To support my argumenting I only need to look the design around the wolrd. Give me a list of succesfull catamran or other non-displacement hull type of warships that are over 600 tons? Why there isen't any new corvette or frigate size vessels being build or under consideration for serial produgtion in other countries?
In otherwise crobato, your examples of polynesians sailing with small boats and modern sail boats are not actually comparable to this 1000 ton corvette competition. Those boats are what about 0.2 ton displacement? We are talking about warships which needs to carry lots weight.
The basic idea of ship building is that you need to dispose all the weight bellow the waterline. All weight above that is topweight. You ofcourse need to have stuff in the deck (superstructures, funnels, masts, weapons and stuff) so you will have some topweight despite all. The key is to minimalize the topweight as much as possiple. If I got your suggestion right, the helicopter pad is in the top deck level, where it should be at least half deck lower. Also this hangar type needs lifting devices which will bring more weight...not to mention how unbractical and tacticlly inflexible it is. The helipad needs to function as the main elevator. That means that it would land with the helicopter to the maindeck level. However, you cannot place structures to support new helipad, becouse the Helicopter it self blocks it, and it would bring more weigt. That sort of hanger is roofed with ligth srtuctures to cover the helicopter from the wheater. It cannot be used as helipad as long as the chopter is onboard....thats why no one
builds such, unless you desperatly want helicopter onboard ship that is clearly too small for it... If you really need helicopter capacity, build a bigger hull.
USN - HSV-2 Swift
Displacement: 960 tons standard, 1668 tons full
Length: 98m
Beam: 27m
Draught: 3.4m
Launched in 03, currently in service with the USN on a lease basis. Served during this summer's Israel-Lebanon conflict. During flight deck certifications, aircraft recovery was made while boat was going at 43 knots in one recovery and had 66 knots apparent winds in another recovery.
USN - HSV-1 Joint Venture
Identical stats. Served in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Served between 98 and 04.
HMAS Jervis Bay (AKR-45)
Displacement: 1250 tons
Length: 86.62m
Beam: 26m
Draught: 3.6m
Served in East Timor. Service with RAN from 99-01.
And let's not forget USS Independence (LCS-2) under construction.
Displacement: 608 tons dead, 2784 tons full
Length: 127.4m
Beam: 31.6m
Draught: 3.9m
The catamarans Polynesians used may be 0.2 tons in displacement but the concept of top heavy or seaworthiness still applies and they were able to traverse the very same open ocean that we have today. So comparing them to 1000 ton corvettes is applicable.
Okay, maybe I need to clarify what I am suggesting for the hangar/pad. First of all, I don't envision these boats to carry more than 1 heli. Afterall, this thread did suggest Jianghu replacements and I interpreted it as what's a nice corvette/small frigate design, nothing bigger, otherwise why even bother with this thread since PLAN already is working on the 054a and plus there was an ideal frigate thread out there too.
Let me try to paint out this hangar. Let's just say for example, helipad is about 17m. So in my vision, the overall hangar footprint is 20m. The 3m is fixed like a normal hanger complete with fixed roof. This will store the equipment to service the heli. The 17m pad is basically like an aircraft carrier elevator. So we know it can handle the weight of the heli. I don't see this tech as being new or cutting edge. When a heli is taking off or landing, the pad is elevated to basically the rooftop level of the 3m section, call it the main deck if you wish. But once a heli is on the pad and shut down, the pad is lowered to the level of the lower deck. A light and telescopic roof extends out from the 3m section to cover the heli. I like to propose a revision to the beam of my suggested boat to 25m. So with the boats large footprint, the inherent stability of a tri, the elevating pad should be feasible in regards to top weight when you factor in the proposed size of the boat, the lack of other top heavy items like a funnel. My proposed boat is 2000 tonnes. How much more upsizing are you suggesting? If anything, I noticed that seems to be your answer to every design discussion?
Baltic Sea may be a very choppy body of water but you do need to realize PLAN will not be operating there anytime soon. The Pacific does have its moments of bad weather but nothing cat/tris can't reasonably tackle. Also, in the HSV2's case, a T foil extends into the water during high speed transit for added stability. I think designs of cat/tris have reached a stage where their slight disadvantage with a monohull is more than compensated with the pluses it offers.
