Shipbucket

There is a reason that the Ford Class looks a lot like the Nimitz class, and similarly to Enterprise - the hull design works.

Also sealthing a carrier is a bit of a loosing proposition, as you are going to have stuff on the deck that is going to make your radar return large even if the ship herself has a smaller RCS.

Thiel wrote:

acelanceloet wrote:but what is wrong with the lines of the wave piercing bow?

For one, the fact that it isn't a wavepiercing bow. It's a bulbous bow, and they work rather differently.

yeah true.... I was just trying to tell him what I aimed at, but made a rather big mistake...

Colombamike wrote:

acelanceloet wrote:(the current lines are all coming from my refs.)

acelanceloet wrote:but what is wrong with the lines of the wave piercing bow?

A forward wave piercing bow maybe ? too angled

WTF too angled? those lines are coming directly from the refs (one of them is the one you posted).... I can't change what is shown, right!

TimothyC wrote:There is a reason that the Ford Class looks a lot like the Nimitz class, and similarly to Enterprise - the hull design works.

Also sealthing a carrier is a bit of a loosing proposition, as you are going to have stuff on the deck that is going to make your radar return large even if the ship herself has a smaller RCS.

indeed. that is why I used the hull from the nimitz in an minimally changed form. will have to do some editing still though, to make it too the standards of the ford.

and you are right about the stealth carrier concept, I guess that is why it is never build

TimothyC wrote:Also sealthing a carrier is a bit of a loosing proposition, as you are going to have stuff on the deck that is going to make your radar return large even if the ship herself has a smaller RCS.

Actually, this particular design was more stealthy, even with planes on board. The planes would land, and then be transferred below decks as soon as possible. The launch cats are on either side.

The whole idea of a stealth carrier eludes me though... What did they call it again? "100,000 tons of diplomacy", it's a bit useless to have a powerful presence in the neighbourhood if the radar only sees a frigate size ship...

That said, I do like this design, and will especially look forward to the topview.

Some links that my help you:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/sh ... t-carriers
Scroll down a bit for a few photo's of an original large scale model built for the US Navy. I e-maild the company for plans a few years back, but they weren't allowed to share them (then).

http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/sh ... eview.html
Review of the JAG model. Including top views of the decklayout. This model is different from your design, as it lacks the outward hull around the lower flightdecks.

BTW, the lower flightdecks are awfully close to the waterline. It would have been interesting to see the damage caused by a 'freak wave'... Also very problematic in rough seastates, nice water scoops. Perhaps additonal hulls underneath the outboard decks could help with the stability of the ship?

Carriers can operate in worser weather than normal navy ships, but this is almost like the B-2 stealthbomber. Don't let it get wet...

some updates. although it doesn't looks like it, because of the way it is constructed, I can't add too much more stuff to it (an mast, some coms, some aircraft, some railing/deck equipment and some hatches in the hull and then all parts are in place)
also, the bridge looks ugly... any ideas how to fix the windows?

Deleted

yes, I know that. what I meant was that it is difficult by it's construction. things like:
the sidepanels can have no large bridges or hatches on it, because it is only an barrier to keep the sea out and to block radar.
the stern will have some detailing
the bow can't have much, because it is very low and it pierces the waves and throws up masses of water in heavy weather, so all equipment over there has to be small and strong - don't know what would be usefull and could fit over there.
the deck will become detailed, as I can add anything I like there.

for the other comments:
large mast looks like shit, I am going to add only minor coms and systems there.
the small structure is an maintenance bay following the CVX plans, not the system you are showing over there.
hull details: most of it impossible because of the problems mentioned above, all that is left are some small hatches and so on.
for the bridge; thanks for the sea fighter bridge image: I will most likely use windows like those.
for the bow/anchor: can't find an good way to add an anchor while it is not too close to the waves. possibly an bow anchor will be fitted....
you are wrong about the shape of the bow, it not an wave piercing, so not like the zumwalt.

Why dont you create an large stealthy rotating block with inside a target pointing system (Fire control) and air/surface search radar.
IT is stealthy
IT is doable (FREMM has it if i am correct?)
IT is considered by THALES
IT is considered by russia and india

Plus i think usa will to in the future for non aegis ships.
But this one has AEGIS, so maby add other stuff in it?

uhm... SPY-3 =/= aegis if I am correct?
otherwise it is possible I think... how should that look for example?

Fremm has this. Wich isnt build into the superstructure like i saw(read under here), but is stealthy.
But i was looking into an THALES version containing the function's of SMART-S(Also SMART-L) as a possible follow on.
But then mounted like Smart-s again on the front, instead on the back.
It looks like a part of the superstructure, but actually rotates.
It looks awesome if you ask me, and you woulnd notice the while thing when standing still.
I quess my next AU batch of ships will get that type of stuff

that looks a lot like the THALES Heracles..... or am I looking to the wrong part?
EDIT: yes it is the HERAKLES indeed..... but it's role is already done by the SPY-3.......