| Author |
Message |
|
count_to_10
|
 Posted: Apr 11, 2012 - 03:08 AM
|
 
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: Mar 10, 2012 - 03:38 PM
Posts: 1397
Status: Offline
|
| I'm thinking this is actually the place to ask this question on this forum. I reciently came across the "Small-waterplane-area twin hull" concept ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWATH ), which, in addition to providing broad deck space and good high sea state stability, could probably have a very small wake (for those wake homing torpedoes). Given that the technology dates back to 1938, and no country has produced a SWATH aircraft carrier, I'm wondering what the fatal flaw is. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
 Posted: Jun 19, 2013 - 5:56 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
|
|
That_Engine_Guy
|
|
Posted: Apr 11, 2012 - 07:19 PM
|
|
|
Elite 2K
Joined: Dec 14, 2005 - 05:03 AM
Posts: 2208
Location: Under the engine somewhere.
Status: Offline
|
|
count_to_10 wrote:
I'm thinking this is actually the place to ask this question on this forum. I reciently came across the "Small-waterplane-area twin hull" concept ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWATH ), which, in addition to providing broad deck space and good high sea state stability, could probably have a very small wake (for those wake homing torpedoes). Given that the technology dates back to 1938, and no country has produced a SWATH aircraft carrier, I'm wondering what the fatal flaw is.
I'm no 'Naval Guy" but I'll give my thoughts on the SWATH's fatal flaws as relating to a carrier hull.
1 - Space for 3 MILLION gallons of jet fuel
2 - Space for Neuclear propulsion
3 - Hangar/maintenance space
4 - Enough space for a 'city' housing and supporting between 4 and 6 THOUSAND people
5 - Logistical storage for the above to sustain "extended operations without replenishment"
Just to name a few?
Keep 'em flyin' 
TEG |
_________________
[Airplanes are] near perfect, all they lack is the ability to forgive.
— Richard Collins
|
|
|
|
|
|
SpudmanWP
|
|
Posted: Apr 11, 2012 - 11:13 PM
|
|
|
Elite 3K
Joined: Oct 12, 2006 - 08:18 PM
Posts: 4347
Location: California
Status: Offline
|
All of those can be addressed in the design of the carrier.
A bigger issue with swath design is that you have to keep it in the same footprint as the current carriers or you cannot fit it in the Panama locks. |
_________________
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
|
|
|
|
|
|
count_to_10
|
|
Posted: Apr 11, 2012 - 11:22 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: Mar 10, 2012 - 03:38 PM
Posts: 1397
Status: Offline
|
|
SpudmanWP wrote:
All of those can be addressed in the design of the carrier.
A bigger issue with swath design is that you have to keep it in the same footprint as the current carriers or you cannot fit it in the Panama locks.
Which is mostly an issue for the US, and not an issue at all if we are talking about smaller carriers to start with. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SpudmanWP
|
|
Posted: Apr 11, 2012 - 11:41 PM
|
|
|
Elite 3K
Joined: Oct 12, 2006 - 08:18 PM
Posts: 4347
Location: California
Status: Offline
|
| I do not think anyone (for now) can afford, in either cost or risk, to develop any other design besides the tried and true standard hull. |
_________________
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st503rdsgt
|
|
Posted: Apr 12, 2012 - 05:05 AM
|
|
|
Banned
Joined: Jan 23, 2011 - 01:23 AM
Posts: 1549
Status: Offline
|
|
SpudmanWP wrote:
All of those can be addressed in the design of the carrier.
A bigger issue with swath design is that you have to keep it in the same footprint as the current carriers or you cannot fit it in the Panama locks.
Current carriers can't fit anyways. |
_________________
The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SpudmanWP
|
|
Posted: Apr 12, 2012 - 05:21 AM
|
|
|
Elite 3K
Joined: Oct 12, 2006 - 08:18 PM
Posts: 4347
Location: California
Status: Offline
|
| IIRC they will fit the new locks. |
_________________
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st503rdsgt
|
|
Posted: Apr 12, 2012 - 07:27 AM
|
|
|
Banned
Joined: Jan 23, 2011 - 01:23 AM
Posts: 1549
Status: Offline
|
| Looks like you're right. Does that does not change the fact that fitting through Panama has been irrelevant to the design of carriers for quite some time. In any case, there are other reasons why SWATH has been disregarded. |
_________________
The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SpudmanWP
|
|
Posted: Apr 12, 2012 - 08:13 AM
|
|
|
Elite 3K
Joined: Oct 12, 2006 - 08:18 PM
Posts: 4347
Location: California
Status: Offline
|
Risk is the biggest reason. If it aint broke, don't fix it  |
_________________
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
|
|
|
|
|
|
count_to_10
|
|
Posted: Apr 13, 2012 - 12:13 AM
|
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: Mar 10, 2012 - 03:38 PM
Posts: 1397
Status: Offline
|
I suppose I can see that.
Mostly I was thinking in terms of wake-following torpedoes, as it stands to reason that a SWATH craft would have a smaller wake than a comparable mono-hull craft. |
_________________
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Register
Private Messages
Forum Guidelines
