Title: Comberth Bay Class Light Fast Carrier [CVLN]
The Silver Sky - July 30, 2008 06:12 PM (GMT)
Comberth Bay Class Light Fast Carrier [CVLN]
Builder: North Point Naval Systems
Length Overall: 285m
Length at Waterline: 270m
Displacement: 66,935 tons full load
4x S30 Naval HMG Mounts
4x STATIC II
2x 8 cell RIM-700 SAM Launcher
3x TRAPD 21 cell JAWHOL Launcher
775 Air Crew
3 starboard side
Standard Wire Arrestors
Powerplant: 2x 160MW Advanced Pressurized Water Reactors powering 6 shafts
Max Cruise: 36 knots [374,382 shp / 279,289 Kw]
1x AN-SPS-106E Long Range Search Radar [500km detection]
2× AN/SPN-146 air traffic control radars
1x AN/SPN-143 air traffic control radar
1x AN/SPN-144 landing aid radars
1x AN/SPS-95 SSR Navigational radar
4x AN/SSY-205E Infrared Search and Tracking/Short Range Targeting Radar
Electronics Warfare Suite:
AN/SSQ-100 'StrikeNet' Military Uplink Unit
AN/SLY-2 (V) Advanced Integrated Electronic Warfare System (AIEWS)
AN/SSQ-82(V)2 Multiple Unit for Transmission Elimination
AN/SRS-1A(V) Combat Direction Finding
MK-53 Nulka DLS
Next Generation Countermeasure (NGCM)
Cost: $7 Billion USD
Hogsweat - July 31, 2008 01:25 AM (GMT)
Length Overall: 270m
Length at Waterline: 270m
Praetonia - July 31, 2008 01:27 AM (GMT)
Well done making a ship that displaces 2/3 of CVF while carrying 50% more aircraft and a comprehensive SAM system while being able to make 38kts (?!).
You should post your designs in the main board rather than just on here.
The Silver Sky - July 31, 2008 03:26 AM (GMT)
You didn't even bother looking did you prae?
Praetonia - July 31, 2008 03:30 AM (GMT)
You're right. The stats to which I directly referred were just lucky guesses. I'm just that good.
The Silver Sky - July 31, 2008 03:50 AM (GMT)
I meant "did you even bother looking for the design thread?".
Also it's only 8 more aicraft on a full load. Edited to be longer/wider then CVF as well as cut the speed to 36 knots. Also, the 8 cell RIM-700 is like two sea sparrow launchers.
Hogsweat - July 31, 2008 10:31 AM (GMT)
I still don't understand how you get these magical speeds without suffering any loss of aircraft from the huge machinery needed for them.
Praetonia - July 31, 2008 03:31 PM (GMT)
|QUOTE (The Silver Sky @ Jul 31 2008, 03:50 AM)|
| I meant "did you even bother looking for the design thread?". |
I wasn't just referring to this design - most of your ships seem to have magically enormously greater capabilities than any RL ship of similar tonnage.
|Also it's only 8 more aicraft on a full load. Edited to be longer/wider then CVF as well as cut the speed to 36 knots. Also, the 8 cell RIM-700 is like two sea sparrow launchers.|
Now that you've editted it you have:
16% more aircraft (assuming your stated airgroup is full load - it should say so on the design if it is, because that's not normal practise)
8+kts greater max. speed
an enormous radar (why? the horizon against any aircraft will only be the order of 500km max)
proper SAM system
12% less displacement
I don't think you quite understand the point I'm trying to make - if you want more capabilities that require greater weight and volume, the ship will displace more than its less capable, lighter counterpart. If you want 36kts (as matt says, the amount of machinery required for each extra knot increases disproportionately as you go on) with all this, you might be looking at similar displacement to Nimitz.
Isselmere - July 31, 2008 05:06 PM (GMT)
To an extent, European carrier designs are limited by the requirement to house most, if not all, of the air group in the hangar. With permanent deck parks, more aircraft can be operated, but the ship would have to be replenished on a very regular basis (less than every five days).
I only count thirty-two aircraft at present, which is eight less than the air group proposed for the Queen Elizabeth-class, and between six and seven less than that carried by the previous Ark Royal, which admittedly had two hangar levels and did operate a permanent deck park:
12 Phantom FG.1
14 Buccaneer S.2
4 Gannet AEW.3
1 Gannet COD.4
6 Sea King HAS.1
2 Wessex HAR.1 (ship's flight/SAR)
Even so, expecting nine extra knots in comparison with the Charles de Gaulle with only 20 MW greater power and a much, much fuller hull is impossible. That and the four extra shafts (again in comparison with the CdG) would eat up considerable internal volume (and be noisy as all hell).
The crewing (ship's company) is also less than that presumed for the conventionally powered French CTOL carrier based on the CVF despite having nuclear reactors (which require more personnel) and twice as many catapults (which likewise require more personnel). Even assuming EMALS would 30% smaller crewing requirements than conventional steam catapults, your carrier would still require about twice the amount of catapult personnel to effectively operate not only the catapults but also the associated systems.
The Silver Sky - July 31, 2008 05:11 PM (GMT)
I'll probably just scrap this then.
Praetonia - July 31, 2008 06:19 PM (GMT)
You could just make the stats realistic... you can realistically keep either the size, the air group or the speed.
|QUOTE (Isselmere @ Jul 31 2008, 05:06 PM)|
| I only count thirty-two aircraft at present... |
He editted it after he posted. There used to be 58.