For the future i don't think it would be very prudent to invest in Super-Carriers. The problem is that in our ever more dangerous world, it will be multiple targets all over the world that the might of USA will face. A Carrier of such size needs more protection, then there's the age old saying 'don't put all your eggs in one basket'. Smaller more specialized Carriers would be the answer.The UK has two Super Carriers in plan...a bit late like...the lengths that some powers are prepared to go to get a 'Result' can make these impressive machines instantly obsilete. The American Marines carriers are more flexible, faster, and can project power as good as any Navy big guns. Having said that i'm English and i'd love to see the UK with 2 Super-Carriers....but they'd probably run on Rape-seed oil or a giant set of rubber bands...cheaper see....lol

yeah its called a MOAB or mobile ofshore assault base. (i think)
though it does look like a force magnifier it seems pretty vunerable.

Originally posted by Adam_S
And only US could built such large military ships. Just 2 countries- US and France have large carriers.

Am sure the guys designing the new British carriers would be upset to learn this. The idea was originally to construct a series of semi-submersibles that linked together but allowing rapid seperation in an emergency. each segment would be based on offshore oil technology which is already mature reducing the costs.

Would just look great too, wouldn't wanna be a dictator with one of those parked offshore!!!

Originally posted by Zzub
I remember seeing illustrations about 5 years ago in New Scientist of a 3/4 of a mile long carrier which would hold 100,000 troops.

Cool idea but thats alot of lives and resources that could be lost very quickly.

Originally posted by Popeye
And yes it is a requirement that current US carriers can traverse the canal (hence the Midway/Esses design was changed in the Forrestal/Nimitz design to allow this also CVNX project has it as a stated requirment) as there was a study done about 4-5 years ago that explored carrier design if this requirement was not placed (I think I saw it in New Scientist but can't find at the mo).
[Edited on 26-5-2004 by Popeye]

[Edited on 26-5-2004 by Popeye]

It is no longer a requirment for US carriers to be able to traverse the Panama Canal as of January 1st, 2000. When the canal was first finished by the US it was agreed that the US would have ownership of the canal zone until the end of the milenium. I don't know if the US had the same rule but Panama's goverment prohibits all nuclear powered ship from using the canal. Since all of our carriers (except maybe the Kitty Hawk if still in service) and subs are nuclear powered they aren't allowed to pass through the canal. Therefore it would be pointless to make it a requirment. Thats just eighth grade history really.

In WWII, the U.S. had huge, enormous blimps, far larger than the ones used today, to patrol up and down the coasts hunting the German U-boats. At least one of them went down in a gunfight with a U-boat I think.

I thought carriers were getting smaller, faster and unmanned. Why would they need to build a behemoth like this I have no idea. I would be usfull for a mobile space launch platform in the middle of the Pacific or Atlantic though.

Originally posted by sardion2000
I thought carriers were getting smaller, faster and unmanned. Why would they need to build a behemoth like this I have no idea. I would be usfull for a mobile space launch platform in the middle of the Pacific or Atlantic though.

Unmanned carriers.. This is the first time I hear about it. And who will take care of the planes? Who will repair them, arm them, bring them to the deck etc. There is a reason why a carrier has 5000+ man crew don't you think?

There's no point in making a carrier this big when the same purpose could be served by multiple ships. That ship would = huge immobile target w/all eggs in one basket.

De-centralization is an important thing in military fleets, so that the loss of one ship doesn't sink the whole effort.

Originally posted by taibunsuu
There's no point in making a carrier this big when the same purpose could be served by multiple ships. That ship would = huge immobile target w/all eggs in one basket.

De-centralization is an important thing in military fleets, so that the loss of one ship doesn't sink the whole effort.

It is not carrier, it is moveable airfield. And the same purpose cannot by served by multiple ships. There is no carrier able to recieve B-52 or C-17.
BTW this whole huge ship should not be more expensive than normal carrier.

smaller means stealthly , stealthly means harder to find and harder to find means more assets are used on it and less than on other area's.
also stealthly small carriers could give the enemy a missguess on what the ship was. i mean they think its a destroyer OOPSS its a nuclear carrier with 30 attacks planes waiting to kill the oposing ships.