Weapons that changed the world

[Mikey]

if any aircraft carrier deserves to be on the list it's Forrestal.

That makes it a question of criterion; the Forrestal-class represented the advent of the supercarrier and the full integration of the angled flight deck, but the Nimitz-class certainly embodies more of the global effect of the supercarrier.

[Captain Seafort]

That makes it a question of criterion; the Forrestal-class represented the advent of the supercarrier and the full integration of the angled flight deck, but the Nimitz-class certainly embodies more of the global effect of the supercarrier.

The only reason for that is because the Nimitz-class have been most heavily represented in the wars in which the type have demonstrated their potential. It's the technology that makes them capable that the list is looking at - the angled flight deck, steam catapult, mirror landing aid and nuclear power, combined with their great size, and that goes back to Forrestal and Nautilus.

[Giuseppe]

At the very least it should be the CVN-65 Enterprise and not the Nimitz class in that list. Nimitz is only quantitatively superior to the Enterprise due to incremental technological improvements.

But really the list just mixes true technological advances or highly influential designs with weapons which are more representative as symbols of power rather than genuine breakthroughs in warfare.

[Deepcrush]

I'll agree with CVN65 taking the carrier spot. The list is about what weapons changed the world the most and the Enterprise is clearly that.

[Captain Seafort]

I'll agree with CVN65 taking the carrier spot. The list is about what weapons changed the world the most and the Enterprise is clearly that.

I still say Forrestal was a much more important step-change than the Enterprise in the evolution of carrier warfare. Nuclear power was certainly an important development, but it didn't revolutionise carrier warfare the way it did submarine warfare, or the way the supercarrier concept did.

[McAvoy]

I'll agree with CVN65 taking the carrier spot. The list is about what weapons changed the world the most and the Enterprise is clearly that.

I agree with that as well. The Enterprise being even more involved in wars than the Nitmitz class as well being the first. I would say the Forrestal class if anything because they are the first super carrier which lead to the Enterprise then the Nimitz class. But I guess when it comes down to it the CVNs have more of a influence than the conventional ones.

I'd also would like to add to the mix with the F-4 Phantom II. I don't know where to put it on the list. Perhaps in the top twnety than the top ten.

[BigJKU316]

That makes it a question of criterion; the Forrestal-class represented the advent of the supercarrier and the full integration of the angled flight deck, but the Nimitz-class certainly embodies more of the global effect of the supercarrier.

The only reason for that is because the Nimitz-class have been most heavily represented in the wars in which the type have demonstrated their potential. It's the technology that makes them capable that the list is looking at - the angled flight deck, steam catapult, mirror landing aid and nuclear power, combined with their great size, and that goes back to Forrestal and Nautilus.

Yeah, that probably makes some sense. I think the Enterprise would have made more sense if the US had continued with the nuclear battle-group concept. That would have been a major change in the way fleets operated but cheap oil made it impractical. I think now the cost benefit of it would make more sense considering oil is much more expensive and you don't have a pile of WWII vintage tankers laying around to service the fleet. It would greatly simply many logistical problems and probably not be that much of a cost difference when it comes to operating the ships considering you could ditch a few billion dollars worth of oilers and fuel bills every year.

[Mikey]

As far as carriers, it was the combination of the Forrestal-class' developments plus nuclear power that made the supercarrier what it is today - the abilities of the carrier itself with the global range and on-site duration of a nuclear "wessel."

The F-4 I personally wouldn't include, simply because it was so poor at its designed role initially that it took both myriad adjustments and repurposing. It achieved what it did simply because it was the one that was around, not because it was so good.

[Giuseppe]

I'll agree with CVN65 taking the carrier spot. The list is about what weapons changed the world the most and the Enterprise is clearly that.

I still say Forrestal was a much more important step-change than the Enterprise in the evolution of carrier warfare. Nuclear power was certainly an important development, but it didn't revolutionise carrier warfare the way it did submarine warfare, or the way the supercarrier concept did.

I'm not saying that this is the reason for your opinion... but that seems so British of you.

After all it is the Brits who came up with the angled flight deck concept; and it's also the Brits who've always seemed intent on having non-nuclear carriers. When there was talk regarding a collaboration between the French and the British for their future aircraft carriers, it was the British that insisted on traditional propulsion, the French already being sold on the idea of nuclear powered carriers.

Regarding the F-4... well I've been wondering what post WW2 fighter might deserve to get on the list and I can't seem to find a satisfactory answer. I'm not that sure about the F-4 Phantom II; it did bring a lot of new electronics into air combat, but it wasn't exactly the first or the only one to do it. It's just that it's... "popular"? Kinda like the Nimitz. As an air-frame alone it was a case of brute force over refinement. All in all a great bird, just not sure if truly remarkable.

I was also thinking about the MiG-21, but it too has many drawbacks. It does have one of the longest production runs of any combat aircraft; it's the most produced jet fighter in history. It brought half the air forces of the world into the Mach 2 age. And it was a rival of the F-4 in combat. But it also was remarkably spartan in its equipment in its early version (the F-13 variant, with only 2 short range AA-2 Atolls); it also had very short legs, though this was part of the Soviet concept of point defence fighter.

[McAvoy]

Perhaps.

If I wasn't so tired I'd say more but not now.

[Captain Seafort]

After all it is the Brits who came up with the angled flight deck concept

And the mirror landing aid, and the steam catapult... 8)

it's also the Brits who've always seemed intent on having non-nuclear carriers. When there was talk regarding a collaboration between the French and the British for their future aircraft carriers, it was the British that insisted on traditional propulsion, the French already being sold on the idea of nuclear powered carriers.

That's because they're bloody expensive, and nuclear power isn't a game-changer for surface vessels as it is for submarines.

[McAvoy]

I'll agree with CVN65 taking the carrier spot. The list is about what weapons changed the world the most and the Enterprise is clearly that.

I still say Forrestal was a much more important step-change than the Enterprise in the evolution of carrier warfare. Nuclear power was certainly an important development, but it didn't revolutionise carrier warfare the way it did submarine warfare, or the way the supercarrier concept did.

I'm not saying that this is the reason for your opinion... but that seems so British of you.

After all it is the Brits who came up with the angled flight deck concept; and it's also the Brits who've always seemed intent on having non-nuclear carriers. When there was talk regarding a collaboration between the French and the British for their future aircraft carriers, it was the British that insisted on traditional propulsion, the French already being sold on the idea of nuclear powered carriers.

Regarding the F-4... well I've been wondering what post WW2 fighter might deserve to get on the list and I can't seem to find a satisfactory answer. I'm not that sure about the F-4 Phantom II; it did bring a lot of new electronics into air combat, but it wasn't exactly the first or the only one to do it. It's just that it's... "popular"? Kinda like the Nimitz. As an air-frame alone it was a case of brute force over refinement. All in all a great bird, just not sure if truly remarkable.

I was also thinking about the MiG-21, but it too has many drawbacks. It does have one of the longest production runs of any combat aircraft; it's the most produced jet fighter in history. It brought half the air forces of the world into the Mach 2 age. And it was a rival of the F-4 in combat. But it also was remarkably spartan in its equipment in its early version (the F-13 variant, with only 2 short range AA-2 Atolls); it also had very short legs, though this was part of the Soviet concept of point defence fighter.

The British developed many of the carrier concepts we have today. The Forrestal took the concept a step further. Though, it was originally going to be built like a smaller United States design with a double angled flight, flush deck design. Also it can be said the Forrestal design since it was based on previous carrier designs that it still had some left overs. Such as the forward port elevator at the end of the angled deck which was useless during flight operations. It wasn't until the next batch sometimes called the Kitty Hawk class did they move to the aft position. Also it moved the island further back to put two starboard elevators forward of it as opposed only one. Basically it improved the flow of flight operations considerably. This layout is what is being used on all super carriers after the Forrestal.

[Lighthawk]

The AH-1 isn't the Huey, and I agree with swapping it in place of the Apache for exactly the reasons stated.

Ah, excuse me there, HueyCobra.

Regarding the F-4... well I've been wondering what post WW2 fighter might deserve to get on the list and I can't seem to find a satisfactory answer.

I'm not so sure any of the fighters themselves were that revolutionary, more so the weapon systems for the fighters. Over the horizon, fire and forget air to air missiles were a big step, but the only one I can think of that was really limited to an individual plane was the AIM-54. I suppose you could make a case for the F-14 in that regard, but I wouldn't consider it worthy of the top ten.

[Captain Seafort]

I'm not so sure any of the fighters themselves were that revolutionary, more so the weapon systems for the fighters.

I can think of one revolutionary aircraft - the F22, for its synergy of technology in much the same way as the Forrestal's.

[Lighthawk]

Maybe, but has the F-22 actually changed the way anyone else is doing things? Or is it just one more stealth aircraft that anyone who picks a fight with the US will have to acknowledge they can't really do anything about?