Modern Aircraft Carrier

You sound very much like the very sucessfull Russian tanks and planes of WW II. Out produce them and use them in overwhelming numbers at any point of contact. 4, F-22 fighters are not stopping a group of 150 of any thing from going to their target, after they use up their missiles and go to guns. There is some safety and chance of sucess in large numbers. Always plan for the worst and-----,

 

Cool thread/design.............I like it.

Torpedoes?

Let's say you alter the design to be a soild sidewall SES or amphious hovercraft. Then it's always going to be something, like not too good in bad weather or surface to surface missles are going to get you, not to mention magnetic mines.

You solve one problem only to create two more........that's life.

 

Like in the ad's for ordnance equipment: you'll have a spoiled day.........and I am a very happy sub commander.

 

That is until you hit an uncharted underwater mountain.

Hey, everyone's got problems, right?

 

That was in the time of the Akula, now we are 20 years ahead.........

 

I'm talking about just last month.

Article:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/09/national/main665669.shtml

Web Photo's:
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/showthread.php?threadid=203509&highlight=submarine

 

Wakey, Wakey, thats yours.......

 

Celltechnology outdates the LA class of attackboats. This one will probably scrapped - it had already maintainance overdue.........

 

We are really concerned about China. We also need to get a couple of boats done and into the fleet to replace the JFK and Kitty Hawk. Navy design takes forever, but we get high quality products that are overengineered and researched. Also realize that your design concept is actually a US Navy innovation. The US government is one of the major contributors to SWATH and Stealth designs, and you really have relatively little knowledge of these or their actual operations or what they need, other than what they let you know. Just have faith in them and their calls.

 

Sea Shadow

I've not taken the time to read this thread, but your initial drawings certainly remind me of the navy experiment with "Sea Shadow"

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/sea_shadow.htm
http://foxxaero.homestead.com/indrad_003.html
http://navysite.de/ships/shadow.htm
http://www.f-117a.com/Seashadow.html

 

Wow Brian, just look at the depth of the trough behind the bow wave on that Sea Shadow. Can we say "fuel burn"?

Kelly Cook

 

Sir, I am very familiar with US Navy operations. I can assure you that I have little faith in them or their calls.

They take young American volunteers, strip them of their rights, and force them to praise brown clothed zombies who can't see outside of the box they've been put in.

The US Navy is by far the most inefficient organization ever created. Where the term "Too many chiefs and not enough indians" is taken to the extreme. Their wasteful practises are putting this country right into bankrupcy.

As far as this design goes, there is one point that kills it. It can't fit through the Suez Canal. So I think it needs to have a bottom shape like the current Nimitz design but keep the upper stealth shape. I was going to redraw it but "What's the use?"

The navy's concern about this design was that it cannot sustain the same aircraft turn around rate of the Nimitz design because of the need to use the elevators to take aircraft down to the launch deck. Also, if the elevators fail then you cannot launch aircraft.

While these these two points are true one is easily mitigated by redundancy, carrier electric and manually (diesel generator?) operated elevator motors.

The other point is tough to beat. The aircraft have to take a ride on the elevators to go from the recovery deck to the launch deck, and this takes time. How much time? About a minute. I'm sure that those who don't like this design will argue that one minute can be an eternity when you need to support combat operations but the launch deck has a lot of room and it has four catapults that can all be used while you are recovering aircraft. You don't have to stop launching from two catapults just to recover like the Nimitz.

All you need to do is have two JSF already fueled, loaded for air to air, sitting ready for the alert on the left two catapults and have two other JSF fueled, loaded for air/ground missions waiting at the back of the launch deck.

I guess they never thought of that.

Another thing they never thought of, one small enemy stealth (with design stealth, active stealth, or both) bomber approaching a Nimitz at night.

You'd better hope France doesn't export one.

 

Do these things exist? What would the CIWS consist of? Sam

 

Dook, your age is? return the damn thing to 'Marvel Comics' where it belongs; best you go with it!

luckily there's a 12 year old girl on another forum who is more adult than you are - she and her kind are the future of America - not 'superman comics inc!'

 

Firstly I am training to be one of those so called "brown clothed zombies," but last I checked I'm getting educated to think outside the box and then some...so check your sources there, cause they're wrong. Also check out some of the great surface leaders such as Nimitz, Zumwalt, Burke...anyone with a destroyer named after them, and you'll see that they are far from mindless, despite the khaki.

Other points:

You can not overcome bomb damage with redundancy.


Do you even understand what stealth does, with all known stealth technology the stealth still allows them to be visable, just at a reduced level of intensity...bombers look like birds, destroyers like large fishing boats, carriers like cargo ships maybe. Anyway what would be unusual are planes/helos taking off from cargo ships, and cargo ships driving around in a formation of x number of boats....kinda defeating the point.

Wait annother 25 years for the technology to develop to the point neccessary for use.