U.S. Force Grows in Persian Gulf

[Grasshopper27]

Three more carriers should be on the way to the Gulf right now.

Six carriers makes for an impressive force, but it still is just a tactical strike force. We need the Air Force to really bomb anyone.

I think we need to spend our billions on a new and larger carrier design rather than buying off countries like Jordon and Turkey for use of their military bases.

We need somthing big enough to operate large aircraft like cargo planes and bombers off of.

No possible you say? The C-130 Hercules is the largest aircraft ever to land and take off on a carrier. In fact, it is so good it did this 40 years ago.

http://www.scenery.org/c-130.htm
Lockheed's Ted Limmer, who checked out fighter pilot Flatley in the C-130, stayed on for some of the initial touch and go and full-stop landings. "The last landing I participated in, we touched down about 150 feet from the end, stopped in 270 feet more and launched from that position, using what was left of the deck. Still had a couple hundred feet left when we lifted off. Admiral Brown was flabbergasted...."

Build something 5 to 10 times the size of a Nimiz-class Carrier, something that you can fly F-117 Steath Fighters and B-2 Spirit Bombers off of and forget depending on other nations for our military deployments.

Hopper

 

[optoman]

It'll be cheaper to just pay off the gov'ts of those contries than try to build super carriers.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: optoman
It'll be cheaper to just pay off the gov'ts of those contries than try to build super carriers.

Yeah, but carriers are cooler. I'm all for designing a super-carrier. Remote B-1 and B-2 launching abilities? Oh yeah. I remember "designing" a carrier-sub back in middle school. It was enormous, about the size of 6 carriers (2 wide, 3 long). That'd be cool.

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: optoman
It'll be cheaper to just pay off the gov'ts of those contries than try to build super carriers.

In the short run, yes... In the long run, no...

Why? Because our power will grow when they realize we no longer need them.

Our problem is we don't have a sovereign platform for launching all our large airplanes. We need one.

Hopper

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27
Three more carriers should be on the way to the Gulf right now.

Six carriers makes for an impressive force, but it still is just a tactical strike force. We need the Air Force to really bomb anyone.

I think we need to spend our billions on a new and larger carrier design rather than buying off countries like Jordon and Turkey for use of their military bases.

We need somthing big enough to operate large aircraft like cargo planes and bombers off of.

No possible you say? The C-130 Hercules is the largest aircraft ever to land and take off on a carrier. In fact, it is so good it did this 40 years ago.

http://www.scenery.org/c-130.htm
Lockheed's Ted Limmer, who checked out fighter pilot Flatley in the C-130, stayed on for some of the initial touch and go and full-stop landings. "The last landing I participated in, we touched down about 150 feet from the end, stopped in 270 feet more and launched from that position, using what was left of the deck. Still had a couple hundred feet left when we lifted off. Admiral Brown was flabbergasted...."

Build something 5 to 10 times the size of a Nimiz-class Carrier, something that you can fly F-117 Steath Fighters and B-2 Spirit Bombers off of and forget depending on other nations for our military deployments.

Hopper

We don't need Carriers for our long range bombers like the B2, the B1 or the B52.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27
Three more carriers should be on the way to the Gulf right now.

Six carriers makes for an impressive force, but it still is just a tactical strike force. We need the Air Force to really bomb anyone.

I think we need to spend our billions on a new and larger carrier design rather than buying off countries like Jordon and Turkey for use of their military bases.

We need somthing big enough to operate large aircraft like cargo planes and bombers off of.

No possible you say? The C-130 Hercules is the largest aircraft ever to land and take off on a carrier. In fact, it is so good it did this 40 years ago.

http://www.scenery.org/c-130.htm
Lockheed's Ted Limmer, who checked out fighter pilot Flatley in the C-130, stayed on for some of the initial touch and go and full-stop landings. "The last landing I participated in, we touched down about 150 feet from the end, stopped in 270 feet more and launched from that position, using what was left of the deck. Still had a couple hundred feet left when we lifted off. Admiral Brown was flabbergasted...."

Build something 5 to 10 times the size of a Nimiz-class Carrier, something that you can fly F-117 Steath Fighters and B-2 Spirit Bombers off of and forget depending on other nations for our military deployments.

Hopper

There was an idea floated not long about towing barges then connecting them to create a mobile platform for launching heavy aircraft.

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
Yeah, but carriers are cooler.

Not only that, but a carrier 10 times the size of a Nimitz-class carrier would be all but immune to conventional anti-ship missiles. Only a low-yeild nuclear weapon could really threaten one. The shear physical size would make the impact of a cruise missile almost laughable. It would be more a floating city than a "ship" in the conventional sense.

Hopper

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
We don't need Carriers for our long range bombers like the B2, the B1 or the B52.

We need a place to forward deploy them. Right now the B-2 is deployed to Deigo Garcia. That works for Iraq, sorta...

What about F-16s and F-15s? F-117s and A-10s?

We need carriers so big that you no longer require catapults and arrester gear, this way you can launch and land anything on them, including bombers if you wish (or Air Force One for that matter)

Hopper

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27

Originally posted by: optoman
It'll be cheaper to just pay off the gov'ts of those contries than try to build super carriers.

In the short run, yes... In the long run, no...

Why? Because our power will grow when they realize we no longer need them.

Our problem is we don't have a sovereign platform for launching all our large airplanes. We need one.

Hopper

Actually the b-1/b2 can launch from just about anywhere and hit targets within 12 hours

We just need more of those. Someone in the pentagon is trying to 50 more b-2 class bombers. I think that is a good idea. It probably would not cost much more to operate a fleet of 70, than a fleet of 20. A new production run of b-2s would cost about 700million each.

 

[Queasy]

Is there currently a tonnage limit on warships much like the limits that were supposed to be followed prior to WWII?

 

[Jugernot]

That isn't gonna happen any time soon. It wouldn't be able to doc... or ever come close to any coast as it's hull would be too deep and would scrape the sea floor.

Jugs

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
We don't need Carriers for our long range bombers like the B2, the B1 or the B52.

Need, no, but it's a long way from Barksdale AFB in Bossier City to Baghdad. If you could launch, recover, and refuel them from 300 miles away instead of 8,000, you'd be able to have a heck of a lot more sorties and hopefully end the war faster.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27
Three more carriers should be on the way to the Gulf right now.

Six carriers makes for an impressive force, but it still is just a tactical strike force. We need the Air Force to really bomb anyone.

I think we need to spend our billions on a new and larger carrier design rather than buying off countries like Jordon and Turkey for use of their military bases.

We need somthing big enough to operate large aircraft like cargo planes and bombers off of.

No possible you say? The C-130 Hercules is the largest aircraft ever to land and take off on a carrier. In fact, it is so good it did this 40 years ago.

http://www.scenery.org/c-130.htm
Lockheed's Ted Limmer, who checked out fighter pilot Flatley in the C-130, stayed on for some of the initial touch and go and full-stop landings. "The last landing I participated in, we touched down about 150 feet from the end, stopped in 270 feet more and launched from that position, using what was left of the deck. Still had a couple hundred feet left when we lifted off. Admiral Brown was flabbergasted...."

That is a really cool C130 article. I've flown as a passenger in those birds many times. C-130s are so flexible in that the "runways" required for takeoff and landing are so short. I remember landing once on an extremely short runway which in turn was totally surrounded by tall trees. The runway was purposely carved out of a forest just for this exercise. Wow, what a trip! As soon as we disembarked, the bird took off at a wildly steep angle. I mean close to incredible.

C-130s are sweet to jump from too.

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: charrison
Actually the b-1/b2 can launch from just about anywhere and hit targets within 12 hours

Not true... The B-2 missions to Afghanistain took 44 hours round trip.

Hopper

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: Queasy
Is there currently a tonnage limit on warships much like the limits that were supposed to be followed prior to WWII?

Nope, we can build anything as big as our pocketbooks will allow.

Hopper

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: Jugernot
That isn't gonna happen any time soon. It wouldn't be able to doc... or ever come close to any coast as it's hull would be too deep and would scrape the sea floor.

Jugs

What does it need to dock for? It would be built at sea in a massive floating drydock (we do want several of these of course).

In any case, it wouldn't have much more of a draft than the current carriers do. It doesn't need to be all that much taller, just wider and longer.

Hopper

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
Need, no, but it's a long way from Barksdale AFB in Bossier City to Baghdad. If you could launch, recover, and refuel them from 300 miles away instead of 8,000, you'd be able to have a heck of a lot more sorties and hopefully end the war faster.

Exactly, it becomes a force multipler. The faster you can cycle the sorties, the more useful the planes are and the fewer of them you need.

Hopper

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27

Originally posted by: Queasy
Is there currently a tonnage limit on warships much like the limits that were supposed to be followed prior to WWII?

Nope, we can build anything as big as our pocketbooks will allow.

Hopper

LOL..good thing the Japanese aren't the same now as they were back then. They'd be the first to build the Macross

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27

Originally posted by: charrison
Actually the b-1/b2 can launch from just about anywhere and hit targets within 12 hours

Not true... The B-2 missions to Afghanistain took 44 hours round trip.

Hopper

Not exactly true.

The took off from Whitman, dropped a few bombs over afganistan, flew to diego garcia, reloaded(1 or more times), then flew back to the states in 44 hours.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27

Originally posted by: Jugernot
That isn't gonna happen any time soon. It wouldn't be able to doc... or ever come close to any coast as it's hull would be too deep and would scrape the sea floor.

Jugs

What does it need to dock for? It would be built at sea in a massive floating drydock (we do want several of these of course).

In any case, it wouldn't have much more of a draft than the current carriers do. It doesn't need to be all that much taller, just wider and longer.

Hopper

This is reason for the towed barges. They will go thru any of the canal systems. They can operate in relativly shallow water. And to top it off, they would be cheap.