If you were to have both on one carrier (as seems to be the plan with HMS Queen Elizabeth and/or Prince of Wales), how would they be laid out? Catapult followed by ski ramp? Add an extension to the deck for the catapult to launch diagonally? I'm curious how you think this might work.

the BASC-220 or Spain's CATOBAR Carrier

BASC-220

Yes this is a real unbuilt design by Spain in the 1990s who tried to sell it to China who at the time never bought it probably cause they couldn't afford it or didn't need it while Brazil could've bought it but didn't probably as they were going to get the Clemenceau-class aircraft carrier from France in 2000 while Argentina was financially broke and hadn't recovered after their disastrous defeat in the Falklands War against the UK.

The BASC-220's total length was 241.8 metres with a beam of 29.5 meters, a depth to flight deck of 22.5 metres and had a displacement at full load was 27,000 tonnes.

The propulsion was apparently a Combined Diesel and Gas / Combined Gas And Gas system which gave 76,440/88,500 Horsepower for a max speed of 25.5 / 26.5 knots whose range at 15 knots was 7500 miles.

Her Anti-Air Defensive armament is unknown but she was capable of 24 aircraft probably helicopters too as it was designed for up to 20 F-18-like aircraft and 4 Anti-Submarine Warfare Helicopters.

Sadly Spain's carrier export ambitions never really took off but what do we they'd have called this although my info is probably not the best as information about this ship is very hard to find.

I know you're getting tired of the frequency of these posts and I'll try to cut back on the number but when I find an unbuilt ship that never made it, I feel I have should share this with you lot.

Side Note: If Argentina had this which is a big if then you'd have these options for her air wing

Opt.1: 20 Dassault Super Etendard 4M or 20 A-4Q Skyhawks with 4 Sikorsky S-61D-4 Sea King

Opt.2: 16 Dassault Super Etendard 4M or 16 A-4Q Skyhawks with 4 Grumman S-2T Turbo Trackers and 4 Sikorsky S-61D-4 Sea King

Opt 3: a mix of 8 Dassault Super Etendard 4M, 8 A-4Q Skyhawks with 4 Grumman S-2T Turbo Trackers and 4 Sikorsky S-61D-4 Sea King helicopters.

I have encountered a lot of these speculations like QE having CATOBAR or USN thinking about conventional powered medium class carriers. I don't think it's possible imho, but i would really like to know more about this.

Gaijin please: Modern Aircraft Carriers & CATOBAR

https://preview.redd.it/ak3hvn7506q21.png?width=1199&format=png&auto=webp&s=aea7d64e6435387b884c20ef90de0db7899d292a

Hello people, yes I am also the OP of the sea hawk crashing into the ocean from earlier today. And yes, I did make this entire post out of sheer rage (bit of an exaggeration). Full post with more detail can be found on the Forums here (when it is approved)

Introduction

The carriers currently present in game are dated assets that have not been refined for many years, hosting a range of bugs and a distinct lack of quality compared to the high fidelity models that the game has distinguished itself with in recent times. With the continual progression through the jet ages, more and more naval aircraft will be added to the game, and eventually it is going to be imperative that new aircraft carriers are added alongside them, to ensure that they function properly, and the aesthetic of the modern aircraft are not ruined

These new carriers will all feature CATOBAR (Catapult Assisted Take-Off But Arrested Recovery) systems, which allow for modern aircraft to takeoff and land in very short distances. This will allow multiple players to reliably takeoff, and land, without crashing into the drink below.

Reasonable Additions Regarding Current Time-Frame, and it's Foreseeable Progression:

USS Enterprise (USA)

https://preview.redd.it/ncqqdyumx5q21.png?width=2100&format=png&auto=webp&s=23bef54f2761cdfdaab36ec2f950c453479e2cab

USS Enterprise was a single carrier class that was brought into service in 1961, and remained in active service until 2012. She is 342 meters long, and has four steam launched catapults, that in reality would not launch more than 2 aircraft at a time, however in War Thunder it is rational to assume due to the no-collision system upon takeoffs that all four catapults could be used in unison to prevent large wait times.

Forrestal-Class Carrier (USA)

https://preview.redd.it/3u10nwyqx5q21.png?width=784&format=png&auto=webp&s=7f8cc8bd919da48d55d3d01f835c93fa868a0c03

The [Forrestal Class Carrier](https://en.

What would be the advantages and drawbacks of using angled decks, catapults, arresting gear, etc. on US Navy LHAs and/or LHDs.

There’ve been a number of poorly-written articles over the last few days with even more poorly considered comments surrounding the launch of China’s new carrier. Much is made of its ski ramp and how this is (from people who’ve never noticed the system’s ubiquity outside the US) either complete junk that shows how behind us the Chinese are, or a brilliant, simple solution with no downsides, that shows how silly Americans are for spending money on catapults.

Obviously both are incorrect, but this got me thinking: Do you need a steam plant for catapult operations? Until we get the bugs worked out of EMALS, catapults still rely on steam pressure. I suppose that you could have an auxiliary steam plant, but this would seem to be a difficult to justify use of space, weight, and money.

Stop me if I’m incorrect, but (aside from the gunpowder catapults of surface combatant spotter planes) the only non-steam system before the Jerry Ford was the abomination of a compressed air plant on the Graf Zeppelin, used, I’d assume, because that Frankenstein’s monster was diesel-powered like many German capital ships.

A quick check around shows that all post-Cold War, non-nuclear carriers are either gas turbine or diesel-powered, with the exception of the just-launched Shandong. All have ski ramps.

Now, IIRC, there was talk of the Queen Elizabeths originally not having ramps. Were they, then, originally going to give her a steam power system, or am I missing something?

I’ve also heard that Shandong was going to use gas turbines, but the decision was made to go with steam.

I can see three benefits to this:

1. Easier, rather than try to mate a completely new power system with the Kuznetsov.
2. Some overlap in training for an eventual nuke plant.
3. Allows for the retrofitting of a waist catapult on the 001a and training for the (supposedly) flat-decked 002, if in fact, the steam plant is needed for the CATOBAR on that next carrier.

So, am I missing something? Is it practical to do steam catapults without a full steam power plant?

Is there another option, aside from EMALS, that might have been considered for the QE?

Have the advantages of gas turbines over steam plants (size, complexity, warmup time) influenced the choice of non-nuclear navies to go with ski jumps over catapults?

Seems to me that having both catapults and ramps would make a carrier more flexible since it could carry different types of aircraft, and catapult-launched aircraft could have greater payload. Is it just a question of the benefits not justifying the cost or is it just not possible for some reason?

The QE2 class was supposed to be designed as future proof with the ability to fit catapults and landing systems. But the article says it's a sham. What is the real deal, are they adaptable or not? https://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/06/defence_committee_carrier_badness/

In order to accomodate any future aircraft carriers that the SEAF might procure in the future, the decision has been made to develop a variant of the Dương Vương Mk. 1 that utilizes CATOBAR. This variant is to be released 6 months after the primary variant, and will cost an additional $1 billion in development costs.

In what has been deemed by some critics as 'utterly insane' and 'kind of sad, really', the Chinese Army Navy Air Force will be conducting CATOBAR training with its J-15C and J-31 fighter aircraft.

Several training facilities will be conducted in Hainan Province, consisting of a 1142-foot runway with electromagnetic aircraft launch systems built in. Arresting cables will be strung across the runway to simulate the conditions onboard an aircraft carrier.

The J-15C and J-31 naval variants are built with arresting cable hooks, allowing them to operate from aircraft carriers and short runways.

It is hoped that by the time the Shoukaku-Class vessels become active as part of the Chinese Army Navy, over 2,300 pilots will be well-versed in CATOBAR operations.