Aircraft Carriers

Forgot about the deck number. Also added some possible names, although I'd welcome other suggestions.

Click to expand...

Great names!

I like CV 93, USS Shanksville...but that's just me. Special dispensation on the hull number.

Click to expand...

Jeff didja know that three LPD's will commerate the events of 9/11/2001?
The New York(LPD-21), Arlington (LPD 24) & Somerset (LPD 25). The latter two are named after the counties where the attacks occuried.

Perhaps each cat could have it's own GTDA devoted soley to it's use, alternatively a single reactor (a submarine type unit?)

Click to expand...

Not sure that would work manpower wise or engineering wise...A Reactor requires a space that has .5m thickness amour. And a highly trained crew to operate it. Will the reactor be placed below decks?

Perhaps some sort of GTDA system could be fitted soley , as you state, for the operation of the catapults..

The more features we add the R & D boys in the US are counting their billions.

I was quite happy with the design as it was, then Jeff stuck his oar in...

Thanks Jeff!

I would lean toward the GTDA solution myself to keep costs down.

bd popeye said:

Jeff didja know that three LPD's will commerate the events of 9/11/2001?
The New York(LPD-21), Arlington (LPD 24) & Somerset (LPD 25). The latter two are named after the counties where the attacks occuried.

Click to expand...

Yes, I was aware...but IMHO, there was a significant battle fought on Flight 93 that was a very defining moment in the overall conflict...albeit a small battle and a short moment. Just the same, the power and effectiveness and vigor of free peoples were pitted against the indoctrination and singelmindendness of fanatics...and the fanatics were foiled. I'd still like to see a USS Shanksville...but as I said, that's just me.

Obi Wan Russell said:

I was quite happy with the design as it was, then Jeff stuck his oar in...Thanks Jeff!

I would lean toward the GTDA solution myself to keep costs down.

Click to expand...

Hey...its sort of what I do...hehehe.

Anyhow, with only the two cats and with an individual GTDA for each one that might work...but again, the logisitcs of it and impact on the hull and effectiveness will have to measured...I am not sure of the actual electrical requirements for each EM cat...but they are sure to be high.

I would doubt that it makes sense to fit a reactor just for the electricity of emcats while the ship is driven by gasturbines.

Furthermore I don't believe it's really necessary and for sure very expensive to introduce another type, the CVF, into the USN between the CVN21 and LHA(R).
For some time the credo was do as many as possible with as little platforms as possible to save cost and make logistics easier.
So, would it really be a good idea to have three kinds of carries? (LHA(R), CVF, CVN21)

So, would it really be a good idea to have three kinds of carries? (LHA(R), CVF, CVN21)

Click to expand...

Yes it is.

However it was my idea to "tweak" the design of the French CVF to suit possible USN needs. I honestly don't see the need for two islands that's why I asked someone to re-draw the French CVF with one island..US style.

bd popeye said:

Yes it is.

Click to expand...

Popeye, have you seen this pic/poster?

I have always liked it:

Jeff Head said:

Popeye, have you seen this pic/poster?

I have always liked it

Click to expand...

That's nice Jeff! That's the first I've seen it. I will foward it to my yahoo CV group. I really like the black, white grey & siver tone. Very nice. Thanks!

I have a fondness for that USN poster that goes something like "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of those who threaten them!". To those who try to suggest that more DDGs would do the same job as a carrier more cheaply, just think did anyone bat an eyelid the last time a destroyer made a port visit near you? As compared to carrier looming on the horizon? Presence can stop conflicts before they start and that saves more money than any defence cut.

That pic by Jeff is nice

I took a closer look at the specs of the CVF and LHA(R) projects. They nearly have the same length and beam. The CVF is 10-15000t heavier. Does that justify two different vessel types? Or perhaps the better question is the current navy budget allow that? You could perhaps even just fit a catapult and cables into some LHA(R)s.

Scratch said:

That pic by Jeff is nice

I took a closer look at the specs of the CVF and LHA(R) projects. They nearly have the same length and beam. The CVF is 10-15000t heavier. Does that justify two different vessel types? Or perhaps the better question is the current navy budget allow that? You could perhaps even just fit a catapult and cables into some LHA(R)s.

[qimg]http://www.exwar.org/Graphics/Amphibious/5000d3.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.thalesgroup.co.uk/thales_corporate/fms/Naval%20Systems/CVF-n64363_7.gif[/qimg]

Click to expand...

If you were going to combine the two roles into a single hull, the question would be is it easier to redesign the CVF with an aft docking well or double the size of the flight deck and increase the speed (hence installed power) of an LHA(R)?

I'd go with the former (CVF solution). Bigger faster ship to start with.