Why not build smaller Aircraft Carriers?
bushpig1998
Active member
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!
bushpig1998
Active member
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!
:rambo:
:rambo:
WarMachine
Active member
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.
cPFC/SAJROTC
Active member
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.
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.
Charge 7
Master Gunner
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.
Mohmar Deathstrike
Banned
Whispering Death said:
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.
WarMachine
Active member
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.
bushpig1998
Active member
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...
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
I3BrigPvSk
The Viking
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
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.
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.
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
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.
The biggest threat to British security is the British Government. None of them could organise a bun fight in a bakery.
Falklands
I know it's been a while 87, but didn't they basically win the war largely due to those carriers?
I know it's been a while 87, but didn't they basically win the war largely due to those carriers?
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
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.