The intervention in Libya has shown up the huge problems with NATO, in that the USA, UK and France do every thing, while Germany and Turkey great military powers just sit there and do nothing, because they don't agree with helping Libya, or because in the case of Germany their Russian oil mite get cut off. This can't be aloud to continue with the UK and US need to cut back and the Spanish and Italian economies fail, the central, eastern and northern EU member must start pulling there weight. So I say get rid of NATO, and replace it with a European defence pact, where the EU forces every member to spend at least 2% of there GDP on their military, each member will cover the miss giving's of the other under a defence plan carried out every 2 years, so if the plan said the UK needs a carrier to defend it's territories in the central and southern Atlantic then part of each members budget would go on build that carrier, or if the plan said Poland needed more tanks to counter a Belarusian attack all the members would pay for them. The UK, France and Greece could keep the military spending above 2% of GDP if the wanted and the spending above 2% couldn't be used to help other European pact members. The UK could still have helped the US attack Iraq, but because it wasn't attacked the other member wouldn't have been forced to help and the UK couldn't have moved the carrier defending the south Atlantic territories. But any part of the European nations in the pact were attacked then all the member must help, no matter what. With a 2% of GDP military budget the pact members would have over 320 billion euros to spend on naval protection, power projection, aiding other nations with natural disasters and piracy. Have enough air power to do the Libyan operation as it was a direct threat to Europe and have the troops and tanks to match any other army. 4 hyper carriers, 120,000 tons plus cost 58 billion euros, including research and development. 4 super carriers, 70,000 tons plus cost 34 billion euros, including research and development. 4 medium carriers, 40,000 tons plus cost 20 billion euros, including research and development. 12 aircraft carriers, total cost 114 billion euros over 10 years. The jets that go on the 4 hyper carriers would be 60 F22's at a cost of 6.3 billion euros, 60 F35's at a cost of 6.3 billion euros, 100 Eurofights at a cost of 9 billion euros, 100 Dassault Rafales at a cost of 7 billion euros. Total cost of jets for the hyper carriers would be 28.6 billion euros. The jets that go on the 4 super carriers would be 80 F35's at a cost of 8.4 billion euros, 80 Dassault Rafale at a cost of 5.6 billion euros. Total cost of jets for the super carriers would be 14 billion euros. The jets that go on the 4 medium carriers would be 80 Dassault Rafale at a cost of 5.6 billion euros. Total cost of jets for the medium carriers would be 5.6 billion euros. Total cost of jets for all 12 carriers would be 48.2 billion euros. Other air craft I would put on the 4 hyper carriers would be 16 Chinooks at of cost of 1.33 billion euros, 16 Apaches at a cost of 688 million euros, 16 Merlins at a cost of 290 million euros, 16 Lynx Wildcats at a cost of 300 million euros, 16 unmanned drones at a cost of 1.8 billion euros. Total cost of other aircraft for the hyper carriers would be 4,408,000,000 billion euros. Other air craft I would put on the 4 super carriers would be 12 Chinooks at a cost of 1 billion euros, 12 Apaches at a cost of 520 million euros, 12 Merlins at a cost of 220 million euros, 12 Lynx Wildcats at a cost of 220 million euros, 12 unmanned drones at a cost of 1.35 billion euros. Total cost of other aircraft for the super carriers would be 3.35 billion euros. Other air craft I would put on the 4 medium carriers would be 12 Chinooks at a cost of 1 billion euros, 12 Apaches at a cost of 520 million euros, 12 Merlins at a cost of 220 million euros, 12 Lynx Wildcats at a cost of 220 million euros, 12 unmanned drones at a cost of 1.35 billion euros. Total cost of other aircraft for the medium carriers would be 3.35 billion euros. Total cost of the other aircraft for the 12 carriers would be 11,108,000,000 billion euros. Total number of jets and other aircraft for the 12 carriers would be 760. Total cost of the jets and other aircraft for the 12 carriers would be 59,308,000,000 billion euros. Total cost of pilots for the jets and other aircraft would be 1 - 1.2 billion euros. The crew of the 4 hyper carriers would number 22,000, overall each member of the crew would get around 50,000 euros a year and cost around 100,000 to train for a 5 year tour. The total cost of the hyper carriers crew for 10 years would be 16 billion euros. The crew of the 4 super carriers would number 10,000, overall each member of the crew would get around 50,000 euros a year and cost around 100,000 to train for a 5 year tour. The total cost the super carriers crew for 10 years would be 8 billion euros. The crew of the 4 medium carriers would number 8,000, overall each member of the crew would get around 50,000 euros a year and cost around 100,000 to train for a 5 year tour. The total cost of the medium carriers crew for 10 years would be 6 billion euros. The total cost of the carriers, aircraft and crew would be 194 billion euros over 10 years with a budget of 200 billion, leaving 6 billion to spend on repairs and add to other budgets. Please tell me what you think of having 6 carriers in European waters and 6 in the overseas territories projecting power?
OK, how many ways should I tear this apart? To begin with, there is no way that Europe will join together to form a single military alliance. Just to begin with, there are more at work here then just nations on a single continent. Each country has it's own historical alliances, and places that it has interests that conflict with other nations. Areas of the world that interest Poland do not interest England, and the reverse is true. And why would a landlocked nation like Austria or the Czech Republic have any interest in spending huge amounts of money in supporting a naval force? And who would command this force? One of the reasons NATO has done so well is that it is mostly an agreement of shared command. When they get into an operation, each nations agrees who will be involved, and who will command it. This will not happen in Europe, where on 2 different occasions in the last century you saw half of the continent fighting the other half. And now the OP is talking of a unified force. Who will command the ships? England? Spain? France? Germany? Will each nation command several ships permanently, or will they share or trade off commands? This would become a huge logistical nightmare very quickly. I can see right away 3 or 4 nations fighting to command the carriers. If one nations maintains command, then other nations will fight to get their share of them. If they switch them back and forth, then you have a poorly trained crew, and chaos when it comes time to change it over. Then come to the descriptions of the navy. Oh Lord, where do I even begin? For one, your names are so messed up. There is no such thing as a "Hypercarrier". The largest carriers in the world are Supercarriers. And while your description of "70,000+ tons" is accurate, it is not real. That is the minimum for a "Supercarrier", not the maximum. The newest generation of Supercarriers is currently the 102,000 ton USS George Bush, CVN-77. The newest 2 will be the USS Gerald Ford (CVN-7 and USS John Kennedy (CVN-79), which will come in at over 112,000 tons. In fact, the largest planned carrier being built in Europe is the upcomming HMS Queen Elizabeth, which will come in at around 65,000 tons. About half the size of your "Hypercarrier". Now the aircraft. Come on, do some research here, it is not that hard. The F-22? I am sorry, there are no plans to ever make a Naval version of these, ever. So your primary fighter for the carriers is already dead. The F-35 is very doable, since there will be a carrier based version of this one. But since since this aircraft was designed for VSTOL use, so it's use on a traditional carrier is a total waste. You would be much better useing F/A-18 Super Hornets. Same with the Eurofighter. The only Naval versions are designed as VSTOL, not for traditional carrier use. So once again, a waste of an aircraft. The Dassault Rafale Naval Version? Are you serious? This is a great example of an airplane that has no real buyers. Designed in 1986, first used in 2000, nobody wants this thing. Almost 40 billion euros spent, and so far only 93 built. Their songle carrier (the 22 year old 37,000 ton R91 Charles De Gaulle) has the only Rafale M aircraft built. By your definition, this is not even a Meduim Carrier. In short, your carriers are already outclassed by caddiers the US has operated for almost half a century. The aircraft you intend to use are hopelessly outclassed, either designed for a totally different class of carrier, or hopelessly outdated. I suggest you do some real research into modern Naval Warfare, and the ships and aircraft involved. I notice you also list Chinook helicopters. Wrong, wrong, wrgon, wrgon, wrong. For one, you should be listing the CH-46 Sea Knight version of the bird, not the land version CH-47 Chinook. And this is not really used much anymore, other then landing troops. The CH-53 Sea Stallion (or CH-53E Super Stalion/MH-53E Sea Dragon) is the work horse of choice for most modern naval forces.
The F-35B is a naval VSTOL version. However, the F-35C is a regular carrier variant that the USN has already tested on carriers and plans to eventually replace all F-18s with.
There is a political union so when not a military union. I want to get rid of NATO and replace it with a European defence pact, so the Europeans don't always need to USA's backing to do everything. So Britain doesn't have an interest in defending Poland or Norway, and those nations have not interest in defending Britain or France, is that what you are saying, that allies have not interest in defending or helping each other in military terms. The landlocked nations wouldn't spend there money on the navy, as they have no need for it, but they would spend money on helping other nations armies and airforces if they need help, Austria is one of the richest European nations, Romania is poor, but still needs an army and airforce to defend itself, the Austrians could help the do that, and add to the whole defence of Europe. NATO is useless, it's 3 or 4 nations do most of the work for the rest. This is why we need to get rid of NATO and make sure every nation in Europe does it's fair share. On the command structure the forces in each nation will be from that nation and controlled by that nations government, for overseas or foreign operation that will be a command like NATO, a figure head, a military council made up of one person from each branch of the military, 3 civil servents, that would do a military plan every 2 years from the budget, the figure head would be voted in, by the people, he would then choose the civil servants and they would pick some high ranking member in there banch of the military to advise them and control military operations. So national governments have little or no say, but the poeple do. Each nation would get what it needs, so the UK and France need the most naval power, Poland and Romania need the biggest armies and Sweden and Germany more air power. So every nation would get when the defence plan says they need, no logistical problems, Germany doesn't need a carrier, Norway, UK, France, Spain, Italy and other do. Germany need more Troops, Tanks and Helicopters then those nations. All the weapons and training would be to a high European wide standered, set out in the defence plan. I have named any aircraft carrier over 120,000 tons a hyper, just to make sure people know how huge it would be. A medium carriers weight is 40,000 tons plus fully loaded or not, so when fully loaded the French carriers is above 40,000 tons, the new UK carriers are super carriers because they are above 70,000 tons on operations, a super carrier is anything from 70,000 tons plus. I agree Europe would have to enlarge ports and docks to build the 120,000 tons plus carriers, but doing so means the Europeans will take a huge step forward, in the production of naval ships, Europe has build things befor in transnation projects, like the channel tunel and concorde, it could build these carriers, I have no doubt. The have been not US planes to build a naval version of the F22, because they couldn't build a carrier big enough, as they don't have the shipyards to do so, and that is why they made the F35 join strike fighter. The hypercarriers could fly the F22 and Eurofight that is why they need to be 20%-15% bigger than any US carriers. The UK will be using the F35 on it's carriers, so it could fly of European carriers, that are 70,000 tons or more. The Dassault Rafale is the naval replacement for the Harrier, on the carrier I world build, it is also the best multirole jet the Europeans have and would proberly replace the Tornado GR4's. I would want a stealth fighter the F22, a conventional fighter the Eurofight, a stealth multirole jet the F35 and a conventional multirole jet the Dassault Rafale, these jets are the best Europe has, and the F22 is the only stealth fighter. Please tell me how my hyper carriers that can fly better fighter jets and more planes in total are out classed by the US carriers, plus each hyper carrier would have at least 5 ship defending it at all time and in the carrier fleet it would have 45 ship defending it, the hyper carriers would be as good as the US carriers, just the US would have 12 and the Europeans just 4. I am trying to use Europe equipment as much as I can, as the Chinook HC6 is the best heavy lift and transport helicopter the Euopeans have, and it will also be flying from the new UK carriers. The carriers would be European not American so why should they use US planes, if the Europeans have something that can do the job.
I doubt the US will have enough money to replace all the F18's with F35's as they cost atleast 2 times a much, they will replace some and carry both on their carriers. But what do you think of a European defence pact and my plan to build more carriers. I would also cut the Europeans troop numbers down from 2 million and 3 million in reserve to 1.3 million and 500,000 in reserve. I would build more main battle tanks, but I am not sure which is best, the French, German or British tank, I would also build more transport helicopters and land based vehicles, so the Europeans could move there troops around faster, and 5 million troops is way to many to defend a small border with Russia, and Turkey. You only really need 700,000 troops and 2,000 MBT's, plus the helicopters and vehicles to counter attack with. I would also have 50,000 elite forces defending the overseas territories, plus more tanks, heavy guns, attack helicopters, transport helicopters and vehicles. I would also move production of some weapons and equipment to the overseas territories to boosted there economies and so they could fight without help from Europe.
No, the new UK Carrier is not a Supercarrier. It is not over 70,000 tons. The HMS Queen Elizabeth R08 comes in at only 65,000 tons. As I said already, it is a medium carrier. And there is no need to enlarge docking facilities. The current ones are large enough. Look, the F-22 can't be a Naval fighter. And there are a great many reasons why not. To begin with, there is the size and weight. The F-22 is a larger and heavier plane then the F-35. This is one major reason why it can't operate off a carrier. Here are the specifications: F-22: 18.91m long F-35C: 51.5m long F-22: 13.56m wingspan F-35C: 13.1m wingspan F-22: 38,000 kg takeoff weight F-35C: 31,800 kg takeoff weight This is a very big difference just in how it is constructed. Bigger planes mean bigger and heavier elevators, and less room for aircraft on the carrier. Also there is the construction. There are large differences in the construction of land and carrier based aircraft. To work on a carrier, you have to make the wings folding (which the F-22 does not have), and also have a much stronger airframe and landing gear. I doubt that you could even create an F-22 to work off of a carrier, there are just to many changes that would have to be made. And no, it is not the only stealth aircraft. The F-35C is also a stealth fighter. I suggest you go back and review previous threads about the Chinese carriers. It is not all about the ship itself, it is also about experience and tactics used. There is little question that Germany and Japan had among the best (and certainly the most powerfull) Battleships in WWII. But notice how much good it did them. Both were essentially lost and were never really used in battle. And here you are proposing that they go from small and medium class carriers to immediately create carriers 2-4 times bigger then any they have at the moment. There will be a huge learning curve, not just for the ship handlers, but for the air crews as well. And have you thought about the rest of the Navy? Remember, there is much more then just the carrier to think about. You have the Oilers, Destroyers, Frigates, Guided Missile Cruisers, normally 1-2 dozen ships for each carrier. So you are not just talking about adding bigger carriers, you are talking about a complete enlargement of the Navy of all those nations. Of course, there is no such thing as a "Hypercarrier", and there is absolutely no need for one. Look, let me say this once again. The Chinook (HC-6, CH-47, whatever you want to call it) is not a Naval helicopter. It is used in Europe, but not by naval forces. The closest naval version is the CH-46 Sea Knight. This is a naval helicopter. And Germany uses the CH-53, which is a larger and better heavy lift helicopter then the CH-46 or CH-47. And it comes in a naval version already. As for which plane is used, I could really not care less. Many European nations use American aircraft. And America also uses European aircraft. I believe in useing the best equipment for the mission. However, you need to know and understand the equipment in the first place. And I think you need to do some more research there.
The main reason I am not giving much consideration to the F-35s is the issues they have had with the B and C variants. Most estimates are that it will be at least a decade before any kind of changeover happens. And I have read that there have been questions raised if the F-35C will even work as advertised as a carrier based aircraft. But even if it is, I expect the Hornet to remain for quite a while. After all, in the 1980's it was normal to see US Carriers with Tomcats, Hornets, Prowlers, and Intruders at the same time. The current era of a single fighter only is actually unusual in the history of Naval Aviation.
The Royal Navy say their new carriers will be super carrier, the French navy says it's carrier is medium sized. So who is right you or those navies? Great Europe does have the shipyards, docks and ports to build and house the hyper carriers, but the overseas territories don't. I know the F22 can't fly off the US carriers, but it could fly of a bigger longer ship, that the hyper carrier would be. You also got your length numbers wrong. The F35 is a multirole jet, not a fighter. I see your point about building something 2 time bigger than anything built in Europe befor, but with enough money the Europeans could do it, the same way the US made the first 100,000 tons plus carriers. Yes I have thought about the rest of the navy, or atleast the ship defending and escorting the carriers. I would build 5 new 25,000 tons plus battle ships, 4 to escort the 4 hypercarriers and 1 in reserve, 6 new cruisers 14,000 tons plus, 4 for the hyper carriers, 4 new helicopter carriers 35,000 tons plus, 1 for each carrier, 8 type 45 destroyers 2 for each carrier, 12 frigates 3 for each carrier, proberly the current French and Italian frigates or the future type 26 British frigate, 24 corvettes, 6 for each carrier, proberly the Swedish stealth corvettes, 40 patrol boats, 10 for each carrier, 8 Amphibious transport docks, 2 for each carrier, 12 minesweeper, 3 for each carrier, 3 supply ships and 2 oilers per carrier, 4 attack submarines, 1 for each carrier, 4 missile submarines, 1 for each carrier. So 37 ship for each hyper carrier. 2 of the super carriers that would be outside European waters would have 1 helicopter carriers each, 1 cruiser, 3 destroyers, 3 frigates, 5 corvettes, 8 patrol boats, 2 Amphibious transport docks, 3 minesweepers, 3 supply ships and 2 oilers, 1 attack submarine and 1 missile submarine. The carriers in European waters would have 1 destoryer, 2 frigates, 2 corvettes, 4 patrol boats, 1 supply ship and 1 oiler with them at all times. There is a need for a hyper carrier so a nation or nations can fly the very best planes at any point in any part of the world. The UK will be using the Chinook HC6 on there new carriers.
HMS Queen Elizabeth, the R08. I have told you the specs for this several times already, but here it is again. This time with references: Displacement: 65,000 tons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Queen_Elizabeth_(CVF) Supercarrier: An aircraft carrier that displaces over 70,000 tons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercarrier Charles de Gaulle, the R91. Displacement: 37,000 tons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_aircraft_carrier_Charles_de_Gaulle_(R91) Yes, there is an unbuilt French Carrier that will weigh in somewhere between 70-77,000 tons. However, it is still being designed, all funding has been suspended because of the financial crisis, and it will likely be cancelled. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_French_aircraft_carrier Meanwile, the largest carriers in the world, the USS Gerald R. Ford and USS John F. Kennedy are already under construction, and the first will be completed in less then 4 years. Look, let me say this yet again. The F-22 can not take off or land on a carrier. Let me list for you the reasons why yet again. 1. The landing gear is not strong enough. Attempting to land on the flight deck at the speeds and impact of a carrier landing would likely collapse the landing gear. And it would also likely fail on take-off, since the catapault uses the nose gear to throw the aircraft into the air. 2. The wings are not strong enough. Landings would cause serious metal fatigue, causing early failure. 3. The wings are not folding or retractable. It will not fit on the elevators, causing extensive remodeling of the ships. And this will also greatly reduce the number of aircraft capable of being carried. 4. Most important, the airplane is not designed to be stopped with an arrestor-wire landing system. More then a few landings, and you would likely see the aircraft snapped in half when it hits the wire. You say I got the sizes wrong. Fine, here are my references. Show me your references that say I am wrong, and I will correct them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35C I am not sure what kind of military experience or expertese you have, but you really need to do some research on what makes an aircraft a "carrier based aircraft". There are reasons why the Navy and Marines use aircraft very different then what the Air Force uses. Or even the Navy and the Army Air Corps.
Did you read the supercarrier Wiki page you linked to because it proves what I am saying. A carrier that is less then 70,000 tons, but is more than 70,000 fully loaded is still counted as a supercarrier. Yes I know all that, that is why I would have a bigger carrier, I have no military expertese but it seems most of the problems you have rightly pointed out about the F22 would sorted by having a bigger carrier and tugs, so the carrier is more stable and the jet can land at a slower speed. I am not saying that a B2 bomber could take off and land, I am saying a fighter could, one of the fastest jets in the world, and if you are right, then the Europeans would change it, they wouldn't have many jets to put on there carriers as the US does, they would need the F22, the US doesn't.
As I said, just a few months ago they landed some F-35Cs on a carrier. I would think that's a sign things are moving along...albeit delayed.
You can't just make a ship the same size as a traditional runway. It wouldn't be economical or practical. It also wouldn't solve all of the problems inherent in naval aviation operations. F-18s/35Cs/Harriers are designed from the ground up to operate in a naval capacity.
While the F-22 does have significantly reduced takeoff and landing distances, as compared with other frontline fighters; it's nowhere near capable of carrier takeoffs and landings. Operating on battle damaged runways is one thing, catapults and tailhooks is another. It's not carrier capable and never will be, because it was never designed to be. Besides, the advent and development of air/ground based anti-ship ballistic missile systems will render carriers obsolete eventually. China is already developing one of these "carrier killer" systems.
I was meaning to say, not all the problems would be sorted by having a bigger carrier but many would. Like the planes need to land at high speeds because the carrier is move, and the can do a jump take off, so the planes wouldn't need to come in as fast on a bigger carrier as it would be moving when planes are landing, also the planes could be fitted with RADAR landing, the carriers would also have a smaller RADAR station, so more room to land and put planes. Also about the space, I would only have 15 out of 100 aircraft as F22's so space isn't really a problem. I am not say I want a carrier the size of a runway, just one big enough to fly and house 100 plus aircraft. The F22 could have new landing gear and have strengthening in the middle, I see no reason why it could take off and land. Are you say my plan isn't very good?
Personally, if I had to sink money into anything in terms of defense technology, at least on a tactical level...it would be in an unmanned hypersonic bomber system, capable of delivering precision guided ordnance on target...anywhere in the World in less than 2 hours. The era of the Super-Carrier has peaked, it would be pointless to continue to invest in that sort of strategic Naval system.
No, your plan is not very good. You cannot make the Craptor carrier-worthy just by changing the exterior. You do not see why it could not take off and land on a carrier because you have probably never had to land a plane before. To land fighters in short distances, we have to put the nose up high to create as much drag as possible. Mind you, this happens over a distance longer than that of a carrier deck. Changing the F-22 to be carrier-worthy would require one to completely restructure the plane. You think the program is expensive now? It has a lot to do with the material used for its frame and where sensors and equipment are. That is not a discussion anyone on this forum should be having and we will leave it at that.
Says who? Carriers are the premier power projectors in the world. China's so called carrier killer missile hasn't even come close to proving capable of detecting, targeting, defeating the the defenses of, and hitting a carrier operating in a carrier group. I think the continued investment in carriers by most of the world's Navy shows carriers are as dominant as ever.
Sorry I'm more apt to listen to a Navy Captain than a GIrine.... Super-Carriers have peaked, they shouldn't build anymore, even the U.S. Navy agrees. From May of 2011 "Twilight of the SUPERfluous Carrier" from US Naval Institute publication "Proceedings" http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2011-05/twilight-uperfluous-carrier Also, these are both fairly recent articles, from June of 2011, referencing the USNI publication source: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/are-aircraft-carriers-slowly-becoming-obsolete/ source: http://www.stripes.com/news/americas/are-aircraft-carriers-becoming-obsolete-1.147210
I was talking about "carriers" in general....not the "super" part. I think we had a mix up. Naval aviation is still the cutting edge in naval tactics, be it smaller lighter aircraft carriers with UAVs. Also, what's a GIrine? I think I've only ever heard that term used in a derogatory manner.
Well specifically responding to the OP who suggests building these massive carriers, at least according to some Navy sources; the era of the Super-Carrier has peaked. That's not to say that what the U.S. has in their inventory won't be effective for decades to come...but we're talking where to invest in the future...and it isn't in hugely expensive super-sized aircraft carriers. The OP wanted a carrier big enough to land an F-22, and that is a waste of funds in terms of future programs, for both the U.S. and Europe. GI-rine Don't know if it's derogatory or not, anymore than Jarhead is or Zoomie...or "Zipper suited Sun God" General Infantry Marine or Government Issue Marine GIrine Goes back to WWII, and to the best of my knowledge, they called themselves that to distinguish themselves from the Army GI.
But I have set out how much it would cost, to build the carriers, buy the aircraft and pay crew, on most things I have over done the cost, so over 10 years it would cost 194 billion euros, that's just 19.4 billion a year, out of a budget of a naval budget of 120 billion, so please tell me how it would cost to much, the US is nearly bankrupt the Europeans, apart from the PIGS are not, Ireland was the 2nd fastest growing nation in Europe this year, it's Greece and Italy that are the problem and they just make up 15% of the European economy.
Yes, and the new HMS Queen Elisabeth is not 70,000 tons, it is just over 65,000 tons. So by reading above, even you admit now that it is not a supercarrier. An aircraft carrier is not just a moveable runway. It is a moveable runway that goes forward as you take off and land, and also move up and down with the swells. This is what causes a lot of the stress on landing on a carrier. And a longer aircraft carrier? Are you serious? Do you even know what the takeoff and landing requirements are for an F-22? Have you even bothered to look it up? It is a minimum, with no ordinance, 200 meters. Add in ordinance, and that increases to around 285 meters. The length of the longest aircraft carrier is 333 meters. And if the plane has any kind of problem, expect some horrible casualties. And also a lot of planes going into the water, since as I stated, you can't mount a tailhook on an F-22. I do not care if you make an aircraft carrier a mile long, you can't land and launch F-22s from it. The aircraft was never designed to operate off of a carrier, it will never operate off of a carrier. Period. You can't just stick a supercharger on a garbage tuck and call it a race truck. You can't add a joystick to a cargo plane and call it a fighter. And you can't take the F-22 and think it will operate as a carrier based aircraft.
OK now, a jump ramp? Then totally count out the F-22. It would never get going fast enough, and you may even get a single launch before you totally destroy the landing gear. That is a hell of a lot of stress that goes on them. If you want an idea how much, look at the landing gear of an AV-8 and an F-22. This is the nose wheel of an AV-8 Harrier. Notice how beefy it is, and how it is designed? This is because it was designed form the ground up to operate off of "baby flattops" and ski-jump carriers. Now this is the landing gear of an F-22. See the difference? This is designed to land on smooth clean runways at a high speed. Now look at this picture. See that little thing dangling from the underside? That is the "Tailhook". Naval aircraft are designed from the ground-up with this feature in mind. This is how it can land on a carrier and stop in such a short distance. This kind of landing puts tremendous strain on the airframe. Putting one on an F-22 will simply rip the aircraft in two once it tried to land, because it was not designed to have the entire weight of the aircraft trapped by the tail. I explained all of this before, and you constantly ignore it. I also discussed the wing strength, which is a major factor. And I did not even go over much more important features. Like the fact that naval aircraft are designed to work in the highly corrosive salt water environment. This obviously was never a consideration for the F-22. I am not even sure if it has the kind of hard points needed to secure them on the deck of a carrier or inside the hanger deck in bad weather (normal runways trpically so not have a 30 degree roll and crossroll).
I doubt such weapons will ever become a reality. And I have torn apart the concept in here many times before. I would expect the completion of a space based laser to destroy carriers long before a ballistic missile.
I am right, your link says I am, the first modern supercarrier, was less then 70,000 tons, but fully loaded was more then 70,000 tons, and it counted as a supercarrier. The hyper carriers would be 400 metres plus in length, so the F22's would have time to take off, plus on side of the carrier would curve up meaning even more time and no need for catapults. Also the carriers would have tugs so the rocking wouldn't be as bad. I have watched videos of many carrier crashes, many because of the rocking.
