WesWorld

Fast, big and it's got some armour. Your 3,000t misc. weight will allow you to carry about 42 planes.
sqrt of 2000=44 planes able to carry(fuel, bombs, flight deck)
44*25tons = 1100t. (25ton per plane) so you will be able to carry 42 planes about.

25 4.5" guns is a bit overkill I think. why not 16 guns?

Red Admiral...
If he has a misc. load of 3,000 tons, then why do you take the square root of 2,000 ? What about the remaining 1,000 tons ? Just curious.

Walter

I f you read the springstyle notes bit on aircraft carriers you'll see why. That explains it quite well.

If you take the sqrt of 3000t then you are able to carry enough fuel/bombs etc. But there is no extra misc weight for aeroplanes. 25 tons for each plane.---bit much for 1920's 30's though.

Hope that makes sense.

Guess I probably read it different than you do.

========================================
Take the square root of miscellaneous weight; e.g., if
miscellaneous weight is 10,000 tons, the weight-based limit
for your carrier is 100 aircraft. (In addition, allow at
least 25 tons per aircraft, i.e., if miscellaneous weight
is just 100 tons, your ship can carry 4 planes, not 10.)
========================================

The way I read it is that you have to take the square root of the miscellaneous load, but you must allow a minimum of 25 tons per plane. Below 625 tons (25x25), you'll need to keep the 25 ton per aircraft in mind. The x tons per aircraft, as far as I know, includes the plane, fuel and weaponry.

So using the example given in the SS notes, 10,000 tons misc load will give you 100 planes. Since that is 100 tons per plane, there is no problem there. But when using planes on battleships, cruisers, etc. you'll probably won't use that much so you need to keep in mind that you need a minimum of 25 tons per airplane.

Of course, you could still use 25 tons per plane with 10,000 tons and squeeze 400 planes on your carrier but that will have a serious impact with operating all those planes (not to mention problems storing all those planes on and in the carrier).

Walter

I've used the simple equation of 100 tons for every plane on my Arrogant class CV's, 7200 tons should give me 72 planes or 12 squadrons of 6 aircraft. 100 tons may seem alot but considering the structure I plan on adding to my converted BC's to turn them into CV's this seems to be a realistic tonnage added to the hull. When I design my next class I will take great care in getting her design right.

Wes, with 7200 tons, you can fit about 84 planes on your ship (if I read the rules on carriers corectly).
I think your Dubbo class is a good answer on Japan's Taiho class carrier, 17inc.
Here she is, good for 113 planes:

Taiho, Japan Carrier laid down 1935

Displacement:
39,162 t light; 40,154 t standard; 45,609 t normal; 49,789 t full load
Loading submergence 1,725 tons/feet

Dimensions:
850.00 ft x 100.00 ft x 31.30 ft (normal load)
259.08 m x 30.48 m x 9.54 m

Armament:
12 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns (6 Main turrets x 2 guns)
48 - 1.97" / 50 mm AA guns
72 - 0.98" / 25 mm guns
Weight of broadside 967 lbs / 439 kg

Armour:
Belt 6.00" / 152 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 108 % of normal area
Main turrets 2.00" / 51 mm, AA gun shields 1.00" / 25 mm, Light gun shields 1.00" / 25 mm
Armour deck 3.00" / 76 mm, Conning tower 5.00" / 127 mm
Torpedo bulkhead 2.00" / 51 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 254,726 shp / 190,026 Kw = 34.00 kts
Range 11,700nm at 18.00 kts

Complement:
1,560 - 2,028

Cost:
£12.653 million / $50.611 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 121 tons, 0.3 %
Armour: 6,838 tons, 15.0 %
Belts: 1,791 tons, 3.9 %, Armament: 279 tons, 0.6 %, Armour Deck: 3,350 tons, 7.3 %
Conning Tower: 138 tons, 0.3 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 1,280 tons, 2.8 %
Machinery: 7,237 tons, 15.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 12,197 tons, 26.7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 6,447 tons, 14.1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 12,769 tons, 28.0 %

Metacentric height 6.0

Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation & workspaces is excellent

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.10
Shellfire needed to sink: 42,091 lbs / 19,092 Kg = 673.5 x 5.0 " / 127 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 4.9
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 57 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.04
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.14

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.600
Sharpness coefficient: 0.38
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 7.28
'Natural speed' for length: 29.15 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 56 %
Trim: 50
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 105.7 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 189.4 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 130 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 1.00
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 136 lbs / square foot or 666 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.00
(for 25.70 ft / 7.83 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 5.19 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.00


Walter

1941 eh ? I got two designs for that time. Good god ! We are waaaaaaayyyyyyy ahead of everything with 1941, and these vessels will be finished late in the 40s, but what the hell...

I did just notice that all these designs are older designs and needed to be updated in regard of armament. The current version would use 130 mm (5.12 inch) guns instead of the 127mm guns (5 inch) in these designs. If I were to change the caliber, it could mean a minor decrease in range if hullstrength were to drop below 1.00.

The Mizuho (good for 122 planes) and Taiyo (that's Taiyo and not Taiho; good for 134 planes). They are somewhat lighter than your Cobram, but the advantage is that they would be operational sooner than your ships (50.3 months (1945) and 56.9 months (1945-1946) compared to your 66.7 months (1946-1947)).
The problem with these vessels is that they will need quite some materials, and if you were to have an extensive BB program and CA/CL program as well, you could have some serious problems building them. I think the only nation that would have not that much problems with such building programs would be the United States.


Mizuho, Japan Carrier laid down 1941

Displacement:
41,298 t light; 42,388 t standard; 50,359 t normal; 56,534 t full load
Loading submergence 1,863 tons/feet

Dimensions:
850.00 ft x 108.00 ft x 32.00 ft (normal load)
259.08 m x 32.92 m x 9.75 m

Armament:
12 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns (4 Main turrets x 3 guns)
54 - 1.97" / 50 mm AA guns
90 - 0.98" / 25 mm guns
Weight of broadside 999 lbs / 453 kg

Armour:
Belt 5.00" / 127 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 94 % of normal area
Main turrets 1.00" / 25 mm, AA gun shields 1.00" / 25 mm, Light gun shields 1.00" / 25 mm
Armour deck 3.00" / 76 mm, Conning tower 5.00" / 127 mm
Torpedo bulkhead 2.00" / 51 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 243,100 shp / 181,352 Kw = 33.00 kts
Range 17,000nm at 18.00 kts

Complement:
1,680 - 2,185

Cost:
£15.144 million / $60.575 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 125 tons, 0.2 %
Armour: 6,594 tons, 13.1 %
Belts: 1,362 tons, 2.7 %, Armament: 158 tons, 0.3 %, Armour Deck: 3,618 tons, 7.2 %
Conning Tower: 148 tons, 0.3 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 1,308 tons, 2.6 %
Machinery: 6,424 tons, 12.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 13,270 tons, 26.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 9,061 tons, 18.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 14,884 tons, 29.6 %

Metacentric height 7.0

Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation & workspaces is excellent

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.13
Shellfire needed to sink: 55,021 lbs / 24,957 Kg = 880.3 x 5.0 " / 127 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 6.9
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 57 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.03
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.15

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.600
Sharpness coefficient: 0.39
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 7.04
'Natural speed' for length: 29.15 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 55 %
Trim: 50
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 93.5 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 184.8 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 143 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 1.01
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 142 lbs / square foot or 694 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.00
(for 25.00 ft / 7.62 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 4.08 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.00



Taiyo, Japan Carrier laid down 1941

Displacement:
47,831 t light; 49,059 t standard; 55,515 t normal; 60,459 t full load
Loading submergence 2,053 tons/feet

Dimensions:
920.00 ft x 110.00 ft x 32.00 ft (normal load)
280.42 m x 33.53 m x 9.75 m

Armament:
18 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns (6 Main turrets x 3 guns)
60 - 1.97" / 50 mm AA guns
120 - 0.98" / 25 mm guns
Weight of broadside 1,411 lbs / 640 kg

Armour:
Belt 6.00" / 152 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 100 % of normal area
Main turrets 1.00" / 25 mm, AA gun shields 1.00" / 25 mm, Light gun shields 1.00" / 25 mm
Armour deck 3.00" / 76 mm, Conning tower 5.00" / 127 mm
Torpedo bulkhead 2.00" / 51 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 248,769 shp / 185,582 Kw = 33.00 kts
Range 13,000nm at 18.00 kts

Complement:
1,808 - 2,350

Cost:
£16.954 million / $67.818 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 176 tons, 0.3 %
Armour: 7,683 tons, 13.8 %
Belts: 1,886 tons, 3.4 %, Armament: 235 tons, 0.4 %, Armour Deck: 3,989 tons, 7.2 %
Conning Tower: 158 tons, 0.3 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 1,416 tons, 2.6 %
Machinery: 6,574 tons, 11.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 15,441 tons, 27.8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 7,684 tons, 13.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 17,956 tons, 32.3 %

Metacentric height 6.6

Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation & workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.08
Shellfire needed to sink: 62,315 lbs / 28,266 Kg = 997.0 x 5.0 " / 127 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 7.5
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 67 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.05
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.35

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.600
Sharpness coefficient: 0.39
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 7.38
'Natural speed' for length: 30.33 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 52 %
Trim: 50
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 93.8 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 212.0 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 138 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 1.01
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 148 lbs / square foot or 721 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 0.99
(for 28.00 ft / 8.53 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 6.66 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.00


Walter

Wes, i have 8000t misc weight for Morosini my converted aircraft carrier and reckon she can carry 72 planes. So your mathematics works as well. Of course Vengeance is a couple of knots quicker, and 6000t larger. Our carriers might be able to carry 72 planes but do our countries have that many carrier capable planes?? Italy does not as yet.

I must ask wether there is a need for a 60,000t aircraft carrier. it is a big target but a couple of bombs on the flight deck takes her out of the fight. She is only 1 ship.

Well, maybe you do not have enough carrier capable planes right now, but maybe later you do. Maybe once constructed, you will have 20 or 30 planes avialable to put on your carrier, but as time progresses, you'll get the 72 planes you need.

A 60,000 tons carrier is indeed a big target. You'll need a lot of good AAA escort ships and numerous fighters to prevent enemy planes from getting close enough to drop a few bombs on the deck.

Walter

The 1/1/1921 Kido Butai (Japan's Carrier Air Force) strength is 2: The Akaryu II piloted by Oonishi “Kurasshu” Manzo and the Goto Special IX piloted by “Oni” Goto Sachio. Two planes for 3 carriers under construction. :-)

... but not for long.

Walter

"A 60,000 tons carrier is indeed a big target. You'll need a lot of good AAA escort ships and numerous fighters to prevent enemy planes from getting close enough to drop a few bombs on the deck."

All it needs is exactly one bomb and your CV with all its escorts is gone........ That´s the truth in 1950....

Nuke ? Why not try an anti-matter bomb instead. :-)

Walter

Too bad my phaser banks are empty.... :o(

Isn´t this 1941-CV bashing absolutely pointless?!

"Captain ! We may have some photon torpedoes left..."

It might indeed be pointless. By the time we get to 1941, we could have completely different plans for the ships. All influenced by what our neighbours will build.

Walter

"All influenced by what our neighbours will build. "

...or influenced by what we can copy from the designs others have posted before....

I guess, it´s time for the Q2 reports....

well with 7200 tons I should be able to carry 84 planes but because my ships are convertions I thought it would be more realistic to set the limit at 72 because the ships hangars were more or less designed to the battleship hull and not designed strictly to carry 84 planes, so they will also be cramped. In future refits where the forward flying off deck is removed I'm sure the amount of planes they can carry will go up.