Talk:Flight deck

Disambiguation page

Flight deck is another name for cockpit. I think we need a disambiguation page. Acdx 13:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

All that is needed is a simple disambiguatio link at the top of the page linking to Cockpit. - BillCJ 14:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Armored Deck Questions

American carriers had an amoured main ( hangar ) deck, while the Brits had an amoured flight deck but also amoured the sides of the hangar as well ( mainly against shell fire). The British lifts were never amoured as the weight meant they would not have any load at all.This was a weak point as on one occasion in the Med, a bomb did explode inside the hangar after penetrating the lift 222.153.244.134 03:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Sockeye

I'm not sure where you are getting this from; it is my understanding that the lifts were outwith the hangar at either end, and that there were sliding armoured bulkeads that allowed access between the hangar and the lift. Do you have a source for this? It is possible either that the bomb penetrated the bulkhead, or indeed it was open at the time. Emoscopes ^Talk 09:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the negative tone about British carriers, the higher hangar hieght of US Ships was since they would carry spare planes hung from the roof. No planes needing 20ft till after the war. Dont forget the Ark Royal and early Illustrious had two hangar decks as British doctrine was to have a clear flight deck. If it wasnt for the indroduction of the proximity fuse there would have been quite a few more wrecked US carriers during the last year of the Pacific war 222.153.244.134 04:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Sockeye

The early 3 Illustrious ships had only a single deck. Indomitable had a half-length hangar underneath the main hangar, and the Implacable and Indefatigable had two full-length hangars with restricted clearance in the lower. Emoscopes ^Talk 09:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

At best, the British carriers can claim equality to their US counterparts - deck armor may have been instrumental (extremely occasionally; the RN only credits one kamikaze defeated to deck armor, that being the famous Formidable hit that's so frequently bandied about as typical of the RN's damage control) in defeating successful kamikaze attacks, but the heavier CAP available to the American ships and better US AAW ships were far better in preventing successful kamikaze attacks in the first place. The 5"/38 DP was by far the best heavy AA gun in the war, Allied or Axis; it fired a heavier shell just as fast as the British 4.5" high-angle. "The bomber will always get through" proved to be false in the Pacific War. Not that it was really that true in the European war either; the success of the Allied bombing campaign had far more to do with superior Allied tactics, the P-51 Mustang and the time-band strategy, before those were developed, Allied bombers (including the B-17 and Avro Lancaster) were being steadily slaughtered by the Luftwaffe. Iceberg3k 16:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you about the clear decks, and I have been meaning to address the issue myself. THe fact that the FAA stored all its planes in the hangars, rather than parking at least half of them on the main deck as the USN did, had more to do with the amount of planes carried than which deck was armored, for a given carrier size. I don't know when the FAA began regularly spotting planse on the decks, but ut was at least since the Korean War, esp with thte increasing size of jet aricraft.

The FAA was using deck parks on these ships, and their other carriers, later in the war. It allowed them to carry 60-plus aircraft. Emoscopes ^Talk 18:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The section does dwell a bit too much on the armor question, but there are British historians who agree with what the text states in regards to the issue, as cited in the article. If you can find a verifiable source with an opposing view, then by all means cite it in the text. As to proximity fuses, I assume you mean AA guns. - BillCJ 04:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the article, as it stands, is very poor. Rather than an encyclopeadic description of flight decks, it has involved into a heavily biased analytic essay of the merits of US carrier design and detriments of British carrier design. It talks as if all British carriers were armoured carriers, when in fact only the 6 Illustriouss, Implacables and the Indomitable were. It really needs heavily pruned down to the bear bones of the issue, and to get back to what it really should be - an article describing flightdecks in a concise, unbiased and encyclopaedic manner. Emoscopes ^Talk 09:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The Essex Class American carriers were built with wooden flight decks. From above thr British Deck armor was instrumental in less damages from kamikazes. However in the South Pacific, I believe the British could cook their meals on the deck. Most Essex Class American carriers as the got the post war conversion and an angled deck had the complete flight deck replaced at one time with metal, necessary for the heavier aircraft. The USS Lexington did not get the deck replaced alll at once, was patch work. I believe there was an early to mid 1980's story of the nosewheel of an A-6 Intruder going throught tht flight deck. Modern Super-carriers have metal strenghtened flight decks not armored. The main deck for strength is still the hangere deck. In the hanger deck is 2 spots for 3 sections there are flex joints allowing each section independant movement. Wfoj2 18:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Wooden flight decksd? Rubbish. They had steel decks with wooden planking laid on top. Solicitr (talk) 05:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The detailed discussion of the benefits/drawbacks is a bit excessive for an article about flight decks in general, so I spun off the comparison into its own article. Anynobody 01:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is Comparison of armoured to unarmoured flight deck designs. Kablammo 15:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The British aircraft carrier HMS Formidable passing through the Sydney Harbour anti-submarine boom net in 1945. The blackened funnel was the result of a kamikaze attack, in which a Japanese aircraft crashed on the flight deck

I have to laugh when I hear our US 'cousins' trying to decry the UK armoured flight deck as 'inferior' to the US wooden ones. The UK armoured carriers were designed for operations in the Mediterranean, where they were likely to come into range of land-based enemy aircraft, so the bombs liable to be used against these ships were likely to be heavier than ones carried by carrier-based aircraft. For those thinking that a wooden deck had any superiority over a 3" armoured one then just look at how HMS Illustrious stood up to the repeated attacks that it suffered in that theatre, any one of these attacks would have sunk any US carrier easily. Then there's the BPF's record, where no UK armoured carrier hit by multiple Kamikazes was out of action for more than a few hours, around five/six hours being the longest IIRC. Usually all a Kamikaze did was to leave a large dent in the flight deck, which, when any fires were put out, was then filled with quick-drying cement. At one point, the RN was painting the outline of an additional deck lift (elevator) in the centre of the flight deck to draw-off Kamikazes from the vulnerable US carriers, Japanese pilots having been told to ignore any carrier with two lifts, i.e., UK ones. The fact is, for a US carrier to be hit by a Kamikaze was a disaster, for a UK-one it was merely an inconvenience. The only reason that armoured decks were not used post-war was because the Royal Navy assumed any subsequent major conflict would involve nuclear weapons, and no amount of armour was going to be of any use against them. So if anyone wants to say how 'superior' the US wooden decks were I suggest they ask the US Marines on Okinawa as, at one point, the BPF supplied ALL the air cover for the landings as the US carriers had all either been put out of action by Kamikazes or had 'retired hurt'. Oh, and look at the Illustrious, launched in 1939, and then compare her to the US carriers built immediately after WW II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.253.10 (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The aircraft carrier HMS Victorious on fire after being struck by 3 kamikazes off Sakishima Gunto - Okinawa, May 9, 1945. 3 killed and 19 wounded from the 3 impacts. She was able to fly off planes 1 hour later and land planes 12 hours later. Fully back in action after 2 days.

I edited the image caption because the image is incorrect. I actually did want to remove it, but thought that a little too bold. Friedman discusses the differences between USN and RN carriers and makes it very clear that it was USN doctrine and their permanent deck park that was the major factor in USN carriers having a much larger aircraft capacity. Roberts and Watton, Anatomy of the ship - Victorious, p9 show that RN armoured carriers could and did carry spare aircraft in their hanger overheads, and Victorious had 23ft of clear height between the deck support beams.Damwiki1 (talk) 08:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

This might interest some of you: Kamikaze Damage to US and British Carriers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.46.179 (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This article has included the statement: "The armor also reduced the length of the flight deck, reducing the maximum aircraft capacity of the armored flight deck carrier; however the largest part of the disparity between RN and USN carriers in aircraft capacity was the use of a permanent deck park on USN carriers." Solicitr has attempted to remove the latter part this statement, and his latest edit attempt includes the statement: "Reference doesn't matter if the statement is horse manure". Perhaps Solicitr can explain more fully why he feels compelled to edit the article and then justify his statement with such unscholarly remarks? Can he provide sources which contradict the referenced statement. As it is now, his justification makes his edits tantamount to vandalism.Damwiki1 (talk)

It may be from a 'source'; but simply because something appears in print doesn't mean it's not rubbish. The fact is that Essex had capacity for 72 aircraft in the hangar alone, without deck park (Norman Friedman, a real RS): double Illustrious'. The "deck park" argument is nonsense, counterfactual, and simply special pleading by Yankbashers who can't admit the operational cost of the ABH. Solicitr (talk)

Just to prove a point, Essex hanger area = 654ft x 70 ft = 45780 sq ft. Indomitable's hangers = 408 x 62 + 208 x 62 = 666 x 62 = 38192 sq ft or 84% of Essex. Essex's standard displacement = 27500tons versus 23000 tons for Indomitable or 84% of Essex, so proportionally, Indomitable has the same hanger area as Essex. The Implacable class had 458 x 62 + 208 x 62 hangers and so had larger hangar area than Essex, on a proportional basis and eventually operated up to 81 aircraft by using a permament deck park, which is roughly proportional to Essex, based upon their respective displacements. Ark Royal (1939) had even larger hangar area than Essex, 568ft x60ft + 452ft x 60ft = 61200 sq ft on only 22000 tons or about 1/3 more than Essex, yet Ark Royal never operated with more than 60 aircraft, because she did not use a permanent deck park. If we examine aircraft capacity in 1944/45 on RN and USN carriers we find that the use of deck parks on RN carriers greatly reduced the disparity between USN and RN designs, just as the source states: Hone, Friedman, Mandeles, British and American Carrier Development, 1919-1941, p125: "The 1931 edition of "Progress in Tactics" included a section on foreign tactics, including operating practices. The U.S. portion mentioned that "the number of aircraft in carriers is proportionately much higher than in our Navy, largely due to the practice of storing some aircraft permanently on deck."Damwiki1 (talk) 08:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. So a 1931 British source (that is, ten years before the Essex was laid down, and well before even Ark Royal much less Illustrious were in service) is relevant here? Numbers are numbers: the Essex had capacity for four squadrons, 72 a/c- in the hangar. Not on the roof. In fact that was a design requirement for the class. It was the reason the proposed armored-deck design was rejected (that design would ultimately lead to the Midways- but on 50% more displacement). In wartime service, we then added a fifth squadron for a total of 90; it was also convenient, in the Pacific, not to strike below a/c we didn't have to. Therefore US carriers are almost always seen in photos with planes on deck. That doesn't alter the fact that Essex had double Illustrious' hangar capacity. Did the BPF adopt the deck park? Yes- but no British carrier ever operated more than 54 that I know of, at a time when US carriers were operating as many as 110. The passage in question asserts that which is not true- the Essex greater capacity was not simply a function of using a deck park. Solicitr (talk) 05:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the source is relevant since the USN used deck parks through out the war when the RN did not use them till 1943/44. I have not been able to find a source which states that Essex had the capacity for 72 aircraft in the hangers, which is not surprising since the hanger area is insufficient to store a typical WW2 mix of 72 aircraft. This source lists the aircraft complement for several Essex class and several RN armoured carriers: OOB Carrier raids on the Japanese home islands. Note that HMS Implacable is carrying 81 aircraft, also note that Essex class CV Bon Homme Richard, which was a night fighter carrier, which required a clear flight deck for night operations, only carried 55 aircraft. Typical Essex class aircraft complement was ~100, with some carrying more and some less. Essex had 45780 sq ft of hanger space versus 28400 sq ft for Illustrious, or 1.6 times (not double) Illustrious Hangar area, while Implacable had 41292 sq ft of hanger area or 90% of Essex. Illustrious had capacity for ~36 aircraft in her hangars and thus Essex would have had capacity for about 58 similar aircraft and Implacable about 52 similar aircraft. Even with a deck park the RN carriers have a smaller aircraft complement, since as the article states, the flight deck armour, reduced the size of the flight deck, but the RN armoured carriers have only about 85% of the Essex class design standard displacement; with a deck park and correcting for displacement, Implacable and Indefatigable would have average aircraft complements only ~10% less than Essex. The current wording of this article states: "However, to reduce top-weight the hangar height was reduced, and this restricted the types of aircraft that these ships could carry, although the Royal Navy's armored carriers did carry spare aircraft in the hangar overheads.[1] The armor also reduced the length of the flight deck, reducing the maximum aircraft capacity of the armored flight deck carrier; however the largest part of the disparity between RN and USN carriers in aircraft capacity was the use of a permanent deck park on USN carriers.[2] RN carriers did not use a permanent deck park until 1943." There is nothing in the wording that is not supported by solid references and our quick calculations of hanger area versus aircraft complement confirm the accuracy of the current wording; without a deck park Implacable would only carry ~52 aircraft while with one she carried up to 81, so we can see that the deck park does constitute "the largest part of the disparity between RN and USN carriers in aircraft capacity". Without a deck park Implacable would only have ~50% of Essex aircraft capacity but with a deck park this disparity is reduced to ~80%. Damwiki1 (talk) 06:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I showed above, using a fully sourced argument that RN aircraft carriers, using deck parks greatly reduced the disparity in aircraft numbers between their USN counterparts, and that the Implacable sub-class then carried nearly the same number of aircraft per ton as USN Essex class, when both were tasked with the same mission, in 1945.Damwiki1 (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

All wiki:OR. "the largest part of the disparity between RN and USN carriers in aircraft capacity was the use of a permanent deck park on USN carriers" comes from no source but yourself. You have inserted this special-pleading campaign into virtually every carrier article on Wiki, trying to cover up the heavy price British designs paid in terms of air complement, and in true triumphal fashion bringing up the Midways' armored decks without mentioning their size, the only way to combine an armored flight deck with a usable air complement. (Also other bits of warpage, like bringing up the few hits on the minuscule RN contingent at Okinawa as "proof" that their fighter cover was adequate). If you want to play back-of-the-envelope calculation (all OR, of course)- then you are overlooking (A) the fact that Brit carriers had big elevator pits in the middle, which the Essexes with their deck-edge lifts didn't; and (2)triced-up aircraft in the Essexes' ample overheads. "thus Essex would have had capacity for about 58 similar aircraft" is nothing but purest OR-- and also wrong. "US prewar doctrine required carriers with hangar accomadation for 72 aircraft, whereas the Illustrious class carried 36" Roberts, John, The Aircraft Carrier Intrepid So, since you asjked for a source, there's one.Solicitr (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

72 aircraft was achieved by carrying aircraft in the overheads, which Essex class did not do. Implacable which was also an armoured deck carrier had a design capacity of 52 aircraft and in 1945 when Implacable used a deck park she carried 81 aircraft, versus an average of 100 for Essex class carriers. Implacable and Essex were contemporaries whereas Illustrious was an earlier design, but in any event Essex was a much larger ship than Illustrious or Implacable.Damwiki1 (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Your last revert: Statement by? Really? Then why no quote marks-- or is it a convenient paraphrase? You continue to push an arch-POV line, that the moronic Americans built carriers without armored flight decks (actually "wooden"!!) for no good reason, whereas the brilliant Brits installed them without any tradeoff in air group capacity, all disparity can be explained away by the deck park. It's rubbish. It was a conscious tradeoff: it was not possible to have an AFD and a decent air complement without building a Midway-sized ship.

"72 aircraft was achieved by carrying aircraft in the overheads, which Essex class did not do. " WTF???? Bollocks.

Yes, Illustrious was an older design than Essex; but Implacable's double-decker hangar only bumped the capacity to 54 (with reduced operating efficiency)Solicitr (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I have studied the history of the Essex class carefully and they did not carry aircraft in their hanger overheads; I searched carefully for evidence of this but could not find it. Late war aircraft were too large to carry in the hanger overheads. BTW, All RN armoured hangers had the lifts at either end of the hangers to maximize capacity. The article states that design tradeoffs were made, as we have previously discussed.

My "Bollocks" was in reference to your assertion that the Essexes couldn't store 72 in the hangar without using the overheads. You're even being self contradictory, saying that 72 "was achieved" by tricing up.Solicitr (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I have carefully explained to you that the hanger deck area of the Essex class was about 115% of the Implacable class. The Essex class could not store 72 aircraft in their hangers given a typical late war mix of aircraft.Damwiki1 (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

For the Record

sourced from H.T. Lenton, British and Empire warships of World War II; The Malta class were designed to carry armour;

• 4.5 inch belt amidships
• 1 inch flight deck
• 2.5 inch central strake on main deck and outboard strakes on middle deck
• 2-3 inch box citadels
• 3 inch steering gear roof and closing bulkheads
• 1.5 inch longitudinal bulkheads.

Emoscopes ^Talk 19:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Angled and axial deck animations added

To illustrate difficulty/danger of missed approach on straight flight decks and the evolution of the angled flight deck. Anynobody 05:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant stuff! :) Emoscopes ^Talk 07:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I was thinking about parking some planes on the Centaur and Nimitz to further illustrate the parking advantage, and tweak the color a tad on the Yorktown so the planes are easier to see. Does this sound like a good idea? Anynobody 07:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes that's a good idea. Also, perhaps add a fourth animation with a deck barrier up, to prevent the landing aircraft crashing into the parked ones. Perhaps also emphasise on the caption that in the first animation, aircraft can only land or take off, but in the later ones, they can do both at the same time. Emoscopes ^Talk 08:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll work on the suggestions you made (the take off or landing only nature of the axial deck carrier, and the deck barrier). Hopefully I can have something in the next couple of days. The replacements I've uploaded look a bit better than the originals. I also fixed the scaling of the giant Vampire on Centaur.

P.S. Feel free to modify the caption as you see fit. Anynobody 22:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Updated

I'm still trying to figure out a good way to illustrate the deck barrier, but as I type this an idea just occurred to me so I'll try to work it in too. The modern angled deck now shows simultaneous launch/recovery. Anynobody 23:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Physics bug in cvs122ani.gif

It seems rather obvious to me that the parked aircraft should be rotating in the opposite direction than shown on impact. The approaching craft will take the inward pointing wings with it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.64.113.125 (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

USS Princeton (CVL-23) was bombed not hit by kamikaze

See www.dcfp.navy.mil - U.S.S. PRINCETON (CVL-23), BOMB DAMAGE - Battle for Leyte Gulf, October 24, 1944 (LOST IN ACTION) for further info (or the link in the section head). Anynobody 10:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved hurricane bow to aircraft carrier

Since this article is about the flight deck, I have moved this subsection to the aircraft carrier article. Anynobody 19:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Flexible decks needs a source

Realistically making a deck that could absorb all the shock of a jet aircraft hitting it at 100-150 knots without causing damage to the jet sounds like wishful thinking at best. They say a carrier landing (with landing gear) is more of a controlled crash than a landing. Without gear it'd just be crashing. Even if it was possible, handling a plane without landing gear sounds like a pain: One would need a tractor/crane and separate cradle for each aircraft landing. Anynobody 10:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't mean it wasn't worth trying out, with early jets landing gear counted for a lot of weight, and it was tried. GraemeLeggett 11:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That's my point, is there some proof that it was tried? How did they plan on handling aircraft like the E-2, S-2, or A-3? Anynobody 21:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, this statement in the ref you added doesn't give enough specifics, what setbacks are they talking about (damage to the fuselage I'm betting if this did happen):

One of the more unusual ideas was to save weight and cut down landing accidents by having undercarriage-less aircraft. They would be launched by a special catapult and would land on a flexible rubber deck. Trials were even carried out with a mock deck at Farnborough, using Sea Vampire aircraft. After initial setbacks the concept proved practical, but even so, the Admiralty abandoned the idea.

Anynobody 21:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a printed source (Carrier Aviation: Air Power Directory ed. by David Donald, AIRTime Publishing) that states the angled deck was presented by Capt Dennis Campbell at an Aug 1951 meeting of the Royal aircraft Establishment who were discussing the "flex deck". It seems that with the angled deck, there was no need for the rubber deck, as the angle solved all the problems the rubber deck was attempting to address. I'll try to get a proper quote for it later. - BillCJ 22:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The source was a stopgap found quickly online until i got a chance to get Tony Buttler's British Secret Projects: Jet Fighters Since 1950 out from the library again. GraemeLeggett 08:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of the types of planes to be handled (and this is working from memory) - the idea came from the combination of the expected landing weights (naval aircraft are heavier because of folding wings, stressed airframes etc) and the size of the decks. GraemeLeggett 08:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the mention of "flexible deck" is notable, or maybe just has undue weight. By the way, the US Navy uses the term "flex deck" to describe certain carrier air operations: when aircraft are allowed to return to the carrier to land at flexible times. This is unlike typical cyclic operations wherein aircraft can only recover during specific periods.E2a2j (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

See linked video here: Rubber deck. The pilot is Eric "Winkle" Brown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.251.196 (talk) 12:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The rationale behind the flexible deck concept was that with the introduction of jet aircraft there was no vulnerable propeller to worry about damaging, and the early jet engines were thirsty on fuel, so removing the undercarriage reduced weight allowing more fuel to be carried without reducing overall manoeuvrability or speed. Although successful, the trials were abandoned when later engines became more fuel-efficient. The 'fuel problem' was why the Royal Navy didn't use any jets in the Korean War, as they were regarded as having insufficient range or endurance to do anything useful, piston-engined Sea Furies being preferred instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.65.59 (talk) 08:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Angle deck revised

I have added some additional info on the development of the angle deck. All additions and changes have been check and referencedJacob805 (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Catapults section?

For an article about carrier's flight deck, there is VERY little explanation of the CATOBAR system, which is being used by most of the carriers. Comparisons between Sky-Jump, and Catapults would be helpful. Or at the very least, link to the catapult system's page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.21.176 (talk) 05:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

There's an interesting 1960 RN instructional film called Launch & Recover on YouTube here: [1] that has some useful stuff on steam catapults, etc. The carrier featured BTW, is HMS Hermes.