Why not build smaller Aircraft Carriers? - Page 2




View Poll Results :Smaller Aircraft Carriers
Good Idea 13 65.00%
Bad Idea 7 35.00%
Voters: 20. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
 
March 29th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
The F-22 is not a VTO aircraft. One version of the JSF will be though.
March 29th, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
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 29th, 2005  
cPFC/SAJROTC
 
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.
--
March 30th, 2005  
AussieNick
 
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.
March 30th, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
Two words: MISSION PROFILE.

Whether you want a big one or a small one depends on what it's meant for.
March 30th, 2005  
behemoth79
 
 
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.
March 30th, 2005  
Knightraptor
 
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  
beardo
 
smaller ones worked in the falklands, well, when the planes were actually seen by radar
April 5th, 2005  
Shadowalker
 
 
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.
April 5th, 2005  
chewie_nz
 
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....