Aircraft Carriers

[wuzak]

Something like the catamaran support vessels proposed for the nuclear Seamaster?

I like the way you skillfully kept with the spirit of the thread drift by incorporating a carrier and a nuke !



But yes, that thing is awesome ! I like the idea. And for sure, a drainable section would be a lot better. Maybe gates like a seaway loch ?

What about something like this?

http://z13.invisionfree.com/The_NS_Draftroom/ar/t1965.htm

Just add ballast to the hulls to lower into the water, and then pump it out to raise the vessel.

[wuzak]

http://yachtpals.com/dockwise

[Captain Canada]

Ya that would work...

[jcf]

... or this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNS_Montford_Point


The Montford Point has been here in Everett for the last few months, I see it every time
I drive down the waterfront.

[Captain Canada]

Wow....that's quite the thing ! More info here and a neat video of the vehicle transfer at sea :

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/naval-warfare/34755-mobile-landing-platform-ships.html

Also saw a slightly different one that had an even higher deck for vertical ops. when the ship was partially submerged.

[zenrat]

Ummmmm, sorry if I caused drift.
But thanks for the info on the bombs.

Now back to carriers.  As recompense for my actions I offer you a tale.

My father, in his youth (early 60's) was a designer for GEC.  Amongst the things he worked on was Replenishment At Sea equipment and Carrier Lifts.
I don't think he ever knew what ship the lifts were intended for (if in fact they were not just a design study) but they were given wheel loadings of all existing and proposed carrier borne aircraft so they could show by calculation that they had designed the deck of the lift to be strong enough.  The sums were done and the figures were presented to the client at a meeting and their assembled representatives (i'm guessing MOD & Navy would have been present) looked at them and said "yes, that's all very well but what about the jumbo crane?".
It turned out that they had a wheeled crane they drove around the deck which they used to pick up anything that needed picking up and it's wheel loading was higher than any of the aircraft.  It was just that no-one had thought to tell GEC about it until then.
It wasn't long after that he became a lecturer...

[jcf]

SARO/Westlands design from 1960.



... and if my eyes don't deceive me those are Scimitars in the hangar and on deck. 

[PR19_Kit]

That's a pretty small vessel to need to be a nuclear powered.

[jcf]

I know, and can just imagine trying to launch or land a Scimitar as the vessel skids all over
the sea? 

There are no tech details in the book, so I'm wondering if the lift fans were to be electric powered
or perhaps steam turbines, thus the nuke plant? 

'Tis a wonderfully crazy design.

[RLBH]

As a hovercraft, it needs lots of power to keep the air cushion inflated, and lots more to drive it at high speeds, so nuclear power might actually make sense. You'd be thinking of an aircraft-type reactor, though, to keep weight down. And an air wing of three Scimitars - do you really want a deck park with 80-100 knots of wind over the deck? - isn't going to make for efficient operations.

Think of it as a low-flying, slow, airborne aircraft carrier, and you're closer in concept to how it would work and why it makes no sense. I'd imagine you drive the lift fans and propellers mechanically from some sort of turbomachinery.

[PR19_Kit]

The SRN4, which was about 2/3 the size of the hovercarrier but only a 1/4 of the weight, only used four quite small turbo-prop engines. I can't help feeling that the nuclear powerplant is the main reason why the hovercarrier weighs so much. If they'd have fitted multiple turbo-props it'd have worked just as well and be lighter to boot.

[Rheged]

This may be of interest

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,13156.0/all.html

[RLBH]

The SRN4, which was about 2/3 the size of the hovercarrier but only a 1/4 of the weight, only used four quite small turbo-prop engines. I can't help feeling that the nuclear powerplant is the main reason why the hovercarrier weighs so much. If they'd have fitted multiple turbo-props it'd have worked just as well and be lighter to boot.

Perhaps - but the SR.N4 had an endurance of 8 hours. You'd want several days at least for a useful aircraft carrier, which would require an awful lot of fuel.

[PR19_Kit]

The SRN4, which was about 2/3 the size of the hovercarrier but only a 1/4 of the weight, only used four quite small turbo-prop engines. I can't help feeling that the nuclear powerplant is the main reason why the hovercarrier weighs so much. If they'd have fitted multiple turbo-props it'd have worked just as well and be lighter to boot.

Perhaps - but the SR.N4 had an endurance of 8 hours. You'd want several days at least for a useful aircraft carrier, which would require an awful lot of fuel.

...... which could take the place of the heavy nuclear reactor and its even heavier shielding.

[rickshaw]

The SRN4, which was about 2/3 the size of the hovercarrier but only a 1/4 of the weight, only used four quite small turbo-prop engines. I can't help feeling that the nuclear powerplant is the main reason why the hovercarrier weighs so much. If they'd have fitted multiple turbo-props it'd have worked just as well and be lighter to boot.

Perhaps - but the SR.N4 had an endurance of 8 hours. You'd want several days at least for a useful aircraft carrier, which would require an awful lot of fuel.

...... which could take the place of the heavy nuclear reactor and its even heavier shielding.

....and all it's associated radioactive problems, physical, political and social.

Of course, in the early 1960s, everybody was nuclear mad and thought that everything from cars to tanks to planes and even it seems now, hovercraft should be powered by it.

Nowadays, no one wants anything to do with the stuff.