Concordia Concept Borrows Bengal Look (March 28, 2006)

[ChrisReid]

Fine, but then why modern post-war carrier don't use this design?

Similar reasons to why not all old war-era and pre-war designs didn't. It's just one way of designing a carrier. Since you don't absolutely need the space to land a fighter, it's not an automatic requirement. Maybe advances in automatic landing technologies make it less of an issue. Maybe the Midway decks go a lot more deeper than it seems. Maybe the two hangars are sufficiently independent and isolated to negate other risks. The inclusion or omission of the runway seems to be heavily dependent on the positioning of the flight deck to begin with, which is a core decision when designing the hull. Maybe designing the Midway in such a way that it improved some things, made other things such as a runway less practical. We have no one answer.

 

[Delance]

We have a few hints. The designs of the Midway and the Cerberus are fairly new, and they share the overall system of landing and launching fighters. The lanching tube(s) in the front, and a recovery deck in the back. Probably that's the best way to do it with the available tech.

 

[PopsiclePete]

... and that's not new tech: The Tiger's Claw back in WC1 also had a launch tube plus a runway/hangar for recovery... but then even if the Vesuvius was made after the Tiger's Claw, wich is also a newer design than the Corcordia-class; neither the Vesuvius or Concordia-class have lauch tubes.

I'd say the best explanation for the disapearance of the runways is, as many pointed out in this thread, the advances in automatic landing technologies.

I love that model.

 

[Dundradal]

I like this design change...fits more to the wc2 feel of standoff...also leaves you with a unique impression of an important confed ship in FA.