Have fun, make drawings of various ships and explain why you think they're a good design. Have people comment and discuss the design.
I'll start it off with an aircraft carrier that I believe may be good enough for PLAN's next carrier.
I used the Nimitz carrier as a reference, so you can see the differences in size and layout.
Plane lines are modeeled on F18E. Which could be roughly what J-31 might be. Maybe F18E is even a bit bigger.
Carrier is 322 long and with a total width of 72 meters. It's a bit hard to see, but the front part of the runway needs more deck overhang, so there's a protrusion in deck width there. The island also protrudes over the rest of the deck. Without that island protrusion, total width of the deck would be just 68 meters.
Island is drawn in purple color.
Yellow rectangle is approximate size and shape of CV-17's island, for reference. So the question is, is it plausible for new carrier to have an even smaller island, while still using conventional propulsion? The underlying design for the carrier is conventional, NOT nuclear propulsion. Though, as we can see, even Nimitz with its nuclear fueled propulsion still doesn't really have that much smaller island complex.
Catapults were made to be as long as ones on Nimitz. But, I am not fully sure that's necessary. Charles de gaulle has 20 meters shorter catapults and seems to be using both E-2C and Rafale M just fine. Shortening the cats could help quite if goal is to make the whole ship smaller. That way the whole displacement could basically be the same as CV-17. But since we have those satellite images of cats being tested in China, I went with 120 meter long ones, as that's closer to the model China has been testing.
I do believe if CV-17 is some 60ish thousand tons, and Nimitz is close to 100, a carrier of this size could be made to displace 70-75 thousand tons.
Whole idea of the design is to keep it fairly small, displacement wise. I found that length of carrier is more important to being able to cram all the functions in it than the width of the carrier. So i deliberately went with a carrier that's even a bit narrower than CV-17. Even though, of course, more width would have solved some issues.
Big issue I have with my design is very, very little clearance between runway and island. Is seems barely enough to move various deck vehicles there, without interfering with landings, and it makes it impossible to move any aircraft without the same. Then again, does Nimitz move planes there while there's a landing happening? I basically assume that my design won't even use that whole rear part of the deck near the island for planes that often, that it will be a deck part for helicopter ops.
Critique away. answer my questions if you can.
I'll start it off with an aircraft carrier that I believe may be good enough for PLAN's next carrier.
I used the Nimitz carrier as a reference, so you can see the differences in size and layout.
Plane lines are modeeled on F18E. Which could be roughly what J-31 might be. Maybe F18E is even a bit bigger.
Carrier is 322 long and with a total width of 72 meters. It's a bit hard to see, but the front part of the runway needs more deck overhang, so there's a protrusion in deck width there. The island also protrudes over the rest of the deck. Without that island protrusion, total width of the deck would be just 68 meters.
Island is drawn in purple color.
Yellow rectangle is approximate size and shape of CV-17's island, for reference. So the question is, is it plausible for new carrier to have an even smaller island, while still using conventional propulsion? The underlying design for the carrier is conventional, NOT nuclear propulsion. Though, as we can see, even Nimitz with its nuclear fueled propulsion still doesn't really have that much smaller island complex.
Catapults were made to be as long as ones on Nimitz. But, I am not fully sure that's necessary. Charles de gaulle has 20 meters shorter catapults and seems to be using both E-2C and Rafale M just fine. Shortening the cats could help quite if goal is to make the whole ship smaller. That way the whole displacement could basically be the same as CV-17. But since we have those satellite images of cats being tested in China, I went with 120 meter long ones, as that's closer to the model China has been testing.
I do believe if CV-17 is some 60ish thousand tons, and Nimitz is close to 100, a carrier of this size could be made to displace 70-75 thousand tons.
Whole idea of the design is to keep it fairly small, displacement wise. I found that length of carrier is more important to being able to cram all the functions in it than the width of the carrier. So i deliberately went with a carrier that's even a bit narrower than CV-17. Even though, of course, more width would have solved some issues.
Big issue I have with my design is very, very little clearance between runway and island. Is seems barely enough to move various deck vehicles there, without interfering with landings, and it makes it impossible to move any aircraft without the same. Then again, does Nimitz move planes there while there's a landing happening? I basically assume that my design won't even use that whole rear part of the deck near the island for planes that often, that it will be a deck part for helicopter ops.
Critique away. answer my questions if you can.