Looks like we are now getting both..!

Sonic67

No doubt drones have their uses for light and medium size work, but it is still an aircraft which has to obey the laws of aerodynamics and gravity when carrying a large payload.

The drone carrying a large payload will require a powerful and heavy motive force, needs the wing span to keep it in the air and support various weapons, still requires adequate fuel load to get from A to B and back again. In relationship, under all that ordinance and support weight, the weight of the pilot is very small and irrelevant.

EarthRod

It's not just the cockpit space, although I think you are underestimating the impact of a cockpit to the overall design and weight.

No pilot means you could have much more aggressive launches without worrying about causing a brownout or blackout. This more aggressive launch could be from a much smaller platform.

No cockpit opens up scope to have more radical stealth designs.

No human pilot increases the potential endurance and ability to have more planes in the air for longer. The limits then will become refuelling rather than pilot fatigue.

Anyway this is all speculation. As I said it is possible that drones may develop in this way.

phil t

Your link is of a small reconnaissance RPA. They fly high, they are subsonic, and they can loiter for long periods of time. If it is to carry a decent weapon load it will need to be heavy. If it is heavy and isn't taking off vertically (that uses up a lot of fuel) it will need a runway to launch from. To be a useful strike aircraft it will need to be bigger.

                               
Your link is to the US and they are building new carriers. Gerald R Ford Class. Shouldn't you tell them? They are building railguns as well.

You also aren't covering the other issue. Landing troops? What if you want lots of troop carrying chinooks?

Carrier-Strike Capability Returning To U.K.

When the Queen Elizabeth is fully operational in 2020, Navy commanders see the ships being at the center of a Responsive Force Task Group, capable of handling a wide variety of rotary-wing platforms as well as a squadron of the planned F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters (JSF).

“With these ships, the U.K. will have 4.5 acres of sovereign territory that it can move 500 miles per day,” says Royal Navy Capt. Simon Petitt, commander of the ship’s complement.

“Eighty percent of the world’s population lives within 200 miles of the coast and all of that is in the radius of the [F-35] jet.

“That means the Queen Elizabeth can influence the vast majority of the world’s population, using international waters and without the need . . . for an airfield ashore,” Pettitt says.

But senior officers are already brainstorming about how to accommodate more aircraft—potentially eyeing a surge force of up to 24 F-35s; joint air maneuver packages of up to 30-40 helicopters also are being examined.

Also we had small carriers before. They weren't very capable and besides air is free and steel is cheap. A missile will do a lot of damage to a small ship. Very little to a big one.

Why are the Queen Elizabeth class carriers so big?

There’s very little reason not to build larger carriers, it was once estimated that steel accounted for only about 20 percent of the cost of the ship.

The smaller the carrier, the fewer aircraft it can support and the greater waste of resources it becomes when compared to larger carriers. The smaller the carrier, the more the vessels size restricts the performance of the aircraft onboard.

Equally, it is often argued that had the Royal Navy had two full sized carriers in 1982 it is more than possible that Argentina would not have attempted to take the Falklands in the first place.

(other reasons for having a large carrier on link, better sortie rate, less resupply, more survivable, and... If a complement of aircraft that would typically be found on one large carrier is split among several smaller carriers, then each vessel needs its own escorts unless they operate together. This would require more resources to operate effectively. It might be argued that splitting up a carrier force would make it more difficult for an enemy to deal with all of it at once but the price paid in escorting ships would be high, making it unfeasible for most navies.)

The Tone class cruiser was Japan's WWII idea of not having carriers and using ships to carry aircraft. Not that successful either as navies since have tended to go for dedicated carriers.

Besides all this is academic. We are getting the carriers (and for various reasons, including the Navy actually wanting them). Do you think we can get the money back?

Trollslayer

OK - I'm now persuaded by you guys that these large aircraft carriers are still necessary in today's warfare. Bearing in mind that it is the aircraft and not the carrier that is the important factor.

Politically they are an impressive means of carrying the message, diplomatically or otherwise!!

weaponx031277

It's about the people Alan, it's always about the people.

EarthRod

Good grief Sonic.

Have I said anywhere that carriers are useless or we shouldn't build them?

All I've said its that it is possible that various technologies may develop so they are not as important as they are now in their current configuration. If you see this as some sort of attack on building carriers now then I suggest you re-read what I actually posted.

Sonic67

Lasers in aircraft?
Only if there is an intermediate base for the tanker to operate from.
Tankers have a better range than fighters but they use a lot of fuel getting there.

phil t

Whatever happend to the Arsenal Ships that the US where looking at?

The Chinese have the right idea towards anti carrier offence with Hypersonic Missiles. The Kinetic Energy produced by a missile traveling March 9 - 10 is incredible to the degree you don't really need a warhead on it. Also if it hasn't happend already there will be space based kinnetic weapons. Anyone whos played COD Ghosts will know what damage they can potentially do.

Sonic67

I believe it's about the politics, it's always the about the politics.

Sonic67

Not much use if you have ground troops wanting CAS. Can't do a show of force with one. Can't do a proportionate attack. An aircraft could use cannon, brimstone or progressively heavier bombs. Not so good for a widely dispersed enemy.