Go Back   Star Trek Online > Information and Discussion > Ten Forward
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 11
08-04-2011, 05:34 AM
The French scared the British by designing a Proper Carrier... Did you ever see the Game Red October some nice silhouettes these to load a torp on but.. MicroProse F-14 was great Sim to Show what the Soviets wanted to do with a Real Full size carrier not a jump jet harrier type.. But here I show again?

Dust old jacket and hat off... Salute fore aft...

the CVN 78

Isn't Jerry Ford great!

http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/027809.gif

ADM Rickover would be proud of that Nuclear Navy..
[Admiral, Hyman Rickover, the Father of the Nuclear Navy, was born in Moscow, Russia (which is now Poland) on January 27, 1900] !!


http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/027809.gif
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 12
08-04-2011, 05:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archanubis
yeah they also tried an carrier made from an iceberg so i will discount any ww2 bs experiments.




But seriously: Drones are already well set to replace conventional aircraft in many roles. The tech is only going to get better.


With submersible i do not even mean really deep. but deep enough to foil any radar lock. Just imagine having a drone platform anywhere you need it without the other side knowing about it. let alone be able to attack it.


I think this would be great supplement to current carriers.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 13
08-04-2011, 05:58 AM
China has no active Carriers, we have 11 with two more already being worked on and another one planned (people are trying to get it named Enterprise since CVAN-65 is due for retirement soon.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 14
08-04-2011, 06:00 AM
Also think about the cost of this thing. The Nimitz-class super carrier cost $4.5 billion, by itself. Thats not including the cost of all the aircraft and equipment it carries. This thing China is making could cost like $10 billion.

EDIT: What I mean is, I don't think you'll actually be seeing these things floating around anytime soon.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 15
08-04-2011, 06:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by claydermunch View Post
yeah they also tried an carrier made from an iceberg so i will discount any ww2 bs experiments.




But seriously: Drones are already well set to replace conventional aircraft in many roles. The tech is only going to get better.


With submersible i do not even mean really deep. but deep enough to foil any radar lock. Just imagine having a drone platform anywhere you need it without the other side knowing about it. let alone be able to attack it.


I think this would be great supplement to current carriers.
I suppose it is possable, you'd have to operate it in a similar way to how SSBN's operate though, since it wouldn't be able to have a support fleet like moedern carriers (since this would give its position away). It's also worth noting that it would still be vulnerable to sonar and satilite tracking and would obviously still be vulnerable to radar when it's on the surface launching and recovering the drones.

It would still be vulnerable to SSN's as well, and without a support fleet to protect it, it would be 'alot' more vulnerable than a carrier. Personally, I like the idea that is been proposed on future ship designs, where ships have a helicopter and a drone. If smaller ships did carry drones you could actually have a fairly decent sized strike airforce without a centralised command post.

I'm actually curious how Electronic Warfare is coming along in regards to drone warfare (and the ability to block the signal used to control them). A breakthough in that technology could destroy a military force that is reliant on drones.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 16
08-04-2011, 06:08 AM
I've seen something similar in a PS2 series of games called Naval Ops, Warship Gunner (I & II) and Warship Commander. Interesting concept, but I really doubt the Red Chinese, who like to think big, could pull something like that off.

Also, as the resident Submariner, they're called Submarines! not submersables!
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 17
08-04-2011, 06:14 AM
I'm not even sure they'd want such carriers in any number (any number above 0) since they can supposedly cripple or even sink an enemy carrier with a single modified DF-21.
So a new carrier based on the old Varyag would theoretically be satiscaftory and possibly the combination of the two would also be less expensive than a swimming island.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 18 HMMM not so much
08-04-2011, 06:25 AM
CHina is working on 1 carrier with plans for 2 more on the way after the trials of this one is complete or in china's case during its trials of the live ship.

American does not take 10 years to build a carrier we only take 2 to 3 years HW bush was built in about 2 years times nimitz class 6.2 billion. supper carrier class over 100,000 tons displacement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Geo...h_%28CVN-77%29


Chinas newest carrier is only 50,000 tons. its a small step to show they can do great things as well. I commend them for going bold and modern.

Lets not try and compare the two as america builds its ship from the ground up while this new chinese ship is bought and then repaired and put into active service.

For a star trek analogy the federation is the US and china are the bajorians

Quote:
Originally Posted by mister_dee
I'm not even sure they'd want such carriers in any number (any number above 0) since they can supposedly cripple or even sink an enemy carrier with a single modified DF-21.
So a new carrier based on the old Varyag would theoretically be satiscaftory and possibly the combination of the two would also be less expensive than a swimming island.
The only way you can hit a carrier with this sort of missle is if it comes from outside the atmosphere. Any where else it can be shot down as a carrier has a wide area of control and electronic warefare equipment. not to mention several interceptor platform guns and missles. anything is possible but training gives it better odds.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 19
08-04-2011, 06:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hravik
I highly doubt something like this will ever actually be built. Looks pretty on paper, but a catamaran design on a 300k ton vessel? Imagine the torsion stress on the center part of the deck in high seas. There's a reason carrier hullforms are pretty well standard, since it keeps the flight deck as stable as possible.

Then there's the issue of where do you drydock this beast? How do you slip a vessel that large past Taiwan, Japan, or the Philippines--none of whom are particularly fond of China.

Or the giant bullseye that would be painted on a carrier that large, and the enormous battlegroup that would be needed to protect it.
Nmitz class carrier does have a, how to say it "defect". When fully loaded it tends to lean over to one side.

Every carrier is a bulls-eye target since it is the ship that projects most power, hence the battlegroup that is escorting it. Battlegroup does not only have escort ships but supply ships as well.

All that a side, the carrier should be built to do what is required of it. No matter the design
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 20
08-04-2011, 06:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by UFP-Magnis View Post
CHina is working on 1 carrier with plans for 2 more on the way after the trials of this one is complete or in china's case during its trials of the live ship.

American does not take 10 years to build a carrier we only take 2 to 3 years HW bush was built in about 2 years times nimitz class 6.2 billion. supper carrier class over 100,000 tons displacement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Geo...h_%28CVN-77%29.
Building an aircraft carrier is one thing, but outfitting it and getting it fully operational and into service takes many years, in your link it states that ship was laid down in 2001 and was completed in 2009, thats not exactly 2-3 years...... She also didn't enter service until 2011, so yeah, thats 1o years to build and put a super carrier into service.


Quote:
Lets not try and compare the two as america builds its ship from the ground up while this new chinese ship is bought and then repaired and put into active service.
Although the Chinese didn't build this ship from the ground up (it was only 70% complete when they bought it), they do have expertise in ship building. What they lack is the expertise of fixed wing carrier operations, this is what will cause issues for them, as it will take a lot longer to get the ship into operational status because of this.

Quote:
For a star trek analogy the federation is the US and china are the bajorians
I think that is a somewhat poor anology. The Federation is a group of many countries, in real world terms it would most likely be NATO. It's also a bit insulting to infer China is small force with little clout, they certainly shouldn't be underestimated.

Quote:
The only way you can hit a carrier with this sort of missle is if it comes from outside the atmosphere. Any where else it can be shot down as a carrier has a wide area of control and electronic warefare equipment. not to mention several interceptor platform guns and missles. anything is possible but training gives it better odds.
I'd be curious to actually know how well all these layers of defence work. it wasn't until the Falklands war that many of the British systems that we thought were sufficient were shown to be ineffective against an actual attack (rather than a drill). Although I do agree, carrier groups have a pretty think layer of defences that arn't exactly a walk in the palk to avoid. it's more likely a carrier would be taken out by a submarine using conventional weapons, or failing that, using nuclear missiles.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:41 AM.