FA+
Shop
227
Views
Views
3
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Artwork (Digital) / Abstract
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 960 x 540
File Size 114.8 kB
Report this content
More from anticarrot
Concept sketch for the Swiftsure/Tigershark combination.
HMS Scorpion is a 3,500 ton Type-62 Swiftsure-class corvette intended as a British version of the Littoral Combat System. It is based on a 50% upscale of the US Seafighter with some features from the UXV destroyer incorporated to allow it to punch above its weight.
Here you can see four Tigershark MALE UCAVs, a 155mm ETC naval cannon, 16 ASTER-70 missile cells, as well as the 4MW microwave power transmitter for the Argus UAV that maintain's the Scorpion's radar at 5,000ft.
90m long and 30m wide, a 100MW polywell reactor drives a Swiftsure up to 60 knots in good water. That speed plus wind across the deck is more than enough to lift a tigershark right off the deck, without the need for CATOBAR equipment. HMS Scorpion carries enough fuel for 120 days worth of Tigershark observation at a range of 1000 kilometers.
One of my Royal Navy 2050 concepts.
HMS Scorpion is a 3,500 ton Type-62 Swiftsure-class corvette intended as a British version of the Littoral Combat System. It is based on a 50% upscale of the US Seafighter with some features from the UXV destroyer incorporated to allow it to punch above its weight.
Here you can see four Tigershark MALE UCAVs, a 155mm ETC naval cannon, 16 ASTER-70 missile cells, as well as the 4MW microwave power transmitter for the Argus UAV that maintain's the Scorpion's radar at 5,000ft.
90m long and 30m wide, a 100MW polywell reactor drives a Swiftsure up to 60 knots in good water. That speed plus wind across the deck is more than enough to lift a tigershark right off the deck, without the need for CATOBAR equipment. HMS Scorpion carries enough fuel for 120 days worth of Tigershark observation at a range of 1000 kilometers.
One of my Royal Navy 2050 concepts.
Category Artwork (Digital) / Abstract
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 960 x 540px
File Size 114.8 kB
*chuckles*
It's strange how some things work. Even after seeing you keyword, I originally intended not to comment, because I had nothing to say.
Then I thought about your design and a question came up.
Considering the growing use of UAV's I wonder how out-of-date the new (and not yet build) new US Supercarrier is.
Another question would be how would UAV's look like that take over for the current fighter planes and what a carrier for them would look like.
It looks like I can't stop thinking. Surface and underwater drones? defending the ship from a distance... hmm...
It's strange how some things work. Even after seeing you keyword, I originally intended not to comment, because I had nothing to say.
Then I thought about your design and a question came up.
Considering the growing use of UAV's I wonder how out-of-date the new (and not yet build) new US Supercarrier is.
Another question would be how would UAV's look like that take over for the current fighter planes and what a carrier for them would look like.
It looks like I can't stop thinking. Surface and underwater drones? defending the ship from a distance... hmm...
Super carriers are a viable platform for power projection. Whether they're manned or unmanned there will always be a need for large bomb/missile trucks, as well as other specialised aircraft, and the physics of how big the runways have to be are kinda fixed. The Tigershark UAVs pictured here are impressive by modern standards, but you really wouldn't want to dogfight in one!
SCs have been traditional to ballistic atacks, but that's (theoretically) being fixed, now that China has deployed missiles with the capacity to 'drop' multi ton conventional warheads from 200,000ft. Super-cavitating torpedeos are a minor threat, unless they're nuclear (in which all bets are off) because a modern carrier is watertight vertically as well as horizontally, as well as double hulled.
There's also the small matter of endurance. Scorpion can manage 120 days surveilence, but a super carrier could do the same job for years! Or more realistically, 50 versions of the same job for months. Increasingly other ships are going to be able to do much the same job (see BAE's UXV destroyer concept) but it will be a long time before they can match the military and political 'hammer of god' effect that a super carrier projects.
As to whether they're financially affordable, and/or whether your nation desire this ability, well that's another story altogether...
SCs have been traditional to ballistic atacks, but that's (theoretically) being fixed, now that China has deployed missiles with the capacity to 'drop' multi ton conventional warheads from 200,000ft. Super-cavitating torpedeos are a minor threat, unless they're nuclear (in which all bets are off) because a modern carrier is watertight vertically as well as horizontally, as well as double hulled.
There's also the small matter of endurance. Scorpion can manage 120 days surveilence, but a super carrier could do the same job for years! Or more realistically, 50 versions of the same job for months. Increasingly other ships are going to be able to do much the same job (see BAE's UXV destroyer concept) but it will be a long time before they can match the military and political 'hammer of god' effect that a super carrier projects.
As to whether they're financially affordable, and/or whether your nation desire this ability, well that's another story altogether...
I was more thinking about a Supercarrier launching remote controlled Combat UAV's. If they are like fighter planes or merely remote-controlled missles would depend on what would be more cost-effective.
With the timescale involved I'm wondering.
1007 Beginning construction on the new Supercarrier, the USS John F. Kennedy.
2015 First new Supercarrier finished.
2040 Last of the new Supercarriers finished.
2058 Last Nimitz-Class Carrier to be decommissioned.
Considering they are to be in service for 50 years I really wonder how well planned this project is right now. Of course they can always be upgraded.
On the other hand, technology will always trouble long-term projects. Not that the short-term planning of politicians helps.
About being affordable *shrugs* Considering half the US budget gets into the military that's something the voter's should decide.
With the timescale involved I'm wondering.
1007 Beginning construction on the new Supercarrier, the USS John F. Kennedy.
2015 First new Supercarrier finished.
2040 Last of the new Supercarriers finished.
2058 Last Nimitz-Class Carrier to be decommissioned.
Considering they are to be in service for 50 years I really wonder how well planned this project is right now. Of course they can always be upgraded.
On the other hand, technology will always trouble long-term projects. Not that the short-term planning of politicians helps.
About being affordable *shrugs* Considering half the US budget gets into the military that's something the voter's should decide.
That's what I was talking about. Consider a human weights less than 100kg with flight suit, and a fighter weighs 30 tonnes. Removing the pilot will make less difference to range and performance (thus shape) than dropping a single bomb or missile.
Nimitz and Ford class super carriers will be useful and relevent for as long as conventional warfare is useful or relevent. They may be upgraded several times, but I can't really think of anything that might replace it in the next hundred years. Unless they start building orbital battlestations.
Nimitz and Ford class super carriers will be useful and relevent for as long as conventional warfare is useful or relevent. They may be upgraded several times, but I can't really think of anything that might replace it in the next hundred years. Unless they start building orbital battlestations.
Yes, but if the pilot is not in the plane, you might get more manouverability because you don't have to look after a human body's limits. In extreme cases, you can even use the plane itself as a missle (for example, Anyway, not having a pilot on board means no rescue operations if a plane gets shot down. In emergencies he could be in the air again as soon as he gets authorization with another one.
On the other hand, pilots may start taking unneccessary risks, because heir lives are not in danger. That wouls make it very expensive.
Aaah... the details that make it fun to think it through.
On the other hand, pilots may start taking unneccessary risks, because heir lives are not in danger. That wouls make it very expensive.
Aaah... the details that make it fun to think it through.
There are other problems with UAVs. One of their weaknesses is their dependence on good communications: in the event that communications with the base is lost and the target is impossible to reach (for example due to cloud cover), what should the drone do?
Additionally, most drones are strictly one-purpose, while practially every piloted war plane can be adapted to the mission: you can make even a sleekiest fighter jet to carry a few bombs and even good old A-10 can carry a few air-to-air missiles. This gives the commander an ability to perform "unusual" missions, beyond the original profile of the flight group.
Additionally, most drones are strictly one-purpose, while practially every piloted war plane can be adapted to the mission: you can make even a sleekiest fighter jet to carry a few bombs and even good old A-10 can carry a few air-to-air missiles. This gives the commander an ability to perform "unusual" missions, beyond the original profile of the flight group.
I know switching to UAV fighters will have some problems. You'll have to invent new tactics and support. Forward communication relay stations, either on the ground, sea or air (maybe an additional job for the AWACS flights?
Signal loss? Return to base, self-destruct or go on with the mission if the autopilot can do it (in case of laser-targeting, bombing fixed coordinates and so on).
You could send two attack flights with more machines than you have pilots. The pilots only taking over when human experience is needed.
BTW, I'm just a Science Fiction fan having fun going through the possibilities, not a specialist.
Signal loss? Return to base, self-destruct or go on with the mission if the autopilot can do it (in case of laser-targeting, bombing fixed coordinates and so on).
You could send two attack flights with more machines than you have pilots. The pilots only taking over when human experience is needed.
BTW, I'm just a Science Fiction fan having fun going through the possibilities, not a specialist.
Then you have to start looking after the frail aircraft superstructure. You can build aircraft that can take 40G. Problem is they're called missiles, and have lousy turning circles. For the third time, you cannot magically ignore the physics of aerodynamics just be removing the pilot.
Just out of curiosity, is this a single-hulled ship? I think that catamaran or trimaran designs would be particularly suited for small carrier designs, due to their easily increased width and additional stability.
Trimaran designs can also be made more resistant to torpedo attacks, since outer hull segments can be filled up below the waterline without sacrificing any storage space.
Trimaran designs can also be made more resistant to torpedo attacks, since outer hull segments can be filled up below the waterline without sacrificing any storage space.
SWATH is a type of catamaran with very low CSA at the waterline. You can't see it here, but the front of each pontoon is exceptionally sharp; at least by boat standards. You can get a lot more pictures of the hull form by googling 'FSF-1 Seafighter'; which the RL USN ship I based this on. ^.^
Thanks for asking!
Thanks for asking!
'Digital Air Burst' (which sells under a variety of names) is now being built into everything. In theory this makes CIWS redundant, because any gun can put multiple shotgun-rounds-from-hell right in front of any missile.
In this case the ETC-155 can fire Distributed Digital Air Burst, meaning a single 155mm shell spilts into twenty 40mm submunitions that explode around the missile, rather than just in front of it.
The other issue is that it's a corvette for a reason. This is kinda a ship designed to get into more trouble than it can easily handle, for plot purposes.
In this case the ETC-155 can fire Distributed Digital Air Burst, meaning a single 155mm shell spilts into twenty 40mm submunitions that explode around the missile, rather than just in front of it.
The other issue is that it's a corvette for a reason. This is kinda a ship designed to get into more trouble than it can easily handle, for plot purposes.
While I agree that timed air burst is a nice thing to have, having just one 155mm gun serving as your anti-everything weapon is going to be asking for trouble. One, it's going to have poor acquisition time and low rate of fire, and two, it's going to have a poor engagement envelope against fast, sea-skimming targets.
With a fast airburst system, you can shoot HEAT rounds out of the air. With a single 155mm artillery system, acquiring a flat trajectory HEAT round - especially one incoming from the port - would be quite impossible.
With a fast airburst system, you can shoot HEAT rounds out of the air. With a single 155mm artillery system, acquiring a flat trajectory HEAT round - especially one incoming from the port - would be quite impossible.
See 'plot reasons' logic above. ^.^
There are a couple of reasons between a one size fits all gun like this, and a CIWS system like Phalanx.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS
Phallanx sits about 40m above sealevel, and can only see targets about 90 seconds before impact for a subsonic missile, or 30 seconds for a Mach 3.0 one. ETC-155's guidence radar (the Argus UAV) by contrast sits at 4,000m above sealevel, and can see the missile coming about 15 minutes out. Phallanx is also unguided, where as ETC-155 can fire guided rounds; the great grandchild of Copperhead and Excalibur.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M712_Copperhead
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M982_Excalibur
In practice I agree it's quite questionable. Especially that beyond a certain point of CIWS capability, it simply becomes practical to use hypersonic plunging attacks (ala china) or drop a super-cav torpedeo just outside the range of the CIWS system (ala russia).
There are a couple of reasons between a one size fits all gun like this, and a CIWS system like Phalanx.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS
Phallanx sits about 40m above sealevel, and can only see targets about 90 seconds before impact for a subsonic missile, or 30 seconds for a Mach 3.0 one. ETC-155's guidence radar (the Argus UAV) by contrast sits at 4,000m above sealevel, and can see the missile coming about 15 minutes out. Phallanx is also unguided, where as ETC-155 can fire guided rounds; the great grandchild of Copperhead and Excalibur.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M712_Copperhead
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M982_Excalibur
In practice I agree it's quite questionable. Especially that beyond a certain point of CIWS capability, it simply becomes practical to use hypersonic plunging attacks (ala china) or drop a super-cav torpedeo just outside the range of the CIWS system (ala russia).
I agree! However... I was using the term "CIWS" as a sort of generic stand-in for ultra-close-range antimissile systems that are popping up on every military vehicle these days, including Humvees. This capability seems missing from your design and it's not that hard to come up with an attack that would exploit that.
Comments