Shipbucket
http://67.205.157.234/forums/

Strike Carrier
http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2059		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Karle94 [ October 18th, 2011, 2:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Strike Carrier
The basic idea of this thingy is a carrier, somewhere in between the supercarrier and the amphibious assault ship. The mission is to support the marines and/or other ground forces when ground based planes and other carriers are unavailable. I have an idea that the modern carrier might be a little too depended on its escorts for protection. Therefore she comes with 32 VLS Mk-41, two Phalanx CWIS and 4 RAM launchers should she ever be backed into a corner all by her self. If the concept is practical, I don`t know. I really want YOUR opinion on this matter. As always, feedback are most helpful and appreciated.

http://i777.photobucket.com/albums/yy51 ... arrier.png
Author:  Dilandu [ October 18th, 2011, 2:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Strike Carrier
Questionable idea.

I am personally of the opinion that supercarriers are not as effective as 30-40 kt aircraft carriers. But it's still not a reason to cross the carrier with the assault ship.
Author:  Karle94 [ October 18th, 2011, 3:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Strike Carrier
She`s basicly an oversized amphibious assault ship without the capability to launch an amphibious invasion. The Nimitz are capable of 30+ knot speed. Fast for the biggest and heaviest warship ever constructed. One Nimitz alone weights more than most smaller navies. The strike carrier would probably weight around 45,000-60,000 tons.
Author:  Dilandu [ October 18th, 2011, 3:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Strike Carrier
But what is the function of your proposed ship? Why not take a separate carrier, and separately - amphibious assault ship?

Yes, the amphibious attack ships in the U.S. Air Group put "Harrier" (now - F-35B), but it is done with one purpose - to facilitate interaction and reduce flight time by arrangement. Nobody demands from amphibious ships to defense against a massive attack by enemy ASM-armed aircraft or suppress the S-300 battery, supported by "Pantsyr" (SA-22 "Greyhound", according to NATO classification)
Author:  Karle94 [ October 18th, 2011, 5:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Strike Carrier
In a way she`s neither one or the other. The function is a dedicated close air support carrier that travels with the marines. She`s not expected to stand on her own. She will if she has to.
Author:  acelanceloet [ October 18th, 2011, 5:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Strike Carrier
hmm.... this sounds a lot like the USS america...... only a bit bigger so it can operate CATOBAR aircraft.
Author:  Dilandu [ October 18th, 2011, 5:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Strike Carrier
Quote:
In a way she`s neither one or the other. The function is a dedicated close air support carrier that travels with the marines. She`s not expected to stand on her own. She will if she has to.
And just "America"​​-class with F-35B for this purpose does not fit?
Author:  Navybrat85 [ October 18th, 2011, 5:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Strike Carrier
I'm kinda thinkin, Pick one: Gator Freighter or Little Flattop. I mean, you COULD carry a Battalion of Marines aboard a CVL, and land them using Ospreys or conventional Helos, and maintain some strike or Power Projection capability, but remember, a jack of all trades is a master of none. The American Wasp, Tarawa, and Iwo Jima class have large flight decks designed mostly for heavy helicopters, to carry Marines ashore. The fact that the Harrier can be operated from their decks is a bonus, and gives the ship some power projection and sea control capabilities, but it is not a full fledged Carrier. It can't operate the sophisticated support aircraft that Carriers usually embark to make their air wings the potent forces that they are (Fighters and Attack Craft, frequently becoming the same airframes; Patrol Bombers such as the S-3 Viking, AWACS, Electronic Warfare Aircraft, Light Cargo aircraft, and helicopters). Airframes such as Harrier, Osprey, and F-35 can assume some of these roles, but (at least for the Harrier and F-35), Vertical or short takeoffs reduce the amount of payload such aircraft can carry. Also, the space allocated to a Gator Frieghter's airwing is significantly less, considering the size of the vessel, than an equal-sized carrier, since the ship also has to carry, in addition to the normal shipboard equipment and Ship's company, the Air Wing, Air Crews, landing craft and their crews and supplies, as well as a landing party, usually at least a reinforced battalion, between 800 and 1500 strong. And those Marines need things like food, and their equipment...It takes alot of space.
Author:  TimothyC [ October 18th, 2011, 6:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Strike Carrier
Ignoring semantic arguments about what the mission is (and I'm not sure the mission is a valid one) and focusing on the ship:

She's a carrier designed to escort herself, but you've got a single long range 2D radar and a short range 3D set. She's going to need a long range 3D set, lots of communications gear, and generally a lot more electronics than the SPS-49/SPQ-9B you have now.

Your island is way to small. It needs to be taller and generally more voluminous. You want to raise as much kit up above deck level as you can. The larger Island is also needed for larger uptakes. Is the Ship Gas Turbine or Oil Fired Boiler powered? Either way your exhaust is way to small, but the degree of how small may change. Your shafts and screws are scaled for a much larger craft. I'd reduce them to something more in line with the rest of the craft. Size wise you are about the displacement of CVA-01, so I'd look there and at Voyager 989's Isle of California AU for inspiration.

Happy Drawing. :)
Author:  Karle94 [ October 18th, 2011, 9:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Strike Carrier
New and improved Strike Carrier. She has a larger island. I added a third deck to the island. The funnel is now longer and taller. Added extra radars. My general idea is gas turbines. The best one that I know of is the LM-2500.

http://i777.photobucket.com/albums/yy51 ... rier-1.png
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/