If people say it is better to build lots of destroyers instead of one big and powerful battleship. Because one missile will hit and then will destroy only one destroyer.
Then why build big aircraft carriers instead of smaller ones?
Why not build a small carrier with enough space for 4 F-35B?
Same logic here, multiple small aircraft carriers instead of one big expensive.
>>27923927
Larger aircraft carriers are more efficient. Relying on V/STOL means that you have much shorter range overall. Carriers aren't for fighting other carriers anymore. Carriers are a tool can be used to pacific a certain area with its mere presence.
>>27923927
this thread again
big battleships are not bad
battleships are bad
think for a second
BATTLE OF THE LINE SHIP
>>27923927
Destroyers are big and powerful battleships.
>>27923974
Think for a second.
It's line-of-battle.
>>27923927
i'll take "economies of scale" for $400, alex
>>27924025
nigger i am drunk, what you want from me, its fucking miracle i managed to turn on my pc
>>27923927
>Then why build big aircraft carriers instead of smaller ones?
Because in order to have a carrier ready for sustained operations 24/7, you need at least three carriers, two will always be docked for basic resupply, maintenance and heavy maintenance known as refueling complex overhaul (RCOH) and crew training, while only one will be committed to the mission.
Having many smaller carriers, instead of a few big ones, you need more docks, manpower, logistical framework and money to maintain them all.
This also applies to air-wings, a small carrier that only has room for 4 F-35Bs, means that only 1-2 will be ready at any given time for operational duty, while the other 3 or 1 are in different stages of resupply, maintenance, inspection and overhaul.
This means in order to be practical and efficient, you need to build large carriers that can carry enough airwings to project any significant amount of force.
>big ship carrying hundreds of guns
Oh look, it has less firepower than a frigate 1/1000th its size.
>big ship carrying dozens of aircraft
Oh look, it has five times the force projection as a Frigate.
>>27923927
Aircraft carriers don't run stag, they need support quite a bit of it. Unless you want a Navy for ants, fuck off
>>27924154
>Oh look, it has less firepower than a frigate 1/1000th its size
So where are these magical 40 ton frigates?
>>27923963
A carrier doesn't need to be big to be CATOBAR.
>>27924109
And yet that logic somehow only applies with carriers, yet not with destroyers/cruisers?
>>27924217
Size =! tonnage
But in reality I'm just throwing out numbers I'm far too lazy to check. The basic point remains.
>>27924252
You do not gain the same benefit from a larger warship as you do a larger transport.
>>27923927
Didn't we have this thread yesterday or some shit? Anon posting about putting a fleets worth of assets on the Iowa?
Guess what. The answers haven't changed.
Big boats r dum except when they can project firepower 600 nautical miles like an aircraft carrier.
Each aircraft is like a little missile cruiser in the sky. Independantly task able and dangerous. Just like a fleet, except that they can HAUL ASS.
If the enemy shoots down one aircraft, they haven't accomplished any thing of strategic importance. If they sink a Capital ship, they kinda have.
Do you, perhaps, require an illustration in crayon?
>>27924252
Yes, because there is no minimum "critical mass" to make the operation of missiles efficient, like the operation and maintenance of planes, you can spread the same amount of missiles in numerous smaller platforms and achieve the same result, with more flexibility (as long as they're still blue water ships).
>>27924312
This post is an example of a dumb explanation for the right answer. This anon literally believes that aircraft are deployed one at a time independently.
>>27923927
>questions people would ask if they had zero knowledge of naval architecture
Please stop shitting this place up
>>27923927
Because battleships are just hotels with artillery for pounding nations with no coastal defense ability. You would be better off piling 16" unarmored turrets and VLS into a Seawise Giant than use something with that much dated armor.
>>27924333
Theoretically they can be. For some aircraft, this is true, like asw helos and early airborne warning. Independent units functioning as part of the whole task group.
>>27924330
There really isn't a critical mass, but its kind of stupid to build a tiny boat that can only carry one missile from the standpoint of US naval doctrine.
And nonsensically impractical to build a battleship designed to carry 1000+ missiles, as if that missile battleship gets taken out, there goes all your defensive and offensive missile capabilities.
>>27924404
>>27924312
Did you even read OP post?
OP asked about big carriers vs small carriers dumbass
>>27923927
Range.
Support Vs Direct role.
>>27923927
Aircraft carriers are designed to be as big as they need to be to suit the needs of the navies doctrine. No bigger.
For the US that means 1 carrier must be capable of conducting continued outbound air missions, while also maintaining AEW and CAP flights over a protracted campaign.
This means for effective turn around times the ship must carry the aircrew, weapons techs and av-mech crew on board, the aircraft themselves and the ordinance and fuel on board along with the space to operate all aspects effectively.
Once you have allocated the space to do all of these things it became clear that it is a more efficient use of resources to upscale from 60 to 90 aircraft and have less carriers compared to the larger number of carriers you would need for the same capacity.
>>27923927
MOAR DAKKA IZ ALWAYZ BETTER, YA GITZ
>>27923984
Now if only this pic had Iowa and Nimitz, I would love it even more.
>>27924643
This.
You can spread out VLS cells among ships with no significant loss of capability, whereas the same is not true for a carrier. Having a larger flight deck and room for CATOBAR gives measurable advantage over several smaller carriers.
Also, the U.S. navy can use the supercarrier approach because they can still make up the numbers to spread their forces out wherever they're needed, compared to a smaller nation that needs to choose between one supercarrier or two to three smaller carriers.
why not both
>>27925365
That thing has 27 main guns in 9 turrets..... HNGGGG
>>27924603
Small carriers cannot carry as many planes/heli's as large carriers and are less effective. Stop being a mongoloid and learn some reading comprehension kid.
>>27923974
>battleships are bad
What about warships?
>>27925406
But big battleships can carry more missiles, bullets and shit.
>>27923927
EDUCATE YOURSELF
https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.hudson.org/files/publications/201510SharpeningtheSpearTheCarriertheJointForceandHighEndConflict.pdf
>>27923927
because a big Carrier defended by a swarm of destroyers and guided missiles cruisers can hold more, service more, and launch more planes faster than several smaller, far less space efficient carriers.
thats like asking why zeppelins have to be big.
>>27925604
Read that. It literally answers the question directly.
It wouldn't be good for defense contractor bottom lines if US was able to provide most of their fire support with cheap, effective, mass produced, guided shells from battleships.
>>27923927
>If big battleships are bad, why are big aircraft carriers good?
because battleship guns cant all fly off the battleship, bomb an airbase 800 miles away, engage hostile aircraft, and return to do it again.
and good luck landing the aircraft on a destroyer-sized deck.
>>27925750
betcha you COULD make the battleship guns fly for cheaper than a modern fighter plane
m8
>>27923963
>Relying on V/STOL means that you have much shorter range overall
lol
F/A-18E/F combat radius
>722km
F-35B combat radius
>845km
>>27925604
>>27923927
" The Forrestal
Class was the first U.S. “super carrier” and
was specifically built to operate jet aircraft. Its
larger and reinforced deck and faster speed
enabled the launch and recovery of heavy jet
aircraft with higher stall speeds. Studies
demonstrated that as a result of her size and
design features, the Forrestal could provide a
stable base for air operations approximately
96 percent of the year in the challenging sea
conditions of the Norwegian Sea and Taiwan
Strait, compared to only 60 percent of the year
on an Essex Class [cruiser size] carrier."
There you go, OP, that is your answer, from that report.
>>27925797
And the F35C, the CATOBAR version? What of its range? You have to compare like to like.
>>27925823
That's not it yet. There's a lot more.
>>27925826
USN F-35Cs will only ever be flying within the range of AEW Growlers and CAF conventional E/Fs, so your point is moot anyway.
If they needed more range on the F-35C's they will just carry fuel tanks
no?
>>27924056
Maybe you should pray for a second miracle to turn it off again
>>27925883
Uh, what?
You made an inference that CATOBAR doesn't provide increased range over STOVL or VTOL by stating a difference in range of a 4th gen fighter versus a 5th gen designed from the ground up to have exceptional range. The fact that many of the C version's support craft have less range does not change the fact that it has greater range than the B version due to it not requiring a lift fan. There is nothing that says an F35C cannot, if needed, operate without support from those craft. Tell me, what similar support craft do ramp, STOVL or VTOL carriers have, and how does their range compare to the ones you brought up?
>>27926116
>There is nothing that says an F35C cannot, if needed, operate without support from those craft
In fact, there is. The US Navy.
The doctrine written in CPASS 14 or 15 (one of those) outlines F-35Cs leading strike in NPE with the express support of Growlers and SH. The ONLY situation in which F-35Cs will fly alone would be when carrying out strike on targets with little or no OAA. In which case Hornets will also be participating due to their far lower cost.
>>27926280
What do those TLAs mean?
>no modern navy will build an old school ship of the line with modern weaponry
>you will never unleash a 20 gun broadside
>>27926280
...And what similar craft do F35B carrying carriers bring to the table within the USN/USMC? What range do they have compared to CATOBAR based assets?
I feel like you're missing the point here.
>>27925769
that's the whole point of this
>>27923927
Because propulsion and electronics are the most expensive parts of a ship, aside from payroll. Steel is cheap.
It's been studied, big fucking supercarriers are actually more cost efficient than several smaller carriers for a given complement of aircraft.
>>27925396
15 turrets. 3 under the flight deck on each side.
>>27923927
>multiple small aircraft carriers
Multiple small carriers couldn't be at sea indefinitely due to nuclear power.
>>27923927
Okay, which one of you did this?
>>27926518
Because nuclear submarines are known for being as big as aircraft carriers, right?
>>27926517
I didnt even notice that.....
>>27926538
Not because of size, smart one. It wouldn't be cost effective, we'd be hemorrhaging money just to maintain the same level of force projection.
It's the same reason we retired CGN's, there's a point where non-nuclear propulsion wins out in terms of efficiency, only here using non-nuclear propulsion isn't an option on account of the mission of a carrier fleet.
>>27925514
Planes are a lot bigger than shells and missiles, little billy
>>27924333
Where the hell do you get that? I was talking about how each aircraft represents a little piece of the whole carriers offensive capability, and how it can be anywhere in a 600 NM radius. I never said a damn thing about it being alone on patrol, and I damn sure never implied that it would be the only one in the airspace.
Perhaps my sleep deprivation affected way of writing is catching up with me and making me less clear, but that is NOT what I meant to say in my previous post.
>>27924603
OP is asking why the rules for aircraft carriers are different than for destroyers. This is a continuation of a discussion from the other night about battleships where OP, densely implied that if the logical thing to do with gun or missile carrying surface combatants is to make them smaller and spread the assets out, then why doesn't that hold true for carriers? He is too stupid to understand that the carriers offensive weaponry is carried by the aircraft and that they can cover hueg areas of ocean and dominate them the same way several destroyers would. This allows the carrier to somewhat break the "all eggs in one basket" rule/warning that most surface vessels are bound by. Because they don't need to follow that rule, they get to go to the other extreme, and maximize their economies of scale to their benefit.
TLDR: OP isn't just a fag, OP is also retarded.
>>27926527
turn that last "operating" into "Operating Operationally" and see how long it takes for wikipedia to change it back
>>27926518
>Multiple small carriers couldn't be at sea indefinitely due to nuclear power.
>>27926538
>Because nuclear submarines are known for being as big as aircraft carriers, right?
Here are the Non-Sub and Non-carrier vessels that the US Navy has used that were nuclear powered.
>>27926709
I know. Note how all are retired.
>>27925365
>Any soviet/russian made carrier which is already better armed than any current US cruiser.
Battle-carrier ftw
>>27926709
I think the point that was being made was that size doesn't come into play with what you can power with nuclear power. But as you said, it doesn't pay off for smaller surface ships.
>>27924243
For you.
>>27925365
Japan tried battleship carriers. It's shit.
>>27927854
Then they didn't try enough!
>>27925365
Because if the enemy is within gun range you have fucked up.
Why did the UK go for a STOVL carrier?
>>27926280
What the hell is the point of a stealth fighter when it's flying with non-stealth planes?
>>27928014
Politics, money and sticking to what you know (STOVL carrier ops).
>>27928020
Stealth aircraft flying CAP are a huge advantage when you have non VLO assets in the air.
The enemy sees a target and vectors assets to intercept, F-35's loaded with AMRAAMs can silently move to a better engagement angle and be assured the 1st strike.
Also this is only because the F-35C has no jammer / ELINT pods developed at the moment.
>>27927860
Battleships are direct fire combatants expected to trade and survive
Damage to a flight deck, even trivial hits, would destroy catapult and arrestor or gear
>>27928262
Don't try to pigeon hole battleships into a role that you then declare obsolete!!
>>27928262
>direct fire
>not indirect fire from up to 460 nautical miles away
git gud
>>27928890
>Don't try to pigeon hole battleships into a role that you then declare obsolete!!
Nobody is pigeon-holing battleships.
Start with the role: Direct fire combat. Before the advent of naval air power, this was the ultimate surface navy role, and ships were built for the purpose of excelling in this role. We call these kinds of ships battleships. If naval air power had never happened, we'd still have battleships today: Stealthier and stealthier superstructures, bigger and bigger radars, smarter and smarter guns.
But naval air power *did* happen. Rocketry *did* happen. Gun-based ships are outranged by naval strike aircraft, and would automatically lose a surface battle with a carrier group.
So the role is obsolete, and the shipbuilding focus changes. First, give the battleships air defense missiles, so they can deal with planes and ASMs launched from beyond the range of their big guns. It's worth giving up almost any other capability besides ASW, to ensure the ship has sufficient air defense.
Second, replace the big guns with ASMs of your own--they have longer range, and everything you're fighting is outside the range of your big guns anyway.
And there's your new battleship, optimized for a post-air power role. The gun role is obsolete, so you end up with something smaller, faster, missile-based. Something better suited to distributed surface combat. Something good for screening your carrier, which is your new 'big guns'. Something good for hunting subs, dominating smaller enemy forces. Something very much like pic related.
The Arleigh Burke is the battleship of the new millennium. A smart naval gun for shore bombardment and dreadnaught direct fire against lesser combatants. Capable ASW. God's own air defense. And long-range naval strike and land attack missile weapons. Instead of armor, it has advanced point defense systems. And you can spam out dozens of those for the price of a handful of old-timey ships built for an obsolete role.
>>27923927
look mum i posted it again.
>>27923927
carriers are transports
larger transports = more stuff gets moved
