HMS Queen Elizabeth
Discussion
Godalmighty83 said:
V8 Fettler said:
I'm not stating that any carrier from WW2 could "rival" the QE, that would be ridiculous; you have attempted to move the goalposts to comparing the QE and the Ark (Swordfish) as rivals when clearly they are not.
I have never referred to the bloody Ark! My first post compared it to the Invincible class in terms of costs (you know the fairly recent harrier-carriers?). YOU brought up how WW2 ships could go further and faster, I replied that only the CVE carriers could but they were very very naff. At no point ever have I even remotely mentioned the old Ark or ship of it's class!
It's not moving goalposts when you are clearly hallucinating.
donutsina911 said:
V8 Fettler said:
Well there's a coincidence, CVA-01 proposed at 53,000 tonnes, I've already proposed new Ark at approx 55,000 tonnes.
35 knots brings several advantages over 25 knots e.g. start from a single common point in a vast ocean and plot the possible area where a 35 knot vessel could be positioned within 3 hours, now do similar with a 25 knot vessel. Which one would you prefer to hunt? Particularly if the 35 knot vessel was appreciably the smaller of the two.
Stop talking b35 knots brings several advantages over 25 knots e.g. start from a single common point in a vast ocean and plot the possible area where a 35 knot vessel could be positioned within 3 hours, now do similar with a 25 knot vessel. Which one would you prefer to hunt? Particularly if the 35 knot vessel was appreciably the smaller of the two.
ks. There's no scenario where a Carrier Battle Group plays hide and seek in the manner you describe.SlipStream77 said:
V8 Fettler said:
If there is a risk of attack by Sunburn carried by a land-based aircraft then place the new Ark out of range whilst retaining the ability to strike the enemy airfields with the Super Bucc from 1000+ nautical miles.
That's clearly not going to work. In the case of a TU22 armed with AS4s, the a/c has a combat radius of about 1500 miles, the missile's range is over 300 miles.
To be out of range of a strike from a base on the coast, the carrier would have to be about 1800 miles away.
Combat radius of a Buccaneer? About 800 miles.
Madness60 said:
donutsina911 said:
Stop talking bks. There's no scenario where a Carrier Battle Group plays hide and seek in the manner you describe.
Nah, let him keep going, I want to see the continuation of a well researched and reasoned argument.ks. There's no scenario where a Carrier Battle Group plays hide and seek in the manner you describe.35 kts is vital but why stop there, why not and... I'm blue water thinking here... go for a trimaran style flat top?? Even higher speed, more top deck space to fit more of those Super Buccanears that are just coming into service, what could possibly go wrong!!
Simply put if you want a 35knt fourty plus aircraft capable carrier in the RN you would have to look at a nuke boat and the current manning issues that that would entail would probably mean our bubbleheads had an insufficient crew to keep the deterrent always at sea, certainly there wouldn't be an attack boat free to escort her.
V8 Fettler said:
Well there's a coincidence, CVA-01 proposed at 53,000 tonnes, I've already proposed new Ark at approx 55,000 tonnes.
35 knots brings several advantages over 25 knots e.g. start from a single common point in a vast ocean and plot the possible area where a 35 knot vessel could be positioned within 3 hours, now do similar with a 25 knot vessel. Which one would you prefer to hunt? Particularly if the 35 knot vessel was appreciably the smaller of the two.
For a given load there is no way to make a 35kt carrier smaller than a 25kt one; basic physics prevents it. There also isn't any way of making carriers stealthy, they're too large and the baggage train, flying circus and radio traffic tend to give the game away even if some magic stealth tech were invented.35 knots brings several advantages over 25 knots e.g. start from a single common point in a vast ocean and plot the possible area where a 35 knot vessel could be positioned within 3 hours, now do similar with a 25 knot vessel. Which one would you prefer to hunt? Particularly if the 35 knot vessel was appreciably the smaller of the two.
Edited obvious typo for the benefit of trolls.
Edited by hidetheelephants on Monday 28th December 15:07
V8Fettler, you said:
'Speed is important. At 35 knots, it's unlikely that the Enemy of the Day will possess surface vessels or submarines that can overhaul and thus achieve a firing solution. At 25 knots this becomes increasingly likely. 18 knots is a sitting duck'
This is bks. I've evidenced why this is bks, by picking three scenarios where speed makes not one jot of difference to protecting QE - submarine threat, small fast attack craft threat and anti ship missile threat.
You then said:
Whatever vessel is carrying the Sunburn needs to get within firing range. If said vessel cannot get within firing range because the new Ark is skipping away at 35 knots then the capability of the Sunburn is irrelevant.
You made the assumption that a missile would need to be launched by another surface vessel - this assumption is flawed. Given the multitude of ways in which ASuW missiles can be deployed, to assume that delivery is dependent on some kind of chase across the high seas at max chat is laughable.
You then changed tack and said...
If there is a risk of attack by Sunburn carried by a land-based aircraft then place the new Ark out of range whilst retaining the ability to strike the enemy airfields with the Super Bucc from 1000+ nautical miles.
Yes, indeed. Where a threat exists, it's a cunning plan to sit outside of this - what on earth has this got to do with speed?
In both the above scenarios, the new Ark sailing at 35 knots will be a lot more difficult to find than the QE sailing at 25 knots.
This is bks. Finding a lump like QE is not influenced by its top speed.
Following the attack on the Cole, is there any realistic chance of an enemy RIB getting close to an RN carrier in port? Although clearly the best method to avoid RIBs is to sit as far as possible from the coast.
Yes, in port and in operations. Strait of Hormuz would be one glaring example. Regardless, speed does not alter this threat.
The Sunburn may be a quick bugger, but if the new Ark isn't in range then what difference does that make? I know, we'll mount the Sunburn onto a 30 knot destroyer, then we can close on the new Ark. Except of course the new Ark escapes the 30 knot destroyer by virtue of superior speed.
Jesus wept. As above - we're not in the nineteenth century anymore.
The QE can't achieve 35 knots. Which is more difficult to find (assume equally stealthy): the QE somewhere in a circle with a radius equal to the distance the QE can travel within - say - two hours at 25 knots, or the new Ark in a circle with a radius equal to the distance the new Ark can travel within two hours at 35 knots? Don't forget, the possible search area continues to increase until the carrier is located. Do the same comparison after 4 hours to see how much more difficult it is to find a 35 knot ship.
Naval operations just don't work like that unless you base your doctrine on Pirates of the Caribbean. Your mathematical genius might make a modicum of sense if we were discussing a search and rescue or mine warfare algorithm, but we're not, so it doesn't.
You mention factors influencing where the QE will operate, your crystal ball must be very good if you can forecast the likely operational requirements for the QE over the next 50 years or so.
Yup - the requirements for the next aircraft carrier will be much the same as they have been for the last 50 years - deliver organic air power from the sea and try not to get sunk. A reduction in top speed by 5 knots alters this not one jot, no matter how many circles you draw in your head.
'Speed is important. At 35 knots, it's unlikely that the Enemy of the Day will possess surface vessels or submarines that can overhaul and thus achieve a firing solution. At 25 knots this becomes increasingly likely. 18 knots is a sitting duck'
This is b
ks. I've evidenced why this is bks, by picking three scenarios where speed makes not one jot of difference to protecting QE - submarine threat, small fast attack craft threat and anti ship missile threat.You then said:
Whatever vessel is carrying the Sunburn needs to get within firing range. If said vessel cannot get within firing range because the new Ark is skipping away at 35 knots then the capability of the Sunburn is irrelevant.
You made the assumption that a missile would need to be launched by another surface vessel - this assumption is flawed. Given the multitude of ways in which ASuW missiles can be deployed, to assume that delivery is dependent on some kind of chase across the high seas at max chat is laughable.
You then changed tack and said...
If there is a risk of attack by Sunburn carried by a land-based aircraft then place the new Ark out of range whilst retaining the ability to strike the enemy airfields with the Super Bucc from 1000+ nautical miles.
Yes, indeed. Where a threat exists, it's a cunning plan to sit outside of this - what on earth has this got to do with speed?
In both the above scenarios, the new Ark sailing at 35 knots will be a lot more difficult to find than the QE sailing at 25 knots.
This is b
ks. Finding a lump like QE is not influenced by its top speed.Following the attack on the Cole, is there any realistic chance of an enemy RIB getting close to an RN carrier in port? Although clearly the best method to avoid RIBs is to sit as far as possible from the coast.
Yes, in port and in operations. Strait of Hormuz would be one glaring example. Regardless, speed does not alter this threat.
The Sunburn may be a quick bugger, but if the new Ark isn't in range then what difference does that make? I know, we'll mount the Sunburn onto a 30 knot destroyer, then we can close on the new Ark. Except of course the new Ark escapes the 30 knot destroyer by virtue of superior speed.
Jesus wept. As above - we're not in the nineteenth century anymore.
The QE can't achieve 35 knots. Which is more difficult to find (assume equally stealthy): the QE somewhere in a circle with a radius equal to the distance the QE can travel within - say - two hours at 25 knots, or the new Ark in a circle with a radius equal to the distance the new Ark can travel within two hours at 35 knots? Don't forget, the possible search area continues to increase until the carrier is located. Do the same comparison after 4 hours to see how much more difficult it is to find a 35 knot ship.
Naval operations just don't work like that unless you base your doctrine on Pirates of the Caribbean. Your mathematical genius might make a modicum of sense if we were discussing a search and rescue or mine warfare algorithm, but we're not, so it doesn't.
You mention factors influencing where the QE will operate, your crystal ball must be very good if you can forecast the likely operational requirements for the QE over the next 50 years or so.
Yup - the requirements for the next aircraft carrier will be much the same as they have been for the last 50 years - deliver organic air power from the sea and try not to get sunk. A reduction in top speed by 5 knots alters this not one jot, no matter how many circles you draw in your head.
V8 Fettler said:
SlipStream77 said:
V8 Fettler said:
If there is a risk of attack by Sunburn carried by a land-based aircraft then place the new Ark out of range whilst retaining the ability to strike the enemy airfields with the Super Bucc from 1000+ nautical miles.
That's clearly not going to work. In the case of a TU22 armed with AS4s, the a/c has a combat radius of about 1500 miles, the missile's range is over 300 miles.
To be out of range of a strike from a base on the coast, the carrier would have to be about 1800 miles away.
Combat radius of a Buccaneer? About 800 miles.
Still significantly short unless refuelling assets are deployed along with the requisite escorts.
Extending your original tactic of moving the carrier group out of range, Russia deployed TU160s with Klub cruise missiles to Syria recently.
To be out of range, you'd need to be nearly 5000 miles away!
One of the main reasons the Ark Royal as designed to go so fast was so that if she turned into a headwind at went as fast as possible she could launch the whole carrier air wing without using her catapults, which is much quicker than "winding the elastic back up again" after each launch. This is of course bearing in mind the type of plane she was originally designed to carry.
donutsina911 said:
V8Fettler, you said:
'Speed is important. At 35 knots, it's unlikely that the Enemy of the Day will possess surface vessels or submarines that can overhaul and thus achieve a firing solution. At 25 knots this becomes increasingly likely. 18 knots is a sitting duck'
This is bks. I've evidenced why this is bks, by picking three scenarios where speed makes not one jot of difference to protecting QE - submarine threat, small fast attack craft threat and anti ship missile threat.
You then said:
Whatever vessel is carrying the Sunburn needs to get within firing range. If said vessel cannot get within firing range because the new Ark is skipping away at 35 knots then the capability of the Sunburn is irrelevant.
You made the assumption that a missile would need to be launched by another surface vessel - this assumption is flawed. Given the multitude of ways in which ASuW missiles can be deployed, to assume that delivery is dependent on some kind of chase across the high seas at max chat is laughable.
You then changed tack and said...
If there is a risk of attack by Sunburn carried by a land-based aircraft then place the new Ark out of range whilst retaining the ability to strike the enemy airfields with the Super Bucc from 1000+ nautical miles.
Yes, indeed. Where a threat exists, it's a cunning plan to sit outside of this - what on earth has this got to do with speed?
In both the above scenarios, the new Ark sailing at 35 knots will be a lot more difficult to find than the QE sailing at 25 knots.
This is bks. Finding a lump like QE is not influenced by its top speed.
Following the attack on the Cole, is there any realistic chance of an enemy RIB getting close to an RN carrier in port? Although clearly the best method to avoid RIBs is to sit as far as possible from the coast.
Yes, in port and in operations. Strait of Hormuz would be one glaring example. Regardless, speed does not alter this threat.
The Sunburn may be a quick bugger, but if the new Ark isn't in range then what difference does that make? I know, we'll mount the Sunburn onto a 30 knot destroyer, then we can close on the new Ark. Except of course the new Ark escapes the 30 knot destroyer by virtue of superior speed.
Jesus wept. As above - we're not in the nineteenth century anymore.
The QE can't achieve 35 knots. Which is more difficult to find (assume equally stealthy): the QE somewhere in a circle with a radius equal to the distance the QE can travel within - say - two hours at 25 knots, or the new Ark in a circle with a radius equal to the distance the new Ark can travel within two hours at 35 knots? Don't forget, the possible search area continues to increase until the carrier is located. Do the same comparison after 4 hours to see how much more difficult it is to find a 35 knot ship.
Naval operations just don't work like that unless you base your doctrine on Pirates of the Caribbean. Your mathematical genius might make a modicum of sense if we were discussing a search and rescue or mine warfare algorithm, but we're not, so it doesn't.
You mention factors influencing where the QE will operate, your crystal ball must be very good if you can forecast the likely operational requirements for the QE over the next 50 years or so.
Yup - the requirements for the next aircraft carrier will be much the same as they have been for the last 50 years - deliver organic air power from the sea and try not to get sunk. A reduction in top speed by 5 knots alters this not one jot, no matter how many circles you draw in your head.
The usual post dissection structure can create convoluted posts, the structure you've chosen is virtually unreadable. Any chance of reassembling it into something coherent?'Speed is important. At 35 knots, it's unlikely that the Enemy of the Day will possess surface vessels or submarines that can overhaul and thus achieve a firing solution. At 25 knots this becomes increasingly likely. 18 knots is a sitting duck'
This is b
ks. I've evidenced why this is bks, by picking three scenarios where speed makes not one jot of difference to protecting QE - submarine threat, small fast attack craft threat and anti ship missile threat.You then said:
Whatever vessel is carrying the Sunburn needs to get within firing range. If said vessel cannot get within firing range because the new Ark is skipping away at 35 knots then the capability of the Sunburn is irrelevant.
You made the assumption that a missile would need to be launched by another surface vessel - this assumption is flawed. Given the multitude of ways in which ASuW missiles can be deployed, to assume that delivery is dependent on some kind of chase across the high seas at max chat is laughable.
You then changed tack and said...
If there is a risk of attack by Sunburn carried by a land-based aircraft then place the new Ark out of range whilst retaining the ability to strike the enemy airfields with the Super Bucc from 1000+ nautical miles.
Yes, indeed. Where a threat exists, it's a cunning plan to sit outside of this - what on earth has this got to do with speed?
In both the above scenarios, the new Ark sailing at 35 knots will be a lot more difficult to find than the QE sailing at 25 knots.
This is b
ks. Finding a lump like QE is not influenced by its top speed.Following the attack on the Cole, is there any realistic chance of an enemy RIB getting close to an RN carrier in port? Although clearly the best method to avoid RIBs is to sit as far as possible from the coast.
Yes, in port and in operations. Strait of Hormuz would be one glaring example. Regardless, speed does not alter this threat.
The Sunburn may be a quick bugger, but if the new Ark isn't in range then what difference does that make? I know, we'll mount the Sunburn onto a 30 knot destroyer, then we can close on the new Ark. Except of course the new Ark escapes the 30 knot destroyer by virtue of superior speed.
Jesus wept. As above - we're not in the nineteenth century anymore.
The QE can't achieve 35 knots. Which is more difficult to find (assume equally stealthy): the QE somewhere in a circle with a radius equal to the distance the QE can travel within - say - two hours at 25 knots, or the new Ark in a circle with a radius equal to the distance the new Ark can travel within two hours at 35 knots? Don't forget, the possible search area continues to increase until the carrier is located. Do the same comparison after 4 hours to see how much more difficult it is to find a 35 knot ship.
Naval operations just don't work like that unless you base your doctrine on Pirates of the Caribbean. Your mathematical genius might make a modicum of sense if we were discussing a search and rescue or mine warfare algorithm, but we're not, so it doesn't.
You mention factors influencing where the QE will operate, your crystal ball must be very good if you can forecast the likely operational requirements for the QE over the next 50 years or so.
Yup - the requirements for the next aircraft carrier will be much the same as they have been for the last 50 years - deliver organic air power from the sea and try not to get sunk. A reduction in top speed by 5 knots alters this not one jot, no matter how many circles you draw in your head.
I'll try and reply to some of the elements you've posted.
New Ark would be smaller then the QE, but we'll have three of them. The ocean is a big place, this is frequently forgotten by those who claim "It's a big lump, it should be easy to find".
Why would new Ark with Super Bucc go through the Straits of Hormuz if there was any risk of attack by RIB? The Super Bucc could have an operational radius of - say - 1500+ nautical miles.
There are some doctrines of naval warfare that don't change over the centuries e.g. if you can't find the enemy then you can't sink them, if the enemy is out of range then you can't sink them.
The primary requirements for RN carriers have changed dramatically over the last 50 years: Cold War -> Falklands -> Bosnia/Middle East; none of which were foreseen by the designers of the carriers involved in each conflict.
hidetheelephants said:
V8 Fettler said:
Well there's a coincidence, CVA-01 proposed at 53,000 tonnes, I've already proposed new Ark at approx 55,000 tonnes.
35 knots brings several advantages over 25 knots e.g. start from a single common point in a vast ocean and plot the possible area where a 35 knot vessel could be positioned within 3 hours, now do similar with a 25 knot vessel. Which one would you prefer to hunt? Particularly if the 35 knot vessel was appreciably the smaller of the two.
For a given load there is no way to make a 35kt carrier smaller than a 35kt one; basic physics prevents it. There also isn't any way of making carriers stealthy, they're too large and the baggage train, flying circus and radio traffic tend to give the game away even if some magic stealth tech were invented.35 knots brings several advantages over 25 knots e.g. start from a single common point in a vast ocean and plot the possible area where a 35 knot vessel could be positioned within 3 hours, now do similar with a 25 knot vessel. Which one would you prefer to hunt? Particularly if the 35 knot vessel was appreciably the smaller of the two.
IanMorewood said:
Simply put if you want a 35knt fourty plus aircraft capable carrier in the RN you would have to look at a nuke boat and the current manning issues that that would entail would probably mean our bubbleheads had an insufficient crew to keep the deterrent always at sea, certainly there wouldn't be an attack boat free to escort her.
Again, if the Ark (Buccs) was capable of nearly 32 knots then I don't see why the increase to 35 knots wouldn't be achievable 70 years later. The CVA-01 was designed to achieve 30 knots with less power than the Ark (Buccs). It appears that the QE will not generate substantially more shaft horsepower than the Ark (Buccs), which is why it's slower than Ark (Swordfish); how is that progress?SlipStream77 said:
V8 Fettler said:
SlipStream77 said:
V8 Fettler said:
If there is a risk of attack by Sunburn carried by a land-based aircraft then place the new Ark out of range whilst retaining the ability to strike the enemy airfields with the Super Bucc from 1000+ nautical miles.
That's clearly not going to work. In the case of a TU22 armed with AS4s, the a/c has a combat radius of about 1500 miles, the missile's range is over 300 miles.
To be out of range of a strike from a base on the coast, the carrier would have to be about 1800 miles away.
Combat radius of a Buccaneer? About 800 miles.
Still significantly short unless refuelling assets are deployed along with the requisite escorts.
Extending your original tactic of moving the carrier group out of range, Russia deployed TU160s with Klub cruise missiles to Syria recently.
To be out of range, you'd need to be nearly 5000 miles away!
We probably need to differentiate between realistic threats and top trumps, otherwise we arrive at general plastering with an ICBM or two. I doubt if a TU160 or TU22 would manage to cross the coastline in any likely scenario involving RN/USN anti-aircraft vessels and/or USN fighter aircraft.
V8 Fettler said:
The usual post dissection structure can create convoluted posts, the structure you've chosen is virtually unreadable. Any chance of reassembling it into something coherent?
I'll try and reply to some of the elements you've posted.
New Ark would be smaller then the QE, but we'll have three of them. The ocean is a big place, this is frequently forgotten by those who claim "It's a big lump, it should be easy to find".
Why would new Ark with Super Bucc go through the Straits of Hormuz if there was any risk of attack by RIB? The Super Bucc could have an operational radius of - say - 1500+ nautical miles.
There are some doctrines of naval warfare that don't change over the centuries e.g. if you can't find the enemy then you can't sink them, if the enemy is out of range then you can't sink them.
The primary requirements for RN carriers have changed dramatically over the last 50 years: Cold War -> Falklands -> Bosnia/Middle East; none of which were foreseen by the designers of the carriers involved in each conflict.
Not sure why you're struggling to read the post, but I'll summarise simply for you - the deployment of air power from the sea has remained ever constant since the year dot, regardless of theatre. The exact opposite of your argument is true - what has changed is the nature of the threat - none of which are countered by incremental gains in top speed or skipping away at 35kts!I'll try and reply to some of the elements you've posted.
New Ark would be smaller then the QE, but we'll have three of them. The ocean is a big place, this is frequently forgotten by those who claim "It's a big lump, it should be easy to find".
Why would new Ark with Super Bucc go through the Straits of Hormuz if there was any risk of attack by RIB? The Super Bucc could have an operational radius of - say - 1500+ nautical miles.
There are some doctrines of naval warfare that don't change over the centuries e.g. if you can't find the enemy then you can't sink them, if the enemy is out of range then you can't sink them.
The primary requirements for RN carriers have changed dramatically over the last 50 years: Cold War -> Falklands -> Bosnia/Middle East; none of which were foreseen by the designers of the carriers involved in each conflict.
Interestingly you cite three examples in the Falklands, former Yugoslavia and the Middle East which prove the very point you're tryIng to argue against! At no point did Sandy Woodward crave more speed for his CBG, In former Yugoslavia, not once did the air warfare officer base operational decisions on speed, and Middle East, likewise.
Top speed matters very little. You can keep telling yourself it does - the reality is very different. Anyway, keep drawing imaginary circles and waffling on the Internet and I'll base my view on operational experience on RO7 at the sharp end.
V8 Fettler said:
IanMorewood said:
Simply put if you want a 35knt fourty plus aircraft capable carrier in the RN you would have to look at a nuke boat and the current manning issues that that would entail would probably mean our bubbleheads had an insufficient crew to keep the deterrent always at sea, certainly there wouldn't be an attack boat free to escort her.
Again, if the Ark (Buccs) was capable of nearly 32 knots then I don't see why the increase to 35 knots wouldn't be achievable 70 years later. The CVA-01 was designed to achieve 30 knots with less power than the Ark (Buccs). It appears that the QE will not generate substantially more shaft horsepower than the Ark (Buccs), which is why it's slower than Ark (Swordfish); how is that progress?HarryW said:
Re power and speed, I know it's a lot more complicated, but simply put the amount of extra power to increase speed is not linear. To give you some idea, I was on a boat recently and asked about economic speed and fuel used. It turned out that to increase speed from 22 to 23.5knts required double the power, to increase it again to go from 23.5-25knts required double power again. So to go from 22-25knts in my example would require a quadrupling (4x) of power to go just over an extra 10% faster.
I briefly worked for a company which developed gearboxes, generators and other drive equipment for marine purposes, a few of the ferry and freighter companies actually found it cheaper to cut the ships in two and extend them to gain extra speed rather then up-engine options.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwG7z_aowKw
Lengthening the hull, even with all the extra weight that includes proved a great way of carrying more freight and at a higher speed thanks to improvements in hull efficiency. Similar to the ever growing Type 22's and Rivers. Plus fancy CFD designed transom/stern flaps are also seeing several % speed and fuel economy boosts.
doogz said:
The fancy stern flap that 26 (I presume that's what you meant) doesn't currently have.
And the ever growing rivers that aren't. They're not really river class any more than, they're t&t.
I was referring to civilian and merchant use of fancy Stern Flaps, including one CFD model I saw which had a very lovely looking saw tooth vortex generating style edge, all to chase 0.0x% fuel economy on a light tanker.And the ever growing rivers that aren't. They're not really river class any more than, they're t&t.
If memory serves weren't flaps add ons for the recent Type 23 upgrades?
V8 Fettler said:
hidetheelephants said:
V8 Fettler said:
Well there's a coincidence, CVA-01 proposed at 53,000 tonnes, I've already proposed new Ark at approx 55,000 tonnes.
35 knots brings several advantages over 25 knots e.g. start from a single common point in a vast ocean and plot the possible area where a 35 knot vessel could be positioned within 3 hours, now do similar with a 25 knot vessel. Which one would you prefer to hunt? Particularly if the 35 knot vessel was appreciably the smaller of the two.
For a given load there is no way to make a 35kt carrier smaller than a 35kt one; basic physics prevents it. There also isn't any way of making carriers stealthy, they're too large and the baggage train, flying circus and radio traffic tend to give the game away even if some magic stealth tech were invented.35 knots brings several advantages over 25 knots e.g. start from a single common point in a vast ocean and plot the possible area where a 35 knot vessel could be positioned within 3 hours, now do similar with a 25 knot vessel. Which one would you prefer to hunt? Particularly if the 35 knot vessel was appreciably the smaller of the two.
Evanivitch said:
Aren't we all forgetting that the carrier size is limited by the ability to enter Portsmouth and other locations. A nimitz class can't do it.
Is it likely the speed is due to the displacement:length ratio?
hull speed is a function of waterline length in displacement vessels unless they are extremely fine ( length to beam ratio >10 iirc (per hull for multis)Is it likely the speed is due to the displacement:length ratio?
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff