Modern Aircraft Carrier

Discussion in 'Boat Design' started by Dook, Feb 19, 2005.

  1. cyclops
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 1,059
    Likes: 5, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 38
    Location: usa

    cyclops Senior Member

    Stealth on small equipment for a short mission 1-5 hours is attainable. once a Stelth machine has to refuel, resupply, rearmor, or be part of a group there is no Stelth. Just launch a couple of 50' above the water missiles at the group with a internal timer. Very bad time. Nothing is defenseable. Falkland Island War taught us all, and super powers, to stop believing their own superiorty. Same deal with the rubber raft destruction and scrapping of our latest supercruiser. USA Armed Forces are still selling us weapons to defeat the " U S S R ". To kill terrorists costs us the price of 1 bullet in each head. How is the F-22 super fighter going to identify, find and execute a terrorist ? There is not enough money to be spent in killing terrorists. They cannot support the world of business. Yes, war is cruel, but so is cancer, sunami tidal waves and killer bees. We are muddling thru them. The Japanse thru atomic bombs. If needed, the USA will muddle thru atomic weapons also. The MILITARY ARMIES of all nations are the largest employers in each country. Always will be.
     
  2. Dook
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 20
    Likes: 0, Points: 1, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: USA

    Dook Junior Member

    Not true. There will be stealth aircraft 100 miles ahead of any refueling operations, and who says the refuelers won't be stealth also? As for ships there just might be submarine's who's sole purpose is to serve as refuelers.

    The Falkland war taught the UK that they needed an overhead radar platform like the US's E-2 but they couldn't launch and recover an E-2 from their ships so they went with a large radar mounted on a helicopter.

    The F22 just might kill terrorists who use cell phones. The US is going to build new carriers anyway, they're just going to be slightly modified Nimitz class ships.

    I don't understand the rest of your post.
     
  3. cyclops
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 1,059
    Likes: 5, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 38
    Location: usa

    cyclops Senior Member

    DOOK. Do you really believe other countries are building up their armed forces to fight a head to head war with us? Full, Army, Navy , Air Force, Marines and all the rest of it ? I find that hard to believe.
     
  4. lakerunner
    Joined: Oct 2004
    Posts: 48
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: ohio

    lakerunner Junior Member

    Who knows the future of carrier design .... With the cold war over
    and micro wars now becoming the normal all over the world . The smaller (strike force)
    type of designs become more appealing . Such a structure of this size along with its support would be a vulnerable target with a tremendous amount of casualties in the case of any kind of attack, not to mention the amount of aircraft , Jet,Diesel, fuel , and most important, personel . Pearl harbor would be a good example of having too many eggs in one basket. I think the design is outstanding. But as for now ,what we deal with, to much is to much. . And as far as outside the country bidders... They could not muster the technology let alone afford to run something of this size ..( We can't either but we would build it anyway).
    Something smaller in nature ( Quick Reaction Force) Ideals
     
  5. lakerunner
    Joined: Oct 2004
    Posts: 48
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: ohio

    lakerunner Junior Member

    Also ....large sea going hubs is not good military strategy. That is a commercial idea.
     
  6. FAST FRED
    Joined: Oct 2002
    Posts: 4,519
    Likes: 110, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 1009
    Location: Conn in summers , Ortona FL in winter , with big d

    FAST FRED Senior Member

    "and covers so many aspects that even a State as France is uncapable of avoiding of making grave mistakes during the conception and buiding of their swimmingpool size AC "Charles De Gaulle" - if it was not for the billions of French taxpayers money that went down the drain, any commercial shipyard would have bankrupt and dead by long, even in the early stage of building."

    The French want the CDG to Have a carrier , not to operate a carrier.

    The design was French Perfect , the propeller fell off, and there are no spairs.

    So they have a grand Toy that can sit at the dock for over a year , looking good!

    I'm sure the Chinese were really as impressed as the rest of the worlds Navys.

    FAST FRED
     
  7. D'ARTOIS
    Joined: Nov 2004
    Posts: 1,068
    Likes: 18, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 321
    Location: The Netherlands

    D'ARTOIS Senior Member

    My friend, who supplied the propellor(s) in question had to turn red faced to Archenemy England (after all those years the UK still is) for a new propellor; that is the truth gentlemen. Fast Fred scores a point with this last statement;
    A Marine platform like an AC - a vital element in Marine Warfare; next to that comes immediately the question of mobility: this design cannot use the shortcuts to reach the world's usual smeltpots of fermenting conflicts - near east and far east where one lives in a state of ranky equilibrium.
    Another requirement for such a tremendous costly vessel is a large number of escorteurs - such a design requires an above normal protection-requirement in ships, planes, recon, and personnel.
     
  8. Dook
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 20
    Likes: 0, Points: 1, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: USA

    Dook Junior Member

    Well North Korea has put so much into their military that they can't feed their own people. Over 1 million have died because of their crop failures and the governments refusal to buy food. As far as a head to head fight, no I don't see any country able or willing to do that but that does not mean we are not going to need the absolute best military equipment there is.

    Who knows what will happen with China in 10-20 years. At some point in the future they may attempt an invasion of Taiwan.

    What if Musharif is overthrown in Pakistan and the new government is anti-US and openly supports Bin Laden and terrorism?

    One stealth aircraft can put a Nimitz out of action for a long time.
     
  9. Dook
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 20
    Likes: 0, Points: 1, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: USA

    Dook Junior Member

    This design is about as invulnerable as you get. It's shorter than a Nimitz. It is wider but most of that is under water. Above the surface it is 400' wide at most. It does stand about 20' higher out of the water. Three of it's sides provide complete stealth! Every aircraft carrier carries a lot of fuel and personnel, and this ship needs only half the crew of a Nimitz. Again about it's size, it's about the same size as a Nimitz! And the US is still building big aircraft carriers so why not build a better design.
     
  10. Dook
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 20
    Likes: 0, Points: 1, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: USA

    Dook Junior Member

    Really? One aircraft carrier battle group can project more power than 97% of the countries of the world. One. In all the battles and wars over the last 60 years a US aircraft carrier has not been damaged. How is that not good military strategy?
     
  11. Dook
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 20
    Likes: 0, Points: 1, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: USA

    Dook Junior Member

    I'm unsure if this design can go through the Suez Canal. Maybe not. But if so it should then be assigned to the Indian Ocean area of operations. The design does not need a large number of escorts, it carries twice as much jet fuel as a Nimitz so refueling would be less often. And it does not need an above normal level of protection because it has stealth. With the THEL's, VLMS, and CIWS it actually has more defensive capability than a Nimitz.
     
  12. D'ARTOIS
    Joined: Nov 2004
    Posts: 1,068
    Likes: 18, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 321
    Location: The Netherlands

    D'ARTOIS Senior Member

    War is the Game of Politicians. That we live on a smoldering volcano might be proved by the fact tha N-K bought thru Japanese scrapdealers a few Golf subs, with the firingstations of their midrange missile systems intact. Although the Russians took the life missiles, they didnot remove the electronic firingstation for costreasons.
    It is not my aim to step into details but the bare fact is that within a very short time the NK-N is capable of issueing a sub, an modified version of the Golf, with a nuclear warhead towards the US. This might be possible right now, or in the very near future. Of course, the US Government Agencies know this fact.
    The Russian Government has imprisoned a number of missilespe******ts who were planned to go to N-K in order to work on their missile program.
    In order to avoid further sales of vital technolgy to dissident countries, who buy the required technology from deserted ex-USSR laboratories annex design-bureau's or from designers who worked there and are in the posession of all documentation, NATO will conduct a massive clean-out of Ukrainian Armament stocks and supplies. Along the line, they will collect vital information about recent technology.

    The US Government has all the reasons to recount their armament-supplies as well as adding the fact that the USA is the most threatened country in the world - at this time. So if it is time to introduce a new concept, it is now.
    But if you don't have a very powerful supporter, the chances might be minimal that you achieve your goal. Outside the US there is virtually no other country that can afford to operate an AC in full service.

    Furthermore, I wouldn't rely on the stealth factor. Nothing today is "stealth" -
    the French and Russian Gvernment Agencies are selling the services of their
    sattelite-observation posts. They can track a matchbox in the ocean.......
     
  13. cyclops
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 1,059
    Likes: 5, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 38
    Location: usa

    cyclops Senior Member

    North Korea is getting the same raw deal from Russia as Cuba did from the U S S R. Lightening can strike-from-the same place many times. ;)
     
  14. lakerunner
    Joined: Oct 2004
    Posts: 48
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: ohio

    lakerunner Junior Member

    We have not had any major Naval battles in 60 years that could come close or compare to a modern model of all out naval warfare. We hav'nt had a enemy Navy chase us (visa versa) around the 7 seas in the last 60 years other than Soviet/American Submarine cat and mouse game. So to say that we have not lost a carrier in 60 years is not an accurate argument to justification. Your design is an excellent concept
     

  15. lakerunner
    Joined: Oct 2004
    Posts: 48
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: ohio

    lakerunner Junior Member

    I still believe in high mobility in modern warfare. It is easy to take out 1. it is not so easy to take 1 of 4 etc. etc. Large scale future warfare does not have a model, only assumptions. And I agree with D'artois we need new ideals and concepts and there is no better time than all the time for R&D .
     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.