Topic: Why not build smaller Aircraft Carriers? 2

Charge 7 · March 29th, 2005

The F-22 is not a VTO aircraft. One version of the JSF will be though.

Whispering Death · March 29th, 2005

Off topic I know, but is there any information on what % of its fuel the JSF is going to burn when using VTOL? That is a major problem with the Harrier.

cPFC/SAJROTC · March 29th, 2005

I think incorporating more smaller carriers into the US fleet would be wise, but larger super-carriers, are still critical to the US Fleet for power projection and rapid deployments.
I agree though that smaller aircraft carriers are in general a good idea, since F-35 STOVL and the various Harrier variants would be capable of using it and use less fuel and personnel.

AussieNick · March 30th, 2005

We are in the process of tendering for a defence contract for a couple of smaller carriers (to start with). The Navy is looking mainly at a Spanish designed carrier, that would serve as a launch platform for the the F35 STOVL (when they get around to it), sea hawk, etc, and would be able to cary 20 odd MBTs on board as well as an entire regiment of infantry. It would cement Australia's superiority in the Asia Pacific region. We had large carriers in the past, but once the HMAS Melbourne was "de-commisioned" in the 1980s we haven't found it useful to have a carrier fleet again, until now.

But the point of the matter is, several small carriers = more mobility, less of a target, and a big difference in political statement.

the_13th_redneck · March 30th, 2005

Two words: MISSION PROFILE.

Whether you want a big one or a small one depends on what it's meant for.

behemoth79 · March 30th, 2005

having various sized aircraft carriers would make our navy more efficient. should a mission need less firepower, the smaller ACs would be a better choice. it would be overkill to send out supercarriers and spend all that money on a simple mission that only used half of the aircraft.

Knightraptor · March 30th, 2005

Well One thing I was thinking about was logistics. Wouldn't the logisitics trail of lots of smaller carriers present lots of problems? I mean jets are fuel hogs and one of the benefits of having a large carrier is that it can carrier large amounts of jet fuel that can last a relatively good amount of time. And would the smaller carriers also use nuclear reactors? If not then thats more space on the ship devoted to carrier fuel and not other junk.

beardo · April 5th, 2005

smaller ones worked in the falklands, well, when the planes were actually seen by radar

Shadowalker · April 5th, 2005

A mix of big n small would be the best option, with the smaller carriers helping in relief operations etc. and going to minor conflicts where lots of planes arent needed. Retain some larger carriers for operations like that in iraq.

chewie_nz · April 5th, 2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by beardo

smaller ones worked in the falklands, well, when the planes were actually seen by radar

that and harriers flying off container ships....

View Poll Results :Smaller Aircraft Carriers
Good Idea	10	66.67%
Bad Idea	5	33.33%
Voters: 15. You may not vote on this poll

March 29th, 2005	Post 11
Charge 7 Master Gunner	The F-22 is not a VTO aircraft. One version of the JSF will be though. __________________ "Do not forget your dogs of war, your big guns, which are the most-to-be respected arguments of the rights of kings." - Frederick the Great, King of Prussia

March 29th, 2005	Post 13
cPFC/SAJROTC Immunes	I think incorporating more smaller carriers into the US fleet would be wise, but larger super-carriers, are still critical to the US Fleet for power projection and rapid deployments. I agree though that smaller aircraft carriers are in general a good idea, since F-35 STOVL and the various Harrier variants would be capable of using it and use less fuel and personnel. __________________ \"An army is a team. It lives, eats, sleeps, fights as a team. This individuality stuff is a bunch of b******t.\" -- General George Patton Jr

March 30th, 2005	Post 14
AussieNick Forum Digger Gear	We are in the process of tendering for a defence contract for a couple of smaller carriers (to start with). The Navy is looking mainly at a Spanish designed carrier, that would serve as a launch platform for the the F35 STOVL (when they get around to it), sea hawk, etc, and would be able to cary 20 odd MBTs on board as well as an entire regiment of infantry. It would cement Australia's superiority in the Asia Pacific region. We had large carriers in the past, but once the HMAS Melbourne was "de-commisioned" in the 1980s we haven't found it useful to have a carrier fleet again, until now. But the point of the matter is, several small carriers = more mobility, less of a target, and a big difference in political statement. __________________ Platoon Commander, 4 Platoon, B Company 10/27th Battalion RSAR - RAinf PRO PATRIA

March 30th, 2005	Post 15
the_13th_redneck No Chance Outside Gear	Two words: MISSION PROFILE. Whether you want a big one or a small one depends on what it's meant for. __________________ I don't exist. TRESPASSERS WILL BE PROSTITUTED Next time you travel http://www.epictrip.com

March 29th, 2005	Post 12
Whispering Death Tribuni Angusticlavii Gear	Off topic I know, but is there any information on what % of its fuel the JSF is going to burn when using VTOL? That is a major problem with the Harrier.

March 30th, 2005	Post 16
behemoth79 Tribuni Angusticlavii	having various sized aircraft carriers would make our navy more efficient. should a mission need less firepower, the smaller ACs would be a better choice. it would be overkill to send out supercarriers and spend all that money on a simple mission that only used half of the aircraft. __________________ si deum nobiscum, quis contra? AS LONG AS DIXIE STILL EXISTS,THIS COUNTRY WILL NEVER FALL

March 30th, 2005	Post 17
Knightraptor Immunes	Well One thing I was thinking about was logistics. Wouldn't the logisitics trail of lots of smaller carriers present lots of problems? I mean jets are fuel hogs and one of the benefits of having a large carrier is that it can carrier large amounts of jet fuel that can last a relatively good amount of time. And would the smaller carriers also use nuclear reactors? If not then thats more space on the ship devoted to carrier fuel and not other junk.

April 5th, 2005	Post 18
beardo Centurion	smaller ones worked in the falklands, well, when the planes were actually seen by radar __________________ \'\'St George for England!!\'\' \'\'May we give the dragons tail a damned good twist!!\'\' \'\'They call this one the \'Withstand-inater\' It\'ll take a 6 Megaton nuclear blast. No more, No less\'\'

April 5th, 2005	Post 19
Shadowalker Primus Pilus	A mix of big n small would be the best option, with the smaller carriers helping in relief operations etc. and going to minor conflicts where lots of planes arent needed. Retain some larger carriers for operations like that in iraq.