Carrier Gap is a US national crisis.

this is just one of the many reasons why traps/slings are bad.
the service periods are ridiculous. and you have to go all the way home to fix it.
i think the brits made the right choice not having them on their new carriers.

File: hggnnn.jpg (805KB, 2324x1416px) Image search: [Google]

805KB, 2324x1416px

>>32123557
traps and cats are definitely not bad, they're the best way to launch aircraft at sea.
But you're right that the Royal Navy (and any other navy) using ramps and conventional power is the right way to go.

The French should have been ready to take over Task Force 50 but they needed to go in for another refit after throwing their cock around last year.

If you're not building Nuclear Carriers in batches of four, don't bother.

How is that even possible?
I always thought Americans have at least 5-6 CBG's ready at all time.

>>32123557
>Not liking traps
/pol/ needs to leave

>>32123715
Fucking this. How is this possible? I thought the point of operating a large carrier force was to prevent this.

>>32123436
>gap is comparing against zero

more militarist begging with concocted threats

So what is going on with the other carriers? Refit or repair or what? Why is only one active right now?

>>32123755
The Complex refueling and refitting process for a nuclear carrier takes years.
I know Enterprise was falling to pieces so it needed to be retired but maybe building another Nimitz would have been smart, if not financially smart.
Hopefully the problems with Ford can be sorted out soon.

This wont be an issue soon though, with the British Carriers being available soon, the new Fords coming online, it's a pity the French went for one nuclear powered carrier instead of two, or even using conventional power instead

File: uk-qe2-news__main.jpg (56KB, 700x510px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 700x510px

>>32123801
When I say nothing, i'm not sure exactly what that means but they are in their home ports, some under refit.

Regan is in port near the Philippians
Eisenhower is returning to port


George bush is doing nothing
Nimitz is doing nothing
Vinson is doing nothing (until 2017)
Truman in port doing nothing
Stennis training/doing nothing
Lincoln has been doing nothing since 2012
Roosevelt has been doing nothing and will continue doing nothing until 2018
Washington was taken out of port where it was doing nothing since 2015 to aid hurricane relief, after which it will go back to doing nothing until 2018
Gerald R Ford is being built and is a year over due and unlikely to be ready until 2018

>>32123825
http://www.gonavy.jp/CVLocation.html

US naval doctrine is a disaster, their procurement is a disaster, ship design is a disaster, and nuclear power has more downsides than upsides as its currently done.

>>32123941
Lel, better let the pentagon know

File: 1472369499696.gif (16KB, 800x518px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 800x518px

They need to take the USS America class, slap a ramp on them and use them as mini fleet carriers.
They'd lose one helipad and gain a huge benefit for the increased F-35b's they can carry.
Every time a gap comes up, slot one of these in.
>Inb4 a fucking ramp

ramps are definitely the future
only an idiot would deny it

>>32124014
No, not really. You will always be less effective with ramps than cats.

>>32124027
until the cats break, which happens regularly, and you can't launch or land anything.
redundancy is key in naval warfare, and cats have none.

>>32124045
Higher chance of the ramp falling off the boat or a boiler exploding than all 4 cats breaking, especially once EMALs replaces all the steam cats.

>>32124045
>The appeal to break fallacy.
Just got eat a dick, retard.

As someone active duty Navy, these threads always entertain me.

>>32124000

See, I can understand having a "modular" aft section that would allow for a ramp to be fitted/removed with easy.

But total conversion? Nah, that's retarded.

>>32124197

Thank you for your cervix.

>>32124045
>until the cats break, which happens regularly,
>which happens regularly

Sweet opinion!

File: lorb.jpg (65KB, 390x470px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 390x470px

>>32124014

>>32123760
thanks obama

>>32124197
>kitchen night porter grade 3 on board a cyclone class

>>32124278
FC2 on a destroyer but nice try

>>32124391
U talkin shit nigga?

>>32123436
>>32123436

Realistically, the minimum should be 15 super carriers for maintaining the proper level of readiness.

China here.

brb retaking Taiwan and bombing the Nips back to stoneage.

>>32123755
The overhaul time for nuclear carriers is very long in comparison to regular vessels.

File: 1427720434611863845.jpg (3MB, 2331x1347px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2331x1347px

>>32124540
Realistically NATO should be more effective and Europe should be able to look after the middle east on it's own allowing the US to focus on one theatre at a time.

>>32124577
On average its 4 months more, which is not crazy.

To everyone ITT....

Right now every carrier is either being refuled or being modernized. One takes the carrier out of action, the other means that, in an emergency basis, the carrier can be reactivated within a week.

During the time that the us will lose a carrier in the pacific, it will have two gators with F-35s, one going very early next year, the other early 18.

>>32124582
Well if you can persuade the krauts to get themselves a decent military but NOT try to take over the world again that'd be grand.

>>32124600
>every carrier

Nearly every carrier*

I sometimes forget we have autists that cant handle hyperbole.

File: 1463915531265.png (572KB, 410x472px) Image search: [Google]

572KB, 410x472px

Holy fucking kek

Americucks btfo. Rather than a /US/ ship taking over the task force, they hand it over to the Bongs.

Oh how I'm laffin

>>32124000

If you do that, Congress will see them as "like for like replacements" for bigger carriers.

You have to play the political game as much as the frontline one.

>>32124917
Considering the Brits are expanding their naval base in Bahrain, next door to the US navys, I'd be willing to bet that while someone had to get the job to fulfil the carrier gap this was a good time to do some PR and give them a chance at running the task force, something they'll be doing more of when the QE Class is up and running

File: 1478573679803.png (631KB, 539x558px) Image search: [Google]

631KB, 539x558px

>>32124917
>Having a steadfast, experienced ally take over the responsibility of fleet management before the George HW Bush arrives next year

Yeah god what morons huh

>>32124582
Fuck, I just love how aesthetically pleasing the battleship is and how it's leading the group.

the brits might sail in buckets and only have like 4 ships but they know a thing or two about maritime warfare, probably more than anybody.

Aren't there enough airbases around the ME to make carriers more of a luxury than a requirement?

BRING BACK THE BABY FLATTOPS

HARRIER CARRIER CONCEPTS

WE NEED THAT FLOATING REAL ESTATE TO BRING FREEDOM TO THE WORLD

>>32125141

Now its literally rusting in the reserve fleet with DUCT TAPE covering the barrels.

A photographer spent the weekend camping in one of the reserve fleets.

>>32125230
Any links to the pics? I thought all the iowas were museums now?

File: USS_Wasp_(LHD-1)_Osprey_2.jpg (524KB, 2100x1500px) Image search: [Google]

524KB, 2100x1500px

>>32125215
The Navy is already experimenting with upgunned ESGs. The first one will be deploying to Japan next year.

https://news.usni.org/2016/11/23/pacflts-swift-amphib-wasp-will-deploy-surface-action-group-2017

>WASHINGTON, D.C. — When amphibious warship USS Wasp (LHD-1) deploys the first time from its new homeport in Japan in late 2017, it’ll ship out with some extras: a squadron of Marine F-35B Lighting II Joint Strike Fighters, three guided-missile destroyers, a Marine general and a Navy admiral.

>The deployment will be a test for a so-called upgunned Expeditionary Strike Group that will combine a traditional three-ship Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) with a three ship guided-missile destroyer surface action group (SAG), Adm. Scott Swift, commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, told reporters on Friday.

>The six-ship force – paired with a Marine Expeditionary Unit – is designed to relieve the pressure of the demand for the Navy’s 11 carrier strike groups by U.S. combatant commanders (COCOMs), Swift said.

>“It’s not the same as a strike group, it doesn’t have that depth the strike group brings, not the same number of aircraft and capability, [but] if you look at the demand signal for Carrier Strike Groups from a COCOM perspective from around the world, it’s 15 carrier strike groups,” he said.
>“With these upgunned ESGs, you have three to four of these that helps bridge that desire on the part of COCOMs.”

>>32125245
The Iowas were museums the moment they were built

>30 years into the aviation age
>still building BBs

>>32123825
Why are they doing nothing? I get they arent needed constantly out of war time but shouldnt they be patrolling or something?

>>32125329
They're refitting/refuelling/training/etc. Ships need a hell of a lot of maintenance.

>>32125319

>needing 30 billion dollars worth of planes
>to take out a 1.5 billion dollar battleship
>you still think BBs are a dumb idea

>>32125245


http://www.cracked.com/article_19449_6-images-abandoned-weaponry-you-wont-believe-are-real.html

First page.

You can use that info to find the rest of the pics.

>>32125329
Bush and Nimitz are getting ready for deployments next year, Lincoln has been in for it's mid-life refuel and refit since 2012, Truman just got back from the Middle East a couple months ago and will be recuperating until mid 2017 probably. Those are the only ones I know off the top of my head.

>>32125357
>needing one missile to kill ~3000 sailors on a ship that can't do shit more than 20 miles inland

>>32125319
The US just had a fuck ton of money to build whatever they wanted and they still needed ships to get all that dakka in the air to take planes down in WW2 and protect the carrier.

The USN weren't idiots though. They literally canceled two more Iowa-class battleships and the Montana-class super battleship in WW2 because they already knew BBs were worthless. How the fuck did you think the USN ended up with 24 fleet carriers by the end of the war?

>>32125376
You do know that less than a year after those were taken, in 2011, the Iowa was moved to Los Angeles and is now a museum ship, right?

>>32124197

What do you think of this?

>>32123721
Fuck you /pol/ has quality Traps at least I'd give Kayla a reach around.

All you have is Czechbro who's hairy legs are hardly hidden by his dark ass stockings

>>32123436
Carriers are going to become obsolete wastes of money with the advent of scramjet missiles anyway

>>32125479
To be fair, if you're in a situation where someone is lobbing missiles at a CBG then you're in WWIII anyway, and a nuke will deal with the thing just fine.

>>32125409
>The USN weren't idiots though. They literally canceled two more Iowa-class battleships and the Montana-class super battleship in WW2 because they already knew BBs were worthless. How the fuck did you think the USN ended up with 24 fleet carriers by the end of the war?
touche

>>32125383

>thinking one conventional missile can kill 3000 people on a ship
>said ship has 8 inches of steel around the battle bridge
>countless bulkheads
>by standards of it's time wasn't even fully armored
>still can't penetrate the skin of the hull with a .50 BMG


Dude battleships are literally the hardest things to sink.

The only thing that sinks battleships are rust and nukes, in that order.

Fuck off

>>32125415

I'm not keen on specifics but yea I know they are all museums.

>>32125794
We have a winner!
Join us next time on
>Which post will ruin a perfectly decent thread!

>>32123715
>>32123755
>>32123804
>>32124577
>>32124600
>these people are the same usually banting about the french nuclear carrier being "constantly docked".

My face is full of grin

>>32125909
>1 carrier docked for 20 years
>10 carriers on rotation

Lovin every laugh

File: unnamed.jpg (57KB, 1013x631px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 1013x631px

>>32125909
The French bought one nuclear carrier, they were at one point going to buy two.
Even their best plan was only half of what was necessary.
Unless you're building in 4's you're doing it wrong.
The french have an overworked, underequipped, showpiece that they bring out now and then to wave their cocks around.
The CdG does not allow them to build their naval doctrine around it.
India is also going to fuck theirs up, but at least they'll have their conventional carriers to fall back on when the nuclear one (If its ever built) will be in dock for years at a time.

All you have to do is look at the chinese (and to a much much lesser extent the British), they can afford to build nuclear carriers, they have the technical know how but they're not doing it because it's a waste of time and money.

http://www.gonavy.jp/CVLocation.html

CVN-68 Nimitz: Eastern Pacific, active
CVN-69 Dwight D. Eisenhowe: Persian Gulf, active
CVN-70 Carl Vinson: California, training
CVN-71 Theodore Roosevelt: San Diego since march, no clue
CVN-72 Abraham Lincoln: Norfolk, refit/refueling
CVN-73 George Washington: Norfolk, training
CVN-74 John C. Stennis: Washington, training
CVN-75 Harry S. Truman: Norfolk, PIA maintenance
CVN-76 Ronald Reagan: Japan, active
CVN-77 George H.W. Bush: Norfolk, training

Seems fine to me. Only 2 (possibly 3?) carriers are truly unavailable. If things were looking dicey we could easily have 7 supercarriers ready to throw down

>>32125955

>much lesser extent

nice b8 m8, I r8 8/8

The UK has what we call a "maritime culture" and experience with carriers to boot, whereas China is a fucking joke and their carrier doctrine I'm sure will be no exception.

File: D2Gffce.jpg (142KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1024x768px

>>32125992
China is trying to go toe to toe with the USA, the UK is not.
The UK needs to gain approval of it's ministers and public China does not.
Throwing money at huge projects is a lot easier for china than the UK, just look at the 1966 white paper. Frankly I'm shocked that the second Queen Elizabeth class is actually going to be used and not sold or mothballed.

I mean no disrespect to the Royal Navy at all, they are finally rebuilding their numbers and with more advanced technology and regardless of that they have top tier submarines and some of the best trained captains in the world.

>>32124606
Why would we need a larger military? We dont have any colonies and the people are completely unwilling to fight in any wars. And against the country itself the only threat is coming from the current replacement of the population.
Even if the Russian would invade Estonia and the gouvernment would call us to service there would be open rebellion. And the state knows that.

>>32125380
>Lincoln has been in for it's mid-life refuel and refit since 2012
Crazy how long that takes but I suppose it makes sense.

>>32126075
I thought germans were suppose to understand the importance of the EU and NATO?

File: 1337719182528.png (28KB, 205x222px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 205x222px

>>32126091
Why waste money on the military if you can get other nations in Europe to invest into their forces?

>>32125909
>>32125955
In addition to this, Nimitz carriers only need to be refueled once in their lifespan.

The CdG needs to be refueled every 7 years.

>>32125862

OK so do you want to get hurt?

Be a firefighter that doesn't wear a helmet. Be a police officer that doesn't wear a vest. Be a soldier that doesn't wear a plate.

If armor was useless we wouldn't use it.

Strategic warships need armor and you can get over this fact.

Why not conventional powered super carriers?

>>32126077
It doesn't actually take that long to refuel it. Most of that time is spent with modernization.

I'll be curious what exactly will have changed with the Lincoln when it comes back into service. I know they replaced all of the electrionics and prepped it for the F-35C, but I wonder if they're going to have fit it with ESSM like they did with the Stennis.

>>32125794
250 kg bombs and light weight aviation topedos would like a word with you

>>32126136
>Strategic warships need armor and you can get over this fact.

that's great, yet every single nation that has a navy seems to disagree with you

>>32126239
You could say the same about true us navy and ski ramps

>>32126075
With regards to NATO increasing it's capabilities Germany has the greatest ability to increase it's contribution, and as you point out the lowest likelihood of doing so. So if the anon I was replying too wants to see a bigger better NATO the best country to persuade would be you.
So long as you promise not to fuck things up like the last few times you went hardcore into your military.

>>32126263
no you cannot

even on basic level of my post its factually wrong

and in reality there is only one class of ski jump fleet or bigger carriers in service

and 2 of cats

>>32126091
Also the horrors of war. Let them bomb each other for all I care.
>>32126265
But why would we want to? We dislike war. The whole NATO thing is a charade as well, nobody would die here for other european countries.

>>32126014
This picture makes me hard

Interesting.

Now, it would be time for us to strike with our Impressive weapons and evict the US from the Pacific.

File: rtr3u1xl.jpg (976KB, 3500x2330px) Image search: [Google]

976KB, 3500x2330px

>>32126455
All ahead full!

>>32126014
Why do that let boats get that close? That image deeply concerns me.

>>32126213

Ships have existed for thousands of years.

Planes have been around ONE HUNDRED years.

And planes get all the technology, all the funding, etc.

Artillery and ships get nothing.

If the trillions dumped into the JSF program were put into making a battleship line for the modern age those ships would be around centuries.

>>32126477
That's HMS Invincible returning home after the Falklands war. It's the naval equivalent of a victory parade.

>>32126492
plz go.

>>32126014

>When I saw the licence plate

My sides reached escape velocity. 10/10 picture for making it not noticeable right away in the thumbnail.

>>32126467
There is sooo much rust on whatever POS watercraft that is.

>>32126467
I bet Norks wish they had power tools, would make wire wheeling all that fucking rust off a lot easier.