![]() |
|
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 |
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. |
f-117 sucks :rotfl::rotfl::roll::yep:
|
Quote:
|
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. |
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: |
Quote:
I quote: Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
-S |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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. |
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/o...raptor_071126/ This is one report, also read it in AFM monthly. |
Quote:
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??? |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:21 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.