Bazan BSAC 220 and 200 "pocket carriers" anyone have pics?

I do see the problem there Steve. You need 4 GTs for it, and fuel isn’t exactly cheap nowadays. Even the price of HFO has raised from 260$/t to over 300$/t nowadays and that is just HFO, add to it that the oil will only last for 27 years (worst estimates) to a maximum of 50 years (about the best estimate), which means you already have to take in account new methods nowadays. You can see this forward looking idea in the merchant navy itself, tankers are getting smaller as these huge tankers will not be needed in 30 years and as their servicelives are mostly aimed at an age of 20 to 30 (or even more if possible without too much sacrifices), it would be useless to still build 400+m tankers.
Navies will, in the near future, undoubtedly have to look around for fuel and economy (which is actually already happening). Carriers like this design might be propelled by two GTs and still make a sufficient speed.
Last ship we had a steam turbine of 36,000hp, to propell our ship to over 20kts without a problem(officially something like 22kts, but as the need wasn’t there, we didn’t do that, we did make 24kts over ground though). Ship was 277m longx43m beam, with a laden summer displacement of 105,000t. This turbine did guzzle around 120t of fuel each day (depending on what we were using).

The Midway (CV-41) rolled because she had been rebuilt and modified to the point that she had NO reserve stability left!
design displacement: 45,000 t. (60,000 t. full); beam 113″; flight deck 136′
1980 displacement: 52,500 t. (65,241 t. full); beam 121′; flight deck 258′
final displacement: 69,873 t. full; beam 146′; flight deck 264′
[after 1986 “bulging” (to restore freeboard and improve seakeeping, but actually made it worse by making her hull float too “shallow” to maintain stability)].

I was on CV-61 Ranger in 1986. Passing through a Typhoon north of Japan, and operating around the Aleutian islands in November is not exactly “calm seas”, but there was no excess rolling, and we were able to operate our aircraft anytime the wind allowed (once we had cleared the ice from the deck with steam hoses).

A large overhang is no problem on a ship designed with it… the problem Midway had was that she was not designed for it, and it was added in a series of 3 modifications (aft elevator moved to starboard deck-edge, enclosed bow, and basic angle deck 7/1955-9/1957);(flight deck widened, elevators enlarged, bow elevator moved to starboard deck-edge, port deck-edge elevator moved from front of angle to near stern 2/66-1/71);(larger bulges added 1986).

Neptune,

Yeah but the comparable US CV’s (the CV-41’s and even, to lesser extent, the -58’s and -63’s) all rolled like ******s according to one former USN guy I know – and he served on the Midway and had a tour on Ranger if memory serves!.

I’ve heard people say that the French active stab is simple before and I’m not about to argue. I just get fundamentalist about a boat needing such a lash-up to stop it bloody rolling over! (yes I know I’m exaggerating mildly!).

Fin stabs make sense, but IMO, better to have the beam and displacement. If there was a lack of available engine power (as in the French case) I can understand the compromise, but, when 4 modern GT’s will happily push 60k tons at 30 knts I see no reason not to go with the broader hull?!.

Steve, US carriers don’t have that problem nor that active system. The French system consists of a train that drives from one side to the other, it’s not really that complicated.
I think a system with active stabilisers would work too, some cruiseships, which are actually top heavy ships with the requirement of a maximum roll angle of 3° in moderate sea, have four active stabiliser fins (and also make 35kts).

Another advantage would have been to have a Spanish built ship, much better in quality than anything Russian, Indian, Korean or anything.

Neptune,

Narrow beam, you can broaden it above the waterlevel. US carriers have only a beam of 40m on waterline.

Of course youre right, but, then you can start getting some nasty roll behaviour in heavy seas. the French tried the fine hull lines and large overhang with CdeG, because of the relatively feeble reactors, and had to put in a quite complex active stabilisation system to make it all work. now I’ve not seen any pictures of the entire ships company over the lee rail but…! 🙂

For a vessel the size of these Spanish designs it looks, to me that the Hornet was the whole core of the intended airgroup. Makes sense – light jeep carrier + light jeep plane!. Don’t think this would have suited the IN requirement as the designs stood, but, expand the larger design up to 40k full load, 4 COGAG LM2500’s with an aux steam plant and a truly sustainable 27 fastjet airwing plus pinger squadron and AEW detachment and they would have been on the mark for the requirement.

Shame the money wasn’t there for them to do it – they would have taught a few nations about how to run efficient carrier operations!.

Agree with Hamburger here, they should’ve gone for such ships instead of messing around with Russian crappy built and even worse maintained ships.

Narrow beam, you can broaden it above the waterlevel. US carriers have only a beam of 40m on waterline.

Tonnage, the difference is only minor 25,000t and 27,000t probably only takes in account fuel or anything. Planes and weapons are only a light load. I bet you don’t have a real clue about all the tonnages either, Gross Tonnage, Deadweight, light tonnage etc. all of them are of little relevance here.

I do wonder what type of planes such a spanish carrier would be capable of using comfortably. Probably designed for Harriers.

From the looks (only) it is conceivable to have two cats on the BSAC layout – one on the angled deck on the port beam and one on the bows. In reality it’d be a port/starboard split rather than the ‘traditional’ bow/waist affair as (as has been pointed out) she aint exactly big in the beam.

Would the bow cat impede the angled deck?. Possibly – the images we have arent clear enough to be definitive. The colour image shows almost a twin-track axial layout with landing and takeoff drags almost parallel in which case simultaneous launch and trap should be viable. Such a capability (simultaneous launch/trap) is very important for a whole slew of reasons, if nothing else, for the situation where a launching plane goes ‘mechanical’ on its driver and he wants to put it back aboard pronto. With simultaneous capability the whole flying programme doesnt have to be canned while they reconfigure the deck for a landing event. Thats only one example.

The more crucial thing here is the propulsion fit these things were meant to employ?. I cant see any obvious funnel groups or uptakes detailed to give a hint, but, if these were following the trends a COGAG layout would leave the problem of where the steam head would come from to power the cats?. Or were these things intended to have a modern steam fit and just accept the penalties of that?.

Blackcat,

but even then, the foreward launch point of the real Gorshkov model don interfere with the landing at least theoretically…

There is nothing theoretical about it – on the images shown thus far the Vikramaditya’s short takeoff spot fouls the landing run. Unless the Russians can put in a hull stretch when they do the conversion that boat is not, again from current imagery, doing simultaneous launch/trap.

The problem with that is that simultaneous landing and takeoff events are very rarely called for. Also, by always keeping the angled deck clear, you can move any aircraft scheduled for launch very quickly to make way for any planes with inflight emergencies. The other factor to consider is the small airwing of the carrier – there physically are not that many planes to launch and recover!

As for the cats, I would be tempted to try and fit two cats on the angled deck – allowing the angled deck to be kept clear for launches and take-offs. It also allows the bow to be used for parking, with a comfortable airwing of ~20 fighters, some lightweight AEW planes and a few helicopters.

But that means you cannot operate simultaneosly landing and takeoff operations. I would issue it so that there is one in the bow (which would intercept to the angled deck any means) and one in the Angled deck. Then you can either use it as you suggested or when it’s needed, to use both or launching from the bow and recover in the angled deck…

Is it me, or is the island too far back? It seems far too close to the stern, making any landing extremely dangerous – if it was further forward, it would make a lot more sense.

As for the cats, I would be tempted to try and fit two cats on the angled deck – allowing the angled deck to be kept clear for launches and take-offs. It also allows the bow to be used for parking, with a comfortable airwing of ~20 fighters, some lightweight AEW planes and a few helicopters.

I want to know what the people on the carrier are hoping to do with that F-15(E?) flying in the foreground. 😀

Nice pics…Just for comparrison, does anyone having any pics on the French proposal for the early ADS for India? It was roughly same size than the spanish ship…

Cool lil’ carrier.
Too bad nobody wants one 🙁

Folks, lets not go there. Instead, just stick with the topic of the thread. Thank you. 🙁

my apologies to you wanshan, but yes I still think India should’ve went for this or China too (if they could)

Folks, lets not go there. Instead, just stick with the topic of the thread. Thank you. 🙁

I’d excuse u for the above reply coz u did not understand a bit of what i was saying and the hear of Russia naturally had to be an irritation for any Norwegian, now that they are the frontline state for the US against Russia in the Norther side ….. and since u confessed to have understood very little to what i said from ur confession —– “I could make out of your feeble attempts to create anything near a semblence of the English language” —- I’d advise u to only reply to stuffs that u clearly undersyand, if not abstain from replying. Good Luck, Honey.

its okay I think many people here understand very little of what you are saying.. perhaps you could translate

feeble, undersyand, norther and coz the onlything that did make sense was the words that you copied from me 😀 but hey, if you’re unable to use a dictionary and learn off of my grammar then it makes me feel a bit tingly learning that I helped improve the spelling of a nationalistic kitty cat who avoids issues and resorts to name calling and fantasies 🙂

picture SAC220

This picture throws any more light on the catapult question…however you either know or your guessing.

Can u give me more details abt the carrier …. the one thats been mentioned in there abt the lighter and heavier version of the Spanish carrier.

I’m sorry, but I don’t have more than the link I posted earlier in this thread.

What I arrested you on, by the way, were the claims about the Clemenceau class (of which Foch was the second unit).

From what I could make out of your feeble attempts to create anything near a semblence of the English language, all I can is In your dreams buddy boy, naturally you would distort things to favor your Russo-Indophile interests rather than the bitter reality that one, a purpose built CTOL ship would naturally be better at CTOL than the conversion of an S/VTOL to CTOL ship, and secondly you fail to factor in the age of such a design, although you certainly do it for the price (which are mere assumptions that lack any calculations to back up your claims). Now go stroke your kitty my friend

I’d excuse u for the above reply coz u did not understand a bit of what i was saying and the hear of Russia naturally had to be an irritation for any Norwegian, now that they are the frontline state for the US against Russia in the Norther side ….. and since u confessed to have understood very little to what i said from ur confession —– “I could make out of your feeble attempts to create anything near a semblence of the English language” —- I’d advise u to only reply to stuffs that u clearly undersyand, if not abstain from replying. Good Luck, Honey.

Terran,

Can u give me more details abt the carrier …. the one thats been mentioned in there abt the lighter and heavier version of the Spanish carrier.
The carrier pic that i posted from the link don have its cat in the bow(or maybe not visible in the pic?) , hope anyone got better images for these carrier. Also I’d like to have the Spanish value of the carrier in 95-95.

But I think, it retains the same problems of the Foch/Sao Paulo with a narrow beam (?) and a single catapult…

The Clemenceau class has two catapults.

…which is not in anyway clearing the landing strip…

I think you are confusing the Clemeceau class with Charles de Gaulle. The 50m bow catapult on the former was nowhere near the angled deck landing strip. The 75m bow catapult on the latter does however place the jet deflector on the angled deck landing strip. It seem like this will also be the case on the 60,000t PA2 with 90m catapults. I do not believe it is a huge problem though. Even the USN has found that it very seldom lauches and recovers aircraft at the the same time.