineering, magazine and crew spaces. When ballasted down everything below the hangar deck is below the waterline, with only the hangar, flight deck and island above it. This not only lowers the ship's radar cross section but also protects the ship's vital spaces from attack. Fully loaded an Essex Class Carrier displaces over 660,000 tons, putting them firmly among the largest ships ever built by displacement. When ballasted the ships have a draft of over 180 feet. While draft can be reduced to 40 feet to easier facilitate docking, doing so raises the ship's propellers out of the water, necessitating the use of tugs to enter the majority of ports.

The ship's large size required all new infrastructure and very few ports are capable of berthing the massive vessels. Submarine construction techniques were used to assemble the twin SWATH hulls. Each side hull is of a double-hull construction, featuring a pressure hull containing the ship's engineering, magazine and crew spaces nestled within the outer structural hull. Each of the side hulls contains two reactors for a total of 4 overall. Combined the ship's reactors output size times the power output by a Nimitz Class's engineering plant. The large space within the side hulls allows for a larger than normal, and thus more efficient steam plant compared to earlier nuclear carriers. This extra efficiency is needed to allow the ship to cruise at a blistering 25 knots.

Due to the large rectangular nature of the flight deck the Essex Class feature a set of parallel runways in lieu of a traditional angled flight deck to allow for simultaneous launch and recovery operations. The ship has a single island amidships between the two runways. Each runway features a complete set of arresting gear for aircraft recovery. Aircraft are launched via one of four electromagnetic catapults. To help compensate for the ship's slow speed, the foremost 44 feet of the flight deck are inclined and act as a ski jump to provide additional payload. Weapons magazines are within the submerged hulls with munitions carried to the hangar deck via one of eight elevators (4 per hull). Two elevators on each side continue on to the flight deck. The weapons elevators can also be used to transfer provisions into the hulls from the hangar decks. There are 6 sets of staircases linking each hull to the hangar deck. The Essex Class is capable of storing it's entire air wing internally within two parallel hangars, one beneath each runway. The hangars are served by three centrally located elevators. The space between the hangars is filled with workshops and pilot ready rooms. Each hangar can be subdivided into 3 compartments via large fire doors. Aircraft traversal between hangars can be done via the aircraft elevators or one of two "tunnels". Also located between the hangars is a boat launch /recovery bay where small craft can be lowered into the water between the two hulls. The Essex Class's self defense capability are extensive, with two 64 cell blocks of Mk 41 VLS. Potential missiles carried include SM-6 and quad packed ESSM as well as Nulka Decoys. The ships are also carrying of launching land attack missiles to supplement their aircraft's striking power.

The Essex Class were designed for a notional air wing of more than 80 aircraft. The standard composition of the air wing is shown below:
1 x Heavy All-Weather Attack Squadron (VAH) composed of twelve A-11
3 x Strike Fighter (VFA) Squadrons composed of ten F-35C
1 x Marine Strike Fighter (VMFA) Squadron of ten F-35C
1 x Electronic Attack (VAQ) Squadron composed of eight EF-35D
1 x Carrier Airborne Early Warning (VAW) Squadron of four ES-4Bs
1 x Unmanned Composite Squadron (VUC) Composed of four MQ-25 and four MQ-47B (Tanker, Reconnaissance and Light Attack)
1 x Patrol Squadron (VP) Composed of ten MS-4A (ASW, EW, ELINT and Drone Control)
1 x Helicopter Maritime Strike (HSM) Squadron of MH-60R (4 aboard ship, 8 detached to escorts)
1 x Fleet Logistics Support (VRC) Squadron Detachment of CS-4A or CMV-22B (Shore Based COD)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Kiwi Imperialist
Post subject: Possible Challenge ExtensionPosted: December 27th, 2023, 2:13 am
Offline
Posts: 321
Joined: December 10th, 2014, 9:38 am
I originally posted this on the Shipbucket Discord server. I am reproducing it here so that everyone is in the loop.

I am pleased to see that we have two entries on the forum, one created by Gollevainen and another from Corp. With just under two and a half days remaining, I was growing a little worried. It would be great to see some more submissions before the deadline.
Some of you have requested an extension. I am reluctant to issue one. This challenge has already lasted two months and I imagine others are eager to move on. Yes, the Christmas/New Year period and the weeks preceding it are a busy time for many members of the Shipbucket community, but participants were warned to start early for this very reason. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that an extension will produce more submissions.
Under consideration is a two week extension which would run concurrently with the start of our next challenge. However, I will only grant this extension if it is clear there is a large group unable to finish before the deadline who can and will complete their entries within the additional two week period. If you fall into this group, please make your presence known. Such an extension should not be for those who simply think an extra two weeks would be nice to have. Also note that an extension should be considered extraordinary, not a common occurrence.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
rbz88
Post subject: Re: Supercarrier ChallengePosted: December 27th, 2023, 2:24 am
Offline
Posts: 69
Joined: June 27th, 2022, 11:44 pm
Inspired by USS United States in <World of Warships>
[ img ]

_________________
  • Wherever our Party and our army went, the people welcomed us with open arms, and we were able to take advantage of the time of the day, and we can still see the vibrant life and development of all things in front of our eyes. Twenty years later, has this place become our burial place?
    In any case, the strength of the battle was 800,000 to 600,000, and the advantage is mine!
[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
BB1987
Post subject: Re: Supercarrier ChallengePosted: December 27th, 2023, 10:14 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2818
Joined: May 23rd, 2012, 1:01 pm
Location: Rome - Italy
Koko, CV-24 Inuwashi


Discussions regarding what would later become Koko's first 'supercarrier' first began in 1966, shortly after CV-23 Sekirei's deployment to Vietnam, as shortcomings regarding the current roster of Kokoan carrier-based planes (a mix of license built F-11 super-tigers and A-4 skyhawks) began to appear.
Without too many expectations Koko Kaijou started putting into papers some studies regarding new types of aircrafts to be procured and a possible third carrier suited to operate them. For a while, those were left as they were.
However, the Tora-kai (Kokoan name for the super tigers) and Skyhawks approaching obsolescence became more glaring once Kokoan ground forces got involved with the conflict, with 50.000 men deployed in Vietnam by early 1968. Performance and effectiveness of the two aircrafts was deemed unsatisfactory even in the limited
support and target of opportunity roles they served. The percieved need to upgrade and revise both Kokoan military equipment and doctrines grew larger after North-Vietnamese forces launched what would be later known as the Tet Offensive. Plus, how Thiaria -a nation which had been in amicable relations with Koko for over 40 years-
had been slowly descending into Communism during the last few years, made up just another event that fueled a growing and widespread Soviet-scare.
Under such conditions, studies for a new carrier kept popping up more frequently and the idea slowly started to gain some traction.
While all leading parties Koko had seen since its post-WWII return to democracy were willing to fund the armed forces to a significand extent in a defensive anti-Soviet way (even the the left-leaning ones), the newly installed centre-right government -winner of the 1968 elections- went one step ahead of that and even further
than anyone else before it. Quickly, the Diet started to pass with large margins a series of bills that eventually led the percentage of national GDP devoted to its armed forces to double by the mid 70s. This marked the start of a shift from purely self-defense doctrines with limited extraterritorial capabilities to more offensive ones
based on regional power projection.
The Naval Staff, on its part, was quick to make some moves. The program for a supersonic carrier-based attack aircraft -which had been started together with the Thiarians in the early 60s and was killed when they started going Communist- was revived in 1969.
An order for Grumman's A-6 intruders was also considered as to augment the type in replacing the A-4s.
As for the fighter and interceptor role, the Navy was quick to reject the F-4 phantom despite the type had been introduced with the Kokoan Air Force in 1966. The Naval Staff was adamant in pointing out that the F-4 design was more than 10 years old by that point, and how they wanted someting cutting-edge.
This as first seemed like a problem, as what they were initially eyeing for, the F-111B, had just been scrapped. To their luck, Grumman was powering-through the developement of another air-superiority fighter for the US Navy they could look upon: the F-14 Tomcat.
The Naval Staff seemed to fall in love with it even before it had made its first flight.
An F-14 procurement -like an F-111B after all- had its major drawback though. Both existing Kokoan Carriers were definitely not suited for such a plane:
Tsugumi was basically the last Kokoan evolution of the Japanese Shokaku class design, albeit heavily reworked when the ship was finally finished in 1953 after sitting incomplete since the end of WWII. She was still of an old concept, small, cramped and with low clearance two-level hangars.
Sekirei was larger, newer and of a fresh design, much more suited to grow and operate more modern aircrafts, but still too small to handle Grumman's oncoming big fighter.
Thus, papers and studies for a third Kokoan carrier were dusted off once again and further revised: In order to be capable of operating the planned aircrafts and the required equipment the ship needed to be at least 50% larger then Sekirei in displacement. Designers skipped ahead as fast as Grumman was doing with the F-14,
and by late summer 1970 they had a finished design in their hands: at over 300m in length and 72.000T full load the planned carrier surpassed the WWII-era Yashima class Battleships as the largest ship ever designed in Koko up to that point. She sported a 200m long hangar, three elevators, a 10° angled deck, three steam catapults
(two C-13s in bow position and one longer C-13-1 in waist position) and could, on paper, carry as much as 80 planes split between her hangar and flight deck.
Engine-wise she was to be fitted with eight boilers generating a total of 264.000 shp, powering four turbines, driving four shafts and pushing the ship to a planned top speed of 34 knots, with enough excess steam still going to the catapults. Finally, for close range defence she was to recieve three octuple launchers for RIM-7 missiles.
Recieving the name Inuwashi (sea Eagle), the carrier was laid down at Toumachi Navy Yard in December 1970, the same month the F-14 made its first flight.
The roadmap was finalized as follow: Once Inuwashi had entered service Sekirei would be drydocked for a major reconstruction, allowing her to operate heavier planes. To this end Tokuda was also asked to develop a smaller carrier-borne fighter that fitted Sekirei specs and could also complement the Tomcat.
Once Sekirei had completed her rebuild the older Tsugumi would have been eventually retired. Initial hope was to have Inuwashi and her new planes help in Vietnam, but by late 1970 it was already clear the United States were disengaging and this was just wishful thinking at the highest level.
Nevertheless Koko Kaijou pressed on, even more committed on its project in light of the bleaching situation in Vietnam. Had the Soviets decided to act again, for whatever wild reason, they would have been ready. In 1972, the same year Inuwashi was launched, Koko officially ordered 50 F-14s, 60 A-6s and even 30 E-2s
for aerial early warning. At the same time the domestic supersonic aircraft program had also seen a commitment of 80 aircrafts, recieving the A8T1 Umiwashi denomination.
1973 saw the incumbent coalition win the election with a large margin. During the next year the government issued new procurements that led to more changes. A second carrier of the Inuwashi design was funded, not to replace Sekirei as anyone would have guessed, but to effectively turn Koko Kaijou in to a three-carrier Navy.
1975 saw said carrier, Tanchozuru (red-crowned crane) being laid down, orders for Tomcats and Hawkeyes doubled, and nearly 50 S-3 Viking ASW planes added to the tally, continuing Koko's rampant armed forces expansion that would keep going until the end of the Cold War.
Inuwashi was finally commissioned in October 1975, becoming Koko Kaijou's flagship as Sekirei headed to the yards for rebuild. Ironically, the ship had outpaced all the aircrafts she was supposed to recieve. The first Tomcats, Hawkeyes and Intruders had been delivered from the US that year, and the Umiwashi had first flown as well,
but none were in enough numbers to form a shipborne squadron. Thus for her first year she carried the very same Tora-kai and Skyhawks that were supposed to have been retired from carrier-borne service by the time she commissioned. The E2 was the first to reach IOC in 1976, followed by the F14, A6 and A8 in 1977.
This mixed interim phase of the airwing eventually ended by 1979.
One hiccup that emerged during this time was that the full 78-plane airwing, once all aircraft were of the newer and larger models, made flight operations slightly cramped, albeit still perfectly doable. Eventually, by the late 80's the number was reduced to 68 machines, which seemed to made operations smoother.
Overall, Inuwashi served long and well with its Navy, going through multiple upgrades and deployments until her retirement in 2014.


[ img ]


Inuwashi Specifications as of 1977:

-Displacement: 62.147 t standard, 72.264 t full load
-Length, extremes (bridles): 314,07m (1031ft, 5'')
-Length, waterline: 294,28m (966ft, 6'')
-width, extremes (platforms and antenna trusses): 80,23m (24ft, 5'')
-beam, waterline: 36,39m (119ft, 7'')
-mean draft: 10,2m (33ft, 6'')
-Machinery: 8x Oil firing boilers, 4x geared steam turbines, 264.000 shp, 4 shafts
-Speed: 34 kts
-Range: 12.000nm at 18 kts
-Armour: flight, hangar, lower deck 51+76+51mm (2+3+2''), magazine boxes 152mm (6''), torpedo and vertical bulkheads 25+76+25+25+25mm (1+3+1+1+1'')
-Armament and decoys: 3x Mk.25 launchers (8x3, 24 RIM-7E), 8x Mk.36 SRBOC
-Electronics: AN/SPS-43 2D air search radar, AN/SPS-48 3D air search radar, KMS-3 surface search radar, KMS-6 surface and navigation radar, AN/SPN-43 air search aircraft approach control radar, AN/SPN-42 aircraft approach control radar (2x1), AN/SPN-44 airspeed indicator,
AN/SPN-41 instrument carrier landing system (1x azimuth, 1x elevation), Mk.115 illuminator (3x1), AN/ULQ-6 ECM, TACAN, URD-4 RDF, AN/SMQ-6 weather satellite antenna, OE-82/WSC-1 satcom (2x1), Phasor 90 ship to air radio antenna (12x1), AS-1018 (6x1), AS-3226 (2x1), AS-177 (2x1), AS-2815 (2x1), AS-3078 (2x1),
AN/WLR-1 ECM suite (2x1 AS-616, AS-899), AN/SPR-4 ECM suite (4x1 CAGW-66131, CAGW-66132), Discone/Cage ANT, twin whip ANT (4x1), single whip ANT (11x1)
-Complement: 4237


Flight deck, hangar and airwing:

-Flight deck length: 308,14m (1012ft, 1'')
-Flight deck width: 71,71m (235ft, 6'')
-Equipment: 4x arrestor wires, 1x crash barrier, 2x C-13, 1x C-13-1 steam catapults
-Hangar: 207,05m (680ft) long, 19,64/29,08m (64ft, 6''/95ft, 5'') wide, 7,61m (24ft, 11'') tall
-Elevators: 20,25/23,29m x 16,44m (66ft, 6''/76ft, 6'' x 53ft, 11'')
-Airwing: 78 (12x F11T2 Tora-Kai fighter, 12x F14G1 Tomcat interceptor/air superiority fighter, 12x A4I5 Skyhawk light attack, 12x A6G5 Intruder attack, 12x A8T1 Umiwashi attack, 10x S2G1 Tracker ASW, 4x E2G3 Hawkeye AEW, 4x SH11S Sea King ASW and SAR)

_________________
My Worklist
Sources and documentations are the most welcome.

-Koko Kyouwakoku (Republic of Koko)
-Koko's carrier-based aircrafts of WWII
-Koko Kaiun Yuso Kaisha - KoKaYu Line (Koko AU spinoff)
-Koko - Civil Aviation


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Supercarrier ChallengePosted: December 27th, 2023, 7:46 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7510
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
With the construction of CVA-58, aircraft carrier development had reached a new milestone: the supercarrier. The new class of 4 ships, named after the Lexington class battlecruisers (although the name Lexington itself was already taken by an Essex class carrier) were a series of flush deck aircraft carriers which could launch aircraft that were large and long ranged enough to carry nuclear weapons. The ships were of a radical new design, with the flight deck as the strength deck, a large flush flight deck and no fixed superstructures raised above the flight deck. The arrestor gear and catapults were the strongest ever fitted on a flight deck. Radars and command functions were offloaded to a new class of command cruisers to keep the deck as clear as possible of radio and radar antenna's.

The first ship was laid down in 1949 and was completed in september 1952. CVA-59 was under construction from April 1950 to Juli 1953 and CVA-60 from May 1951 to September 1954. Of the final ship, CVA-61, construction was started in June 1952.

However, during the trials of CVA-58, a new development was tested. USS Antietam was testing a British development, the angled flight deck and the mirror landing system. To the horror of the US Navy, who had just completed their first flush deck supercarrier and had 3 more under construction, the angled flight deck would allow smaller ships to operate more and larger aircraft safely. In other words: the angled deck proved to be superior to the flush deck design!

Quick to show the world that the navy could correct their mistake, CVA-60 received a modified arrestor gear and deck markings, allowing "angled operations" on that ship when completed in 1954. CVA-60 also used the new steam catapults, which were more reliable and powerful then the catapults used on the earlier ships, and fitted some radar systems on an small fixed superstructure. CVA-59 (and of course CVA-58) were already too far along in construction to make this change easily, but if needed it would be done in refit.

The political situation had changed regarding aircraft carriers by then though. CVA-58 came incredibly close to be cancelled, but the Korean war and the Midway class had proven the value of (large) aircraft carriers. There were even votes to build a fifth or more CVA-58 class ships, maybe even using nuclear power, provided the design was sound and not an mistake that should have had an angled deck from the beginning.

Because of this, in May 1953. the design of CVA-61 was altered mid-construction. This new design changed the layout of almost everything above hangar deck level, providing large sponsons, an fixed superstructure with a fixed funnel, reduced AA armament (to keep topweight within limits) and one of the catapults was moved to the portside sponson, overlapping with angled landing deck. This new design was the prototype for potential future refits to the other ships of the class as well as for any future derative designs. This ship, newly completed in 1956, is the ship represented here today.

[ img ]

CVA-61 ended up being a ship that was capable of everything her sisterships could, while not needing an accompanying command cruiser and while being able to carry an more multirole airwing. While the flush deck carrier design was dead on arrival, the Saratoga became the design that provided the base for every supercarrier design that came after. The decision to change her design, while controversial because of it's high cost and risks involved, proved to be right call.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Kattsun
Post subject: Re: Supercarrier ChallengePosted: December 27th, 2023, 9:40 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 309
Joined: September 10th, 2012, 6:03 am
i draw bote (:

_________________
The Chinese people are not to be cowed by U.S. atomic blackmail. Our country has a population of 600 million and an area of 9.6 [million sq. km]. The United States cannot annihilate the Chinese nation with its small stack of atom bombs. Even if the U.S. atom bombs were so powerful that, when dropped on China, they would make a hole right through the earth, or even blow it up, that would hardly mean anything to the universe as a whole, though it might be a major event for the solar system.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 1 of 3  [ 21 posts ]  Return to “Drawing Challenges” | Go to page 1 2 3 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 6 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]