• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

Navy Pilots No Longer Required to Aviators

IMO, The F35C is the last trap and throw aircraft built for US Navy Target…er Full sized Carriers. With nearly full sized drones and a huge closing of performance gap between Vertol and catapult aircraft the cost of building massive aircraft carriers has really become dependent on how many get sunk in the next war. (I’m going with almost every one deployed inside non refueling range of China get wacked hard). Those operating further out will be even further away than the marines and will need to refuel after launch for range, whilst marines vertol may need refuel to take off with an effective weapons load. Same same but much cheaper operating platforms.

It’s going to come down to cost. If you can build, crew and operate an air wing for 1/2 the cost, in combat*, with “Harrier carriers” Then economics will force that reality.

The conventional catapult carriers are answers to problems with cheaper solutions AND less dead Sailors if one is attacked or maybe even defended better due to vastly smaller size.

Options and opinions are varied and vast. In fact if either entangled comms or effective energy weapons have massive advancements (they will) then manned aviation in combat will largely end. Why have billion dollar carriers or even worse billion dollar planes when you can send in drones either low observable or in swarms. Probably both. Additionally the “stealth” unmanned (but piloted) aircraft will mostly be launching drones, glide bombs and cruise missiles becoming most MRE’s (missiles range extenders 😇)

As always opinions vary. Wildly,

* depends on survival.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely agree. Carriers have place currently against enemies with limited abilities eg. Middle-east / south America.
When it comes to Russia and China forget it. Just massive targets of little use. Shit probably won't be long until deemed little use in middle east conflicts aswell. I give traditional Carriers 5 yrs max. Obsolete. The bow and arrow lasted longer . Huge amounts of money and resources just so technology nowadays can claim the best option for the next decade or less , this is future. However long that lasts . 🤔
 
Yingyang said:
Absolutely agree. Carriers have place currently against enemies with limited abilities eg. Middle-east / south America.
When it comes to Russia and China forget it. Just massive targets of little use. Shit probably won't be long until deemed little use in middle east conflicts aswell. I give traditional Carriers 5 yrs max. Obsolete. The bow and arrow lasted longer . Huge amounts of money and resources just so technology nowadays can claim the best option for the next decade or less , this is future. However long that lasts . 🤔
Click to expand...
I find myself agreeing. Carriers carry a great deal of inertia - literally as well as metaphorically. They're not just ships; they're enormous organizations (by which I mean all the people involved in commissioning, building, equipping, maintaining and operating them) - and those organizations are (a) resistant to change, and (b) very much interested in self-preservation.

The US is on track for repeating the mistake Japan made prior to WW2 - where they overcommitted to building battleships in false belief that naval warfare between major powers would involve battle lines slugging it out with heavy artillery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom