US Navy Ultracarrier

[Belesari]

Lots of issues with how this would work from a structural perspective, particualry in large seas where one hull may be on the rise while the other is driving in if you try to cross a swell (whihc you have to do unless you want to restrict yourself to one course). The other issue is tunnel slam and pressure. The day dream pictures show two massive displacement monohulls joined together rather that semi swath, planing or piecing hulls. Imagine the fun with the pressure and suction zones down the hulls in the tunnel as this thing races along (assumeing like its size the proponents wants a ridicoulously high speed).

As far as the size of the submerged area is concerned this is driven by displacement and a cat or trimaran of 320000 tonnes will displace the same volume of water at a given density as a monohull. High speed cats succeed by having low displacement with large surface areas for cars etc, however, it means they have very limitied deadwieght (carrying capacity) compared to a monohull of comparable length.

I remember Way back in the late 90's i think watching a tv show. Now in it this guy wanted to take oil rigs and use them as the basis for a HUGE like 3,000ftx500ft or so aircraft carrier. Really more of a massive floating airfield. The idea was that this would go into a area and either stop or slowly cruise along and you could operate C-130's and other medium size aircraft off of it. Would basicly be a SeaBase.

Never been able to find a link for it. I thought it was cool. Not sure if it would work But it had a coolness factor of 10 LOL.

 

[Belesari]

Let's not forget why we haven't completely abandoned manned aircraft. UAVs don't yet have the precision of manned aircraft. And UAV can be disconnected from the controller. In a malfunction, which is less likely with UAVs but still possible, there would be no human to correct the situation and make in the moment intuitive and practical decisions. And let's not forget speed which is vital in aerial warfare. This UAV is a greater asset as recon, but strike is, like you said secondary. I do think that the manned aerial recon is gone. Unless there is a case of another blackbird. That is unlikely to come about, but that would have to be manned still.

Yes manned recon is most probably gone forever in most cases. Wouldn't give it to much longer before the airforce is working on making a high speed high altitude UAV.

Already have the X-37 which could work incase a satelite is taken out of a quick deployable recon vehicle with hundreds of days of time ontarget getting data or relaying com etc.

 

[Bonza]

The guy i first heard say it retired from the navy after decades. He simply ment that this replaces Tomahawk strikes and gives carriers more flexability. NOT that it replaces or IS a tomahawk. Its just a longer ranged cheaper and in many ways politicaly cheaper weapons system.

No one gripes if a tomahawk gets shot down or a predator. No one has to burry a son or daughter.

Slice it any way you like, what you said was "I think the best way to describe the X-47 that i have heard is that its a reuseable tomahawk", and that's still a ridiculous statement. You don't say a Predator is a "reusable Hellfire" because they're very obviously not the same thing, so why you or anyone else would draw a similar analogy with the X-47 is confusing to me.

 

[LloydTasiD]

Yes manned recon is most probably gone forever in most cases. Wouldn't give it to much longer before the airforce is working on making a high speed high altitude UAV.

Already have the X-37 which could work incase a satelite is taken out of a quick deployable recon vehicle with hundreds of days of time ontarget getting data or relaying com etc.

Yeah your're right, high altitude high velocity UAV could come eventually. Actually, now that I think more about it, the technology capability really isn't that far off.
That would be very excellent practical use of the X-37.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Yeah your're right, high altitude high velocity UAV will come eventually. Actually, now that I think more about it, the technology capability really isn't that far off.
That would be very excellent practical use of the X-37.

Thats not what the development curve is doing though.

UAV advantages are subsonic - not supersonic.

the weapons development for the last 10 years is about hypersonic weapons - hence the successfull hypersonic weapons test this week.

its about having LO UAV's that can penetrate space and launch weapons that are hypersonic and don't provide sufficient defensive reaction times.

Nobody is developing hi speed UAV's for a reason.

 

[LloydTasiD]

Thats not what the development curve is doing though.

UAV advantages are subsonic - not supersonic.

the weapons development for the last 10 years is about hypersonic weapons - hence the successfull hypersonic weapons test this week.

its about having LO UAV's that can penetrate space and launch weapons that are hypersonic and don't provide sufficient defensive reaction times.

Nobody is developing hi speed UAV's for a reason.

Okay, I withdraw my statement. I don't think high altitude high velocity UAV will come. I do think the technology capability is near. But I don't think it will come because it would more beneficial to put funds in other areas, such as the ones you mentioned.

 

[gf0012-aust]

in rough absolutes, the faster a weapons platform flies, the larger it needs to be to achieve a given range

its not about speed, its about penetration in contested/complex space and range before weapons release.

multi stage hypersonics are an ideal parter for subsonic LO UAV's as well as extant LO manned solutions (lo or hi mach solutions)

high altitude UAV's have a role as nodes in the network and as companion ISR solutions. you don't want speed for those roles.

 

[LloydTasiD]

I remember Way back in the late 90's i think watching a tv show. Now in it this guy wanted to take oil rigs and use them as the basis for a HUGE like 3,000ftx500ft or so aircraft carrier. Really more of a massive floating airfield. The idea was that this would go into a area and either stop or slowly cruise along and you could operate C-130's and other medium size aircraft off of it. Would basicly be a SeaBase.

Never been able to find a link for it. I thought it was cool. Not sure if it would work But it had a coolness factor of 10 LOL.

An installation like that would have to be self sufficient. Some how have its own renewing energy circuit. Same thing with waste and food. Food would be a tough one. It would just be too much to try and supply something like that by standard ship resupply methods. It'd need commerce too. It would have to be a true floating city. And the costs! Man the costs on that would be massive! Immense! Like nothing ever before!
But all feasibility matters aside, that would be an awesome thing to have out at sea. That would be quite the piece of military strength. Theoretically.

in rough absolutes, the faster a weapons platform flies, the larger it needs to be to achieve a given range

its not about speed, its about penetration in contested/complex space and range before weapons release.

multi stage hypersonics are an ideal parter for subsonic LO UAV's as well as extant LO manned solutions (lo or hi mach solutions)

high altitude UAV's have a role as nodes in the network and as companion ISR solutions. you don't want speed for those roles.

Speed was an asset for the blackbird. Because it flew so high and so fast, it could never be shot down. The migs couldn't catch it, and the SAMs, though faster, would run out of fuel before getting high enough and catching the bird. But now missiles are even faster, so speed may not even work anymore as a sheild.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Speed was an asset for the blackbird. Because it flew so high and so fast, it could never be shot down. The migs couldn't catch it, and the SAMs, though faster, would run out of fuel before getting high enough and catching the bird. But now missiles are even faster, so speed may not even work anymore as a sheild.

speed was a limited benefit which is why it got pulled from doing runs over the soviet union in the 70's

it was less capable at pulling the ISR needed and which is why it was replaced with satellites such as keyhole.

it was viable prior to 1974. Its 2011

you're taking a very simplistic view of the merits of speed.against the capability requirements.

why do you think that the west moved away from mach 3 manned assets in the late 60's.

 

[alexsa]

An installation like that would have to be self sufficient. Some how have its own renewing energy circuit. Same thing with waste and food. Food would be a tough one. It would just be too much to try and supply something like that by standard ship resupply methods. It'd need commerce too. It would have to be a true floating city. And the costs! Man the costs on that would be massive! Immense! Like nothing ever before!
But all feasibility matters aside, that would be an awesome thing to have out at sea. That would be quite the piece of military strength. Theoretically.

I dont support day dreams but very large offshore floating facilites (say 480m LOA with 78m beam monohull) are a practical reality.............. but not as a dynamic platform such as an aircraft carrier. The vessels will be completely supplied by sea. The supply issue is not the problem

 

[swerve]

You're thinking in terms of a floating base? Something that can be moved (slowly) to wherever it's wanted, & left there for a long period?

 

[Belesari]

You're thinking in terms of a floating base? Something that can be moved (slowly) to wherever it's wanted, & left there for a long period?

Yea that was the originl idea.

Basicly because of the political problems in basing troops in lets say unfriendly countries.

The idea wasnt for a super fleet carrier on steroids but basicly a large mobile airbase capable of landing, repairing and launching everything from fighters to C-130's.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I've seen "images" of landing C-17 at sea. (I've also seen fanciful artistic images of 747 landing on a cruise ship.)

A 500mx75m platform/hull doesn't sound overtly farfeched. Refuelling could be done by RAS fleet oiler or simular ship. Enough power for station keeping only or just electrical generation for operations. Everything could be loaded onto other ships/boats or other aircraft from this supersized seabase. While Im sure it could be done in calm weather with atleast a C-130 sized aircraft. Im not sure how practical it would be for open oceans (outside of protected bays and harbors which defeats its purpose).

Moving to C17 sized aircraft would make the whole thing way more viable, as you can direct flight resources in like any other airport does. But this would push the size up (cost, complexity, risk etc) conciderably. However if they could solve those issues the US would probably build one.

 

[StingrayOZ]

If we are talking about fanciful structures, why not a military version of the Freedom ship.

You have a dock that can accept a Wasp class ship, or two
http://freedomship.com/freedomship/gallery/new/stern_interior_high.jpg

http://freedomship.com/freedomship/gallery/new/bow_high.jpg
And aviation facilities big enough to handle multiple C17's.

And accommodation for 10,000's+ of personnel. All it would take is 50+ billion. All in one slow moving, no damage control, fall over in bad weather target.

 

[t68]

If we are talking about fanciful structures, why not a military version of the Freedom ship.

You have a dock that can accept a Wasp class ship, or two
http://freedomship.com/freedomship/gallery/new/stern_interior_high.jpg

http://freedomship.com/freedomship/gallery/new/bow_high.jpg
And aviation facilities big enough to handle multiple C17's.

And accommodation for 10,000's+ of personnel. All it would take is 50+ billion. All in one slow moving, no damage control, fall over in bad weather target.

Looks like a place for the Packers and Murdoch of the world.

 

[LloydTasiD]

speed was a limited benefit which is why it got pulled from doing runs over the soviet union in the 70's

it was less capable at pulling the ISR needed and which is why it was replaced with satellites such as keyhole.

it was viable prior to 1974. Its 2011

you're taking a very simplistic view of the merits of speed.against the capability requirements.

why do you think that the west moved away from mach 3 manned assets in the late 60's.

The point I'm making is that the UAVs can get shot down. The blackbird couldn't. Not discussing anything on recon ability.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The point I'm making is that the UAVs can get shot down. The blackbird couldn't. Not discussing anything on recon ability.

why bring up the blackbird at all then? - its an ISR asset - it never was a combat asset.

The YF-12's were stillborn and never got into an active combat role either - the F108 was going to be the mach 3 interceptor/escort and she also got dumped when the US got out of the Mach 3 business.

you are still not understanding that 50 years ago we understood that subsonic aircraft (including UAV's) have a far better chance of penerating enemy battlespace to complete a mission.

hi speed is heat, = detection

50 years ago we moved away from hi mach manned assets, 50 years ago we moved to subsonic cruise missiles - all for a reason.

There is NO point flying fast if you can't do your mission.

 

[StevoJH]

hi speed is heat, = detection

Important point that. Not much point developing a platform that is LO or VLO via radar detection if it could be detected by a thermal camera with its speed, range and course isolated via triangulation.

Launch a SAM into a 'box' around the target that is fitted with IR seekers.....

Would a target that fast/hot be detectable via satellite?

Or am I completely 'off target'?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Important point that. Not much point developing a platform that is LO or VLO via radar detection if it could be detected by a thermal camera with its speed, range and course isolated via triangulation.

Launch a SAM into a 'box' around the target that is fitted with IR seekers.....

Would a target that fast/hot be detectable via satellite?

Or am I completely 'off target'?

Heat detection by satellites has been available for decades

the issue is about track management with only thermal detectors, and thats the other realirt, there are companion sensors that are also in play.

anyway having succumbed to some of the incorrect asserttions that were off topic in the first place, I'm putting my Mod hat back on and pushing back to the original topic thread.

any other chat about mach 3 mechanics can go to a new post of the posters making.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Mega float.
Offical japanese government page on megafloat and aircraft
A Stamp of Approval to Mega-Float Airport Feasibility
More information
Megafloat -- Floating Runway Built on the Ocean in Japan

Megafloat being used to help clean up nuclear waste.
Mega-Float readies for service at Fukushima

So building a runway of 1000mx121m has already been done, and now they are looking at 4km runways. However these are strictly for protected bays etc not open oceans.

So it really doesn't get around the problem of government permission etc to operate as you would be operating in territorial waters. But I would imagine a 4kmx200m runway would proberly be big enough to allow C17 to operate, certainly hercs.