aircraft carriers
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
Why are so many countries building large aircraft carriers now? Britain, China and India are all building their own. Why? Is it because they foresee the need to fight aggressively for dwindling resources? Is it a bad sign? Whose carriers will be the best (after the US of course)? Why isn't Russia building them? Aren't they increasingly vulnerable to submarines and missiles now?
For China, it is the wish to create a base for power-projection. You have to start somewhere, and you will only have an useful carrier-capability with at least 3 carriers.
They wont be that militarily relevant in any great power war, but they could do some damage against smaller enemy states. And in support with ASBM and land-based assets, even their fewer and medium-sized carriers would add some badly needed firepower and ASW protection for their naval assets in confronting the USN, especially when keeping close to home waters.
>>27921623
>Why are so many countries building large aircraft carriers now?
For Brits it's because they're recognizing they need to get back in the game. China is trying to expand their influence while India is trying to counter-balance China.
>Whose carriers will be the best (after the US of course)?
We don't really know anything about the new China one yet. If it's just a Liaoning clone it'll be a bit of a disappointment, but not bad for an expanding nation.
The Vikrant looks good on paper but it's rather small. The Mig-29K looks good, but it's lacking some of the support aircraft that carriers should try and employ. Also lol-India.
The QE is probably the most ambitious. Whether or not you consider it the best probably depends on whether or not you're optimistic about the F-35B. I am so i'm behind it, if you don't, well, a carrier needs to be judged by it's aircraft.
>Why isn't Russia building them?
No money, and they've lost the expertise to do it.
>Aren't they increasingly vulnerable to submarines and missiles now?
This is why you build better escorts.
It's important to remember that none of these nations are aiming to tangle with an American CBG with their own CBG (especially Britain for obvious reasons). American carriers enjoy too many advantages, not just in terms of number of aircraft but also in terms of support aircraft like Growlers, Hawkeyes, and Greyhounds.
quick question, how do they get the carrier in the water once done? do they get rid of the platform surrounding it?
>>27921737
Drydocks can be flooded, and they float that carrier out.
>>27921737
They flood the dry dock and it floats out. To get a ship into a dry dock you do the reverse, you float it in and then pump out the water.
OP, didn't Russia pledge to build like ten carriers in the next 30 years or something? That might be why.
Fuck carriers.... America has enough. We need a submersible carrier next.
Carrier battle groups are just too vulnerable in a war against a country with real military capabilities. I'm not changing my mind unless they have some space magic they aren't telling me about.
>>27921737
>Have a dry dock
>it's just a regular dock space with doors closed and water pumped out
>build it
>flood dry dock
>float it out
>>27921764
Bin dun befo
They sucked.
Don't start this shit thread again.
>>27921623
>Is it because they foresee the need to fight aggressively for dwindling resources?
Yeeep, governments realise that there's going to be more people and resources in the world.
>Sufficient energy, food and freshwater resources are likely to be available to sustain the growing global population and the global economy. However, distribution and access to
resources will be uneven, and local and regional shortages will occur, increasing the likelihood of societal instability and of disagreement between states, and providing the triggers that may ignite conflict.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/33717/GST4_v9_Feb10.pdf
>>27921703
Hopefully, that thing will get at least a waist catapult.
>>27921764
They keep changing the number of carriers and date of initial entry.
Right now they're just doing concept work.
No one is building carriers to compete with Russia though. Or rather, it's nobody's prime reason.
>>27921764
No, fuck you. We had this thread several times now.
Saying "submersible carrier" or "reactivated battleships" should be an autoban.
BUT FUCK CARRIERS...
I always think the Iowa class is underrated to this day. They found a way to make 155mm shells go like 80-120 miles, right?
If they could do that with the 16' shells, an Iowa could basically BTFO 75% of the world's population. Don't like, 75% of people live within a hundred miles of the coast?
Each shell weighs like 2500 pounds... so it theoretically could be like 5 JDAMs power with each shell. 15 JDAMs a salvo from a single battery, 45 JDAMs with all three...almost a HUNDRED JDAMs per minute... from the main battery alone.
If they extended the secondaries range in a similar fashion, well... they fired fifteen 50 pound shells a minute and there were twenty of them.. that's 300 pounds of explosive each salvo, 15,000 pounds of explosive each minute.... of course only half of the battery would likely be in use...
That's in the neighborhood of 2.5 million pounds of high explosive being dropped per hour. That's 50 fully loaded B-1s worth or ordinance every hour.
If they found a way to extend the Iowa's range to around 100 miles... it would have so much ass kicking potential. Oh, by JDAM I mean "500 pound bomb", it's just easier to type JDAM.
How far can those new 155mm shells the Zumwalts have go? Around 100 miles?
Why the fuck can't we design ammo for the Iowa's that can do that shit?
It would be AMAZING.
There were scramjet battleship shells(pic related) that could go like 460 miles... why u no loev muh battleships, /k/? If there are lots of people bitching about there not being enough jobs they can refit the Iowas and have our 80 year old ships kick ass a few more decades!
>>27921797
Man, you called the "re activated battleships" thing just in time
>>27921803
Whoops, forgot pic.
Look at that shit.
A scramjet battleship shell.
So.... awesome....
>>27921772
The I-400s hardly count.
>>27921797
No, fuck you.
>>27921785
Oh... I thought they actually announced the program or something.
>>27921784
It's probably unlikely.
There's a decent chance they're holding out for EMALS and are hoping to skip steam catapults in their entirety. Probably letting America work through all the software issues (apparently it's a complete and utter bitch making sure the system applies the correct amount of power for each aircraft and it's payload).
>>27921826
You know why?
Because it is the same shitposter. May the mods actually have fucking pity on those who actually want to talk about navy stuff and ban >>27921764 >>27921803
>>27921833
They've announced the program in the sense they've announced that they're working on it, but that was back in like 2005.
I don't think anyone has picked up an actual contract.
>>27921826
That's because the Iowa's KICK ASS even against advanced technology.
Haven't you seen this footage?
http://youtu.be/qd5MqjvhW9c
>>27921833
You just don't get how slow, vulnerable, loud and useless submersible carriers would be.
There are solid fucking laws of physics that you can't compete with.
>>27921836
Yeah, they have shown EMAL models at an industry fair a few days ago. Considering that the basic technology exist in China since 10 years (Maglev Train in Shanghai), there's chance that the hardware could be quite simple. But true about the software, though.
But at least satellite have spotted a Chinese EMAL test range recently, so there's indication that they are in the process of working out the kinks as well.
>>27921845
I just got off a 3 day ban not long ago for posting medical pictures in /sci/. Apparently people masturbate to diseased flesh and it's a branch of porn called guro, and porn isn't allowed on blue boards....
Even though there's literally a thread where a guy posted his dick next to a .40 and 9mm round.
You know there are plenty of people that shit post on /k/ too, right? I'm not the only one? You have noticed this right?
>>27921855
Oh I know they'd probably be slow but the rest is up to the engineers that would design it.
>>27921891
Are you being stupid on purpose?
Slow, loud and vulnerable aren't something you can engineer out.
>>27921623
>Britain
Being nocarriers for a few years is the aberration, operated them plenty in the past and now getting back some capability, just need some aircraft to put on board and to actually commit and finish the second.
>China
USA has carriers so China has to have carriers. They want to pretend they can do force projection 'murica style and play outside their own pool, give them a couple of decades and their second or third generation of indigenous carriers might actually be fairly decent. Until then they have alot of catching up (and fucking up) to do because even with an old Russian wreck to play around on, and 'borrowing' as many ideas from others as possible you still do not go from 0 carrier experience to getting it right in one go.
>India
Determined to be a regional power and wants to sit at the big boys table globally, pretty much copypasta everything for China. (But add a designated shitting deck)
>Russia
Totally building a glorious fleet of mighty carriers that can crush disgusting western imperialist dogs with their mighty flights of 6th gen aircraft, each able to singlehandedly disable any warship. Just as soon as someone lends them $3.50.
Carriers have been increasingly vulnerable to subs/long range missiles pretty much forever, and the arms race between attacking options and the defensive measures of both carriers themselves and their escorts will continue for a good while yet.
>>27921764
>We need a submersible carrier next
Nope
>>27921965
>to actually commit and finish the second.
Little behind on the news aren't you? The Prince of Wales is months ahead of schedule.
DESIGNATED
>>27921979
But is it now actually going to be fitted out and fully commissioned, or still on the plan where it gets majority built but not finished, and mothballed for some maybe time in the future?
>>27922017
I think they scrapped that plan back in like 2012.
>>27922017
That hasn't been the plan for years.
>>27921851
>Mfw I can see the Missouri from my window right now
Never in a million years would that big beautiful bitch be able to pull that sort of shit off.
>>27921881
Trying to justify your behavior by the fact that others do it too doesn't make you any less stupid, annoying, and wrong.
>>27921623
because carriers are excellent for force projection in the time of asymmetrical warfare. They are going to make a comeback in the next decades. So instead of 3-4 countries each having many carriers to fight navy to navy we are going to see dozens of countries with 1-2 carriers for asymmetrical warfare force projection
>>27922030
>>27922040
Since last year at least unless wiki is lying (entirely possible I agree), my bad hadn't picked that up, I guess Cameron has done at least one thing right then. Now he just needs to sort out Trident I guess.
>>27921900
Dude we went to the moon on a spaceship guided by a computer less powerful than the TI-84 you used in math class.
WE CAN DO THINGS, ok?
>>27922017
>mothballed for some maybe time in the future?
Don't you fucking say that. Don't you fucking say that at all.
Especially with the SDSR round the corner. God almighty don't curse us like that.
>>27922128
The SDSR should go well. A bit callous to say it, but Paris should see to that.
>>27922118
You're not getting this, are you? The whole "physical impossibility" thing?
>>27922137
Paris won't have any input on it, it's already finished.
Ukraine, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and fucking ISIS will though.
>>27922041
too bad you're stuck in nofuns land.
>It's a nice place to visit but fuck not having freedom
>>27921803
>There were scramjet battleship shells(pic related) that could go like 460 miles
>CATOBAR F-35 combat radius: 702 miles
>Meteor range: 187+ miles
>>27922234
Sure, and not to defend the retard, but you have to take into account the operation costs of sending a fighter and expending the related armament vs. the cost of the scramjet shell. Working solely off of range does not automatically make one option better.
>>27922262
Is that with, or without the battleship?
>>27921623
>Why are so many countries building large aircraft carriers now?
To bomb kebabs.
>>27922017
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/nato-summit-2014-pm-end-of-summit-press-conference
And today I can announce that the second carrier – HMS Prince of Wales – will also be brought into service. This will ensure that will always have one carrier available, 100% of the time.
>>27922262
You have to move the battleship within its firing range, protect it with escort ships so it doesn't get BTFO by anti ship missiles, most of the modern ones outrange the battleship's own guns.
Then expand a dozen to a hundred JDAM rounds to actually hit the target with any meaningful accuracy.
Or you can just send in a squadron of jets.
>>27922329
>>27922354
You have to mobilize just as much protection and resource expenditure to move a CBG out there too, but you're right in that the CBG can stay farther out from missile defense.
>>27922425
A Carrier contributes far more it's own defense in the forms of AWACs, CAP, and electronic warfare birds.
>>27922425
>You have to mobilize just as much protection and resource expenditure
I'd like to see a citation for that, but I know I'm not going to get one.
>>27922141
I'm American.
I don't let physics dictate my possibilities.
>>27922425
Yes you have to mobilize just as much protection, however the difference is CBG escort ships won't necessarily expand its munitions defending the carrier while the battle ship group has to.
A battleship is a fucking ASM magnet. Even if you have a 99% chance of intercepting all attacks, that 1 ASM that gets through is enough to at least take the battleship out of commission.
Not to mention needlessly putting thousands of Burgerfat lives crewing the battleship in danger, as a opposed to a dozen fighter pilots.
>>27922449
What? You don't know that CBG means carrier battle group? As in a group of ships?
>>27922433
Again, true. I was thinking more narrow-mindedly of water-based defense groups only
>>27922449
Alright so I'll make it official that I'm only going based on my own logic. I know CBGs are fairly large and I would assume that a combat group with a carrier would be relatively similar to one focused around a battleship, however as I mentioned I've been thinking more in terms of ship-based defenses as opposed to the air-based defense a carrier can present. Honestly I'm just kinda playing devil's advocate and not trying to make any concrete claims.
>>27922481
No, that's not what I'm asking.
I'm talking about the carrier being the same in protection and resource expenditure as a carrier.
>>27922509
>I'm talking about the carrier being the same in protection and resource expenditure as a carrier.
HURRR
*as the battleship
>>27922520
I think the fact that BBBG's were exact replicas of carrier strike groups with the carrier replaced with a BB is a good indication of similarity of resources with a lack of capability.
>>27922048
YOU THINK I COME TO 4CHAN FOR INTELLECTUAL DISCUSSION?
fuck.... maybe I'm in the wrong. I mean, that pic of Descartes was everywhere, I've seen a lot of pics of Einstein, Penn Jillette is always telling me I'm garbage.... oh my god.. I'm so sorry to interpret this legendary meeting of minds! If only I hadn't decided to come to 4chan and dick around I'm sure you guys would have solved all the world's problems by now!
Holy shit.... how can I ever make up for what I've done? I'm a monster!!
>>27921784
Indias has a designated waste catapult IIRC
>>27922667
It's so funny when shitposters try to high horse with "bu...bu....this is 4chan!"
>>27922703
I'm not that hard to figure out.
I want America to have badass shit.
Movie directors shouldn't have to invent things like flying carriers for the Avengers... we should have already had one.
I don't ask much.... just for our military to have badass shit in case the shit actually does hit the fan and aliens invade.
If the mothership from "Independence Day" was here, would you rather A) Have a totally awesome submersible carrier or B) not have a cool as fuck submarine as big as a Nimitz?
Which would you choose, mr self righteous contributor?
>>27922338
/thread
>>27922771
Not him, but neither because they are both fucking crap for explained reasons.
>>27922771
C) None of the above.
I rather have 6th gen aircraft and better missiles then the crap you mentioned.
>>27922771
>Movie directors shouldn't have to invent things like flying carriers for the Avengers... we should have already had one.
They didn't invent them, flying carriers have been a concept since the 1920s-30's with dirigibles.
>>27922816
I've been recommending a concept for better bullets that would double the ammo capacity of every soldier but that's not good enough for /k/ either...
There's just no pleasing you.
Besides, what good is any of this gonna do against terrorism?
The kind of war we are fighting is completely contrary to our militaries training and equipment anyways... so even you're not helping! Nobody here is!
I just fantasize about shit I think is cool. And it is cool. Bigass nuclear powered flying wings that have a few squadrons of fighters IS COOL. Huge submarine carriers ARE COOL.
And that's that.
>>27922917
>I've been recommending a concept for better bullets that would double the ammo capacity of every soldier but that's not good enough for /k/ either...
You mean caseless ammo? The concept of which has been around since WWII and something /k/ has mentioned sporadically for fucking years?
Nothing you have mentioned is new.
>>27921623
That's a big ship
>>27923005
Nope. Straight walled cartridges instead of bottle neck. It's not even my idea I just shill for things I think are good ideas.
>>27922771
They are both impractical.
>>27923050
Then post sources, shill.
>>27923106
They are both AWESOME.
And you know damn well if we built a flying aircraft carrier that circumnavigated the globe non stop for months at a time.... THAT would be the new standard for superpower status and EVERYONE would want their own flying supercarrier.
>>27923140
They are both impractical.
Our oversees possessions are our best carriers.
>pic related
also
>DiegoGarcia.jpg
and
>AscensionIsland.png
with a shade of
>Falklands.gif
>>27923158
They are both AWESOME.
You know what else is awesome? MECHS :D
>>27923214
Why have tornado and typhoon if the both travel the same distance ?
>>27923252
Because they are different platforms that serve different roles.
>>27923252
Because Tornado carries more ordnance and has access to a wider range of air to ground weapons.
Also 2 x 27mm revolver Cannons > 1 x 30mm rotary cannon
>>27923228
All 3 are impractical.
>>27922917
>>27923140
>>27923228
>if I say AWESOME enough times, maybe the shitty impractical things I want the US to build and field will finally happen!
>>27923283
All three are awesome and you all fucking know it.
Especially mechs. And mechs that look human are actually practical because of psychological reasons.
>>27923305
>if I mock him enough maybe I'll be able to destroy his hopes and dreams!
What the fuck are you trying to do, take away my happy thoughts?
>>27923414
>And mechs that look human are actually practical because of psychological reasons.
>>27921623
Carriers = power projection. It allows a country to move an entire air squadron and command center anywhere on the globe.
>why
Firstly all their original carriers are getting old and need replacing. Secondly, the goal here is counter-terrorism first. Counter-terrorism on the sea only requires small patrol boats which can be dispatched from a carrier. The carrier itself can hold bombers and helicopters that can be used as support.
As far as "national security" investments go, carriers give countries the most options (compared to regular boats) especially if they lack the money or competence for a proper full-sized navy with dedicated offensive, defensive, etc vessels. Of course, carriers are just giant transports which are vulnerable to other boats (which is why the USN surrounds every carrier with support ships). But most countries, including China, don't have any serious plans for conventional wars in the future.
>>27923424
>What the fuck are you trying to do, take away my happy thoughts?
You can watch TV shows and movies about mechs and flying/submersible aircraft carriers to your heart's content anon. You just won't ever see them in the real world because they aren't very practical.
>>27923508
All the nations investing in carriers are also investing in serious escorts (aside from India, which is using the Barak series of missiles, which aren't bad exactly but only cover the short to medium range spectrum of threats).
>>27923434
>a machine can't rape a person......
>_>
A tangent to the point that the OP was trying to make; four countries started universal conscription this year alone. The trend is towards militarization.
>>27923614
Which ones were those?
>>27923627
You replied to an ignorant teenager and expected to be enlightened, when you could've spent that time googling the answer yourself.
>>27923050
How would straight-walled cartridges "double the ammo" for every infantryman?
>>27923649
10/10 good post, many laughs were had.
>>27922771
>Movie directors shouldn't have to invent things like flying carriers for the Avengers... we should have already had one.
For what reason?
Parasite aircraft where dropped as an idea, and that was based on forward flight, not VTOL which is much less efficient
>If the mothership from "Independence Day" was here, would you rather A) Have a totally awesome submersible carrier or B) not have a cool as fuck submarine as big as a Nimitz?
I'd rather have the one that actually works and isn't inherently flawed by design
>Besides, what good is any of this gonna do against terrorism?
The goalposts have gained not only wheels but full blown sentience
>I just fantasize about shit I think is cool
Yes, you fantasize. It is fantasy. not Reality
>>27923627
Just looked at the wiki, and it looks like it hasn't been updated recently, but UAE and Lithuania are two I recall.
>>27923716
UAE and Lithuania are definitely trendsetters of the modern world.
>>27923050
Those already exist, they're called pistol calibers
Bottlenecks exist to get an optimal charge to projectile size ratio in the smallest possible size with the best possible kinematics on the round
>>27921965
>and 'borrowing' as many ideas from others as possible you still do not go from 0 carrier experience to getting it right in one go.
Why, just why is it so hard with carrier. In 1940, just about every player in the war had at least a carrier, and it took them only a couple of years to build one.
Why can't China just start this from scratch and learn it the hard way just like everyone else?
France's carrier track record is murky as well yet she has one running now. And China is a lot richer than France.
>>27921764
Russia will never build more carriers - at least not in the next 20 years at the very least. It doesn't fit their current doctrine and all their force projection happens through land.
>>27921764
Please Aircraft aircraft carriers were clearly superior the Akron design just needed some TLC
>>27923832
>In 1940, just about every player in the war had at least a carrier
US
Japan
UK
France (Bearn a shit)
It's really difficult to build these things.
>>27923832
>In 1940, just about every player in the war had at least a carrier,
US, Japan, and UK were the only ones who had carriers.
>>27923832
They are going to learn it the hard way, that's the point.
And the Charles de Gaulle isn't exactly a good example of a successful carrier.
It doesn't help that a Liaoning-style carrier is rather restricted in what exactly it can do.
>>27923614
We "can't" draft in America but we're upping the game for guardsmen working for 7 weeks out of the year. Which depending on how they use that drill time will be decent or wasted
>>27923832
>Why, just why is it so hard with carrier. In 1940, just about every player in the war had at least a carrier, and it took them only a couple of years to build one.
War is the worlds best innovator
>Why can't China just start this from scratch and learn it the hard way just like everyone else?
Because there is 75 years of research to understand for them to be caught up, and that before looking into research already underway
Theres a reason why Britain has built the QE as 65k tons but the docks are capable of 70k+
>>27923924
The purpose of those extra weeks is less to increase the size of the military and more to try and maintain the expertise the Guard gained from all the wars we've been fighting recently, rather than losing it once the current stock of Guardsman start leaving.
>>27923875
>US, Japan, and UK were the only ones who had carriers.
hmmm, ok. I guess I got the wrong impression.
>>27923888
>And the Charles de Gaulle isn't exactly a good example of a successful carrier.
Care to elaborate? I'm very interested to learn more.
>>27922667
kid, get a tripcode so the groan-ups can filter your drivel.
that way you can shit post until your little heart is content without being an asshole about it.
>>27923964
>Care to elaborate? I'm very interested to learn more.
The french have 1 carrier
Carriers require long periods of maintenance in dock when they come in, part of why the Bongs cost cut and made 2.
With 1 you cannot guarantee SHTF availability
>>27923964
It's reactor is too small (it was originally a submarine reactor, designed to power a vessel several tens of thousands of tons lighter than the CdG), so it's plagued with power issues. It took over a decade to get into service and since then has been recalled for maintenance issues several times (though many of these issues were solved in 2007 after it's refit). The French Navy only has 3 Hawkeyes, one of which has been modified for testing and isn't available for service, while the other two are always switching out between use and repair. So it's got one E-2C, so if something happens it's early warning capability is reliant on whether or not they can get the other one into service and how quickly that can happen.
This last issue isn't really it's fault, but it was originally designed with the idea of it being one of a pair. Because of this France faces gaps in carrier coverage and has to try and force the workload of two carriers onto one, which doesn't help it's maintenance issues.
It really has gotten past most of it's teething problems, but this just means it's matured as a ship just in time for it to start getting old.
>>27923757
We have more efficient propellant now, don't we?
>>27923683
Pic related. Suddenly, standard 30 round STANAGs hold 60 rounds. The A-10 carries 2,700 rounds of BRRRRRT instead of 1,350. It's a simple concept..
It would mean slight modifications to the feed and extraction operations.
>>27924075
How about submersible carrier that launches flying carriers?
>>27924075
>Implying VTOL isn't perfect for magnetized perch launch
>>27921623
Because aircraft carriers don't get sunk by submarines.
They do and will if another war came along but still.. In WW2 they didn't much compared to how much battleships failed.
basically they are the new battleship.
>>27924149
>In WW2 they didn't much compared to how much battleships failed.
Do you even know how many carriers were lost in WW2?
>>27924075
>>27924120
Why would you even need to launch fighters from an airborne carrier?
Just roll them off the side. The planes can just dive to gain speed.
>>27924103
No...
Don't you guys think a massive plane that flies for months is awesome?
What about the Orion battleship?
Some things are just too cool.
>>27923261
Tornado and Typhoon both have Mauser BK-27
Tornado GR4 also only has one of them - the other one was removed when they upgraded from GR1/GR1B to GR4.
The GR1A (reconnaissance variant) and F2/F3 only had one canon to begin with
>>27924055
>We have more efficient propellant now, don't we?
Thinner base diameter = less primer surface
Less primer surface = slower ignition
Slower ignition = lower velocity
This is one of the major reasons we abandoned rimfire as a standard military cartridge
Now consider you have a round that ignites slower and , due to space saving, has less propellant to burn in total.
Do you see how these 2 things compound the issues with the design?
In aircraft the volume saving is advantagious due to the extreme RoF, and more ammo in the same space is worth it
>>27924075
So what happens if the landing plane isn't arrested? Does it get sucked into the left thruster or w/e it is?
>>27924318
The idea the artist had is that the carrier is moving forwards too, meaning that any aircraft, in theory STOL without CATOBAR
He didn't account for the crosswind on the angled landing strip, nor the whirling blades of death
>>27924075
>YF-22A, F-18 and F-14 all in 1 carrier
Dat feel when regardless of how bad the design is you cut the artist some slack for taste
>>27921623
African scramble 2.0 will happen in our lifetimes.
Africa is the perfect mix of instability and resource rich geography. Similar to ME. There will be a number of wars and countless numbers of conflicts that will be waged there during the later half of the 21st century.
India, China, US, UK, and France (already there) will be scrambling to project power over there very soon.
>>27921764
>Space magic
Aegis combat system is straight up space magic. The radars can burn out a missile a few kilometers. Or you know, a pigeon at 200 meters.
The US's countermeasure systems are at least thirty years ahead of everyone else's.
>>27924525
>designated
>>27924580
>The radars can burn out a missile a few kilometers.
What?
>>27924605
He's a bit autistic.
>>27924605
I've gotta guess he's referring to the ECM system.
>>27924599
>INS Designated and RN In'shallah will one day hold joint training exercises in your lifetime
>>27922694
>>27924605
Radar guided sea skimming missiles rely on sensitive radars. A well focused multi-megawatt radar can put enough energy into the missile's sensor system to destroy it.
>>27924841
Can't tell if trolling or just retarded, I'm going to err on the safe side and say retarded.
>>27924605
BURNING LOVE
>>27924841
It's impressive how they've managed to keep it so secret.
>>27924918
Its weird that the USN is still using SAMs and CIWS.
>>27924841
So the recently developed BMD systems and SM-6 were all just mock projects? Where did the money really go to?
>>27924841
After reading this post I was thinking that that new Chines anti-ship ballistic missile would be no threat as well, but then I realized how the Americans were able to so easily kill these sea skimming missiles with their death beams. It is because the radar on the ships is mounted very high, higher than the sea skimming missiles. Thus the American ships have the high ground over the missiles and are able to defeat them with ease. However the ballistic missiles have the ultimate high ground as they fly through space, and are thus immune to the death ray.
So about the submersible carriers comment.
They could actually potentially be made much faster and less noisy, there is a couple ways.
However it would be much easier to just make surface carriers faster and more agile in the water.
How you say?
1. New powerplants. Navy has been working on a potential military fusion powerplant based on the WXX program (whiffleball fusor naval research program), for quite a few years now, since at least 2009, when they picked up the project.
2. LFTR/thorium fuel cycle power plant. Since this reactor operates in the thermal spectrum unlike existing naval plants, it can produce far more steam, AND superheat steam (something existing naval reactors cannot do), at a much smaller size and much lighter weight. Computer vetted designs for 3000 MW thorium powerplants are so far something like 20-45% smaller in physical size and complexity to lower MW rated LWR/PWR/BWR systems.
3. Propulsion. Jet directed drives, MHD, ect. USN is working on quite a few large systems for getting the power of said new power plants to the water that will make the boat go much faster and be much more agile. Other examples including naval research into podded drive systems.
Anyway the tldr is, in the next 100 years things are going to change drastically in terms of the engine rooms on these things and you could easily see carriers of the future capable of doing speeds in excess of 60 kts or more.
>>27923050
That's pretty stupid. Look at .30 carbine for an example.
>>27921623
>Why isn't Russia building them?
The Russians have no outlying territories to defend or dispute over and all threats against can be reached over land.
>>27925116
Plus they are broke and cannot build or design things anymore.
>>27925034
Don't forget more automation and drone fighters.
>>27924580
While the Aegis is impressive this is the stupidest post I've seen about it
>>27924932
They're clearly just props to keep up the charade and in fact the radar is the real weapon.
>>27925123
Come on man this board is supposed to be at least slightly realistic.
>>27925152
>drone fighters
Will never happen, we've talked about this a million times.
>>27925034
None of this matters because you will be making an extremely loud submarine that will move slower than a modern CVN thus needing a carrier group to defend it and therefore completely nullifying the point of a submersible carrier.
>>27921623
>diesel powered
>no catobar
>>27925168
The Russian government is broke. Everything they make is a lemon. They had an enormous market after the Soviet Union went osteoporosis which they have squandered.
It does not appear they have the people, resources or systems to make things which are new and good. They are struggling to make crap.
>>27925288
They've managed to build some decent small ships. Their major trouble is building anything large for some reason.
They should also really focus on just a couple classes of fighters and not try and build and maintain so many different classes. Especially not so many different naval aircraft. It's just pointless, pick something and stick with it.
>>27925034
why dont they just build a sub that moves like a whale?
>>27924932
IR seekers.
Plus, trying to pump that much energy into a missile seeker means you're not scanning the sky for other vampires.
>>27925395
>IR seekers.
Better watch out for those Termits mang
>>27922041
>>27921851
if i remember correctly, an Iowa class BB had the one of it's own shells blow up in the A turret, killed 50 something crew and put the turret out of commission but otherwise did not hurt the ship much. I wonder how many ASM it can eat before it get's critically damaged
>>27921623
>SKI JUMP
How old are these carriers senpai?
>>27923832
cause everything is fair in love and war?
>>27925645
Iowa's were made in the fucking 30's
>>27921623
>Aren't they increasingly vulnerable to submarines and missiles now?
Not necessarily. The history of every weapons system consists of a never-ending see-saw between offense and defense. Submarines present a credible threat, so defenses were developed to counter that threat.
Antiship missiles are not an effective way to attack carriers. Defenses are too tight, and it requires numerous hits to cause any significant level of damage. Carrier-specific AShM are an unproven concept, and come with a size handicap that negates most of their potential utility.
>>27924580
>The US's countermeasure systems are at least thirty years ahead of everyone else's
Top fucking jej, the Burkes still use PESA.
>>27922771
Are you underaged or autistic?
Cause saying "Murica needs to waste millions on useless cool shit" sounds just like something that an elementary schooler or an autist would say.
>>27921764
>be 2002
>hey we'll build 10 carriers in 20 years!
>be 2010
>have 0 shipyards built, 0 models/designs/concepts built
>hey we're gonna build AT LEAST TEN nuclear powered supercarriers that are better than the Nimitz in the next 30 years, srsly!
>be 2013
>Ford-class carriers announced to general US public
>russia still has 0 shipyards, 0 actual models, 1 unofficial CG rendering of retrofuturistic bullshit, 0 hulls laid, etc
>hey we're gonna build AT LEAST TWENTY nuclear powered supercarriers that will totally be a gorillion times better than the Ford class carriers, also we have a whole wing of working gen 37 superstealth hypercruise long range nuclearfighterbomberinterceptorgoatraperundeadableundetectable aircraft to launch from it already built!
>be 2015
>have 3 balsa-and-plastic models that look like they're from a Vietnam documentary and assembled by an 8yo with cerebral palsy, 2 unofficial CG renders that are retrofuturistic spessman bullshit, 0 shipyards built, 0 hulls laid, 0 models/designs/ideas got official seal of approval
Somehow I doubt they're going to build (at least) 2 massive shipyards and have 10-whatever carriers go from concept to operational in the next [whatever] years. Russia is a giant state of compulsive liars. And they're bad at it.
>>27925887
the US is probably paying them to make these claims
To justify more defense spending.
Thats how this stuff works.
>>27925910
I really doubt that.
Russia, and formerly the USSR, have been threatening with/bragging about obviously untrue/impossible shit since the late 50's.
>take the original claims about the PAK-TA and the PAK-FA as examples
It's literally the wishful thinking of neet neckbearded autists that grew up watching smuggled-in GI Joe cartoons during the reign of the Soviet Union.
>>27921623
>implying the QE is a supercarrier or even large
It's barely more capable than Izumo.
>>27921965
>(But add a designated shitting deck)
I bet they'll use the flight deck and ruin all of their jets via ingesting feces into the engines.
>>27926247
Solid 2/10 bait, worth a reply.
>>27925288
>source:my butthurt ass
>Designated Poop Deck
>>27921764
Didnt the Japanese try something like this?
>>27925887
Newport News is the only shipyard on earth able to build a supercarrier.
So unless Russia buys Hampton Roads, they aren't going to build any.
>>27925887
They aren't that bad at it. They really loved the trick they pulled at Soviet Aviation Day in 1955 that made the US expend huge amount of resources closing a 'bomber gap' that didn't exist.
That said, 90% of the shit the Russian military development people say at this point is used car salesmen lies to try and scare up export sales.
>>27923214
>>Falklands.gif
Got ya covered
>>27927578
Bath could build one with technical support for the finicky bits of the powerplant.
Not really something that suggest the Russians have a chance in hell though.
>>27927578
>Newport News is the only shipyard on earth able to build a supercarrier
The brits aren't making their carriers in shipyards?
>>27927630
The QE class is conventionally powered, ski jump, and 60% the mass of a Ford. South Korea could make 20 of them a year.
>>27927663
>>27927663
>ski jump
Simple solutions are the best solutions.
>>27927676
Not a point about best, a point about manufacturing complexity. Cats are hard. Ramps are easy.
>>27927663
You're dodging the question. Do you really think the QEs aren't supercarriers?
>>27927691
They aren't.
>>27927695
So you're wrong then. They meet the requirements for displacement to be supercarriers.
There is no way around it.
>>27921833
Pretty sure that's a rail gun projectile.
Also fairly sure you'd have serious issues getting a functional scram jet down to that size. Also scram jets currently have a tendency to more or less vaporize themselves moments after the scramjet actually fires.
Can Australian into carriers?
>>27927852
If they had Harriers or F-35Bs.
>>27927862
>The Australian government initially planned to purchase HMS Invincible from the Royal Navy and operate Harriers and helicopters from her, but the British withdrew the offer after the ship's performance in the Falklands War,
>>27927867
>In 1960, the United States Navy offered an Essex-class carrier to the Australian government, in the interest of improving relations between the two nations and their navies.[150] The only cost to the RAN would have been the modifications required to make the carrier operationally compatible with the RAN's primarily British-designed fleet.[150] In the late 1960s, the British made a similar offer, following a 1966 review indicating that HMS Hermes was a superfluous naval unit.[151] In 1968, Hermes took part in a combined exercise with the RAN, during which the carrier was visited by RAN and Australian government officials, while RAN Skyhawks and Trackers practised landings on the larger carrier.[151] Both offers were turned down due to operating and manpower costs.
>>27927879
>Please be advised that HMAS Melbourne arrived at Port Huangpu, intact and safely afloat, proud and majestic. She has been innocent, never once bowed to the natural or human force, in spite of the heavy storm and the talked about jinx.
>The ship was not scrapped immediately; instead she was studied by Chinese naval architects and engineers as part of the nation's top-secret carrier development program.[3] However, it is unclear whether the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) orchestrated the acquisition of Melbourne or simply took advantage of the situation; Rear Admiral Zhang Zhaozhong, who is both the son of PLAN founder Zhang Aiping and a staff member at the National Defence College, has stated that the Navy was unaware of the purchase until Melbourne first arrived at Guangzhou.[168] Melbourne was the largest warship any of the Chinese experts had seen, and they were surprised by the amount of equipment which was still in place. The PLAN subsequently arranged for the ship's flight deck and all the equipment associated with flying operations to be removed so that they could be studied in depth
Good work Australia, You doomed us all
>>27925034
Just some background before i comment on your post, i'm in my final years at the Sydney university in australia, studying nuclear physics which includes working on a small polywell reactors.
Firstly, almost all reactors in the world not just naval reactors work in the thermal neutron spectrum using light water as a moderator in most cases. the only exceptions to this for naval reactors anyhow is a handful of Russian liquid metal fast reactors. secondly most Naval reactors Don't produce steam intentionally, they have water at extremely high pressures though and there are civilian reactors that do create Steam such as the BWR systems for better heat transfer its too noisy for naval plants. 3rd, the reason that a thorium plant would be smaller then an equivalent civil uranium reactor is due to the low uranium enrichment levels in civilian systems. Typically at 5%ish while military reactors are fueled with 95% to 99% enrichment. literally making military reactors an order of a magnitude smaller then civilian ones, by the fundamental breeding nature of thorium reactors its impossible to get them to a similar size for a given power output.
Also slight note on the Polywell, its an amazing design, i am doing my Thesis on it. has amazing potential but all the funding is currently Going to ITIR, either way we will have a net positive fusion reactor in operation by the mid 20s
its very late where i am and i just got back from the gym, i apology if this post isn't structured well.
>>27925776
>30's
>>27927879
>In 1960, the United States Navy offered an Essex-class carrier to the Australian government
>The only cost to the RAN would have been the modifications
> turned down due to operating and manpower costs.
fuck my country
>>27928027
To be fair, a carrier that size would eat half your budget and still be hungry.
>>27927526
And so did the British. It doesn't make the concept of a submarine carrier any more practical.
>>27928089
>>27928089
>be 2030
>in the Royal Navy's new submerisble carrier
>torpedo his the side
>immdiately die with the entire crew and billions of dollars worth of equipment, technology, and planes
What an intelligent investment
>>27928131
>immdiately die with the entire crew and billions of dollars worth of equipment, technology, and planes
Not even ww2 carriers managed to be "immdiately" dead.
>>27928191
ww2 carriers aren't entirely underwater at any point unless they've sunk...
are you retarded?
>>27928200
>ww2 carriers aren't entirely underwater at any point unless they've sunk...
Because it's the early 20th century again. Syrian Civil war = Boxer Rebellion.
I'm American.
Please don't think all of us are as stupid as this guy >>27922457
>>27925776
>m16 made in 60s
>must be shit
The only reason the Iowas were cut is becuase they were expensive and were going to need a new refit. Im not saying that we should build more battleships but the Iowas were very useful for what they did. The navy in its infinite wisdom decide that it no longer needed naval landing support ships.
>inb4 now we can have more ships
But we now have much less and the ships we do have are all old as fuck.
>>27925647
Illustrious was designed for Harriers - they need the ski jump to take off with a full load in high temps.
The Elizabeth is designed to have ski jump, catapults or both. They're assembling it with the jumps and catapults because it was looking like the F35's wouldn't be supplied by the time it's ready to go.
>>27928373
Worth noting that the QE class could be converted to CATOBAR during its mid life refit.
>>27921623
Is it going to have an angled deck? It just looks, wide.
>>27928423
No, you don't need an angled deck at the speeds the F-35s will be landing.
>>27924525
Not very many African nations are actually worth investing in.
>>27928373
>They're assembling it with the jumps and catapults because it was looking like the F35's wouldn't be supplied by the time it's ready to go.
No, they're not it's ramp only in the current configuration.
>>27928423
It;s designed so an angled deck can be used later if CATOBAR equipment is installed.
>>27925191
>>no catobar
It is designed so that the ramp can be removed and it has the space to equip EMALS, why iron out the bugs yourself when someone else can do it for you?
>>27930046
Literally Chinese-tier.
Is no one but America interested in original research anymore?
>>27928912
Who said anything about investing?
The natives aren't good enough for anything other than base labor.
No investment.
No colonization.
Simply harvest resources, and put down the savages when they get in the way.
If you think I'm trolling or being racist, think about how the Chinese or other non-western powers are going to go about extracting wealth from Africa.
We won't have the luxury of coddling Mbutu, because we're going to have to compete to stake a claim.
>>27930168
There is no one but America willing to spend trillions of dollars on their military.
>>27925351
All the heavy engineering of the Soviet Union was done in the Ukraine. Which won't help Russia for obvious fucking reasons that are obviously obvious. So the RUskies have to relearn to build their own stuff again, and shockingly its hard to build super expensive projects from scratch, especially when the expertise has gone down, half your best and brightest decided to bail for non-shithole countries after the emigration controls fell apart, and the government issues contracts mainly to benefit a cabal of oligarchs (see the shitshow that was Sochi Winter Olympics to get an idea of how Russian contracting works).
Aside from corruption, they have to justify this stuff. What the hell does Russia have overseas? It has a single small enclave, and want to secure the Black Sea. That's pretty much it. On the other hand the other nations here have interests overseas (China wants to lock down two seas, India wants to be a power, England still has some stuff scattered about and wants to have power projection, France still has stuff scattered about, America wants to control the worlds waterways and trade routes and has done so with near impunity for some time).
Russia just doesnt need one beyond pride and keeping up with the Joneses.
>>27922771
>>27922457
>>27922118
First, getting to the moon was achievable Von Braun sketched a V2 on a napkin and said "yeah mein herr this will go to space". From that moment it was just a matter of building a big multistage one. The moon was never hard, and moving shit in space is EASY. It was a matter of resources and expense at that point.
What you are talking about is "lol buy shit thats cool" despite hoping to just "engineer shapes to solve all problems". We could do it, but what is the point. It would be massive, it would have a sonar profile that would kill everything in a 100 nautical mile radius, and it would still need an escort group because no one is going to want something that fucking expensive by itself, and if you know where the escorts are you have an idea where the submersible carrier goes. Every time it came up you would probably need to wide down the tarmac to make sure the catapults work, you would have salt water and brine on the radar and air traffic control stations (which I can only assume is a problem), and you still need to ensure all the elevators and stuff work and dont corrode, because being underwater they WOULD corrode at a drastically higher rate than just sea spray here and there.
>>27930280
It does need a navy to contest the North Atlantic however. Especially in the face of a military build-up from France and Britain.
>>27930426
why?
>>27930426
There is no military build-up from France and Britain. If anything, the very opposite is happening.
>>27921623
>Brits putting a ramp on an actual carrier
why
>>27930426
PROTIP: Russia will never be able to contest the Atlantic as long as the EU and US are tied for world's largest economy.
OK I'm not saying battleships need to make a comeback but carrierfags, pretty much everything you're saying about battleships applies to carriers as well.
Also I bet a carrier, the planes, and the ordinance is considerably more expensive than a battleship.
>>27921880
>chinks working out kinks
>>27933129
You better write to congress, and get them to reinstate the Iowa back into service ASAP little man.
>>27933069
80% Capability at 50% Cost.
Also QE has a far longer takeoff run than other ramp carriers meaning that its F35B's wont really be handicaped much at all. And since they have a rolling recovery for aircraft they can return to ship with a full load. |
Also using STOVL means QE has a surge sortie rate of 110 flights in 24 hours compared to a Nimitz with 120.
>>27933436
QE is actually closer to 40% the price of Ford class.
And it has room for 250 Royal Marines, so it can do things a Nimitz or Ford cant.
>>27933489
If a Carrier Group needs marines it just eats an Expeditionary Strike Group.
>>27933489
I'm pretty sure there's room for 250 muhreens in a Nimitz.
>>27933489
Can it run without refueling every other day?
>>27933619
Are you retarded? Oh wait, yes you are.
>>27927867
Worry about your subs first, dumb frogposter.
>>27933436
Sortie rate really depends on a number of factors. With proper planning and positioning, and within a limited range, a Nimitz can break 200 sorties.
>>27933489
A Nimitz has room for 1200 Marines, if it's carrying a Marine Air Wing. The US has LHD that anybody else would call carriers, however, and exiles marines to those so they don't draw dicks all over the real fleet.
>>27933619
It should be able to go without replenishment for weeks at a time, much like a Ford. Even nuke boats need to take on beans, bullets and aviation gas.
>>27933436
>Also using STOVL means QE has a surge sortie rate of 110 flights in 24 hours compared to a Nimitz with 120.
Nimitz carriers have been recorded at running close to 245 sorties per day in high tempo operations for 4 days straight. Night and Day,
That's almost 1,000 sorties in 4 days, 80% of which were strike missions.
American CVNs can do things like launch Hawkeyes that run command and control operations over entire countries during war while also protecting entire fleets.
It can launch electronic warfare aircraft that have jamming sensors so powerful that they are almost considered strategic assets. They can blind an entire countries air defenses (have done so multiple times).
They can launch high rates of logistics missions with Greyhounds and Ospreys. These are the life blood of critical supply missions during war.
And soon they will be launching fighter sized UCLASS drones that will change the history of naval warfare.
>80% Capability
If the QE ships can't do the above, they are 100% less capable than what is required for powerful US Navy tier warfare.
>>27934025
To be fair, no one else can do that. Even the French are limited in their use of the Hawkeye.
>>27934036
I agree. My point is that "80% capability" seems like a vague statement that makes zero sense.
What does that even mean?
From the USN point of view, I'm pretty fucking sure sending in a super carrier that can't provide what I pointed out would be unacceptable.
Foreign nations have already developed enough anti ship and aa systems that are pushing USN CSG capabilities to the limit.
Saying that a ship which cannot launch Hawkeyes and Growlers provides "80% capability" compared to a Nimitz is ridiculous. That type of vessel wouldn't get within a couple of hundred nm of a well defended coast line without putting itself at severe risk.
>>27933489
>And it has room for 250 Royal Marines, so it can do things a Nimitz or Ford cant.
Our marines have their own carriers.
>>27934025
>>27933489
Why are you retards trying to compete with each other?
Protip: the Brits are our allies. They don't need capabilities that are better than ours because they will never fight us. Ever heard of the special relationship?
Their carriers are far better than anything that they will face and will realistically be operating WITH the US in any conflict needing multiple carriers
