Reply With QuoteThat is pretty cool. Just a silly land lubber question, what are the advantages besides less displacement of a multi hull form?
Multi-hull carrier
Just a mess-around concept, not serious. Aircraft and weapons are Chinese because I already had them modelled, but concept is country-agnostic. Would look good in Aussie colours ala Austal
Model is made in Google Sketchup
Hull takes shape.
Side-by-side with Varyag - similar size although multi-hull has only about 50% displacement
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. 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 but large enough for a heli of fighter.
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.
My fav view with deck hidden
The catapults are extra long at 90m, and electromagnetic or rocket. Avoids the massive steam boilers required on other carriers.
That is pretty cool. Just a silly land lubber question, what are the advantages besides less displacement of a multi hull form?
Wasn't multi-hull design under consideration for the Ford/X-Carrier class?
Well a lot of people think they are inferior, partly due to below-waterline volume (smaller) and survivability/operability if one of the outriggers is compromised.Originally Posted by T-5 Killer
Personally I think they are feasible and make sense because they afford much larger hangers and flight deck for a given displacement. Most of the space on a carrier is not 'heavy' space - living accommodation and hanger - multihulls offer lots of space but only if limited weight (lest they become top heavy).
The US military is increasingly looking at multi-hulls such as LCS-2.
An older British concept although ultimately the monohull Queen Elizabeth class was ordered. http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvfimages/cvf-tri.jpg
And a Russian model http://www.strategycenter.net/imgLib/20090310_10.jpg
Another Planeman sketch from a few years ago, this time wave-piercing catamaran
Question: With placing the island at the extreme rear of the ship, are you not making what already looks like a rear heavy design even more so? What kind of effect would this have when the ship has to move through heavy seas?
EDIT: Also, atomic power plant? I can't see an exhaust vent.
Not nuke, it's gas turbine. The intakes are on the port side opposite the forward lift and the exhausts would be between the hulls. This avoids the large superstructure, reduced IR signature and probably wouldn't cause a landing hazard.
I think you could design the details to not be too "rear heavy", but if not the island can be moved forwards to either in front of or between the lifts
Well I was wondering about it. Ideally you'd like to avoid long prop shafts as they're vulnerable to damage. You could store fuel and munitions in the forward areas, but then you'll have a varying COG as fuel is depleted and added.
You'd want to be very careful with the siting of the intakes and exhausts as turbines wouldn't like ingesting seawater.
Having made my criticisms, I do like what you've done with the triple hull. It does look feasible.
wow... This reminds me good old Su 27 flanker Sim
So, with this 50% lesser displacement, would it have sufficient storage capacity for its own fuel and for its aircraf's' aviation fuel as well as various aircraft armaments?Side-by-side with Varyag - similar size although multi-hull has only about 50% displacement
50% less displacement means about 50% less load capacity depending on the water you are sailing in..
Last edited by Victis Honor; 12-06-2009 at 07:02 AM.
They just have to make them twice the size, then..
...and equip it with hydro-foils
Good discussion points. Not saying this is the best concept ever, like all things it's a compromise and deliberately unconventional to make it more interesting.
No long props... all electric drive with podded propulsion. Engines towards stern to reduce IR signature. Next iteration will have improved pods but powerplant concept will remain.
agreed, but it is feasible and has been done successfully on other ships. Also I imagined having a large flexi-tube (like the flues in a home chimney) that you could put on the intake where it passes through the hanger, and draw air either from the hanger or stick it out the back/weapons lift or whatever in emergencies or serious storms.
Agreed, to a point. Think of this as a 30-40k carrier with a much larger hanger and flight deck. Also, it'd be built with extensive alloy and/or composites to reduce weight of internal structures like walls in the accomodation area, which I know is controversial, but has merits too - think of an aircraft carrier big brother of LCS-2.
Munitions storage can be smaller than older carriers because of the use of much more efficient smart bombs. The lower hull is almost entirely dedicated to fuel, munitions and engines.
Also for the RN.
The designs are still floating around for a UCAV-Carrier with multi-hull. Basically you remove the pilot... you can remove much of the support functions on ship... and voila; the limitations of multi-hull evaporate.
I suspect that one day not too far off warships will regularly be built as multi-hull vessels, starting with the GD version of LCS (if it's chosen).
Dang Planeman..I've seen this somewhere before!!
And I posted...Well a lot of people think they are inferior, partly due to below-waterline volume (smaller) and survivability/operability if one of the outriggers is compromised.
Personally I think they are feasible and make sense because they afford much larger hangers and flight deck for a given displacement. Most of the space on a carrier is not 'heavy' space - living accommodation and hanger - multihulls offer lots of space but only if limited weight (lest they become top heavy).
And this...However you've really minimized space for the ;
1) crew
2) supplies
3) munitions
4) work spaces
...with that narrow hull. I've mentioned that to you previously.Your drawings are always excellent. But in this case not practical.
Do not let my comments stop you from finishing your excellent drawing.
how many sailors will man your ship? They need berthing and a messing/galley area. Plus there need be space for such amenities as gyms, ships stores, barber shop etc..etc.. a CV is a floating city.
I served on the USS Hanco*k CVA-19 in '74 & '75. An WWII Essex class. She displaced 33,000 tons. Roughly the size of your ship.... And every inch of available space was used.
No matter how you rationalize it the hull is to small. You need crew space, more work shop space, storage rooms, sick bay and dental, magazines and fuel tanks for the ships fuel and aircraft fuel. And I almost forgot you need tanks for water storage. Ships make their own fresh water it needs to be stored.
Remember that a CV has many different work shops. Just not for aircraft. Machine shops, lithography,Damage control lockers. All sorts of pump rooms for fuel and water. A very large support shops for ground support equipment..i.e. tow tractors, portable generators, hydraulic carts, nitrogen carts, fork lifts & fire fighting vehicles from the flight deck. CVs also have welding shops for aircraft and the ships equipment. You get my point? Believe you me there's plenty more..
Posting Permissions
