There is virtually no reason whatsoever why this shouldn't be made into some carrier/battleship hybrid. Put 6-700 AA missiles on it, 6-10 CIWS, at least one turret with 3x 20 inch guns and a couple hundred anti ship missiles.
>>30413158
>no reason
except for increased manning for maintenance on more guns, more radars, more space for storage for munitions in addition to supporting a whole air wing. That's why that shit gets delegated to other ships.
I miss the days when carriers had dakka.
But modern carrier doctine is strongly against having a carrier near artillery range for obvious reasons.
I think carriers should carry VLS cells and have twice the RAM or whatever as well as twice the countermeasures for torpedoes.
But then escorts wouldn't be needed.
>>30413158
>same shitpost, different day
>>30413158
What if, to save room for all the cannon and AA missiles and stuff, we skipped having all the aviation fuel and only used gliders on the carrier?
You could EMALS the gliders to give them their momentum and just recover and relaunch as needed?
>>30413158
> Pile an entire escort's worth of stuff onto an aviation ship.
Why not just have an escort, anon? Seems like a simpler and more effective solution. Specialization is the wealth of nations, after all.
>>30413158
>>30413205
You know all those carriers the Russians have? That have just some of that shit on them? Yeah. There's a reason they're so spectacularly shitty at their one primary job: storing, fueling, arming, launching and recovering aircraft.
You two morons need to read a fucking book or ten.
>>30413158
IT'S NOT 1940 ANYMORE YOU FUCKING RETARD
>>30413158
OP pls fuck off with these battleship threads
Real life is not Kancolle. WWII was 70 years ago. Go the fuck back to middle school.
>>30413580
This.
BONUS: if you want to wiggle your dick just a little bit (as opposed to the full-on cockslap of a carrier) you can send a lone escort or two.
>>30413158
>one tower
pls
>>30413158
Why not weld an Ohio underneath it?
>>30413158
i getting sick of these fucking troll threads
get better bait you worthless cunt
>>30413895
fund it
>>30413610
This is an improvement actually. We've moved from battleships to battleship-carrier hybrids. Anon will be a carrierfag soon enough.
Why doesn't anybody make a submarine that is a carrier and a battleship?
Best of all three worlds, no? Good for sneaking, good for costal bombardment, good for planes.
It would totally work with modern STOL/VTOL aircraft.
>>30413582
My opinion is the Kuznetsov-class carriers are works of art.
They were designed to operate alone if necessary, which is why they are more like battle cruisers than carriers.
>>30413895
My god what has science done
>>30415234
Looks like something out of red alert
>>30415699
>My opinion is the Kuznetsov-class carriers are works of art.
>They were designed to operate alone if necessary, which is why they are more like battle cruisers than carriers.
Which is all well and good if you don't have the escorts to stay dry against the USN naval aviation and SSN forces. No shame there, they had to go in a different direction to make it work with their resources and strategy, and while I personally doubt it would have been enough to really be effective, it was an inspired effort.
However, the USN DOES have the escorts to let a carrier be absolutely optimized and efficient at flight ops. At the end of the day, that's the job of the carrier. Anything else you have to add to the design because you can't protect it properly is only subtracting from that ship's ability to do it's primary job. For the USN, throwing away supercarrier mission displacement (about half of it, to read through OP's list of "suggestions") on that shit just makes zero sense.
>>30413895
Because the Ohios all launch their weapons straight up you colossal retard.
>SSBN
>oops nuked my own carrier
>SSGN variant
>oops tomahawk'd my own carrier
>>30415957
The problem with this thinking is that you haven't taken it to the logical & optimal solution
Which is: The carrier escorts should ALSO be flat topped carriers
>>30413158
Why not replace its aircraft complement with gliders?
>>30415982
No. Jesus. This is NOT logical and it does not follow. If you took half the time you spend posting just ITT to read about the required volume, displacement and equipment to perform even rotary wing flight ops with attendant hangar, much less an actual fixed wing carrier, you'd understand why this is so ridiculous.
To make it worth the massive investment in volume, displacement and cost, not to mention all the operating restrictions (like you can't launch a VLS salvo of SM-6s if you're in the middle of flight ops with the kind of design you're talking about), you have to devote a LOT of space to it. Which means less space for VLS cells, Aegis, SPY, etc. Which means you've just made a bunch of carriers that can barely run a small STOVL squadron at the cost of making it exceedingly shitty at doing it's job as an escort.
In short, read a fucking book already.
>>30416047
I think he was joking, but its hard to be sure in these threads.
>>30413158
Bro instead of carriers you should just have cargo ships converted to launch aircraft it'll only cost about 240 million or so. It'll be much better than what we have.
>>30416107
I genuinely don't get why the Chinese or Russians haven't done this already.
Sure, it wouldn't be suited for going toe to toe with the USN. But for force projection against any other nation in the world it'd do just fine. Surely the Chinese could find a use for a few jerryrigged carriers off Africa.
>>30416173
>I genuinely don't get why the Chinese or Russians haven't done this already.
They're absolute shit at carrier ops even on dedicated ships.
>>30416215
How hard could it be?
I mean how hard could it be to accomplish to a Russian or Chinese level of competency and safety?
Are their pilots just shit at landing on ships? The ships themselves should be easy enough to manage, considering plenty in the commercial sector drive those ships around without problems.
Load up a big old container ship with a hundred or so helicopters and China or Russia could haze the shit out of any non-NATO country. What sort of complications would they run into?
>>30416047
>Which means you've just made a bunch of carriers that can barely run a small STOVL squadron at the cost of making it exceedingly shitty at doing it's job as an escort.
Oh look, you just described LHA/LHD and pretty much America's entire Amphibious doctrine
>>30413205
Why would you want things to get to the point that the carrier itself is trying to shoot down Granits?
>>30416311
>Oh look, you just described LHA/LHD and pretty much America's entire Amphibious doctrine
Yeah, except two fixed wing squadrons (instead of maybe one), an MEU (a lot of armor, vehicles and cargo plus almost 2,000 marines), hospital, rotary wing squadrons and a fuckton of other shit. All on 40 ktons. So, no. Read a fucking book.
>>30416311
LHAs/Ds aren't escorts tho
>>30416366
>>30416361
They escort marines to the beach, I'd say they're escorts
>>30416395
What the literal fuck are you even arguing at this point?
>>30416407
>Oh look, you just described LHA/LHD and pretty much America's entire Amphibious doctrine
>>30416276
>I mean how hard could it be to accomplish to a Russian or Chinese level of competency and safety?
Real easy. All you have to do is neglect maintenance for 30 years, cease all R&D, and not really care about the lives of your pilots.
>Are their pilots just shit at landing on ships?
That too.
>>30416395
At that point an inflatable fucking kayak with a Marine in it is an escort craft.
>>30415019
Fun rumor/story: During the 80s and 90s the US Navy had significant worries about the electronically scanned arrays on the latest Soviet surface warships. Little did people know that a few Soviet ships never got their radars due to development issues before 1991. Thus a handful of ships got concrete slabs made to look like radar arrays.
>>30413158
That's...full retard. Why would you put the missiles on the ship, where they have shit range, when your whole combat doctrine revolves around first putting them on a plane to keep the ship safe and extend their range a good 600nm.
>>30416547
For the same reason you'd put extra CIWS and Standards on the same ship where they take up space instead of putting them on different, specialized ships - you can't afford extra ships or specialization.
>>30416503
Does the marine need to get to the beach?
>>30416475
Even if they have to replace the ship every 10 years, it's a container ship. There are lots of them around. Buy one used, then abuse it until it sinks. Then get another.
Those ships stay afloat for many years with fuck-all crew. Surely the Russians could find the manpower to keep one together. The Chinese certainly have no excuse.
Restrict it to helicopters since the pilots are so shit at landing on a ship. Surely these Navies already have helicopter pilots that can land on ships.
>>30416729
>Even if they have to replace the ship every 10 years, it's a container ship.
Their planes and crews are similarly decrepit, probably because the US and NATO have had them bottled up within pissing distance of their home ports for decades.
>>30416173
>Sure, it wouldn't be suited for going toe to toe with the USN. But for force projection against any other nation in the world it'd do just fine.
In addition to the fact they haven't learned carrier ops yet, force projection against any other nation just means that nation appeals to the US for help.
So it would just end up being force projection against the US anyway.
>>30416783
How often does that actually matter? Syria has Russians calling all up it's ass. The US won't do shit for the Ukraine. The Chinese are running the "East India Trading Company" playbook in Africa.
Maybe America will give them some weapons, but they won't actually go to war with the Russians. America wouldn't sink a Russian ship as a favor to some 3rd world shithole.
>>30416173
>>30416729
My feeling is, they'll do it if they need it. The most important part is not the hull, its the naval aircraft systems. Sorting out catapult, matched aircraft, operations, personnel, can be done with a small sea defense carrier. Then if the need for freeing shit out of oil-rich regimes approaches, multiple catapults, more aircraft, rotated personnel, stacked onto on bigger hulls with more range and tankage.
>>30413548
I know this is probably bait, but you do know carrier aircraft do more than just take off and land, right?
How do you expect gliders to do any of the shit carrier-borne aircraft are there to do?
>>30413158
Twas almost a thing.
>>30419931
With railguns we could see purpose built hybrids like this, since they solve the range problem of naval artillery vs. most AShMs. Imagine a railgun battleship that also had a complement of F-35Bs and V-22s - we'd see the USMC as proper warship-borne infantry again.
>>30413158
Kill. Your. Self. Faggot.
Let's go completely insane and build this fantasy mile long, rail gun battle ship, with two aircraft carriers on the sides to make in a catamaran.
>>30419988
*trimaran. Catamaran = two hulls, trimaran = 3.
>>30413158
they do carry missiles you dumb fucks.
>>30413158
The exhaust from the missiles could ignite the fuel or ammo on deck.
The smoke would interfere with aircraft operations.
The 18 inch guns on the Yamato were so big that the AA crews had to retreat below deck when they fired.
Carriers prefer to stay so far out of range that they'll never get to use their offensive armaments.
>>30413895
HAS SCIENCE GONE TOO FAR?
YES [ ] NO [ ]
>>30415969
Weld the Ohio upside down, you tart. Pretty sure that the missiles could curve around and go up again.
>>30421504
I'm not sure if you're trolling or just a moron at this point.
>>30415998
> gliders.
You're a retard. The future of aerial warfare is guided-missile Zeppelins
>>30419950
>With railguns we could see purpose built hybrids like this, since they solve the range problem of naval artillery vs. most AShMs
How many times do we need to explain this to you, captain potato? Railguns will NEVER outrange missiles or naval aviation + air launched AShMs. Never. Get over it.
>>30421504
They could weld one on each side like a catamaran
