Tell me more about aircraft carriers

even though they are called "aircraft carriers" they also carry life rafts

File: Minas Geraes.jpg (172KB, 1200x661px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1200x661px

carriers a shit, dreadnoughts a great

Aren't they easy to bomb with planes?

What's their use then?

>>33499765

I can't imagine how it may be useful to transport multiple attack fighter wings, repair yards, hospitals, and troops anywhere in the world either.

>>33499762
Planes have hooks under them and as they land they hook on wire ropes along the deck to decelerate quickly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arresting_gear

>>33499766
All I'm saying is that those things are expensive as fuck.

2-3 bombs and millions of dollars are gone.

>>33499764
>battleships
>great
>when they're already of questionable value even back during the ww1

>>33499768

better not have a navy, it may get shot at

Fucking worthless, the Russians will sink them all so fast it will make your head spin.

>>33499762
They are big ships

There is a legitimate concern that carriers are more vulnerable to missiles than we realize.

https://warisboring.com/the-u-s-navy-s-big-mistake-building-tons-of-supercarriers-79cb42029b8

>>33499768
>millions
Hee hee.

But yes, as the prev. poster mentioned, there are plenty of people who believe that their immense utility does not justify their immenser cost.

Yes immenser is a word, fuck you.

pointless now we have long range aircraft, in fact you don't even need fighter aircraft, you can just spam drones with guided missiles

>>33499771
The only thing the Russians can sink are their own ships sitting in port.

>>33499775
How do you want your supply chain senpai

>>33499768

>2-3 bombs and millions of dollars are gone.

Same applies to a traditional air field except they are even more vulnerable by nature of being stationary structures.

File: AegisSM3 BMD.webm (3MB, 640x352px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x352px

>>33499773
*unsheathes SM-3*
heh...nothin personnel zhang

>>33499773
>warisboring
So why did you link to the defence industry equivalent of the Daily Mail?

>>33499775
Why not just spam the guided missiles?

>>33499777

There's nothing that gives them any more supply chain issues than standard aircraft; the way we deploy them right now is more focused on protecting the hardware than worrying about supply chain because the US military has more money than God and we have plenty of overseas real estate. The guy you're replying to is dumb though and assumes we'll be fighting poor Muslim infantry for the rest of the foreseeable future without any other hardened military conflict.

File: SM3.png (194KB, 1185x891px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1185x891px

>>33499779
Gotta love how all the ching chong shilling about their unstoppable anti ship missile ceased after the new BMD got tested successfully.

>>33499780
t. Xiao Ming

I'm 90% certain the new Ford class can hit sixty knots.

>>33499781
more fuel = less maneuverability

>>33499773

>War is Boring
>Legitimate

>>33499787

It's technically interesting. The motivations are usually disappointingly petty.

>>33499788
What did you mean by that

>>33499789

For the decision-makers, it's greed.

For the soldiers, they've been duped.

For the generals, it can be FUN.

>>33499768
>2-3 bombs and millions of dollars are gone.
If you're the IJN maybe. Carriers tend to have very good damage control systems that make it very difficult to mission-kill them.

>>33499789
Warisboring generally has articles written by people who seem to have only a basic understanding of what they're talking about and often have a very biased view. They're particularly bad with F-35 discussion, but overall they tend to peddle very myopic scenarios that don't reflect reality at all as "proof," and take Chinese/Russian propaganda about weapons at face value.

Their opinions on things are so hard to trust that it's better just finding a real source than trying to confirm what they're saying.

File: carrier group.jpg (172KB, 660x345px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 660x345px

>>33499765
the reason modern aircraft carriers don't have armored decks like the ones in the 1950s are because the fighters you have on board and the rest of the ships in the carrier group will (in theory) be enough to screen it from any attack.

They don't just send them out alone, they always have other ships nearby.

File: Casablanca_class__starboard_full.jpg (2MB, 2801x2044px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2801x2044px

>>33499785

I'm 100% certain you're completely wrong about that. The maximum speed of any large vessel is determined primarily by length-to-beam ratio. The Gerald Ford is approximately 1092 ft. long and 134 ft. wide at the waterline, giving it a Length : Beam ratio of 8.15 to 1. This would give it a theoretical top speed of ~33.05 knots.

http://www.sailboat-cruising.com/hullspeed.html

>>33499775
then why is almost all of ordnance used on ISIS from carrier launched aircraft?

>>33499793

The USS Enterprise could get up to 40 knots, running all eight reactors.

>>33499785
I'm 90% certain you know nothing about ships.

A hydroplaning aircraft carrier, can you even fucking imagine?

>>33499784
t. Pierre "The M48 is superior to the M1 Abrams" Sprey

File: article-2241603-1642A8DD000005DC-680_634x422.jpg (48KB, 634x422px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 634x422px

>>33499795

I don't believe that. Length-Beam ratio would prevent that from happening. The Enterprise is not much differently sized than the Gerald Ford in terms of hull design, so the theoretical maximum speed would be roughly the same, somewhere in the neighborhood of approximately 33 knots.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-028.htm

File: image.jpg (22KB, 236x324px)

22KB, 236x324px

>>33499793
That's just stupid

we need more of them
and they need to be made cheaper

File: weegee board.png (171KB, 447x293px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 447x293px

>Park airplanes on angled landing runway to keep catapults clear
>Launch airplanes
>Pull out more airplanes and do the same thing again before first set of airplanes need to land
>Land first set of airplanes and park them on the catapults to make space for landing airplanes
>Constant shuffling of airplanes to keep the right parts of deck clear at the right time
ACHO has a crazy job. Must take some next-level autism to do that shit.
http://www.navysite.de/cvn/deck.htm

>>33499796
>Crank reactors up to full blast
>Strap jets to the aft of carrier
>Fire them all up full-afterburner for extra thrust
>Strap helicopters to the rest of the deck
>Spin them up full power to lift some of carrier's weight out of the water
COME ON BABY

>>33499898
Could use the reactor as a nuclear thermal rocket

File: Proof that Carlo Kopp is off his rocker.png (158KB, 768x522px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 768x522px

>>33499789
War is Boring is like Ausairpower.net - packed with good technical information but ALL twisted and passed through the filter of blatant bias and favoritism.

They don't roll over. Destroyers roll over, cruisers roll over, carriers don't roll over.

>>33499911
Turning screws is a more efficient use of the heat.
But yeah, you technically could.