PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Totoro said:

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.

Click to expand...

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:

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Totoro said:

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.

Click to expand...

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:

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Totoro said:

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.

Click to expand...

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:

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

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.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

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.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

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.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

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.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

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.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

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.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

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: