www.ditl.org

Even at 4m you could still use two external 2m armored doors and a 4m blast door inside. I have trouble seeing that as a problem the couldn't be handled. Even if the enemy targets that area of the ship then the additional internal protection would allow for an interesting target that won't really help the enemy gain a victory.

True, and the Federation does love its shields...

Its not so much a problem as every ship has launch bays, its just a part of design.

How would the actual bay look like? Would it be thru deck bay or single sided? Will the bay double as a maintaince bay and launch and recovery bay or will there be additional bays.

Supply bays should be separate bays, smaller and easier to section off. The fighter bays should be fly through, but there would have to be blast doors inside to part the bay just in case.

Well what I mean is that if the fighters fly through than there has to be enough room for maintaince. Imagine if the Nimitz class carrier had to use the hanger and not the flight deck to launch planes. Need plenty of room for the downed fighters and the ones getting ready to launch and the ones about to launch. In addition to other random stuff.

Which is why a fly through is good but you would still have to have ways of sorting and separating the areas to prevent the spread of damage.

So the landing bay doors and the launch bay doors (or visa versa) would need to be around 50% or more greater than the width of the fighter. Then you need side areas to keep the area clear. As good as tractor beams or whatever aressting tech the Feds may have no need to rely on it.

For some reason, I envision the carrier having two half saucers on top of each other with the nacelles on the bottom and the flight/hanger deck sanwiched in between. Kinda like a Nebula class with two top saucers halfs but no pod.

McAvoy wrote:So the landing bay doors and the launch bay doors (or visa versa) would need to be around 50% or more greater than the width of the fighter. Then you need side areas to keep the area clear. As good as tractor beams or whatever aressting tech the Feds may have no need to rely on it.

Even the side areas would only need to be twice the depth of the armor in use. So 8m which is nothing next to nothing with something the size of a carrier.

McAvoy wrote:For some reason, I envision the carrier having two half saucers on top of each other with the nacelles on the bottom and the flight/hanger deck sanwiched in between. Kinda like a Nebula class with two top saucers halfs but no pod.

I would reverse that and have two saucers (one top and one bottom) making up the main crew and defensive sections. With a pod and nacelles between the saucers making up the central body. Allowing for a fly through hanger area but also protecting the more open and easily damaged areas. Keeping them all well within the shield barriers.