New Carriers for the RN!

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
Garfield got a cat named after him. Not a cat on a carrier, mind.

No Eurofighter? (No VTOL?)

Eurofighter Typhoon isn't a carrier aircraft. or VTOL.

The F-35B(which will be what the two ships use) are V/STOL aircraft.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Will


Q. Adams (There is USS Quincy, but named after the town Adams and Q. Adams were born in), Harrison, Tyler, Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, Johnson, Hayes (there is a USS Hayes, but I don't who it named after), Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland, McKinley, Taft, Harding, Coolidge, & Hoover. I didn't check any after that.

We do not have any ships name after Ford
or Nixon.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kidicious


The arresting chains probably have the capacity. The problem is the capability of the pilots. You have to be trained to land on a ship. Even if you are trained you probably couldn't land a 747 or airbus.

Are you stupid? The pilots aren't the problem, the problem is the wingspan of a 747 or A380 would clip off the tower...I'd say that's an issue. Then there's the landing gear which couldn't sustain the landing, and then there's the lack of a hook. The capability of pilots in question isn't relevant. Some of them probably flew Navy jets anyway.

[LordShiva]

One dayt thjey re will be a carrier nam,ed aftyer me :Lb:

But no ta USN one :naughtyL:

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Not really, since a new Nimitz with maybe three times the capability costs only 4.5 billion dollars.

We have the experiance and economy of scale though, so I am sure that has a bit to do with that cost. Good on them though, I do wish they had gone with catapults though.

so for the cost of a handful of b2s the US could get a new carrier? wth did the US build any b2s at all with that kind of pricing?

[Will9]

Originally posted by Joseph
We do not have any ships name after Ford

Not yet, but the next carrier, which is the first of the class, is being named after him.

[Will9]

Originally posted by Geronimo


so for the cost of a handful of b2s the US could get a new carrier? wth did the US build any b2s at all with that kind of pricing?

You can't have a carrier, or the planes on it, strike unnoticed.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Joseph
We do not have any ships name after Ford
or Nixon.

You have one current ship named after Ford, and another one entering service in 2015 named after him. Potentially you'll have two ships named after one wanker.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Will


You can't have a carrier, or the planes on it, strike unnoticed.

Maybe the US should get stealth submarine supercarriers like Canada has.

And if you strike something and no one notices, did you strike something?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Will


You can't have a carrier, or the planes on it, strike unnoticed.

Sure you can. Especially as the carrier wing in question will be consisting of stealth(F-35s) aircraft.

You have one current ship named after Ford, and another one entering service in 2015 named after him. Potentially you'll have two ships named after one wanker.

The current ship ain't named after President Ford.

[Asher]

Looks like it was actually named after someone better.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Mr Snuggles
Looks like it was actually named after someone better.

You won't really hear me dispute that.

[Sandman]

Looking more closely at the design, the exterior plane lift doesn't strike me as a good idea. A lucky hit there and the whole carrier is crippled.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Sandman
Looking more closely at the design, the exterior plane lift doesn't strike me as a good idea. A lucky hit there and the whole carrier is crippled.

Virtually all big carriers(in fact, I think it is all) have edge elevators instead of "interior" ones...mostly because Edge elevators don't hinder flight operations(as much).

[Vanguard]

Originally posted by Hercules
Just out of interest, could a 747 or Airbus land on one of these safely, say in an emergency - meaning shortage of fuel.?

Well, I don't know about these carriers. But you might just be able to land an A380 on a Nimitz class under absolutely optimal conditions.

The carrier would have to be moving at 31 knots into a steady 40 knot gale. And the A380 would have to be very light with no cargo and no fuel.

With that combination, stall speed could be as low as 80 knots. So the plane would have a relative speed of only 15-20 mph when it touches the deck. You could probably stop in less than 500 feet at that speed.

Of course it would be completely stupid. You are risking 5000 lives on the carrier to (possibly) save a couple of hundred on the plane. But it might be possible.