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

[TinWing]

Here is FAS link from 1997:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/docs/cvx-alt/index.html

As you can see, the drawings survive but the NAVSEA reports are long offline.

Were there any public documents that gave specifications for the design studies?

 

[sferrin]

there's a little info here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cvx-history.htm

Unfortunately not much more specific than "small, medium, and large"

 

[Antonio]

some little info here:

http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/1990s/1997/jf97.htm

 

[Antonio]

From the 1997 CVX web:

SHIP CONCEPTS GALLERY

This information resides on a DOD interest computer.
Important conditions, restrictions, and disclaimers apply.
To make sure you are viewing the latest version of this page,
please press the Reload button.
The CVX Gallery has a number of rooms filled with exciting illustrations of CVX configurations:

Small Air Wing Studies (40 Aircraft)

CTOL--Conventional Take Off and Landing Aircraft
Conventional
Study 4 (Traditional FLT DK)
Study 4A (Study 4-Alt FLT DK #1)
Study 4B (Study 4-Alt FLT DK #2)
Nuclear
Study 4C (Traditional FLT DK)
STOVL--Short Take Off and Vertical Landing Aircraft
Conventional
Study 5 (Traditional FLT DK)
Study 5A (Study 5-Alt FLT DK #1)
Study 5B (Study 5-Alt FLT DK #2)
Study 5D (CVV Equivalent)
Nuclear
Study 5C (Traditional FLT DK)
Medium Air Wing Studies (60 Aircraft)

CTOL--Conventional Take Off and Landing Aircraft
Conventional
Study 3B (Study 3-Conventional)
Study 3B1 (CVV Equivalent)
Study 3D (Stealth Catamaran)
Nuclear
Study 3 (Traditional FLT DK)
Study 3A (Study 3-Alt FLT DK)
Study 3C (Stealth Monohull)
Large Air Wing Studies (80 Aircraft)

CTOL--Conventional Take Off and Landing Aircraft
Conventional
Study 2B (Traditional FLT DK)
Study 2B1 (CVV Equivalent)
Nuclear
Study 2 (Traditional FLT DK)
Study 2A (Study 2-Alt FLT DK)
STOVL--Short Take Off and Vertical Landing Aircraft
Conventional
Study 2C1 (STOVL FLT DK)
Nuclear
Study 2C (STOVL FLT DK)

Return to CVX Home Page



Last updated on August 27, 1997.
This site maintained by Margaret von Kolnitz (mvonkolnitz@jjma.com) and Frank McEvoy (fmcevoy@jjma.com).
URL: http://www.navsea.navy.mil/cvx/cvxhapn/gallery.html

 

[flateric]

FAS page (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/docs/cvx-alt/index.html) mentioned in first post, actually, is a direct copy of this. Nice that some traces of history are left.

 

[TomS]

Have you tried the Way Back Machine (www.archive.org)? It looks like a lot of the CVX program office briefings were archived. I did a little poking around but didn't see much in the way of detailed specs for the notional designs.

I do have a copy of Reuven Leopold's 1998 MIT paper on CVX, which is basically a critique of small and/or STOVL carriers for the USN. It does contain some incomplete specs for that striking stealthy monohull (Study 3C), as follows:

Displacement:	108,000 metric tons
Length (oa):	333m (1,093 ft)
Beam (max):	95m (312 ft)
Depth (O3 deck):	33.3m (109 ft)
Total Volume:	328,000 m3
nuclear propulsion
two-level flight deck
two-level hangar

Notice that this is really a very "inefficient" design from a carrier operations perspective -- it's as large as a Nimitz class carrier, but has only about 3/4 the aircraft capacity.

 

[sferrin]

I was looking for some suppliers of tooling board and lo and behold look what I found. (Talk about an oddball place to find something.)

 

[TomS]

I had the pleasure of seeing that model in person a few weeks back. Sorry to say it was in an area where pictures were not allowed.

 

[bagera3005]

 

[hole in the ground]

Not to be pedantic... ok maybe a little, more like showing ignorance.

What is the number on the runway for? Is it the aircraft carrier serial? Or is it supposed to be some sort of runway number?

(the trimaran carrier on that link looks pretty epic!)

 

[sferrin]

All carriers have their number on their bow. If I had to guess I would say that it's so pilots will return to the correct carrier when there are multiple in a formation.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Having served on Truman for five years :, I was just of the understanding that the numbers on the bow and the island were simply the ship's hull number. I'm not if the pilots could use the large 75 to sight their approaches, but good on 'em. They usually have GPS and updates from CATCC on approach.

In my ship's case, her hull number was 75. A fun fact about that: Truman is the only carrier in all the Fleet that wears her hull number, 75, on the FRONT of the island. No other carrier has that distinction.

Bagera, I saw your art of the USS United States stealth carrier. Great job.

So here's another fun Truman fact: the Truman was originally laid down in 1989 as the USS United States (CVN-75). In 1993 President Clinton, whose hero was Harry S. Truman, authorized Congress to change CVN-75's from USS United States to USS Harry S Truman. And the rest is history.

Moonbat

 

[Orionblamblam]

Is this a trustworthy diagram? Or hand-wavy "fan art?"

 

[bagera3005]

its based of the model i have of it

 

[TomS]

It doesn't match the model built by the Navy at all. In that design, the flight deck is very different, with the side "troughs" extending much further aft, the two midships elevators recessed into the troughs, only one set of arresting gear, etc. The underwater shape is also much different, though it's hard to describe exactly how.

 

[bagera3005]

it was older design of it beside alot of like that has happening remember reavls b2

 

[TomS]

I don't know what the source for your model is, but I strongly doubt that it relates to any formal design effort, before or after the 3C study. Too many features just don't make sense. For example, the catapults are far too short -- my rough measurements suggest that they are in the vicinity of 55 meters long when the actual C-13s that such a ship would use are around 100 meters long. The sensors don't match USN thinking at all -- flat panels are "in" and spherical radomes are "out."

 

[bagera3005]

it may be off in some im working on new one

 

[Triton]

Concept art for a CVN-77, now USS George H.W. Bush, design that was meant to be a transition between CVN-76 and CVX from the Federation of American Scientists web site.
http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/navy/aircraftcarriers/cvn77.html

Any one else have CVN-77 concept designs and artwork?

 

[bobbymike]

You know what would be cool? Just like the SSGN conversion you convert the older CVNs to a massive missile carrier. Basically convert the flightdeck to a vertical launch platform. You could have hundreds of SM-3s, PAC-3s, THAADs, KEIs on one side and hundreds of cruise missiles and even ATKs conventional strike missiles on the other. You would still have enough room left over for RAMs and CIWS and even a few 100 kw solid state lasers for self defense.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Triton,

You made my night! I still remember seeing those designs in an issue of ALL HANDS when I first got to the Truman in 98. I shoulda kept it. And it's a shame the real CVN-77 looks nothing like the BuShips artwork from back then. As a new recruit, artwork like that got me hyped up about the future Fleet.

 

[Triton]

Model of CVX Study 3C (stealth monohull) concept.

Source: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=76514

 

[Triton]

Additional CVX concepts.

 

[Triton]

Artist's impression of CVN-77 design concept.

Source: Lopez, Ramon. "Flattops for the Future" Flight International October 15, 1997
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1997/1997 - 2570.html

 

[Triton]

Since the CVX pages at the Navsea web site are gone and the CVX section at the FAS web site appears to be abandoned, I thought that I had better back up the CVX design concepts while I could.

Artist's impression of Study 2A (Study 2-Alt FLT DK) for nuclear-powered large air wing
(80 aircraft) CTOL (Conventional Take Off and Landing) aircraft carrier.

Source: http://www.fas.org/man//dod-101/sys/ship/docs/cvx-alt/index.html

 

[Triton]

Artist's impression of Study 2C (STOVL FLT DK) for nuclear-powered large air wing
(80 aircraft) Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) aircraft carrier.

Source: http://www.fas.org/man//dod-101/sys/ship/docs/cvx-alt/index.html

 

[Triton]

Artist's impression of Study 3B (Study 3-Conventional) for conventional power medium air wing
(60 aircraft) CTOL (Conventional Take Off and Landing) aircraft carrier.

Source: http://www.fas.org/man//dod-101/sys/ship/docs/cvx-alt/index.html

 

[Triton]

Artist's impression of Study 3C (Stealth Monohull) for nuclear-powered medium air wing
(60 aircraft) CTOL (Conventional Take Off and Landing) aircraft carrier.

Source: http://www.fas.org/man//dod-101/sys/ship/docs/cvx-alt/index.html

 

[Triton]

Artist's impression of Study 4 (Traditional FLT DK) for conventional power small air wing
(40 aircraft) CTOL (Conventional Take Off and Landing) aircraft carrier.

Source: http://www.fas.org/man//dod-101/sys/ship/docs/cvx-alt/index.html

 

[Triton]

Artist's impression of Study 3C (Stealth Monohull) by J. David McWhite of the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock, Bethesda, MD.

Source: Deaton, Bill. "Future Carrier Concepts" Naval Aviation News January-February 1997
URL: http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/1990s/1997/jf97/techno.pdf

 

[Triton]

Newport News Shipbuilding Company design concept for CVN-77 circa 1996.

Source:http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/design-preparations-continue-for-the-usas-new-cvn21-supercarrier-01494/

 

[Triton]

Artist's impression of CVX concept by Naval Sea Systems Command.

Source: Rittenour, HT, Admiral and O'Hare, Mark Captain. "On Track to Tomorrow's Carrier" Naval Aviation News January-February 1997
http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/1990s/1997/jf97/dualtrk.pdf

 

[Antonio]

Renamed topic

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Artist's impression of CVX concept by Naval Sea Systems Command.

I suspect this design is a play on words. The US Navy adopted a 'dual track' strategy for the CVX (building a modernised Nimitz while developing the new design). So to illustrate the point a 'dual track' carrier design was sketched up - that is two (ie dual) landing decks (ie tracks). For an arrested landing carrier dual tracks creates more problems and doesn't really solve any.

The problem with arrested landing is not the rate at which aircraft can fly landing approaches - requiring another deck - but the rate at which they fail to recover by not trapping a wire. Dual tracks won't improve this at all. It would actually make it worse by having two different approach angles to master. It would also be an air traffic control and deck handling nightmare.

The other problem with such carriers is the rate at which you can launch aircraft via catapults. Which can be solved by faster recycling catapults and more catapults. Of if you have a higher risk margin replacing the catapults with a ski jump.

Anyway the dual track carrier as pictured is very unlikely to be a serious consideration.

 

[colombamike]

very high resolution view of CVN 79 !!!
(similar to CVN 78 but with numerous small improvements)

regard

 

[Triton]

Artist's impression of CVN(X) concept.

Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/budget/fy2001/dot-e/navy/01cvn.html

 

[Triton]

Artist's impression of USS Gerald R Ford CVN-78.

Source:
http://www.naval.com.br/blog/index.php?s=wales

 

[Triton]

Model of USS Gerald R Ford CVN-78 shown at name announcement press conference.

Source:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?102662-USS-Gerald-R.-Ford-%28CVN-78%29-unveiled

 

[bobbymike]

Video of EMALS launch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euLsg_viWW0&feature=player_embedded

 

[Grey Havoc]

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