[Post Reply] [*]  Page 1 of 2  [ 13 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 »
Author Message
acelanceloet
Post subject: Self-protecting CVAN 1955 conceptPosted: April 15th, 2018, 2:36 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7127
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
[ img ]
From Friedman's US Aircraft carriers:
Quote:
This "self-protecting CVAN" was sketched in 1955 as part of a BuShips attempt to forecast warship possibilities. It suggests the promise of VTOL technology (presumably based on the Bell X-13, which was partly funded by the navy, and which could have landed in the "VTOL nets" abaft the island) and of the new surface-to-air missiles. The power plant would have duplicated that of the new Enterprise. Its dimensions were 990 feet (wl), 1030 feet (oa), by 132 feet wl by 36 feet, for a light ship displacement of 64875 tons (81150 tons fully loaded). Self-defense would have been achieved with the two Talos launchers (fore and aft of the island) and four Terriers (in quadrants). With three C 7 catapults, the CVAN would have operated conventional aircraft as well as VTOLs; her air group was listed as eight heavy bombers (A3D size), twenty-four VTOL interceptors, four night fighters (F3H-1N) and sixteen ASW helicopters (HRZS). Note that the carrier had no sonar and no ASW missile battery, although she would operate without escorting ships. Costs were estimated as $375 million for the lead ship and $340 million for the follow ships. In fact the must simpler Enterprise cost about 451 million, without defensive missiles.
Instead of the X-13, I have used the Ryan Model 115C VTOL interceptor that was designed based on the X-13 design.

Components:
RIM-8 Talos
Mk 77 Talos FCS
RIM-2 Terrier
Mk 12 GMLS
Mk 76 Terrier FCS
Mk 10 GMLS
Ryan Model 115C
F3H Demon
A3D Skywarrior
AN/SPG-49
AN/SPQ-5
AN/SPW-2
....

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.


Last edited by acelanceloet on October 21st, 2018, 7:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Charybdis
Post subject: Re: Self-protecting CVAN 1955 conceptPosted: April 15th, 2018, 6:09 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 958
Joined: November 8th, 2011, 4:29 am
Location: Portsmouth Harbour
Stunning work. Well done.

_________________
Worklist


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Colombamike
Post subject: Re: Self-protecting CVAN 1955 conceptPosted: April 15th, 2018, 9:37 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1245
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 6:18 am
Location: France, Marseille
Look same as a up-scaled "Charles de Gaulle" CVN (the French "Charles de Gaulle" CVN were slowly designed by 1974-1988)
French naval-intelligence-service probably have these drawings data's during 1970's...


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
eswube
Post subject: Re: Self-protecting CVAN 1955 conceptPosted: April 15th, 2018, 10:41 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 8524
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 8:31 am
Contact: Website
Interesting design and great drawing.

_________________
My very neglected Deviantart page


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Hood
Post subject: Re: Self-protecting CVAN 1955 conceptPosted: April 16th, 2018, 7:59 am
Offline
Posts: 5862
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am
Always been intrigued by this concept and its great to see it in SB scale.

It is an odd design, given it was only intended to operate a dozen non-VTOL aircraft it still featured no less than three steam catapults. The X-13 worked out surprisingly well with its neat platform landing system but doing the same on a rolling ship would have been trickier.

One nitpick, the canopies of your various aircraft are a mix of new and old shades, they would look better if all the same shade I think.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
1952 Carrier
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
MihoshiK
Post subject: Re: Self-protecting CVAN 1955 conceptPosted: April 16th, 2018, 1:01 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 976
Joined: October 16th, 2010, 11:06 pm
Location: In orbit, watching you draw.
Contact: Website
Damn that ship must have lost a lot of space belowdecks to the missile magazines!

_________________
Would you please not eat my gun...
[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
heuhen
Post subject: Re: Self-protecting CVAN 1955 conceptPosted: April 16th, 2018, 5:31 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 8142
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
It's quite an interesting concept and a good drawing to.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
erik_t
Post subject: Re: Self-protecting CVAN 1955 conceptPosted: April 16th, 2018, 7:47 pm
Offline
Posts: 2581
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
Ooh, I've been wanting to see this concept illustrated for many years. A truly bizarre proposal (although "proposal" might be too strong a word).


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Self-protecting CVAN 1955 conceptPosted: April 18th, 2018, 8:01 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7127
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
Colombamike wrote: *
Look same as a up-scaled "Charles de Gaulle" CVN (the French "Charles de Gaulle" CVN were slowly designed by 1974-1988)
French naval-intelligence-service probably have these drawings data's during 1970's...
The French based their 2000+ carrier on an larger concept that was quite flawed (designed not by ship designers, but by people trying to predict the future of warship design) that is 40+ years older? No wonder the Charles de Gaulle was so flawed at launch! Any proof of this?
Or in other words, Colombamike, I don't agree with except if you give much more accurate details

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Colombamike
Post subject: Re: Self-protecting CVAN 1955 conceptPosted: April 18th, 2018, 8:25 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1245
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 6:18 am
Location: France, Marseille
acelanceloet wrote: *
Or in other words, Colombamike, I don't agree with except if you give much more accurate details
you are a player, will come the day you play both ;)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 1 of 2  [ 13 posts ]  Return to “Never-Built Designs” | Go to page 1 2 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


Contact us | The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]