/k/, i'm not sure whether the topic was discussed before,

>>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.

File: OGW-2011-03-09_040-sm.png (58KB, 1000x240px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 1000x240px

should just build this instead, would be more useful

File: 1433476627144.png (569KB, 1900x1200px) Image search: [Google]

569KB, 1900x1200px

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

File: 1331449426445.gif (333KB, 179x249px) Image search: [Google]

333KB, 179x249px

>>28055407