Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: nuchat!steve@uunet.UU.NET (Steve Nuchia)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Hydrofoil carrier (was: Nuclear Powered Planes: Feasibility?)
Message-ID: <11703@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 24 Nov 89 06:02:15 GMT
References: <11493@cbnews.ATT.COM> <11596@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Houston Public Access
Lines: 27
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: nuchat!steve@uunet.UU.NET (Steve Nuchia)

In <11596@cbnews.ATT.COM> budden@manta.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg) asks:
>     Worse, I'm not sure what payoff there would be.  CVs can
>crank out 30+ knots when working aircraft.  Hydrofoils advertise
>55+ knots.  What good is a 25 knot increase when dealing with
>aircraft that operate at 300+ knots?

There is a lot of payoff.  While the aircraft can go fast, they land
at more moderate speeds, like 70-120 knots (guessing).  Thus the
difference in relative speed in the approach is much greater than
you've indicated.

More available speed also allows more freedom in setting the course
of the ship during air ops, for given wind.

And, of course, knocking 40% off the time to reach a trouble spot
from wherever you happen to start would be nice.

Overall, I think if it could be done reasonably they'd do it.
-- 
Steve Nuchia	      South Coast Computing Services      (713) 964-2462
"Man is still the best computer that we can put aboard a spacecraft --
 and the only one that can be mass produced with unskilled labor."
					- Wernher von Braun