[Squantos]

Does SWATH technology / design have a place in something as large as a Carrier ?

Seemed a possibility from what I have seen and read.....I'll yeild to those with time and knowledge of the carrier for answers.

[Wombat101]

By SWATH, I'm assuming you mean a catamaran-type hull?

Probable answer is: no. Because the gear and contrivances necessary to run the carrier (catapults, arrestor gear, angled flight deck, elevators, hanger space, ordnance storage, crew accomodations, just as examples) could not be crammed into a catamaran hull without astounding problems in design and engineering, or creating a totally different beast altogether, at enormous expense.

It is simply easier to keep the standard design and make improvements to it as technology comes along.

[John O]

SWATH is Small Water Area Twin Hull. Not exactly a catamaran. More like a flat deck placed on two pylons resting on two submarine hulls.

IIRC the design ends up with very good seakeeping characteristics.

I doubt that it would work for something as large as a cvn however. But then again, I don't work in that area. I know when they first started looking at SWATHs (in the 80s) they did a study for CVN's but I don't know the results.

[Robert A Cook PE]

At that size (1100 plus feet long, with a beam to match), SWATH has little positive effect on stability in high seas. The carrier hull itself is so large that little disturbs it, though of course flight ops are more difficult in extreme seas anyway.

But equally important, the carrier has to be so large, for in-place armor, aircraft fuel, stores, bomb storage areas, and support/maintenance areas, that the small diameter submerged hulls that make a SWATH effective get too large. All of the volume (weight) has to get supported by underwater volume, but that means that the SWATH (basically circular, submarine-shaped) hulls get too deep.

Too deep means that the carrier can't get into drydocks, harbors, ports, or maintenance docks.