Future Aircraft Carrier Thread; Designs, Ideas, Brainstorms

Miragedriver

Brigadier
Re: Future Aircraft Carrier Thread; Desings, Ideas, Brainstorms

Not exactly a carrier though.

True, but with UAVs it will have more strike capacity than a pocket carrier with one squadron of A-4s or Harriers. Without requiring a well trained carrier crew. Granted it opens up a whole new set of training problems.....
 

shen

Senior Member
Re: Future Aircraft Carrier Thread; Desings, Ideas, Brainstorms

True, but with UAVs it will have more strike capacity than a pocket carrier with one squadron of A-4s or Harriers. Without requiring a well trained carrier crew. Granted it opens up a whole new set of training problems.....

yeah, and an exclusive UAV forces is not really an option for smaller nations without an independent satellite network.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Re: Future Aircraft Carrier Thread; Desings, Ideas, Brainstorms

its exactly classification is not important. the goal is to design a warship with significant aviation facility, but more survivable than current generation of carriers. one route is the submarine route. but I think there is significant problems with that direction. large submarines are unwieldy boats. I-400s were very poor submarines, unmanageable, slow to dive, big active sonar target, and they carried very few aircraft. the largest modern submarines are the Typhoon class. Which were also found to be too big and unwieldy in operation and the concept was drop in followup class of Russian subs.
Actually, the reasons the Typhoons were dropped were not because the were to big and unwieldy. The Soviets came apart economically and could not afford them. That was the bottom line.

When Russia began (15 years later) to get its economy back, the Typhoons and their missiles were simply too far gone to justify refitting, and the Russians wanted newer technology.

The Oscars are still in service , as are the Akulas, and the new Yassen and Borei Classes too, and all of those are large boats:

Oscar II: 19,400 tons
Akula II: 13,800 tons
Yassen:12, 800 tons
Borei: 24,000 tons

The US definitely could build and operate several 40,000 ton CVN and LHD nuclear submarines if they so desired.

But, with the investment in the current LHDs and CVNs, and their political power within the military, it is very unlikely something like that will ever be constructed.

On another note, I have always been intrigued by the I-400 class. They were very innovative for the time, including (of course the hanger and catapult for launching aircraft), but also because they were covered with an early version of material that was sonar absorbent.

Two of the boats were dispatched towards the end of the war. One was going to attack the Panama Canal facilities, and the other perhaps cities on the West Coast of the U.S. They were a very historic innovation at the end of the war.

So, I bought Tamiya's 1/350 Scale I-400 Special Edition model and should get it in about ten days. It has a see-through side for the hanger, photo etched metal parts for the sensors, railing, and the catapult, metal (brass) props and shafts, and includes four aircraft and forty-eight 1/350 scale personnel to place on deck.


78019bt.jpg


gallery_78019.jpg


I intend to build it with an aircraft ready for launch, the hanger open with two aircraft with folded-wings inside, and have the crew on watch, manning the AAW weapons, and preparing for launch as shown in the picture above.
 

shen

Senior Member
Re: Future Aircraft Carrier Thread; Desings, Ideas, Brainstorms

a PBS documentary about the I-400

starting around 11:25 is the most interesting part where engineers explain why the three tubes hull design was chosen.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Re: Future Aircraft Carrier Thread; Desings, Ideas, Brainstorms

a PBS documentary about the I-400

starting around 11:25 is the most interesting part where engineers explain why the three tubes hull design was chosen.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Thanks for that link. It will help a lot when I start building this model.

Good stuff to from an historical perspective.

The US captured three of these vessels and studied them quite a bit before sinking them all.

As to why? It was the cold war and the US did not want the Soviets to get this type of technology.

The U.S. Navy took the thee I-400s to Sasebo Bay to study them. But, while there, they received a message that the Soviets were sending an inspection team to examine the submarines. To prevent this, Operation Road's End was instituted.

I-402 was taken to a position designated as Point Deep Six, about 35 miles west of Nagasaki and off the Gotō Islands, packed with charges of C-2 explosive and destroyed and it sank to a depth of 200 m (660 ft).

The remaining submarines, I-400 and I-401,were sailed to Hawaii by U.S. Navy technicians for further inspection. Upon completion of the inspections, the submarines were scuttled in the waters off Kalaeloa near Oahu in Hawaii by torpedoes from US submarine USS Trumpetfish on June 4, 1946. They did this to prevent the technology from being made available to the Soviets who were still demanding access to them.
 
Last edited:

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Re: Future Aircraft Carrier Thread; Desings, Ideas, Brainstorms

how about a large number of Burke sized ship following the design of USS Independence? Stealthy, no 40kt speed requirement, full Aegis combat system or its follow-on system, around 50 organic VLS, flexible deck that can either accommodate an additional 100 VLS or allow 20+ combat UAVs to be carried and operated. Is something like this possible in a ship the size of Burke? Group a bunch of them together to form powerful combat group, but each ship is not very expensive and not all the eggs in one basket.

lets try another approach.

Popular Science Magazine: Hurst publishing
Warships of Tomorrow
Sleek designs, robotic aircraft and next-generation weapons will make the ships of the future the most formidable ever
By Christian DeBenedetti Posted 02.15.2008 at 12:18 pm 5 Comments
28
The UXV Combatant Drones launch from the UXV's next-gen flight deck—and heavy firepower provides cover Nick Kaloterakis
View Photo Gallery
It's hard to tell what kind of wars the future will bring, but one thing is certain: Robots will be doing much of the fighting. In fact, they already are. Last year, aerial drones flew 258,502 hours of missions—up from 27,201 in 2002. Spending on unmanned aircraft systems by the U.S. military is expected to hit $3.76 billion by 2010. Robotic warfare, long the stuff of science fiction, is now a reality.

That's why, late last year, the British defense company BAE Systems released plans for a fast-moving, specially built home at sea for these robot warriors. That ship is the UXV Combatant concept: part warship and part next-gen carrier for unmanned craft.


From a ship-design standpoint, the best thing about unmanned vehicles is that they can be launched from small spaces that a manned craft simply can't. "It's a violent thing to launch an aircraft off a carrier—you can only stress the human being so much," says Charles Thompson of BAE Systems. Take the human out of the equation, and you can launch a vehicle from a much smaller space—which saves room and allows the UXV to function both as a fast, stealthy warship and an aircraft carrier at the same time. On the UXV, two 164-foot decks joined in a V shape would slingshot unmanned vehicles into the air using electromagnetic catapults and ramps. Radars, infrared sensors and radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags could organize vehicles as they take off and land.

Although it may sound radically new, the UXV actually borrows its basic design from a ship that's already being built: BAE's Type 45 Daring-class destroyer, a stealthy but massive warship set to join Britain's Royal Navy in 2009. Like the Type 45 destroyers, the UXV could measure some 500 feet long and run on diesel-powered electric turbines. Type 45s can reach a top speed of more than 27 knots, or 31 mph; the UXV should clock similar times.

But unlike most of its predecessors, the UXV could run effectively with minimal crew. Battleships once carried hundreds of sailors; the UXV could run with a crew of only 60, enough for three shift changes, along with a handful of additional crew members to service the drones.

Ships take years to build, so to be relevant after 2020, when it's expected to arrive, the UXV needs to be versatile. That's why BAE engineers, working with the American defense contractor General Dynamics on a separate project, developed a concept they call "modular mission bays," a set of plug-and-play features that would enable commanders to quickly "re-role" the boat. The UXV could change from submarine hunter to mine sweeper to a platform for supplying ground troops to a launching pad for drone-based air strikes.

When they're not in battle, the UXV's various drones would be stored on other ships or land bases; when the UXV receives a mission, the relevant drones would be dispatched to it. For a sub-hunting expedition, the UXV might load up with unmanned underwater vehicles, high-tech radars, torpedoes and even manned aircraft like the Super Lynx sub-hunting helicopter. On a mine-sweeping mission, it would deploy aerial drones to peer beneath the waves and destroy hidden threats. To supply ground troops in battle, it would host troop-carrying landing craft, support-attack helicopters and other armored vehicles.

The UXV should also pack enough heat to give all these assets cover. On the foredeck, missile batteries could house both surface-to-air and ship-to-ship missiles and cruise missiles. A large-caliber gun that fires six-inch munitions, 20 rounds at a time, provides incredible power for ship-to-ship fighting and for strafing a variety of targets onshore. And a 155-millimeter medium-caliber gun would return enemy fire while troops hit land.

When plans for the UXV hit the Web recently, some commenters sniped that the ship was destined to be the warship of a robot uprising. But that's unlikely. As with today's drones, most of the aircraft on the UXV would be controlled by remote human operators. Still, a smaller crew on board and fewer pilots in planes could mean fewer lives lost in almost any battle scenario.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This is What Your Suggestion Reminded me of.
 

chuck731

Banned Idiot
The I-400 shows a reason why it is hard to imagine why submersible carriers can pay:

1. I-400 carries 3 aircraft on 5,220 ton displacement, or 1 plane per 1740 tons of ship. The light carrier Ryujo carries 37 aircraft on 10,150 ton displacement, or 1 plane per 274 tons of ship.

2. It is much more expensive to build a ton of submarine than it is to build a ton of surface ship.

3. Ryujo was a failure because she was too small to successfully launch aircraft in moderate to heavy seas. It is hard to imagine I-400 launching her aircraft even in most sea states where Ryujo can.
 

shen

Senior Member
Re: Future Aircraft Carrier Thread; Desings, Ideas, Brainstorms

lets try another approach.


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This is What Your Suggestion Reminded me of.

That's kinda of what I had in mind initially, except catamaran like USS Independence. But then in my second post I thought a full length flight deck would be better. Still catamaran hull of around 10,000 tons.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Independence class is a Trimaran three hulls not two,
It sounds like you are aiming to a modifiacation of the JMSDF's latest Carrier/Destroyer.
 

shen

Senior Member
More like this.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Catamaran hull should give it better sea keeping and more interior space. It should be affordable and flexible enough that this class of ship can be the mainstay of a navy, not just a few capital ships.
 
Top