Explain to me why aircraft carriers don't have multiplexer decks allowing for deployment of all fighters and bombers at...

Weren't those a thing in ww1?

Akagi and Kaga originally had multi layered flight decks but then realized just how impractical it was and cut it down to a single deck

The Japanese tried that with Akagi way back in the 1920's. It doesn't work.

Post space flat tops

Attached: 0531190130~2.jpg (3631x2325, 1.43M)

>deploy all fighters and bombers at once
>they crash into each other on take-off
Naval aviation already spends a lot of training hours taking off and landing. They’d never train anything else if they had to all take off at one.

Cost and complexity

If by that you mean dangling a biplane or two from a zeppelin yes.

The Kaga (carrier in pic), like Akagi, was completed with three superimposed flight decks, the only carriers ever to be designed so. The British carriers converted from "large light cruisers", Glorious, Courageous, and Furious, each had two flight decks, but there is no evidence that the Japanese copied the British model. It is more likely that it was a case of convergent evolution to improve launch and recovery cycle flexibility by allowing simultaneous launch and recovery of aircraft. Kaga's main flight deck was 171.2 meters long and 30.5 meters wide, her middle flight deck was only about 15 meters long and started in front of the bridge, and her lower flight deck was approximately 55 meters long. The utility of her middle flight deck was questionable as it was so short that only some of the lightly loaded aircraft could use it, even in an era when the aircraft were much lighter and smaller than they were during World War II. At any rate the ever-increasing growth in aircraft performance, size and weight during the 1930s meant that even the bottom flight deck was no longer able to accommodate the take-off roll required for the new generations of aircraft being fielded and it was plated over when the ship was modernized in the mid-1930s. Kaga's main flight deck was completely flat until a conning tower was added during the modernization

Attached: LrF48Ye.jpg (2938x1765, 1.47M)

So its already done and a stupid idea

That's not excatly what it says. It became outdated.

Yes. Zeppelin with internal hanger Bay.

Makes sense for Russians, can quickly offload all your planes to operate from land airbases.

It was a stupid idea, the lower decks themselves were already considered next to useless when the thing was completed.

I'm not saying it wasn't impractical, because you would want either more length or width and stacking them doesn't give enough of an advantage to worth it, but the main reason they stopped using it was because it was too short. At least according to that source.

When the ships were actually completed as carriers, the single flight deck concept had already taken hold in both of the other nations building carriers (the British had the Furious and Glorious with two decks in 1925, and even that was considered a mistake). The Americans had already completed the Lexingtons as carrier conversions months prior to the completion of the Kaga/Akagi, and both had a single long flight deck with one huge hangar rather than split hangar decks.

The Japanese had also included fucking *casemate* 20 cm guns in the designs. They simply had no idea what they were doing.

The plural of aircraft is aircraft.

okay

Attached: macross7_battle7.png (2883x1836, 3.33M)

weight is the big issue, I'd think

>one for landing, one for launching.
They're already designed for that.

Attached: USS_Nimitz_in_Victoria_Canada_036.jpg (1200x795, 539K)

best video game ever

Attached: 7a37af885abcd41b8e535ab3ba7ab080.jpg (1280x960, 75K)

what bombers were even carrier capable again

B-25 apparently.

Attached: Space ship carrier.jpg (1500x643, 160K)

You either have to add height, making the ship heavier and less stable, or you add decks without making it taller and risk submerging your freaking airplanes in a storm.

Why have only 1 flight deck when you can have 16.

Attached: General-revil-ova.png (1185x510, 371K)

Moar decks would reduce the crew you could keep on the ship, and how long you could go without resupply too

It might be a bit different if we start to go with larger unmanned drones for combat roles...

Yeah, everything under the carrier deck is storage for important shit like aircraft, weapons, fuel, food, people, and an engine to make the carrier go.

It's like looking at an airport and thinking they should get rid of all the terminals, hangers, fuel tank farms and parking and replace it with MORE RUNWAYS.

Grorious nippon carrier deck stacked over a thousand times

Lol

As mentioned, the Japanese tried it. The British also tried it with HMS Furious in one of her configurations in the 1920s; having the full flight deck up top and a lower deck where the front of the hangar could be opened.
In the end there is not much benefit gained by having two decks capable of launching because only one will be used. Trying to launch from the bottom and recover up top is not a great idea eitger because if someone misses their landing and has to go around then they may hit someone taking off and pulling up.
This desire to have both take-off and recovery at the same time has been achieved with the angled deck. Having the catapults (or ramp) for take-offs and way to land or touch-and-go with a much smaller risk of collision.

Attached: q8GhcTubuEqbWo9hVE8qTuzD9zNJNoUnQ7NuPcyeSP4.jpg (1211x892, 265K)

They had a few Zepplin's with biplane hangers and hooks for retrieval but they never really worked all that great.

It didn't help that the two most prominant Airships designed to do this both crashed within two years of being rolled out before ever seeing combat.

The whole thing was just seen as a waste of time when they basically gave up on Zepplin's as anything other than a novelty.

No.

America didn't build its flying carriers until the interwar period, and they both broke up in bad weather before WWII started.

One of the proposals for the Ford was a stealthy multi-deck carrier (CVX): centerline deck for landings or really big aircraft touch-and-go, sides only for catapult

Attached: Stealth_5.jpg (1200x613, 126K)

That does look good, but probably not too useful compared to what the Navy actually went with. Also a little lol at those F-32s on the deck.

>space flat tops
>not space battleship/carrier hybrids

Attached: Galactica.jpg (1920x1080, 932K)

I dunno, being able to conduct launches independent of recovery would be nice

Attached: stealth-art-05.jpg (1000x480, 78K)

Is that a VLS cluster forward of the flight deck?

Pretty sure you would gas all the flight crew on the lower decks with every launch. I imagine there would be heat issues too.

Where does the crew live?

They did. Japanese had them with catapults. It was refitted out of existence because that space is taking away space that could be more hanger space.

thats not real. It was a model kit.

What if carriers were made wider

You would be better off just having VLS launched drone squadrons that don’t need to be recovered.
Arm each one with one missle and kamikaze them if you need too.

fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/docs/cvx-alt/mc3c.html
Au contraire, mon ami

Attached: 5x_3cis.gif (632x492, 19K)

Attached: file.png (1502x992, 2.82M)

I've only seen one other user bring up how fucking expensive it would be

why aren't there modern akagi or kaga designs