www.ditl.org

You gotta remember we're not talking predators, which aren't actually all that small. Most combat UAV's are still large aircraft. The X-45 was about 30 ft tip to tail and across the wings and was/is relatively slow and didn't have a big bomb load. A UCAV with a heavy bomb load will probably be 40+ feet, think something F-16 sized or a bit smaller. You'll need a good sized ship to launch off of but probably not anything Nimitz sized, hence my suggestion of the older (now retired) UK carriers.

Reliant121 wrote:

Tsukiyumi wrote:

Tyyr wrote:...I suspect that we'll see smaller UK sized carriers...

So... nonexistent? Hell of a cost savings.

He meant like the Ark Royal and the Illustrious of the Invincible class, they weren't originally designed to be carriers. They were meant as cruisers; to carry Helos. As a much larger carrier was cancelled the design was reworked into a sort of "mini-carrier". The Invincibles are only really viable as STOL and Helo platforms. Ironically, I believe the Queen Elizabeth's are going to be nearer the size of the Nimitz.

Tyyr wrote:...the older (now retired) UK carriers.

And... there's the joke.

Apparently, you guys aren't going to have any carriers very shortly.

No, we won't. Frankly I don't think we needed anything bigger than them in the first place. Our heady days of being an international naval power are long since gone. We should look to our own border more than flying a flag which, I imagine, holds a lot of quaint curiosity but little real power anymore.

Reliant121 wrote:No, we won't. Frankly I don't think we needed anything bigger than them in the first place. Our heady days of being an international naval power are long since gone. We should look to our own border more than flying a flag which, I imagine, holds a lot of quaint curiosity but little real power anymore.

You are still the U.S.'s best ally in Europe, if you don't count some countries with high strategic importance that can't afford to get on the US's bad side. In the (remote, but not nonexistent) event of new belligerents emerging in Europe (West or Southern), the UK will probably be the ally the US will rely most on for force projection. Specially since you have very similar strategic priorities (Air + Naval) compared to continental europe.

That's the reason we're building them, for the first time in decades we can land the full size US naval warplanes on the deck which just wasn't an option on any of the Invincible. Plus the QEs are better suited to a variety of the F...whatever they are, the new ones. I cant remember which one they are now

The F-35 joint strike fighter.

That's it, thank you.

Reliant121 wrote:

Tsukiyumi wrote:

Tyyr wrote:...I suspect that we'll see smaller UK sized carriers...

So... nonexistent? Hell of a cost savings.

He meant like the Ark Royal and the Illustrious of the Invincible class, they weren't originally designed to be carriers. They were meant as cruisers; to carry Helos. As a much larger carrier was cancelled the design was reworked into a sort of "mini-carrier". The Invincibles are only really viable as STOL and Helo platforms. Ironically, I believe the Queen Elizabeth's are going to be nearer the size of the Nimitz.

Actually they were designed to be carriers operating Harriers from the beginning. The Navy just couldn't SAY that that's what they were, because at the time the politicians had decided in their infinite wisdom that we didn't need carriers any more. They actually officially called the Invincible class "Through deck cruisers", whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.

GrahamKennedy wrote:..."Through deck cruisers", whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.

Obviously, it means "aircraft carrier, which we are not allowed to call 'aircraft carrier' for political reasons."

I stand corrected.

"GrahamKennedy"]..."Through deck cruisers", whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.

Am I the only one who thinks of the Akira class when they read that?

No, you're not.

Back to the original topic.

There are reasons why ships grew in size. There are books on that. It took the use of iron to leapfrog in size. Once iron was used then it was steel. Once steel was used then marine designers started to mess around with lightening up the ship. The ship's hull is a fixed displacement. You can add and remove guns and armor and replace older machinery with newer ones, but hulls more or less stay the same. Gunnery and tactics are also involved. Like the period of pre-dreadnought battleships and dreadnought battleships. Pre-dreadnoughts had a main armament of four 12", 13" or 13.5". Part of the main armament and was just as important as the big guns were the smaller ones going from 5" to 10" in size. These smaller guns were meant to smash the upper works of the ship. Once these smaller guns got bigger it became logical to go to a uniform all big gun arrangement. So with the HMS Dreadnought which was in near 18,000 ton range, in a mere ten years displacement jumped nearly double. Then speed caused the ships to grow even bigger. Higher speeds needed bigger, longer hulls. Take for example, 8 16" guns of the Colorado class only displaced 32,800 tons but nine 16" guns of the Iowa class displaced 45,000 tons (actually much more than that, more like 52,000 tons) because of their 32.5 knot speed.

Carriers are the same. Planes got bigger and heavier. Needed bigger and heavier hulls to support them. Nuclear powered carriers also weigh more than conventional ones.

However, the ships could have been bigger. Politics or even limitations with the shipyards or requirements. Two examples: the British had a hard time later on because of their drydock and shipyard dimensions. Not many docks could handle large ships. The exisiting ones limited ship design. Same goes for the US. Draft was a limit for many harbors. The Panama Canal limited their battleship and carriers designs until the Montana class battleship and the Midway class carriers.

Politics also. The US had a Congress mandated limitation on battleship displacement back in 1906 which limited battleship size to 16,000 tons. Politics also prevented the British from building anything bigger than 10,000 tons for a long time in the late 19th century until the introduction of the Royal Sovereign and Majestic classes. Same goes for the French.

In other words. The navies of the world would love nothing better than to have a bunch of super ships, but it is prevented for various reasons. It's only gradual that ships get bigger. Nowadays the only thing that grows in size is the individual cost of each ship even if you compare the price of something built 50 years ago adjusted for inflation.

I would assume more or less Starfleet would have the same problem. You could say that may be one of the reasons why Starfleet since has 100 year old ships in their fleet.

McAvoy wrote:Politics also. The US had a Congress mandated limitation on battleship displacement back in 1906 which limited battleship size to 16,000 tons. Politics also prevented the British from building anything bigger than 10,000 tons for a long time in the late 19th century until the introduction of the Royal Sovereign and Majestic classes. Same goes for the French.

Plus, of course, the Washington Treaty. God alone knows what sort of monstrosities might have been produced if it hadn't come along, given that some of the designs on the drawing board were already pushing 50,000 tons.

Oooooh, the mind boggles, ships big enough to carry turrets with four or five guns apiece. Imagine, a 16" or 18" twenty gun broadside. Large enough to actually combine fleet carrier with BB.