Non-propeller aircraft carriers today?

Dathi THorfinnsson

I have been seriously tempted to make unhelpful comments in the other thread, so I'll post a new one.

What would it take for aircraft carriers NOT to use propellers? What would they use? Water Jets, probably? Can anyone think of a situation where that would be useful?

Hover craft aircraft carriers with jet engines instead of propellers?

Hydrofoil aircraft carriers with water jet propulsion?

???
 

Fellatio Nelson

Some major naval units have been using pump-jet technology for decades, so it's far from unproven technology.

Ages ago the use of these - and similar - propulsion techniques were examined for larger vessels, but not proceeded with. Not too sure how cost-effective to use them in lieu of standard propulsion, given the displacement of a carrier. Can you imagine A lot of noise reduction can be achieved through their design (and those of associated fittings).
 

Astrodragon

They've been used for some fairly large commercial ships - ferries, normally, but I dont know how well they scale up.

There is also the issue of things like changing thrust and direction quickly - not so important to a merchant ship, a lot more critical to a carrier. I think its not so easy with a jet system.

The noise is only an issue if ALL your ships use jets, a carrier never goes anywhere with the rest of her escort group.
 

Peg Leg Pom

Side wheels don't work well on open water as the motion of the ship tends to lift first one side and then the other out of the water.
 

Gunnarnz

Charlie Stross' free novella Missile Gap features at one point a nuclear powered ekranoplan which carries Mig-21's as recce aircraft. Of course, you'd need a BIG ekranoplan - over 10,000 tonnes, probably - but nuclear jet propulsion might actually be efficient for something of that scale.

missile-gap-croatian.jpg
 

Peg Leg Pom

The Great Lakes are not the Atlantic, Pacific or Indian Oceans. While the lakes can get rough they don't get the sort of storms encountered in true seas. Also those were really just flight decks with the bare minimum required to launch and recover aircraft and probably given their low freeboard had to return to port during rough weather.
 
PhilKearny

PhilKearny

Peg Leg Pom said:
The Great Lakes are not the Atlantic, Pacific or Indian Oceans. While the lakes can get rough they don't get the sort of storms encountered in true seas. Also those were really just flight decks with the bare minimum required to launch and recover aircraft and probably given their low freeboard had to return to port during rough weather.
Click to expand...
You need to expand your horizons. True, the Great Lakes are not an ocean though the storms have sunk ocean sized vessels. They are big enough for naval battles. The US Navy managed to crush the Royal Navy in a naval battle on the Great Lakes.. :eek: Side wheel carriers on the Great Lakes would be a good way to deal with the constant threat of Canadian military and cultural aggression. :D You also need to realize that this thread is a bit of a joke thread .Do you really think I am advocating for side wheel aircraft carriers? I assumed you were joking about the stern wheelers. Was I wrong to do so?
 

Peg Leg Pom

No you were right, I sometimes get so into a debate that I lose track of the context.

As for 1812, the US only won by cheating. The US Commander had already struck his colours when the British ship ran aground and by the standards of the day honour demanded that he keep his word. Then again he did serve a country that was founded as a tax fiddle.:D:D
 
Last edited:
Kome

Kome

Gunnarnz said:
Charlie Stross' free novella Missile Gap features at one point a nuclear powered ekranoplan which carries Mig-21's as recce aircraft. Of course, you'd need a BIG ekranoplan - over 10,000 tonnes, probably - but nuclear jet propulsion might actually be efficient for something of that scale.
Click to expand...
Is that last face a goat? :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top