NationStates Jolt Archive

As the topic title suggests, we are in the design phases of our Aircraft Carrier. I will be updating this with Images as work progresses. The projected date of completion should be in 10 years.


ooc: Im posting this, because when I actually do get the information down, I'd like feed back. Thanks

Do not forget to make it have a Catapult. Make it compatible w/ the AF-100 in development.

The Democratic Republic of Zossen applauds the effort of its neighbor to the south.

Can do! This is a carrier for me, but if you want one too, I can do that as well

By researching, it means you are developing a new class of carrier. That means you can manufacture a lot of them.

Well I planned on making one, and I only have two Shipyards, but yeah i can make you a few. If you want we could make it a partnership.

We can sell you the designs for a mag-lift catapault system that operates similar to a bullet train and takes up far less space then a steam catapault.

Interesting... How much would it cost? or would you like a carrier of your own at a very big discount?

Interesting... How much would it cost? or would you like a carrier of your own at a very big discount?

It appears you qualify for our Military Assistance Program and therefore the plans will be sold at a nominal cost of $25 000 000. We're good in terms of carriers, our navy has stretched it's (rather large) capital ship budget to it's limits and also Lyulka Shipyards OKB would likely complain against foreign buying of naval vessels.

A mag lift catapult is clean and efficient, but needs to be pretty big. A conventional JP-5 (jet fuel) powered catapult is smaller and takes up less room.

We will consider donating money to the carrier development project, as well as engineers, if the following are met:

It meets standard classification procedures.
It has at least the same capacity as a Nimitz.
Its operating maintenence cost is less than $200,000,000 per year.
It runs on nuclear energy.
It uses a catapult launching system.
Has a higher top speed than the Nimitz.
Is certified compatible with the AF-100.

A mag lift catapult is clean and efficient, but needs to be pretty big. A conventional JP-5 (jet fuel) powered catapult is smaller and takes up less room.

Except catapaults aren't powered by jet fuel, they are powered by steam from the engines of the carrier. The fact that you didn't know that makes me severely question whether or not you know anything about aircraft carrier design.

A mag lift catapult is clean and efficient, but needs to be pretty big. A conventional JP-5 (jet fuel) powered catapult is smaller and takes up less room.

Except catapaults aren't powered by jet fuel, they are powered by steam from the engines of the carrier. The fact that you didn't know that makes me severely question whether or not you know anything about aircraft carrier design.

AHEM! I do know all about Steam Catapults, you nutcase. :roll:

Did you know the USS Enterprise was meant to receive JP-5 fueled catapults?

Would you be interested to know the USS George H.W. Bush won't use Steam? I think it'll use EMALS (ElectroMagnetic Aircraft Launching System).

JP-5 cats were just one alternative and was considered, but not used in favor of tried and true. I rebuilt my Nimitzes to use JP-5. Less steam runs from the reactors and smaller cat compartments.

Mind not hijacking? thanks.


Ok well I gotta sleep now. Tomarrow I'll begin the first basic statistics for the ship as well as a Drawing.

A mag lift catapult is clean and efficient, but needs to be pretty big. A conventional JP-5 (jet fuel) powered catapult is smaller and takes up less room.

Except catapaults aren't powered by jet fuel, they are powered by steam from the engines of the carrier. The fact that you didn't know that makes me severely question whether or not you know anything about aircraft carrier design.

AHEM! I do know all about Steam Catapults, you nutcase. :roll:

Did you know the USS Enterprise was meant to receive JP-5 fueled catapults?

Would you be interested to know the USS George H.W. Bush won't use Steam? I think it'll use EMALS (ElectroMagnetic Aircraft Launching System).

JP-5 cats were just one alternative and was considered, but not used in favor of tried and true. I rebuilt my Nimitzes to use JP-5. Less steam runs from the reactors and smaller cat compartments.

Then you should of explained that in the first place.

My mag-lift (aka BulletCat) system is similar to the American EMALS system.

My apologies on not explaining. But I would've thought that YOU, sir, since you're developing your own carriers would have known the issues of steam catapults (especially cold/hot shoots) and would've made explanations irrelevant. Indeed, you went straight from "no steam, but using mag-lift" from the start. :roll:

What size and thrust can the mag lifts generate? I'm trying to compare my JP-5 cats to mag lifters.

Mind not hijacking? thanks.


Ok well I gotta sleep now. Tomarrow I'll begin the first basic statistics for the ship as well as a Drawing.

I'm actually trying to help, the Nimitz design is old (I'm currently operating four Ronald Reagan variants). I'm considering funding your carrier, you know, I need a new carrier design that doesn't date from the 70s. :roll:

Attica will also pledge $2,000,000,000 if our demands are met.

Just ask what you want on the Carrier and I will incorporate it. I may even be able to make two seperate varients, as two can be built at one time. The 1 variant with the Mag Lift, the other with the JP-5 cats if you would like.
Length(O/A) 1289.0'
Length(W/L) 1240.0'
Beam 184.2'
Draft 87.0'
Flight Deck Length 1350.0'
Flight Deck Width 270.0'
Flight Deck Area 5.1 acres
Hangar Dimensions 720 x 110 x 26.5
Catapults 4 x "Mag Lift"
Arrestimg Wire Mk 7 Mod 3 x 4 wires

Displacement
full load: 91,487 tons

Carrying Capacity: 50-55 Planes?

Propulsion: TBD, Nuclear most likely.

Make it equal in capacity for planes to a nimitz, which can hold 75 planes I beleive.

Attican is right, that's too small an Air Wing. How fast is it?

The Nimitz-class can carry up to 85 total aircraft of which 80 CAN be fighters, but usually around 75. Also, remember that an aircraft carrier won't go much over 40 knots without diverting an enourmous amount of energy into propulsion. Even then, being in as resistant a medium as water, it probably won't push over about 42.

Also, your displacement is too little. Even without a full load, you have added 89,316 sq ft of steel to the flight deck alone. Even if you used composites, and your deck is only 1ft thick, that's 89,316 cu ft of material that will be 5lbs per cu ft and most likely heavier simply because it's teh flight deck. Then you have to add in the additional factor of the overall hull of your ship and the supports needed to brace your flight deck as it hangs over so much. The Nimitz displaces 97,000 tons. For a ship this size, we're easily pushing 110,000 tons.

The Nimitz-class can carry up to 85 total aircraft of which 80 CAN be fighters, but usually around 75. Also, remember that an aircraft carrier won't go much over 40 knots without diverting an enourmous amount of energy into propulsion. Even then, being in as resistant a medium as water, it probably won't push over about 42.

Also, your displacement is too little. Even without a full load, you have added 89,316 sq ft of steel to the flight deck alone. Even if you used composites, and your deck is only 1ft thick, that's 89,316 cu ft of material that will be 5lbs per cu ft and most likely heavier simply because it's teh flight deck. Then you have to add in the additional factor of the overall hull of your ship and the supports needed to brace your flight deck as it hangs over so much. The Nimitz displaces 97,000 tons. For a ship this size, we're easily pushing 110,000 tons.

Want a site with the nimitz stats? well if you don't want it, thats to bad cause you need to read it. I based all my stats off of it and then altered them a tad. Ie adding 200 feet to the deck. http://www.warships1.com/ Click on warships of the world, then United States, then Carriers, then Nimitz in the top right, then click on specifications please.

After a small feasibility study (using large scale mock models), the following was concluded:

• A JP-5 powered catapult used far less energy (for moving equivalent masses) than the magnetic catapult. However, the "heat sinks" and ducting to remove the exhaust gasses needed to be far more comprehensive. In addition, certain areas of the flight deck would become extremely hot (sometimes hazardous) after venting of said gasses and heat.

• A magnetic catapult is very clean and efficient (though bulky), but used far too much power. Although more efficient power distribution was used, in a computer simulation, parts of the ship suffered brown, even blackouts due to the power expended and delicate electronics systems like radar and fire control were damaged and needed to be recalibrated.

Hmm, very useful information there. What if we use two Nuclear reactors or more? Perhaps it could produce enough energy? I also need to know how long it takes for each to launch a plane, as in the down time between launches.

Hmm, very useful information there. What if we use two Nuclear reactors or more? Perhaps it could produce enough energy? I also need to know how long it takes for each to launch a plane, as in the down time between launches.

It's not a matter of how much "total" power, it's more distribution of power. Mag cats just quite literally suck it up and even if there IS enough total power, nearby systems will experience a sharp dip in power.

As for down time between launches, for the mag, hardly any. It'll take longer to get the aircraft into position than to get it ready (steam cats take so long because they need to refill with pressurised steam).

As for the JP-5, that takes a bit longer. My study shows that it'd take at least one minute between uses. Though it should be noted this is a temporary expedient. With eventual use, even the flight deck metal heats up and people can't walk near the catapults because it's so hot. So say, after an hour of launches, there'd need to be say, three hours of cooldown.....

Would a possible solution be to have the power distrobution supply everything BUT the catapult, and have a thick power wire running straight from the reactor/transformer to the catapult? Also, have a series of capacitors so it does not drain the power in real time.

Possibly.. we could have a generator just for the mag launcher eh? though that would be costly.

No one said you had to power the mag launcher using nuclear power. A hydrogen-combustion chamber (they have been made in real life, some cars use them) could provide a clean and cheap way to power it. You need to keep the hydrogen safe though, because any spark would blow up the carrier.

Well thats no good! A lucky hit and there goes the ship. Hydrogen is no good.

Of course, a lucky hit that hits the reactor, and the entire ship becomes a radioactive bucket.


Just give the hydrogen plant about 4' of titanium armor.

Well that could slow down the ship a tad. What if we make the casing around it from the black box material. You know the Anti-Fire system the M1A2 has? we could potentially use that inside the compartment to neurtralize any fire from the Hydrogen. Just an idea.

or just use 2 nuclear power plants, standard wiring, and a capacitor system with its own direct line to the catapult.

Which to you sounds more efficiant cost wise and energy wise?

Capacitor System. You will nver have black-outs or brown-outs, because the power is stored in batteries (capacitors). The capacitors slowly drain the power from the transformers.

I concour. What propulsion system are we looking at here for the whole ship? Im thinking Nuclear Reactors is a good idea.


ooc: my aim is KoRnSOAD4 and my msn is booze_hound6969@hotmail.com if you want to discuss this further just message me.

Use eight reactors like in the Enterprise. LOL Or maybe four. If you want my opinion, go for mags, with dedicated power distribution.

Nuclear Reactors arent propulsion systems, they are power systems.



Umm... not sure. I beleive the Nimitz carriers use huge corkscrew type propellers.

All opinions are welcome and appriated! hmm Im going to give some thought to this. the Nuclear Reactors will be costly for such a young nation as myself.

All opinions are welcome and appriated! hmm Im going to give some thought to this. the Nuclear Reactors will be costly for such a young nation as myself.

As stated, Attica will invest money in the carrier project.

Thank you very much for your stats, Artista, I happen to like GlobalSecurity.org (http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cvn-68.htm), FAS.org (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/cvn-68.htm), Jane's Fighting Ships and on-base resources to include the technical manual for the Nimitz.

The numbers given by your website are direct correlations to Jane's Fighting Ships. FAS, Global Security and the technical manual in our base library cite higher displacement numbers. As for your stats...

1) A squadron of fighter is usually no less than 12 planes in the US military. The four fighter squadrons aboard the Nimitz-class ships all have at least 12 aircraft, probably 13, adding at least one in as a spare. Add it up and you have 70 aircraft, minimum (I count helos as aircraft, just rotary wing)

2) Your displacement listed is 91,487 tons which is exactly the same as the Nimitz. Yet you have added 200 feet in length to the flgiht deck and what... 20 ft in width? That adds significant tonnage as well as the fact that you cannt add 200 feet of flight deck without appropriate support of the vessel beneath. Thus, you have to increase the overall length of your ship by at least 150 feet at the water line. much more tonnage. That adds to the length of your screws which is more tonnage there as well. It's going to be compartmentalized because you'd be foolish not to, yet more tonnage.

3) If you still want to go tit-for-tat (I'd rather not), I can get you the Technical Manual number for the aircraft carrier. I suspect that unless you have access to a military base and facilities, that you won't get a chance to look at it. The technical manual states that the displacement is coser to 97,200 tons, but can fluctuate by as many as 2,000 tons dependeing upon loadout, armaments, etc.

One more thing... how about the site of the company that builds the ship? maybe you'd like to try that link and read the 97,000 ton displacement stats?

NEWPORT NEWS NIMITZ PAGE (http://www.northropgrumman.com/tech_cd/nn/nn_aircraft.html)

the 91,000 Tons is actually what im using for standard weight, not full load. Full load being the fuel for the plane as well as foodstuff and supplies.

Length(O/A) 1289.0'
Length(W/L) 1240.0'
Beam 184.2'
Draft 87.0'
Flight Deck Length 1350.0'
Flight Deck Width 270.0'
Flight Deck Area 5.1 acres
Hangar Dimensions 720 x 110 x 26.5
Catapults 3 x "Mag Lift"
Arrestimg Wire Mk 7 Mod 3 x 4 wires

Displacement
full load: 97,000 standard load (excluding foodstuffs, and fuel, as well as personnell) tons

Carrying Capacity: 80 - 90 Planes?

Propulsion: 2 Nuclear Reactors.

Ok so, full load the Carrier should go upto about 109,000 tons
If there is anything else wrong with whatcha see, please list it, as well as a way to fix it.

Catapults 3 x "Mag Lift"


3 Cats? What happened to 4 :shock:

Well, they seemed a little too large for the deck pending the description

Well, if we are building a new super-carrier, 6. We will assist w/ development of a super-carrier, if it is, in fact, a super carrier. Standard carriers will receive less support.

The Attican Navy is much interested in a super carrier that would be much larger than a Nimitz. While expensive, one could take the role of perhaps 4 Nimitz's.

Seems like an Idea. We need a super carrier, that is true. Does the deck have enough space for 6 catapults though?

If you are designing a carrier, design it to be BIG. IE change your specs to a SUPERcarrier. A big carrier.

Alrighty, I'll get on that.

How is development coming?