Shipbucket

A re-design and hopeful improvement on the original two CVs operated by Atlantia, now a class of four. What I have so far, time frame depicted is the mid to late eighties, at least on the base drawing... They're based and influenced heavily on the CVA-01 and a couple of older British designs, I could do with some help on the sensor fit, does SPS-01 fit in, if not which comparable and compatible system would people suggest? Air group per hull currently stands at: 20x F-15s 24x Buccaneers, 12x A-4s 4x S-2s, 4x E-1s, 4x KC-1s and 4x AB.212s. The other version of Aspide / Sea Sparrow you see is one of the proposed IR variants fitted with the seeker from a sidewinder, in this case the Lima. The radar seeker version is an active affair (which for the sparrow at least have been proposed since the fifties). Time frame for the operation of these would be late sixties to around now with them coming out of service and being replaced with the new class of nuclear fleet carriers (3 instead of 4, the fourth being made up of Andarta, the "big 'un"). Also as a disclaimer nothing has been taken from the actual CVA-01 drawing other than styles and the RN grey scheme.



~Regards, Mark.

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire

Interesting though looking great as always!
The use of Mark 26, the 76mm, and a A-4 Buccaneer combo are very interesting, though plausible choices. Aren't A-4s getting a pit old by the 80s for a military as modern as Atlantia's.

_________________
Projects:
Zealandia AU
John Company AU
References and feedback is always welcome!

I would suggest an 3rd STIR forward, and take an look in the belowdecks part for the Mk 26, as I am a bit doubted it will fit. if it fit's, you will be limited to an Mod 0 and MAYBE an mod 1

keep an eye on the fact that the turbines and boilers would be in separate compartiments on ship like this, so they might be a bit close together. also, the boilers would be higher in this ship, but would most likely be centerline types (well, this is possible, keeps her CoG low, but it wastes quite some space, something never good on carriers)

I would half the number of oto 76 myself.... but ok.

the ZW-06 has quite an prominent place for an navigational/surface search radar, but can't see directly forward. that mast should also be a tad bigger (with more supports for electronics, not taller or something)

the SPS-01 is an good bet for an ship like this, an tad outdated, but the dutch had nothing similar during those years. an alternative is the DA-08 and the LW-08 combo of the L-frigates (heemskerck class) which were likely to have roughly the same specs as the tromps, but unconfirmed on that

keep an good eye on displacement, as that gives you the fuel and stores you can carry, and the speed, as that gives which operations you can do.

_________________
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

Not really outdaded, they'd be the proposed Spey engined models (for at least some commonality with the Buccaneers) and would have received numerous updates to keep them current, they'd be quite new airframes too considering the production run of the A-4. The Buccaneers would be all weather strikers whereas the Skyhawks (at least at the time) would be general purpose attack aircraft.
1: Gotya, the Mk26 is indeed a Mod 1 which is quite a snug fit indeed, the thing fits into it's allotted space but only just I'm not sure whether a Mod 0 would be better or even a Mk13? I'd prefer to keep the twin arm setup if possible to get missiles in the air quickly.

2: As far as I can ascertain the layout I've chosen hasn't had too much of a knock on effect thus far

3: Wider with more platforms for various systems, got ya. With regards to the ZW-06 what about shuffling it around to be incorporated with a DA/LW setup?

4: I would probably prefer to go down the DA/LW route (see above point)

5: My calculations give me roughly 69,7 standard 76,9 normal and 82,6 loaded, that's incorporating an estimated weight of the aircraft 500 tonnes of ordnance and roughly 11,000 tonnes of aviation fuel, speed wise I was gunning for a top end of 34 knots from 221.7MW installed power

Now to get on to making the changes, regards. Mark.

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire

I like it. The Mk 26 lets you take full advantage of the sonar in bad weather by firing off ASROCs and subs that get to close.

I also wouldn't forget to have some landing radar sets. They would probably be under covers, but I think it would add a nice touch. They could even fit on that platform at the aft end of the Island.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Progress today so far...

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire

Interesting design. The overhanging bridge structure in my eye looks unbalanced and unsupported though I'm guessing its cantilevered?
Also those gun sponsons aside the island and just aft of it look awfully exposed to any kind of high sea state as with the lower openings in the hull and the boat area (all behind rollers?).

_________________
"The first rule is not to lose; The second rule is not to forget the first rule"

Aye, cantilevered out over the inner area of the flight-deck. The cut-outs are (or should be) no worse placed than on the CVA-01 design (at least for getting wet). Roller shutters might be an idea... By all means try to find somewhere to place the mounts that doesn't encroach on the sponsons any more than the 76mm batteries and PDMS, they ended up there to provide the best arcs they could, though if they're going to get snapped off obviously something has to change...

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire

Well the one beside the island might be able to be positioned on the flight deck there if the island structure were slightly scalloped to accommodate it. That's not ideal but could give the mount some protection from the weather. As for the aft one I'm not sure.

_________________
"The first rule is not to lose; The second rule is not to forget the first rule"

Without a US carrier of about the same specs (larger than JFK, but smaller than Enterprise), I'd like to point out that JFK carried about half of that weight of aviation fuel (although that can be traded off against ship's fuel), but over three times that weight in aircraft ordnance.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆