It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

So when is America's new class of aircraft carriers coming to America's arsenal?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 07:10 PM
link   
I dont wish to sidetrack the topic here (too much), but an interesting thought crossed my mind mind whilst looking into UAV's...have there been any designs considered for a solely UAV-carrier??




posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 07:15 PM
link   
No. UCAVs are too far down the road to even consider a design yet. And it would be too expensive for a simple UAV carrier.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Err... the X-47B is currently being funded by the USN, its not too far fetched to presume that in the future such an aircraft could be based on a carrier, and the USN is also looking at the Predator and assessing its reconnaissance capabilities in a naval role. I don't think carriers based UCAV’s or UAVs are too far off, but an entire new class of carrier to deploy UCAV’s? No way, they are unnecessary and too expensive. Smaller more numerous platforms like the LCS which will have UAV’s could be used for that role, in a much more limited sense of course.


[edit on 27-7-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   
And they're talking about fielding them at the EARLIEST sometime around 2018. So you want them to start building the carrier NOW for something that won't be seen in any kind of numbers for AT LEAST 12 years? That doesn't make sense budget or in an operational sense.

[edit on 7/27/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Well Zap, CVN-78 is scheduled to enter service in 2013 and CVN-79 circa 2018. The CVN-21 class will probably be the ones fielding any future UCAV’s, their EM catapults are ideal for this as they can be tailored to launch a vast array of aircraft, anything from a light UCAV to a heavy fighter, it offers more flexibility and control, CVN-21 was designed with future UCAV’s in mind. So I don't know if your second comment was directed at me or not but I don't think that there is a need for a new carrier class, the CVN-21 class will fit in nicely with any future UCAV integration process.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 07:59 PM
link   
And what happens when you develop a carrier now, and your UCAV program is delayed 10 years? Or cancelled in 5 years? You're SOL. You DO NOT design and build a carrier for a program that is that far down the road.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Err... are we arguing here? Because I don't really know why (if we are). At worst if a carrier based UCAV program is cancelled and or delayed the CVN-21 will function like a normal carrier, launching manned air craft only, yet it will still retain inherent UCAV capabilities, so I don't see the loss here and or tradeoff. I don’t think I need to tell you this but it will be another 50 years before a new carrier class is launched at it will be around 2100 when the last CVN-21 carrier is retired. so IMO it is smart to design a conventional carrier with capabilities which will enable it to integrate new technologies which will be developed during its long life time.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 08:21 PM
link   
And CVN-21 wasn't the point of his question. He asked about a UAV carrier, not a carrier that carries UAVs.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 08:51 PM
link   
OK, but I thought you were arguing with me as you kept responding after each of my posts. I concurred with you that to build a new carrier class (now or in the near future) solely for the purpose of launching UCAV’s/UAV’s is unnecessary and not a smart move for several reasons. So sorry for the confusion.


[edit on 27-7-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Hey SquareMan....

How about USS Troll in honor of your pathetic attempts to get a reaction from members on this board!

Please switch to the "I hate this current administration" forum and have at it with your Troll counterparts!

DR



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
The Enterprise would be something they would take since its an old traditional name for the U.S. Navy. It sure wouldn't be Thomas Jefferson since they hated him.

How about USS John Cornyn?



posted on Mar, 12 2008 @ 07:41 PM
link   
sINCE 1705 "ENTERPRISE" HAS SAIL THE WORLDS SEAS, FROM THE U.K., FRENCH AND FINALLY THE UNITED STATES. THE SHIPS HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN BATTLES THAT REQUIRE THE SHIPS PROVIDE THEIR ALL IN MANY CASES. SAILORS APPRECIATE A SHIP ABLE TO GO IN HARMS WAY AND SURVIVE.


Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 14-4-2008 by elevatedone]



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Royal Navy Future Aircraft Carrier , Interview with the Admiral:

www.youtube.com:80...


PS, I know it is BB&F



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
And you can do something about it, if the system works the way it should you can influence the Secretary of the Navy to choose a particular name that a large portion of the public wants.


Oh for the love of God! I can just see it now...

The USS Rickroll.





posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by planeman
 


I was wondering when someone would inject an unrelated anti-US military comment.

You would think these would be deleted since they have absolutely no worth to this subject.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join