To: sukhoi-30mki
2 posted on
10/23/2017 11:01:23 AM PDT by
headstamp 2
(Ignorance is reparable, stupid is forever)
To: headstamp 2
"Back to “JEEP” carriers."
It would be 850 feet long, have a maximum speed of 22 knots and be capable of carrying up to 35 aircraft
Exactly.
To: headstamp 2
the catapults dont work with fully loaded fighter jets. They need to scrap the electro magnet devises and use steam for the bigger weight fighters. It is currently a big mess on the Gerald R. Ford. That thing is only good for helicopters.
13 posted on
10/23/2017 11:16:21 AM PDT by
raiderboy
( "...if we have to close down our government, we’re building that wall.”)
To: headstamp 2
Just go with seaplanes, then you don't need to build a giant ship with a runway anymore!
To: headstamp 2
My thought too. ! Only thing is, they have a beam wide enough to land A-10 sand A-10s, to take from.
27 posted on
10/23/2017 12:15:03 PM PDT by
SandRat
(Duty, Honor, Country)
To: headstamp 2
Yes, bring back the “Jeep Carrier”. A squadron of several could be tailored to the mission. Don't retire the fleet carrier but not all missions require a Queen of the sea's and the survivable of a carrier fleet could be increased with several jeep carriers as it nucleus without reducing it capabilities.
48 posted on
10/23/2017 5:31:29 PM PDT by
2001convSVT
(Going Galt as fast as I can.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson