I would think that it would make a terrible super-yacht. The interior would have to be completely redone, and I think the average fuel consumption for a non-nuclear powered aircraft carrier is ~ 6 inches/gallon.
The only appeal of an aircraft carrier from a usability perspective is it's intended purpose of landing aircraft (otherwise you'd be much better off with a cruiser); so unless you are planning on landing aircraft (and have both the necessary crew and an aircraft capable of a carrier landing), it's sort of silly.
Except if you did manage to think of a use for a fleet of unmanned drones you wouldn't need an aircraft carrier to launch them anyway. A field would be just as good.
Unless fuel or other concerns limit their operating range and you want to deploy them someplace overseas. Kind of like why we used them for aircraft, which can also be launched from a field.
Also, the only aircraft this thing can actually handle are Harriers and helicopters. And nobody will sell you a Harrier. So all you've got is a yacht with an oversized helipad, which is no better than any other billionaire.
18 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 44.7 ms ] threadThe only appeal of an aircraft carrier from a usability perspective is it's intended purpose of landing aircraft (otherwise you'd be much better off with a cruiser); so unless you are planning on landing aircraft (and have both the necessary crew and an aircraft capable of a carrier landing), it's sort of silly.
As a purchase goes, it is totally pointless. Even as a golf course ... it would be a very boring course.
Given the size of the thing, the crew you would need for it, that it is at best a glorified helipad, and one that is nearly 40 years old,