Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military From: jkmedcal%uokmax@uokmax.uucp (Jeff Medcalf) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Musings About Naval Architecture Message-ID: <7724@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 23 Jun 89 20:02:39 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Lines: 29 Approved: military@att.att.com From: Jeff Medcalf The other day I saw some pictures of Jean D'Arc, the French helicopter/commando carrier. It seems that helicopter carriers often have their decks behind the superstructure, with a good armament up front (I realize that these are old ships). Also, most "jeep carriers," or Harrier carriers if you prefer, are built with through decks and lighter armaments (I include the Soviet Kievs here, though they obviously do *not* have a light armament). Now imagine a ship designed to operate VTOL aircraft and helicopters. There is a ski jump foreward, a long deck, with one side-mounted elevator, and then the superstructure, within the front of which is another elevator. Abreast of the superstructure are CIWS mounts, torpedo tubes, 3" or 5" compact guns, and 4 skyhooks. On the back side of the superstructure are the funnel, SAM launcher (probably Vertical Launch), and chaff/flare launchers. What would be the advantages and disadvantages of such an architecture as compared to the deck in back and a full-length deck? What about cost? Keeping the deck clear of exhaust? Seaworthiness? Efficiency? Protection? And of course, would it be useful? -- I dream I'm safe jkmedcal@uokmax.UUCP Soft and so nice Jeff Medcalf Soft and so nice It's a wonderful womb <-The Church, "Hotel Womb"