Why not build smaller Aircraft Carriers? - Page 3




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

 
--
 
April 5th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
Quote:
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.
That's exactly what the US does.
April 6th, 2005  
beardo
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chewie_nz

that and harriers flying off container ships....
thats the beauty of the harrier lol
April 8th, 2005  
bushpig1998
 
 
For smaller countries such as Australia, Britain and such, smaller carriers make a lot of sense. With Vtol aircraft or a simple ramp built into one end it could be done. Quite frankly, with the crappy air force that Iraq or most other dictator countries has, a few harriers should do the job. I can tell you as a south african, 40 harriers ocming into south africa would level the place in a month! With a ramp, you can launch all kinds of planes. The main problem with aircraft carriers that cause some of them to be so massive is the catapult system. The Marines going off assault ships (with harriers and copters) proved the concept of smaller carriers. Heck, if a country is REALLY bootstrapping it, they can modify a container ship or build carriers out of ferro cement!
--
April 8th, 2005  
Trevor
 
Yes, The ramp is very smart. I always notice F-14s dip down at the end of the ship when they take off. It would definitely allow for a smaller ship.
April 9th, 2005  
bushpig1998
 
 
The Brits proved the ramp concept. I always wondered why more countries didn't adopt this design method. I've seen footage of F14's dipping as well. I think they may still dip with a ramp, but not nearly as much as they do now. F14's are heavy planes. I can't wait to see the JSF deployed and in action....wooohooo!
April 9th, 2005  
WarMachine
 
 
But the tomcats were so friggin cool. They had movable wings and were like sky sharks. They always remind of those valkyries in robotech. They should make a new model of the tomcat, that would be much more awesome than any jsf.
April 10th, 2005  
cPFC/SAJROTC
 
Problem with a newer F-14 is the F/A-18 "Hornet" and the F/A-18G "Growler" are already in wide use, and perform the same missions. I agree though, the F-14 was and still is, a very cool bird. And it deserves some of the credit it's grabbed over the years, such as Tom Cruise's movie "Top Gun".

As for a ramp, that could solve fighter launches, but smaller, prop driven birds that can launch of Nimitz-class carriers couldn't just ramp off a smaller craft.

I stand by what I said originally, we need a mixture since both styles of vessel can fulfill vital roles in conflicts. Also, with smaller carriers it allows the larger vessels to be held back, like everyone else has said, the smaller carrier doesnt require as much monetary support, but, it also cant fulfill all the same missions as a super-carrier. Also, they'd be easier to destroy, and they could reduce the effectiveness of our Navy if the Super-carrier was cut from service. America rules the oceans, but remember, so did the British back during the time of the revolutionary war and the War of 1812, and now they dont. The same thing can happen to the USN if we're not careful.
April 10th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
Quote:
America rules the oceans, but remember, so did the British back during the time of the revolutionary war and the War of 1812, and now they dont.
Actually, Great Britain ruled the seas right up until the beginning of WWII. We only overtook them then. They also ruled the seas from the time of Elizabeth I forward - some 350 years. We should do so well to last as long. As that's still another 290 years away there's time and tide to come.
April 10th, 2005  
Mohmar Deathstrike
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whispering Death
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.
I think France has a supercarrier. What I'm sure of that the Charles DeGaulle is nuclear-powered and can accommodate more than 60 non-VTOL Rafale M's. Does that not count as a supercarrier? I don't think any other country (apart from U.S. obviously) has any nuclear powered carriers from which planes with no vertical thrust capability can take off.
April 10th, 2005  
WarMachine
 
 
The latest developement for planes is to make them smaller and easier to take off. Gone are the days of the giant f-14 tomcat in all its glory taking up half the carrier deck. Also spyplanes on carriers won't be as important since you have satellites and other means of achieving the same results. And now with those uav's that are a third the size of modern jets, you won't even need long landing zones, just a landing deck really. I'm not saying that super carriers will go away, just that more countries will invest into smaller carriers for smaller aircraft.