Do Aircraft carriers have any Aero design onsiderations?

[j-c-c]

Specifically, is any gain in laminar airflow across the flight deck to assist/enhance take-off and landings a consideration in the ships overall design?

8-1-24 Delete "landings" from this discussion

[Piotrsko]

I would suspect not since a carrier deck, as well as an LHA has tiedowns, stays, catapault tracks, elevators and sometimes aircraft, ropes cables buildings.

Might be a bit of laminar over the bow, at speed, into a stiff wind, but it wouldn't exist very far.

[j-c-c]

On US carriers the deck is extremely flat in the takeoff portion IMO.
My thinking a carrier in many ways might operate as an inverted flat bottom car with a front splitter, optimizing smooth/proper air flow for aircraft on the deck, but my question centers around, is that intentional?
Maybe not, since the "sky Jump" carrier decks would have I suspect lousy aero features,

[j-c-c]

Looks Flat to me.

[freebeard]

Do Aircraft carriers have any Aero design [c]onsiderations?

Compared to what? They have the advantage over land based runways in that they can orient into the wind.

[redpoint5]

Boat-tail a carrier?

[j-c-c]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Compared to what? .

"My thinking a carrier in many ways might operate as an inverted flat bottom car with a front splitter, optimizing smooth/proper air flow for aircraft on the deck, but my question centers around, is that intentional?"

Seems air with a non-splitter early style blunt bow would be likely cascading a lot of turbulence over the bow and would generate very unpredictable and large air currents onto the deck just as a plane was lifting off.

[freebeard]

Your test case would be those carriers with an ski-jump ramp.

Ski-jump
Aviation
In aviation, a ski-jump is an upward-curved ramp that allows aircraft to take off from a runway that is shorter than the aircraft's required takeoff roll. By forcing the aircraft upwards, lift-off can be achieved at a lower airspeed than that required for sustained flight, while allowing the aircraft to accelerate to such speed in the air rather than on the runway. Wikipedia

Apparently, the reason these are used is they can delete the catapult system.

Also, the comparison is to a car's underbody, which is a plenum.

[j-c-c]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Your test case would be those carriers with an ski-jump ramp.



Apparently, the reason these are used is they can delete the catapult system.

Also, the comparison is to a car's underbody, which is a plenum.

No it's not, because it appears rather obvious the benefits of the ski jump solution outweigh the negatives of beneficial smooth airflow that a ski jump does not allow, and that is mainly when not able to afford or incorporate a catapult system.

The car analogy I was using here has nothing to do with a plenum, it centered mainly on the latest designs on the carrier deck acting like a car's front splitter which calms under chassis air flow leading to other attributes that apply little to a carrier, like DF, drag etc,

[freebeard]

Whatever....