Blackbat242

"Department of Defense of the United States", not "Ministry of Defence of the United Stated".

HMS Ark Royal had a deck-edge aircraft lift when she was completed - it only served the upper hangar, and was removed in her 1958-59 special refit. The floor of the upper hangar was 30' above the waterline. That is why Ark's deck-edge lift only served the upper hangar, because the floor of the lower hangar was less than 15' above the waterline, and the RN considered that much too close for a deck-edge lift*. Moving the aft lift to the starboard deck-edge would also limit that one to serving the upper hangar only - however, this would not actually be a problem, as both Eagle (1959-64 modernization) & Ark (1958-59 special refit) had the aft part of their lower hangar converted to workshops and accommodation, and the aft lift thereafter only served the upper hangar. *Note that the lowest hangar freeboard of any RN deck-edge lift carrier was Hermes - at 24'. This was also the minimum the RN would accept, and is the lowest of any carrier with deck-edge lifts except for the new Italian carrier Cavour (18'). And there is specific mention of that lift being only used in moderately calm seas. The Midway, Essex, and Clemenceau classes had an aircraft lift freeboard of 25', for example. HMS Ark Royal before 1958:

No, they had to increase the length of the angled part of the flight deck, due to the requirement for having enough length for a max-landing-weight E-2C catching the last arresting wire to come to a stop (wire pull-out distance) with enough extra room to safely turn inboard under its own power. The overall flight deck length was not changed.

Is there going to be any moderation to keep things to historical "never-were" discussion? Or, as I have already seen happen, is this going to become another mish-mash forum where historical, historically-based "own drawings/designs", and made-up game-fantasy material blend promiscuously without much effort to keep track of which is which?

Some quotes from various forums: Beyond a very small color drawing from Revista Naval, this the most information I've ever found on the Spanish CTOL Aircraft Carrier design. Ingeniería Naval, septiembre 2002 pag 61 y sucesivasEslora total...................................241,8 mEslora entre perpendiculares...................222,8 mManga de trazado................................29,5 mPuntal a la cubierta de vuelo...................22,5 mDesplazamiento a plena carga...........25.500/27.000 tTipo propulsión............................CODAG/COGAGPotencia propulsora...........................57/66 MWVelocidad máxima continua .............25,5/26,5 nudosAutonomía a 15 nudos .....................7.500 millasOperaciones de aviones hasta ..........estado de mar 5Operaciones del buque hasta ...........estado de mar 9Did Bazan....which was later known as IZAR.....and now is know as Navantia.....ever release any drawings or general arrangements of the BSAC/SAC 220 or 200?Was there a really serious sales and design effort behind this project, or was it just a long shot sales pitch to China? I have a slightly more detailed black and white drawing of the SAC-220. It looks to have two 75m cats. It looks to be able to fit about 20 hornets and four Hawkeyes. To be honest, I think the slightly smaller SAC-200 is a better deal. It could be used as a cheap training carrier or when used with a squadron of say a navalized JAS-39C/D could be an effective training. The slightly larger conventional version of the Charles de Guelle offered to India by DCN is a much better light carrier design. Well, it seems that the SAC-220 & 200 were offered seriouly to the Brazilian an Argentinian navies and later to China. Of course it would be a general design, the country interested in it would must to pay a more detailed R&D work.Navantia/Izar/Bazan never makes public a lot of information of its designs (included that builded!). The most complete official data sheet that I have found of a recent Izar design is from the AFCON Aegis Corvette, and probably because it’s a project in partnership with Lockheed and Bath.Marketing has never been a Spanish strong point. In 1995-96 two European countries approached China with aircraft carrier technology. In February 1995 it was reported that the Spanish shipbuilder Empresa Nacional Bazan had offered to build China a low-cost, lightweight conventional-takeoff-and-landing (CTOL) carrier. Bazan placed before China two designs: the twenty-three-thousand-ton SAC-200 (overall length 728 feet, or 221.8 meters); and the twenty-five-thousand-ton SAC-220 (overall length 787 feet, or 240 meters). The cost of the vessels would be $350-400 million. The SAC-220 would accommodate up to twenty-one CTOL fighters, such as the MiG-29K. According to Bazan, the first carrier could be delivered within five years, with the second three and a half years later. At the time, Bazan was constructing the 11,500-ton carrier Chakri Naruebet for the Royal Thai Navy and was eager to secure further orders in Asia. China expressed an interest in the proposal, and initial talks between the Chinese and Bazan were held in January 1996. However, according to a representative of Bazan who spoke with the authors, the Chinese side seemed more interested in obtaining the blueprints of the carrier than in ordering the actual vessel. An artist's conception here: http://www.revistanaval.com/archivo-2001-2003/nuevos_proyectos_izar_1.htm There are drawings etc here: http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?77226-BSAC-220-wishes-Happy-New-Year-2008&p=1214956#post1214956 And more info here: http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?37654-Bazan-BSAC-220-and-200-quot-pocket-carriers-quot-anyone-have-pics

And the drawing? {edit: thanks for inserting the drawing in your post.}

This is supposed to be for actual real-world historical never completed projects - not for the creations of board members.

Thread is useless without pics. ;) Note the above incorrectly lists the wrong model/mounting of 5" gun. 1963 General Purpose Missile Frigate In Friedman's "Network-Centric Warfare" there is an interesting footnote at p. 311 which talks about those neverweres.Eight ships, somewhat smaller than contemporary Brooke class U.S. DEGs (398 x 46 vs 415 x 43 ft, 3,300 tons), were included in the projected 1963 program. Into this smaller hull would have been squeezed much more than in a DEG: one twin 5-inch/38 mount (Signaal N26 fire control system), one Mk.22 missile launcher (16 Tartars with two Mk.74 directors), two Sea Mauler short-range launchers (72 missiles), two triple Mk.32 torpedo tubes, and a single Limbo mortar (60 projectiles). There would also be a U.S.-type light helicopter (the primary ASW standoff weapon). Complement was given as 236, compared to 246 for the nonautomated U.S. DEG with a comparable missile battery. Estimated cost was $34.25 million. The Canadians adopted the Tartar missile in hopes that the U.S. Navy would develop the projected ASW version of the missile (then unfunded), to carry either a homing torpedo or a depth bomb. Where the U.S. Navy relied on a massive bow-mounted low frequency sonar (SQS-26), the Canadians held to medium-frequency sets but included a variable-depth sonar aft, which would have made processing at least as complex. An unusual feature was a requirement to support two hundred troops for up to 15 days. The design emphasized human engineering, automation (she could steam with her machinery spaces unmanned), and centralized command/control. Much of the equipment had not yet been developed. And Tzoli - could you fix the thread title? "Newer" is a completely different word with a completely different meaning than "never" - and the purpose of this section is to talk about "never-were" ships (ships that were not built), not "newer-were" ships (ships built more recently than others).

It looks like the USN's underway recovery mat (which was towed from a crane extended to the side), as shown here: http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/g20000/g21927.jpg