NationStates Jolt Archive

* USS Excalabur – Coronisian Prototype Aircraft Carrier
* Powerplant – 4 Nuclear Reactors
producing over 2 240 000 horsepower
* Crew complement – 12 350 with air wing aboard
* Length – 1 658 ft., 11 in.
* Width at flight deck – 602 ft.
* Height – 86 ft. Waterline to Bridge
* Draft – 38 ft.
* Displacement – 175 000 Tons



* Rudders – 6 at 64 tons
* Propellers – 6 at 26 feet diameter each
* Maximum speed – 35 knots (45 Knots maximum burst)
* Catapults – 2 Magnetic (Capable of launching both aircraft simultaniously)
* Arresting Wires – 4 Magnetic
* Aircraft elevators - 2
* Anchors – 4 at 30 tons each
* Anchor chain links – 1,128
each weighing 360 lbs.
* Aircraft complement – 150 to 180 assorted

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c36/TheConman565/ExcalaburClass.gif

OOC: Interesting. I was looking at the picture you provided. What is that thing at the bottom right?

Thats the front view. From what it appears, the ship has two hulls and a flight deck on top.. not sure if it'd work, might not be enouhg space for aircraft...

Thats the front view. From what it appears, the ship has two hulls and a flight deck on top.. not sure if it'd work, might not be enouhg space for aircraft...

Ahh. Makes sense. The shape of its bottom threw me off.

OOC: its two seperate hulls because its a pourman's version of a super carrier.

I've also scaled back the specs a bit.

Powerplant – 2 Nuclear Reactors
producing over 1 120 000 horsepower
* Crew complement – 9 650 with air wing aboard
* Length – 1 658 ft., 11 in.
* Width at flight deck – 602 ft.
* Height – 86 ft. Waterline to Bridge
* Draft – 38 ft.
* Displacement – 140 000 Tons



* Rudders – 4 at 55 tons
* Propellers – 4 at 26 feet diameter each
* Maximum speed – 28 knots (38 Knots maximum burst)
* Catapults – 2 Magnetic (Capable of launching both aircraft simultaniously)
* Arresting Wires – 4 Magnetic
* Aircraft elevators - 2
* Anchors – 4 at 30 tons each
* Anchor chain links – 1,128
each weighing 360 lbs.
* Aircraft complement – 120 to 160 assorted

I like the look of it, I might have to order a few dozen in the near future.

I like it, though it looks like your air complement is a little large for that hull.

Alright, I'll just post my gripes with the design and be on my way:

Deck would have to be rather thick to fit a standard size aircraft hangar.

If the deck isn't used as a hangar, only one hull appears suitable for fitting an aircraft elevator. Again, limiting this ship's capabilities per unit cost.

Hulls look too small in order to support that kind of tonnage (looks like 2 frigate hulls trying to hold up an aircraft carrier)

Straight landing deck limits aircraft operations (angling it allows bigger planes to clear the island, and would allow elevators on both sides)

Deck space poorly used. Only 2 steam/magnetic catapults on ship (a Nimitz has 4 or 6, and launches one at a time for safety reasons [lost enough to takoff/landing mishaps as it is])

4 nuclear reactors seems a bit much, 2 would suffice (1 per hull) and a number of rather powerful steam turbines wouldn't hurt.

But then again, this is your boat. Just pointing out the limitations you gave it.

Aircraft complement looks rather large for a catamaran (as they generally hold less planes)...

Interesting design . Might want to order some when possible .

Powerplant – 2 Nuclear Reactors
producing over 1 120 000 horsepower
* Crew complement – 9 250 with air wing aboard
* Length – 1 658 ft., 11 in.
* Width at flight deck – 602 ft.
* Height – 86 ft. Waterline to Bridge
* Draft – 38 ft.
* Displacement – 140 000 Tons



* Rudders – 4 at 55 tons
* Propellers – 4 at 26 feet diameter each
* Maximum speed – 28 knots (38 Knots maximum burst)
* Catapults – 5 Magnetic (Capable of launching both aircraft simultaniously)
* Arresting Wires – 4 Magnetic
* Aircraft elevators - 3
* Anchors – 4 at 30 tons each
* Anchor chain links – 1,128
each weighing 360 lbs.
* Aircraft complement – 90 to 120 assorted

The whole deck underneath the flight deck can carry aircraft. Not just one pontoon. I also sclaed back the number it can carry, and added more catapults, moved the tower to the extreme right, and added annother elevator.

This Carrier is capable of launching upto 3 aircraft simultaniously, (1, 3, and 5) with 2 and 4 launchers firing 45 seconds after. This will put 5 aircraft into the air within 1 minute.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c36/TheConman565/ExcalaburA.gif

http://z13.invisionfree.com/The_NS_Draftroom/index.php?act=idx

Post them here, thats where everyone posts their designs for new stuff, they look really good btw. ;)

I'll post it there when its finalized. Cool site though, Didn't know it exsisted, thanks!

bumpade bump bump

Interesting, I still say an angled deck woud be an improvement, but is not necessary (plus it could be the built in obsolesence feature when you roll out the next one with further improvements and a jacked up price)

...hehehe...Microsoft Tactics for the win... Force everyone to upgrade to Microsoft Aircraft Carrier Vista...

OOk..Price: Im looking at somewhere from 800million to 1.1 billion a pop. Unarmed, of course. Production rights will run you 7-8 Billion.

Correct me if Im wrong by all means, but wouldnt only one aircraft be able to land at a time? This would mean five are up in the air, all with similar fuel loads. They all need to land. How long are we looking at to get them all down?

I was thinking that only 5 could be used for landing, correct? Therefore it would take time to land, and remove the aircraft and set-up for the next.

This is our one question/issue. Besides this we think its a great idea, and would be happy to invest.

Correct me if Im wrong by all means, but wouldnt only one aircraft be able to land at a time? This would mean five are up in the air, all with similar fuel loads. They all need to land. How long are we looking at to get them all down?

I was thinking that only 5 could be used for landing, correct? Therefore it would take time to land, and remove the aircraft and set-up for the next.

This is our one question/issue. Besides this we think its a great idea, and would be happy to invest.

Not an issue if you only expect one to come back...

True, that statement is rather grim, but that is why the Nimitz has many more catapults than it even has arrestor wires (5 vs 4 and only 1 landing area, other than the big blue wet thing).

So the aircraft carrier is designed with the thought that you send five aircraft up and expect one to return? Surely the armed forces would (or I would at any rate) expect a much much higher percentage of survivors, near to if not 100%?

Having, taking your example, two aircraft to land out of the five, one can use the vessel and one can take a dip if worst came to the worst. That is also uneconomical.

Modern Aircraft Carriers can only land one. I can just put a ton of aircraft up fast, if the need arises. 5 wouldn't even be used regularly, only when absoluty necessary. Making an AC that can land more than one, on a reasonable budget is a little difficult. I do expect 100% survival rate, and the pilots know that I can get a grand total of 1 down at a time, and this will be accounted for durnig the mission planning. This is the best I can do, Im trying to keep it both realistic and cheap.

With modern aircraft carriers, if you have five planes trying to land on one spot, you can always send up an S-2 or soemthing (I think now the fools are using not-so-super hornets with buddy tanks) to keep the others in the air until a slot opens. Thats one reason why Navy birds are always screaming for more in-air refueling assets

So its not a major concern anyway? Just at first glance (and I know its not just you, your design is as realistic as you could get it Im sure) it seems stupid.

Thanks for you help, and Im sure TAM will be looking to purchase one of these if not more at a later date.

...hehehe...Microsoft Tactics for the win... Force everyone to upgrade to Microsoft Aircraft Carrier Vista...

OOk..Price: Im looking at somewhere from 800million to 1.1 billion a pop. Unarmed, of course. Production rights will run you 7-8 Billion.

OOC :
**Waves handly around wildly**

Ok , I'll get production rights .

So its not a major concern anyway? Just at first glance (and I know its not just you, your design is as realistic as you could get it Im sure) it seems stupid.

Thanks for you help, and Im sure TAM will be looking to purchase one of these if not more at a later date.

Nope, not at all, remember when you fly in RL you have to have fuel reserves as the first point, on an aircraft carrier based op thats even more important, what happens if theres an accident on the landing deck? thats the one place you can land, you don't want to be low on fuel if an arrestor wire needs replacing or some such thing. Secondly remember that rates of fuel consumption vary, even for the same aircraft type. It may be that the aircraft all end up having to make their own attacks seperatly, one might have a dogfight using up a lot of fuel, the others might just cruise around doing a quick CAP after scaring off the attackers.

I'd say good design, if your looking for a cheap design which does the job but not as well as something much more expensive this thing is pretty good.