|
|
Post by dizzy on Jul 8, 2019 7:48:00 GMT -6
Probably a fake ship, but I enjoyed reading it.
This could power an entire DLC. You could include twin and triple hulled ships and all the experimental and crazy types of ships/subcarriers, etc., that populated real and fictional lore all throughout the ages and let that be an option for new tech tree.
|
|
|
|
Post by alsadius on Jul 8, 2019 8:47:08 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by stevethecat on Jul 8, 2019 12:12:36 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by peregrine on Jul 8, 2019 12:55:27 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 8, 2019 19:36:53 GMT -6
The main issue with a dual hull carrier design is that there would be tremendous stresses on the center of the ships. The time period in RTW2 just does not have the scientific advancements in understanding the pressures from cross waves etc. Catamaran designs do not have enough space in the hulls to support an 80-120 plane air wing in this time period. Another issue is trying to get a very wide ship through a canal like the Panama Canal which was important in WW2 for the US. Another issue is hull damage to one hull and how it will affect the seakeeping ability of the ship which will directly affect the flight operations. You would have to have separate power systems in each hull to provide power to the hull spaces and the difference in propeller speed so far apart will affect handling of the ship. The main issues therefore are space availability and the torsion effect of one hull riding over a wave then the other. Smaller cats do not have this problem. Just my thoughts.
|
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Jul 8, 2019 23:15:13 GMT -6
The main issue with a dual hull carrier design is that there would be tremendous stresses on the center of the ships. The time period in RTW2 just does not have the scientific advancements in understanding the pressures from cross waves etc. Catamaran designs do not have enough space in the hulls to support an 80-120 plane air wing in this time period. Another issue is trying to get a very wide ship through a canal like the Panama Canal which was important in WW2 for the US. Another issue is hull damage to one hull and how it will affect the seakeeping ability of the ship which will directly affect the flight operations. You would have to have separate power systems in each hull to provide power to the hull spaces and the difference in propeller speed so far apart will affect handling of the ship. The main issues therefore are space availability and the torsion effect of one hull riding over a wave then the other. Smaller cats do not have this problem. Just my thoughts. Right on all that, oldpop2000. I'm sure with some added structural weight and tech advancements that some of the above could be overcome to produce a viable, yet expensive jack-of-all-trades and master-of-none sort of ship that would fill that niche of unique and fun exuberance some of us have for uber weapons platforms... |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 9, 2019 9:52:35 GMT -6
The main issue with a dual hull carrier design is that there would be tremendous stresses on the center of the ships. The time period in RTW2 just does not have the scientific advancements in understanding the pressures from cross waves etc. Catamaran designs do not have enough space in the hulls to support an 80-120 plane air wing in this time period. Another issue is trying to get a very wide ship through a canal like the Panama Canal which was important in WW2 for the US. Another issue is hull damage to one hull and how it will affect the seakeeping ability of the ship which will directly affect the flight operations. You would have to have separate power systems in each hull to provide power to the hull spaces and the difference in propeller speed so far apart will affect handling of the ship. The main issues therefore are space availability and the torsion effect of one hull riding over a wave then the other. Smaller cats do not have this problem. Just my thoughts. Right on all that, oldpop2000. I'm sure with some added structural weight and tech advancements that some of the above could be overcome to produce a viable, yet expensive jack-of-all-trades and master-of-none sort of ship that would fill that niche of unique and fun exuberance some of us have for uber weapons platforms... I understand that many on the forum want to build ships that were never considered or built, I am the same. I would like to build ships that were designed but never built. I have the same attitude toward aircraft. However, I would like the design to be possible technologically and scientifically or it is fantasy. I am not really into Star Wars stuff. Just a stuffy old man. |
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Jul 9, 2019 22:08:55 GMT -6
I'm with ya. This game is basically Turtledove and D i c k territory already. The constraint for not having these exuberant ship designs was probably historical, which this game allows the player to rewrite entirely. We don't need to proscribe to the notion that only three nations, Japan, UK, and USA were the only ones making carriers. Nor do we need to believe that a design such as we are discussing wasn't seriously funded. So I'm all for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 9, 2019 22:25:05 GMT -6
I'm with ya. This game is basically Turtledove and D i c k territory already. The constraint for not having these exuberant ship designs was probably historical, which this game allows the player to rewrite entirely. We don't need to proscribe to the notion that only three nations, Japan, UK, and USA were the only ones making carriers. Nor do we need to believe that a design such as we are discussing wasn't seriously funded. So I'm all for it. We know that seaplane carriers were popular. The Swedish Navy had one, The Italians, The Netherlands, The Romanians. The French built the Bearn and Joffre, the Germans built the Graf Zeppelin, and there were many others. However, the three you mentioned were the only nations to build a sizeable fleet carrier force. This was due to their strategic position in the world. As to the idea of the catamaran carrier, one problem is having a dockyard that can build such ship. A catamaran carrier could have a composite beam of over 30-400 feet with a 35-draft. Drydocking such a ship would require rebuilding or developing new facilities. Another issue is research on structural requirements for such a ship. Even today information is scanty. Anyway, this is just some of the issues. The Russians are designing a catamaran carrier but I have doubts that it will ever come to fruition. They have had trouble building mono-hulled carriers. www.wearethemighty.com/gear-tech/russia-new-revolutionary-catamaran-unlikely |
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Jul 9, 2019 23:40:31 GMT -6
I'm a fan of catamaran carriers because of the hydrodynamic efficiency offsetting the drag of twin hulls. Water would be compressed and sped up between the hulls allowing for more dense water to pass through and be further accelerated by a central jet drive propulsion method rather than having the props on either side of the twin hulls. This is markedly different than the Russian design above which bifurcates the hulls toward the stern in a dovetail fashion. This allows for two landing decks to run parallel down the length of the ship which supports 4 catapults and acts as either twin launch decks, landing decks or one of each. No more do you need full length carrier decks.
I think it deserves a chance. I mean, I read about the 508 carrier with cushioned rubber landing decks and launch cradles so jets could do without landing gear... there's a lot of crazy stuff out there to play around with so this idea isn't so nutty.
|
|
|
|
Post by alsadius on Jul 10, 2019 7:43:13 GMT -6
If the base game is stable and well-polished, an "Exotic Ships" expansion pack would be fine by me. Reminds me of Sunset Invasion for CK2, which was controversial, but which I liked the idea of. But that time is 2021 or so, not today.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blothorn on Jul 10, 2019 12:28:06 GMT -6
I'm a fan of catamaran carriers because of the hydrodynamic efficiency offsetting the drag of twin hulls. Water would be compressed and sped up between the hulls allowing for more dense water to pass through and be further accelerated by a central jet drive propulsion method rather than having the props on either side of the twin hulls. This is markedly different than the Russian design above which bifurcates the hulls toward the stern in a dovetail fashion. This allows for two landing decks to run parallel down the length of the ship which supports 4 catapults and acts as either twin launch decks, landing decks or one of each. No more do you need full length carrier decks. I think it deserves a chance. I mean, I read about the 508 carrier with cushioned rubber landing decks and launch cradles so jets could do without landing gear... there's a lot of crazy stuff out there to play around with so this idea isn't so nutty. "More dense water"? |
|
|
|
Post by kelseyeek on Jul 12, 2019 10:16:13 GMT -6
I always presumed that the primary benefit of a catamaran carrier to be in deck ops and sortie generation rate. You don't have to clear the deck to launch or recover aircraft. At the same time it would take multiple deck hits to put the carrier out of action, with a much higher likelihood of retaining at least 50% capacity. And given that, I'd thought that perhaps it would potentially enable a lower displacement carrier to match the performance of a fleet carrier. It'd only make sense if that weight savings was substantial - since and angled flight deck allows the mono-hull configuration to have the same benefits.
And depending on how it's configured (what the center island looks like), a not insignificant amount of servicing and rearming could be done without taking the airplanes down to a hangar. I'm still confused on the hangar capacity question - why do we assume the hangars would be in the hull, as opposed to a structure lying across the top of the two hulls?
Regardless, the structural loads issue probably makes the point moot. Now a trimaran carrier, on the other hand...
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 12, 2019 14:19:57 GMT -6
I always presumed that the primary benefit of a catamaran carrier to be in deck ops and sortie generation rate. You don't have to clear the deck to launch or recover aircraft. At the same time it would take multiple deck hits to put the carrier out of action, with a much higher likelihood of retaining at least 50% capacity. And given that, I'd thought that perhaps it would potentially enable a lower displacement carrier to match the performance of a fleet carrier. It'd only make sense if that weight savings was substantial - since and angled flight deck allows the mono-hull configuration to have the same benefits. And depending on how it's configured (what the center island looks like), a not insignificant amount of servicing and rearming could be done without taking the airplanes down to a hangar. I'm still confused on the hangar capacity question - why do we assume the hangars would be in the hull, as opposed to a structure lying across the top of the two hulls? Regardless, the structural loads issue probably makes the point moot. Now a trimaran carrier, on the other hand... Maintenance on aircraft except for minor procedures like torpedo and bomb racks or even radios and homing equipment to verify performance can be done on the deck, but if it is a flight hours check, engine problem or even a major structural issue, the aircraft has to be in a hangar below the deck. The deck is where aircraft land and take-off. It is a very dangerous place and you don't want your maintenance crews up there even in a box on the deck. Along with this, is weather. The maintenance crews must have a safe, weather-free area to work in, to get the job done quickly and efficiently. The two functions must be separate, maintenance and air group management. |
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Jul 12, 2019 22:44:59 GMT -6
I'm still confused on the hangar capacity question - why do we assume the hangars would be in the hull, as opposed to a structure lying across the top of the two hulls? For one thing, it's one more thing topside for an aircraft to plow into in a landing accident. The island kind of has to be there, the hangar doesn't. |
|
