Senators Are Finally Funding A Design Study For A New Light Aircraft

Nothing will happen.

>>34472372

Why? The navy is looking for a way to grow the numbers. The marines would happily have actual carriers for themselves.

Fucking Christ. We need even more goddamn carriers? I guess the Chinks launching one shitty ramper is enough to mandate 12 super carriers and probably half the number of light carriers.

It would be interesting to see a highly automated drone carrier, that would scare the fuck out of some people.

>>34472386
I don't see the point of building light carriers now? They can't replace the supercarriers, they just mean more shit that needs more maintenance and thus money/manpower. What does this bring to the table other than wasting money and putting resources into things that aren't really necessary?

>>34472431

They're not supposed to replace them.

They're to help supplement and easy the burden on the supercarrier fleet.

"The Navy should also pursue a new "high/low mix" in its aircraft carrier fleet. Traditional nuclear-powered supercarriers remain necessary to deter and defeat near-peer competitors, but other day-to-day missions, such as power projection, sea lane control, close air support, or counterterrorism, can be achieved with a smaller, lower cost, conventionally powered aircraft carrier. Over the next five years, the Navy should begin transitioning from large deck amphibious ships into smaller aircraft carriers with the goal of delivering the first such ship in the mid-2030s."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a24899/congress-new-defense-plan-mini-carriers-america-class/

>>34472386
Because senators do this shit all the time, remember the study on restarting F-22 production?

>>34472430
>highly automated
>all tasks were successfully automated and are remote controlled, except for toilet cleaning.
>thus the carrier is manned by a single janitor, with only one task: to clean the toilet on his own personal bathroom.

Ramp carrier with turbine engine for 2 billion USD. Fund it.

>>34472562

I do, but I'm showing you why.

>>34472341
USA finally joining ramp mustard race.

The Drive is such shitty clickbait, the other day they were claiming the USN was going to dig the Kitty Hawk out of mothballs.

>>34472569
>unlimited sea water
>not designing a giant dipper well for a toilet

>>34473013
we'll have more helicarriers before we build a ramp.

>>34473636
>not just pooping in the water
Indians already solved this problem.

>>34473650
What about helicarriers with a hydraulic ramp?

Imagine how much pork you could fit in one of those.

>>34473657
>letting the lone operator of a vessel risk going overboard

>>34473650
>F-35B can will probably suck less at VTOL after the engine swap

Things could be getting pretty dope kids.

>>34473666
>hydraulic ramp?
We've got big boilers for steam catapults, why not just put a vent at the end of the runway and push them up with steam as well?

>>34473650

It doesn't take much to imagine taking the two aviation enhanced LHAs and refitting them to be optimized for STOVL operations.

And then you'd slap a build order for the replacement for the two. Everyone's happy. Marines get their STOVL carrier, navy gets two extra carriers, dongress gets light carriers and plenty of pork.

>>34473687
Ah, but the hydraulic ramps are for helicarriers, which don't have cats. An America class with a pop up ramp, not a ford.

>>34473699
exactly, no need for ramps.

>>34473706
Am I missing something? do our helicarriers already have ramps for some reason?

>>34473727
>exactly, no need for ramps.

Well, there's no exact need for it, but you couldn't really say you've optimized them for STOVL operations without them.

>>34473727
No. The point I am making is that adding hydraulic ramps to them is exactly the kind of retarded decision someone will bribe a congressman or twenty to make, and you end up with the america class or similar having some system that works about as well as the EMALS, but makes a lot less sense.

Just about everyone else's helicarriers have ramps already.

>>34473667
>not building a 150 million dollar lockheed martin special shit seat that empties in the ocean

>>34473013
We'll build a 100 story tall carrier and just push the fucking jets over the edge and let them recover before they hit the water before we build a ramp
Murica

File: bill hicks versus pr fags, advertising and marketing.jpg (28KB, 638x479px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 638x479px

>>34472508
>"high/low mix"

Marketing shill detected.

>>34473810

Why? The high/low mix is legit concept.

I've done some thinking, and I've come to the conclusion that helicarriers need steam catapults and a steam vent.
Helis could use the vent to lift off and planes could use the vent instead of a ramp.

I just can't bring myself to advocate rocket boosters.


>>34473810
He's not wrong. Armaments for both the navy and airforce are missiles, and missiles can be fired from anything. Becuase the navy and airforce have devolved into missile carriers, it is illogical to have expensive and slow missile carriers when you can have cheap and fast missile carriers.
Aircraft carriers are just missile carrier carriers, so why not cut out the middleman?

File: traitor john songbird mccain.jpg (60KB, 736x561px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 736x561px

>>34473865

When has John "Wetstart" "Songbird" McCain ever been right about anything?

>just missile carrier carriers, so why not cut out the middleman

Then just build missile destroyers.

File: f-35, lockheed martin, lockheeb jews.png (39KB, 300x100px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 300x100px

>>34473834
>high/low mix is legit concept

It's bullshit that lead to the F-35. The so called "low" turned into the most expensive military program in human history. And it still doesn't work.

>>34473963
>When has John "Wetstart" "Songbird" McCain ever been right about anything?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pq3YdA4Mb84

Advocacy from an insane traitor commie does not mean the idea is without merit.

>>34472430
My bet is that a drone carrier would be 15,000 tons displacement, 600ft.

>>34474051
Not if you launch the drones from reusable returning missiles.

>>34473982

the f-35 is still cheaper than the f-111 and the manhattan projects

>>34473986
>insane traitor commie does not mean the idea is without merit

But it definitely makes it suspect.

If the Navy can't afford super carriers, then it should make missile destroyers or wait and see how railguns work out.

>>34473982
Someone will fall for this.

>build a half dozen gators
>have no extra jets to put on them because all the Super Hornets and F-35's you have are on existing ships

>>34472341

>Downsizing the carrier force
>While China is expanding their own carrier force

Fuck these idiots.

>>34474109

Nice reading comprehending.

>>34473986
>>34473963
>>34474077
To clarify, the video about rand was to show how much of a right proper nutter he is.

>>34472341
They should fund a study for battleships next. They'll be just as useful.

>>34472341
Why don't we just make the Americas a bit larger so we can give them a ramp?

>>34473982
Wow one mistake. Just one fucking mistake and the whole concept is irrelevent

Don't forget hi-lo concept had given us stuff like A-4 F-5, F-16 and even F/A-18 (which started as LWA alongside the F-16)

>>34474109
It's not about downsizing the carrier fleet, but cancelling useless procurement like the amphibs, cancelling shit like SSBN programs, cancelling the V-22, then spending the money on all-purpose cruiser-carrier hybrids.

>>34476443
Make them any larger and you're basically building QEs.

>>34477682
>cancelling SSBN programs

Are you retarded? SSBNs are infinitely better deterrence policies than cruisers or carriers.

>>34472341
But /k/ told me that the Navy would never build light aircraft carriers.

>>34478265
Maybe it was relevant in the 60's when technology was shit and you could count on tens of thousands of nukes being used in a first strike

But this is 2017, there are no comparable nuclear powers, needing a safe deterrence force is not a concern, and the money can be spent on better things.

Would be far cheaper to mount ICBM's on self-driving trucks, storing them in various bases in Alaska, Hawaii and CONUS.

>>34478325
Even in WW2 where they played a decisive role, the Navy didn't like them.
Had to be forced into building them by the civilian bureaucracy.
Afterwards they retired all of them as fast as they could build "fleet carriers" to replace em.

Overall the Navy is very dumb on some things.

>>34478325
We had them the whole time what do you think those thing the marines launch harriers off of are in every way but name.

>>34478352
>I'm an idiot

Yes, you are.

Well, looking at China as potential enemy.

Large submarine fleet so you must play the number game in the ASW game
And the first time a nation has a significant carrier building programme, so any fleet carriers are already bound to counter them.

>>34474103

All you need to do is up the 35B numbers.

>>34478327
>But this is 2017, there are no comparable nuclear powers, needing a safe deterrence force is not a concern, and the money can be spent on better things.
Nuclear deterrence is basically the only thing that keeps Russia from getting too adventurous. I mean, they're actively INCREASING their tactical nuclear delivery options and warhead numbers, and their strategy in a conventional conflict is basically:
>begin getting pushed back
>everythingburnsifyoumakeithotenough.exe

>>34472341
Bring back the Kittyhawk and Kennedy, maybe even reengine Enterprise...

>>34473770
How about a 100 story tall carrier, but instead of a upwards ramp, you have a downward slide. Imagine the shit you can launch off that witb gravity assist. And landing is easy since an incline acts as a brake.

File: US_Navy_101210-N-1261P-028_The_aircraft_carrier_USS_Abraham_Lincoln_(CVN_72),_back,_and_the_French_navy_aircraft_carrier_Charles_De_Gaulle_(R_91)_a.jpg (2MB, 2100x1500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2100x1500px

>>34472341

>>34477682
>cancelling shit like SSBN programs
What a stupid idea. The SSBNs are the only survivable deterrent.

If anything the GBSD should be canceled, thats a real waste of money.

>>34472341
>another Sea Control Ship
Zumwalt pls

>>34483256
Is there merit to the Baguette-style forward superstructure (on a a nuke boat with no need for funnels)?
Less chance of planes hitting the tower on a botched approach
More hangar space, since hangar doesn't extend that far forward anyway and aft tower takes a chunk out of normal hangar area
Good line of sight between Control and the catapults, better forward visibility in port
...only downside is longer hangar-to-catapult time due to awkward elevator placement?

>>34483256

CdG is how not to do things: the carrier

>>34482533
>Bring back the Kittyhawk and Kennedy, maybe even reengine Enterprise

Worst idea ever. It would be much, much cheaper to build new carriers than refit old garbage ones.

>>34481102
>Nuclear deterrence is basically the only thing that keeps Russia from getting too adventurous.
Total nonsense

>>34472508
>popular mechanics

I'm still waiting on those battle buses to break the Siegfried line

File: image.jpg (119KB, 1122x543px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1122x543px

>>34473982
>hi/lo doesn't work!
>the "lo" mix is the most expensive aircraft program in history and doesn't work!

Where have I heard this before?

>>34478327
I see the hook, but where the bait?

They studied this in the 70s. The result was the Sea Control Ship. SCS was mever built by the USN, but two were built by Spain and, I think Thailand.

>>34484642
Spruance and Perry?

>>34478352
Gator freighters are not real carriers.

>>34472341
They're also studying arsenal ships, and I don't expect those to happen either.

If anything comes of this it'll maybe be some sort of reorganization of ESGs or something.

>>34484912
>has an aircraft deck
>can launch some jets including the new F35
its a carrier, not a good carrier, but a carrier nonetheless

What's the point of a gigantic carrier anyway, unless a full blown war erupts at which stage we'd all be radiated sludge.

Isn't it better to have large groups of small carriers carrying two or three fighters?

>>34485283
No your going to need that length to launch and land planes anyway even if it for some stupid reason had less than a squadron of planes.

>>34484881

I think this has less to do with sea control and more to do with increasing numbers without paying $11 billion.

I mean, it makes sense in some sense. We don't need a supercarrier right next to Iran, a light carrier would be fine.

File: retards.jpg (38KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 400x400px

>>34473982
>F35
>the most expensive military program in human history.