Ideal chinese carrier thread

[tphuang]

That's news to me. But I would still pick the FC-1 since you can always find a better engine and J-10s can't land with shock.

according to a guy who has seen J-10 take off, he said experience J-10 pilots can take off in 10 planes length (< 200 m). And I don't think J-10 has a more fragile airframe than FC-1. Of course, they would have to do some serious modifications first, but I think J-10 can take off from a stobar carrier.

 

[Gollevainen]

why didn't they just build them in Leningrad?

becouse Nikolajev was sole yard capaple of building such big warships...

 

[planeman]

 

[bd popeye]

Planeman..you got some explaining to do!

First off..what are the demensions? The ship looks very wide.

What is the purposre of the radical hull design?

What and where is the propulsion plant??

Is that VLS behind the island?

Thanks!!!!

 

[Gollevainen]

Tough highly douptable, yet still nice looking

The thing with the Catamaran hull is (like I've been saying earlier) is that it has too much limitations. The sea-worhtiness is one that can be depated and many of you disagree with me on that, but one thing is undispute and that is the low volume of the hull. It means basicly that there is not enough room to store all the needed stuff that makes warships warships. It might be adequate for smaller vessels but with large ones it really cross the line of being too volumeless. In Aircraft carriers the issue is even greater when you have the aircraft hangar taking hell alot of space.
The overall idea of aircraft carriers is to provide an airforce to your fleet when it's not possiple to use aircrafts launched from land. This means that the carriers needs to have good endurance even just to be justificable to exist. With catamaran hull there is no room for stores, crew habiltability, fuel and so on. It would tie the ship operating in the range of small missile FACs...not worht of wasting money

They look nice, but...

 

[planeman]

Planeman..you got some explaining to do!

First off..what are the demensions? The ship looks very wide.

What is the purposre of the radical hull design?

What and where is the propulsion plant??

Is that VLS behind the island?

Thanks!!!!

Well it's not to scale, but the approximate dimension would be about 250m long by about 50m wide (that's wide!) and about 40,000t.

It'd be nuclear powered (bad bad bad!!!!!) and yes that's the SA-N-9 Shtil VLS behind the bridge.

Truth is I have a much better concept in mind anyway.

 

[bd popeye]

Thanks Planeman..But I have to agrre with golly as he posted this:

With catamaran hull there is no room for stores, crew habiltability, fuel and so on.

Yes it takes a lot of men stores and fuel to operate an aircraft carrier. And that means space in the hull.

 

[planeman]

I think a better configuration is offered by the wave-piercing trimarans:

The most striking charactristic is that the fixed-wing aircraft are launched via catapult out of the openings at the side (fired about 30 degrees off centre). This limits wingspan (though a Flanker would be fine) but eliminates the need for an angled landing deck and allows the aircraft lifts to be towards the bow.

This one is about 320m long and about 50,000t.

 

[Scratch]

Wow, it could be a space-ship from the look, frightening.
I have to say the design looks fantastic.
However, I can't really believe it could work all that well. With the launch of aircraft from below deck, they are really close to the sea, so I think the sea should be pretty calm for flight ops. Furthermore this "in the hull runway" takes up a lot of space down there, wich is not that very much at all in a Tri too I believe.

 

[bd popeye]

I don't see any advantage to launching those aircraft in the manner you have illustrated. Just where is all that exhaust from those aircraft launching going to go? Some sort of special venting system will be required. And your hangar will be small because you are conducting flight ops in the space that should be the hangar....