If an accident with a tiny little five inch missile on the flight deck can fuck up a carrier so badly how do we expect them to survive in war when people are actually shooting at them?
Even if they don't sink they'll be completely useless after even the most minor damage. Glass cannon.
ohmygod can we please just not discuss aircraft carriers for one goddamn day. seriously we have been through this so many times there's no point any more, some people will just never believe in them as a concept and thats their opinion and no amount of arguing is going to change it. so just ignore them.
>>29569339
I just want to learn about damage control on carriers. I apologize for triggering your autism.
>>29569339
>ohmygod can we please just not discuss aircraft carriers for one goddamn day.
No.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_USS_Forrestal_fire
Pic is the rocket that fucked up a super carrier
>>29569349
>I just want to learn about damage control on carriers. I apologize for triggering your autism.
Ok China spy
>>29569415
Very disingenuous. Most of the damage was caused by a load of bombs that was being stored on deck instead of the magazines, whoch was against proper SOP. The rocket is just what set them off.
ANON CARRIERS ARE IMPERVIOUS
ENDLESS ESCORTS AND DEFENSE SYSTEMS
AMERICA WILL NEVER LOSE A CARRIER
IT'S IMPOSSIBRU
>>29569479
>disingenuous
>the Navy never has accidents or makes mistakes
>this would never happen in real life
Except that it did.
>>29569441
>China spy
>implying the Chinamen don't already know
>implying the Navy isn't accountable to the American taxpayers
>>29569339
>not discussing Aircraft carriers, the most amazing things ever built in the history of war
I bet you don't like tank threads too. Fag.
>>29569415
>the Forrestal fire
was 48 years ago.
you'd have to be pretty dense to think they haven't learned from the mistake.
hell, if you properly read the article you posted you'd learn after forrestal the navy started covering bombs with a thick, rough coating of fire retardants.
don't get me started on how fire suppression systems and techniques have advanced since the goddamn 60's
>>29569312
>can fuck up a carrier so badly
>so badly
>no actual damage other than warping of the armored deck on the aft section that didn't even prevent recovery operations
What a shit thread.
>>29569745
Not him, but at least tank threads are not "tanks are useless" threads every fucking time
>>29569824
Please do get started. I want to learn.
>>29569890
No. You don't. You want to drink listerine, reminisce about when you weren't a learning disabled felon. Fuck off already.
>>29569914
You can't tell me what to do. If you don't have anything nice to say you shouldn't say anything at all.
>>29569870
My favorite are the parody threads about how infantry are useless now that machineguns have been invented.
>>29569914
Another anon here, I'm pretty sure that post >>29263750 in your screencap isn't Listerine fellon. The one with the sarcastic "Real versatile ther skippy."
Everything looks like the work of the same retard though.
>>29569952
If you weren't an attention whore with actual diagnosed mental disability, you might realize what a cunt you are.
>>29569968
pathetic samefag is pathetic.
>>29569985
Now you're just being paranoid.
>>29569415
Forrestal was not a super carrier. Check your rhetoric.
>>29569890
I'll tell you a bit about it after I finish jerking it for the morning. That is, if I don't get distracted by something.
no promises.
>>29569997
They did call it a super carrier at the time, but you're absolutely right, it's not.
>>29570012
what is this? Mid jerk pause or a "fake window" you have up incase someone walks in on you
>>29569985
Why are so buttblasted about carrier vulnerability? Reasonable people can disagree on things. It's reasonable to think that our enemies are competent and intelligent.
>>29569997
The Forrestal was a super carrier, I was stationed on it. We were also the first Super Carrier to transit the Mississippi river.
>>29570049
Because you make this fucking thread three times a week, get absolutely destroyed by actual facts that reveal just how ridiculous your "argument" is, then MAKE THE SAME FUCKING THREAD TWO DAYS LATER.
FUCK. OFF.
>>29570049
A carrier by itself is vulnerable but they is why its never alone. It's always accompanied whether you see the rest of the battlegroup or not. It's just like the old Battleships. Alone they are vulnerable but within a battlegroup they are very formidable.
>>29570050
>Forrestal
If you're going to call the Forrestal a super carrier you have to accept that Ark Royal (91) is also a super carrier, yet it clearly is not by todays standards.
>>29570106
Facts are facts. The Forrestal was the first super carrier of its class. get over it.
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/cv-59.htm
>>29570134
Fine, so by your definition of Super carrier the question of super carrier vulnerability is actually referring to a ship commissioned in 1938 and has a standard load tonnage of 22,000.
Stop being fucking pedantic, you know fine we're talking about nimitz, fords (and at a push the Queen Elizabeth class)
>>29570159
Amazing.
>>29570159
I mean, it kinda shows how vulnerable carriers are if you have to spend so much just to defend them.
>>29569312
True, it doesn't take a lot to ruin the runway of a carrier, and in a no-aircraft fight against any other class of vessel they will always lose. But, that said, the moment they get their payload in the air, that game changes. Any single vessel is no match for any carrier once its' aircraft is overhead and armed accordingly.
It's the same concept of the Tank. They are expensive to build, expensive to maintain, expensive to use, expensive to train people for, expensive to transport, expensive to repair... and they can be destroyed by almost anything and everything ranging from the oldest, shittiest unguided rockets in the world to homemade landmines by goatfuckers. But you are infinitely more combat effective to have armor support than you are if you don't.
Same with naval vessels. Just blow expenses out of the water and up to Saint Peter, bump armor up a tiny bit more and arm with them a bay of aircraft and a runway or gigantic armaments. But the difference is, if you have an Aircraft Carrier, you can control both the air AND the sea at the exact same time. You can't say that about tanks, infantry, airbases or other classes of naval vessels.
>>29570159
An arsenal ship would do the same job as a carrier except better and cheaper and it wouldn't be such a big deal if one got sunk.
>>29570222
>I mean, it kinda shows how vulnerable carriers are when you take away the systems designed to defend them
>>29569533
It's disingenuous because the OP took what is essentially a freak accident and then assumed that this is what would happen in every combat situation where a carrier gets hit.
>>29570158
Carriers tend to always get bigger. Now, a carrier firepower isn't what it is able to plunk out of it feeble turrets, it is what it carries and the capability of what it carries. An example is. on one deployment. The Forrestal carried enough armament to (according to the weapons techs I knew) make Europe disappear 3 times. Also they are of vital importance to the other ships in the battlegroup because they are also the the groups tenders.
Inverse square law. The top of a carrier is armored so a fire will be dangerous but not debilitating.
>>29569914
I said it in my cap and I'll say it again... You guys are always thinking I'm someone I'm not.
>>29569968
You're right, I told them in that thread that there were some posts that weren't me.
>>29569312
OK fine, I'll bite. The Zuni rocket that started the Forrestal fire was subjected to an electrical surge that could have been prevented entirely by proper use of a certain safety pin. The subsequent fire was the result of compoundance with other, similarly accidental and coincidental factors. The rocket did not detonate, but it struck and ignited a fuel tank. There were tons of old 1000 lb M65 bombs on deck, filled with less stable Comp B as opposed to H6-filled Mk 83 bombs that had a guaranteed 10-minute window before cookoff. Said bombs were hard to come by at that point, which is the only reason Forrestal took on the M65s in the first place.
The reasons why this isn't a good case study for damage control are very obvious. For one, the Forrestal is ancient to begin with. A lot has been learned since then. For two, the fire was caused by an unexpected chain of accidents, not enemy action. Forrestal was in the middle of a sustained, unchallenged bombing mission when a perfect storm blew through.
Fighting anyone, be it Russian or Chinese hardware, would be completely different on every metric. Bigger hits, but much more warning for damage control teams, safer munitions on the ship, and amended SOPs based on lessons learned scince.
If you're really looking for info on damage control, I welcome your curiosity, but the US Forestal is the worst case study you could have picked. Any carrier would have gotten fucked by the compounded coincidences that Forrestal was subjected to.
>>29570633
Thanks anon, this is educational. Are there any public sources where I can learn about Navy damage control?
>>29570772
Nobody is going to share specific SOPs with you, especially not relating to carriers. Your best bet with public info is to simply study US Naval development through the Cold War. Familiarize yourself with military ship-building and then study the history of the design decisions we've made. This will allow you to think more clearly about the various factors that must be accounted for to make and operate safe warships.
>>29570232
Arsenal ships can't attack multiple targets, simultaneously, hundreds of miles apart, from different vectors.
>>29570633
Hell, I remember all of the doctrinal changes that came out of the Stark incident. FFE, NFFTI, 2 attack hoses per team, Ram fans, and so on. Plus, banning Corfams for shipboard use because they melt to your feet.
And I still think OBAs are superior to Scott Paks, despite their shortcomings. If you jump start an OBA canister, you can save the candle to give you 2 minutes of egress air. That can be really important.
>>29570772
DC course books are in the public domain.
>>29570232
>I have no idea what I'm talking about.
Even as LRASM develops, four of them on a Hornet are infinitely more useful than four in a VLS. Going bigger makes surface ships easier to spot and therefore less useful, even if they bring better firepower.
The point of the arsenal ship must be defensive to make sense in the current environment. A ship with 200-300 VLS cells carries the lion's share of large SAMs for the battlegroup, allowing smaller, more useful surface combatants to focus more on shorter range defense and offensive action. Preferably such a ship would be configured for multiple simultaneous launch, to ensure there's no significant sacrifice in rate of fire. If it ends up being nuclear, powerful sensors are also a must. Obviously the real estate could be used offensively if required, but our emerging carriers and escorts are already excellent at that. The most sense here is made when the arsenal ship takes on less intense roles to free up room on cruisers and destroyers for missions that require a less risk adverse platform.
At best, maybe 2 or 3 would be built to use in a large battlegroup setting. Anything else is pure waste, even for the USA.
Arsenal ship is the favorite concept of battleship fags pining for the glory days. They don't get that their precious arsenal ship would still be used as a speedbump to protect carriers, if it were ever made at all.
>>29571621
I'm not a Seaman, just a Navy enthusiast.
>>29569312
Well generally that 5 inch missile isn't fired at point blank range.
>>29569312
2016 and you just found out about a fuck up that happened in nam.
Good job, the munitions were being stored improperly and the crew had little to no firefighting training. They saved the ship because of their misguided but courageous actions ie hosing off AFFF with water.
>>29574115
The bombs in question were also dangerously old and shitty. The only reason they were on the carrier to begin with is because they were running out of not-shitty bombs.
Even if everything else being equal, the Forrestal Fire wouldn't happen in an all out war because there would be a high enough op tempo for long enough for those circumstances to repeat themselves.
