Why not build smaller Aircraft Carriers?

Smaller Aircraft Carriers

  • Total voters
    5
R

Red_Army

Active member
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.
 
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? :

ads3small2lk.jpg


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 ....... :D

Never the Less those Giants Look Cool ......... 8)

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top