WesWorld

I'm hoping CVN-78 Didn't get Enterprise simply because it'd be unseemly to name it while the previous is still in service. So the Navy probably won't have a replacement Enterprise until CVN-65 is settled down as a Memorial (At Washington Navy Yard, maybe?) I can't fathom Big E not ending up as a memorial somewhere after the disgrace done to her namesake. :\

Maybe CVN-79 then. I wanted Enterprise , but America would make sense...someone mentioned that the previous America was the prettiest of the Supercarriers...lots of curves and streamlining.

I wonder if they will make her a memorial, being nuclear and all. I hope they save her as she was a first and served for a very long time, and was just about everyplace (almost like CV-6). But it wouldn't be the first time politics and money problems have caused a great crime to history. I don't know what shape CV-6 would be in now, but she'd be visited still with her record. Constitution is still visited and she's over 200 years old.

557 feet for a carrrier...well the currect Chilean carrier is a little smaller than that, but not by much.

I'd prefer United States over America, personally.

Nautilus is still on Display at Groton. Not quite the same as an eight reactor supercarrier, but it's a precedent.

If CV-6 had made it to being moored at Washington as planned, I'd expect she'd be in decent condition. Texas is older and survived the batch of recent Hurricanes, to boot. All of them need dockyard work every now and again tho, and Enterprise would've been no exception.

I was just going to comment on Texas, shes in good shape for a WW1 era BB so I doubt Enterprize would have been in worse condition.

One of these days I'm going to have to get my passport and visit south of the border to take a look at those fast BB's still preserved! I've always liked the North Carolina's lines.

I've been to North Carolina twice during my roadtrips back and forth to NY. She's in good condition, and definately a good show (even if they don't fire off the guns anymore...) Massachusetts, New Jersey and Intrepid (when she's done with her overhaul) are all in a few hours drive from each other, though.

I think the plan was to make the Enterprise a museum in NYC or the immediate vicinity before the whole deal fell through and she was scrapped. From what I've heard about the Texas, she's actually in pretty bad shape and in desperate need of a dry docking, but the only working dry dock that can take her is over either in Mobile or Tampa and they doubt she'd survive the trip. Last I heard they were planning to do something similar to HMS Victory, build a permanent dry dock to hold her and prevent corrosion. They were also thinking of moving her somewhere else around Houston since her current location is apparently not the most convenient or appealing to visit, being surrounded by oil refineries.

http://cv6.org/1946/1946.htm

Quoted

With Enterprise in mothballs, a number of efforts were made to preserve her for public exhibit. The first attempt came in 1946, when she was proposed for donation to New York State. Three years later, the San Francisco Museum of Science and Industry suggested exhibiting her at Treasure Island Naval Air Station, in San Francisco Bay. The Navy declined the offer, citing the cost of transferring the ship and maintaining her afterwards.

Quoted

When the Navy announced it could no longer maintain Enterprise, the Association stepped forward to save her. Launching a publicity drive and aided by Enterprise's old friend, Admiral William F. Halsey, the Association succeeded in passing a resolution through Congress to establish Enterprise as a national memorial in Washington, DC. But the resolution had a catch: the Association had to assume full fiscal responsibility for maintaining Enterprise, and was given just six months to raise the initial two million dollars needed to move and preserve the ship.

I'm a fairly young guy, and it still appalls me that such efforts were made to save the ship (or even it's foremast, at the end. And on that note, I've never even heard the reason/excuse it didn't make it to Annapolis as promised...), only to be stymied by such beuracratic nonsense. :\

All the designs have tendered to the Technical-Tactical Requirement (TTR) have been evaluated by the Naval Constructors Board and the Naval Staff. The Aircraft Handling Equipment Research Team has also been consulted and Admiral Peablo, the new Naval Chief of Staff, has personally examined all the entries. The Gunnery Division were also involved in offering advice on the designs and future requirements.

Design No: Australia Export 1
Hull: Longer than 170m, seakeeping very good
Armament: The Gunnery Division has previously looked at a 130mm triple mount but such weapons were not specified for a carrier. Other AA weapons broadly met the minimum requirements. Torpedoes are considered a hazardous unwanted addition.
Air group and facilities: The hangar seems too cramped to operate and service most of the air group without some form of permanent deck park which could be a liability in heavy weather.
Armour: Meets expectations and proof against most light cruiser fire but no underwater protection
Speed and Range: Excellent range above the specification and good speed equal to most escorts in the fleet
Overall View: This hybrid scheme is interesting but the Navy wishes to build pure carriers before such a concept is proven. A hybrid seaplane carrier cruiser is being studied and this design would detract from that design. It is recognised, however, that this ship would be a potent commerce raider.

Design No: Japan Variant A
Hull: Longer than 170m, seakeeping only just acceptable but in heavy weather would not be a good ship
Armament: Carries the 115mm gun system, the single mounts mounted do not exist. The Gunnery Division confirm a single-gun turret version of the twin now in production can be built but design, proofing and manufacture would entail a delay of two years before the mount was ready. If such mounts are deleted they could be replaced by twin 37mm guns.
Air group and facilities: Good facilities and meets minimum air group size
Armour: Meets requirements but no underwater protection
Speed and Range: Speed is considered amazing for her size and Admiral Peablo considers such speed very useful in escaping from enemy units and manoeuvring within the battle fleet. Range is also good for oceanic voyages
Overall View: A very useful design with very high speed, ideal for use with small cruiser groups

Design No: Japan Variant B
Hull: Longer than 170m, seakeeping acceptable
Armament: Heavy 130mm and 100mm armament backed up by lighter AA guns, most comprehensive gunnery outfit among all the ships but 115mm could be fitted
Air group and facilities: As variant A
Armour: Heavier than Variant A, meets all standards and capable of resting light cruiser fire
Speed and Range: Slightly slower than Variant A but one of the fastest designs offered.
Overall View: All the plus points of Variant A backed by thicker armour and heavier battery. Selected for final group.

Design No: Dutch Entry
Hull: 170m long, meets all requirements, hangar integral with hull and flight deck is upper strength deck, excellent seakeeping
Armament: Carries the 115mm gun system, the single mounts mounted do not exist. The Gunnery Division confirm a single-gun turret version of the twin now in production can be built but design, proofing and manufacture would entail a delay of two years before the mount was ready. If such mounts are deleted they could be replaced by twin 37mm guns. RPG may have to be increased.
Air group and facilities: 40 plus 8 spares exceeds the specification, roomy hangar aids servicing and moving while modern fire fighting equipment is also fitted
Armour: Good armour scheme along entire waterline, torpedo bulkhead too
Speed and Range: Speed and range good
Overall View: A well thought out design which meets or exceeds every point on the specification. Selected for final group.

Design No: Italian Pr 703
Hull: Longer than 170m, stable and by far the best seakeeping of any ship analysed
Armament: Meets the minimum specification
Air group and facilities: Hangar for around 40 aircraft and deck park offered to increase numbers to 60. Deck edge lift is not liked by the NCB who feel in rough weather and in combat it offers too many shortcomings. Only one lift also hampers the design although a catapult is fitted.
Armour: Minimum armour, deck armour too thin
Speed and Range: Good speed and range
Overall View: An interesting design but overall a poor package compared to other designs submitted and as such offers the minimum of everything with no real benefits over any other design.

Design No: Australia Export 1 (Revised 150mm guns)
Overall View: Offers no improvements over the 130mm armed design and the Naval Staff feel such a design is neither capable of being a successful carrier or cruiser. A poor compromise but an interesting concept which may be explored further later.

Design No: Australia Export 2
Hull: As Export 1, seakeeping slightly better and very good
Armament: 100mm guns offered but 115mm could be fitted instead, torpedoes still fitted and this is viewed as somewhat odd by the NCB
Air group and facilities: Full length flight deck much improves operations and more hangar space is also welcome.
Armour: As Export 1
Speed and Range: As Export 1
Overall View: A fair carrier design much more useful than the hybrid ship and also quite cheap compared to other designs while offering good range and protection. Selected for final group.

Design No: Atlantis Project 208/34
Hull: Over 170m, stability borderline which restricts further growth, seakeeping good but slightly below desired figure. Hangar structure is all above the main hull, as a superstructure, likely weaknesses might affect lifespan of ship. Exceeds specified weight but this can be overlooked if design meets other criteria.
Armament: Excellent battery of six twin 115mm guns and all specified light guns
Air group and facilities: Airgroup meets specification but single lift (aft) a serious drawback given the ships size, one catapult carried forwards.
Armour: Belt can withstand light cruiser fire and deck armour is acceptable
Speed and Range: Very good speed and range above the specification
Overall View: A sound design with an excellent battery but too many flight deck and design faults combine to make this ship not attractive for final selection.

Design No: Australia Export 1 (557ft version)
Hull: Meets 170m requirement, seakeeping very good and the designers have left further room for growth
Armament: As Export 2 design but better layout, no 115mm gun system however and still has torpedo tubes
Air group and facilities: Adequate but hangar still cramped
Armour: As other Export 1 designs
Speed and Range: As Export 2, again very good range
Overall View: An overall much better design that meets most requirements and exceeds some

Design No: Japan Variant C
Hull: Meets 170m requirement, seakeeping at the very minimum acceptable
Armament: All single 115mm gun battery unacceptable as no such mount yet exists
Air group and facilities: Good but cramped compared to larger Variants
Armour: Good enough to resist light cruiser fire and a torpedo bulkhead is also fitted
Speed and Range: Still a very fast design but range poorer than some other designs.
Overall View: A cramped alternative, still fast but not any cheaper to build

Design No: Atlantis Project 209/34
Hull: Meets 170m requirement, average seakeeping
Armament: 130mm guns offered, while good for protection from surface threats this gun has a poorer AA rate of fire and lethality
Air group and facilities: Meets air group requirement but spaces are more cramped and facilities not as good as desired
Armour: Meets requirements and is thicker than some other designs offered
Speed and Range: Meets requirements
Overall View: A good design but too cramped for sustained oceanic operations

Design No: Naval Defence Solutions Inc.
Hull: Meets 170m requirement, design focus on providing a clear flight deck unrestricted by funnels etc, seakeeping minimum accepted standard and weight for future growth
Armament: Meets requirements
Air group and facilities: All requirements met and catapult included
Armour: Very good hull armour and the deck armour can withstand heavy cruiser fire and bombs
Speed and Range: Speed good but range is minimum acceptable
Overall View: Overall a good private design with many merits, including flag facilities and provisions for good deck operations

Design No: HDW CV-1933
Hull: Meets 170m requirement, excellent seakeeping and stability
Armament: Does not meet minimum specification
Air group and facilities: Does not meet minimum specification but spares are provided
Armour: Adequate against small calibre shells
Speed and Range: Very good speed but range is the worst submitted and not acceptable
Overall View: Although very cheap to build this design is best suited to a training role rather than a combat ship. Selected for final group.

Design No: Eclipse International
Hull: Meets 170m requirement, seakeeping very poor and ship useless in heavy seas but it is a very stable design
Armament: Light AA guns satisfactory but six single 115mm mounts are not
Air group and facilities: 60 aircraft claimed on two hangar decks, NCB feels this is optimistic and three deck-edge lifts are rejected as shot traps and given the poor seakeeping they would impair the water tightness of the hull
Armour: Main belt good, end belts worthless and no deck armour at all but torpedo protection added
Speed and Range: Meets requirements
Overall View: Not satisfactory and does not meet many key specifications and therefore not selected for the final choice.

Design No: Gibbs & Cox CVL1934-1
Hull: 170m long, stability good and seakeeping average
Armament: Meets the minimum specified battery but 115mm RPG too low
Air group and facilities: 40 aircraft, cramped hangar but overall equipment very good
Armour: Armour is good and can withstand light cruiser shells and torpedo protection is also fitted
Speed and Range: Very good speed and range
Overall View: A good overall smaller carrier which is cheap and offers good capability for its size. Selected for final group.

After reviewing the submissions a revised TTR has been sent to these firms;
Australia, for the Export 2 design armed with the specified 115mm guns
Japan, for Variant B with differing batteries
HDW (Germany), for a revised design
Gibbs & Cox (USA), for revised designs

G&C CVL1934-2, Argentinian Aircraft Carrier laid down 1934

Displacement:
13,487 t light; 13,885 t standard; 16,345 t normal; 18,313 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
682.80 ft / 656.17 ft x 68.90 ft x 22.97 ft (normal load)
208.12 m / 200.00 m x 21.00 m x 7.00 m

Armament:
8 - 4.53" / 115 mm guns (4x2 guns), 55.12lbs / 25.00kg shells, 1934 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
16 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (4x4 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1934 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
24 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (4x6 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1934 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
24 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns in single mounts, 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1934 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 20 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 477 lbs / 216 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 250

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 3.00" / 76 mm 523.23 ft / 159.48 m 9.97 ft / 3.04 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 123 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
2.00" / 51 mm 523.23 ft / 159.48 m 21.10 ft / 6.43 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 2.00" / 51 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 1.20" / 30 mm

- Armour deck: 2.00" / 51 mm, Conning tower: 3.00" / 76 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 128,038 shp / 95,516 Kw = 33.00 kts
Range 15,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 4,428 tons

Complement:
722 - 939

Cost:
£5.059 million / $20.236 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 51 tons, 0.3 %
Armour: 2,696 tons, 16.5 %
- Belts: 636 tons, 3.9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 817 tons, 5.0 %
- Armament: 34 tons, 0.2 %
- Armour Deck: 1,168 tons, 7.1 %
- Conning Tower: 42 tons, 0.3 %
Machinery: 3,683 tons, 22.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 5,457 tons, 33.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,858 tons, 17.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 1,600 tons, 9.8 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
24,485 lbs / 11,106 Kg = 527.6 x 4.5 " / 115 mm shells or 3.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.21
Metacentric height 4.1 ft / 1.2 m
Roll period: 14.4 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 77 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.12
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.53

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle
Block coefficient: 0.551
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.52 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 25.62 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 58 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 14.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 41.01 ft / 12.50 m
- Forecastle (10 %): 41.01 ft / 12.50 m (31.17 ft / 9.50 m aft of break)
- Mid (50 %): 22.97 ft / 7.00 m
- Quarterdeck (10 %): 22.97 ft / 7.00 m
- Stern: 22.97 ft / 7.00 m
- Average freeboard: 26.43 ft / 8.06 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 122.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 208.4 %
Waterplane Area: 31,580 Square feet or 2,934 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 135 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 100 lbs/sq ft or 489 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.93
- Longitudinal: 1.85
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

40 Aircraft

Quoted

Overall View: An interesting design but overall a poor package compared to other designs submitted and as such offers the minimum of everything with no real benefits over any other design.

Argentina does have proof that the Italian design does work however as it has already been built. I suppose another lift could be added aft without impinging on hangar space too much. Moving the forward lfit inboard presents problems as it would cut hangar space too much. The armour is minimal and only proof against splinters. However, if any of these designs comes under shellfire they are all in serious trouble. No design (except Rocky's) has enough deck armour to resist bombs and even them - serious trouble from hits to the hangar. Armour isn't really viewed as a problem. In return, the weight saved is used for a catapult and extensive misc. weight (theoretically 60+ aircraft)

Export 2+, Australia Light Carrier laid down 1934

Displacement:
9,348 t light; 9,657 t standard; 11,584 t normal; 13,126 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
661.66 ft / 650.00 ft x 67.00 ft x 19.00 ft (normal load)
201.67 m / 198.12 m x 20.42 m x 5.79 m

Armament:
4 - 4.53" / 115 mm guns (2x2 guns), 46.40lbs / 21.05kg shells, 1934 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts
on centreline, all forward
8 - 4.53" / 115 mm guns (4x2 guns), 46.40lbs / 21.05kg shells, 1934 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
16 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (4x4 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1934 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
24 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (4x6 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1934 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
10 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns in single mounts, 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1934 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 590 lbs / 268 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 200

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 3.00" / 76 mm 370.00 ft / 112.78 m 9.00 ft / 2.74 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 88 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.50" / 38 mm - -
2nd: 1.50" / 38 mm - -

- Armour deck: 1.50" / 38 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 77,986 shp / 58,177 Kw = 32.00 kts
Range 15,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3,469 tons

Complement:
557 - 725

Cost:
£3.452 million / $13.809 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 74 tons, 0.6 %
Armour: 1,294 tons, 11.2 %
- Belts: 426 tons, 3.7 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 39 tons, 0.3 %
- Armour Deck: 830 tons, 7.2 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 2,244 tons, 19.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 4,137 tons, 35.7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,236 tons, 19.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 1,600 tons, 13.8 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
19,469 lbs / 8,831 Kg = 419.6 x 4.5 " / 115 mm shells or 2.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.23
Metacentric height 4.0 ft / 1.2 m
Roll period: 14.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.05
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.33

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.490
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.70 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 29.20 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 53
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 25.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 25.00 ft / 7.62 m
- Forecastle (30 %): 21.00 ft / 6.40 m
- Mid (50 %): 21.00 ft / 6.40 m
- Quarterdeck (20 %): 21.00 ft / 6.40 m
- Stern: 21.00 ft / 6.40 m
- Average freeboard: 21.48 ft / 6.55 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 83.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 214.7 %
Waterplane Area: 29,896 Square feet or 2,777 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 145 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 93 lbs/sq ft or 452 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.98
- Longitudinal: 1.17
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Here's the (very slightly) revised HDW CV-1933 design.

CV-1933, German Aircraft Carrier laid down 1933

Displacement:
8,060 t light; 8,283 t standard; 9,190 t normal; 9,915 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
570.12 ft / 541.34 ft x 65.62 ft (Bulges 75.46 ft) x 16.40 ft (normal load)
173.77 m / 165.00 m x 20.00 m (Bulges 23.00 m) x 5.00 m

Armament:
8 - 3.94" / 100 mm guns (4x2 guns), 30.51lbs / 13.84kg shells, 1933 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (2x4 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1933 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1933 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts - superfiring
24 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (12x2 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1928 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 275 lbs / 125 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 240

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 1.97" / 50 mm 330.22 ft / 100.65 m 9.71 ft / 2.96 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 94 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0.79" / 20 mm 0.39" / 10 mm -
2nd: 0.79" / 20 mm 0.39" / 10 mm -
3rd: 0.79" / 20 mm 0.39" / 10 mm -
4th: 0.39" / 10 mm - -

- Armour deck: 1.57" / 40 mm, Conning tower: 3.94" / 100 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 72,862 shp / 54,355 Kw = 32.00 kts
Range 8,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,632 tons

Complement:
469 - 610

Cost:
£2.875 million / $11.500 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 34 tons, 0.4 %
Armour: 1,028 tons, 11.2 %
- Belts: 270 tons, 2.9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 17 tons, 0.2 %
- Armour Deck: 704 tons, 7.7 %
- Conning Tower: 37 tons, 0.4 %
Machinery: 2,123 tons, 23.1 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,630 tons, 39.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,130 tons, 12.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 1,244 tons, 13.5 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
14,863 lbs / 6,742 Kg = 487.1 x 3.9 " / 100 mm shells or 2.0 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.20
Metacentric height 3.7 ft / 1.1 m
Roll period: 16.4 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.03
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.22

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.480
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.17 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 27.38 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 61 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 58
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 30.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 32.81 ft / 10.00 m
- Forecastle (22 %): 29.53 ft / 9.00 m
- Mid (50 %): 26.25 ft / 8.00 m (19.69 ft / 6.00 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (17 %): 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
- Stern: 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
- Average freeboard: 24.44 ft / 7.45 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 93.3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 230.1 %
Waterplane Area: 24,163 Square feet or 2,245 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 135 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 92 lbs/sq ft or 449 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.91
- Longitudinal: 2.18
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Space for 32 aircraft, along with 4 spares at 25 tons each.

120 tons reserved for command spaces and growth.

Acctually James the 208/34 design has two lifts, the drawing posted was of the training CV Nautica, used as an example, which by treaty is allowed only one lift.
Both designs also possess the 5.1"(130mm) mount, same weapon as the recently purchased CL's from Atlantis to ease logistics.

I'd be willing to submit a revised preposal but it seems she didn't make the initial cut....

Actualy The big E will replace Independance or one of the other ready reserve carriers. atleast to start with.

RA, I felt the lift is in an ideal position to make excellent use of the catapult and I can see why you used it bt the thought of that large hull gap with all in potential bad storms marked the ship down. I know I asked for lght armour but 20mm decks just seemed too light.

Wes, My mistake then. What killed the 208/34 was the 1.00 stability, it seemed too low to me since most weights are quite high in the ship. It seemed like a marginal gap when most other designs had around 1.11 stability and higher.

Expect final decision early next week. I'm having a togh time chosing.

Note: The selection will be in the early Q2 news, ie. after the inspection of two Japanese carriers during the visit. Not that this in any way biases the selection board.

The Gibbs and Cox design seems to be the best of the bunch, which isn't saying much.

Have a look over on the warship projects board for RN interwar carriers. There are plenty between 12000 - 17000tons with varying aircraft complements and armouring.

All the designs have tendered to the revised Technical-Tactical Requirement (TTR) have been evaluated by the Naval Constructors Board and the Naval Staff. The Aircraft Handling Equipment Research Team has also been consulted and Admiral Peablo, the new Naval Chief of Staff, has personally examined all the entries. The Gunnery Division were also involved in offering advice on the designs and future requirements.

Design No: Japan Variant B-1a
Hull: Longer than 190m, sea keeping now rated at very good
Armament: Revised with eight twin 115mm twin mounts, light AA meets requirements with two extra quad 37mm mounts
Air group and facilities: Meets full requirements in capacity and equipment
Armour: Good citadel protection capable of resisting 500lbs bombs and 6in cruiser shellfire
Speed and Range: Very fast with excellent range, fastest carrier tendered to competition
Overall View: As good as B-1f but trading armour for speed.

Design No: Japan Variant B-1f
Hull: Longer than 190m, sea keeping now rated at very good
Armament: Revised with twelve twin 115mm twin mounts, light AA meets requirements
Air group and facilities: Meets full requirements in capacity and equipment
Armour: Good citadel protection capable of resisting 250lbs bombs and 6in cruiser shellfire, thicker main belt than B-1a
Speed and Range: Very fast with excellent range, fastest carrier tendered to competition
Overall View: Best armour, defensive firepower and overall speed of all the designs examined

Design No: Dutch Entry 2
Hull: 170m long, meets all requirements, hangar integral with hull and flight deck is upper strength deck, excellent seakeeping
Armament: Carries the 115mm gun system, the single mounts replaced by twin 37mm guns. RPG increased. No less than 26 37mm guns mounted over the specified fit
Air group and facilities: 40 plus 8 spares exceeds the specification, roomy hangar aids servicing and moving while modern fire fighting equipment is also fitted
Armour: Good armour scheme along entire waterline, torpedo bulkhead too
Speed and Range: Speed and range is very good
Overall View: A well thought out design which meets or exceeds every point on the specification and the improvements made have made the ship much better in some aspects. .

Design No: Australia Export 2
Hull: As Export 1, seakeeping slightly better and very good
Armament: 115mm gun system fitted, light AA meets requirements and ten 20mm extra added
Air group and facilities: As first Export 2 design
Armour: As first Export 2 design
Speed and Range: As first Export 2 design
Overall View: A good carrier design offering good range and protection.

The NCB and the Naval Staff have now decied on a winning design.

While the Dutch design was considered to be very good and it met the full TTR the Japanese design team offered two superior ships and offered a very attractive price which was unbeaten. Therefore the NCB chose the Variant B-1f and has now taken up the matter of production and final alterations with the Japanese designers.

"Noooooo! Somebody call NATO!"

Hmm two design competions in SA, Japan wins both, Australia gets 2nd place...hmmm...