Countries - Aircraft carriers

  • News
  • Thread starter JPC
  • Start date
  • #1
JPC
195
1
hey

Was wondering.

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

1) Does USA really have 12 4.5 billion USD Carriers ? or are some from the cold war ?
Are Cold war carriers of any use ? (like to carry helicopters) ?

2) Does france really have only 1 aircraft carrier now ? That seems small , one error and no more french carriers.

3) Which are the top 5 carriers in the world at the moment, and to which country they were built / belong to ?

4) Between all the new Carriers developments in the world , which are making the best ? Probably USA first , but then which countries ?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
There's 12?

Kitty Hawk and Enterprise were from the Vietnam Era. Carriers have been produced at a more or less steady clip since then. So about half of the rest are from the Cold War era, and the other half are more recent. USS Ronald Reagan was commissioned just after the Iraq war started (I think).
 
  • #3
mgb_phys
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
7,774
13
There are two types of ships in the world - submarines and targets!
Following the recent surprise visit from a chinese sub and the existance of super cavitating torpedoes, large carriers aren't looking such a good bet.

A few countries have tactical/support carriers using Harriers or helicopters to support a beach landing.
The UK+France are jointly building a new type - when they have finished arguing about the spelling of the name.
 
  • #4
356
3
2) Does france really have only 1 aircraft carrier now ? That seems small , one error and no more french carriers.
That, and it's not even a good one. Reactor problems, flight deck problems, it's slower than other non-nuclear carriers.
 
  • #5
mgb_phys
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
7,774
13
That, and it's not even a good one.
But I bet the canteen is excellent. :tongue:
 
  • #6
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
There's 12?
10 modern Nimitz class:
Nimitz
Eisenhower
Carl Vinson
T. Roosevelt
Abraham Lincoln
George Washington
Stennis
Truman
Reagan
G. H. W. Bush
 
  • #7
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
Has USS GHWB been commissioned already?
 
  • #8
devil-fire
There are two types of ships in the world - submarines and targets!
Following the recent surprise visit from a chinese sub and the existance of super cavitating torpedoes, large carriers aren't looking such a good bet.

A few countries have tactical/support carriers using Harriers or helicopters to support a beach landing.
The UK+France are jointly building a new type - when they have finished arguing about the spelling of the name.

i think it will be unlikely that a submarine will attack an aircraft carrier in the next 20 or 30 years though.
 
  • #9
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
Ah you're right, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_George_H._W._Bush_%28CVN-77%29" [Broken] to be commissioned mid 2009. $4.5B
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
JPC
195
1
Yes, normal that the french 'De Gaulle' is not excelent, it dates from long time ago.

But, which ones in development you think are going to be the best ?
 
  • #11
russ_watters
Mentor
20,590
7,258
hey

Was wondering.

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

1) Does USA really have 12 4.5 billion USD Carriers ? or are some from the cold war ?
The answer to both questions is yes. Here's a list that shows when they were commissioned: http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-aircraft-carriers-of-the-united-states-navy
Are Cold war carriers of any use ? (like to carry helicopters) ?
There are no fundamental differences between new fleet carriers ("supercarriers") and ones built 50 years ago. The Forrestal (1955) was 1067 feet long and displaced 81,000 tons. The George Bush (2009) will be 101,000 tons and 1092 feet long.

But we do also have helicopter carriers that are about the same size as WWII carriers (Ie, USS Wasp [1942] 872 feet, 36,000 tons; USS Iwo Jima, LHD-7 [2001], 844 ft, 40,000 tons). We used to have several converted WWII carriers that were used by the Marine Corps as helicopter carriers.
2) Does france really have only 1 aircraft carrier now ? That seems small , one error and no more french carriers.

4) Between all the new Carriers developments in the world , which are making the best ? Probably USA first , but then which countries ?
The US has the largest military in the world and the countries of Europe decades ago essentially decided that with the US's absolute supremacy in the oceans, there was no need for them to try to keep up - even if they could, which they probably couldn't. So today, the US has more fleet carriers than the rest of the world combined. (though it probably depends on how many of Russia's carriers are capable of leaving port).
mgb_phys said:
There are two types of ships in the world - submarines and targets!
Following the recent surprise visit from a chinese sub and the existance of super cavitating torpedoes, large carriers aren't looking such a good bet.
A carrier certainly needs a sub escort, but I wouldn't worry too much about non-nuclear subs. They can't stay submerged long enough to be much of a threat.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
mgb_phys
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
7,774
13
A carrier certainly needs a sub escort, but I wouldn't worry too much about non-nuclear subs. They can't stay submerged long enough to be much of a threat.
But non-nuclear are very quiet, they only have to stay submerged long enough for a carrier to sail over the top of them. Even with active sonar it's tricky to spot a diesel sub lying quietly on the bottom with it's tubes open.
In some confined waterway like the red sea they don't have to go far.
 
  • #13
JPC
195
1
The US has the largest military in the world and the countries of Europe decades ago essentially decided that with the US's absolute supremacy in the oceans, there was no need for them to try to keep up - even if they could, which they probably couldn't.

What do you know ? maybe in a latter future, once theres no more socialists/communist in europe , thinks would be going fine
 
  • #14
russ_watters
Mentor
20,590
7,258
Becasuse of the hardware and manpower costs, the only real way for the countries of Europe to keep up would be a combined military (which may happen in the forseeable future).
 
  • #15
russ_watters
Mentor
20,590
7,258
There is another issue, actually - conventional aircraft and aircraft carriers are on the verge of becoming obsolete. Large drones are cheaper and more capable than conventional aircraft and are already starting to replace them. And the US Navy hasn't helped itself by replacing its old planes with newer ones of lesser performance.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
JPC
195
1
yeah but from where are you going to launch your drone ?
 
  • #17
23
0
yeah but from where are you going to launch your drone ?
You can get a lot more out of an aircraft that doesn't have to carry a human being - they can fly longer and higher, they can be controlled by satellite, and you don't have to worry too much about them being shot down.
With a bit of thought as to the methods of utilization they can replace much more than warplanes.
 
  • #18
JPC
195
1
yes but will your drones be able to locate the enemy planes, to use the right tactics to avoid being shot down and to shoot them down ?
For now, human pilots are way better at war tactics in the air, but if latter your machines can prove to be more acurate, and better, why not
 
  • #19
23
0
yes but will your drones be able to locate the enemy planes, to use the right tactics to avoid being shot down and to shoot them down ?
That's what anti aircraft missiles do. They're also pilotless.
Pilots can't do much to avoid being shot down for quite a while now - it's all electronic; and as I said, it's not that much of a big deal to lose drones.
 
  • #20
JPC
195
1
Well it is , if these things are expensive

and i thought most pilots usually manage to eject before being killed in the explosion
 
Last edited:
  • #21
23
0
Well it is , if these things are expensive
Not as expensive and counter-productive as losing a human being.

and i thought most pilots usually manage to eject before being killed in the explosion
They still have to land somewhere, and in some armies someone has to get them out.
 
  • #22
JPC
195
1
1) But wouldnt they be at destination faster if launched from near destination rather than homebase ? (aircraft carrier utility)

2) Or would ur drones be able to be launched without any aircraft carriers ? like that can take off on sea, or by any other way ?

3) I would imagine them well in special operations where they would fly at very high altitude to not be shot during travel, and when close to destination come down.

4) Would it be good if they are very small ? like very small and fast , so that they can do little damage at precise spots to enemy aircrafts (critical areas), with more chances of not being shot down ?
 
  • #23
23
0
1) But wouldnt they be at destination faster if launched from near destination rather than homebase ? (aircraft carrier utility)

2) Or would ur drones be able to be launched without any aircraft carriers ? like that can take off on sea, or by any other way ?

3) I would imagine them well in special operations where they would fly at very high altitude to not be shot during travel, and when close to destination come down.

4) Would it be good if they are very small ? like very small and fast , so that they can do little damage at precise spots to enemy aircrafts (critical areas), with more chances of not being shot down ?
You can make them any way you like...
The large ones need standard airfields, there are small ones you can launch off a mobile platform, and there are tiny ones that can be launched by hand. The latter two types are built to withstand landing in the field.
They don't have to lower their altitude near their destination, and as I said enemy aircraft are dealt with AA systems. You can mount some AA systems on pilotless aircrafts, but that's just one use. Sometimes their aim is to be destroyed, such as anti-anti-aircraft radar drones, that's another use.
 
  • #24
JPC
195
1
But could tiny ones shoot down a a good pilot in a F18 ?
Could it be destroyed with todays war equipment ?
 
  • #25
23
0
The tiny ones are meant for over-the-hill reconnaisance - they are meant to be deployed by ground units to collect intelligence on their nearby surroundings - for example, whether a certain zone is occupied - important for figuring out whether it is to be avoided or taken, or where an enemy's reserve force is deployed - important for successfuly directing a battle.
I should make this point about UAVs engaging other aircraft clear I suppose - currently, UAVs do not attack aircraft in a traditional sense. The scenario in which a pilot avoids being shot down by some sort of maneuvering, or engages in a close-quarters dogfight is also very limited. In this day and age planes are meant to be shot down from afar by missiles. In this sense a UAV can play a roll as a platform for an aerial radar which locates the enemy and directs the missile towards it, as a communication platform which increases the range of the aerial platform, and an electronics countermeasures platform that blinds the enemy aircraft or fools it into performing certain actions to its disadvantage.
 

Related Threads on Countries - Aircraft carriers

  • Last Post
Replies
24
Views
14K
Replies
101
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
5
Replies
123
Views
16K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
24
Views
3K
Replies
34
Views
15K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
24
Views
3K
Top