Ideal chinese carrier thread

[planeman]

I would have a large monohull, as they provide the best internal volume compared to any multihull ship as internal space is very important on a carrier. Being able to carry a large portion of your airwing inside allows for maintenance to be conducted at all times, and improves the life of the aircraft as they are not exposed to constant sea spray that will cause corrosion.

I think you have the internal space thing the wrong way around, multihulls generally have greater volume above waterline for a given displacement.

 

[Pointblank]

I think you have the internal space thing the wrong way around, multihulls generally have greater volume above waterline for a given displacement.

Both above waterline and below waterline internal space is important. Below waterline especially for aviation spirits and ammunition.

 

[AmiGanguli]

Because extra deck surface wouldn't be cost effective. It'd require larger hulls to support all the extra weight, lowering speed, endurance, increasing costs, etc.

I'm not entirely convinced by this argument. The deck overhang doesn't need to support a lot of weight (aircraft being relatively light). Check out the deck overhang on the Charles de Gaulle:

 

[Totoro]

That overhang on the picture, if all the materials' weight were to be added up, would be several hundred tons worth of steel, etc. IF no good can come of it, why add all that weight? Making the deck of cdg rectangular would call for even more of weight, couple of thousand tons, by the look of it. And all that would be quite high up, i'm not so sure it wouldn't cause problems with center of gravity and stability in the high seas.

Besides, past a certain point, adding more deck space starts becoming less valuable. It may happen that it doesn't matter as much if you have 20 planes waiting to be launched on the deck (if it were a small deck) or 40 planes, if it were a larger deck.

 

[planeman]

Good comments all around, I've tweaked my concept in light of all the good points

I'm still all for a SWARTH multihull (only central hull is SWARTH). Displacement about 25-30,000 tons with airwing of 20 jets (surge 30, max 50 if deckspace plus hanger is used to max) and ASW by helicopters. Maybe 4 AEW fixed wing (?) or helicopters.

But, the deck is closer to the equivilant for a 50,000 ton carrier.

There are two 2-jet lifts and 'regular' deck parking for 7 jets (J-10 shown) on the starboard side (pink). Additional parking for two more on Port rear-quarter but this is also the main helicopter operations area so more likely helicopters here. There are two main 20m diameter helicopter landing spots on the rear quarter (green) with a third underneath the two jets shown in starboard parking. Additional 'emergency' landing spots would be distributed along the main landing strip and in the middle of the ship.

There are three catapults with the primary jet ones forward (note no parking at bow, I can't see how that is efficient). All are 75m long. The 'secondary' one on the landing strip would also be the 'main' one for any heavy fixed-wing types.

The hanger would be large but designed around a 30 jet and 10 helicopter air-wing so plenty of hanger-deck space for other accomodation etc.

Interesting feature is that powerplant is COGAG with all-electric drive. So below waterline is mainly for fuels, whereas the engines and generators are actually on the hanger-deck level (!) exhausting between the hulls to reduce IR signiture.

 

[Sczepan]

nice idea, but in my impression there is not enough distance between the island and the landing planes - this is a little bit dangerous by rolling and stamping ships; you should move the island more to the middle of your concept :china:

 

[bd popeye]

note no parking at bow, I can't see how that is efficient

Excellent job on the flight deck planeman. Excellent design. With the size airwing you stated you may not need room on the bow to spot(park) aircraft.

nice idea, but in my impression there is not enough distance between the island and the landing planes - this is a little bit dangerous by rolling and stamping ships; you should move the island more to the middle of your concept

I disagree. His island will be fine just where it is. On the newly designed CVN-78 the island is about in the same position. It will no intfere with air-operations. In my years at sea I never heard of, witnessed, or had any knowledge of an aircraft crashing into the island.

Interesting feature is that powerplant is COGAG with all-electric drive. So below waterline is mainly for fuels, whereas the engines and generators are actually on the hanger-deck level (!) exhausting between the hulls to reduce IR signiture.

Intresting. Not sure how that would work. There may be a safety hazzard having those generators in the hangar. I'm not sure. Maybe Obi wan has an idea..

 

[Sczepan]

....
I disagree. His island will be fine just where it is. On the newly designed CVN-78 the island is about in the same position. It will no intfere with air-operations. In my years at sea I never heard of, witnessed, or had any knowledge of an aircraft crashing into the island.
...

wait a moment: the CVN-78 is much bigger than planemans concept. USS Gerald R. Ford has a lengh of 333 m and is about 40 m wide !

The "same position" is only relative - not in real distances.

Now compare the wingspan of the J-10s in planemans concept.

In planemans concept you will have max. 10 meters distance from the middleline of the landing runway to the Island. Thats not enough safe distance as I think.

 

[planeman]

Yeah it's only about 12-15m from the landing strip centre to the tower. Agree that a larger margin might be prudent. Moving it 5m forward and narrower will reduce forward jet parking by one aircraft but might be an idea.

Also, re the engines. When I say on hanger deck, I don't mean in the hanger, just on the same level. The engines would be at extreme forward end of outriggers. 3 or 4 turbines. The engines would be aligned across-ship so that generators are over central hull (generator is heavier than the engine?). A smaller diesel would provide in-port power.

Not sure how modern catapults could work but if steam is required then the boilers could be heated by the exhausts of the jets similar to the COGAS idea used on some ships (and suggested as an upgrade on COGAG ships like the Al'Bs. This essentially 'recycles' the heat from the jet engines.

 

[Totoro]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Another proposition, since we're going wild here. Perhaps a bit less radical than planeman's carrier in so much that i opted for a somewhat traditional catamaran hull as i believe it may prove to be structurally stronger to have two large hulls and very little deck overhang around them. I believe there's plenty of stability with this sort of hull as it is, boat being large as it is, so no need for SWATH hull as it'd just increase fuel consumption and/or require larger engines. I went with wave piercing bow though, realistically, it might not be needed with a ship of this size. There might be issues with planes just falling off deck and hitting the bow... hopefully not, but if so, then a conventional, slightly shorter hull might be in order.

Speaking of the size, it's 264 meters long and has a beam of 96 meters. displacement is a bit hard to asses for me but i'd say its somewhere around 70.000 tons, give or take 15%. (probably give )

Everything is drawn to scale (except the hullform which is a rough sketch so excuse the sharp lines and no fine curves), so i hope everything is self explanatory. Catapults are some 95 meters long, hangar area is 7800 square meters. Please disregard the blue grid drawn inside the hangar. If we go with s-3 sized awacs plane, j-10 sized fighters and nh90 sized helos, hangar should be able to hold some 6 helos, 4 awacs planes and 30 fighters, hopefully with enough room left for maintenance and reshuffling of the aircraft under the deck.

I am not too happy with the position of the weapons elevators, but couldn't think of better spots that wouldn't come in way of more important things. I've toyed with the idea of a smaller bow elevator for aircraft and a longer hangar leading to it, but ultimately decided it's not needed.

There are two command bridges, large aft one for deck operations and a smaller one on the bow for navigation of the ship itself. (though, realistically, both could be be used for everything, if there's an urgent need for it)

Those spaces on the deck at the stern could be semi-dedicated for helo operations, but if we're to crowd the deck with as many aircraft as we can (so we don't hinder the deck operations) one could place at least 14-15 more j-10 sized aircraft around the deck. That's with elevators being free. So, realistically, I don't see why the carrier couldn' operate some 4 squadrons of 12 j-10 sized planes, some 6 or so helos and 4 awacs planes.

Planeman, that solution with engines up on the hangar level sounds great, (all electric drive is definitely the way to go) but how much top weight would that add? Sure, fuel or water ballast could be placed below decks to compensate but it's always better to use as less dead ballast as one can afford to carry around.