Mega carriers

American CVN's 330 meters long. But super tankers are about 500 meters long. How about building 500 meters long nuclear powered carrier? This would be able to be built. And probably be able to serve for a base for land based aircrafts.

I don't think anyone is alowed to build a 100% new carrier of that size, with the treaty's dating back to WWII.

What they are alowed to do is use an existing hull to build the platform on.
But since Super Tanker hulls are shaped wrong for this kind of duty, its not doable.

Would be cool though, a carrier like this could have 2 fully operational flight decks.

Treaties limiting carrier sizes? That's interesting...

But seriously. As soon as one country breaks this treaty everyone will.

Or amybe the government could secretly pay a rich millionare to build a 500m meg-yaht and then cancel the construction as soon as the hull was complete and the millionare donates the hull to the government.....

I remember seeing illustrations about 5 years ago in New Scientist of a 3/4 of a mile long carrier which would hold 100,000 troops. A 747 could land and take off easily on something of this size.

I am guessing the the budget came to $73 Trillion, and the project was scrapped. It would seem to me that something this size would become an easy target, as it wouldn't move that quickly.

That's something to consider, also. Size vs. Mobility. You want to keep it practical. The bigger the carrier the harder it is to be deployed at a moments notice to anywhere in the world.

Originally posted by Zzub
I remember seeing illustrations about 5 years ago in New Scientist of a 3/4 of a mile long carrier which would hold 100,000 troops. A 747 could land and take off easily on something of this size.

You're right, Zzub I remember a thread about that project on ATS.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's called the Joint Mobile Offshore Base:
www.bwxt.com...

[...]

Hey I found the origional article, from popularmechanics:
www.popularmechanics.com...



[Edited on 25-5-2004 by Zion Mainframe]

The most likely answer to your question is also the simplest:

All US aircraft carriers must be built so that they can transit the Panama Canal without special handling or considerations.

P

Thanks, Zion Mainframe, that's exactly the one I meant.
I'm reading those links now, it's a fascinating, yet impossible idea

If they did ever build one of these, it would be quite a sight!

one thing u gota wonder about what happens if theres a big storm?
man thats gona be crazy

The idea sounds really cool and feasible, I wouldn't doubt that they would make something like this, heck they can even name it the Deathstar.

The most likely answer to your question is also the simplest:

All US aircraft carriers must be built so that they can transit the Panama Canal without special handling or considerations.

With this modular system each piece could easily be sent through the panama canal induvidually and then reassembled.

But yeah, the probelm is if the weathe rgets rough. The best bet would proably be to let it separate until the storm is over.....

Originally posted by Zzub
Thanks, Zion Mainframe, that's exactly the one I meant.
I'm reading those links now, it's a fascinating, yet impossible idea

If they did ever build one of these, it would be quite a sight!

Mobile Offshore base is not imposible! And it would not cost 73 trillion dollars! All you need are at least six 300m long modules witch can be connected together making 1800 m long runway allowing B-52 bombers to take off and land. One module could cost only from 350-500 million. (Remember you don't need nuclear reactor, command and control center, radar and anti missile defence on each module, one or two fully equipped modules are enough other could be just ships with plain deck and stores in the hull).

I've just read the article. You're right, it's not going to cost as much as my guess The modular design is a much better idea than a one piece design. Will it be able to get to anywhere it needs to be, quick enough though.

"All US aircraft carriers must be built so that they can transit the Panama Canal without special handling or considerations."........

Wrong....

I spent twenty years in the U S Navy, served on 4 carriers. It is a well known fact U S Aircraft Carriers are too large for the Panama Canal, and thus do not use it. They are forced to take the long way around.

i think he was meaning later on in the future
not RIGHT now

Originally posted by usnbandit
"All US aircraft carriers must be built so that they can transit the Panama Canal without special handling or considerations."........

Wrong....

I spent twenty years in the U S Navy, served on 4 carriers. It is a well known fact U S Aircraft Carriers are too large for the Panama Canal, and thus do not use it. They are forced to take the long way around.

Nimitz class aircraft carriers has transited the Panama Canal (as could Forrestal class, but not the Midway class also the Essex could only traverse the lock gate with some temp alterations) as there width (at water level has to be less than 108ft (33m) (this affect the design of things like elevators etc)- they have 30cm clearance all round (v. interesting prog on Discovery showed one in transist in a lock gate) It must be noted that the canal is currently being widen/deepened and that new larger lock gates (the limiting factor) are planned (Extreme Engineering series on Discovery - also plenty material on net).

The Panama Canal was originally designed and built to accommodate the World War I Battleships, Arizona and Pennsylvania. These vessels were 106 feet in beam, had 34-foot drafts and displacements of 34,000 tons. By comparison, during WW II, larger military vessels, battleships and aircraft carriers with beams of 108 feet, drafts of 38 feet and displacements of about 53,000 tons routinely transited the Canal. These larger WWII vessels barely fit between the 110-foot wide lock chambers with less than 12 inches between the ship�s sides and the concrete lock walls. The successful transiting of these vessels set precedence for the passage of the larger commercial vessels of today. Known as Panamax, these vessels have displacements of over 70,000 tons which is more than double the size of the designed lock capacity. Panamax vessels now account for approximately 27 % of all vessel traffic on the Panama Canal.

Source: Interview with former canal pilot

And yes it is a requirement that current US carriers can traverse the canal (hence the Midway/Esses design was changed in the Forrestal/Nimitz design to allow this also CVNX project has it as a stated requirment) as there was a study done about 4-5 years ago that explored carrier design if this requirement was not placed (I think I saw it in New Scientist but can't find at the mo).

It did suggest a small number (2-4) larger carriers (up to 4 times deck area of Nimitz But not as large suggest above.

[Edited on 26-5-2004 by Popeye]

[Edited on 26-5-2004 by Popeye]

Originally posted by Popeye
Nimitz class aircraft carriers has transited the Panama Canal

What???

No Nimitz class has ever transited the Canal, nor would they be able to. Where did you get that idea?

The CVNX is not being designed with the ability to go through it either.

Originally posted by Zzub
I remember seeing illustrations about 5 years ago in New Scientist of a 3/4 of a mile long carrier which would hold 100,000 troops. A 747 could land and take off easily on something of this size.

I am guessing the the budget came to $73 Trillion, and the project was scrapped. It would seem to me that something this size would become an easy target, as it wouldn't move that quickly.

A while ago, I had pasted some info on this, they were called Battle Islands or Joint Force Offshore Base.

The 500 meter ship could be something like russian Kiev class but much bigger. Its a carrier with weapons of big missile cruiser. Kiev class can handle only helis and vtol aircrafts. But this one could use f-18 or f-14. And could effectively defend form ANYTHING. Kiev class have very good sonar equipment and all possible kinds of missiles.

And only US could built such large military ships. Just 2 countries- US and France have large carriers. UK, Italy and russia have just smaller ones.
And i havent heard about treaties limiting carrier sizes. They would have no sense because just few countries can build ANY carriers.