Why not build smaller Aircraft Carriers? - Page 4




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 12th, 2005  
bushpig1998
 
 
I agree. The super carriers will not disappear anytime soon, but more countries will start investing in smaller carriers.

The ideal situation would be a smaller carrier with ramp with small multirole planes on it - lots of 'em. The F14 is one of the coolest birds even IMO, but it is very large and really could not get off the deck withoiut a catapult.

Say something like a hopped up hunter hawk (just an example) or the HDI concept I mentioned in another thread. Small, light weight, very long range, more limited payload, but still enough to do some damage. Basically a carriers role is to allow some operation to clear a path for land forces to settle or take out selected targets - I don't think you would launch a carpet bombing campaign from a carrier...
With the new smart munitions, you don't need 20 bombs on a plane to hit 2 targets. 4 Should be enough.

This would be a very fast, small carrier with around 20 aircraft on it. Maybe something like 12 fighters and 8 copters?

Just an idea...
February 10th, 2014  
Sergey_NY
 

Topic: Different aircraft carriers


As china and India gained the technology - we can not compeet with them in quantity. We need new technology of aircraft carriers.
For example, fast deployed and cheap:
1) phase one: a submarine comes up where needed, or a transport airplane lends where needed (on sea or lend), or a "regular" ship stops
2) phase two: like a auto-inflatable life-boats, a platform gets erected (maybe Nano-tech pipes and sheets are used - light weight)
3) the sub, airplane or the sheep serve as engine and command centers.
4) while all this is happening, the aircraft wing reach the newly created air-carrier and land
Bottom line: speed and low-cost of dispatching; location - any: sea, ice or mountains.
February 16th, 2014  
{¤nn¤r
 
Considering that most planes in the future will be VTOL I don't think aircraft carriers are going to be very large for very long.
--
April 7th, 2014  
JOC
 
 

Topic: US Super Carriers


The longer landing strip offered by the larger carriers offer a safer landing strip for today’s modern jets. Also since the modern super carriers (unlike during WW2) are so well protected by the accompanying armada it's unlikely that they would come under direct attack. The addition aircraft carried by these super carriers makes them much more formidable. Surprisingly they are more cost effective then building a larger fleet of smaller carriers. The US Navy maintains x10 (100 to ~ 70) ton super carriers.
April 11th, 2014  
LeEnfield
 
 
One nuclear tipped missile could take out a whole battle group and with more and more countries having the bomb makes this a possibility
April 12th, 2014  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
My personal opinion about this is; I think we will see smaller aircraft carriers when the development of using UAVs will increase and getting the people out of harms way
April 14th, 2014  
JOC
 
 

Topic: Nukes anyone?


That's a given, Anyone but terrorists who nukes the US fleet would likely be in for some issues wouldn't you think?
If a terrorist group does somehow get a nuke they likely won't have the missile to launch it with and 2 would greatly prefer to use it on the good old USA if possible.
April 15th, 2014  
BritinAfrica
 
 
The Royal Navy had small carriers for the Harriers, then the dozy buggers scrapped the Harriers then sold off the carriers without any replacement carriers to take their place.

The biggest threat to British security is the British Government. None of them could organise a bun fight in a bakery.
April 15th, 2014  
JOC
 
 

Topic: Falklands


Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
The Royal Navy had small carriers for the Harriers, then the dozy buggers scrapped the Harriers then sold off the carriers without any replacement carriers to take their place.

The biggest threat to British security is the British Government. None of them could organise a bun fight in a bakery.
I know it's been a while 87, but didn't they basically win the war largely due to those carriers?
April 16th, 2014  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOC
I know it's been a while 87, but didn't they basically win the war largely due to those carriers?
What war are you talking about? If you mean the Falklands War that was 1982.

If that is what you mean then you are correct, if the Argentines had waited a few months they would still be in the Falklands as the dozy British Government had those carriers up for sale.

There were rumours that Prime Minister Harold Wilson was a Soviet Mole, as he was forever in Moscow, I'm wondering if Cameron the British Prime Minister is an Al Qaeda mole as he seems hell bent on reducing British Forces to a point where we can't protect the Isle of Wight, let alone the British Isles.