by Admhawk » Sat Apr 12, 2025 2:17 pm
True, but redesigning a new build vs reconfiguring existing ships are two completely different kettles of fish.
A comprehensive cost benefits analysis could have been done to determine if it was worthwhile to move the elevator, but I doubt it was even a consideration.
You have to put these kinds of things into perspective.
Politics: Attempts to shrink budgets, fighting the Korean war. Building more ships.
Capabilities: Design staff - it takes a lot of people to design a carrier, plus all the other ships that were being asked for.
Many studies were done on building carriers.Shipyards were busy. The Navy was busy. The 50's and 60's had an explosion of new equipment and aircraft size was increasing, making designers work constantly evolving.
In order to move the one elevator, you would have to examine and redesign the structural integrity of the ship where the hangar door would go. Move all electrical, piping, etc from the new opening.
Consider hangar operations and deck edge services, like electrical, fire, fuel. Move the gun sponsons maybe. It's a huge amount of design work and studies.
Also, consider how much the follow on ships changed. The elevators were bigger. The island was bigger and moved back. Not just the port elevator was moved, but two elevators were put in front of the island, with one behind.
The port catapults were also longer, making it impossible to put the elevator at the fwd port side position.
The port elevator was initially put there to support the fwd port catapult during operations. Moving it, without changing the stbd positions might have made things worse.
I wasn't there, but it seems to me that there is no one 'reason' why it wasn't done. It's more a case of why would anyone even consider doing it? If you want a different design, build a new ship. (which they did)
When you consider how much design work went into these ships, it's amazing they even got built!
True, but redesigning a new build vs reconfiguring existing ships are two completely different kettles of fish.
A comprehensive cost benefits analysis could have been done to determine if it was worthwhile to move the elevator, but I doubt it was even a consideration.
You have to put these kinds of things into perspective.
Politics: Attempts to shrink budgets, fighting the Korean war. Building more ships.
Capabilities: Design staff - it takes a lot of people to design a carrier, plus all the other ships that were being asked for.
Many studies were done on building carriers.Shipyards were busy. The Navy was busy. The 50's and 60's had an explosion of new equipment and aircraft size was increasing, making designers work constantly evolving.
In order to move the one elevator, you would have to examine and redesign the structural integrity of the ship where the hangar door would go. Move all electrical, piping, etc from the new opening.
Consider hangar operations and deck edge services, like electrical, fire, fuel. Move the gun sponsons maybe. It's a huge amount of design work and studies.
Also, consider how much the follow on ships changed. The elevators were bigger. The island was bigger and moved back. Not just the port elevator was moved, but two elevators were put in front of the island, with one behind.
The port catapults were also longer, making it impossible to put the elevator at the fwd port side position.
The port elevator was initially put there to support the fwd port catapult during operations. Moving it, without changing the stbd positions might have made things worse.
I wasn't there, but it seems to me that there is no one 'reason' why it wasn't done. It's more a case of why would anyone even consider doing it? If you want a different design, build a new ship. (which they did)
When you consider how much design work went into these ships, it's amazing they even got built!