My dream aircraft carriers.

[William Walker]

I was wondering if someone on here could draw or design my dream aircraft carrier?

Aircraft carriers: First off I would build two 500 metre long and 60 metre wide dry docks at Belfast to build, refit and refuel the carriers. The carriers would be fuelled by 2 nuclear reactors with a service life of between 25 and 30 years. The carriers would 450 metres long and 50 metres wide, a crew of 2,500 and air wing of 3,000. Two forward and one side steam powered catapult, with the option of electronic power when it becomes usable. 4 CIWS and 4 Sea Captor box launchers for 32 Sea Ceptor missiles. The aim of building the carriers is to be able to safely operate and carry 100 fast jets and 20 other Electronic warfare, AEW, ASW and transport aircraft in a sea battle against the US Nimitz and General. R. Ford class carriers. The carriers would weigh between 130,000 to 150,000 long tons. I would expect the first carrier to cost £20 billion including the cost of the ships building and nuclear infrastructure, R&D, cost of building the carriers and training the ship’s crew and air wing, with the total cost for 10 ships being £120-130 billion. The 10 ships would be built over a 21 year design and build program, with the first ship being finished some time in 2020 and the last one being finished in 2034.

[eswube]

Well, besides all the challenges related to building 450m long warship (and it's cost), there is one little problem: air group of 120 aircraft would be simply unmanageable. US carrier air wings of the 1980s had less than 90 aircraft not because it wasn't possible to increase that number, but because it just wouldn't work. Launching and recovery of all these aircraft would take too much time, and handling that amount on the ship itself would be too complicated. In fact, early in their service (mid 1940s), Midway-class carriers had air groups of up to 130 aircraft, but soon it was found to be completely impractical and size of their CAG's was cut to around 100.

[William Walker]

Well, besides all the challenges related to building 450m long warship (and it's cost), there is one little problem: air group of 120 aircraft would be simply unmanageable. US carrier air wings of the 1980s had less than 90 aircraft not because it wasn't possible to increase that number, but because it just wouldn't work. Launching and recovery of all these aircraft would take too much time, and handling that amount on the ship itself would be too complicated. In fact, early in their service (mid 1940s), Midway-class carriers had air groups of up to 130 aircraft, but soon it was found to be completely impractical and size of their CAG's was cut to around 100.

So why is 90 aircraft ok by 120 isn't? Surely training will make it possible, electronics and unmanned aircraft. I also understand the planned British ice and chip wood carrier was going to have 125 aircraft, so I think it would be possible. However it would take a very long time to be able to do so maybe 5 years to build up to trying and carry that many aircraft let alone operate them for days on end at night and in bad weather.

I am not really sure how large the carrier would need to be to carry that many aircraft, 450 metres was a guess.

[KHT]

Probably for the same reason 406mm guns are but 508mm are not... You eventually hit a scieling when the size is no longer practical.
The increase from 90 to 120 planes might not sound like much, but it's an increase of plus 33%, in other words 4/3rd of the smaller airgroup. That means another third of equipment and materials to maintain and store these crafts.

The British Ice and chip wood carrier? I presume you mean the Habbakuk? It was the carrier equivalent of the H-classes of battleships - to big, impractical, and many smaller units could do the job much better.

One thing I think you deserve credit for though is that you at least consider the infrastructure required for a ship this size, what the service life would be and so on.

[eswube]

Why 90 and not 120?
Well, one reason is that launching all these planes would take about an hour, and their recovery another hour (there are several catapults to launch airplanes, but it takes lots of time to put them on these catapults, while during landing it's less to do - plane lands, folds wings and is quickly taken to the side - but they can land only one at a time). Current US Navy standards talk about pace of one aircraft per 30 seconds for both these operations, but some delays always need to be taken into account.
And remember that after taking off they need to get into formation (and when the last planes will join, those that took off first were already burning their precious fuel for an hour). Granted that You'll leave some planes for self-defence, and that some fuel on the "first" planes can be refuelled from aerial tankers. But with smaller CV with smaller air wing You'd leave some planes for defence too, and tankers are few and their capability limited (not mentioning that such refuelling operation would also take time, during which fuel will be also burned... ).
There's also an issue of handling these aircraft on the carrier itself. That's not a fixed airfield, where each aircraft has it's parking space with infrastructure etc. On an aircraft carrier planes are continously moved back and forth and when You want to move a plane from point A to point B, often You have to move some other plane from point C to point D to make place for the first plane. With 120 aircraft it's insanity in action.

Btw. Nimitz class can theoretically carry even 120-130 aircraft (somewhat squeezed), but todays Carrier Air Wing is merely half of it.

[William Walker]

Probably for the same reason 406mm guns are but 508mm are not... You eventually hit a scieling when the size is no longer practical.
The increase from 90 to 120 planes might not sound like much, but it's an increase of plus 33%, in other words 4/3rd of the smaller airgroup. That means another third of equipment and materials to maintain and store these crafts.

The British Ice and chip wood carrier? I presume you mean the Habbakuk? It was the carrier equivalent of the H-classes of battleships - to big, impractical, and many smaller units could do the job much better.

One thing I think you deserve credit for though is that you at least consider the infrastructure required for a ship this size, what the service life would be and so on.

Yeah I think you are right. It would be more realistic to build many smaller ships that are cheap to build and easier to run. Something like the QE class but CATOBAR then build better carrier borne fight jets than the US has, along with better escorts. Rather trying to out do the US carriers, in terms of size and technology. Really the carrier at the end of the day is less important than the aircraft and the ships defending the carrier. Plus nuclear power is far to costly and bring limited gains as the carrier still needs to be replenished. However the US at one point had many smaller none nuclear carriers but decided to go for huge nuclear carriers and I also think they did if for a reason. It is a question of which strategy is better I guess give you nations assets.

Yes I mean HMS Habbakuk. I thought the reason why they stopped it was the UK doesn't have enough wood to waste of chip for the carrier. Yeah the H-class battleships were stupid much like the Montana class, Yamato class and Sovetsky Soyuz class.

[jabba]

Yeah I think you are right. It would be more realistic to build many smaller ships that are cheap to build and easier to run. Something like the QE class but CATOBAR then build better carrier borne fight jets than the US has, along with better escorts. Rather trying to out do the US carriers, in terms of size and technology. Really the carrier at the end of the day is less important than the aircraft and the ships defending the carrier. Plus nuclear power is far to costly and bring limited gains as the carrier still needs to be replenished. However the US at one point had many smaller none nuclear carriers but decided to go for huge nuclear carriers and I also think they did if for a reason. It is a question of which strategy is better I guess give you nations assets.

Range & speed?

[William Walker]

Why 90 and not 120?
Well, one reason is that launching all these planes would take about an hour, and their recovery another hour (there are several catapults to launch airplanes, but it takes lots of time to put them on these catapults, while during landing it's less to do - plane lands, folds wings and is quickly taken to the side - but they can land only one at a time). Current US Navy standards talk about pace of one aircraft per 30 seconds for both these operations, but some delays always need to be taken into account.
And remember that after taking off they need to get into formation (and when the last planes will join, those that took off first were already burning their precious fuel for an hour). Granted that You'll leave some planes for self-defence, and that some fuel on the "first" planes can be refuelled from aerial tankers. But with smaller CV with smaller air wing You'd leave some planes for defence too, and tankers are few and their capability limited (not mentioning that such refuelling operation would also take time, during which fuel will be also burned... ).
There's also an issue of handling these aircraft on the carrier itself. That's not a fixed airfield, where each aircraft has it's parking space with infrastructure etc. On an aircraft carrier planes are continously moved back and forth and when You want to move a plane from point A to point B, often You have to move some other plane from point C to point D to make place for the first plane. With 120 aircraft it's insanity in action.

Btw. Nimitz class can theoretically carry even 120-130 aircraft (somewhat squeezed), but todays Carrier Air Wing is merely half of it.

Thanks for explaining, I have talked to a few current and former military people about this they have said it would cost far to much or why do you want the UK to challenge the US. They have never gone into the details of carrier operations and how much a carrier could operate. Not all the jets would be send out at one time at most 70-80 would be with 20-30 for defending the carrier, plus the other EW, AEW, ASW and SAR aircraft that would be on operations that need protection. The QE class can theoretically operate 64 F-35's but everybody thinks it isn't possible and they at most it could safely operate 48 F-35's with no other aircraft. This is why I thought the carrier would need to be so large so it could theoretically carry and operate say 140-150 aircraft but safely operate 120. Also on none battle operations the carriers would carry a normal air wing of 60-70 aircraft like the Nimitz class do, but that capability to have a surge would defeat the Nimitz was the hope anyway.

Would EMALS in the future be able to speed up carrier take offs?

[William Walker]

Yeah I think you are right. It would be more realistic to build many smaller ships that are cheap to build and easier to run. Something like the QE class but CATOBAR then build better carrier borne fight jets than the US has, along with better escorts. Rather trying to out do the US carriers, in terms of size and technology. Really the carrier at the end of the day is less important than the aircraft and the ships defending the carrier. Plus nuclear power is far to costly and bring limited gains as the carrier still needs to be replenished. However the US at one point had many smaller none nuclear carriers but decided to go for huge nuclear carriers and I also think they did if for a reason. It is a question of which strategy is better I guess give you nations assets.

Range & speed?

Speed maybe you get a few more knots but it doesn't make a great deal of difference when the escorts can't keep up and you need days of workup to get the carrier upto full speed. Range is more about your navy's replenishment capabilities rather than nuclear power. I hold the view that for a navy that wants to protect it's country's power that the most important ships are the replenishment ships, this is why I am so shocked at how few China and India have and are building compared to the US and UK.

[Colosseum]

Why 90 and not 120? It's just the efficient operating level they worked out (during quite a lot of, you know, actual experience during the latter stages of the Pacific War).

From what I have read, it doesn't matter if it's F-14s or F4U Corsairs... the numbers line up pretty much the same.