Why hasn't the US thought of building an megacarrier above 250,000 tons ？

It may sound effective on paper, but in practice I imagine an army of smaller drone units might be more effective. Money and resources might be better spend on that instead of a megacarrier. Think about it, you can terrorize multiple countries at the same time using smaller units which can easily go toe to toe with individual terrorists like precision targetting. With a megacarrier, you can have it near a country but then have to bomb a lot of places without actually a guarantee you might get the terrorists, along with the colletaral damage.

As a bonus, you can have the drones modified so they can merge and become a megadrone!

a reply to: RedSparrow47

In a real, heavy conflict, all large ships,, especially a/c carriers will be vaporized down to the hull line before they can do much damage to the other guy. If you've noticed, the days of the supremacy of the sea enabled by battleships and carriers of the old wars are done. Today, munitions move through the air, launched from the ground, air and even space.

A carrier is only viable when the entire local sky is owned by the captain, and that is impossible in these days of a variety of missiles. Even then he can't shoot down a simple blob of kinetic steel that screams down from a space platform at several thousand miles per hour and punches through his ship like butter.

So a/c carriers are nice for "clean-up" work, small conflicts, but not real wars.

Because the entire world wouk collectivly # themselfs at the sheer awsomeness of the USA!


I say build it!


USA USA USA USA!

What advantage would such a large vessel have? What shipyards could construct it? Ports would be inaccessible. Panama Canal limitations would prevent rapid shifting of such an asset from East Coast to West Coast. There seems to be no compelling reason for building it.

originally posted by: Americanpatriot123
Because the entire world wouk collectivly # themselfs at the sheer awsomeness of the USA!


I say build it!


USA USA USA USA!

We seem to have a derper here.......

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

brits gave it the old college try(at least planned for them)

The British genius Geoffrey Pyke came up with Pykrete. Indestructible and unsinkable.

We need them made out of that.

a reply to: LABTECH767

or pure sodium it tends to react badly with water and oxygen i think? (not chemistry smart) mind you im not sure which but sure some of the smarter people on ats could correct me

There was talk in the 80's about building a series of catamaran hulled vessels and sail them independently to an area of conflict and join them together to form a floating airport capable of operating land based aircraft.

Personally I think the age of carriers is over, just as the age of battleships ended, and nobody realised until it was too late.

As others have said, the second a big war starts, I think a lot of carriers wind up on the bottom of the ocean.

We're in the age of guided missiles now.

a reply to: Painterz

I have to disagree. If anything the day of fixed air bases is over. The carrier still has the advantage of mobility. A missile attacking an air base or any other fixed installation can rely on a totally internal guidance system. That makes it resistant to jamming and spoofing. A carrier moves around requiring an attacking missile to use sensors to guide it to the carrier. These sensors can be jammed and/or be decoyed. The only reliable way would require something in visual range guiding the missile to its target. This would work...............once.

a reply to: RedSparrow47

according to top sekrit " sources " - the north korean navy already have 185 carriers of displacement 1 500 0000 tons in service - with a further 2 planned

There actually was a study of an heavily armored Ultra Carrier

The next big engagement will feature swarm attacks. A really big AC is a mistake now.

I would rather have 10 more America Class Carriers with F-35Bs and something to refuel them. Anything larger than the present Supercarriers just becomes inefficient and limits the amount of places the naval air arm can be.