If fighters fly fast and far enough, then do they need aircraft carriers?

An important task of carrier-based aircraft is to escort the fleet and ensure the safety of the surface fleet; when two hostile fleets meet, there is an aircraft carrier that basically wins, and the people who fly the aircraft can not stand it no matter how fast the plane flies!

Overhauling the aircraft is a problem on the one hand, the most important thing is that the pilot can't hold on for so long, the fighter pilot is on standby in the air for no more than 10 hours, and the pilot will feel extremely tired after exceeding, and the pilot eats, drinks, and sleeps on the plane are not guaranteed, the plane can be refueled in the air, but the pilot can not eat in the air. (That's why Lao Mei is so vigorously developing drones, drones except for ground maintenance time, as long as there is air tanker support, it can be on call 24 hours a day.) There are also fighter jets that can't be bombed in the air, and after the fight, the plane is a toothless tiger, a target in the sky.

Yes, an aircraft carrier is a mobile base.

The United States has this idea, and using high-altitude hypersonic aircraft to achieve a two-hour rapid global strike is basically an aerospace aircraft.

It takes a lot of money, both technically.

Technology and manufacturing have not reached a certain level, and no matter how much money is invested, it is not easy to make it, just like in India.

Modern fighter jets have encountered a bottleneck as early as the end of the 90s, 4 times the speed of sound The United States has been studying for a long time and cannot break through, and there is also the so-called mixed fuel that is released to other countries, and there is no follow-up, the manned era of fighter jets is coming to an end, and it is generally considered that it is not suitable to spend high financial resources to study the technology of milestone tests, and fighter jets are planted on aircraft carriers to protect battle groups at sea, and if the aircraft fights across the ocean, even if the fuel is sufficient. The flight time is long, the pilot is easily fatigued, and can not be on standby for 24 hours, and the aircraft carrier is indispensable for aircraft fuel replenishment, rehanging, and pilot rest.

Fly far enough? How far do you want to go? Flying from the United States to China to fight? Do you think this was possible before the discovery of super new energy?

Moreover, airplanes are very expensive, and what needs to be overhauled is not that you can fly for dozens or hundreds of hours in a row without problems.

The aircraft carrier can provide such a platform for replenishment of energy and maintenance, and at the same time, the pilot can also get a better rest.

Speed Do you want to exceed the speed of light? Do you think the pilot will just die? Do you think there is a technology to solve this physical pressure? I don't think it's likely.

Milky little brat.

It is precisely because the deck of the aircraft carrier is smaller than the airport that the carrier-based aircraft needs a special way of taking off and landing, and the best way to take off and land is to catapult and take off, blocking the cable to land. The take-off catapult on the aircraft carrier is towed and accelerated, so that the aircraft can obtain sufficient take-off speed to lift off in a relatively short distance. When landing, the tail hook at the tail of the aircraft is lowered and hooks the arresting cable on the deck of the aircraft carrier, and the arresting cable system consumes the huge kinetic energy of the aircraft through the hydraulic and pulley system, so that the aircraft can stop in a very short distance.

This is the only take-off and landing scheme suitable for a heavy aircraft carrier with a strong combat power with heavy carrier-based aircraft. Just look at the daily operations of American aircraft carriers on the Internet.

Other ways include the development of specialized VTOL fighters, so that fighters can take off and land vertically, or at least take off for short distances from the skid deck and then land vertically. Light aircraft carriers can only be used in this way at the moment.

The worst way to take off and land is to let the ordinary conventional carrier-based aircraft take off through the skid deck and land on the blocking cable.

The planes on the US Navy's aircraft carriers basically use steam catapults, so even though the runway is not long, the catapults can be used to eject the aircraft.

As for combat effectiveness, the aircraft carrier is equipped with 3 eight-mounted "NATO Sea Sparrow" anti-aircraft missiles, 4 "phalanx" 6-barreled 20mm close-in defense guns, but the combat effectiveness of the aircraft carrier itself is very weak, and any aircraft carrier is a formation, including destroyers, frigates, cruisers, supply ships, submarines and other large and small ships, and the combat power of the aircraft carrier is mainly carrier-based aircraft, taking the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier as an example:

F A-18 Super Hornet: 3-6 squadrons, mainly responsible for seizing air supremacy, ground attack, etc., about 60 aircraft.

E2-C Hawkeye AWACS aircraft: 1 squadron, responsible for early warning in the air, about 5 units.

EA-6B Prowler: 1 squadron, responsible for enemy electronic jamming, about 10 aircraft.

HH-60B Seahawk: 1 squadron, responsible for transporting personnel and supplies, providing rescue, about 10 aircraft.

There are two ways for aircraft to take off from an aircraft carrier. One is gliding and the other is catapulting. Among them, the ejection requires a high level of technology, which is now only available in the United States.

The others are bought from the United States. Ejection is to pull the plane with something like a belt, so that the plane has a certain initial velocity. Because the plane will take off at a faster speed, it will have lift.

Ejection is divided into steam and electromagnetic. It is the Russian aircraft carriers that glide in general. It allows the plane to ascend and once it is in the air, the plane can accelerate on its own.

The reason why the aircraft on the aircraft carrier can take off on a short runway is mainly to rely on its own high-power vector jet engine, or steam catapult to help take off, the aircraft carrier itself does not have much combat effectiveness, it is just a sea airport and command and dispatch center, the main thing is to organize an aircraft carrier formation centered on the aircraft carrier, the combat effectiveness of this formation is terrible, a single aircraft carrier formation usually includes an aircraft carrier, 2-3 missile cruisers or destroyers, 2-3 anti-submarine destroyers or frigates, 1-3 attack nuclear submarines, 1-2 integrated supply ships. Single carrier formations usually perform non-combat patrol missions, and two-carrier battle formations usually perform low- to medium-intensity combat missions, with two aircraft carriers as the center, 6-8 cruisers or destroyers, 4-6 anti-submarine destroyers or frigates, 2-4 attack nuclear submarines, 2-3 integrated supply ships, and when a large-scale crisis arises, there is usually a task force of 3-4 aircraft carriers, including 9-12 cruisers or destroyers, 12-16 anti-submarine destroyers or frigates, and 4-6 attack nuclear submarines, 3-6 integrated supply ships, usually the fleet size exceeds 40 units.

One of the conditions for an aircraft to take off is to have enough taxiing speed, although the aircraft carrier deck runway is short, but after using a catapult, the aircraft's taxiing speed will be increased to the take-off standard in an instant, so the aircraft can take off.

In addition, in some other aircraft carriers that are not equipped with catapults, it is also possible to use a sliding and warped deck to take off, so that the aircraft can gain an upward lift, but the fuel load and bomb load of the aircraft are much less than those of catapult takeoff.

What is the reason why missiles can hit fast-flying planes, but it is difficult to hit slow-moving aircraft carriers?

For example, a hunter can shoot down a bird flying in the air with a single shot, but it cannot cause fatal damage to wild boars and bears that walk slower on the ground with a single shot. By the same token, missiles can knock planes down from the sky, but they can't cause lethal damage to aircraft carriers.

The aircraft flies in the air, the size is small, the weight is light, the defense capability of the missile is weak, and when performing the task in the air, it can only rely on the maneuverability of the aircraft and the radar to quickly evade the missile bombardment, and some of the more advanced fighters can also use passive jamming, that is, the hot flame chaff jamming bomb carried by the bombardment bomb to interfere with the seeker so that the missile deviates from the bombardment direction, in short, once the plane is hit by the missile, it is almost the end of the plane being destroyed and killed.

The aircraft carrier is different, the aircraft carrier is a huge battle group, which contains cruisers, frigates, destroyers, submarines and other integrated combat equipment of land, sea and air, and the main fleet of aircraft carriers is located in the front of these ships, which is heavily protected, if there are missiles to attack the aircraft carrier, then these frigates will all receive the signal and intercept the missiles directly fired by the opponent in the air with missiles, so it is not easy to strike at the aircraft carrier.

Even if it is the killer of the aircraft carrier, the anti-ship missile strike will take a lot of effort, the general anti-ship missile range is about 200 kilometers, even with the help of relay guidance, the range of the anti-ship missile can reach up to 500 kilometers, and if there is the help of satellites, then the range of the anti-ship missile can reach thousands of kilometers, but even if the anti-ship missile with an extremely long range is very difficult, it is not easy to break through the layers of encirclement of the aircraft carrier, and it may not be intercepted before it reaches a few hundred kilometers away.

Therefore, it is very likely that a general missile only needs to hit the aircraft accurately and quickly, because once the aircraft is in contact with the missile, it can only destroy the aircraft and kill people; And for aircraft carriers, they may be intercepted before they can make contact, which is why it is said that a fast plane that can fly cannot hit a slow aircraft carrier.

The plane takes off on the deck of the aircraft carrier, if the plane is fixed on the deck of the aircraft carrier, the speed of the aircraft will only be the same as the speed of the aircraft carrier, not smaller than him, if the aircraft has reached the take-off speed at this time, it can take off with the aircraft carrier, but will not leave the aircraft carrier.

If the aircraft is not fixed on the deck of the aircraft carrier and can move freely, then when the speed of the aircraft carrier is greater than the speed of the aircraft, the aircraft on the deck is equivalent to the existence of a motion opposite to the direction of the aircraft carrier's movement, the aircraft carrier goes forward, and the aircraft slides backwards into the sea.

Of course, when the plane lands on the aircraft carrier, the speed of the aircraft will definitely be slower than that of the aircraft carrier, and if it is even faster, then it will either be a successful "go-around" and fly into the air again, or it will rush to the sea: the landing will fail!

The speed of the physical aircraft is slower than that of the aircraft carrier aircraft and it can take off, as long as it reaches the speed at which it takes off, so it can take off, so its take-off speed determines whether it can take off, but it cannot be compared with the aircraft carrier aircraft.

This is not possible.

The speed of the aircraft carrier is very small, only a few tens of kilometers per hour; And the take-off speed of carrier-based aircraft is about two hundred kilometers per hour.

Therefore, if the flight speed of the aircraft is slower than that of the aircraft carrier, the aircraft will not be able to take off even if it takes off against the wind.

Physical aircraft speed is slow, does an aircraft carrier aircraft speed not necessarily aircraft carrier aircraft acquisition and stomach physical aircraft speed is basically the same.

The Hornet can't take off at 200 km, especially when it's fully loaded. Therefore, the current C13-1 catapult requires the F18E with a maximum take-off mass of 30 tons to accelerate to a take-off speed of 185 knots, so as to ensure that the catapult has sufficient ability to easily catapult any carrier-based aircraft.

During catapult takeoff, the aircraft needs to accelerate from a standstill to a speed of about 270 kilometers per hour at a distance of less than 100 meters, with the help of a catapult, this process needs to be completed within 3 seconds, and the pilot bears at least 4 g of acceleration (equivalent to 4 pressing on his body), and the limit can reach left and right;

Test Answer: Solution: Let the initial velocity of take-off with the help of the ejection system is v0 (1) obtained from the formula (m s) (2) When the ejection system is not installed, it can be known:

The hull of the ship is at least (m) (3) If the constant speed of the aircraft carrier is v1, then the aircraft does a uniform acceleration linear motion with an initial velocity of v1 The aircraft accelerates to take-off: T time, the forward distance of the aircraft carrier: The distance of the aircraft forward:

Substituting the data yields: or (rounded) So, the speed of the aircraft carrier is at least 10m s. Alternative:

Taking the aircraft carrier as the reference frame, the aircraft can take off when the initial velocity is 0, the relative final velocity is (V-V1), and the acceleration is A, and the relative displacement is L. Then: So substituting the data gets:

Or (withdraw) so, the carrier speed is at least 10m s.

Why can missiles hit fast-flying planes, but not slower aircraft carriers?

First of all, if the missile used to hit the aircraft carrier is an anti-ship bomb, and the aircraft carrier is unprotected, then it is not difficult to hit at all, and it is a live target in front of the anti-ship missile. It's just that after the anti-ship missile hits the aircraft carrier, the damage it can cause to the aircraft carrier may not be very large, and even if it loses its combat effectiveness, it can be repaired and used.

It is difficult for a missile to hit a slow-moving aircraft carrier, it should be a ballistic missile, such as China's Dongfeng 21D. This is because ballistic missiles basically attack fixed targets in accordance with the set trajectory and use hypersonic penetration.

Since ballistic missiles do not easily hit moving targets, why develop ballistic missiles to hit aircraft carriers? Because ballistic missiles are fast and powerful, as long as the guidance problem is solved, the existing shipborne air defense system in the face of hypersonic ballistic missile warheads will basically be invalidated, and once hit by ballistic missiles, the aircraft carrier will basically lose its combat effectiveness, and even if it is not sunk, there is no need to repair it.

As for missiles against aircraft, whether they are ground-to-air or air-to-air, first of all, they are not powerful enough, and hitting such a behemoth as an aircraft carrier can only be regarded as tickling (hitting special parts is another story). The second is the question of guidance, for any form of radar guidance, as long as it can provide target information for the missile, it can hit anything. However, infrared guidance can be a bit more troublesome, because the aircraft carrier may be an infrared silent body compared to the infrared signature of the aircraft tail flame.

Why is it that a missile can shoot down a fighter that flies fast, but it is difficult to hit a slow aircraft carrier?