WI/PC Catamaran or Tri-maran CVA's?

Civillian drydocks are generally larger to hold ships much bigger than a USN CVN, no matter how heavy it is. Merchant vessels of modern age can be three or even four times as heavy as a CVN, without their cargo. Simply look at the largest Cruiseships in the world, all over 100,000 tons, some exceeding 200,000 tons even, much more than a CVN can ever hope to be. Containerships too can be of mindboggling size, not even speaking of bulkcarriers and supertankers. All these ships have to use docks from time to time, requirening facilities everywhere, which is indeed the case.

Beam (width) of:
Largest cruise ship: 47 meters at waterline, 65 meters at widest
Largest Oil Tanker: 69 meters
Largest container ship: 59 meters
Largest Ore carrier: 65 meters
Nimitz class aircraft carrier: 41 meters at waterline, 76.8 meters at widest

So carriers at the deck height are wider than the civilian ships above. If you try to use a narrower pair of hulls and allow the deck to overhang, you will wind up with a smaller volume, and might as well merge the two hulls to reduce travel time to battle stations.
 

WILDGEESE

Gone Fishin'
This. If you're building a carrier hull, you have to think torpedo damage. How well would those hulls stand up to one or two modern torpedo hits?

With a speed around 50 knots, could a one of this vessels outrun a torpedo fired from it's port or starboard side?

Regards filers
 
What if the new Gerald F Ford aircraft carriers for the USN, where built multi-hulled like Catamaran or Trimaran's allowing the width of the vessel to be doubled?

Would this be possible?

How would they perform on the ocean?

Would the USN increase the air wings on board or use the extra volume to remove the deck park?

Regards filers

If its not already been mentioned then one of the considerations for the maxiumum lengths and widths etc is the Panamax and Suezmax limits

ie the maximum size that a vessel can be in order to fit throgh the locks etc of the 2 principle canals

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panamax#New_Panamax

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suezmax

A cat layout would otherwise make some sense
 
Beam (width) of:
Largest cruise ship: 47 meters at waterline, 65 meters at widest
Largest Oil Tanker: 69 meters
Largest container ship: 59 meters
Largest Ore carrier: 65 meters
Nimitz class aircraft carrier: 41 meters at waterline, 76.8 meters at widest

So carriers at the deck height are wider than the civilian ships above. If you try to use a narrower pair of hulls and allow the deck to overhang, you will wind up with a smaller volume, and might as well merge the two hulls to reduce travel time to battle stations.

Deckhight is irrelevant still, as no dock is build to have walls reaching up to decklevel, as that is a varriable hight. Maximum length and beam is the only real restriction, appart from carrying capacity. Single hulled vessels therefore are able to dock almost worldwide at any given time, if such a need would arrise, which can be commandeered by a Navy, in times of such a need as well.

Personally I do not see how any catamaran hull would be seperated into two seperate huls, whn in dock. It is the same as cutting a single hull into two parts, requireing serious engineering works and lots of time, so a single hulled large vessel is both economically and practically at an advantage still. Real Ships simply are not Transformers of the commics.
 

Andre27

Banned
One question i have not seen raised is this: Does the catamaran or trimaran design provide enough space for the nuclear propulsion and aircraft maintenance.

The endurance and the aircraft capacity are the main advantages of a nuclear aircraft carrier. If a hull design cannot guarantee those then that hull design will simply not be a viable option.
 
One question i have not seen raised is this: Does the catamaran or trimaran design provide enough space for the nuclear propulsion and aircraft maintenance.

The endurance and the aircraft capacity are the main advantages of a nuclear aircraft carrier. If a hull design cannot guarantee those then that hull design will simply not be a viable option.

Nuclear reactors and propulsion units are relatively small sized high power compact units, as shown in SSN and SSBN typ submarines. Fitting hangar capacity is a different question, as the narrow hull is not very well suited for an internal hangar solution, but it can be done with an external superstructure on top of the hulls.
 
Indeed. Expect the double/triple hulls to end only one or two decks above the waterline, with above that a deck stretching the full width of the ship, rather like on the Independence-class littoral combat ships.
 
Top