WesWorld

No, I have no immediate plans to install one - but sooner or later, it's going to happen somewhere. So:

-What level of refit do we think will be required for installation in existng ships?

-Are we going to require additional miscellaneous weight to be set aside to account for the significant overhang?

Flightdeck is a kinda "superstructure" so you're looking at either "Changes to superstructure" or "Replacement of superstructure" with that. Not really sure what would be best. One seems too cheap and the other too expensive...

As for the miscellaneous weights, I consider the flightdeck to be part of the miscellaneous weights assigned to planes so I would apply the rule for postwar CVs with jets (= 2/3 of the airgroup) to recalculate the number of planes on a carrier with an angled deck (and add additional miscellaneous weight if you want more planes on the carrier).

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

Flightdeck is a kinda "superstructure" so you're looking at either "Changes to superstructure" or "Replacement of superstructure" with that. Not really sure what would be best. One seems too cheap and the other too expensive...

I suppose it depends on the type of angled deck. The originals refitted aboard the British carriers didn't have that much of an overhang - the Centaurs were almost more of a re-arrangement of an existing deck, from what I've seen. On the flip side, something like the decks refitted to the Essex and Midway class ships are a larger change. But I'd say "Changes to superstructure" would be the way I'd do it.

As Brock says early angled decks were very modest affairs (practically angling the painted lines on the deck with a small overhang.
Perhaps an interim 1-6 degree deck under the "changes to superstructure" (I'm thinking of ark Royal's original modest angled deck) and anything greater, 6 degrees +, under "replacement of superstructure" since they involve more hull work and counter-bulging etc. The latter category should also cover angled decks with addition catapults on them.

How we sim the msic weight for that I'm not sure but there would be a difference to ship's stability and seakeeping in practice and some kind of SS change should reflect that. It won't however show the additional hull volume although reducing armament to clear room for the overhang area should save some weight too. Also, would we need to sim angled decks with new-build carriers the same way?