SWATH aircraft carriers -- the lack there off.

New and old developments in aviation technology.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

count_to_10

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2109
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post11 Apr 2012, 02:08

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.
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2271
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post11 Apr 2012, 18:19

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' :thumb:
TEG
[Airplanes are] near perfect, all they lack is the ability to forgive.
— Richard Collins
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4819
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post11 Apr 2012, 22:13

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."
Offline

count_to_10

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2109
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post11 Apr 2012, 22:22

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.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4819
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post11 Apr 2012, 22:41

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."
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post12 Apr 2012, 04:05

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.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4819
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post12 Apr 2012, 04:21

IIRC they will fit the new locks.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post12 Apr 2012, 06:27

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.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4819
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post12 Apr 2012, 07:13

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."
Offline

count_to_10

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2109
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post12 Apr 2012, 23:13

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.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.

Return to Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests