Gulf deployment of navy’s laser weapon – with video

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a6455039a-601f-427a-a4b5-9b73f8277845

See also http://www.dailytech.com/Navy+Develops+New+AntiUAV+Lasers+for+Humvees/article30233.htm

Smaller, lighter, cheaper airframes with longer range and greater endurance. So we can cram more airframes on the deck and each can do its business further away from the ship.

> UCAVs therefor?

A genuine counter to wake homers, putting a Frigate in the way is expensive and wasteful

Well, hardening the ship will end you up with a 200k vessel, apparently. So, either and effective decoy or some hardkill method needed.

Negev LMG
http://www.israel-weapon.com/default.asp?catid=%7B961053C3-242F-42C0-90DA-7E3FE7754685%7D

GALIL SNIPER
http://www.israel-weapon.com/default.asp?catid=%7BFC704F52-0DBF-48E6-A23F-650EFA687FDC%7D

But certainly the 44/1 and 33/1 kill ratios with Fiat G.50 and Buffaloes were due to the fact that opponent were flying I-16s and I-15 ( and Chaikas etc ) etc with very little experience.

The I-16 was slightly more maneuverable than the early Bf 109s and could fight the Messerschmitt Bf 109E [Emil] on equal terms in turns. Skilled Soviet pilots took advantage of Polikarpov’s superior horizontal maneuverability and liked it enough to resist the switch to more modern fighters. The German aircraft, however, outclassed its Russian opponent in service ceiling, rate of climb, acceleration and, crucially, in horizontal and diving speed, due to better aerodynamics and a more powerful engine.

Finnish pilots preferred the Hurricane, the French Morane-Saulnier M.S.406 and even the Brewster Buffalo to the G.50…

This is curious..FAF scored 33/1 kill ratio with Brewsters and even made a wooden copy of it; http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/VL_Humu

Several nations, including Finland, Belgium, Britain and the Netherlands, ordered the Buffalo. Of all the users, only the Finns seemed to find their Buffalos effective, flying them in combat against early Soviet fighters with excellent results,[2] as opposed to the far more advanced Japanese fighters that the other nations faced.

During the Continuation War of 1941–1944, the B-239’s (a de-navalized F2A-1) operated by the Finnish Air Force proved capable of engaging and destroying most types of Soviet fighter aircraft operating against Finland at that time, achieving, in the first phase of that conflict, a kill-ratio of 32:1 (32 Soviet aircraft shot down for every B-239 lost)[3] and producing 36 Buffalo “aces”.[4]

When World War II began in the Pacific[5] in December 1941, Buffalos operated by both British Commonwealth (B-339E) and Dutch (B-339D) air forces in South East Asia suffered severe losses in combat against the Japanese Navy’s Mitsubishi A6M Zero and the Japanese Army’s Nakajima Ki-43 “Oscar”. The British attempted to lighten their Buffalos by removing ammunition and fuel and installing lighter guns to increase performance, but it made little difference.[5]

The Buffalo was built in three variants for the U.S. Navy, the F2A-1, F2A-2 and F2A-3. (In foreign service, with lower horsepower engines, these types were designated B-239, B-339, and B-339-23 respectively.) The F2A-3 variant saw action with United States Marine Corps (USMC) squadrons at the Battle of Midway. Shown by the experience of Midway to be no match for the Zero,[1] the F2A-3 was derided by USMC pilots as a “flying coffin.”[6] The F2A-3, however, was significantly inferior to the F2A-2 variant used by the Navy before the outbreak of the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_F2A_Buffalo

CUrrent hull designs of the large carriers provides adequate side torpedo protection through appropriate structural and internal design. Adequate bottom protection against underkeel torpedoes has been inhibited thusfar by the combination of harbor depth restrictions on ship draft and availability of inside volume.Permanently shaps bottom protective structures can be built; they would increase the displacement of the ship and require special measures like dredging to enable harbor entry. One preliminary ship design with enhanced all around torpedo protection, and also allowing for aircraft growth, has led to a ship designed to have about a 215,000 ton displacement, 1500 ft length and 49 ft draft

Naval Studies Board
Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications
National Research Council
Carrier 21. Future Aircraft Carrier Technology. Volume 1: Overview
National Academy Press, 1991
p87

😮

Discusses 4 different carrier alternatives p 105 and on:
Advanced Nimitz type
New large monohull (100000+ to 200000+ tons, dpending on design)
Large semisubmersible ship (325000 empty, 660000 tons full load)
LHA/LHD sized carrier with 30 F/A-18 class STOVL a/c (contingent on development of new aircraft)

Also considers ‘Large Seabased Platforms’
Floating Island ($4 billion for a 9000x900ft floating airfield)
Semisubmersible ship (2000ft SWATH)

http://books.google.nl/books?id=fFwrAAAAYAAJ

It seems that F-104 STARFIGHTER was also a Flying Coffin; http://aircraft.wikia.com/wiki/F-104_Starfighter

In West Germany it came to be nicknamed Witwenmacher (‘The Widowmaker’). The real Widowmaker was of course the Martin B-26 Marauder. Other colorful nicknames included “Martin Murderer”, “Flying Coffin”, “B-Dash-Crash”, “Flying Prostitute” (so-named because it was so fast and had “no visible means of support,” referring to its small wings) and “Baltimore Whore” (a reference to the city where Martin was based)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_B-26_Marauder

Flying Coffin was also used by ATC crews for the Curtiss C-46 Commando. The men who flew them also referred to it as “The Whale,” the “Curtiss Calamity,” and the “plumber’s nightmare”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss_C-46_Commando

Other aircraft that got referred to as flying coffin were:
Airco DH.6 (a.k.a. Dung Hunter,, crab, clockwork mouse)
Georges Levy G.L.40
Potez 540 (Spanish: Ataúd Volante)
Caproni Ca.313
Brewster F2A-3 Buffalo
Consolidated B-24 Liberator

Boulton Paul P.120 was called Black Widowmaker

So why not opt for six 200,000t carriers instead? :rolleyes:

Dec. 1978 U. S. Naval Institute Proceedings contain a 5-page article on the proposed “ultra-carrier” of some 500,000 t. full load.

James L. George (1992) The U.S. Navy in the 1990s: Alternatives for Action contains reference to a CNA study of proposed carrier alternatives, which includes a 200,000 ton super Nimitz, the Ultra Large STOAL CVX.

The 16th edition of Norman Polmars’ Ships and Aircraft of the US Fleet (pp89-90) also mentions a number of unusual carrier proposals considered by the bottom up review at the time of publishing (1997).

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a328353.pdf

Ultracarrier files:

http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b291/barquitos/P-Files/?action=view&current=Ultracarrier1.jpg

http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b291/barquitos/P-Files/?action=view&current=Ultracarrier2.jpg

http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b291/barquitos/P-Files/?action=view&current=Ultracarrier3.jpg

http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b291/barquitos/P-Files/?action=view&current=Ultracarrier4.jpg

http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b291/barquitos/P-Files/?action=view&current=Ultracarrier5.jpg

Consider the ramifications of passing through Suez and Panama canals, using port facilities (where can you park VLCC – ULCC sized carriers?)… and how to attain sufficient speeds with these large vessels?