The Aircraft Carriers today are too big and too expensive. To reduce cost, why not build smaller versions with less technology? Maybe a Aircraft Carrier that can hold 40 jets, with 1/4 the crew of a full-size Aircraft Carrier.

it is a good idea to incorporate smaller ACs into the navy but not replace the ones we have now.

smaller, less tech? That would do alot of damage to America's current leadership in World affairs.

Imagine if we had 3 times the number of carriers out there. They would be more readily useful, plus the large ones can go out on diplomatic duties like there were intended to. Why else would you build massive carriers and then only use them to invade small countries, the whole program was too much.

Very cool though.

Hi,

Somethng Like this? :



Air Defence Ships as they are called...........Originally it was Proposed a 17,000-ton ADS............now it's expected to be 32,000 to 37,500 tons Apprix .

The air group will likely consist of at least 12 combat aircraft like the MiG-29K, Sea Harrier and Naval LCA along with 10 helicopters like the Sea King Mk.42 and/or the HAL Dhruv. A pair of Ka-31 AEW helicopters would provide airborne early warning coverage.



Yes IMHO These Smaller Versons are Economical and Stratiitacally a Better Option that the Bigger Versons .

Having Those Giants is like Killing a Fly with a Cannon .......

Never the Less those Giants Look Cool .........

Peace
-=SF_13=-

Constructing smaller carriers can be limited to its role in certain situations.

If there was a serious crisis that requires large scale operations, Large Carriers are very useful as they are able to launch more planes and conduct more missions.

Smaller Carriers are an ideal inventory for nations looking for a economical and resource frugal approach. As also the importance of Air Cover.

We already have them. The Marines use them all the time.

Here's one example, the USS Boxer (LHD-4)



http://www.navsource.org/archives/10/0804.htm

The American supercarriers have capabilities far in excess of smaller carriers across the board.

If your country can't afford a supercarrier (i.e. everyone but America) it is better to have a smaller carrier than none at all.

What would be good about having alot of smaller carriers is that you wont lose alot of aircraft if one was sunk. The problem is though that it will be harder for pilots to land on. I remember once that an american pilot called an australian aircraft carrier a "Matchbox".

With the aircraft you use now that's a concern, but once more vertical and short take off jets are built, long landing space will be a thing of the past. We're already doing it with the F-22 and the harrier.