/k/, i'm not sure whether the topic was discussed before, but why isn't there any submarine aircraft carriers around, except for exorbitant costs? Special technical issues?
Does it even make any sense to have to having a airstrip appearing out of nowhere in the ocean, launching fighters?
>>28054993
>why isn't there any submarine aircraft carriers around
Because it's stupid.
>A handful of planes at most.
>Must surface to send and recover them
>Your sub turns into a huge fucking target
>You're MUCH better off just slapping cruise missiles on a sub
>>28054993
It's been discussed dozens of times and faggot COD kiddies like you won't shut up about it. Instead, you bump good threads with this inane bullshit.
>>28055070
Thank you.
>>28055102
Bitch please.
>>28054993
>i'm not sure whether the topic was discussed before
I stopped counting at around 33 threads in November, in case you were actually wondering.
>>28054993
There isn't really any reason for them to exist. What would be the advantage over a regular aircraft carrier?
>>28054993
The Japanese had one (and the second never got fuly made before the project was scrapped for more steel)
>>28054993
Because they objectively a terrible idea.
should just build this instead, would be more useful
Because how would the UKucks be able to put ski jumps on them?
>>28054993
>Pros: sneaky insertion of airplanes
>Cons: airplanes now have to be retrieved un-sneakily
>>28055394
solution: Make the aircraft submersible too
>>28055407
