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.

 

Air craft carriers - A simple Alternative

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 01:37 AM
link   
frigate's are part of the ASW force and don't have room for Harriers and the anti submarine warfare aircraft they carry

harriers are best used as a protection aircraft for marine expeditionary forces, and flown from amphibious assault ships such as the U.S.S. Guam and Wasp class LHDs

harriers are the only jet that slow enough to protect marine helicopters and at the same time fight against enemy fighter aircraft and provided ground support.

In the falklands war harriers were used as forward anti aircraft protection by flying from there ships to the closest island to Argentina landing till a Argentinian air strike was incoming then popping up and firing sidewinders at the Argentinian aircraft.
This allowed them to forward deploy without burning large amounts of fuel.
plus setting on the ground they were invisible to the Argentinian aircraft till they popped up and got yea.

Harriers are a tactical air craft NOT an attack aircraft.

The Harriers are a very good fighter aircraft because the marines that fly then cheat a lot.

They just love to do pop up attacks from where other jets can not hide.
like parked in the desert or hiding in canyons.




posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANNED



I""n the falklands war harriers were used as forward anti aircraft protection by flying from there ships to the closest island to Argentina landing till a Argentinian air strike was incoming then popping up and firing sidewinders at the Argentinian aircraft.
This allowed them to forward deploy without burning large amounts of fuel.
plus setting on the ground they were invisible to the Argentinian aircraft till they popped up and got yea.""

They didnt actually do this , and the falklands is pretty much the closest island to argentina, however they did refuel off frigates and container ships..



[edit on 2-9-2009 by gambon]



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   
"Oh brother here he goes again"...

esecallum, when you copy text from someone elses discussion board verbatim would you PLEASE! attribute it clearly to them instead of laying defacto claim to it, ie: this.


he SKYHOOK is invented by Heinz Erwin Frick (Test pilot form Swiss) at BAe
and with specification No.2104014 was filed with the British Patent office in 1982

Yes I know you provided a link but would you please put it in quotes so we know who is actually authoring what.

And in any case having given a link to another web page that was clearly discussing it before you and as everyone has noted INCLUDING YOURSELF, that it was invented back around 1980 (which is very probably before you were even born), why are you saying (yet again!) that you invented yet another idea that you clearly haven't?

Skyhook failed to catch on for all the obvious reasons already stated. I seem to recall that even the JMSDF looked at it in the 80's as a way of working around the Japanese constitutional ban on aircraft carriers, and even they concluded the idea just wasn't practical or cost effective.

And as for removing the landing gear to save weight, nice idea but Im surprised that nobody has mentioned the very obvious problem of what happens if the aircraft needs to make an emergency or unscheduled landing without a skyhook facility? Particularly on deployment to another part of the world. You do realize that happens all the time, or did you figure they would build emergency skyhook facilities all over the planet spaced out say every 100 miles or less just in case they cant get back to a ship?

LEE.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by thebozeian
 


I never claimed i invented the idea.that is why posted the link.

i was putting forward the forgotten idea again.

how old are you?

you were jeolous i had the effrontery and boldness to stick up for my idea.

your excuses are again very lame,very vague and you refused to answer the questions i asked of you and that stormbrother poster who has gone to ground after i cut thru his excuses.

why?

because you knew you could not be successful in answering the questions i asked.


you said their is no room for the ammo of a tiny aircraft.
compared with the huge shells of the frigate and its large missiles!


have you compared a tiny harrier with a frigate?

noooooooo.



why do they carry choppers then eh?

then you said the ship would capsize with weight of the planes.

what is the weight of a harrier compared to a frigate.do you even know?

random and very spurious excuses.

then you claimed it is "not practical".

very vague woolly statement.

going to the toilet every day is that practical?

also you forget the people in charge of navies and procurement are old.

old and fossilized with their thought processes.

old and set in their ways.

heard of clarke's 3rd law? no? never mind.

old people find it very difficult to have a paradigm shift.

i dare say they would still be prancing about in 1600 galleons with broad side cannons and sailors swinging over the sides with their cutlasses.

these admirals with their funny wrong way round hats and quaint ways and their hands behind their backs ,cannot think out of there self imposed prisons.

they are terrified of change.....scared , frightened out of their wits.

they are dinosaurs holding back progress...


look at me.



i am brave. i am young . i am bold.

i am ready to conquer any difficulty...

i am not frightened by change.

i embrace the future.

i believe any difficulty can be overcome. it is merely a matter of hard work.

what do you have to say to that?

eh?


[edit on 3-9-2009 by esecallum]



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   
So where to begin esecallum,...?



I never claimed i invented the idea.that is why posted the link.

Yes you did in your second post, do you need reminding of exactly what line?


you are just jealous of my idea.


....And again in your third post.


Just admit you are jealous of my idea and throwing up spurious excuses.


...Despite your first post correctly(for once) crediting someone else for the idea.




i was putting forward the forgotten idea again.

...Which was forgotten for a good reason, it was impractical and didn't offer any real advantage over a conventional flat top.



how old are you?

39 years old, why do you ask? Planning on discriminating against me on the grounds of age and calling me, what was it you called me in another thread?... oh yes, "ossified".




you were jeolous i had the effrontery and boldness to stick up for my idea.

your excuses are again very lame,very vague and you refused to answer the questions i asked of you

Yes reality, and conventional physics were never your strong point were they?



and that stormbrother poster who has gone to ground after i cut thru his excuses.

He already told you his name is Brother Stormhammer, NOT Stormbrother. Would you please stop spelling in such a dyslexic manner.



because you knew you could not be successful in answering the questions i asked.

No one ever has when trying to point out basic logic with you it seems.



you said their is no room for the ammo of a tiny aircraft.
compared with the huge shells of the frigate and its large missiles!

Yes because even a 500lb bomb is well,... 500lbs and about 4 ft long. A sidewinder is about 9-10ft long and anything else is considerably larger and heavier than these and they all need room on an already crowded vessel.



have you compared a tiny harrier with a frigate?

noooooooo.

Yeeeesssss!, and they are not that small, about the size of a Lynx helicopter at best, and you dont see more than 2 of those on any frigate do you?



why do they carry choppers then eh?

See above for the reasons why, and dont forget a large weight well above the waterline acts like a pendulum in rough seas and.... oh forget it, you will argue otherwise anyway.



then you said the ship would capsize with weight of the planes.

No "I" didn't, someone else pointed out this.



what is the weight of a harrier compared to a frigate.do you even know?

random and very spurious excuses.

Yes I do, its a bit over 7 tonnes in unloaded config and over 14 fully loaded for short take off. Hardly a random and spurious excuse.



then you claimed it is "not practical".

very vague woolly statement.

Yes very vague when one uses the basic laws of physics. Hows that perpetual motion engine going?



going to the toilet every day is that practical?

It is if you want to avoid a burst bladder,... or flush away some of the tripe you peddle as fact/breakthrough science.



also you forget the people in charge of navies and procurement are old.

old and fossilized with their thought processes.

old and set in their ways.

Agreed they often are, but they aren't generally complete lunatics with little grasp of the real world and its physics.



heard of clarke's 3rd law? no? never mind.

Yes, but he didn't have you or Harriers in mind when he wrote it, just practical non magical things like real advanced science.



old people find it very difficult to have a paradigm shift.

i dare say they would still be prancing about in 1600 galleons with broad side cannons and sailors swinging over the sides with their cutlasses.

these admirals with their funny wrong way round hats and quaint ways and their hands behind their backs ,cannot think out of there self imposed prisons.

they are terrified of change.....scared , frightened out of their wits.

they are dinosaurs holding back progress...

Yes of course, veerrryy relevant... (insert Cuckoo clock sound effect here)



look at me.



i am brave. i am young . i am bold.

i am ready to conquer any difficulty...

i am not frightened by change.

i embrace the future.

i believe any difficulty can be overcome. it is merely a matter of hard work.

what do you have to say to that?

Oh where does one begin, or in this case end...?

Your idea was someone else's idea a 1/4 century or more ago and it isn't practically effective.

But that wont stop you will it?

LEE.























[edit on 3-9-2009 by thebozeian]



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Frigates are very small and subject to every influence of sea activity. They rise and fall..sway left and right ..port and starboard pitch and yaw ...way more than an aircraft carrier.

They are also very very crowded..not much extra space on them.

I had the opportunity to go on the USS Gettysburg some years back.

Up to that point I had thought that surface ships were more roomy than they actually are.

I discovered, to my surprise, that internally they are not much more roomy than a submarine in many spaces. Quarters and hotel facilities mirrored what was on submarines.

I too do not see them doing this on a frigate. No space for serious weapons storage, maintenance facilities, ready rooms et al.

Also the upper decks and mast areas are festooned with electronic gear necessary to carry out the primary role of a frigate. Protection of the fleet/CBG.
My thoughts are ...would this launch and recovery gear interfere with this role or the effectiveness of this electronic gear??

The lack of internal space would also limite the effectiveness of the aircraft roles.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   
I remember reading an article a few years back about the US looking into the building of a smaller and faster aircraft carrier. Not as a replacement to the current super carriers, but, as a fast response type ship. It would carry roughly 5 aircraft and about 30 crew members. I am unable to find any information on the net about this, but, I do remember reading about it.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


"I too do not see them doing this on a frigate. No space for serious weapons storage, maintenance facilities, ready rooms et al".

These facilities exist already.

What is "serious weapon" storage? Are you saying some weapons are not serious?

Define serious weapons.


You conveniently"forgot" to mention the weight of the frigate in comparison to the plane.

Your assertion that frigates roll too much is ludicrous.How do all the sailors and the captain not get seasick?

How do they manage to eat soup?

How do they manage to poop with out missing the toilet?

how does they manage to stand on deck without a zimmer frame?

answer us.

MODERN COMPUTER CONTROLLED GYRO STABILIZER TECHNOLOGY REDUCE THIS TO MINIMAL LEVELS.

your own medical problems should not be used as an excuse to stop progress.

i dare say you would have used the same medical condition to stop the invention of cars.

[edit on 11-9-2009 by esecallum]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Originally posted by esecallum


What is "serious weapon" storage? Are you saying some weapons are not serious?


What is meant here is serious weapons storage for aircraft usage. Aircraft tailored missiles, cannon ammunition, bombs, et al. Remember also that this means bringing these "serious weapons" to a location where they can be loaded safely onto the aircraft. This means a dedicated route from the magazines to the launch platform areas. Safety is paramount here for both weapons and handlers.
Such magazine space is at a premium on a frigate as is also the space to move from these magazines to the aircraft preparation areas.

Aircraft carriers have dedicated elevators just for the handling of Weapons to and from the magazines. This is not accidental.


Your assertion that frigates roll too much is ludicrous.How do all the sailors and the captain not get seasick?

How do they manage to eat soup?

How do they manage to poop with out missing the toilet?

how does they manage to stand on deck without a zimmer frame?

answer us.


Frigates are indeed subject to the forces of the sea way more than are the large carriers. They pitch roll and yaw more than the larger ships This is known information.

Do they serve soup in rough sea conditions or do they serve cold cuts ...or even MRE's when the seas become this rough?? Do you know??


MODERN COMPUTER CONTROLLED GYRO STABILIZER TECHNOLOGY REDUCE THIS TO MINIMAL LEVELS.


They do?? Do frigates have the retractable wings on them as do Ocean liners when needing stability for the passengers and gambling tables??
Do you know how much additional weight this brings to bear on the whole ship??
To my limited knowledge most frigates I have seen as well as carriers have a set of long deep fixed strakes going down the side of the hull below the waterline. Other than that what stability they can get is done by the propellers, rudders, and the trimming of the ship when underway.
Can you explain to me in detail how this system works on a frigate??

I am somewhat familiar with how gyros work having worked on Inertial Navigation systems in aircraft.


your own medical problems should not be used as an excuse to stop progress.

i dare say you would have used the same medical condition to stop the invention of cars.


This is not a good debating technique and shows a certain type of aggressiveness to mask insecurity/insufficiency. A sort of kill the messenger style. No problem with me if you choose to use it..but it is not very ....professional...nor a good debating style. It is very similar to the debating style currently fashionable and used by our politicians here in the USA. It tells of a certain belief or entitlement thinking pattern...ie...royalty.

Nonetheless thanks for your post.
Orangetom



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
This is intimidating-




This isn't-




Sometimes a show of force is enough.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by stevegmu
This is intimidating-



Sometimes a show of force is enough.


Nicely put! - although I can;t help thinking there are those who would consider taking that lot out with a canoe and a bomb vest



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by esecallum
 


howe old are you?

seem to be about 10



frigates and guided missle crusiers are extremely short on space
when a frigate is built it is made of 4-5 sub assembly sections called lifts. Each lift is completed as much as it can be before the lifts are welded together to form the ship.
They are built from the inside out, with furniture and equipment loaded into it before the rooms are sealed up by bulkheads.
There is no extra room to carry the weapons magazine, as was mentioned, nor is there room for the prodigous supplies of jet fuel required for modern aircraft. The largest single space on a carrier is the aircraft fuel tanks.
There is no room for such things on a frigate.
And modern frigates dont have much in the way of magazines either, the main armaments are contained in packaged containers that are replaced to re arm.
Replaced while in port, because the frigate doesnt have the cappabilities to do such things at sea nor do they have the room to carry an extra Vertical launch system module to rearm with.

Captains and crews do get sea sick and the people who dont get their sea legs id imagine wash out.
Ive know people who served on everthing from a dingy to a super carrier and from my own experience on the ocean, the smoothness of the ride is directly proportional to the size of the boat.
What looks like a plane landing on a smooth deck is actually a plane slamming donwn on a deck that is moving up and down by several feet.

try posting with a valid argument instead of a temper tantrum
you might get farther.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Being bored commands this reply. (Sometimes I wish I had a TV.)

I suggest some of you folks, first, give up the past with what navies once did or can do right this instant (with no big shooting water war going on). Second, take a look at the future end of naval warfare. That future end is only a shooting naval war away. That future is full of the promise and capabilities of missiles, rockets and space-based weapons.

The deciding naval battles of WWI and WWII are never to happen again. As long as your enemy can look down from space and exactly locate your ship or fleet and even your sub, you are dead meat from missles, rockets, beam and kinetic weapons fired from manned planes, drones, secure land bases thousands of miles away, or weapon platforms in space. The first naval equipment to be taken out of action will be any carriers they may retain. They will be sitting ducks. They won't even be able to reach the ones firing at them! And...well, actually, that is the end of it for that navy. Picking off the other vessels, if there is even a need for that, would be like shooting fish in a barrel.

We could define the end of navies more succiently by saying air and space will be the death of navies. Water won't be required. General Billy Mitchell proved the theory of the air part even before WWII started. The actual war absolutely proved the air superiority over ships. Now that missles can fling themselves across oceans in minutes and laser and rail guns can blast a ship in mere seconds, there is no good argument for naval ships,of war. Carriers, cruisers, troop ships or supply ships, anything sitting in open water, will be doomed by better weapons than never taste of the sea.

So England, don't lament your failing navy. It ain't required anymore for real war.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Aliensun
 


Hmmmm...You do know..do you not?? That there are peoples out here whose total job consists of cracking the operational codes for satellite operations?? Yes???

Also any other codes of which you can think.

Just thought You would like to know this information if you did not.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   
I would think the current system for launching planes is efficient enough. Doing a vertical landing also uses much fuel, so using this system would be slightly less effective. I would think that using the "crane method" would prove less useful if the plane needed to carry a heavier payload. Also, the harrier is not always the best plane to use for a particular sortie. I always thought it would be interesting to see a high-altitude carrier, such as an upper- atmosphere ship that has a landing deck, due to the high altitude, the plane might need less speed to take off as it has a lot of room between the edge and the ground.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join