The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Mon Oct 26, 2020 4:53 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: CVM?
PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2014 8:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
A thread to separate a non-CATOBAR medium carrier option from the CV/CVV thread

Some of my posts from the other thread:
"America-based all aviation ship - essentially remove the Marine landing force support facilities from the hull, downsize the island, and have it pack F-35B in large numbers. With more deck space from a smaller island, and a larger internal hangar without the need for Marine berthing and vehicle stowage, can we get a CHM (Carrier, Helicopter, Multi-role) which could pack 36 or more F-35B on a (heavily) modified existing conventional hull form which can be manned by 1500 or less?

It could switch wings to helicopters if the need arose, or run a combined wing of F-35B and ASW helos if needed for escort operations.

(I choose "H" in the type designation to reserve "V" = fixed wing aviation, for CATOBAR equipped vessels. The current "H"'s do operate VTOL aircraft).

As a 'swing role' ship this could augment CVNs with fixed wing aviation support (F-35B), or augment an ARG with more aviation, or operate as the basis for a sea control/escort group.

This may even be cheap enough to get near a 3 to 1 ratio for the CVN on total life cost."

And

'The crew requirement must be dropped, in addition to hugely lower construction cost, in order to make any alternative to the Ford appealing. That might not be as doable on a vessel the size and airwing of a JFK.

A smaller carrier may also get political traction: "I can get that one built in MY district...", "They only put 60 aircraft onboard anyway, why are we building for 90?", and it would appeal to the anti-military representatives "It will limit how many aircraft they can make a case for in the future", "less money for a carrier means more money for MY programs..." etc.

More an more I am leaning toward a modified LHD/LHA hull for 'all aviation' - but not CATOBAR. F-35B and helos. That the Navy might support, as they could sell it in addition to CVNs, not instead of. Accept the lower capability as a match for lower cost, and you'd still be able to get 24-36 F-35B (depending on how much design work you want to pay for) on what should be three vessels at an equivalent cost and crew of a Ford.

Yes it isn't a CVN, it does not have all the CVN capabilities, but it is three decks where one deck would have existed before, and would probably handle many situations releasing the CVN for more important roles, and it could always work with a CVBG or ARG, or even be the center of it's own SAG."


Therefore: An LHA-6 modified as an aviation ship, not a multi-function assault ship.

We have data on the proposed LHA-8, or next baseline of the LHA-6 class:


Attachments:
File comment: Shows a clear increase in aviation capability, even while retaining the well deck, troop berthing, and vehicle storage
LHA1.gif
LHA1.gif [ 133.44 KiB | Viewed 5551 times ]
File comment: Shows proposed layout from above - illustrating the bump out forward of the reduced footprint bridge
LHA2.gif
LHA2.gif [ 147.06 KiB | Viewed 5551 times ]
File comment: Shows the internal availability of space
LHA3.gif
LHA3.gif [ 123.77 KiB | Viewed 5551 times ]
File comment: More detail on the reduced Island footprint
LHA4.gif
LHA4.gif [ 126.67 KiB | Viewed 5551 times ]
File comment: And the possibility still exists to extend the basic design
lha-r-dual-plug-line1.gif
lha-r-dual-plug-line1.gif [ 138.92 KiB | Viewed 5551 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CVM?
PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2014 8:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
This is what I am talking about, Mr. Gui!!!

My concept is similar, and it's a similar modification to the America LHA design the same way they modified the Midways. The only difference is that the modifications would be made in new construction instead of modifying existing ships.

So, what I have in mind is an America LHA fitting it to equip 60 aircraft similar to yours and giving her two catapults, arresting gear, and an angled flight deck.

I am curious how your design will continue!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CVM?
PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 11:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
Having a reasonable reference for the internals, and having haunted USS Essex (LHD-2) yesterday, I am working a series of ideas, some more involved than others.

- Two concepts could be built from this baseline - a helo/VTOL carrier (for which I will use the designation of CHM) and a CATOBAR carrier (for which I will use the designation of CVM)

Using LHA-8 as the baseline to modify

CHM-A: "Cadillac" - the "everything the way you'd like it but it is probably too expensive" version:

- LHD Plug Plus lengthening (+77' in length forward of the island), new LOA should be approximately 921'.
- Carry hangar forward to where the forward frame of medical will be on LHA-8, medical is pushed forward into the former troop berthing, troop berthing is reduced and becomes additional berthing for the airwing.
- Add elevator forward of the island on the starboard side - this would be where the new deck overhang is added on LHA-8. There are existing lifts in this area (direct access to the cargo ammo mags, which become aircraft weapon mags), which would move forward. As an alternative, the current ammo lifts could stay and the aircraft lift moves forward of them. (note that the 56' plug of the plug plus is the forward bulkhead of those magazines, which would make moving the lifts possible while expanding the magazines into the new 56' section)
- Elimination of vehicle stowage (and the associated ramps for moving vehicles between decks) and well deck allows shops an storerooms to be more logically laid out to support aviation, increases shop space and increases available stores space - this should increase the readiness of deployed aviation assets.
- Engineering plant change to a modified DDG-1000 plant. This changes a 70000shp plant for a 105000shp plant with higher levels of automation (reduced manning), and could push speed to 26-28 kts in addition to the increased waterline. Also increases electrical generation capability.
- Unless a phased array radar fit can be shown to be less expensive by eliminating multiple radars and reducing maintenance and personnel, stick with the LHA-6 sensor suite.
- Would like to see the additional 8' of flight deck beam carried for most of the length of the starboard side, at least from stern to the rear edge of the forward elevator. Will offset balance with 8' of width added to port, if needed (These most likely eliminate the ability to transit the Panama Canal, however the Canal locks are being widened, so that will have to be checked)
- LHA-6 has a ship crew compliment of 1059. Increasing automation in engineering, eliminating the extra personnel needed for support to the amphibious functions which have been removed, I am hoping to see a ships company reduced to 750-800. (airwing would be additional)

This should easily ship and support 36-48 F-35B and 4-6 support helos.

LHA-6 construction cost is $3.4 Billion, no data on development cost. If we can build this CHM for $4.2-5.1 Billion (25-50% over LHA-6), it certainly compares favorably with continuing CVN-only construction (USS Ford cost is estimated as $12.8 Billion for construction and $4.7 Billion for development).

This CHM will not have all the capabilities of a CVN. There is no tanker here, no AEW yet (hopefully a UAV for that). The reach of this CHM would be a 900nm radius (F-35B radius of 450nm in each direction) without off-board tanker support. But much of that additional support could be networked assets from land bases - P-8 for maritime patrol, AWACS for USAF or allies, tankers from USAF or allies (I almost hate to point out this is the concept used to legitimize little to no tanking, and the elimination of Sea Control squadrons, from CVNs).

Operation cost should compare very favorably with an all-CVN fleet - 800 ships crew instead of 3200 ships crew on a Nimitz (which it may nominally replace in a budget strapped environment).

You almost reach a three-to-one ratio in construction and personnel costs, thus either getting three decks which could be in three places and carry a total of 108-144 F-35B instead of one and 60-72. Granted, the CVN has AEW and more range with it's F-35Cs.

I like the basic idea here, as it allows for a 'medium' aviation ship for numbers, letting the CVN and CVN airwing return to the more diverse roles and more capable aircraft they once carried (dedicated tanker, sea control, first-line fighter and attack aircraft) instead of settling for less capable multi-role aircraft just to keep numbers up.


CVM-A "Cadillac": as above, plus:

- Reverse aft lift arrangement - starboard side aft aircraft lift moves to just aft of the island, portside lift moves aft to facilitate an angled landing deck.
- width of the flight deck increased by sponsoning to approximately the outer edge of the elevators on either side. Forward of lift #1 (starboard side forward of the island) the deck would narrow again.
- New island of even smaller footprint moved outboard, carrying SPY-1 for most all functions in order to reduce the footprint needed, other required functions moved below the flight deck.
- three wire arrested recovery system on an angled landing deck
- Two EMALS-type catapults forward

How much would this cost? not really sure. Could this be had for $6.4 Billion or less (half the construction price of a Ford)? If so, and it can reasonably operate a 36-48 aircraft wing (most likely 36 F-35C/SuperHornets, 4 E-2 and 4 EA-18G) this may be a good deal.


Other less modified versions to follow (CHM-B, CHM-C, etc)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CVM?
PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 12:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 12:18 pm
Posts: 114
These are actually more what I intended in the other thread, it just sort of evolved larger. I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CHM
PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 11:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
I really should have named this thread "CHM" since that is what I am going to concentrate on.

Chances are, the politics of the Navy would probably prevent any form of the word "Carrier" in the name, so using the older SCS or SCM (Sea Control, Multirole) might be more politically palatable. But I digress.

CHM-A build probably needs two kits - a Primary and a Donor, cut the elevator tracks and opening as a large panel out of the donor to insert into the primary just ahead of the island, match on the opposite side with hull from the donor - this is probably also the easiest way to add the 77' in length added by the "plug plus" extension. Donor provides flight deck material to splice onto the primary flight deck for added length and width.

Another view of the proposed LHA-8:


Attachments:
LHA8angle.JPG
LHA8angle.JPG [ 196.83 KiB | Viewed 5444 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CVM?
PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 11:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
CHM-B "Medium Modifications"

- Non-lengthened LHA-8 platform
- Hangar expanded forward
- Starboard side lift added ahead of the bridge
- Flight deck sponsoning for additional deck park space
- Vehicle stowage and Well deck space converted for aviation shops and storage
- Probably leave the LHA-8 engineering plant in place

Pros:
- less design/development work
- lower construction costs

Cons:
- less capability (smaller hangar, less flight deck space, etc)

CHM-B can probably be done with one LHD kit, although the new elevator and its support will have to be built.


I was also thinking about a CHM-C, the 'austere' version, but I don't see a lot of difference between it and LHA-6/7 aside from an extended hangar with the port side elevator moved to the forward end of the newly extended hangar, and some extra flight deck sponsoning for deck park.


Note: even after all the modifications, I do see a significant amount of space available for additional berthing and cargo (there is A LOT of cubic feet worth of well deck and vehicle storage to trade out...) which could be used for humanitarian support, moving additional Marines, hosting training groups (Midshipmen or International) when needed.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CVM?
PostPosted: Thu Aug 14, 2014 1:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
So I have received one of the two kits I will need to feebly attempt this.

I am using the Hobby Boss LHDs. Excellent kits. Happy with what I have seen so far.

To capture what I intend to do:

This shows the standard island as the LHDs are and as the kit intends:
Attachment:
Std Island sm.jpg
Std Island sm.jpg [ 179.09 KiB | Viewed 5376 times ]


The way the kit is constructed, the "Front Porch" and the after section of the island are already separate, facilitating the 'Reduced Island' proposed for LHA-8:
Attachment:
Alt Island sm.jpg
Alt Island sm.jpg [ 161.67 KiB | Viewed 5376 times ]


The larger effort will be extracting an elevator side and adding it forward, thus representing both the increased length of the "Plug Plus" and adding the proposed elevator forward, all at once.
The section to be removed:
Attachment:
Donor Section sm.jpg
Donor Section sm.jpg [ 180.83 KiB | Viewed 5376 times ]


You will notice that that is marked out as approximately 84 scale feet. the Plug Plus was to be 56'+21' for a total of 77'. I need to extract slightly more than that to get the proper hull shape for the elevator support, so I will be 7' longer than proposed. Oh well, not going to sweat that in 1:700.

Where it will be added:
Attachment:
Ref Point Aft sm.jpg
Ref Point Aft sm.jpg [ 120.05 KiB | Viewed 5376 times ]

The aftermost reference point is where the added section will begin, and carry forward.

Flight deck will also be extracted, in excess of the elevator section, to cover the area forward as well as replace the area which came pre-formed to accept the 'Front Porch'.

It should not be difficult to join to sections of the hangar deck to have the extended hangar visible when completed.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CVM?
PostPosted: Thu Aug 14, 2014 3:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 2694
SumGui, is the plug that contains the side elevator, does that go from the waterline upto the flight deck & not curved at all? if yes then you might have a problem as were it is going, the waterline section of the hull to the bow were the plug is going is starting it's curve to the bow. also you might have part of the hull knuckle in the way.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CVM?
PostPosted: Thu Aug 14, 2014 6:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
That section is flat - the hull curve actually starts where you see a light pencil mark on the model - so as complex as this will be to get right, I don't have to deal with hull curve or knuckle.

It isn't where the lengthening was supposed to go under 'Plug Plus', but probably the place where I can add the length and get the best modeling result.

Side note: "Plug Plus" included adding 10' to beam in at least one of its iterations - I don't intend to add any beam to the hull. Just way too much work along the entire length of the vessel, so I guess it is just "Plug" not "Plug Plus". I may add flight deck width, that remains to be seen.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CVM?
PostPosted: Fri Aug 15, 2014 12:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
SumGui,

Great job, man! Awesome getting stuff done! I look forward to doing something similar in 1/350. Are you looking at doing the full out conversion (angled deck, catapult, etc)?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CVM?
PostPosted: Fri Aug 15, 2014 9:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
Right now, I am concentrating on the VSTOL carrier.

The cat/trap version would be a lot of different work, moving the port elevator aft and sponsons with a much expanded deck.

We have a great separate CVV concept working in the other thread.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CVM?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 20, 2014 6:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 12:12 pm
Posts: 392
Love the idea.. quick question would this work for a full hull version as well.
I think if the answer is yes then you have to make two cuts in the donor kit one for the plug and one for the correct section of the lower hull... am I tracking?
Thanks
Major-B :thumbs_up_1:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CVM?
PostPosted: Thu Aug 21, 2014 3:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
MAJOR-B wrote:
Love the idea.. quick question would this work for a full hull version as well.
I think if the answer is yes then you have to make two cuts in the donor kit one for the plug and one for the correct section of the lower hull... am I tracking?
Thanks
Major-B :thumbs_up_1:

Sooner rather than later, I am going to embark on a 1/350 version of the high-end version of this. I am uncertain if I will do a full hull or not, but it should not be too difficult to lengthen a single kit and add styrene to fill the plug and lengthen and widen the deck.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CVM?
PostPosted: Fri Aug 22, 2014 9:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
MAJOR-B wrote:
Love the idea.. quick question would this work for a full hull version as well.
I think if the answer is yes then you have to make two cuts in the donor kit one for the plug and one for the correct section of the lower hull... am I tracking?
Thanks
Major-B :thumbs_up_1:


You are - the kits have separate lower hulls. My intention is to build waterline, though.

Second kit on the way, so we will see if I can pull of this cut and graft in a reasonable way soon.

With the reduction in island foot print, and the addition in length, this is going to make a very long looking vessel, even though her length to beam ratio will be less than 1:10 (I am estimating final length of 915' in scale - 831' of the Wasp class + my 84' section)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CVM?
PostPosted: Thu Aug 28, 2014 11:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
Update:

Got the screw-job from Squadron, the second kit was part of a large order big enough to get free shipping, and the box rolls in minus the LHD-1 kit I started the entire order for. No notice, no correspondence, just missing from the box.

Phone call discovers that even though my invoice says it is on backorder, it really isn't, and they have no idea when that will be back in stock anyway. So, I have to re-order a sister ship, and I get the honor of paying the shipping I was avoiding in the first place.

So I don't have the second kit yet, have an order I would not have made until I could get the kit I needed, and could now get a sister kit and pay a penalty (the shipping charge) because they made a mistake (indicating the kit was in stock when it wasn't).

I understand mistakes, but tell me about it, so I can work around it, or cancel the order if not in stock.

Unhappy right now.


Last edited by SumGui on Sun Aug 31, 2014 2:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CVM?
PostPosted: Thu Aug 28, 2014 9:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 11269
Location: Calgary, AB/Surrey, B.C., Canada
Can you threaten to reverse the credit card charge, claiming you did not receive the ordered item?

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CVM?
PostPosted: Sat Sep 06, 2014 2:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
So I am walking around USS Midway today and by my mark 1 mod 1 Sailor's eye, this hangar is really close to twice of the USS Essex (LHD-2) which I was aboard about a month ago.

So the hangar projected for this project may be comperable to Midway's hangar.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CVM?
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2016 8:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 12:12 pm
Posts: 392
Good day,
I forgot about this subject when I was reading about the updating a kitty hawk into a small to medium size strike carrier. Ok the Navy will not do it for simply reason they want all CV to by NUCLEAR for endurance and speed. But they are limited on food, stores and fuel storage.
So what about re-visiting the C version as purpose with one update. Look at real life for a minute. The USS ANTETIUM They just added a wedge to side to create an angle deck. I think the same could be done to have this strike carrier. I was toying with this idea when looking to update rusty white Hybrid with a flight deck section and hangar deck from an LHD. I am finding the Hobby Boss kits are hard to find which two did you use or does it matter. One final thought not sure if you are able to add a CAT to this design, but I was thinking if you added the space may be few F-18 could replace the harrier and have an couple of E-2 to keep an eye out and you need to launch a tanker not sure which platform maybe a couple of S-3 taken out for tanker use only.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CVM?
PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2016 11:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
Really grotesque capture of what the general intent is for the CHM/SCS, a slap-together job in about 10 mins with paint.

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CVM?
PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2016 12:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 12:12 pm
Posts: 392
Thanks for the PM.
I have several Iwo Jima's from squadron arriving today. They had a great sale last week on the LHD-7.
The general layout looks good.
Major B :thumbs_up_1:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group