New Carrier design for China?

[Kyle Holgate]

http://wuxinghongqi.blogspot.com/2009/06/user-originality-peoples-liberation.html

I'm not sure If I should laugh or not. Take that back, when in doubt - laugh.

[Ed Rotondaro]

http://wuxinghongqi.blogspot.com/2009/06/user-originality-peoples-liberation.html

I'm not sure If I should laugh or not. Take that back, when in doubt - laugh.

Kyle:

A submarine carrier with missiles? That isn't even good sci-fi.

[john964]

http://wuxinghongqi.blogspot.com/2009/06/user-originality-peoples-liberation.html

I'm not sure If I should laugh or not. Take that back, when in doubt - laugh.
The only way this thing gets built is if its built in Fantacyland or maybe Neverland.

[old_pop2000]

Kyle:

A submarine carrier with missiles? That isn't even good sci-fi.

Well, how about the Surcouf built in 1927? It carried an observation aircraft. The I-400 series for the Japanese. The Ettore Fieramosca which carried a reconnaissance plane. The US Navy commissioned the construction of 12 submarine-based aircraft in 1923. The German Type IX D 2 Monsum carried an autogyro type Foce-Achgelis FA 330.

There are even designs for a US submarine to carry an F-35 VSTOL aircraft. Sci-Fi? Probably, but designers and futurist keep trying. I would not doubt that a submarine based UCAV is in the works and that would be a tremendously useful weapon.

However, as for a large underwater aircraft carrier, I don't think so. Submarines are supposed to be stealthy.

[djcyclone]

Did anyone read the post at the bottom of the screen?

The person who typed that made some vary good points. Due to its size, it would be unable to reach deep depths, so it would not be able to hide vary well at all.

If it goes under, and then surfaces, it would have to have some way of rapidly drying the decks so that aircraft can launch.

How in the Hell is China going to build this thing? They do not have any Yards that could put something like that together. That thing has to be twice the size of a Nimitz Class Carrier.

How is China going to afford somthing like that?

I will give them the benefit of the doubt, and say that at least they are thinking big, but I think this is just that (THINKING), or dreaming to use better words.

[old_pop2000]

Did anyone read the post at the bottom of the screen?

The person who typed that made some vary good points. Due to its size, it would be unable to reach deep depths, so it would not be able to hide vary well at all.

If it goes under, and then surfaces, it would have to have some way of rapidly drying the decks so that aircraft can launch.

How in the Hell is China going to build this thing? They do not have any Yards that could put something like that together. That thing has to be twice the size of a Nimitz Class Carrier.

How is China going to afford somthing like that?

I will give them the benefit of the doubt, and say that at least they are thinking big, but I think this is just that (THINKING), or dreaming to use better words.

There are a whole list of problems with an underwater carrier. The wet deck problem is really not that important. How do I launch aircraft in rough seas? This carrier has a low freeboard, which means it will be wet, all the time. It's not a matter of drying it, its a matter of keeping it dried. How do you get enough forward speed on the platform, to launch aircraft? Carriers usually go to top speed and still need ramps and catapult to launch aircraft. Any aircraft that this ship could carry and launch, will not have a large load capacity. What good will it be? BarCAP, TARCAP? As soon as it breaks the surface, surveillance aircraft and satellites will see it, and while its launching, it will get hit.

Man, the list goes on and on.

[steel_selachian]

When I saw that thing I took it for granted it was some geek floating around a pie-in-the-sky concept. Underwater aircraft carriers are fun to use on something like Supreme Commander, but pretty impractical in reality.

[john964]

Did anyone read the post at the bottom of the screen?

The person who typed that made some vary good points. Due to its size, it would be unable to reach deep depths, so it would not be able to hide vary well at all.

If it goes under, and then surfaces, it would have to have some way of rapidly drying the decks so that aircraft can launch.

How in the Hell is China going to build this thing? They do not have any Yards that could put something like that together. That thing has to be twice the size of a Nimitz Class Carrier.

How is China going to afford somthing like that?

I will give them the benefit of the doubt, and say that at least they are thinking big, but I think this is just that (THINKING), or dreaming to use better words.
Counting length width draft and what not this ship will probably be (if built) larger than a UULCC. The current UULCC's weigh in at 300-350,000dwt and have about as much manuverability as a cow. IIRC a ULCC of 250-300,000dwt takes 1-1.5 miles to stop from full speed, have rudder lag of 1/8-1/4 mile and take 2 miles to make a 180. Also what about depth handling and things like crash dives and emergency blows. This information is for large surface ships what about subsurface. From what I've read and heard the worlds current largest submarne the Russian Typhoon class also handles like a cow. I almost forgot what about the noise signature for this thing. Trying to keep this thing quiet will be next to impossable with things like aircraft maintance and crew noise. How big or how many reactor plant(s) will this thing have.

[djcyclone]

Counting length width draft and what not this ship will probably be (if built) larger than a UULCC. The current UULCC's weigh in at 300-350,000dwt and have about as much manuverability as a cow. IIRC a ULCC of 250-300,000dwt takes 1-1.5 miles to stop from full speed, have rudder lag of 1/8-1/4 mile and take 2 miles to make a 180. Also what about depth handling and things like crash dives and emergency blows. This information is for large surface ships what about subsurface. From what I've read and heard the worlds current largest submarne the Russian Typhoon class also handles like a cow. I almost forgot what about the noise signature for this thing. Trying to keep this thing quiet will be next to impossable with things like aircraft maintance and crew noise. How big or how many reactor plant(s) will this thing have.

Forget Aircraft Maintance and the like.

The thing has 4 additional Subs attached too it. Nuke Subs may be quite by themselves, but you stick 4 or 5 of them in one location all turning their screws, there is going to be noise. I counted 5 because I immagine that this thing is going to have a power plant of its own.


The Typhoon is the largest Sub in the World. It is nearly the size of a WW II Aircraft Carrier.

[djcyclone]

Let's talk hypothetically.

Say the thing is built in like the next 20 years. Of course it is a foating target, and China would have to nearly bankrupt their economy to put something like this together.

Now lets say China has a skirmish with someone that has a respectable Navy. How many missiles and Torpedoes would it take to put this thing on the bottom if it was on the surface trying to fight it out?

Even without armor, that thing is just gigantic. Just how much damage could it absorb and still stay afloat.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Well, how about the Surcouf built in 1927? It carried an observation aircraft. The I-400 series for the Japanese. The Ettore Fieramosca which carried a reconnaissance plane. The US Navy commissioned the construction of 12 submarine-based aircraft in 1923. The German Type IX D 2 Monsum carried an autogyro type Foce-Achgelis FA 330.

There are even designs for a US submarine to carry an F-35 VSTOL aircraft. Sci-Fi? Probably, but designers and futurist keep trying. I would not doubt that a submarine based UCAV is in the works and that would be a tremendously useful weapon.

However, as for a large underwater aircraft carrier, I don't think so. Submarines are supposed to be stealthy.

Dennis:

Look at the picture. A carrier carrying subs? PLEASE!:D I know you're still on cruise ship time but c'mon. LMAO!

[Ed Rotondaro]

Let's talk hypothetically.

Say the thing is built in like the next 20 years. Of course it is a foating target, and China would have to nearly bankrupt their economy to put something like this together.

Now lets say China has a skirmish with someone that has a respectable Navy. How many missiles and Torpedoes would it take to put this thing on the bottom if it was on the surface trying to fight it out?

Even without armor, that thing is just gigantic. Just how much damage could it absorb and still stay afloat.

DJ et al:

Reality check here. Our good friend Fleet oftens gives us cool graphic renditions of ships etc. What he demonstrates is that with CGI you can make anything. Do you get my point here? This is nonsense. Let's move back to reality OK?

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Look at the picture. A carrier carrying subs? PLEASE!:D I know you're still on cruise ship time but c'mon. LMAO!


I believe that we need to have an open mind. I don't believe the design that is offered, is necessary or even possible. However, I believe that a submarine designed as a platform for UCAV's is possible and might be quite handy in the littoral zone for pre-invasion or advanced reconnaissance prior to operations near a coast or inland sea.

[john964]

Forget Aircraft Maintance and the like.

The thing has 4 additional Subs attached too it. Nuke Subs may be quite by themselves, but you stick 4 or 5 of them in one location all turning their screws, there is going to be noise. I counted 5 because I immagine that this thing is going to have a power plant of its own.


The Typhoon is the largest Sub in the World. It is nearly the size of a WW II Aircraft Carrier.Ed The Typhoon class is more the size and weight of a WWI era battleship.

Also about those subs attached to this CVSSBN(?). The big one how the hell are you going to attach or dock these things. Are you going to use a hard or a soft dock? Where will you dock or attach ie surface or subsurface? Are you going to try to tranfer crew or supplies? Are these subs going to act like propulser pods or are they just do station keeping?

[john964]

Here's a thought about those SSN's alongside, what if while the CVSSBN is underway and the forward SSN has an accident and breaks its moorings(whatever) I would really hate to be in the rear SSN because theres going to be a nasty collission that will at the very least put both SSN's OOA for several months while the subs are being repaired. The aft sub has a fairly good chance of surviving, but the forward one is going to face some tough odds due to shaft damage and the popping of the shaft seals.

[keschofield]

Dennis:

Look at the picture. A carrier carrying subs? PLEASE!:D I know you're still on cruise ship time but c'mon. LMAO!

Ed,

While the idea is a crazy one and probably is just fantasy, it is not impossible. Crazies often actually get built. Look in your Conways for round Russian battleships.

Sometimes a good idea gets sunk by crazy use. Who in their right mind ever thought that taking the USS Monitor out into the open sea was a good idea?

Sometimes what seems like a good idea turns into a crazy because the times change. The best example here is the Yamato and Musashi.

Finally, IIRC, submarines have carried smaller subs, dirigibles have carried airplanes, so why couldn't a carrier carry subs. It may not be tactically sound, but, as I said, is not physically impossible.

[thevanderploegs]

The comment about the Typhoons being the size of WWII aircraft carriers comes from the movie "The Hunt For Red October" where Ryan gives the submerged displacement of the Typhoon and compares it to the size of a WWII carrier. If the sub and the carrier have similar displacements (the sub is submerged remember) that still means the dimensionally, the old CV is still much larger than the sub. The line is delivered in the movie like that to 'wow' an audience that, for the most part, doesn't know the difference between dimensional 'size' and displacement.

Similar to when you watch one of the documentaries on the History channel and they tell you the USS Ronald Reagan weighs 125,000 tons (or whatever the actual figure is - I'm at work here). It weighs much more than that, it displaces 125,000 tons of water - not the same thing.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ed The Typhoon class is more the size and weight of a WWI era battleship.

Also about those subs attached to this CVSSBN(?). The big one how the hell are you going to attach or dock these things. Are you going to use a hard or a soft dock? Where will you dock or attach ie surface or subsurface? Are you going to try to tranfer crew or supplies? Are these subs going to act like propulser pods or are they just do station keeping?

John:

You won't get any argument form me on this. It's total nonsense unless those subs are midget subs. Then why bother?

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ed,

While the idea is a crazy one and probably is just fantasy, it is not impossible. Crazies often actually get built. Look in your Conways for round Russian battleships.

Sometimes a good idea gets sunk by crazy use. Who in their right mind ever thought that taking the USS Monitor out into the open sea was a good idea?

Sometimes what seems like a good idea turns into a crazy because the times change. The best example here is the Yamato and Musashi.

Finally, IIRC, submarines have carried smaller subs, dirigibles have carried airplanes, so why couldn't a carrier carry subs. It may not be tactically sound, but, as I said, is not physically impossible.

Kurt:

I agree that crazy ideas sometimes get built (hell the US was considering a nuclear powered strategic bomber in the 1950s). But exactly how big is this carrier supposed to be? Even a small sub is pretty large and any nuke boat is going to be big. Looks too much like somebody's idea of having fun with CGI. Are the subs supposed to be the carrier's escorts? if so why aren't they undewater? Or are these low endurance diesel boats meant to be released before the carrier approaches littoral waters? I can't really take this one seriously old friend.;)

[Ed Rotondaro]

The comment about the Typhoons being the size of WWII aircraft carriers comes from the movie "The Hunt For Red October" where Ryan gives the submerged displacement of the Typhoon and compares it to the size of a WWII carrier. If the sub and the carrier have similar displacements (the sub is submerged remember) that still means the dimensionally, the old CV is still much larger than the sub. The line is delivered in the movie like that to 'wow' an audience that, for the most part, doesn't know the difference between dimensional 'size' and displacement.

Similar to when you watch one of the documentaries on the History channel and they tell you the USS Ronald Reagan weighs 125,000 tons (or whatever the actual figure is - I'm at work here). It weighs much more than that, it displaces 125,000 tons of water - not the same thing.

Good points. While Ohio class boomers displace about as much as WWII cruiser and are pretty long, there are no subs as large as even a WWII carrier.

[Kyle Holgate]

Practicality aside, there would be some advantages to the submersible carrier. For one thing she'd be fairly immune from most conventional attacks such as cruise missiles. An alpha strike from a US CVN would be rendered useless at once when the ship submerged.
You would have to attack with ASW homing torpedoes and the like at least from the air though of course an SSN would have a field day against such a ship.

AWACs wouldn't be able to find her until she surfaced and presumably she could handle the usual ASW aircraft like the P-3, P-8 or Nimrod.

Don't get me wrong, I think the idea isn't practical (as said earlier) but you have to admit - looking at it from a purely operational side - it would have some advantages over VTOL or STOL carriers.

[john964]

Practicality aside, there would be some advantages to the submersible carrier. For one thing she'd be fairly immune from most conventional attacks such as cruise missiles. An alpha strike from a US CVN would be rendered useless at once when the ship submerged.
You would have to attack with ASW homing torpedoes and the like at least from the air though of course an SSN would have a field day against such a ship.

AWACs wouldn't be able to find her until she surfaced and presumably she could handle the usual ASW aircraft like the P-3, P-8 or Nimrod.

Don't get me wrong, I think the idea isn't practical (as said earlier) but you have to admit - looking at it from a purely operational side - it would have some advantages over VTOL or STOL carriers.
Who would need homing torpedos theis thing is so large it would have trouble outmanuvering a cloud shadow.

[djcyclone]

Good points. While Ohio class boomers displace about as much as WWII cruiser and are pretty long, there are no subs as large as even a WWII carrier.


You guys's are killing me. No one said what kind of WW II Carrier!

Here are the Dimensions for those of you who would still argue.

Typhoon SSBN
Length: 574 ft 2 in
Beam: 75 ft 6 in
Displacement: 48,000 maximum load and submerged
24,500 tons maximum load sufaced

Ohio SSBN
Length: 560 ft
Beam: 42 ft
Displacement: 18,750 tons submerged
16,764 tons sufaced

Independence Class Escort Carrier
Length: 600 ft
Beam: 71 1/2 ft
Displacement: 13,000 tons full load

Again the movie did not indicate what kind of WW II Aircraft Carrier, and the ship I listed was just one of the probabilities. As you can see, the displacement is way out of the park, and the SSBN's are blowing the Carrier away. The Lexington Class Aircraft Carrier was only 850 feet long, so still not that far away, and had a dicplacement of 33,000 tons fully loaded.

The Typhoon is well within the dimensions of a WW II Carrier.

[old_pop2000]

You guys's are killing me. No one said what kind of WW II Carrier!

Here are the Dimensions for those of you who would still argue.

Typhoon SSBN
Length: 574 ft 2 in
Beam: 75 ft 6 in
Displacement: 48,000 maximum load and submerged
24,500 tons maximum load sufaced

Ohio SSBN
Length: 560 ft
Beam: 42 ft
Displacement: 18,750 tons submerged
16,764 tons sufaced

Independence Class Escort Carrier
Length: 600 ft
Beam: 71 1/2 ft
Displacement: 13,000 tons full load

Again the movie did not indicate what kind of WW II Aircraft Carrier, and the ship I listed was just one of the probabilities. As you can see, the displacement is way out of the park, and the SSBN's are blowing the Carrier away. The Lexington Class Aircraft Carrier was only 850 feet long, so still not that far away, and had a dicplacement of 33,000 tons fully loaded.

The Typhoon is well within the dimensions of a WW II Carrier.

Just as a reminder. The long hulled Essex class carriers, termed SCB 27C carriers displaced 43,600 tons at 872 feet long. The USS Saratoga, when fully loaded in 1942 was 888 feet long and weighed 43,000 tons with the stores, fuel and the airwing aboard.
:p

[john964]

You guys's are killing me. No one said what kind of WW II Carrier!

Here are the Dimensions for those of you who would still argue.

Typhoon SSBN
Length: 574 ft 2 in
Beam: 75 ft 6 in
Displacement: 48,000 maximum load and submerged
24,500 tons maximum load sufaced

Ohio SSBN
Length: 560 ft
Beam: 42 ft
Displacement: 18,750 tons submerged
16,764 tons sufaced

Independence Class Escort Carrier
Length: 600 ft
Beam: 71 1/2 ft
Displacement: 13,000 tons full load

Again the movie did not indicate what kind of WW II Aircraft Carrier, and the ship I listed was just one of the probabilities. As you can see, the displacement is way out of the park, and the SSBN's are blowing the Carrier away. The Lexington Class Aircraft Carrier was only 850 feet long, so still not that far away, and had a dicplacement of 33,000 tons fully loaded.

The Typhoon is well within the dimensions of a WW II Carrier.
I said WWI era Battleship
Nevada Class
Length: 583ft
Beam:108ft
Displacment: 31700t full load
Pennslyvania Class
Lenght: 608ft
Beam: 106ft
Displacment: 36000t full load

[Ed Rotondaro]

Just as a reminder. The long hulled Essex class carriers, termed SCB 27C carriers displaced 43,600 tons at 872 feet long. The USS Saratoga, when fully loaded in 1942 was 888 feet long and weighed 43,000 tons with the stores, fuel and the airwing aboard.
:p

Dennis:

Thank you for clarifying this. I was refering to the big fleet carriers.

[thevanderploegs]

Don't want to split hairs here, but I'm not talking just length when I mentioned dimensions. Since we use the submerged displacement of the sub (ie: its entire volume displacing water) we'd have to do the same with the carrier. Less than half the hull of a typical carrier (in terms of volume) sits below the waterline.

Compare overall length, beam and height (perhaps minus the carriers island and minus the sub's sail) and you'll see what I'm getting at.

Regards,
Gary

[old_pop2000]

Don't want to split hairs here, but I'm not talking just length when I mentioned dimensions. Since we use the submerged displacement of the sub (ie: its entire volume displacing water) we'd have to do the same with the carrier. Less than half the hull of a typical carrier (in terms of volume) sits below the waterline.

Compare overall length, beam and height (perhaps minus the carriers island and minus the sub's sail) and you'll see what I'm getting at.

Regards,
Gary

Actually, displacement is a measure of a ship's mass at any given time, in long tons. It really refers to the mass of the water that the ship will displace when floating. The measurement of volume or capacity is net or gross tonnage or deadweight tonnage. The two terms are different. For a submarine, you have quoted a surfaced displacement and a submerged displacement. Obviously, submerged is greater.

A submarine, like any vessel, must be designed to float in the water where its weight is supported by buoyancy forces due to the displacement of the water by its hull. So, if you compare the surface displacement of a submarine with a surface ship, you are comparing apples to apples. But if you compare the submerged displacement to the surface displacement of a carrier, that is comparing apples to oranges.

Examples:

Typhoon class Ballistic Missile Submarine - Submerged displacement - 33,270-47,240 long tons versus surfaced displacement - 22,830-24,110 long tons.

The USS Saratoga, in 1945 had a displacement of 53,000 long tons.

The principle of displacement is based on the Archimedian Law that all floating bodies on being immersed in a liquid push aside a volume of the liquid equal in weight to the weight of the body immersed. Immersing a vessel in salt water, is less displacement than in fresh, BTW. There are 35 cubic feet of salt water in one ton. So, if we determine the volume of a ship, divide that figure by 35, we arrive at the weight or displacement in tons. If ships were boxes, it would be very easy, but they are curvilinear and things get really complicated and rules like Simpson's, trapezoidal and Tchibyscheff's method of calculating the volume then are used. Way beyond this old guy, believe me.

[thevanderploegs]

Old_pop, I couldn't have said it better. (Really I can't). But that's what I was trying to get at.

-Gary