WesWorld

I did the design on springsharp and it comes out almost identical. The design has some flexability for improvements wether it me more speed or different guns.

Narrabri, Austrailia light carrier laid down 1930

Displacement:
9,713 t light; 9,983 t standard; 11,014 t normal; 11,795 t full load
Loading submergence 722 tons/feet

Dimensions:
589.00 ft x 60.00 ft x 18.00 ft (normal load)
179.53 m x 18.29 m x 5.49 m

Armament:
12 - 4.50" / 114 mm guns
20 - 1.56" / 40 mm AA guns
20 - 0.80" / 20 mm guns
Weight of broadside 590 lbs / 268 kg

Armour:
Belt 3.00" / 76 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 100 % of normal area
Main gun shields 3.00" / 76 mm
Armour deck 1.00" / 25 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 74,588 shp / 55,643 Kw = 30.15 kts
Range 12,200nm at 12.00 kts

Complement:
537 - 698

Cost:
£3.004 million / $12.016 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 74 tons, 0.7 %
Armour: 972 tons, 8.8 %
Belts: 438 tons, 4.0 %, Armament: 66 tons, 0.6 %, Armour Deck: 467 tons, 4.2 %
Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 2,260 tons, 20.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,807 tons, 34.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,301 tons, 11.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 2,600 tons, 23.6 %

Metacentric height 2.7

Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation & workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable and able to fight her guns in the heaviest weather

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.07
Shellfire needed to sink: 14,635 lbs / 6,639 Kg = 321.2 x 4.5 " / 114 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 1.6
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 71 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.10
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.51

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.606
Sharpness coefficient: 0.37
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 8.10
'Natural speed' for length: 24.27 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 56 %
Trim: 47
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 97.8 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 206.1 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 127 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 1.00
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 93 lbs / square foot or 454 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.39
(for 23.00 ft / 7.01 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 7.56 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.03

This design is a clone but reflects my navy's prefered armament and other charactoristics.

Siboney/Evanor, Atlantis light carrier laid down 1930

Displacement:
9,708 t light; 10,001 t standard; 11,026 t normal; 11,803 t full load
Loading submergence 723 tons/feet

Dimensions:
610.00 ft x 58.00 ft x 18.00 ft (normal load)
185.93 m x 17.68 m x 5.49 m

Armament:
10 - 5.50" / 140 mm guns
12 - 1.56" / 40 mm AA guns
20 - 1.00" / 25 mm guns
Weight of broadside 865 lbs / 392 kg

Armour:
Belt 3.00" / 76 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 100 % of normal area
Main gun shields 2.00" / 51 mm
Armour deck 1.00" / 25 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 71,670 shp / 53,465 Kw = 30.02 kts
Range 12,000nm at 12.00 kts

Complement:
538 - 699

Cost:
£3.072 million / $12.288 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 108 tons, 1.0 %
Armour: 958 tons, 8.7 %
Belts: 443 tons, 4.0 %, Armament: 47 tons, 0.4 %, Armour Deck: 468 tons, 4.2 %
Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 2,172 tons, 19.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,670 tons, 33.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,318 tons, 12.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 2,800 tons, 25.4 %

Metacentric height 2.5

Remarks:
Caution: Hull subject to strain in open-sea
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation & workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable and able to fight her guns in the heaviest weather

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.07
Shellfire needed to sink: 13,949 lbs / 6,327 Kg = 167.7 x 5.5 " / 140 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 1.6
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 71 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.16
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.65

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.606
Sharpness coefficient: 0.36
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 8.38
'Natural speed' for length: 24.70 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 54 %
Trim: 43
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 99.4 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 206.0 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 123 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.94
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 88 lbs / square foot or 429 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.24
(for 23.00 ft / 7.01 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 7.56 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 0.97

I plan on a couple of these next year, or something like them. I'm trying to get the seakeeping up to 1.5, so my pilots have an easy time taking off and landing:

Russian Light Carrier, laid down 1922

Length, 210.0 m x Beam, 22.0 m x Depth, 6.7 m
14777 tonnes normal displacement (13344 tonnes standard)

Main battery: 8 x 13.0-cm (4 x 2; 2 superfiring)
AA battery: 16 x 3.7-cm

Weight of broadside: 255 kg

Main belt, 5.0 cm; ends unarmored
Armor deck, average 5.0 cm
Conning tower, 5.0 cm

Battery armor:
Main, 2.5 cm
AA, 2.5 cm shields

Aircraft - 64 (16 Fighter, 16 Torpedo Bomber, 16 Level Bomber, 16 Recce)

Flight deck - 220m long, 25m wide

Maximum speed for 54671 shaft kw = 29.50 knots
Approximate cruising radius, 8000 nm / 15 knots

Typical complement: 670-871


Estimated cost, $9.403 million (£2.351 million)

Remarks:

Relative extent of belt armor, 89 percent of 'typical' coverage.

Ship has slow, easy roll; a good, steady gun platform.

Good seaboat; rides out heavy weather easily.

Ship is roomy, with superior accommodation and working space.


Distribution of weights:
Percent
normal
displacement:

Armament ......................... 70 tonnes = 0 pct
Armor, total ..................... 1525 tonnes = 10 pct

Belt 329 tonnes = 2 pct
Deck 1092 tonnes = 7 pct
C.T. 26 tonnes = 0 pct
Armament 78 tonnes = 1 pct

Machinery ........................ 2485 tonnes = 17 pct
Hull and fittings; equipment ..... 4826 tonnes = 33 pct
Fuel, ammunition, stores ......... 1776 tonnes = 12 pct
Miscellaneous weights ............ 4096 tonnes = 28 pct
-----
14777 tonnes = 100 pct

Estimated metacentric height, 1.1 m

Displacement summary:

Light ship: 13002 tonnes
Standard displacement: 13344 tonnes
Normal service: 14777 tonnes
Full load: 15865 tonnes

Loading submergence 2809 tonnes/metre

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:

Relative margin of stability: 1.07

Shellfire needed to sink: 8401 kg = 275.4 x 13.0-cm shells
(Approximates weight of penetrating
shell hits needed to sink ship,
not counting critical hits)

Torpedoes needed to sink: 2.2
(Approximates number of 'typical'
torpedo hits needed to sink ship)

Relative steadiness as gun platform, 74 percent
(50 percent is 'average')

Relative rocking effect from firing to beam, 0.09

Relative quality as a seaboat: 1.48

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Hull form characteristics:

Block coefficient: 0.47
Sharpness coefficient: 0.33
Hull speed coefficient 'M' = 8.59
'Natural speed' for length = 26.2 knots
Power going to wave formation
at top speed: 47 percent


Estimated hull characteristics and strength:

Relative underwater volume absorbed by
magazines and engineering spaces: 89 percent

Relative accommodation and working space: 169 percent


Displacement factor: 133 percent
(Displacement relative to loading factors)


Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 1.00
(Structure weight per square
metre of hull surface: 497 kg)

Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.01
(for 6.05 m average freeboard;
freeboard adjustment +1.06 m)

Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


[Machine-readable parameters: Spring Style v. 1.2.1]

688.80 x 72.16 x 22.14; 19.84 -- Dimensions
0.47 -- Block coefficient
1922 -- Year laid down
29.50 / 8000 / 15.00; Oil-fired turbine or equivalent -- Speed / radius / cruise
4096 tons -- Miscellaneous weights
++++++++++
8 x 5.12; 4; 2 -- Main battery; turrets; superfiring
:
0 -- No secondary battery
16 x 1.46 -- Tertiary (QF/AA) battery
Gun-shields
:
0 -- No fourth (light) battery
0 -- No torpedo armament
++++++++++
1.97 / 0.00 / 0.00 / 0.00; 89 -- Belt armor; relative extent
1.97 / 1.97 -- Deck / CT
0.98 / 0.00 / 0.98 / 0.00 -- Battery armor


(Note: For portability, values are stored in Anglo-American units)


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

My range of 10,000 t designs peaked at a 30 knot ship with 2.5" deck and belt, and 40 aircraft. I've not bothered with this size in a while, though.

All three of you guys are emphasizing airgroup at the expense of speed and armor. Is this to say that your CVLs would have a different mission from your CVs? Or will your CVs be similar in speed?

J

Atlantis sees aircraft as a carriers main defensive weapon. Seeing as a carrier lacks large caliber guns it lacks the armament to even have a hope of defending against anything larger that a destroyer so its survivability when caught by capital units is very low. In having a large airgroup and a high speed the carrier can avoid encounters rather than get involved directly and its planes will be its main weapon. Heavy armor will just slow down the ship and make its air capability's less effective. CVL's will suport larger fleet CV's in the scouting and air defence roles leaving the fleet CV's to the mort offensive tasks.

Following your arguments I would expect your carriers to have a higher speed than all other surface units except for DDs/TBs and such - to be able to run away from everything with medium or heavy sized guns. But when looking at the designs posted here I get the strong feeling that this is not the case. Those CVs and CVLs seem to be too slow to be able to escape a cruiser or a new fast BB...

Unfortunately their speed does come up short yes.....however the real design would not. This design was merely a responce to the original design posted by 17inc. I tend to favor the 15000/22000 ton CVs over CVLs. CV's are sitting ducks for capital units so they would have to be escorted by capital units or be able to run really fast! A carriers advantage lies in its ability to use aircraft for scouting, and thus engage or retreat if capital units are too close.

Quoted

All three of you guys are emphasizing airgroup at the expense of speed and armor. Is this to say that your CVLs would have a different mission from your CVs? Or will your CVs be similar in speed?

You're right that I emphasize airgroup, especially the large dedicated Scouting Group. When Russian CVs get developed, they will have a greater proportion of strike aircraft. So you could say that Russian CVL will have more of a scouting role, while the CV will have more of a strike role.