Tell me /k/, why can't the military just build something

>>34382763
>easily put into service when a war breaks out
no.
storing a carrier is not like parking your car in a garage. and you can't just dump 5k sailors onto a ship and think they will be combat ready immediately.

>>34382763

If I remember correctly they (as in the USN) already have a mothball fleet of ships which includes a couple of carriers. The thing is since those carriers take so long now to build instead of just getting rid of older carriers they stick them in (many cases) mothball/Reserve Fleets for a while then either scrap/sink/turn into a museum as a new carrier takes it's place.

File: __saratoga_kantai_collection_drawn_by_enosan__35b28288672375e5390826d09a0fa4e5.png (4MB, 2486x3000px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2486x3000px

>>34382878
Putting a brand new carrier into mothball would also risk it becoming obsolete while there. Meaning you paid for a ship and put zero mileage on it.
In addition to >>34382788, it also takes time to make sure the ship's systems are all working or need repairs. For aircraft carriers this would further be complicated by the nuclear reactor.

post moar boobs!

>>34382763
Because you're fucking stupid

>>34382763
because it would still need maintenance in storage, and if your paying to maintain it why the fuck would you want it to just sit there and do dick all

Because a piece of equipment that big is useless without constant maintenance and skilled technicians.

The only way you get skilled technicians is by actually using it.

With military equipment, you use it or you lose it.

Remember 7/Dec/41? i can't even start on why it's wrong aside from being an easy target

>>34382763
We tried that with Pearl Harbor.
It didn't work out.

>>34382763
As this >>34382878 anon said, we always have 2-3 of our older carriers in various mothball phases.

In the event we need a sudden flux of carriers, it's easier to summon those from the grave than to have a brand new ship sitting around doing nothing but breaking down slowly.

File: air land and sea.png (1MB, 1421x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1421x1080px

>>34382763
In the event of a World War, how fast could the US start pumping out ships like carriers again?

>>34383337

>>34382788
Storing your car in the garage isn't good for it, either. Especially one that isn't climate controlled.

File: canada.carrier.maggie.jpg (119KB, 500x442px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 500x442px

The reserve fleet has hospital ships, troop transports, and a few bulk transports mothballed.

You can't really do the same with anything that has a weapons system on it because it needs maintenance, and can become obsolete while its in reserve. Some of these ships were built for wwii.

>>34382763
Okay, humor me boys.
>build straight decked aircraft carriers, not big ones, we're talking literally a landing deck and two catapults.
>No front deck, cannot do both at the same time, can LAND or TAKE OFF, there is no seperate area for landing that you can use while you still launch two aircraft at a time off the front.
>can carry ~20 aircraft and the support for them.
>build more and spread them out rather than having typical carriers. Kinda like escort carriers in WWII but easier to land on.

What do you think? I know there may be some antipathy towards it, but it might be an idea worth looking at,

>>34385363
If you replace the conventional planes with drones, you could make much smaller planes with the same (or better) flight/combat capabilities.

A swarm of ekranoplans would be fucking terrifying. Tens or even hundreds of super high fuel efficiency vehicles flying at high speeds below the radar, laying accurate fire on key targets and returning, automatically, to the carrier in an orderly fashion when the target is nullified or when they need to refuel/resupply. Precise, repeatable takeoff and landing in all weather conditions... I'd be surprised if they didn't already have a project on this. If not, I'd love to work on it, but I doubt they'd hire a canuck for it.

>>34385501
let me tell you why NOT drones. Number eins.
>High speed
>Drone
Pick one. and only one. Not that I care
>Replaceable if they get shot down
True, but it's still a shitload of money out the window when one gets shot down, and truthfully I just don't like them
>Jets
Jets with pilots are fucking A E S T H E T I C as fuck. Fuck drones. and lastly, I'm not proposing a fucking drone carrier... Unmanned UAVs will just make shit more impersonal, and more than likely pilots will be able to see bigger pictures, even with less sensitive eyes than drones will. Context, who's what, what's a car and whats a technical. Things like that... not that a drone won't do that soon enough anyhow.

File: 100070883.jpg (135KB, 1000x809px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1000x809px

>>34382763
Tell me OP, why can't idiots like you just read a bunch of knowledge and store it until it's needed? That way we won't have a stockpile of garbage threads because you'll have some knowledge to use when your autism strikes.

File: 1497985809068.jpg (137KB, 850x935px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 850x935px

thinly veiled boatslut thread

>>34385501
I heard ekranoplan swarms were pretty much Iran's plan for the Persian gulf

>>34384874
>In the event of a World War, how fast could the US start pumping out ships like carriers again?
Doesn't matter, all major industrial complexes will be radioactive ruble within 2 hours.

File: Iran GEV.jpg (14KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 480x360px

>>34385929
Theirs are piloted, though. Still P cool.