Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Naval Air Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Gonna stay a while? Large, really slow aircraft carriers
HeavyD    4/10/2012 12:14:31 AM
The deepwater oil and gas industry has developed technologies to place aircraft-carrier sized rigs (and larger, up to 488 meters long and 600,000 tons) in water over 7800 feet deep. SPAR and Tension Leg platforms are re-positionable and can remain in place for quite some time - 25 years. Capacities are vast, allowing for carrier air wings plus, as well as larger STOL aircraft like C-130s. (some modification required, perhaps rocket-assist for heavy take-offs). A 500 - 800 meter flight deck is possible, with up to 150 - 200 feet above the waterline if we want. The stationary and stable platform makes advanced UAV operations far more feasible, and reduces stress on the airframes of conventional aircraft. This is the real win: Just imagine what our UAV capabilities will be in 10 years, when a project like this could be deployed? Sorry Naval Aviators, but y'all might be logging quite a bit of virtual air hours. Vulnerability to attack? Superior, near total defense against torpedo threats as anti-torpedo nets could be emplaced around the entire rig. Against missiles? Stand-off slat armor could detonate missiles 50 meters from the platform, those that got through the hail of Goalkeepers and OtoBredas and Standard missiles, etc. The rig could combine Aegis protection with Carrier capability, and only the most sophisticated militaries would have the assets to threaten it. Where? How about the southwest corner of the Arabian Sea - where we can keep an eye on Somalia, Yemen, etc, without having to ask for flyover rights. 200 - 300 miles offshore no one could do squat about it. Persian Gulf? We usually have a CBG or three there. WAAAAAAAY cheaper than a 13 billion dollar CV, on-duty 24/7/365, no time wasted driving to and from home port. One would literally replace 3 CVs because it isn't in transit or retrofit, and because of the capacity. This concept could be extended to Marine MEUs too: Much better accommodations and training opportunities if you have alot more space. Let's face it: we know where the likely threats are going to come from. Let's set up shop, make ourselves comfortable and save a bunch of money in the process.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
WarNerd    HeavyD   4/10/2012 5:19:35 AM
The length for a SPAR platform is in the towing configuration, on it's side.  It will be about 1/10th that size when upright, 45m to 50m.  The attached platform will be a bit larget, 60m to 80m on a side.
 
Wouldn't want to use a TLP for a military application, take out the tension cables to one leg and she flips.
 
Quote    Reply

LB       4/11/2012 2:19:41 AM
Right it's totally safe from subs till someone figures out to send in a few first to take out the netting.
 
There are other plans for a sea base concept but these have mostly been centered around large floating platforms.  
 
It's really not clear a 600,000+ ton stationary airfield  with various defenses including Aegis would cost less than $13 billion.  Frankly it could cost $30+ billion.  That aside where will it be built? 
 
We already have air bases in various nations around the Persian Gulf.  It's not clear we need to spend a fortune reinventing an island.  The carriers can be strategically deployed around the world where they are needed.  It's a key reason they are useful.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

HeavyD       4/13/2012 5:48:54 PM
Hey, who knew that the US already has an oil-rig sized mobile platform:  The SBX-1 radar platform that supports the BMD system.
 
Home base is Hawaii, it's driven @ 9 knots to where it's needed (i.e North Korea missile launches).
 
It looks to be a SWATH design.

A SWATH BMD/UAV carrier would be bitchin'.  Easier to land on, easier on the airframes, easier to achieve greater stand-off distances with UAVs. Equipped with BMD radars and missiles.
 
Tell me one of these would not be helpful with N. Korea, Iran, or whatever the next Rogue State is. 
 
 

Sea-based X-Band Radar  is an MSC Sea-based X-band Radar and is part of the 25 ships in Military Sealift Command's Special Mission Ships Program....

• Length:  389 feet
• Beam:  238 feet
• Draft:  33 feet (at transit draft)
• Displacement:  50,000 long tons (when ballasted)
• Speed:  9+ knots
• Civilian:  33 contract mariners/54 sponsor personnel civil service mariners
• Military:  None
• Government-Owned/
   Chartered: 
Government-owned
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

LB       4/13/2012 9:45:13 PM
We have dozens of Aegis cruisers and destroyers that already do BMD.  The USN is working on two types of UAV's.  For the first, Firescout, we're introducing LCS to carry either it or helicopters.  The second, UCAS- D (X-47B follow on), is currently planned to operate from the existing carriers in detachments of 4-6.  If this aircraft works well they could easily operate 12-20+.
 
The USN shipbuilding budget will be under severe strain for at least the next decade as it has been the last twenty years.  We need to try and maintain a sufficient number of surface combatants and SSN's while adding some cost effective smaller ships and craft.  We have plenty of BMD and aircraft capacity.
 
 

 

Tell me one of these would not be helpful with N. Korea, Iran, or whatever the next Rogue State is. 

 

 

















Sea-based X-Band Radar  is an MSC Sea-based X-band Radar and is part of the 25 ships in Military Sealift Command's Special Mission Ships Program.....










































• Length:  389 feet
• Beam:  238 feet
• Draft:  33 feet (at transit draft)
• Displacement:  50,000 long tons (when ballasted)
• Speed:  9+ knots
• Civilian:  33 contract mariners/54 sponsor personnel civil service mariners
• Military:  None
• Government-Owned/

   Chartered: 
Government-owned
 



 


 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       4/14/2012 8:52:43 PM
Vulnerability to attack? Superior, near total defense against torpedo threats as anti-torpedo nets could be emplaced around the entire rig. Against missiles? Stand-off slat armor could detonate missiles 50 meters from the platform, those that got through the hail of Goalkeepers and OtoBredas and Standard missiles, etc. The rig could combine Aegis protection with Carrier capability, and only the most sophisticated militaries would have the assets to threaten it.
” Stand-off slat armor”? Questions:
4) How much do you think this will weigh?
3) How are you going to support it?
2) Don’t you think it will mess up your defensive fire? And your sensors?
1) How are you going to launch and land aircraft through it?
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       4/14/2012 8:54:10 PM
Hey, who knew that the US already has an oil-rig sized mobile platform:  The SBX-1 radar platform that supports the BMD system.
 
Home base is Hawaii, it's driven @ 9 knots to where it's needed (i.e North Korea missile launches).
 
It looks to be a SWATH design.
 
A SWATH BMD/UAV carrier would be bitchin'.  Easier to land on, easier on the airframes, easier to achieve greater stand-off distances with UAVs. Equipped with BMD radars and missiles.
 
Tell me one of these would not be helpful with N. Korea, Iran, or whatever the next Rogue State is. 
Sure -- IT IS NOT HELPFUL. Happy now?
 
The thing is too small for aircraft, same width as an aircraft carrier, but only 1/3rd the length, so you will need to triple the size, and will still have to use catapults and arresting gear so it is not any easier land on or on the airframes.
 
The topsides deck is too light for aircraft, and will have to be reinforced. You also need housing and space for everything inside the carrier hull except fuel and water storage (those will be down in the pontoons), say 4200 men and another 60,000 tons of structure, shops, stores, and additional buoyancy to match a Nimitz. This should scale down some so that you can get ½ the capability with 3000 men and 50,000 extra tons. Half that tonnage is located high up and could be a stability problem.
 
Home based in Hawaii, 4600 nautical miles to Korea @ 8 knots = 24 days to deploy. 11,000 miles to Iran = 60 days. They can get a carrier group there in 1/3 the time. Add a couple days to ballast it down to operational depth, and a week if you need to pump it out to start moving.
 
At operational depth it draws 60 feet of water and has a top speed < 6 knots, too slow to outrun an AIP equipped submarine, and dead meat for something like GPS guided IRBMs. You wouldn’t even need those fancy Chinese carrier killers.
 
The only similarity to a SWATH it that both used submerged floats. It is like comparing a house trailer to a sports car, because they both have wheels.
 
So all you have done is replace a fast 100,000 ton carrier with an essentially immobile 200,000 ton floater. The unit cost for each carrier is $3 billion, not $13 billion which includes development costs and aircraft. Your floater will cost around $3 billion, but only because it is conventionally powered. Not including the anti torpedo nets and ridiculous slat armor.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics