Question: Is it possible to build an aircraft carrier at the Esquimalt Graving Yard:

[Ming777]

I'm wondering if anyone knows if an aircraft carrier of medium-size or possibly a supercarrier (forrestal size) could be assembled at this facility:

http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/pac/cse-egd/dimensions-eng.html

 

[JudgeKing]

Given the dimensions of the dock, the answer to your question is yes. All it really needs is the equipment to build an aircraft carrier.

 

[Astrodragon]

Theoretically yes.

But there are huge issues with the infrastructure, its designed to mend ships (in particular underwater damage) and clean them, etc, not build them.

 

[Ming777]

Well, I was actually just seeing if building one is possible, which would mean repairs could be done as well. Overhauling a carrier is possible right?

 

[kessock]

Graving Dock Width: 126 ft (38.4 metres)

Forrestal Class Beam: 129 ft 4 in (39.42 m)
Nope

Midway Class Beam: 113 ft (34.4 metres)
Yup

So something between 45000 and 60000 tons and under 120ft beam

 

[Talwar]

If I'm understanding things directly, the water depth might be problematic.

 

[kessock]

If I'm understanding things directly, the water depth might be problematic.

If she's lightly loaded, it should be fine.

 

[Delta Force]

It's very narrow. A supercarrier might fit in the dock, but you won't be able to do much work below the waterline. Less than 3 feet clearance per side for Forrestal, and half a foot for a Nimitz. It would be more suitable for constructing/repairing battleships, battlecruisers, and heavy cruisers, perhaps light carriers.

 

[JudgeKing]

Maybe the dock could be increased in depth and width by several feet to accommodate larger carriers.

 

[NothingNow]

If I'm understanding things directly, the water depth might be problematic.

Not for a Midway or CdG-sized carrier, which would be big enough to do pretty much anything the RCN would ever want to do.

 

[alfredtuomi]

Graving Dock Width: 126 ft (38.4 metres)

Forrestal Class Beam: 129 ft 4 in (39.42 m)
Nope

Midway Class Beam: 113 ft (34.4 metres)
Yup

So something between 45000 and 60000 tons and under 120ft beam

How about 1200 feet long 135 foot width with 40 feet over the sill plate at high water......atleast so say the owners of the dock.....the government of Canada.
either the Queen Mary or Queen Elizabeth had bottom work done there during WW2...forget which.
So long slim and deep would do......just need the people and facilities to do the work.Maybe fabrication on the mainland and final assembly there.

 

[kessock]

How about 1200 feet long 135 foot width with 40 feet over the sill plate at high water......atleast so say the owners of the dock.....the government of Canada.
either the Queen Mary or Queen Elizabeth had bottom work done there during WW2...forget which.
So long slim and deep would do......just need the people and facilities to do the work.Maybe fabrication on the mainland and final assembly there.

Well 38.4m equals 126ft.so someone made a conversion error one way or the other when they made the page. Also the Queens were only 118ft in beam.

 

[alfredtuomi]

Well 38.4m equals 126ft.so someone made a conversion error one way or the other when they made the page. Also the Queens were only 118ft in beam.

apparently the folks at public works....how unusual of a government agency to make a simple math mistakethe question would be tho from feet to meters or meters to feet.

the queens were deep tho......something about 39 feet.i would assume at full load.and according to Wikipedia +80,000 tons displacement.so that would indicate a somewhat slimmer than usual supercarrier would fit.the real question would be why...and who would pay the upkeep

 

[CalBear]

I'm wondering if anyone knows if an aircraft carrier of medium-size or possibly a supercarrier (forrestal size) could be assembled at this facility:

http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/pac/cse-egd/dimensions-eng.html

Forrestal class? No. Not enough depth. It is important to keep in mind that the hull doesn't sit on the floor of the graving dock, it sits on bracing and supports (aka: keel blocks)that are massive enough to allow work crews and equipment to get UNDER the hull as it is constructed. 12 meters over the sill simply won't work, you would need at least 14, with 15 or 16 being a better option, especially since the keel blocks are close to 3 meter tall in this particular dock.

Width is questionable as well, although it isn't a compete stopper. Be sort of like building a ship in a bottle, except the parts would weight 100 tons.

It would probably be possible to expand the dock's capacity, but that would also require a deeper channel to be dredged and maintained.

 

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Would Midway's work? Large enough for a F/A-18, so that is good as Canada has that already. Depending on when built may cause trouble, as Canada wants the F-35 I believe; can a "C" take off that short?

 

[Ming777]

Forrestal class? No. Not enough depth. It is important to keep in mind that the hull doesn't sit on the floor of the graving dock, it sits on bracing and supports (aka: keel blocks)that are massive enough to allow work crews and equipment to get UNDER the hull as it is constructed. 12 meters over the sill simply won't work, you would need at least 14, with 15 or 16 being a better option, especially since the keel blocks are close to 3 meter tall in this particular dock.

Width is questionable as well, although it isn't a compete stopper. Be sort of like building a ship in a bottle, except the parts would weight 100 tons.

It would probably be possible to expand the dock's capacity, but that would also require a deeper channel to be dredged and maintained.

What about something the size of HMS Ark Royal (R09)?

 

[alfredtuomi]

iff one goes by public works' drawing of the Esquimalt drydock the upper width is 135 feet lower width is 126(seems like 118 feet would be the practical limit),and the dock floor is 4'6" below the sill plate.seems the beam would prevent a forestall class from being worked on....lots of grease might get her in but ...........the queens were docked there so the depth shouldn't be a problem(high tide required)
But then if one is building new for the RCN length beam and draft would be fixed according to all three drydocks...Esquimalt,st johns and Quebec.....maybe......quebec is listed at 120 feet wide.......

 

[CalBear]

What about something the size of HMS Ark Royal (R09)?

Probably not. The Audacious & Midway class both needed 10 meters, add in the 3 meter for the keel blocks and you don't get over the sill, even at Average Spring High Tide. Essex class would work (7 meters).