Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Countries - Aircraft carriers

  1. Nov 16, 2007 #1

    JPC

    User Avatar

    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 ?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 16, 2007 #2

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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).
     
  4. Nov 16, 2007 #3

    mgb_phys

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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.
     
  5. Nov 16, 2007 #4
    That, and it's not even a good one. Reactor problems, flight deck problems, it's slower than other non-nuclear carriers.
     
  6. Nov 16, 2007 #5

    mgb_phys

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    But I bet the canteen is excellent. :tongue:
     
  7. Nov 16, 2007 #6

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    10 modern Nimitz class:
    Nimitz
    Eisenhower
    Carl Vinson
    T. Roosevelt
    Abraham Lincoln
    George Washington
    Stennis
    Truman
    Reagan
    G. H. W. Bush
     
  8. Nov 16, 2007 #7

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Has USS GHWB been commissioned already?
     
  9. Nov 16, 2007 #8
    i think it will be unlikely that a submarine will attack an aircraft carrier in the next 20 or 30 years though.
     
  10. Nov 16, 2007 #9

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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: May 3, 2017
  11. Nov 17, 2007 #10

    JPC

    User Avatar

    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 ?
     
  12. Nov 17, 2007 #11

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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
    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.
    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).
    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: Nov 17, 2007
  13. Nov 17, 2007 #12

    mgb_phys

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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.
     
  14. Nov 17, 2007 #13

    JPC

    User Avatar

    What do you know ? maybe in a latter future, once theres no more socialists/communist in europe , thinks would be going fine
     
  15. Nov 17, 2007 #14

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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).
     
  16. Nov 17, 2007 #15

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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: Nov 17, 2007
  17. Nov 17, 2007 #16

    JPC

    User Avatar

    yeah but from where are you going to launch your drone ?
     
  18. Nov 17, 2007 #17
    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.
     
  19. Nov 17, 2007 #18

    JPC

    User Avatar

    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
     
  20. Nov 17, 2007 #19
    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.
     
  21. Nov 17, 2007 #20

    JPC

    User Avatar

    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: Nov 17, 2007
  22. Nov 17, 2007 #21
    Not as expensive and counter-productive as losing a human being.

    They still have to land somewhere, and in some armies someone has to get them out.
     
  23. Nov 17, 2007 #22

    JPC

    User Avatar

    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 ?
     
  24. Nov 17, 2007 #23
    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.
     
  25. Nov 18, 2007 #24

    JPC

    User Avatar

    But could tiny ones shoot down a a good pilot in a F18 ?
    Could it be destroyed with todays war equipment ?
     
  26. Nov 18, 2007 #25
    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.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook