Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19

Thread: Multi-hull carrier

  1. #1

    Default 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.
    [IMG]http://i45.*******.com/10pr3q1dotpng[/IMG]
    [IMG]http://i46.*******.com/2aki77ndotpng[/IMG]

    Side-by-side with Varyag - similar size although multi-hull has only about 50% displacement
    [IMG]http://i45.*******.com/14oaiojdotpng[/IMG]
    [IMG]http://i50.*******.com/30iyvpzdotpng[/IMG]

    [IMG]http://i49.*******.com/2l3j2xdotpng[/IMG]

    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.

    [IMG]http://i49.*******.com/2zji548dotjpg[/IMG]
    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.
    [IMG]http://i45.*******.com/ay144pdotjpg[/IMG]

    [IMG]http://i48.*******.com/2qkmfqudotjpg[/IMG]

    [IMG]http://i50.*******.com/snpiqvdotjpg[/IMG]
    The escort in the above pic is a Type-052B to scale

    [IMG]http://i50.*******.com/23mk074dotjpg[/IMG]
    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
    [IMG]http://i47.*******.com/2quoididotjpg[/IMG]
    The catapults are extra long at 90m, and electromagnetic or rocket. Avoids the massive steam boilers required on other carriers.

  2. #2
    Senior Member T-5 Killer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM
    Age
    33
    Posts
    5,869

    Default

    That is pretty cool. Just a silly land lubber question, what are the advantages besides less displacement of a multi hull form?

  3. #3
    Deserter Soldat_Américain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The Borderlands with Nantan Lupan
    Age
    25
    Posts
    15,049

    Default

    Wasn't multi-hull design under consideration for the Ford/X-Carrier class?

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T-5 Killer View Post
    That is pretty cool. Just a silly land lubber question, what are the advantages besides less displacement of a multi hull form?
    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).

    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-tridotjpg

    And a Russian model http://www.strategycenter.net/imgLib/20090310_10dotjpg


    Another Planeman sketch from a few years ago, this time wave-piercing catamaran

  5. #5
    Bush Lawyer, that's me! TheKiwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    FYTW
    Age
    45
    Posts
    15,059

    Default

    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.

  6. #6

    Default

    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

  7. #7
    Bush Lawyer, that's me! TheKiwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    FYTW
    Age
    45
    Posts
    15,059

    Default

    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.

  8. #8
    Member Tapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Age
    29
    Posts
    485

    Default

    wow... This reminds me good old Su 27 flanker Sim

  9. #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    20

    Default

    Side-by-side with Varyag - similar size although multi-hull has only about 50% displacement
    [IMG]http://i45.*******.com/14oaiojdotpng[/IMG]
    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?

  10. #10
    Senior Member Victis Honor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Age
    29
    Posts
    2,764

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Supacat View Post
    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?

    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.

  11. #11
    Member GilbertDK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Danish Airforce, 724th sqn - ish.....
    Posts
    371

    Default

    They just have to make them twice the size, then..


    ...and equip it with hydro-foils

  12. #12

    Default

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheKiwi View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheKiwi View Post
    You'd want to be very careful with the siting of the intakes and exhausts as turbines wouldn't like ingesting seawater.
    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.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by victis honor View Post
    50% less displacement means about 50% less load capacity depending on the water you are sailing in..
    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.

  14. #14
    Senior Member happyslapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Windsor, United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Soldat_Américain View Post
    Wasn't multi-hull design under consideration for the Ford/X-Carrier class?
    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).

  15. #15
    The soul that is within me no man can degrade bd popeye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Cedar Rapids Iowa USA
    Age
    60
    Posts
    10,281

    Default

    Dang Planeman..I've seen this somewhere before!!

    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 I posted...

    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.
    And this...

    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..

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •