Is it Possible to Have a Stealth Carrier???

[motsivad]

Stealth Destroyers are becoming ever more common but is it technically possible to have a Stealth Aircraft Carrier?

The cost would be astronomical of course, but I just wondered.

Surely thought the aircraft on its deck would ruin the ships stealth profile though.

[Letum]

Well....yes, but it would mean huge compromises.

[Tchocky]

A PS2 game involved a submerged carrier :)
Stealthy enough? (I doubt it, the sheer amount of noise that thing would make...)

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/c/cb/Scinfaxi.jpg

Thinking about a stealth carrier, I can't really see the point. Mostly, when a nation moves a carrier, it wants people to know that it's there.

[JSLTIGER]

Beginning with the USS Gerald R Ford (CVN-78), US carriers are slated to start incorporating some stealth technologies.

[seafarer]

Kind of also depends on what you mean (want?) by stealth. Could a carrier incorporate stealth technology to reduce it's radar signature? Sure, I'd image so.

Could you reduce a carrier's radar signature to that of a fly - not and make it out of any kind of metal, that's for sure.

Seems to me that even with the stealth aspects of current DDs and such, the idea is just to reduce their hard point radar returns to the point they are at least not distinguishable easily as a warship. It's not like a B-2 or F-117 where the idea is to shrink the whole radar signature down to such a small size the entire aircraft gets completely missed against the background.

'Course, I ain't no engineer, so maybe you can make a 95,000 ton metal ship disappear completely from radar?

[Kapitan]

I think they are implementing stealth features into the new Queen Elizabeth class CV's of the royal navy not 100% though.

[Oberon]

The Scinfaxi and Hrimfaxi!! *hugs them*

I think a stealth carrier could be done, but would be bloody awkward to keep fully stealth, particularly with aircraft on deck. BUT, it would wreck the whole point of a CVBG (or CSG whatever they want to call them these days, they'll always be CVBG's to me) which is to project power. For stealthy strikes on enemy targets, there's B2, B1s and TLAMs :)

Interesting concept though :D

[geetrue]

Yes, you could make a stealth carrier ... it would have to be long and narrow with a low profile, but it would still cause a hole in the water standing still and all machines make noise ...

You wouldn't be able to hide from submarines that's for sure ...

[elite_hunter_sh3]

with money, anything is possible.... in 20-30 years we are gonna have cloaking fields etc.. all that mumbo jumbo...:yep: we already have rail guns FTW.. :arrgh!:

[bradclark1]

It would probably be possible within a given range untill things start happening on deck but wow, could you imagine the cost? I'd say it's going to be far down the road yet.

[SUBMAN1]

Seems to me that even with the stealth aspects of current DDs and such, the idea is just to reduce their hard point radar returns to the point they are at least not distinguishable easily as a warship. It's not like a B-2 or F-117 where the idea is to shrink the whole radar signature down to such a small size the entire aircraft gets completely missed against the background.The F-117 has quite a large radar cross section as compared to a B-2 or an F-22. They are being retired for this reason alone. To expensive to maintain, such as sparying it with RAM prior to flight, etc. The F-22 can accomplish a lower RCS without any maitenance or RAM coatings.

-S

[bookworm_020]

I think the purpose of a having astealth features is to reduce the radar sig to make it less vunrable to emeny weapons, I don't think it's going to disappear from radar screens any time soon. It will reduce the range it can be detected, which gives the carrier a greater chance of detecting the intruder and dealing with it.

[geetrue]

Everybody is going to have a satellite someday ... look down and see everything that is moving.

Bam! No stealth carrier left ... :yep:

[sonar732]

Everybody is going to have a satellite someday ... look down and see everything that is moving.

Bam! No stealth carrier left ... :yep:

It's no secret that we kept satellites overhead watching the GIUK gap and I'm sure that the Russians kept one off the east and west coast.

Not to mention the fact that if the theory of having a satellite shot a ray from space is in the Aces flight simulator game...gives the obvious of "where did they think that up from".

[SUBMAN1]

I think the purpose of a having astealth features is to reduce the radar sig to make it less vunrable to emeny weapons, I don't think it's going to disappear from radar screens any time soon. It will reduce the range it can be detected, which gives the carrier a greater chance of detecting the intruder and dealing with it.Quite frankly, an F-22 or B-2 will disappear from radar screens completely. So can a properly coated F-117, so this is not a true statement.

A F-117 has an estimated radar cross section of less than .75 meters (Which is quite good considering its size!) which makes it pretty much undetectable by almost all Ex Soviet or current generation Russian Radar. This is true if the RAM (RADAR ABSORBING MATERIAL - it must be properly coated each and every time the aircraft flies to cover every seem that can bounce signals prior to every flight - not an efficient way to operate aircraft and it takes a large ground crew to turn aircraft around this way) is coated on the aircraft properly by ground crews and it is not flying in any sort of rainy weather. Russia does have a few radars that can detect this plane however and they are called OTH radar (which stands for over the horizon), but at only limited range. Basically, for a normal RADAR to see this aircraft if everything is operating normally, the F-117 would need to be flying pretty much right next to it and from the side (which is further hampered if its a doppler radar which typically calculates only too or from but has a hard time seeing something that is not changing distance). Move the F-117 above or to and from the radar, and its pretty much invisible.

The F-22 however ups the game and has the radar cross section of what? A bumble bee? Its RCS is calculated at about .01! Whoaa!

As you can see, the F-117 is no longer needed. You have a full fighter with full stealth (If properly configured with no drop tanks and all internal weapons of course) that can not only do the job of dropping precision guided JDAMS from its internal bays, but can also engage enemy aircraft in a practically unfair air to ar engagement with little or no threat to itself.

Isn't the F-117 retired already? i think it is. I'll google that and take a look.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Yep - the F-117 is done this year - http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Feb-16-Thu-2006/news/5907352.html

-S

[StarFox]

possiable yes, practical, no

There was a study I read about a while back, a stealth carrier would require that aircraft to be below deck at all times, unless being recovered or launched. having planes on deck ruins the stealth properties. So its far more practical to have normal super carriers with heavy defenses

[CCIP]

I agree, not all that's super-duper is always practical :D


Depending on what happens in the world in the foreseeable future, I wouldn't be surprised that the concept of the carrier itself will be obsolete and utterly useless within 50 years.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

f-117 sucks :rotfl::rotfl::roll::yep:

[bradclark1]

Depending on what happens in the world in the foreseeable future, I wouldn't be surprised that the concept of the carrier itself will be obsolete and utterly useless within 50 years.
I'm not so sure unless aircraft speed and fuel useage change a lot. There is nothing like a carrier task force off your shores to make one rethink your position. In fact a carrier task force might take on a larger roll in world affairs. Fleets would have to have more destroyers and frigates though to properly protect.

[Tchocky]

Some theorists are saying that aircraft carriers wouldn't survive for very long in a modern war. Expensive, pretty, and doomed :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

The fact remains that the most useful task a CVBG can accomplish is power projection - designed to avoid war through intimidation. And, to be fair, CVBG's are fairly intimidating.
However, if the carrier battle group is proved to be as vulnerable as some believe it to be, I can't see it's power projection abilities being very effective.

[geetrue]

The only real use of a very expensive stealth carrier would be for first strike offensive warfare ...

Depending on which country you chose to launch an air strike on ... you can expect retaillation.

Terroist are available for a price to get even if we attack a non-super power country ...

Leaves the super powers of Russia or China to start a war with ... the ending scenerio would not be very pleasant if we attacked either of these countries.

What we need is a submaine that can carry supplies and oil for the regular Navy ships that haven't converted to nuclear yet ... :yep:

[SUBMAN1]

f-117 sucks :rotfl::rotfl::roll::yep:THat would be an inaccurate statement. It was an excellent aircraft in the late 1970's and early 1980's. It proved itself in the 1990's and 2000's many times over, but as that article I posted said, it is a great airplane for today, but its usefulness is seriously outclassed right now by better aircraft.

I quote:

"It is still a good airplane right now. But when you look 10 years from now or 15 years from now when you have F-22s and Joint Strike Fighters that have the same, low-observable characteristics and can carry more than two internal weapons, it's time to start looking at a transition," Moseley said.

[Konovalov]

f-117 sucks :rotfl::rotfl::roll::yep:
What stunning and insightful analysis. Who needs Janes Defence publications when we have you around.

[SUBMAN1]

f-117 sucks :rotfl::rotfl::roll::yep: What stunning and insightful analysis. Who needs Janes Defence publications when we have you around. :rotfl::rotfl: Yeah - Jane Sucks by comparrison! :p:D

-S

[Zayphod]

What we need is a submaine that can carry supplies and oil for the regular Navy ships that haven't converted to nuclear yet ... :yep:

That'll be Silent Hunter X - Suppliers to the Hunters. :cool:

[Zayphod]

Stealth Destroyers are becoming ever more common but is it technically possible to have a Stealth Aircraft Carrier?

The cost would be astronomical of course, but I just wondered.

Surely thought the aircraft on its deck would ruin the ships stealth profile though.

It was already attempted. I think it was called "The Philadelphia Experiment." :know:

[Sea Demon]

Stealth carrier? It depends on what you mean. If you're talking about a carrier that has signature management features, acoustic reduction characteristics, reduced RCS etc. , then yes, that stuff is being worked on. It will all be a part of the next gen carrier. Stealth in the case of a carrier will not mean "invisible carrier". It will just be made to have a profile of something different than one would expect from a carrier.

[XabbaRus]

I personally think the F-22 is over rated. Do a quick google and you'll find it has some deficiencies that aren't touted in AF publications.

For example.
Current aircraft don't have Link 16 so can't be the forward air controller that is often portrayed in articles.

Apparantly there was no destructive testing done on an airframe test model and that there is a weakness in its main fuselage boom.

http://www.armytimes.com/community/opinion/airforce_backtalk_raptor_071126/
This is one report, also read it in AFM monthly.

[SUBMAN1]

I personally think the F-22 is over rated. Do a quick google and you'll find it has some deficiencies that aren't touted in AF publications.

For example.
Current aircraft don't have Link 16 so can't be the forward air controller that is often portrayed in articles.

Apparantly there was no destructive testing done on an airframe test model and that there is a weakness in its main fuselage boom.

http://www.armytimes.com/community/opinion/airforce_backtalk_raptor_071126/
This is one report, also read it in AFM monthly.Minor problems that will be fixed as time goes on. FYI - every new airframe has bugs that must be worked out once you see what happens in full operation. Link 16 is a systems mod that can be added as its completed. The airframe is minor enough to not even warrant a grounding. There is a leaky top plate on the first planes off the assembly line that is causing corrosion in places, but all that will be fixed in time and current models rolling off don't have that problem.

All minor BS brought up by critics. Same thing happened for F-16's and F-15's and every other aircraft that ever entered service.

-S

PS. One thing I noticed - the F-22's are still not giving away their true potential. They are not being flown without drop tanks for instance so as not to give away their true stealthy nature. Must still be classified until a real war erupts???

[geetrue]

http://www.defense-update.com/images_new/J-UCAS-Sunset.jpg

http://www.defense-update.com/newscast/0807/news/010807_ucas_d.htm

Perhaps no stealth carrier in the near future like the new Zumwalt DD-1000 that was just approved for building, but they do have a next generation US Navy unmanned observation stealth plane being developed as we speak.

Production version could be out by 2018: X-47
Testing is scheduled to begin in late 2009 and culminate with carrier flight operations in 2013. The tests will involve shipboard operation, including catapult takeoffs, arrested landings and flight in the immediate vicinity of an aircraft carrier. The air vehicle will not carry weapons.

[Tchocky]

PS. One thing I noticed - the F-22's are still not giving away their true potential. They are not being flown without drop tanks for instance so as not to give away their true stealthy nature. Must still be classified until a real war erupts???
I've seen plenty of pics of F22's without tanks.
Then again, they could be over the US, away from snoopy radars

[SUBMAN1]

PS. One thing I noticed - the F-22's are still not giving away their true potential. They are not being flown without drop tanks for instance so as not to give away their true stealthy nature. Must still be classified until a real war erupts??? I've seen plenty of pics of F22's without tanks.
Then again, they could be over the US, away from snoopy radarsMe too, but the only intercept pics I have seen were with un-needed drop tanks. That thing has a 1,000 mile range with internal fuel alone. 2,000+ if you add drop tanks.

-S

[XabbaRus]

The point is with the money spent no destruction testing was carried out on a complete airframe. It is a problem that should never have happened. and needed to be fixed especially when you are getting so few.

As for Link 16 it should have been in at the beginning, other AF have it and the USAF touts its network centric ability which at the current moment it can't do. Sure it will in time but that shuldn't be the case.