Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
About Deviant G-JenkinsUnknown Recent Activity
Deviant for 3 Years
Needs Core Membership
Statistics 26 Deviations 26 Comments 14,339 Pageviews
×

Newest Deviations

USS Zumwalt with 2 Small Trimaran Carriers. :icong-jenkins:G-Jenkins 8 0 USS Zumwalt with other carriers. :icong-jenkins:G-Jenkins 16 1 Tri-sport Excelsior :icong-jenkins:G-Jenkins 3 0 MAACS: Multihull Air Amphibious Carrier - Small :icong-jenkins:G-Jenkins 11 6 MAACS: Multihull Air Amphibious Carrier - Small :icong-jenkins:G-Jenkins 3 0 MAACS: Multihull Air Amphibious Carrier - Small :icong-jenkins:G-Jenkins 8 2 Titanic (new) RMS Gigantic :icong-jenkins:G-Jenkins 7 1 MAAC ONE: Multihull Air Amphibious Carrier :icong-jenkins:G-Jenkins 29 2 MAAC ONE: MULTIHULL AIR AMPHIBIOUS CARRIER :icong-jenkins:G-Jenkins 23 6 MAAC ONE: MULTIHULL AIR AMPHIBIOUS CARRIER :icong-jenkins:G-Jenkins 17 3 TRITON Small Multihull Air Amphibious Carrier :icong-jenkins:G-Jenkins 11 1 Titanic (New) RMS Gigantic :icong-jenkins:G-Jenkins 9 2 Titanic (New) RMS Gigantic :icong-jenkins:G-Jenkins 13 0 Titanic (New) RMS Gigantic :icong-jenkins:G-Jenkins 10 0 Titanic (New) RMS Gigantic :icong-jenkins:G-Jenkins 6 1 Titanic (New) RMS Gigantic :icong-jenkins:G-Jenkins 8 1

Activity


Tri-sport Excelsior
Unfinished SketchUp model of a 54M trimaran yacht that I found on my HDD, started a few months ago and will probably finish one day. The design idea was to have deck space each side with sliding doors on each side of the lounge and dining area.
Loading...
MAACS: Multihull Air Amphibious Carrier - Small

Front view.


MULTIHULL AIR AMPHIBIOUS CARRIER - SMALL:-  MAACS


Length - 400ft.
Beam - 225ft.
Power - Diesel / Gas.
Speed - 20 - 30 Kn.
Range - Up to 10,000 Nm (at 20 Kn).
Crew -  Depending on requirements (Approx 500 - 750).
Aircraft - Up to 20:  15 x UCAVs (including MALE UAV) / F 35Bs / V 22 & 5 heavy lift / attack helicopters.
Amphibious - 2 x LCAC, up to 6 RIBs or 2 small Subs.
Build - 2 - ?? (depending on budget).


The cost and complexity of building very large multihull carriers would be enormous but small carriers would be viable.

The advantages of a multihull design for a carrier include stability, survivability and interior volume. A tri-hull has the benefit over a twin hull design by allowing the central hull to be protected by the outer hulls and so would likely contain the most crucial of systems. In the event of a side-on strike, 'theoretically' the carrier should stay afloat by the other 2 hulls - the central hull having a much broader beam.

Based on a common modular constructed platform, the MAACS carrier could be configured to any navy`s requirements and may also be built in larger numbers as an alternative to supercarriers. They would be able to undertake multiple roles using swap out mission modules.

The design is basically a box sitting on 3 hulls giving a large interior volume for its size. The outer hulls are wave piercing with the sides flaring outwards to maximize flight deck width. The superstructure front (with concealed armament and countermeasures) also flares outwards but at a more extreme angle for water deflection. The stern contains a well deck for amphibious capability and there are also 2 small decks used for observation and possible gun or other mounting. The broad beam gives the carrier good stability in rougher seas and a shallower draught than a monohull, ideal for accessing shallower waters which would be beneficial for roles such as delivering aid.

The hangar occupies space spanning across the full width of the carrier and most of its length. There are 2 transverse bulkheads which partition the hangar into 3 areas, these bulkheads give crucial support to the flight deck above. The island structure contains a garage for the fire tender, situated below the flight control room.

The flight deck has 1 lift (although the design could be easily modified to contain 2,  1 on portside aswell), large enough for 3 UCAV`s or 2 fighter jets or 1 helo to be lifted in one go. The runway is positioned down the middle for maximum length with the inclusion of a ski-jump for maximum lift on take off (STOVL variant of UCAV and F35 - there has been much debate whether the advantages of a ski-jump is worthwhile over the loss of deck space for parking but with a smaller airwing needing less space, the inclusion is more beneficial). There are no cats 'n' traps for cost effectiveness, instead, aircraft are held in place near the back of the runway (no need for jet blast deflector) and then released when up to sufficiently required power for take off, with vertical or most likely SRVL (rolling landing) on return. The inclusion of a safety net could be added for SRVL. Parking would be to starboard side of the runway and landing on portside or on the runway itself.

Loading...
MAACS: Multihull Air Amphibious Carrier - Small

Image shows starboard view of 2 MAACS carriers with loading of aid and launching of a UCAV.


The question is: Are large, very expensive supercarriers still viable in present day and future naval warfare? As has been known in numerous naval exercises, a supercarrier is not easy to defend and can be sunk with ease and with the development and advancement of hypersonic anti-ship missiles, super quiet (AIP) attack subs and smart torpedoes which even rogue states may obtain in the future, the supercarrier is becoming more vulnerable than ever. Could cheaper, smaller carriers (of a multihull design) concentrated over a wider area and in more numbers be a more viable and tactical option instead?
If a smaller and cheaper carrier with a less number of airwing and crew is lost due to extensive damage in the event of an attack then the cost is mitigated, also a much smaller crew number would be able to 'evac' the carrier a lot quicker.
In essence size isn`t everything, (bigger is not always better) not when faced with the dangers of aforementioned missiles etc, but numbers are.
The fact that a larger number of smaller carriers can be in many more places around the globe than just a few supercarriers would surely be more effective and beneficial. The nature of most campaigns over recent years and probably in the future too means that even smaller carriers are sufficient enough to 'pack enough punch' in either a few or larger number and still be an efficient 'show of force'.

In terms of Nuclear powered or not? The rest of the surface fleet (in a typical battlegroup as well as LHD`s and LCS`s) are oil /gas burners and so are limited in range, even a supercarrier`s supplies are limited - good for around 90 days before replen.
Nuclear power is not an essential requirement on a smaller, cheaper less complex carrier with less electrical power needs, plus the loss of Nuclear reactors at sea would pose an immense problem. It hasn`t happened yet but never say never, especially in a modern world of changing naval warfare and with an ever more fixation of sinking a prized supercarrier by possible future adversaries.


MULTIHULL AIR AMPHIBIOUS CARRIER - SMALL:-  MAACS


Length - 400ft.
Beam - 225ft.
Power - Diesel / Gas.
Speed - 20 - 30 Kn.
Range - Up to 10,000 Nm (at 20 Kn).
Crew -  Depending on requirements (Approx 500 - 750).
Aircraft - Up to 20:  15 x UCAVs (including MALE UAV) / F 35Bs / V 22 & 5 heavy lift / attack helicopters.
Amphibious - 2 x LCAC, up to 6 RIBs or 2 small Subs.
Build - 2 - ?? (depending on budget).


The cost and complexity of building very large multihull carriers would be enormous but small carriers would be viable.

The advantages of a multihull design for a carrier include stability, survivability and interior volume. A tri-hull has the benefit over a twin hull design by allowing the central hull to be protected by the outer hulls and so would likely contain the most crucial of systems. In the event of a side-on strike, 'theoretically' the carrier should stay afloat by the other 2 hulls - the central hull having a much broader beam.

Based on a common modular constructed platform, the MAACS carrier could be configured to any navy`s requirements and may also be built in larger numbers as an alternative to supercarriers. They would be able to undertake multiple roles using swap out mission modules.

The design is basically a box sitting on 3 hulls giving a large interior volume for its size. The outer hulls are wave piercing with the sides flaring outwards to maximize flight deck width. The superstructure front (with concealed armament and countermeasures) also flares outwards but at a more extreme angle for water deflection. The stern contains a well deck for amphibious capability and there are also 2 small decks used for observation and possible gun or other mounting. The broad beam gives the carrier good stability in rougher seas and a shallower draught than a monohull, ideal for accessing shallower waters which would be beneficial for roles such as delivering aid.

The hangar occupies space spanning across the full width of the carrier and most of its length. There are 2 transverse bulkheads which partition the hangar into 3 areas, these bulkheads give crucial support to the flight deck above. The island structure contains a garage for the fire tender, situated below the flight control room.

The flight deck has 1 lift (although the design could be easily modified to contain 2,  1 on portside aswell), large enough for 3 UCAV`s or 2 fighter jets or 1 helo to be lifted in one go. The runway is positioned down the middle for maximum length with the inclusion of a ski-jump for maximum lift on take off (STOVL variant of UCAV and F35 - there has been much debate whether the advantages of a ski-jump is worthwhile over the loss of deck space for parking but with a smaller airwing needing less space, the inclusion is more beneficial). There are no cats 'n' traps for cost effectiveness, instead, aircraft are held in place near the back of the runway (no need for jet blast deflector) and then released when up to sufficiently required power for take off, with vertical or most likely SRVL (rolling landing) on return. The inclusion of a safety net could be added for SRVL. Parking would be to starboard side of the runway and landing on portside or on the runway itself.

Loading...

Journal

No journal entries yet.

deviantID

Comments


Add a Comment:
 
:iconstevecash83-art2:
stevecash83-ART2 Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2017  Student Digital Artist
oh my god your works are so great
Reply
:iconesdafr:
Esdafr Featured By Owner Oct 10, 2014  Student Digital Artist
Dl for tritron
Reply