CVN-77, CVX, and CVN-21 Design Studies

[blackstar]

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-15/navy-discloses-811-million-overrun-on-gerald-ford-carrier.html (via the Maritime Memos blog)

Oh, brother.

But not a big surprise. I read an article a few months ago by some naval analyst who essentially said that the Navy was lying about the development costs and that they would reveal a big cost overrun soon. Sometimes it sucks to be right.

 

[Deino]

Not sure how reliable, but found at a CHinese blog !

Deino

 

[Sferrin]

I want to see a recent snap of Newport News on Google Earth.

 

[blackstar]

Not sure how reliable, but found at a CHinese blog !

The island looks different compared to the official website:

http://www.globenewswire.com/newsarchive/hii/mediakit/cvn78.html

 

[F-14D]

..and a very detailed depiction of the latest carrier to be named after a politician:

 

[blackstar]

..and a very detailed depiction of the latest carrier to be named after a politician:

That one doesn't look anything like the one on the Newport News website either. Old style island, for example.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

A Proceedings article on the value of the Ford Class carriers for the next century.

http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2012-09-0/leap-ahead-21st-century-navy

 

[Bruno Anthony]

These articles may contribute to the debate on USN post Nimitz carrier studies.

Naval engineers Journal May 2000:

http://ezproxy.library.nyu.edu:2160/doi/10.1111/j.1559-3584.2000.tb03300.x/pdf

http://ezproxy.library.nyu.edu:2160/doi/10.1111/j.1559-3584.2000.tb03303.x/pdf

USNI Proceedings June 2000: http://www.usni.org/print/3473

 

[Bruno Anthony]

1991 Study Carrier 21: I like the 200,000 ton super Nimitz myself!

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a328353.pdf

 

[Grey Havoc]

I suspect someone really didn't want the third major option pursued any further (note the text I've underlined):

3. A large semisubmersible ship. This ship could offer the most extensive opportunities for signature reduction, and preliminary considerations suggest that it might have the greatest inherent damage resistance of all the options. It would have a rectangular flight deck of approximately the overall dimensions of the NIMITZ flight deck, configured to operate will all aircraft in the hangar decks except when being launched or recovered, and ballasted to run with the propellers on the submarine like hulls at about a 125-ft depth but designed to reduce ballast and draw about 40 ft to enter harbors. The ship would displace about 325,000 tons, empty, and about 660,000 tons with ballast and the hulls at running depth, and it would require four times the power of a NIMITZ-class carrier to achieve 25 knots. This is slower than the monohulls, but a skijump could reduce wind over-deck requirements; deployment time would still be affected. This ship would represent a very long extrapolation from current experience with semisubmersibles, so that its design and development could be expected to be fraught with unknowns and the unexpected. Based on extrapolation of costs from a combination of carrier and submarine construction costs, it might cost three times as much a a NIMITZ-class carrier, and unanticipated engineering problems could raise this to as much as four times the cost of a NIMITZ-class carrier.

The above three alternatives would be able to operate a carrier air wing of 85 to 90 aircraft, have the multi-capability mix of today's air wing, under different conditions of in-hanger or on-flight deck storage, servicing and operation, self-defense, and offboard support for the different ships.

I'll also note that the report was cold enough on Congress' interest in seabasing platforms.

 

[pathology_doc]

Isn't that why the Typhon missile system failed? Each ship potentially represented such huge sunk costs (excuse the pun) that to lose one would be as big a material loss as to lose the carrier it was assigned to protect, and possibly worse.


Losing one Nimitz in a major shooting war would be horrible, but not an irretrievable disaster as long as it paid for itself in enemy assets destroyed. Losing a six to seven hundred thousand ton carrier would be a national disgrace, and nothing short of complete military humiliation of a first-class opponent (Russia, China) could compensate for it.

 

[MihoshiK]

Isn't that why the Typhon missile system failed? Each ship potentially represented such huge sunk costs (excuse the pun) that to lose one would be as big a material loss as to lose the carrier it was assigned to protect, and possibly worse.


Losing one Nimitz in a major shooting war would be horrible, but not an irretrievable disaster as long as it paid for itself in enemy assets destroyed. Losing a six to seven hundred thousand ton carrier would be a national disgrace, and nothing short of complete military humiliation of a first-class opponent (Russia, China) could compensate for it.

No, Typhon died because it was ahead of it's time: They just couldn't make the Luneberg Lens for the Radar work. A lot of the experience of Typhon went into Aegis though.

 

[Triton]

1991 Study Carrier 21: I like the 200,000 ton super Nimitz myself!

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a328353.pdf

I wonder if it might have looked like the Fort Ultra Carrier proposed in a 1978 issue of Proceedings:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=6349.0

 

[Bruno Anthony]

I actually think the 200,00 ton Nimitz is/was doable. The other 600,00 ton semi-submersible is a bit much and the study writers allude to that. The 1,500 foot super-Nimitz I think would solve a lot of problems with aircraft size constraints as well as passive/active defense. Granted these are the words of the report. I just think it would be awesome to see.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

In an issue of Polmar's USNIP ships of the fleet there are dimensions for the super-Nimitz listed as:
214,000 tons displacement
1,550 feet in length and 176 feet in beam at the waterline.

 

[Hood]

Here are a couple of interesting smaller CVX configuration studies published in, 'Warship '97 International Symposium: Air Power at Sea' for 40 and 60 aircraft.

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a416198.pdf

FLOATING OCEAN PLATFORM
By
Dr. Ronald N. Kostoff
Office of Naval Research
800 N. Quincy St.
Arlington, VA 22217
Phone: 703-696-4198
Fax: 703-696-4274
Internet: [email protected]

(The views in this report are solely those of the author and do not represent the views of the
Department of the Navy or any of its components)

ABSTRACT

In FY90, Congress directed the Secretary of the Navy to commission a study by the National
Academy of Sciences for the production of an integrated technology plan for the evolution of
aircraft carriers in the first half of the twenty-first century. The House-Senate conferees
emphasized "that the product of this study is to be a technology plan for the evolution of sea
bases for the most efficient and economical accommodation of tactical air power in the first half
of the twenty-first century".

Based on this broad charter of evaluating sea bases, an examination of the floating ocean platform
concept was included in the study. The floating ocean platform is a generic description of a large,
relatively stationary or slowly mobile, platform that can be positioned in most areas of the ocean,
and can serve a variety of purposes.

The present report was the author’s input to the study. It was based on technical analyses,
literature reviews and surveys, and discussions/ visits with the main groups and organizations
involved in developing the floating ocean platform. All discussion material was unclassified, as are
the contents of this report. All the external inputs and discussions, too numerous to mention,
made this report possible, and are greatly appreciated.

The first part of this report is the summary narrative that was submitted by the author to the
Technology Group of the study. The second part is the vugraphs that were presented to the
Technology Group by the author on 12 February 1991. The third part is a selected bibliography
of studies on the floating ocean platform over the past two decades, with over three thousand
references identified.


KEYWORDS: Floating Ocean Platform; Floating Platform; Mobile Offshore Base; Spar Platform;
Offshore Platform; Megafloat; Floating Structure; VLFS; Foreign Bases; Floating Airport; MOBS.

 

[Sferrin]

Anybody know for certain if ESSM is going to be in a half-depth VLS (the Mk# escapes me at the moment) or the old 8-cell box launcher?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Anybody know for certain if ESSM is going to be in a half-depth VLS (the Mk# escapes me at the moment) or the old 8-cell box launcher?

The USN will not put VLS on carriers because it interferes with the flying pattern. There was a slant mounted VLS design proposal a few years ago to leverage the low maintenance needs of VLS without a vertical missile launch. But the most likely path is just to reuse the old box launchers because they are a low cost capability.

BTW all Mk 41 VLS are called Mk 41 irrespective of the cell depth. Customisation in the total number of cells and launcher depth is represented by the Mod number. The short depth (one deck) MK 41 VLS is called the SDLS (Self Defence Launcher System) that can only carry ESSM sized canisters.

 

[Sferrin]

Anybody know for certain if ESSM is going to be in a half-depth VLS (the Mk# escapes me at the moment) or the old 8-cell box launcher?

The USN will not put VLS on carriers because it interferes with the flying pattern. There was a slant mounted VLS design proposal a few years ago to leverage the low maintenance needs of VLS without a vertical missile launch. But the most likely path is just to reuse the old box launchers because they are a low cost capability.

BTW all Mk 41 VLS are called Mk 41 irrespective of the cell depth. Customisation in the total number of cells and launcher depth is represented by the Mod number. The short depth (one deck) MK 41 VLS is called the SDLS (Self Defence Launcher System) that can only carry ESSM sized canisters.

Thanks, makes sense.

 

[Triton]

The USN will not put VLS on carriers because it interferes with the flying pattern.

What about the Mission Essential Unit (MEU) aka CG V/STOL concept from the 1980s? Does the placement of the VLS cells interfere with the flying pattern of STOL and STOVL aircraft such as the SV-22 and AV-8B?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

What about the Mission Essential Unit (MEU) aka CG V/STOL concept from the 1980s? Does the placement of the VLS cells interfere with the flying pattern of STOL and STOVL aircraft such as the SV-22 and AV-8B?

VTOL ships don't have landing patterns. Aircraft just come straight in and land. But a CTOL carrier at the end of a cycle will have a big stack of planes circling around overhead in their landing pattern waiting their chance to recover.

 

[Triton]

Hypothetically, does this mean that the Queen Elizabeth-class, because it is in STOVL configuration and operates VTOL and STOVL aircraft, could be fitted with a vertical missile launching system? There wouldn't be situation where aircraft would have to wait for available deck space to land?

 

[TomS]

The issue with VLS and carriers that I've heard isn't interference with the recovery pattern, but concern that the booster cans will end up back on the flight deck if there's a failure.

PS, the RN certainly flew a pattern for VTOL recovery--straight in was for emergencies or cases where there were no other aircraft on approach.

 

[malipa]

Any proposals for a trimaran aircraft carrier? low drag, faster ship, etc?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The issue with VLS and carriers that I've heard isn't interference with the recovery pattern, but concern that the booster cans will end up back on the flight deck if there's a failure.

Whomever told you this was FoS. For starters the missile used by USN carriers for self defence doesn’t have a separate booster (ESSM) but the missile used by the French (who have VLS on carriers) does: Aster. It is also a non-issue as the missile won’t leave the canister if there is a rocket failure and they can be positioned in such a way as to avoid any fall back (at the aft end) if there is some sort of malfunction.

PS, the RN certainly flew a pattern for VTOL recovery--straight in was for emergencies or cases where there were no other aircraft on approach.

There are patterns and then there are patterns. In aviation the word means two things. Firstly it means the route through the air that an aircraft flies under ATC direction to land at an airfield and even a carrier. Secondly it means the aircraft flying said pattern.

The big difference between a STOVL carrier and a CTOL one is you almost never have a circumstance when the later is in existence with more than a handful of aircraft. That is a big stacked pattern of planes circling around the carrier waiting their turn to land. Yet in a CTOL carrier is happens every hour and a half. This is the nature of cyclic operations.

And this is why USN carriers continue to have old school box launchers for their ESSM self defence missiles. Because when the cycle is in recovery and they have 20-30 planes circling around they do not have clear airspace to fire a rocket up into it to defeat a threat cresting the horizon. But they can fire a rocket out and under the pattern to defeat the threat.

 

[F-14D]

Any proposals for a trimaran aircraft carrier? low drag, faster ship, etc?

moneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoney

Or, more accurately,

nomoneynomoneynomoneynomoneynomoneynomoneynomoneynomoney

 

[TomS]

The issue with VLS and carriers that I've heard isn't interference with the recovery pattern, but concern that the booster cans will end up back on the flight deck if there's a failure.

Whomever told you this was FoS. For starters the missile used by USN carriers for self defence doesn’t have a separate booster (ESSM) but the missile used by the French (who have VLS on carriers) does: Aster. It is also a non-issue as the missile won’t leave the canister if there is a rocket failure and they can be positioned in such a way as to avoid any fall back (at the aft end) if there is some sort of malfunction.

That concern was expressed to me by a couple of action officers over in PEO Ships while I was supporting Ship Self Defense program efforts a decade or more ago (it's been a long time). I trust them.

I misspoke when I used the word "booster" (it's been a long time, as I said) but issue remains. The vertical-launch versions of ESSM have a small Thrust-Vector Control (TVC) module (the "can") that is mounted aft of the tail fins. It's a feature inherited from the vertical-launch RIM-7P, where it was called the Jet-Vane Control (JVC) module. This module containes large control vanes in the rocket efflux; it is used to tip over the missile and get it pointed on the proper azimuth, then is jettisoned as the missile begins its flyout. You can see it in the image below, for example, and it is discussed in this paper.

That TVC is the chunk that is considered a flight-deck hazard. Positioning the missile launcher at the stern of the ship is no panacea, because you might need the launcher to make engagements ahead of the ship as well as behind, putting the TVC right over the flight deck on jettison.

This is quite different from the much larger booster in missiles like ASTER-15, which stays attached to the upper stage for a significant portion of the flight and is thus well away from the ship at jettison.

There are patterns and then there are patterns. In aviation the word means two things. Firstly it means the route through the air that an aircraft flies under ATC direction to land at an airfield and even a carrier. Secondly it means the aircraft flying said pattern.

The big difference between a STOVL carrier and a CTOL one is you almost never have a circumstance when the later is in existence with more than a handful of aircraft. That is a big stacked pattern of planes circling around the carrier waiting their turn to land. Yet in a CTOL carrier is happens every hour and a half. This is the nature of cyclic operations.

And this is why USN carriers continue to have old school box launchers for their ESSM self defence missiles. Because when the cycle is in recovery and they have 20-30 planes circling around they do not have clear airspace to fire a rocket up into it to defeat a threat cresting the horizon. But they can fire a rocket out and under the pattern to defeat the threat.

If you have a large STOVL carrier (like CVF in some iterations), the "Wait" can still be quite sizable. Here's a narrative from a Sea Harrier pilot that talks about the Wait around one of the Invincibles, which took up significant time even with only a couple of aircraft stacked up. The "Low wait" would most certainly be at risk of a VL missile blasting up through the pattern.

http://www.flyingmarines.com/Dits/SHAR_TO.html

However, if there is an attack underway, the carrier will have already dispersed its aircraft; they won't be trying to recover a cycle in the middle of an inbound air raid. For starters, you have to clear out anyone within a couple miles of the carrier just to avoid nasty accidents with CIWS. Except in a very unlikely surprise scenario, there won't be anyone flying around the carrier while it's launching missiles.

PS: I'd really appreciate it if you would stop with the condescension. Using phrases like "full of shit" (even abbreviated) is not the mark of a person interested in an a good-faith conversation, in my experience.

 

[Sferrin]

There are actually a couple ESSM launch videos on Youtube where if you look carefully you can see that small module fall off.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

That concern was expressed to me by a couple of action officers over in PEO Ships while I was supporting Ship Self Defense program efforts a decade or more ago (it's been a long time). I trust them.

And I trust the CSG commander who explained to me the box launcher vs VLS and the recovery pattern issue. The two are not mutually exclusive and as I shall explain below clearly orientated towards different threats. One of which is now obsolete (guess which one?).

I misspoke when I used the word "booster" (it's been a long time, as I said) but issue remains

Well that’s a bit different. But the problem with this launch is associated with high angle threats. As the TVC will fall after the missile tips over therefore not being a problem with any horizontal or slant shots. And launchers can be positioned on deck edges to avoid firing over the ship which I only expressed thinking you were talking about a booster failure.

If you have a large STOVL carrier (like CVF in some iterations), the "Wait" can still be quite sizable. Here's a narrative from a Sea Harrier pilot that talks about the Wait around one of the Invincibles, which took up significant time even with only a couple of aircraft stacked up. The "Low wait" would most certainly be at risk of a VL missile blasting up through the pattern.

Even with a CVF the congestion of the recovery pattern compared to a CTOL carrier is a house cat compared to an elephant.

However, if there is an attack underway, the carrier will have already dispersed its aircraft; they won't be trying to recover a cycle in the middle of an inbound air raid. For starters, you have to clear out anyone within a couple miles of the carrier just to avoid nasty accidents with CIWS. Except in a very unlikely surprise scenario, there won't be anyone flying around the carrier while it's launching missiles.

Which is the case with a high angle threat. Lots of fore warning from the incoming strike therefore time to clear the airspace. But none of this, along with TVC hazard issues, are associated with a no warning sea skimming missile cresting the horizon. This is the difference between the threat to carriers from the 1980s and since then. The Soviet Navy anti carrier force could put the threat into action which would require the carrier to be shooting Sparrows up into the air above the ship. But this threat died years ago. Since then the threat to carriers has been the undetected sea skimming missile that stealthily penetrates the layered defences until it crests the horizon. In this situation there is no warning time to clear the airspace and no task force asset able to intercept the threat. It’s what carrier weapons are there for.

PS: I'd really appreciate it if you would stop with the condescension. Using phrases like "full of shit" (even abbreviated) is not the mark of a person interested in an a good-faith conversation, in my experience.

Condescending behaviour is far worse when it is by niggling rejectionism. In this case your continued attempts to talk down the recovery pattern difference between a cyclic ops CTOL carrier and even a big STOVL carrier. You said before the problem was booster failure. Which is FoS. Of course the TVC can is a bit different but you hadn’t made that clear.

 

[ford_tempo]

Perhaps a little bit off-topic but I thought the attached paper in the USNEJ reports a very interesting discussion about the issues in designing the flight deck of a carrier and the different advantages and disadvantages of alternative designs.

Sorry for the poor quality of the hand made copies.

Notice the catamaran configuaration which (I guess) would approximate in size / displacement the 200000+ tons designs described in one of the papers reported before in this topic.

best
F_T

 

[Triton]

CVNX Expanded Capacity Baseline (ECBL) concept.

Sources:
http://paralay.iboards.ru/viewtopic.php?f=9&p=295196
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/xzm21ms55o5koms/5X15kXIM9x#/
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ovpwjsrzr9dxvzp/h_d1BpduXl#/
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wffpgxpxk3n35h2/ojZclSZHGx#/

 

[Triton]

CVNX CTOL and STOVL concepts.

Sources:
http://paralay.iboards.ru/viewtopic.php?f=9&p=295196
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ovpwjsrzr9dxvzp/h_d1BpduXl#/
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wffpgxpxk3n35h2/ojZclSZHGx#/

 

[Triton]

Perhaps a little bit off-topic but I thought the attached paper in the USNEJ reports a very interesting discussion about the issues in designing the flight deck of a carrier and the different advantages and disadvantages of alternative designs.

Sorry for the poor quality of the hand made copies.

Notice the catamaran configuaration which (I guess) would approximate in size / displacement the 200000+ tons designs described in one of the papers reported before in this topic.

best
F_T

Source:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lgqame79odpj1dj/vefIow4wGY#/
http://paralay.iboards.ru/viewtopic.php?f=9&p=295196

 

[Triton]

Source:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lgqame79odpj1dj/vefIow4wGY#/
http://paralay.iboards.ru/viewtopic.php?f=9&p=295196

 

[pedrospe]

Very cool designs,thanks a lot for sharing.


regards


pedro

 

[TomS]

All,

There are two videos in the Gerald R Ford thread that are very relevant to this topic as well. Captain Manvel runs down a bunch of the design iteratiosn in CVX and why they were dropped.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,17605.msg277740.html#msg277740

 

[Triton]

Published on Feb 11, 2015

CAPT Tal Manvel (Ret) discusses five of the design options for the U.S. Navy's new aircraft carrier the USS FORD

https://youtu.be/5ZANzRbGJKY

 

[Triton]

Published on Jan 15, 2015

CAPT Tal Manvel, USN (Ret), the first Navy Program Manager for Future Carriers, discusses designing the Ford-class aircraft carrier on 7 January 2015 at the US Naval Academy Museum's Shifley Lecture Series

https://youtu.be/kIjvNCFXCjs

 

[Sferrin]

Published on Feb 11, 2015

CAPT Tal Manvel (Ret) discusses five of the design options for the U.S. Navy's new aircraft carrier the USS FORD

https://youtu.be/5ZANzRbGJKY

The design there at 2:00 looks like the Ford. Just stick the island where the aft elevator on the starboard side is and there you go.