>>22799
/r/ source

>>22800


ugh i remember picking this image some time ago on 4chan so no idea

whoa thx man <3

Got this one.

The Soviet supercarrier that never made it

>>22806

Going to dump some line drawings.

Was going to post the Gneisenau, but it was in the old battleship thread. So here's it's twin.

Thank you for this.

Here a scheme of a ship that was recently launched:
Oasis of the Seas cruise ship of Royal Caribbean International, made in Finland, coming in at around 225,200 tons.

The largest warship ever made was the Nimitz CVN that came in under 100,000 tons.

Oasis of the Seas cruise ship cost USD 1.5 billion, has 2,700 staterooms, and can accommodate 5,400 guests.
But how many troops could she carry?

Like when the Brits used the ocean liners RMS Queen Elizabeth 2 (70,327 gross tonnage, carrying 3,000 troops and 650 volunteer crew) and Canberra were requisitioned from Cunard and P&O to serve as troopships, carrying British Army personnel to Ascension Island and the Falkland Islands to recover the Falklands from the invading Argentine forces.

>>23464
HOLY BALLS THAT IS HUGE

I have had to shrink down these 7000 pixel pics to avoid errors here.

Oasis of the Seas, Boardwalk exterior.

Oasis of the Seas: 1180 ft long, 240 ft tall, 225,200 tons.

Two and a quarter times the size of this thing.

US CVN-21 (21st Century nuclear powered aircraft carrier program) Gerald R. Ford-class next gen supercarrier (CVN 78)coming in at 100,000 tons, 75 aircraft.

>>23473
>>23474
So basically its just a Nimitz class with a slightly larger deck and the superstructure moved back.

...

Why do we pay taxes again?

>>23555

Actually, it makes a helluva lot of sense to move that island back like they did. And it looks like they did a lot more than just that. It probably (*probably*) could've been done as a Nimitz refit, but... Hell, this might have actually been more cost-effective.

There are changes we can't see, but no one bothered to change the general shape

>>23566
Well, that shape has been working for 50 years so why bother fucking with it.

>>23567
for science?

lololol

Then there's this weird design with two islands:
French CV PA2 (Porte-Avions 2) 75,000 tons, 48 aircraft.

UK CVF carrier future project, HMS Queen Elizabeth 65-70,000 tons, 48 F-35B fighters & other aircraft.

>>23585

Navigation in the forward superstructure, dedicated flight ops in the second?

>>23581
Probably the best general shape design on here

Most surface area per size, incredibly stable, could service submarines in the middle... although.... your details could be better. It looks like you just did a symmetric flip of one instead of an actual design...

  >>23594

I work with what I got.

>>23594

catamaran design is not stable in the way you think, unless you are talking about the one with sub hull in the middle ( not that from image)

and catamaran design is not very suitable for large ships due large stresses on super structure

all those problems can be solved by adding one more hull
a trimaran design

>>23623
Trimaran lover detected

thread must live, i want more delicious ships

>>23623
Well obviously not the one from the image, he just flipped a carrier pic

>trimaran
Not really possible in something as large as a carrier

>>26040

>trimaran
Not really possible in something as large as a carrier

usa are looking for different carrier design for some time and a trimaran design usually comes in conclusions
i guess its possible but yet have some problems

>>26042
because the carrier is tall, a trimaran design would limit maneuverability to nilch
it would be much harder to maneuver in storm conditions, putting the entire CBG at risk

don't take pic too seriously

>>26044
Azimuth thruster,
Voith Schneider Propeller,
Bow thruster

>>26052
Trimarans don't have a single keel, so they aren't very good at dealing with torsion stress

Look up the new LCS Independance or Freedom or Founding Fathers or something (I forget)
It had the same "problem" which is why they had to cut down the size of the left and right-most hulls

What about a semi-submersible design for a carrier? Not as in a carrier that can submerge, but one where most of the ballast is underwater. Basically 2 cylindrical bulkheads next to each other under the waterline, supporting the upper platform. You could conceivably make a full sized runway with such a design, but it would go from being a boat to being more like a mobile floating structure.

brb navyfield

>>26059
That would give you a larger surface area but it would be a sitting duck in a storm

>>22800
>/r/ source

planeman

>>26061
How so? Most of it's weight would be under the waterline anyway. Biggest concern I think would be the structural stresses, but I think it would be prudent to build it out of thick reinforced concrete. Basically more like a floating airstrip than a boat that carries planes.

>>26066
Because a wave would wash off your planes

>>26089
...
NO UR STOOPID

Obviously the flight deck is going to be more than 30 feet high. Not to mention the platform would lift with the waves. The planes would be stowed below deck as well unless they are being used.

>>26099
>platform lift with the waves
lol have fun building that.

>>26059

The design could work, if you give it strong windows.

http://home.versatel.nl/the_sims/rig/o-ranger.htm

Wow, thanks for the u-boat schematics!

where the fuck is my Zumwalt Class.

i was promised at least 2 of them!

heh

clittoral

Damen Stan patrol design, used by the Dutch Coastguard and the UK Border Agency

...and a plan drawing of preserved revenue cutter Vigilant.

And I know everyone probably has this one already, but its worth reposting just in case.

>>26312

Ah, the martyr-machine...

>>26320
actually, that will be a Boeing 767.

Bump. With a picture! :D

litoraö combat ship comparison

>>28600
I'm liking the freedom way more than anything there

The independance is a god damn clusterfuck

>>28628 well i think the absolon is best especially because of the extreme low price
3absolon= 1 american lcs

do u like carriers comparison?

>Gerald R. Ford

We're manufacturing fail on a large scale...

>>28636
>absalon
>littoral
Are you bleedin insane? Good luck getting that up a creek

>Good luck getting that up a creek...

...without a paddle.

Going into littorals with a sophisticated ship is retarded. You're just asking for some doucebag in a speed boat to sink your ride with a missile that costs 1/100th of what your ship did. Make him come out into the deep blue where your superior sensor capability and weaponeering start stacking in your favor.

>>28674
Exactly. The only ones who pull off river warfare are Slavs and Germanics, and they do it with tiny wee boats. That's why I agree with the sentiment that the smallest ship = probably best for littoral combat. There is really no limit to how small you make it, even a bunch of single person row boats loaded with home made IEDs and one AK47 is better than something as wide and expensive as the Independence. The way US Navy takes this kind of combat is ridiculous...

The purpose of fighting boats in littorals is to:
1. Prevent enemy boats from gaining access to rivers or deltas
2. Support prevention of beachhead
3. Prevent enemy land armies from crossing the river
4. Prevent enemies from using rivers for transport
5. Ensure friendly armies can do both previous things

You can pull that off with lots of fishing boats, not saying you should, but you can.

>>28674
>>28688
what about corvettes like visby and K130

small fast and heavy armed plus helicopter/uav

pic its K131

the K130 uav armed with Thales LMM missile

<--visby

>>28751
Dimensions and loadout are VERY good

But then again... comes the question of price
Are you willing to lose 10-20 of these per engagement?

If there was a non-stealth economy model, I would go for it

>>28754
K130 is semi stealth and not sooo expensive
and yes the corvette tactic is zergrush

(with rbs 15 they are a serious threat for bigger ships)

problem is they dont have ANY protection against submarines no mines no sonar no torpedo thats why most countrys use the bigger frigattes

>>28755
You don't really need protection against subs in shallow waters and littoral ships are used for defense so the mines are going to be yours

>>28756
nope i mean the K130 has no mines ,no torpedos and no sonar also the hangar is so small that they can only carry these small uavs
they are very small more like speedboat+helipad
ok the 76mm autocannon and the MLG 27 are heavy guns for a boat on a river
i think u underestimate the frigates just think of the ability to do bording on other ships

>>28759
I think frigates are great, but I would keep frigates, destroyers and larger ships out at sea

They can board pirates in blue waters

I wouldn't want them so close to the shore (river or sea) where some rube can whack them with a mine or asm

>>28768
thats what they do they dont go close to the coast they use their rockets ,helicopters and boats just to give u a number RBS15 has 200km range

>>28797
Then it's not a littoral ship....

>>28809
sure they are, carriers and Destroyers/cruiser cant go into flat water
USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78)=11 METERS!!!!!Draft
pic is baltic sea can only traveled by ships with draft<<<10m

just think of all the areas where the big ships cant go even carriers are ineffektiv if they have to fight on maxrange

+deep water=submarine territary

>>28818
Most littoral environments have rocks and is generally unpredictable

I wouldn't fight in something larger than a corvette in a river environment

From my perspective, only corvettes and fast craft should be called "littoral combat ships"

Ships like the Hamina and Visby

The LCS project is supposed to poop out something like a corvette but with a much wider hull
To me, that kind of defeats the concept of a littoral combat ship

>>28819
Did you know that the Meditteranean sea used to be a desert during the Neolithic? Gibraltar and Bosphorus were completely locked off.

Part of the reason for the human cultural evolution (Greeks/Babylonians etc) was an access to seas which could ferry people through all sorts of environments.

As recently as the Balkan civilization, the Mediterranean consisted of several large salt water lakes. When the neolithic Germanics invaded, the Baltic was completely frozen over. Boats were invented as a way to take advantage of the rivers and seas formed from the melting Glaciers.

When the ice age ended, the melting caused sea levels to rise by 130m!

I suggest a really good book by Dr. Hsu, "The Mediterranean Was a Desert"

Here's your pic with colored in land parts, timeline 10-7kya. May need to be adjusted for accuracy lol

I would take 1 MHD 150 + 3 corvettes K130 + and at least one 214 class submarine they are small so they can travel flat water that would be better than those Litoral combat ships or
harrier carriers like wasp they are too big to expensive and wasp dont has survace weapons

I don't think US should even go for LCS

Their warship/copter carriers have enough projection ability to deal with the shoreline

The only problem is rivers, which can be covered by well armed speedboats like in guam

>>28871
>>wasp dont has survace weapons

lol wut

>>28931
I always hated the intakes on the harrier

>>28941
Do they make you feel inadequate?

>>28942
;_;

>>28931
i mean no ship to ship missiles only small guns like 25mm

>>28978
but they have strike aircraft, whats your point?

>>28982 thats the point its a carrier and carriers are support ships they need to be protectet by other ships carriers suck against speedboats near coasts

>>29060

I can't see any reason why a carrier would be close enough to the coast where as speedboats would be a threat, other than transiting the Suez Canal or the Straight of Hormuz but then the carrier is bristling with MGs.

>>29076
>I can't see any reason why a carrier would be close enough to the coast where as speedboats would be a threat
The fuck?

You aren't paying attention to the discussion

The guy said Wasp carriers wouldn't operate in littoral areas because they have no weapons

You said they have jets

He said jets don't count in littoral combat

You are now questioning why we are talking about carriers in littoral areas

Geez

>>29077
What I'm saying is that while a Wasp/America/Tarawa would be close enough to shore to deploy it's forces, it'd still be far enough away to be out of range of small speedboats.

>>29079
nope if u do that the speedboats will simply destroy ur landing crafts
the carrier usually gets "Bodyguards" like a frigate (i dont know why a 40000ton ship doesnt have at least a 57mm for self defence)
landing operations can be bloody a few ground mines and rockets from speedboats can fuck up ur whole fleet

K130 = 4000 nautic miles range ,so ur not out of range but on open sea u can see them coming and u will have the time to take counter measures

>>29094
>>nope if u do that the speedboats will simply destroy ur landing crafts

You do know that the LCACs and AAVs are armed? And they'd have air support from the carrier. And don't forget the Marines have been training in amphibious operations for decades, they've got their shit figured out on how to minimize loses.

>>29104
I still wouldn't sit in a landing craft if the shoreline wasn't glassed and I didn't have a corvette next to me

>>29106
The shoreline already would be glassed. Remember there's gonna be a destroyer or two with the carrier, with a shit ton of tomahawks to take out defenses, as well as the harriers and cobras to mop up.

>>29114
No, I mean actually nuked

In the 20th century, fighting a developed nation, if the shoreline isn't nuked you can't come within 500km of it without incurring HEAVY losses

Even if they don't have a blue water navy

>>29116

Sort of like the Gulf War, amirite?

>>29116
Thats why the US hasnt lost a single Ship since WWII

lrn2 Naval Combat. 5 Ticonderogas and 5 Arleigh Burkes can sit 50 nms off the coast of any developed nation and carve a path through the shoreline 60 miles deep. All threats from Subsurface threats to Orbital threats would be destroyed.

>>29118
>>29119
Are you blind?

>fighting a developed nation

As in with nukes and/or serious anti ship missile power

>Thats why the US hasnt lost a single Ship since WWII
USS Liberty lol

>>29120

Lol The Liberty didnt sink, and was still in afloat for over a year after the attack on it.

>>29120
Haha! As if nukes and a military powerful enough to fend off the U.S. Navy are prerequisites to being declared a developed nation.

Fuck you, Germany, Scandinavia, Japan, Korea, and Italy!

>>29122

With advances in Aegis BMD, Nuclear threats are diminishing. Hell FTM-13 proved that Aegis systems can engage multiple short range ballistic missiles simultaneously. With Arliegh Burkes acting as Pickets, engaging air threats, while the Ticos rain hell with Tomahawks, any viable counter assault could be squashed. Mind you I'm a Surface Warfare fag, and I can speak about the airdales and bubblehead, but being an Aegis tech like my self I'm confident in what its capable of.

>>29123
I seriously doubt Aegis can engage nuclear warheads traveling at hypersonic speeds if it can't engage ASMs traveling at supersonic speeds

Seriously, are you claiming a CBG or a blue water fleet is perfectly fine fighting a littoral war?

They would get squashed in minutes by mines, torpedoes, ASMs, nukes etc

>>29119
u didnt have any serious naval combat since ww2
open sea is one thing litoral combat is tottally different thing
ground mines(the most dangerous kind) can be laid by fucking fisherboats
antiship missiles can be lauched from a 200 dollar truck
a billion dollar ship can be destroyed by a 1000 dollar mine
the us navy simply dont go near hostile coasts with big ships NEVER because they know its stupid because
1. a big ship is a big interresting target worth an attack
2. big ships are slow
3. air support only when the weather allows it
4.you are in range land based weapons
5.you can do everything u do without being close to the coast so why taking a risk
6.coasts are dangerous if you dont know them rocks under water ect.

pic is RBS15(heavy anti ship missile) on truck

>>29125
Yeah, because Operation Praying Mantis never fucking happened.

>>29124
Do you even know what the fuck you're talking about? Aegis was made to track and engage supersonic and hypersonic ant-ship missiles.

>>29124
They can and have successfully destroyed 12 SRBMs and 1 Cruise Missile. All the Ticonderogas will be equipped with BMD capability this year and roughly 25% or the Arliegh Burkes have it.

>>29125

Battle of Chumonchin Chan, Gulf of Tonkin incident, Battle of Dong hoi, Action in the Gulf of Sidra, and Operation Praying Mantis.

That's 5 Post WWII Naval engagements with the US.

And with over the Horizon capability Littoral combat (defined by the US Navy as Shoreline to about 60m/200ft depth) is really limited to interdiction and amphibious operations.

ITT: the greatest surface warfare minds of our generation.

When somebody comes up with a cooler idea than "park a CVN off shore ringed with destroyers and bomb with impunity until we send the Marines" be sure to let the USN know.

>Aegis was made to track and engage supersonic and hypersonic ant-ship missiles
Which is why people on Aegis capable ships shit their collective pants when talking about Moskit or Brahmos, not to mention Raduga.

Aegis isn't a magic supershield, it's the same damn thing every other country has been doing to fight coordinated massed missile attacks, which is linking sensor intel into and missile guidance into something useful in real time.

Why did Aegis come into being?
Because Granit missiles could network and cooperate in mass attacks on their own automatically since the 80s, that's why the Aegis and like systems were developed in the first place.

Also, you can't possibly be serious that any sort of ABM device actually works. That's baloney of the highest order.

>>29132
Keep a CVN in motion farther off shore to give you 5 minute response time instead of 30 seconds; and do the same with the bombs and marines without putting your fleet in danger.

When has a CVN ever fought littoral combat in a war with a developed nation? Hell, any nation?

You guys are arguing for something mighty ridiculous here, a CVN fighting 5-10km off shore...

>>29142
Because it's well known that the Navy sends the carrier group as close to the coast as possible.

Stop reading what you want to.

>>29142
Hope I wasn't the only one who spent several minutes trying to decipher that diagram of the 'clitoral zone' before working out it was a shoreline, not a vagina.

>>29142
>your post

>>29144
I'm not reading what I want to, we are talking about CVNs in littoral areas

Maybe you should read the thread

>>29145
loool

>>29147

you know I said 50 nm.... nm as in nautical miles... as in 57 standard miles

>>29148
Who are you?

You didn't read anything and started talking about Aegis (spouting bullshit about said system) in a discussion about aircraft carriers not needing escorts in littoral areas

Fuck off or start your own thread

>>29147
No, we're talking about LHDs and LHAs. And no one said anything about them being unescorted since they never will be.

>>29149
I see no bullshit other than what you're spouting. And you keep proving that you don't know wtf you're talking about, as is >>29142. Everything he said about Aegis is verifiable.

And the notion that ABM are worthless is hilarious.

>>29150
>No, we're talking about LHDs and LHAs. And no one said anything about them being unescorted since they never will be.
In that case it was a simple misunderstanding and I agree with you

At any point in the conversation you could have clarified your position you know

>And the notion that ABM are worthless is hilarious.
That, I don't agree with

ABM are completely worthless to the max

>>29151
Whether you agree with it or not doesn't negate the fact that ABMs have been working since the 60's and are still getting better.

Have you heard of Sprint? It had over a 90% success rat in testing. And this was in the mid fucking 60's. It was the last line of defense against russian MIRV swarms. In seconds it was at Mach 10+, by the time the thing left it's silo it was already supersonic. Sadly it was only in service for a month before it was canceled by that, thankfully dead, faggot ted kennedy.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/sprint.html
http://www.nuclearabms.info/Sprint.html

  At 16 seconds it goes white hot.

  >>29154
>And this was in the mid fucking 60's
Even though it was never proven in the 60's, let's assume it would have been effective. Even so, there have been a few improvements to ICBMs since then

The most advanced ABM system today is the S500, and it's completely useless against a country like France, Britain, China, Russia or America who have hundreds of ICBMs to spare

>It was the last line of defense against russian MIRV swarms
There was no last line of defense because I don't recall these missiles being built in numbers or placed in any defense grid

>>29149

I'm a Fire Controlman in the US Navy, Stationed at Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division, Attached to Aegis Training and Readiness Center.... And you are?

>>29157
I'm the Juggernaut, bitch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

>>29157
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority[/spoiler]

>>29157
I really dislike arguments from authority

>>29157
So maybe you shouldn't do it

>>29157
Seeing as how, wherever we work:
A. We shouldn't say it publicly
B. We can't prove it over the internet

>>29163
Oh, lol. You ask him who he is, he responds, and you call it a fallacy... and then proceed to state an error of proof. Go do your English homework kid, you have nothing to gain from this.

>>29164
"Who are you" is rhetoric

It means, "I didn't see you in this thread before, get the hell out"

>>29165
>Avoids the issue.
And, again, you shoot par for the course.

>>29165

Holy shit, looks like /k/indergarten's Mods are actually being effective; the faggots are emigrating in droves.

>>29168
I've been here since this site was made
Just because I don't have a name doesn't mean I just came here, get your head on straight

>>29166
You invented an issue which did not exist

>>29169

Top-notch issue-avoidance equipment on this Anon Mk. I.

>>29172
Oh, fuck off

>>29169
>I've been here since this site was made
>>29163
>can't prove it over the internet

>>29174

Don't forget this one, Jay!

>>29173
>butthurt

>>29150 i still dont get ur point

are u pro or contra LCS
i think the main question is, is there a need for LCS thei are damn expensive and i dont really get why

>>29126 bitch slapping 3rd world countrys doesnt count

>>29421
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalpost

Enough with you tomfoolery! Let's discuss some completely separate tomfoolery:
>>22797
>>Skyhook Escort Concept
Is that a Harrier on a davit? Because it sure as hell looks like a goddamn Harrier on a goddamn davit.

>>29142
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirov_class_battlecruiser
your absolutly right if the russian missilecruiser fires 200 missiles how many will your close in system take down

>>31948
KIIIIRROOVVVVV

TSV-1, Westpac Express. Can load and move an entire marine division with its vehicles, command structure and logistics intact @ 45 knots to any location in the West Pacific.

$150m and one voyage as compared to $500m and 15 C-5 flights? Massive logistics win.

>>31970
What's the range? Great it can do 45 knots, but if it needs to refuel every day, then it can only travel as fast as the tankers.

>>32511
1,100 nautical miles according to defenseindustrydaily.com.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/us-msc-charters-westpac-express-catamaran-for-15-more-years-02269/

>>32515
I.e. almost exactly one day of travel (1080nm)

Meaning
>>32511
Is partially right. To reach and return from "any location in the west pacific" from the west coast, it would need around ten refuels. This may be mitigated but if you plan on sending them across together, you're going to be in for a slow ride.

vulcan yard (german helicopter carrier

another german helicopter carrier
looks pretty much like a russian heli carrier

>>32518

PPPPPP

>>32518
I mis-quoted my shit. Mac speed is 35 knots, at that speed the range is 1,240 NM.

Cruising at 20 knots the range is 2,182 NM.

It makes more sense when you consider that she's based out of Japan, not the west coast.

She mostly shuttles marines around. Oki to BEST KOREA, Oki to Guam, that sorta thing.

>>32970
Are they actually going to build that, or is it just a draughtsman's fantasy?

>>32980

the german navy is beggin for a carrier since 1982
but the government says no money

>>31969
Kirroooovvv

lol Brazil

>>33245
I cant see that depiction of Kuznetsov's AA coverage without thinking how much I love Russia's overkill reflex.

>>33246
I don't think it's overkill imo

Their strategy is the perfect defense, not the perfect offense like us

>>33246
I'd rather be in command of 12 of the second than 1 of the first. Also, how many other ships does Kuznetsov roll around with?

>>33258
I'd rather be in command of 12 of the first than 1 of the second...

In peacetime (ie 100% of the time) Kirov "rolls" with 1 battlecruiser, 1 cruiser, two to five destroyers and a random number of frigates

>>33294
Trnsltn:
Missile corvette of the Polish navy

<bunch of NATO components>

Displacement: 2035 tons
Length: 95m
Width: 13m
Speed: 30 in knots (kn = cv)
Range: 20 days

>>33256
Its just a difference in doctrine. They dont try to maintain massive airspace dominance to "dont-even-consider-it" levels.

They operate with less support, so the logical reaction? Just cover every spare inch of the fucking thing in dozens of SAM launchers and defensive cannon. Because why the fuck not?

>>33303
Technically it's a heavy aircraft carrying cruiser

Little known fact about the British Invincible class carriers. They were originally referred to as "through-deck cruisers" by the admiralty, because the government didn't want to buy any aircraft carriers.
As built they were equipped with Sea Dart Surface-to-air missiles, but these have since been removed to make room for more aircraft.

>>33296
yeah copypasta from german k130

>>33258

The Kuznetsov was intended to provide air support for the Kirovs and other ASM-carrying ships, not to maintain strike aircraft.

Soviet naval doctrine was based around killing US Carriers, not projecting power.

>>34406
Soviet naval doctrine was based on area denial near SSBN bastions.

>US destroyers

Been meaning to ask; what te hell's the DDX in Navy Field? I know the X is for "experimental," but was it ever developed into an actual ship line?

Time for some Kriegsmarine action..

I want your babies.

Errm! What about the Tirpitz?? Sistership of the Bismarck, but missing?

IJN on deck!