PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

You've been brainwashed by Golly and his anti-multihull rantings!

Click to expand...

Couple of things here..

1) You make excellent drawings.

2) I wish golly would come back to the forum. He's not been here for three weeks.

3) I have the benifit of 20 years serving the USN which includes 6 years actual at sea time aboard CV's..I know how they work.

4 hours later..You have the crew in the bow. Well on USN CV's there is berthing in the bow but in heavy seas a sailor will wish his berthing was much further aft. The bow takes the brunt of heavy seas.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

You've been brainwashed by Golly and his anti-multihull rantings!

Click to expand...

Couple of things here..

1) You make excellent drawings.

2) I wish golly would come back to the forum. He's not been here for three weeks.

3) I have the benifit of 20 years serving the USN which includes 6 years actual at sea time aboard CV's..I know how they work.

4 hours later..You have the crew in the bow. Well on USN CV's there is berthing in the bow but in heavy seas a sailor will wish his berthing was much further aft. The bow takes the brunt of heavy seas.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Yep, birthing in bow. PLAN sailors could be bribed with AC to sleep there

Island placed at extreme rear for optimum deck-handling, although moving it to between the lifts looks more conventional. Gerald Ford class also follows this line of thought although there is still room for an aircraft or two at the stern.


Placing the main engine exhausts between the hulls means a much smaller island with full-360 degree bridge. I placed a third CIWS on the island. Below the bridge there could be 'hangers' for the deck-vehicles. The space between the island and the rear lift is for deck vehicle parking.



The escort in the above pic is a Type-052B to scale


View from the bridge

I've reduced the size of the hanger to double the workshops area, without reducing aircraft carried in 'normal' configuration.


The catapults are extra long at 90m, and electromagnetic or rocket. Avoids the massive steam boilers required on other carriers, again saving space for Popeye's hair salon.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Yep, birthing in bow. PLAN sailors could be bribed with AC to sleep there

Island placed at extreme rear for optimum deck-handling, although moving it to between the lifts looks more conventional. Gerald Ford class also follows this line of thought although there is still room for an aircraft or two at the stern.


Placing the main engine exhausts between the hulls means a much smaller island with full-360 degree bridge. I placed a third CIWS on the island. Below the bridge there could be 'hangers' for the deck-vehicles. The space between the island and the rear lift is for deck vehicle parking.



The escort in the above pic is a Type-052B to scale


View from the bridge

I've reduced the size of the hanger to double the workshops area, without reducing aircraft carried in 'normal' configuration.


The catapults are extra long at 90m, and electromagnetic or rocket. Avoids the massive steam boilers required on other carriers, again saving space for Popeye's hair salon.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Yep, birthing in bow. PLAN sailors could be bribed with AC to sleep there

Island placed at extreme rear for optimum deck-handling, although moving it to between the lifts looks more conventional. Gerald Ford class also follows this line of thought although there is still room for an aircraft or two at the stern.


Placing the main engine exhausts between the hulls means a much smaller island with full-360 degree bridge. I placed a third CIWS on the island. Below the bridge there could be 'hangers' for the deck-vehicles. The space between the island and the rear lift is for deck vehicle parking.



The escort in the above pic is a Type-052B to scale


View from the bridge

I've reduced the size of the hanger to double the workshops area, without reducing aircraft carried in 'normal' configuration.


The catapults are extra long at 90m, and electromagnetic or rocket. Avoids the massive steam boilers required on other carriers, again saving space for Popeye's hair salon.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Great images, planeman. I like the modelling.
Just curious though, why only two lifts on the starbord side and none on the portside? Wouldn't a third lift on the other side give some more flexibility?

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Great images, planeman. I like the modelling.
Just curious though, why only two lifts on the starbord side and none on the portside? Wouldn't a third lift on the other side give some more flexibility?

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Great images, planeman. I like the modelling.
Just curious though, why only two lifts on the starbord side and none on the portside? Wouldn't a third lift on the other side give some more flexibility?

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

I know the USN has done at least some preliminary studies on tri hull carriers. I have been an advocate of these myself, with one big reservation. I think the tri hull layout allows for a very big flight deck and hangar spaces for a given displacement, and flying airplanes is the reason such ships exist. The stability in heavy seas is especially attractive. They do not heel when the helm is thrown over hard. Now the reservations; I do not know how much hull volume such a design will leave for ammunition and fuel, nor how well the normal number of ammunition magazines could be protected adequately. They are very well protected from ordinance on a US style CVN. If nuclear propulsion is to be used, is there adequate space for reactors and their shielding. What does this do to the space available for ammo? Not enough information to make a good decision, but I would not dismiss a tri hull carrier out of hand.
Hey Popeye, you forgot to mention how many people are living and working in the spaces between the hangar and flight decks. This was a feature introduced with the Essex class to help absorb bomb hits. The armor on those ships was on the hangar decks, 4 inches of it. The two decks above were supposed to absorb the majority of the damage, protecting the hull and machinery from damage.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

I know the USN has done at least some preliminary studies on tri hull carriers. I have been an advocate of these myself, with one big reservation. I think the tri hull layout allows for a very big flight deck and hangar spaces for a given displacement, and flying airplanes is the reason such ships exist. The stability in heavy seas is especially attractive. They do not heel when the helm is thrown over hard. Now the reservations; I do not know how much hull volume such a design will leave for ammunition and fuel, nor how well the normal number of ammunition magazines could be protected adequately. They are very well protected from ordinance on a US style CVN. If nuclear propulsion is to be used, is there adequate space for reactors and their shielding. What does this do to the space available for ammo? Not enough information to make a good decision, but I would not dismiss a tri hull carrier out of hand.
Hey Popeye, you forgot to mention how many people are living and working in the spaces between the hangar and flight decks. This was a feature introduced with the Essex class to help absorb bomb hits. The armor on those ships was on the hangar decks, 4 inches of it. The two decks above were supposed to absorb the majority of the damage, protecting the hull and machinery from damage.