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...)



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

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by seafarer

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.

[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


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:

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by elite_hunter_sh3

f-117 sucks :rotfl::rotfl:

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]

Originally Posted by elite_hunter_sh3

f-117 sucks :rotfl::rotfl:

What stunning and insightful analysis. Who needs Janes Defence publications when we have you around.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Konovalov

What stunning and insightful analysis. Who needs Janes Defence publications when we have you around.

:rotfl::rotfl: Yeah - Jane Sucks by comparrison! :p

-S