What's the advantage of having a nuclear-powered carrier?

>>32443777
Not having to pull it into port for gas. Parking that thing must be a bitch and a half.

>>32443777
Nothing. It's a meme.

Extra power generation.

It's good for systems and endurance (going at maximum speed burns up range on a conventional ship but a nuclear one can sustain it for much longer)

Because the fuel needed to move a 100,000 t carrier thousands of miles, the power to launch scores of sorties every day with catapults, and support a population of ~5000 servicemen would mean the number of ones to support a fleet ok the other side of the world would be far higher.

>>32443882

>It's good for systems and endurance (going at maximum speed burns up range on a conventional ship but a nuclear one can sustain it for much longer)

Again, what's the point in that if the carrier can't afford to outrun its own battlegroup? CBG's speed and endurance is limited by the slowest/lowest fuel ship in the group, is it not?

File: 3 Carriers.jpg (495KB, 3008x2000px)

495KB, 3008x2000px

No giant smoke plume, not using 1/3 of internal storage for fuel tanks for diesel engines, increased endurance, more aircraft can fit. Basically, those that can do.

Honestly? As much as the armchair admirals on here like to think nuclear propulsion is the end-all of naval design, it's been and gone. Look at all the warships in the 80's that were nuclear before they discovered that there just wasn't enough of an advantage over conventional ships to be worth it.

>>32443900
>Again, what's the point in that if the carrier can't afford to outrun its own battlegroup?

You know there's more to moving a warship than just going in a straight line as fast as possible.

>>32443907
>t.armchair admiral

>>32443910
So, it's going to go in circles while the the CBG moves slowly next to it?

>>32443888

* ones = likers

t. Phoneposter

File: USS Enterprise sucks up a sandbar.jpg (575KB, 1548x2095px)

575KB, 1548x2095px

worth the read

>>32443777
ask the russians when they tried to refuel their "aircraft carrier" in spain on the way to syria

>>32443946
>raining inside
Jesus Christ

>>32443946
It's good to know that the kind of top-down asshattery that exists in every workplace I've ever been also exists in the fabled military.

>>32444003
Jesus, it looks like it's been attacked.

>>32443907
thats more to do with the fact that cost+plus military contracting will never actually reduce the price of nuclear

There is nothing set down by God that says nuclear has to cost 500+ million a reactor

>>32443777

Cost and reliability. See: Kuznetsov, Kitty Hawk (aka "Shitty Kitty).

Some strategic advantages remain unrealized in the absence of a fully nuclear navy, as noted. Although in the event of an emergency, better to have the ability to run than not.

>>32444003
>All that oil in the water behind it

>>32443993
What the fuck is that

>>32444003
That's a shop. It's from a burning oil rig.
>>32444104
>>32444342
>taking the bait

Quit being dumbasses. This is 4chan. While the site is a decent mirror into humanities dark side, its still a troll site.

>>32443946

>USS Enterprise

That motherfucker had EIGHT reactors. I wonder how fast it could go before it would destroy itself or its props.

I hate how the true upper limits of capabilities are classified. I'm curious, mang

>>32443777
Mostly bragging rights. The advantages you get could be covered by just having more carriers that are both cheaper to run and cheaper to buy. Perhaps if you've got a manpower issue that's not possible but the USA does not have that problem.

File: images (4).jpg (5KB, 259x194px)

5KB, 259x194px

>>32444426
>You will proceed to sector 001 and divulge the capabilities of your vessel

>>32444432
I should correct that: the advantages outside of a full on war with another nuclear power.

>>32443900
UNREP is a thing, as is rotating escort ships into and out of the group.

>>32444432
The carriers #1 job is to CARRY aircraft. Having huge amounts of your internal storage devoted to carrying diesel fuel reduces your capacity to carry planes significantly. 2x conventional carriers (ex: admiral kuznetsov) Would cost more to operate than a single Gerald R Ford class carrier. 2x the ships = 2x the maintenance. On top of still having lower fighter compliment.

>>32444415
>What the fuck is that
My memory is that it's a forest fire being played off as Kuznetsov.

Really, one of the biggest advantages is to be able to pull steam for the catapults rather than have to rely on secondary diesel boilers. Power density is a lot higher for auxiliaries as well. Even with EMALS on the new carriers, you still have much higher power density in the reactors to get the electricity needed for the catapults.

>>32444426
Yes, but they were eight submarine sized reactors and weren't as powerful as two A1B (or A4W) reactors. There are two underlying theories of why this was. The first is that, at the time the enterprise was built, the US didn't have the technology to scale the submarine reactors large enough to supply the necessary power. The other theory is that Rickover was a dick and was trying to sabotage the carrier reactor programs to keep the reactors for his subs. In reality it's probably a mix of both.

>>32444559
>Would cost more to operate than a single Gerald R Ford class carrier. 2x the ships = 2x the maintenance.

Would it? Considering how much having a nuclear program (development, infrastructure and crews), refuel and decommission can cost I'm not sure that overall nuclear can be argued a cheaper.

>>32443946

You know how I know this is fake? Apart from the fact that NO ship uses V-configuration engines, but instead in-line engines?

He says the they had to clear shit out of the condenser. You don't put sea water into the steam condenser. The sea water loop is a small loop that runs from sea chest to sea chest, and passes through heat exchangers, exchanging heat with a closed fresh water loop.

He also says they pulled stingrays and shit out of the "condensers", which isn't possible, since there's a mesh that stops anything larger than small fish from entering the ships sea water system.

Lastly, 170 is a lot. I've been in an 130 degree engine room and we had to rotate at 15 minute intervals, because much more than that and you pass out. We guzzled a lot of water too, every 15 minutes. An hour isn't possible, you'd get heat stroke. 130 is a bit below the temperature where it actually starts scalding the skin. Don't believe me? Stick your hand under the tap, the water coming out of it is about 140.

So fuck this story and fuck anyone for believing it.

>>32443777
It's harder to move a larger ship at sustained 30 knots. Instead of having billion metric ton of fuel they chose to have nuclear power since this also eliminates the need for refueling at regions where US needs to project power.

You may say that the strike group still needs refueling but again the fuel they need to keep 30 knots is much lower than what the carrier would need and the 30 knot requirement is crucial for operating from a carrier because landing is very risky for aircraft otherwise.

As for the capability to go even faster, they may use those to escape certain situations or to land larger aircraft in extreme conditions.

>>32444559
>The carriers #1 job is to CARRY aircraft. Having huge amounts of your internal storage devoted to carrying diesel fuel reduces your capacity to carry planes significantly.
>On top of still having lower fighter compliment.
Honestly number of planes isn't that huge an issue in most conflicts the USA is likely to get into today. Maybe in the unlikely event of war with Russia but I did say that a full on war with another nuclear power was a different matter. The difference between say 40 aircraft and 75 aircraft is minimal when you're bombing kebab at a low but constant intensity (fuel and munitions are a larger concern than number of aircraft). Worst case you just send another carrier for the important operations. It's also better to give the enemy more targets to deal with, not putting your eggs all in one basket is a thing for a reason.

> 2x conventional carriers (ex: admiral kuznetsov) Would cost more to operate than a single Gerald R Ford class carrier.
Perhaps though I'd like to see some statistics (are you counting the cost of training people to work with nuclear reactors, for example?). They'll still cost a fuckton less to purchase, refuel and don't have to be decommissioned. You can also sell conventional carriers on if you wish though I doubt many countries are interested nowadays. Brazil maybe?

You're also ignoring that two carriers can be in two places at once and that you generally need two extra carriers for each one you've got at sea if you want constant coverage. The dominant naval power with global commitments (i.e. the USA since about 1944) can get more use out of larger numbers of ships than ships that are individually the best in the world.

>>32444706
>when you're bombing kebab at a low but constant intensity
I'm not the person you're discussing with, but nuclear powered carrier is much better at this. Moving at sustained high speeds is crucial for carrier operation and nuclear reactors provide more reliable energy to do that without stopping to refuel.

>>32444706
>>32444559
On the note of more aircraft a quick google tells me the Queen Elizabeth class and the Admiral Kuznetsov, both cheaper designs than the USA would likely go for if it was going non-nuclear, can carry around 40-50 aircraft. The Enterprise, Nimitz and Gerald R Ford can do 80-90.

>>32444729
How often do non-nuclear carriers need to refuel when doing this type of thing actually? I'd think you could dig up some stats on the Russians in Syria or the British in either the Middle East post-2003 or Africa back at the turn of the Millennium. Even if there aren't official numbers if you can see how long they sat around for we can make a rough guess.

>>32444652

Also, the super-carrier within a carrier battle group has a far greater tonnage than all of its surface escorts put together. This massively reduces the number of oilers required to keep a CBG sailing.

File: America.png (469KB, 640x432px)

469KB, 640x432px

>>32443903
>when you live in a country where carriers don't have ramps

>>32443777
What a stupid question

>>32444752
I don't have any sources unfortunately, but if the number of sorties you can do with a carrier while being close to hostile nations is limited then it's not a very good carrier for power projection. It may be okay for providing naval aviation for maritime defense.

>>32444801
>I don't have any sources unfortunately, but if the number of sorties you can do with a carrier while being close to hostile nations is limited then it's not a very good carrier for power projection. It may be okay for providing naval aviation for maritime defense.
Do also bear in mind that if you've got twice as many carries you can just rotate them. You've got to do so anyway on a fairly regular basis for maintenance and training.

>>32444826
But the countries using conventional carriers don't have means to do that. Their carriers are clearly not optimized for what nuclear carriers are which is acting as a base for invasions. I don't think Russian doctrine included launching invasions overseas. I believe Kuznetsov is more for providing naval aviation in defense rather than providing base of operations in Syria, getting refueled every month.

File: 1482778606544.jpg (152KB, 715x1538px)

152KB, 715x1538px

>>32444463

>>32444741
>the Queen Elizabeth class and the Admiral Kuznetsov, both cheaper designs than the USA would likely go for if it was going non-nuclear, can carry around 40-50 aircraft.

Queen Elizabeth class can unofficially carry around 60ish F-35Bs and about 12 helicopters. About 72 aircraft aprox in total.

Kuznetsov in her original design spec is supposed to be able to carry 50, but I'm not sure in what exact configuration.

>>32444864
>But the countries using conventional carriers don't have means to do that. Their carriers are clearly not optimized for what nuclear carriers are which is acting as a base for invasions. I don't think Russian doctrine included launching invasions overseas. I believe Kuznetsov is more for providing naval aviation in defense rather than providing base of operations in Syria, getting refueled every month.
I assumed we were talking about a hypothetical American carrier. The Kuznetsov is probably not the best example of how a modern american non-nuclear carrier would turn out in an ideal situation. I'd look at the QE class with a little bit of improvement as a more likely candidate.

>>32444953
>Queen Elizabeth class can unofficially carry around 60ish F-35Bs and about 12 helicopters. About 72 aircraft aprox in total.
That I did not know. Of course it currently carried fucking 0 but that's a political issue.

>>32444976

Well, it's fair enough given that she's not even out of the ship yard yet.

The lacking fixed wing issue was due to the delays in the F-35 program.

>>32445000
>The lacking fixed wing issue was due to the delays in the F-35 program.
It's also intended for a good chunk of the planes she carries to be a US detachment due to budget cuts.

>>32443964
Didn't they have to refuel twice?

>>32445051

Not really.

That's just how it has worked out from the F-35 program. Currently, there's neither the sufficient F-35B numbers or trained pilots for a "pure" RN/RAF load. USMC happens to have an excess of pilots and F-35Bs that need carrier-born experience, so it's a case of why not crossdeck them.

>>32444641
The tech is mature at this point, so most of the biggest r&d costs were taken care of in the 40s-70s. At this point, they basically adapt the new tech that is developed for commercial large-scale reactors onto the ship.

>>32445113
>That's just how it has worked out from the F-35 program. Currently, there's neither the sufficient F-35B numbers or trained pilots for a "pure" RN/RAF load. USMC happens to have an excess of pilots and F-35Bs that need carrier-born experience, so it's a case of why not crossdeck them.
Well that's nicer to hear. If you've got any more information on it I'd like to hear about it.

>>32445125

Not sure what else I can think of. Here's a fairly decent guide to the class:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/queen-elizabeth-class-aircraft-carrier-guide/

>>32445173
Thanks for the link anyway anon.

You have people in the US who have accepted the fantasy that their way is the only way of doing things

That carriers MUST be steaming 30 knots into the wind 24/7, that CATOBAR is the only way to go, that the US has "global commitments" and so must keep a carrier in every sea....

It's all a buncha idiocy

>>32445203

The guy who operates that website occasionally stops by here for QE threads, so If you look through the /k/ archives you'll find a couple of his posts - he went into more detail with a few things.

Search the term: "HMWHS"

>>32445257
That's a good call actually. /k/ has always been a good source for this type of thing once you dig through the shit.

>>32445248
>rampcucks this mad

>>32445301
>Brits build 2 carriers for 6 billion
>America builds 1 carrier for 13 billion

uh huh

File: A fucking ramp.jpg (99KB, 1280x720px)

99KB, 1280x720px

>>32444761
Torovich is practicing for the winter Olympics

>>32445316
>Americucks pay 1 billion dollars for an EMALS system
>It doesn't even work
>Talk shit about Ramps

>>32445312

>that one 13 billion carrier is 10 times better
>your carrier has a poverty ramp

>>32445316

To be fair I approve of the ramp on the Kuznetsov.

It wastes no space, and its technically a cruiser so the angled bow is AESTHETIC

File: US navy ships 2015.jpg (3MB, 5000x4081px)

3MB, 5000x4081px

>>32444741
If you count helicopters in your figure you are pretty close. If you omit them and only count fighter craft you are lucky to get 24 on the Admiral Kuznetsov. While the Nimitz is topping about 65 mixed or up to a maximum of maximum of 130 F/A-18 Hornets. For the mission of projecting air power that is pretty important.

>>32445381
>maximum of maximum

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txuWGoZF3ew

File: F-35B-MBDA-SPEAR-ASRAAM-Meteor.jpg (222KB, 2168x1069px)

222KB, 2168x1069px

>>32445448

If it works, it isn't dumb.

>>32443833
Former Carrierfag here, that's true there are some ports that cannot provide a pier big enough to pull a carrier up to. Everything has to be brought out on barges and other smaller boats and ships, crew members have to take ferries ashore for liberty.

>>32443888
that cost is all covered in the price of gas
Operating an additional couple of oilers is not a big expense

You pay more upfront to possibly save money in 30 years

>>32445448
From the thumbnail it looks like a fuck huge gator on a boat.

>>32444864
American conventional carriers were fully capable of performing the same functions and missions as the Nukes, save for the need to fuel their boilers. Even the conventional carriers were usually the fastest ships in the battle group. I served on a Forrestal Class Carrier in the late 80s and we could do all the same things as the nukes.

>>32444644
> You don't put sea water into the steam condenser.
Yes, you do.
>"condensers"
Why did you put it on quotes? You do realize that ships have condensers right?

>>32445330
>having a military so shit that a billion dollars bothers you
Go to bed Ivan.

>>32445798

It's not about cost, it's about logistics in war time. The oilers themselves are vulnerable to interdiction, and the carrier is relatively vulnerable while being refuelled.

>>32445905

Yep, people tend to forget very quickly that the USA only became an all-nuke navy only in 2009.

File: 1248045341692.gif (55KB, 300x300px)

55KB, 300x300px

>>32446008
>If it's not all nuclear only it isn't nuclear

Nimitz have been around for 50 years and our carrier strike groups have operated for over 40.

>>32445949
I think its more about politics, if they told politicians they could make conventional powered carriers at half the price, then congress might get it in their head to buy those instead

>>32445381
wait, the USS Constitution is still in service?
woah
>China declares war
>uncovers secret weapon
>most U.S. ships on the bottom of the Atlantic in less than a week
>Zumwalt breaks down before even arriving at the battle
>China moves into America, confident they can unleash a final blow with their ground troops on a handfull of transport ships
>Chinese troops preparing for a landing in Boston
>but wait
>it's the USS Constitution
>Chinese shells go through the wood so easily that they don't even explode
MAN THE CANNONS
>chinese slurs are heard as 15 solid steel balls cut clean holes into their ships
world's most advanced navy wins once more

>>32446030

What are you even saying

My point was that people forget Kitty Hawk was doing everything a Nimitz could.

>>32443777
you don't need carriers at all though. you don't need any navy
>getting attacked
>surrender all coast/shore to the enemy
>automatically landlocked, no naval warfare can take place

>>32446118
Didn't work out so great for Japan in late WWII.

>>32446217
well Japan might aswell be a 2-sided coast

>>32446118
>giving the enemy an unopposed beachhead
>surrendering all your coastal cities
Why
Why

>>32446259
you don't need to surrender your coastal cities, just draw a line on the beach where the tide stops and that's their land now. when it's not submerged in water

>>32446259
In his world, Navies only fight other navies. Once your navy is gone they just sit by and watch your army fight their army. They don't do things like air strike inland or cruise missile hvt's. Or Beach landings.

>>32446077
The RN has HMS Victory in service also.

>>32445905
I thank you for your service but the point I was making was that in the unlikely scenario that US navy needs to cross the ocean and still need to be up for months or up to a year without having friendly port access is probably a consideration. Speed of carrier is just a requirement to be a carrier, maintaining speed for constant carrier ops for long duration is harder with conventional power plants.

>>32443777
Can't you just rotate new ships into the group as others run off to refuel? The carrier just stays out and ready all the time

>>32446439
True, the HMS Victory is still in commission but she is NOT afloat. She is the oldest warship in the world still in active service but the USS Constitution is the oldest AFLOAT.

File: Iowa Class_2.jpg (2MB, 3000x1998px)

2MB, 3000x1998px

>>32443777
nothing compared to this

>>32444644
No the guy posted like 10 stories and other prise anons confirmed he wasnt bullshit go to bed

File: prize2.png (28KB, 767x408px)

28KB, 767x408px

>>32443946

>>32444644
>Navy terms changed for clarity's sake
>Also, this was 10 years ago, so there're probably mistakes. Sue me.

>>32444706
we have assault carrier for the conflict you're describing.

and carrier is a long time investment. It takes years to get a new carrier for operation and even longer to develop the know how.

>>32443777
So the enemy doesn't bomb it when it's off their coast, because then they'll be dealing with a nuclear disaster.

They're floating apocalypse shelters, as are submarines. The top dogs are all briefed on plans to escape and get to carriers and subs if everything were to go to shit. Why do you think they store seeds on board and off the coast of Svalbard among other coastal areas?

Sea power has had an immense influence on warfare throughout history. One of the reasons nuclear proliferation took place is due to the US building up it's navy, specifically the proliferation of aircraft carriers. Nukes will likely never be used on land again, but at sea is a different story. Coastalfags better be prepared for the contamination and fallout.

>>32446259
>>most/all blue states are coastal
>>surrender all your coast
>>MAGA

>>32446030
The Nimitz Class have been in service since 1975, starting with THE USS Nimitz. The only nuke carrier older than that would be the USS Enterprise at 51+ years old, a one of a kind ship belonging to no other class but its own, and since decommissioned.

>>32447434
>Nukes will likely never be used on land again, but at sea is a different story


nuclear-tipped LRASM and VL-ASROC when?

>>32444644
Hate to break it to you but the Enterprise did indeed have four V-16 diesel engines for emergency power. ALCO diesels if I remember right, similar type powers NASA's crawler transporter. Quite a few vessels use ALCO design engines for stationary generators because it's a reliable design.

>>32447567
>>32447599

how am I supped to read this

File: tomahawk.jpg (793KB, 1500x1072px)

793KB, 1500x1072px

>>32446077

>>32445381
Okay I have a serious question, and I am not a naval expert by any means.

Since America and Wasp Class have no catapults, why don't they have a ski-jump? doesn't having a ski-jump give you a significant advantage of positive take off angle when you don't have the luxury of a catapult? Certainly a catapult is better but isn't a ski-jump better than nothing?

>>32444080
I guarantee that the asshattery you have experienced comes nowhere close to the massive incompetence of a large chunk of military leadership. Be thankful you've never had to participate in some of the things that most civilians think are just military memes.

t.milfag

>>32443900

Carriers also use their speed to get enough wind over the bow for flight operations.

>>32448216
no doubt they just need more diversity
some wise latina's, some hard working black women

>>32448093
because they are for helicopters..

>>32447664
>because it's a reliable design

>>32443777

the carrier can tow the escort ships when they run out of fuel

>>32446077
Yep, and the Iowa-class ships were until 2006, IIRC. They're kept in such a state so as to be easily reactivated if necessary, too.

>>32445332

Depends entirely what you want to do with that carrier. Compared to catapult equipped carrier of same size, ramp allows more sorties to be flown. Downside is naturally lower payload per sortie.

>>32449346
Less so when its 15 years overdue for replacement, I suppose.

>>32448093
Because they have dignity

>>32448093
>Since America and Wasp Class have no catapults, why don't they have a ski-jump?

That would mean sacrificing one or two helicopter landing spots. Those are supposed to be amphibious assault ships so improving performance in secondary mission as baby flat top isn't worth it.

>>32444644
You know how I know your faggot ass is probably a wiper at MSC and doesn't know shit about engineering yet?

Because of all the jizz on your newass chin. Shut the fuck up when you don't know what you're talking about.

>>32444644
You must be a lot of fun at parties. Or you would be if you were ever invited to one.

>>32449762

This.

Deck space best space.

>>32443777
It's so that when you're surrounded by a bunch of enemies and you have no way of escaping you would pull out a big fucking red button from your asshole ahdn you scream into the microphone "I'LL DO IT! I'LL FUCKING DO IT! I'M GONNA NUKE THE FUCK OUT OF US ALL!" then you hit the big fucking red button then the nuclear that is in the carrier will explode and kill everyone including the enemies.

That's why no enemies ever tried to attack a carrier that has a fucking nuclear as it's main power.

File: My Sides - Must Return To My Home Planet.gif (2MB, 615x413px)

2MB, 615x413px

>>32444463

>>32450491
>and

Fucking firefox

The us is the only power with a significant amount of them and operates them all over the world because they are the basis of our military might. It makes sense to have a more efficient design which requires no refueling.

>>32445312
>Can't even afford the $6Billion price tag for 2
>Have to have a ramp, signifigantly reducing potential aircraft and payloads
>Have to remove all missiles from naval ships to save money
>Got rid of all harriers years ago to save money
>Can''t even afford enough F-35's to operate on one of the 2 carriers
>Have to rely on US Marines to fly their own aircraft off of due to said lack of aircraft

Yes, you're right. The UK is much better at spending their money than the US.

>>32443777
Soon the carriers will be able to make fuel out of seawater and nuclear energy.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/fuel-seawater-whats-catch-180953623/

>200 posts

IT LEAVES ROOM TO CARRY CONVENTIONAL FUEL FOR ITS ESCORTS WHICH IT REFUELS

you poser dopes

>>32443777
hope this helps:
>The more comprehensive and detailed 2006 Navy alternative propulsion study was conducted in response to Section 130 of the FY2006 defense authorization act (H.R. 1815, P.L. 109-163 of January 6, 2006), which called for such a study (see “Prior-Year Legislative Activity”). The study reached a number of conclusions, including the following:
>• In constant FY2007 dollars, building a Navy surface combatant or amphibious ship with nuclear power rather than conventional power would add roughly $600 million to $800 million to its procurement cost.
>—For a small surface combatant, the procurement-cost increase was about $600 million.
>—For a medium-size combatant (defined as a ship with a displacement between 21,000 metric tons and 26,000 metric tons), the increase was about $600 million to about $700 million.
>—For an amphibious ship, the increase was about $800 million.
>• Although nuclear-powered ships have higher procurement costs than conventionally powered ships, they have lower operating and support costs when fuel costs are taken into account.
>• A ship’s operational tempo and resulting level of energy use significantly influences the life-cycle cost break-even analysis. The higher the operational tempo and resulting level of energy use assumed for the ship, lower the cost of crude oil needed to break even on a life-cycle cost basis, and the more competitive nuclear power becomes in terms of total life-cycle cost.
>• The newly calculated life-cycle cost break-even cost-ranges, which supercede the break-even cost figures from the 2005 NR quick look analysis, are as follows:
>—$210 per barrel to $670 per barrel for a small surface combatant;
>—$70 per barrel to $225 per barrel for a medium-size surface combatant; and
>—$210 per barrel to $290 per barrel for an amphibious ship.
>In each case, the lower dollar figure is for a high ship operating tempo, and the higher dollar figure is for a low ship operating tempo.

File: HMS-Duncan-Celebrates-4th-B-Day-with-a-Bang.jpg (138KB, 1262x845px)

138KB, 1262x845px

>>32450740
>Have to remove all missiles from naval ships to save money
Sure thing bro.

>>32443777

Because getting a 1,000,000 ton vessel to get a top speed exceeding 30 knots (with the ability to sustain that speed) without using nuclear propulsion would be impractical.

>>32445766
Can't Singapore park carriers ?

>>32449966

Not the OP pipe wiper, but its true that only small fish and crab are gonna make it thru to the sea chest.

>>32450740

>Can't even afford the $6Billion price tag for 2
Except they can and have already built both of them.

>Have to have a ramp, signifigantly reducing potential aircraft and payloads
Cats version wouldn't have been ready until a good half a decade later, not including however longer the C takes. They needed them in service, and the B already has a longer range than anything not a C anyway.

>Have to remove all missiles from naval ships to save money
Except not.

>Got rid of all harriers years ago to save money
They were beaten to fuck anyway. Have done fine since until the B arrives.

>Can''t even afford enough F-35's to operate on one of the 2 carriers
138 isn't enough you say?

>Have to rely on US Marines to fly their own aircraft off of due to said lack of aircraft
The USMC will be present in the early days because the B is still being delivered. It's not us making 85% of the plane that takes that long to make the things.

>>32452455
>procurement-cost

What fits under that? Like the cost of the hardware and support for buying the thing?