Modern Aircraft Carrier

Discussion in 'Boat Design' started by Dook, Feb 19, 2005.

  1. Dook
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 20
    Likes: 0, Points: 1, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: USA

    Dook Junior Member

    About a year ago I designed this modern aircraft carrier and sent it to the navy. They rejected it of course but I was just wondering what any of you thought of it.

    The top deck (recovery deck) has two arresting areas to increase the aircraft revovery rate and add safety. At most four personnel will be on the recovery deck at any time to move aircraft to the three elevators. The elevators are considered to be critical to flight operations so they're movement systems are very redundant.

    It's heavy on stealth, the forward, starboard, and aft sides provide complete stealth. The exterior sides are angled at 55 degrees, an approaching enemy aircraft at 30,000 feet would not be able to detect it until it got within 10 miles of the ship. The thick angled sides provide 1,200,000 cubic feet of space for jet fuel, AFFF, and fresh water. Much more than a Nimitz can carry.

    The third deck (launch deck) has four electromagnetic catapults for launching aircraft. Any aircraft can be launched from any cat. Jet blast deflectors divert exhaust up into overhead ducts, built into the second deck, that vent it out the sides of the ship.

    The ship carries a complement of 98 aircraft, most likely consisting of 21 Joint Strike Fighter's, 14 F-18 E/F Super Hornets, 13 assembled Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles (UCAV), 6 S-3 Vikings, 5 EA-18 Growler's, 4 SH-60 Seahawk helicopters, 3 E-2C Hawkeye's, 2 C-2A Greyhounds, and another 32 UCAV's in storage containers on the fourth deck. 67 aircraft can easily fit in the fifth deck hangar.

    The two submerged sponsons house four nuclear reactors, 2 in each. Two propellers at the rear of each sponson are turned each by shafts that connect to a propulsion gearbox. This geabox is turned by three 20,000 hp electric motors.

    With computerization, automation, the use of UCAV and more single engine aircraft (JSF) this ship is expected to require a deployed crew of only 1,500. Each enlisted crewmember has their own small cabin with a bunk and a small desk.

    I can post all the other deck designs as well.

    THEL=Tactical High Energy Laser
    CIWS=Close In Weapon System
     
  2. Dook
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 20
    Likes: 0, Points: 1, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: USA

    Dook Junior Member

    Hmm, I know I uploaded the pictures I designed of it.
     
  3. D'ARTOIS
    Joined: Nov 2004
    Posts: 1,068
    Likes: 18, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 321
    Location: The Netherlands

    D'ARTOIS Senior Member

    The structure of - almost in any navy - prohibits the acceptance of "outside the family" designs. Lots of Government Agencies have to feed from State's rack and they will protect their profitable corner very well. No place for outsiders, also for security reasons. An important reason for rejection too.

    The costs involved in building an aircraft carrier are capable of bringing a nation to bankruptcy. Specifically if it concerns an expeditionary design that has to be built from scratch with the complexity of a city's electrical system, together with that of a number of nuclear powerplants. The aircraft carrier is the non plus ultra in ship design and covers so many aspects that even a State as France is uncapable of avoiding of making grave mistakes during the conception and buiding of their swimmingpool size AC "Charles De Gaulle" - if it was not for the billions of French taxpayers money that went down the drain, any commercial shipyard would have bankrupt and dead by long, even in the early stage of building.

    It is definately true that the AC is the most vital ship in any conflict in modern warfare for any navy. The costs of running an AC are so heavy that even the USA can afford only a limited number of them. And a few of them are old and need continuous modernization. With only one major battle to go - that over the last oilsupplies - there future is sealed. Over say, 25 years.
    We are quicly closing in on the unavoidable results of Global Warming that will cater for severe climate changes and it is not unthinkable that a large portion of international traffic will be halted over years to come. I am aware of the fact that this is a very unpopular issue, but that does not discriminate the bare facts.

    There are many more considerations to take into account but if you would like to have an idea of what's playing after the screens of Pentagon and other Agencies who, - instead of making a massive front towards International Terrorism, strangle themselves in internal political games and little powerplays of individuals making it necessary to appoint another office to clear off such stupidities - ask Tom Clancy.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2005
  4. D'ARTOIS
    Joined: Nov 2004
    Posts: 1,068
    Likes: 18, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 321
    Location: The Netherlands

    D'ARTOIS Senior Member

    Actually we should not discuss this kind of issues. Let's keep it peaceful!!!!
     
  5. Dook
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 20
    Likes: 0, Points: 1, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: USA

    Dook Junior Member

    Anyone know how I can get the pictures to show? I know I uploaded 3 of them.
     
  6. D'ARTOIS
    Joined: Nov 2004
    Posts: 1,068
    Likes: 18, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 321
    Location: The Netherlands

    D'ARTOIS Senior Member

    I am dying to see your design; are your files not too big?
    Go to attachements > browse > file > upload > cheque if attachement is indicated > next one.
     
  7. Dook
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 20
    Likes: 0, Points: 1, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: USA

    Dook Junior Member

    Trying to upload them again.
     

    Attached Files:

  8. Dook
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 20
    Likes: 0, Points: 1, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: USA

    Dook Junior Member

    Okay, that worked. I'll post the launch and hangar decks. I can post the rest of the decks if anyone wants to see them.
     

    Attached Files:

  9. yipster
    Joined: Oct 2002
    Posts: 3,486
    Likes: 96, Points: 58, Legacy Rep: 1148
    Location: netherlands

    yipster designer

    Dook, what did the navy say?
    just curious as this sort of design was allready proposed before the 2e world war as it is a good one.
    planty of joint strike fighters drawn in, not that i dont like lockheed but the boeing was a lot chieper and manned fighters are outdated.
    the english make their vtol's becouse they did not have the money for the big carriers needed for modern planes, so did you draw the big flightdecks for saving fuel starting and landing horizontal instead of vertical? maybe that should have been a selling point?
    lets make love not war, peace!
     
  10. nero
    Joined: Aug 2003
    Posts: 624
    Likes: 13, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 112
    Location: Marseille, France / Illinois, US

    nero Senior Member

    A question? If one of the hulls is touched by a torpedo or mine, will the boat float level?

    From what the navy guys claim the current U.S. carriers have hulls that can take several hits below the wl without any substantial damage. (for what their gossip is worth)

    Do you have any isometric renderings?

    Perhaps another country that does not suffer from "we-have-the-best" attitude would be a viable bilder.
     
  11. icetreader
    Joined: Jan 2003
    Posts: 217
    Likes: 1, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 12
    Location: USA

    icetreader Senior Member

    Cool cat

    Dook,
    What about a cheaper, civilian version of this catamaran that would be used as a floating resort? :)
    The way things look now the future of the aircraft carrier class is not certain - It's reminding of what happened to the dreadnought class of battleships between WWI and WWII, as it was found that for the same $$ you could get bigger bangs from aircrfats than from big naval guns.

    Y.
     
  12. D'ARTOIS
    Joined: Nov 2004
    Posts: 1,068
    Likes: 18, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 321
    Location: The Netherlands

    D'ARTOIS Senior Member

    What you are sayin Nero, is correct. The living example is - if you like - the carrier "Lexington" in the Battle of The Coral Sea, May 1942. The Lexington took a tremendous number of torpedo's before she finally sunk.

    Your design, in spite of its attractiveness, is very vulnerable in concept and only one sub with a nuclear warhead will finish her off. Following, too many casualties.
     
  13. Dook
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 20
    Likes: 0, Points: 1, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: USA

    Dook Junior Member

    The initial response to this idea was from a Captain who said swath designs are inefficient over a certain tonnage. Now I'm not an engineer but after some careful thought I came to the conclusion that he was refering to the smaller swath ships that have vertical sides.

    The final response is here:

    Mr. Oaks,

    The basic concept you provided via the anchorDesk and the core features
    you are trying to include were already part of the CVNX concept ship
    analysis of alternatives (AOA) study program that was conducted in the
    mid-90's. Every alternative and combination of alternatives, including
    types of propulsion, different hulls forms and shapes, overall displacement,
    large deck vs small deck, various size airwings and mixes, ordnance
    requirements, offensive and defensive weapons, sortie rates, etc were evaluated in very extensive details.

    If I recall correctly, the show stopper on this design is the
    requirement to move aircraft using elevators to support each recovery and
    launch.........when you perform the overall sortie generation rate
    calculations for launch, recovery, rearm, repair, refuel and
    respot.......this design fails to meet some of the key performance parameter
    for the ship design, especially in the total number of sorties that can be
    conducted using design reference missions. Having to respot aircraft more than absolutely necessary is a major show stopper in any design.

    As with any design, we are in a huge tradespace. How we operate ship
    battle groups, what defensive measures that are in place, the capability of
    ship sensors, off-ship sensors, self-protection systems, etc, recurring and
    non-recurring engineering costs, Life Cycle costs, standardization of parts,
    total Acquisition Cost, required R&D efforts, live fire test and evaluation
    requirements, etc....all become part of the mix.......

    In addition, you have to remember that CVN 76 was just delivered, and
    CVN 77 is under construction.........originally, CVNX was the incorporation
    of EMALS and new nuclear propulsion plants, with some other architectural
    changes to support future growth and projected changes......CVN 21 came
    about in Dec 03, but the build sequence and delivery of the ship didnt get
    moved to the right..............so Catch 22......the design of the nuclear plant started over 5 years ago, EMALS design has been ongoing for almost the same number of years, the hull form became fixed very quickly due to the design build sequence.......we are already approving drawings for the ship and building initial units in the very near term......... The CVN 21 Conceptual General Arrangement was completed earlier this year, the CVN 21 Concept Letter was signed out last December.......we are way beyond concept ship ideas......

    There are alot of good ideas out there, and I can honestly say, alot of them have merit in certain configurations, however....their are alot of underlying requirements that must be met regarding damage control, stability, structural integrity, sea keeping, cruising range, and a bunch of Key performance parameters. I can not get into classified information regarding survivability requirements.

    Thanks for your interest in the Carrier Program

    I left out the name of the retired Commander who sent me the above.
     
  14. yipster
    Joined: Oct 2002
    Posts: 3,486
    Likes: 96, Points: 58, Legacy Rep: 1148
    Location: netherlands

    yipster designer

    thanks Dook
    what can i say...
     

  15. Dook
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 20
    Likes: 0, Points: 1, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: USA

    Dook Junior Member

    In response to the posts:

    Some years ago the navy conducted a review of aircraft carrier designs with the focus being on shifting to smaller designs and getting away from nuclear propulsion. The final conclusion was that the big flight deck nuclear carriers produce much more offensive capability for a relatively little additional cost over a smaller ship. The main factor in my design was stealth but I tried to add in other things I knew the navy was/is working on like the electromagnetic catapults, a second set of arresting gear, electric drive, reduced manning, and small cabins for each enlisted crewmember.

    VTOL aircraft could be operated from the recovery deck but in my opinion they would not be preferable to regular JSF or F/18's. Marine VTOLS should only operate from shore or amphibious assault ships close to shore where they can more quickly provide air support of ground operations. This carrier can recover 2 aircraft separated by seconds. Landing a VTOL would only slow this process.

    A torpedo or mine can inflict severe damage to any ship and this design is no different. The submerged sponsons are double hulled, like a submarine but not made of titanium, and with further compartmentalization I believe this ship would be just as survivable as a Nimitz. You can't design against nuclear weapons, any sub with a nuclear warhead is going to sink any ship. The key is stealth, not just radar avoidance but sonar as well. The submerged sponsons could be made to be almost as quiet as a Los Angeles class submarine.

    The only drawings I made of this design are what you see, other than the other decks which I can post if anyone wishes. Actually China would be the only other country that would have the resources to build something like this.

    As far as the navy's final response, I disagree. The only difference between the sortie time of a Nimitz and this design is an elevator ride. Perhaps 20 seconds, but this design gives you so much more. What kind of sortie rate do you get on a Nimitz if you have a problem with your one and only landing area? What if the enemy has one stealth aircraft and uses it to put a 1,000 pound bomb into your flight deck arresting gear? What if an aircraft landing gear fails as it catches the wires and you have low fuel state aircraft overhead? How do you immunize an entire Nimitz from sound propagation to limit sonar detection? A Nimitz can't launch 4 alert aircraft within seconds of each other while recovering 2 aircraft. A Nimitz carries only half as much jet fuel. Also with so many people on the flight deck of a Nimitz 1-2 deaths occur every cruise. On this ship only 4 crewmen are up top at any time to move aircraft onto the elevators and if they fall overboard they slide down the sides. Also the swath design would be much more stable than a Nimitz.

    I'll admit that it's difficult to keep an open mind when hearing criticism after I put so much thought and effort into the design. I know there are similar ideas out there but I do believe mine is better in every aspect except one; projected cost. If the navy had said that the estimated cost was $15 billion for this design then I would have accepted it.
     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.