I am happy about these discussions and that some of you seem to have the ideas I had.
I would like to make some comments about some of the contributions.
I believe the decklayout I chose is very close to the one that was actualy discussed. It is a mixture of the drawings I added to this post.
The other layout which esp has made came to my mind as an evolution of this design. The ship should have some additional waterline beam. The deck edge elevators would be close to the water as they are in CdG, as they would have been in the french carrier design of the seventies PA 75 and as it would have been in BSAC 220. This could have been a problem for atlantic operations. Note that the reverse angle carrier of the Naval engineer journal has inboard lifts. Perhaps some anti rolling system as CdG has would have been necessary.
The catapults I chose are my imagination. I chose one bigger and one smaller C13 catapult to avoid interference during launching operations.
I chose gas turbine propulsion to make the design close to the original VSS III which should have had 4 GT. Perhaps a steam propulsion as the CVV would have had with 140.000 hp would have been a good alternative – probabably making the ship somewhat larger.
The ship would by no means have been ready around 1975. This is the date of the design. The first US ships would have been ready around 1980/2. This would have been too late for a Falkland scenario. I admit that I was thinking of a 25 de Mayo VSS CTOL against a VSS Invincible VTOL. But this is impossible. But it could have been an alternative for replacements in the middle of the 80ies for the Colossus carriers in Argentinia, Brasil and Australia. Juan Carlos would have been a nice ship too. And perhaps the spanish designers had something like that in mind when checking alternatives which finally lead to PdA.
I have a question to those with practical experience with carriers: Would the reverse angle have caused problems?
Sign In
