In naval warfare, you've got to presume that you'll

>>30573923
gee i wonder why anon

>>30573967
Jesus christ, That's even more of a shitpost than OP's.

File: smx-25.jpg (114KB, 1023x430px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1023x430px

>>30573923
Soon, OP, soon.

>In the 1930's the concept of an underwater cruiser or battleship were proven to be feasible

No.

No they weren't in the slightest.

>>30573923
>however it was only treaty limitations that prevented them from going forward

No, actually it was them simply being shit.

>>30574230
>baguette submarine
I am not entirely convinced the Frogs aren't trolling us

I can only imagine a submarine carrier would look absolutely fucked. You have to keep the flight deck high enough off the sea for safe landing and take-off without having the whole thing tip over into the sea and drowning planes. Maybe it'd be okay for a heli-carrier?

Actually, now that I think about it, could you design a jet that can land safely on water? If you could, that'd negate a lot of the landing troubles with an unstable carrier, and you could just crane them back into your submarine hanger.

>>30574824
That's called a seaplane you fucking tard

>>30573923

Think about it OP. To be under attack from either missiles or planes, they need to be able to reach you. To reach you they need to be launched from a platform at sea. Having a platform to launch either missiles or planes from underwater is very difficult to do. It's easier to make better platforms than the enemies to counteract theirs, than try and implement a tactic that is risky to you.

Plus it would be far too easy to find these ships as they surface and bomb the shit out of them, eliminating your aircraft and big guns before they have chance to work.

>>30574866
List the number of seaplanes with jet propulsion

File: original.jpg (391KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

391KB, 1600x900px

>>30575037

Unusual airplane design? Russkies to the rescue, as usual.

>>30573923

OP is shitposting but xir has a point. The more we move to VLS as a catch-all weapons system the less we need surface ships.

The Zumwalt-class already costs $4 billion per unit, that's the projected cost of the Ohio Replacement Submarine but the latter carries twice as many Tomahawks.

At this point all you're getting out of the Zumwalt is air defense and the potential for a railgun platform.

File: image.jpg (278KB, 1280x809px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 1280x809px

>>30575037
Seadart says hi.

File: image.jpg (45KB, 550x431px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 550x431px

>>30575898
As does Seamaster.

File: 195mswdpa3jqtjpg.jpg (64KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 800x450px

>>30575037
Does this count?

>>30575653
Subs, esp nukes are purely offensive weapons. They are inflexible and pretty much useless in other roles. Expensive too. Plus only retarded gullible down on his luck sailors voluntarily sign up on a sub. Surface ships can carryout peace time roles and be the visible sign of power of a nation. Each has a role to play.

>>30575653
That is so fucking cool.

File: 1350800281370.jpg (69KB, 386x503px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 386x503px

>>30575951
>Submarine carrier launched ekranoplan

It would be more feasible for the ekranoplan to launch submarines, m8.

File: arleighs-burke.jpg (1MB, 2887x1844px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2887x1844px

>>30573923
>Why don't all countries just have subs, and sub versions of destroyers and carriers..

It's cheaper and more effective to just have decent AD on the surface, anon.

File: aircraft carrier.jpg (571KB, 2000x1247px) Image search: [Google]

571KB, 2000x1247px

>>30577604
Having local air superiority doesn't hurt either. Hard to be attacked by planes and missiles when the enemy can't maintain launch platforms in range of you anyway.