Aww, ain't that so cute! (Aircraft Carriers)

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2003-03-05 12:53am

The Canadian Forces seakings are already scheduled for replacement in 2006. Assuming there are any left to replace at that point.

Darksider · Post by **Darksider** » 2003-03-05 03:26pm

Shinova wrote:The Nimitz (I think) next to a British carrier:

Methinks the Brits have carrier envy

Post by **haas mark** » 2003-03-05 03:32pm

If that IS the Nimitz, that's the ship my dad's on.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2003-03-05 04:18pm

Comments?

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2003-03-05 05:32pm

Interesting the brits seem to be planning both a stealth super carrier nad a stealth tinsy carrier.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-03-05 05:37pm

#1 is interesting although I'm not such a huge fan of tri-hull ships. #2 is inane.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2003-03-05 05:45pm

NecronLord wrote:Comments?

I *WANT* that fighter!

Hmmmm

*makes mental note to turn on MSPaint later*

Warspite · Post by **Warspite** » 2003-03-05 06:23pm

Isolder74 wrote:Interesting the brits seem to be planning both a stealth super carrier nad a stealth tinsy carrier.

The first one is the CVA, the future UK carrier, the second image is only a concept for the US Navy.

Post by **Rob Wilson** » 2003-03-05 07:17pm

Warspite wrote:
Isolder74 wrote:Interesting the brits seem to be planning both a stealth super carrier nad a stealth tinsy carrier.
The first one is the CVA, the future UK carrier.

No it is a discarded concept, this page has the latest approved design.

Addendum: A more detailed rundown.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-05 08:28pm

Trimaran hulls are by all reports a failure and planning for vessels using them is being abandon. Looks like the future will remain the monohull.

Post by **Rob Wilson** » 2003-03-05 08:51pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:Trimaran hulls are by all reports a failure and planning for vessels using them is being abandon. Looks like the future will remain the monohull.

Which reports are those? I know for the large ships like carriers it was abandoned almost on day one, but the Frigate and Destroyer prototypes are still ongoing as far as I know.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-05 09:57pm

Rob Wilson wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:Trimaran hulls are by all reports a failure and planning for vessels using them is being abandon. Looks like the future will remain the monohull.
Which reports are those? I know for the large ships like carriers it was abandoned almost on day one, but the Frigate and Destroyer prototypes are still ongoing as far as I know.

I've read a couple articles and Stuart Slade mentioned Triton was having major problems that couldn't be resolved.

Post by **Rob Wilson** » 2003-03-05 11:28pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Rob Wilson wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:Trimaran hulls are by all reports a failure and planning for vessels using them is being abandon. Looks like the future will remain the monohull.
Which reports are those? I know for the large ships like carriers it was abandoned almost on day one, but the Frigate and Destroyer prototypes are still ongoing as far as I know.
I've read a couple articles and Stuart Slade mentioned Triton was having major problems that couldn't be resolved.

Well the Carriers were dropped due to torsion problems because of scale (one of many reasons given), but as far as I know Triton has completed her Preliminary trails with no problems (reported here) and her next phase (full scale trials) are ongoing. Here is a page detailing the phases.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2003-03-06 04:17am

Isolder74 wrote:Interesting the brits seem to be planning both a stealth super carrier nad a stealth tinsy carrier.

The super tinsy carrier is USN if i read the insignia right (they're there just very small)

Can anyone tell me any reasons why the second wouldn't work?

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-03-06 09:11am

NecronLord wrote:
Isolder74 wrote:Interesting the brits seem to be planning both a stealth super carrier nad a stealth tinsy carrier.
The super tinsy carrier is USN if i read the insignia right (they're there just very small)

Can anyone tell me any reasons why the second wouldn't work?

Unsure, but there are apparently some major problems with the trimaran design that preclude it's use in large ships.

Kenny_10_Bellys · Post by **Kenny_10_Bellys** » 2003-03-06 11:36am

Might be a materials advance will be required before it's safe for larger ships, but my researches into future military designs (they make cool 3D models) shows no problems so far with the Triton's trials, indeed it's being touted as a success. The Americans have helped with funding apparently, so they're just waiting to see how the full trials pan out before they commit to anything.

As for the future aircraft, it appears to be an F16 with a couple of modifications. Not too cool in my book.

Post by **Rob Wilson** » 2003-03-06 11:42am

Kenny_10_Bellys wrote:Might be a materials advance will be required before it's safe for larger ships, but my researches into future military designs (they make cool 3D models) shows no problems so far with the Triton's trials, indeed it's being touted as a success. The Americans have helped with funding apparently, so they're just waiting to see how the full trials pan out before they commit to anything.

As for the future aircraft, it appears to be an F16 with a couple of modifications. Not too cool in my book.

Not a patch on your Marine fighter.

And according to a recent article in Soldier magazine, Triton's full size tech demonstrator Phase is nearing launch, with the 2/3's demonstrator ready to do some more flag flying before being permanently mothballed (or used as a Torpedo target to test it's effectiveness conclusively, it was unclear as to which option was happening). So yes Triton is a success to date.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-03-06 06:00pm

I think that INCATs catamaran hulls have been proving themselves rather well in the fast transport vessel stakes.

But I've always thought that putting a couple of point defense turrets on, then making a couple of nice big missile banks on the sides. YOu could have a damn impressive fighting ship (albeit with a rather high RCS), but that is faster than every other vessel at sea of comparable size, hell these things are only just outspeeded by hydrofoils.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-06 06:21pm

weemadando wrote:I think that INCATs catamaran hulls have been proving themselves rather well in the fast transport vessel stakes.

But I've always thought that putting a couple of point defense turrets on, then making a couple of nice big missile banks on the sides. YOu could have a damn impressive fighting ship (albeit with a rather high RCS), but that is faster than every other vessel at sea of comparable size, hell these things are only just outspeeded by hydrofoils.

Course, that speed isn't useful for much of anything.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-03-06 06:59pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:Well the orginal design would have carried Exocets and Seawolf as well. Much more of a cruiser then the Sea Dart only that got fitted. Bad sign when your carrier needs an area defence missile system because its fighters cant do the job.

By your own statement then, the Nimitz class is bad to, because it has it's own missile defence, as well as gun defence.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-03-06 07:07pm

Trimaran hulls loose all advantages they have over monohulls on ships of 30,000 tons and greater.

Otherwise, they are much better than mono-hulls, greater fuel efficiency due to less water resistance etc.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-03-06 07:19pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
weemadando wrote:I think that INCATs catamaran hulls have been proving themselves rather well in the fast transport vessel stakes.

But I've always thought that putting a couple of point defense turrets on, then making a couple of nice big missile banks on the sides. YOu could have a damn impressive fighting ship (albeit with a rather high RCS), but that is faster than every other vessel at sea of comparable size, hell these things are only just outspeeded by hydrofoils.
Course, that speed isn't useful for much of anything.

No, which is why at the moment they are just transport vessels. But I think that the Aus Navy should maybe invest in a militarised version for testing as an intercept vessel for our interdiction duties. Thats one area where speed definately counts. You guys have a coast guard for that stuff, we don't.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Aww, ain't that so cute! (Aircraft Carriers)

Re: Aww, ain't that so cute! (Aircraft Carriers)