Why hasn't the military built something like this yet?

>>34631768
It's not cost effective

File: 1500598978925.png (497KB, 950x679px) Image search: [Google]

497KB, 950x679px

>>34631768
You couldn't operate the main guns while aviation ops are taking place, it's huge and thus a big target, it would be expensive, like all catch all designs it would do nothing well, but everything meh at best, etc.

>>34631768
assuming this could work;
what way do you think this could be better than just 2 carriers and a battleship?

>>34631768
It would be an amazing target. Can you imagine how much of it's tonnage would have to be devoted to munitions? Enough munitions for at least a carrier wing AND 8 major batteries. A hit anywhere to this thing would blow it sky high.

>>34631986
You missed some, its got six more below the flight deck.

>>34632020
Is this thing competing for the largest non-nuclear explosion in history?

>>34631986
15 main turrets actually.

But to raise another objection, that's an incredible amount of acreage needing heavy armor - especially the flight decks.

File: 792px-USS_Lexington_(CV-2)_firing_203mm_guns_1928.jpg (74KB, 792x600px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 792x600px

>>34631768
Naval artillery on a carrier has been done but you cant shoot across the deck during flight operations, which defeats the point.

Because it's too dumb. And they dumped millions into the Osprey so that should say something.

File: 1494369818144.jpg (376KB, 2817x2465px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 2817x2465px

>>34631768
TWO FLIGHT DECKS

>>34631768
do you know why they always try to make the islands smaller?
all the shit in the middle really asks for a playe to crash in

File: Gunther Prien.jpg (14KB, 236x350px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 236x350px

>>34631768
>45 main guns + powder/shells
>28 secondaries + powder/shells
>a gorillion tertiary/AA + ammo
>aircraft munitions
>aircraft fuel
>ship fuel/coal + boilers/oil
>enormously expensive
>enormously large crew
>enormously slow
>enormously heavy
>enormously long beam
>enormously deep draft

*torpedoes your floating army group*

>>34631768
thank you for posting this anon

File: Irish-klasse.jpg (181KB, 800x458px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 800x458px

>>34631768
Aircraft carriers are massive, fat, easy targets to begin with, thus requiring the support of a full carrier group (i.e. tons of ships to escort that piece of shit).

Making them bigger does to change a thing, you still have to shower them with support to not get them BTFOd by rockets or torpedoes 3 minutes into the battler. So why waste the space by adding guns to them?

>Fire off main armament port or starboard
>Immediately fuck the flight deck up
>Is fine comrade

File: 1500597333873.jpg (17KB, 476x356px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 476x356px

>>34631768
>ten brazillion dollar battlecarrier
>enormous crew
>billions of dollars spent
>huge fanfare at launch
>named after the president
>unstoppable war machine
>sunk by a 15,000$ torpedo

>>34632024
It's actual goal is probably just to see how many congressmen it can kill. 1 wave from heart attacks when that things budget is announced, then another when they all start fighting over who's state it gets built in.

File: cf-2 1940.jpg (220KB, 1200x829px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 1200x829px

Lurking, might as well drop some flightdeck cruisers.

File: CF-4a1.png (277KB, 1024x738px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 1024x738px

>>34632644

>>34632628
The fucking shipyards too. I picture the news team fight from Anchorman with more hard hats and coveralls.

File: leningrad.jpg (374KB, 1405x950px) Image search: [Google]

374KB, 1405x950px

>>34632648

File: 1485751084302.gif (488KB, 284x210px) Image search: [Google]

488KB, 284x210px

>>34632648
>miss the arresting gear
>everyone on the foredeck dies
>everyone in the forward secondary dies

File: images (37).jpg (27KB, 493x298px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 493x298px

Byebye flightdeck...

>>34632650
>someone suggests putting F-35s on it
>half of the west gets involved in one massive pissing contest

add a small ramp to the end of it that can be activated when you need it, too.

File: I-400 Diagram D.jpg (82KB, 800x587px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 800x587px

I don't know about a carrier-battleship, but the Japs had a carrier-submarine

File: iowawflightdeck.jpg (39KB, 650x295px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 650x295px

>>34632651
There could have been an Iowa aircraft-battleship... (for ants though)

File: Flightdeck Cruiser 1931 Design.png (94KB, 2500x1096px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 2500x1096px

>>34632690

File: Ra-cailum.jpg (358KB, 1150x600px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 1150x600px

>>34632292
I see your Radish and raise you a Ra-Cailum.

>>34631768
what retard designed this monstrosity

File: YRRHlpE.png (10KB, 327x173px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 327x173px

>>34632651
Why didn't this catch on? It's perfect for ASW.

>>34632617
>15,000$ torpedo
Good torpedoes (like the mk48) are several million dollars apiece.
Chump change compared to the proposed monstrosity, but not as little as 15k.

>>34631768
A single central flight deck with turrets on the outside makes more sense if you want to have both functions on a single ship.

>>34632651
I sank one of those in Cold Waters yesterday.

>number #2441 auxilliary burger frying station catches alight
>firefighting team can't reach it due to fatass americans bodies lodged in the hallways
>$100,000,000,000,000 ship destroyed by $30 deep fryer

>>34632897
That's what it was used for (see Moskva-class) but it was superseded by the Kiev-class apparently.
But then, russian/soviet Navy... you know the drill, it wasn't super-conclusive and prone to failures.

File: 1481403358_02164080.jpg (126KB, 800x1210px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 800x1210px

>>34632897

File: fragezeichenkopf.jpg (96KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 500x500px

What is even the use of an aircraft carrier in Conventional Warfare?
I mean, wouldn't one proper hit to the flight deck be enough to destroy the takeoff and landing strips and defeat its entire purpose?

Obviously that's not what's happening so maybe /k/ can shed some light on this.

>>34633130
>What is even the use of an aircraft carrier in Conventional Warfare?
>I mean, wouldn't one proper hit to the flight deck be enough to destroy the takeoff and landing strips and defeat its entire purpose?
A. Getting within range of the carrier to hit it isn't easy. You need to know to within your weapon's seeker's No Escape Zone where it is, which is pretty hard as the sea is big and the carrier drivers are intelligent.
B. Once you know where it is and launch weapons platforms they have to get through to launch range; for an alerted CBG, with long-range CAP waiting for you, a few missile cruisers positioned along your strike platform's path (or SM-3s for ballistic missiles), your strike package is not going to have a good day.
C. Once within launch range, the missiles from the surviving strike platforms take flight and make their way to the target. Along the way, they get attacked by CAP (which can shoot down cruise missiles, particulary large "carrier killers"), long-range SAMs, short-range SAMs and finally point defence from both the carrier and its escorts. Along the way ESM will suck up a few missiles, and the escorts may take a few.
D. Having gotten through all that, remaining missiles will strike the carrier. However, hitting the carrier isn't the end of the story. The carrier is BIG, and can take a beating. It also has significant repair facilities on board. So making a nice big hole in the flight deck will disrupt flight ops for several hours, and probably destroy several aircraft on deck and in the hangar, but unless you were very lucky it won't completely mission-kill the ship. Damage control will patch it up and it'll continue fighting (even if at limited capacity). Even a hit which disables the entire bow, with both its cats, won't disable flight ops, as there are 2 waist cats- this will, however, preclude simultaneous takeoffs and landings.

In conclusion, you have just spent an entire naval aviation strike regiment to damage a carrier.1/2

>>34633182
2/2
In a non-conventional war, any direct hit would probably be lethal, and near-misses damaging. But in conventional war, the sheer cost of maintaining the punch needed to damage a carrier is huge, and to kill it even more so. They're not as vulnerable as 50 centers, gopniks, and submarinefags would like you to think.

The uses of a carrier in conventional war should be obvious- a mobile airfield, deployable across the globe, with excellent defences and well-armed.
For more specific uses see Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Falklands, and the Gulf wars.

>>34633197
3/2
Forgot to link: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-031.htm
And that was written in 99, USN capabilities have improved significantly since then: for example, advanced anti-torpedo countermeasures are a thing, which reduces vulnerability to subs; ESSM, RAM, SM-6 are all operational, greatly improving fleet defence capabilities; more advanced systems on aircraft (E-2D, AIM-120 on F/A-18E/F, soon F-35 and recently proven OTH targeting for ship-launched missiles).
In short, it ain't easy to harm it, so it's advantages shine through so the US keeps a dozen around to bully everyone else.

>>34632672

>add a small ramp to the end of it that can be activated when you need it, too.

Ugh, I'd rather just surrender.

File: 8735798-3x2-940x627.jpg (113KB, 940x627px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 940x627px

>>34633232
i've never been able to figure out why a terrorist group or a nation state wouldn't just strike a carrier while it's in port. the USS Ronald Reagan is in port here in brisbane right now. the port is shut down, but there are a lot of spots where you could easily assemble a cruise missile and put a big fucking hole in the thing.

pic related. if you were suicidal you could probably even shoot one of the cunts on the deck.


>>34633274
you don't understand, it's to mock lesser nations. make a point of never using it, and then activate it in a massive over the top ribbon cutting-like ceremony whenever the brits show up.

File: avengers-helicarrier-640x353.jpg (44KB, 640x353px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 640x353px

how realistic would something like this be?

File: 1453569379-porte-drones-flottant.jpg (15KB, 600x333px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 600x333px

why doesn't this exist yet
Just throw enough money on it until it's done
the US has enough money

>>34631768
Fill the carrier with cruise missiles. Keep couple planes for show and fill the storage areas with launchtubes.

>>34633290
Why though? It accomplishes nothing that typical aircraft carrier aren't doing right now, but then you can't protect it efficiently, it's much more vulnerable, much more costy, has much less endurance, is much more complicated therefore prone to failure.
The helicarrier is just plain stupid, cool af, but stupid as hell.

>>34633182
Thank you.
I somehow was of the opinion that ships still use artillery to strike each other.

>>34633279
>i've never been able to figure out why a terrorist group or a nation state wouldn't just strike a carrier while it's in port.
Because that's really fucking hard to do, and even harder to do right.
>Brisbane
Lets make it easier: the Bush Senior (CVN 77) was recently docked in Haifa, Israel. Within close range of Lebanon, and consequently all the ragheads they've been pissing off in Syria.
To strike the carrier you need:
1. A missile
2. To hit
3. To cause damage
4. (Optional) to get away with it.
Lets take them one at a time, shall we?
>1. Missle
Getting an antiship missile isn't easy, they aren't nearly as common as ATGMs (which are much too small for a carrier). Any potential supplier is going to be wary of handing one over, particularly as they know that when they're discovered the US will murder them.
Secondly, AShMs are big; ie not man-portable or concealable. Even a relativey small one, like the C-801 (which is Exocet sized), you're going to need a truck to launch the thing, and the launcher isn't subtle.
This also means you need a team, not a lone wolf, which greatly increases the chance that Abdul is actually a Mossad agent and you're fucked.
Assuming you somehow nigger-rig it to fire without a fire-control radar, and set it to go active (so it will hit) on its own, there's going to be a large smoke plume pointing at you, and significant electronic and thermal emissions. The warfare center on the ship is going to light up and the game is on.
>2. Hit
You've successfully launched your missile and it's on the way. Now all that's standing in its way are:
1. Target and clutter-rich environment lowering the chances of the carrier being prosecuted.
2. Carrier ESM and point defences. These are always on standby, even in port, for such a high-value asset.
Assuming the carrier was hit, we move on to 3.
1/2

>>34633359
2/2
>3. Damage.
Congratulations, you've hit the carrier with a ~200kg warhead. That'll leave an impression, to be sure; damages on the order of several million at least, not including any aircraft; but the bar is set high, and this pales in comparison to the USS Cole. Your attack has only pissed off the US, and achieved nothing of merit. They'll patch it up in a few months.
>4. Survive
This ain't happening. They'll hunt you and your friends down and terminate with extreme prejudice.
Game over, try again?

>>34633364
3/2: Addendum re. smaller weapons
The US takes port security very seriously, good luck trying to sneak in anything larger than an ATGM. Unguided rocket artillery (such as Grads) would beed to be at point-blank range to hit, as any further away the accuracy would be poor and point defence would have a good chance of shooting them down. Also, 122mm HE isn't much to a carrier, some planes will get written off but that's it. Same goes for ATGMs.
>TLDR: it isn't worth the substantial effort it would demand.

>>34633290
>why doesn't this exist yet
Physics
>Just throw enough money on it until it's done
Money can't break the laws of physics
>the US has enough money
No. It barely has enough money to support the fleet it needs.

>>34633359
>Secondly, AShMs are big; ie not man-portable or concealable
it doesn't need to be. brisbane is huge. use a mortar, even. take out a few of the planes on the deck.

>The warfare center on the ship is going to light up and the game is on.
a bit hard when you've got 2 million genuinely innocent civilians loitering.

>Carrier ESM and point defences. These are always on standby, even in port, for such a high-value asset.
are you sure about that? i certainly wouldn't want 2,000 rounds of "FUCK YOU" coming through my bathroom window when i'm on the toilet huffing my own australian leftist farts.

>>34633364
>They'll hunt you and your friends down and terminate with extreme prejudice.
this seems a bit hard when you're in brisbane. we had a riot over you yanks fucking shit up, remember? how are you going to throw military police around? what i would believe though is that the sailors (and marines, maybe) would loot the police stations and start murdering. that wouldn't end well diplomatically.

>>34633450
1. Mortar implies being within suicidally close range, are innacurate as fuck without a direct line of sight or a spotter calling out corrections, and won't do more than destroy a couple planes. At which point, why are you attacking a carrier and not a softer target like crew accomodations ashore?
>Warfare center
That's the command center, it lighting up means going from passive to war modes IE battle stations.
>ESM and point defences
The worst ESM will do to civillians is disrupt their wifi and phone reception.
Point defences include ESSMs, not just PHALANX. and ESSM can be safely self-destructed.
>this seems a bit hard when you're in brisbane.
If you think local police won't cooperate to find a terrorist who feels free with a mortar, you need to rethink things. Police have tracked down terrorists with lesser evidence than the shipboard radar would provide.
Also, all this is assuming you got the mortar and ammo in the first place without Selim ratting you out to the cops.
>we had a riot over you yanks fucking shit up
I'm not a yank myself, sorry.
Again, the local police would cooperate.

>>34633488
well okay then, how could you take down an aircraft carrier in port, short of a tactical nuke?

>The worst ESM will do to civillians is disrupt their wifi and phone reception.
how powerful are these systems? do they even have the ability to jam 2.4ghz/900mhz/etc?

File: Naval Ops Warhip Gunner.jpg (34KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 640x480px

I played Naval Ops: Warship Gunner too, OP.

>>34631768
eggs, one basket

File: b79cd2278f933817d9085898878a62e70c93d219.jpg (39KB, 1280x322px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 1280x322px

>>34633497
>how could you take down an aircraft carrier in port
Your best bet would probably be a SEAL team with pic related, but the USN probably has some super secret system to counter that.
>ESM
They can blind aircraft radars and large missile seeker heads, so extremely powerful.
There were reports of hobby drones downed by the Bush in Haifa, so they can definitely operate on civvy frequencies as well as L and X band.

>>34631768
Are you serious.
Are we even going to pass the level of bullshit retardness here!?
Shit like that Cost even 3.4 Billion to build not only that...
you also have huge maintenance cost of 883.99 Million.

>>34631768
An aicrcraft carrier has no business getting into a gunfight, unless your commander is wholly incompetent and let something like Samar happen. Yes I'm looking at you Halsey.

>>34633279
>>34633359
>>34633364
>>34633385

You'd basically need something the size of a small nuclear bomb to knock a carrier out for good.

>>34631768
Because angled decks are far more effective than dual use decks.

>>34635073
I said the same here
>>34633197

>>34632092
Which is what the escorting destroyers are there to prevent.

>>34632688
>3 seaplanes
yeah, that's not much of a carrier there boi

>>34633331
Even back then, if your carrier gets into enemy gun range, you're fucking doing it wrong.

>>34633283
>>34633290
>>34633295
kek

>>34633232
I wonder if the Ford is coming out with the new anti-torpedo system or if it's going to be installed later.

>>34631768
>Huge target
>massive construction costs
>battleship guns in the age of missiles
I love battleships too but until some shit happens that renders missiles inert, big guns aren't coming back in force.

File: ise_1944.png (240KB, 1011x598px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 1011x598px

CVBB existed and they sucked.

>guns
>belonging anywhere near a modern navy
Battleships were outdated already in WW2. Why would you make this retarded monstrosity now?

>>34635392
Probably coming out with it, or at least 90% of it. IIRC the Nimitz was fitted for the system in its last major overhaul, so I'd expect the Ford to be fitted with any finalized equipment.

>>34631768

Gee bill THREE conning towers?

>>34632690
Yeah, let's take the already bow-heavy Iowa and make its stern lighter. That won't cause any problems at all.

>>34635408
To be fair, the Ise sisters sucked even as battleships, and they couldn't even recover their planes.

>>34635408
> The new deck was covered with 200 mm (7.9 in) of concrete to compensate for the unbalanced condition created after removal of the aft armament. A 1 m (3 ft) thick layer of concrete was also poured around the main and reserve steering rooms and a 150 mm (5.9 in) horizontal armor cover was added.

fucking lel

>>34635516
A perfect example of the intricacies of naval architecture and why "simply converting" is never simple.

>>34632662
m8 those are armored turrets
plens just kinda bounce off of them or crunch up like tinfoil

>>34635422
Because when lasers come into the picture every missile based warship and aircraft become eternally cucked. All those millions of dollars down the drain.

Then we come and get you with railgun bombardments, and there will be absolutely nothing you can do about it.

>>34633450
>They'll hunt you and your friends down and terminate with extreme prejudice.
the implications that the Australian government wouldn't stand aside or help in the witch-hunt is hilarious. In the face of such flagrant terrorism they would be the first in line to hunt down the culprits.

Do you really think the Australian government isn't going to cooperate with the Americans?
"we had a riot"
bitch, fucking please. Your faggoty prime minister is just trying to score some yrop good goyim points for talking some shit the last couple months. The carrier is there to enforce western spheres of influence and to be near the South China Sea... do you think that that isn't in your government's interest suddenly?

>>34632617
15k is fantastically cheap for a torpedo. Even a WW2 Mk 14 was more expensive than that.

>>34635291
Sure, that is what they're there to prevent. They're just not very good at it.

>>34633038
Could the Soviets not into VLS? I always see fucktons of tubes on deck, not even box launchers...

>>34633508

this shit was so much fun

>tfw you rented it a few times
>go to rent it again to finish it
>its not there
>someone rented and kept it

fucking dicks

File: 1496098531161 (1).jpg (151KB, 388x443px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 388x443px

>yfw railguns bring back battleships and stealth brings back wvr dogfighting

>>34636767
>stealth
>disabling heatseekers
Maybe it'll bring the range down to 5 miles but that's still speck on the windscreen tier distance.

File: 1343201663635.jpg (30KB, 480x482px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 480x482px

before thinking something is a great idea to implement for the military. Always ask yourself one important question.

Why?

File: Argama.jpg (440KB, 1923x1033px) Image search: [Google]

440KB, 1923x1033px

>>34632716

>>34633283
>>34633290
>>34633295
if our world had superheroes,magic and all that shit,it could work;.

>>34636850
you do realize how horrifying that world would be to live in right? in this one no man gonna live after getting hit by a 20mm cartridge their world they just bounce off every wack job science experiment gone wrong type

>>34636784
5th genners usually do a pretty good job masking their thermal signature. Most heat seekers are reduced to rear-aspect by this. What that means is it's really rather easy for manoeuvrable aircraft to avoid being targeted for long enough to be hit by IR missiles.

File: bloodborne nightmare vision goggles.jpg (139KB, 722x349px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 722x349px

>>34636890
Of course it'd be horrible. Single people would have the ability to become even more overpowered than they already can. You think the world is a nightmare with tycoons like Rockefellers, Rupert Murdoch or other super-rich running it behind the scenes? Imagine there being a class of people you couldn't touch even if you got into the same room with them with an assault rifle. That's a complete nightmare, on the H.P. Lovecraft existential tier.

>>34631768
It'd be pretty much impossible to make something like the OP pic and have it be stable enough for flight ops. Fitting all that shit on top of the ship means a ship that's too wide and too low for its width, and that in turn means the decks will be pitching and rolling like crazy in anything but the calmest seas. It'd also be vastly less efficient than a modern angled deck design, as straight decks mean you can't safely park aircraft topside during operations or launch and recover aircraft at the same time. With a dual deck design like the pic, you'd have to devote one to takeoffs and one to landings and constantly run aircraft up and down the elevators between sorties.

File: Scary Hat Lady.jpg (89KB, 1024x1292px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1024x1292px

>>34636890
I am sure everything would turn out great.

>>34631768
there were design studies done in the late 30's that proved that it wouldn't be able to do either effectively.

>carriers:
30 mph+ with armor emphasis on deck armor, AA, and a few dual purpose guns
>fast battleships
30 mph- with armor emphasis on a central citadel and large caliber guns

let me put it like this: the bismarck in 1940 displaced 40,000 tons, that's already pretty fucking heavy and it's only for a battleship with 15 inch main armament with 8 guns. The sheer size and weight of such a ship would be completely impractical, while having none of the useful qualities of any of a battleship or a carrier

>can't do more than 20 knots because it's 80,000 tons
>can't carry more than 10 planes because of no hanger
>armor is a compromise between the huge area of the deck and its citadel making it useless
>turning radius is 2km
>far too deep for ports, forget the panama/suez/kiel canal

>>34631768
It would have to be atleast 3 times bigger than that...


What is this a battleship for ants?

>>34633283
>one 105mm flak hits the aft VTOL fan
>crashes and everybody fucking dies
extremely outlandish

Panama Canal

>>34637046
>mph
Knots, but otherwise spot on.
Also regarding draft- 25m IIRC is already too much for the English channel. That should be an indication as to what's pants-on-head retarded (if "not fitting in your own ports" wasn't)

>>34635305
Oi, get it right you uncultured fucking plebeian. The mighty Imperial Japanese Navy I-400s had so much more than three seaplanes.

They had three supremely shitty seaplanes

>>34635498
I mean they -could- recover their planes but they had to do it one at a time with a crane.

>>34633359
>To strike the carrier you need...
Question:
Could you use any of the following?
>Diver with large limpet mine (suicide likely)
>Take over large local ship, suicide ram the carrier in port (trade speed for last second deviation from course if necessary)
>Radicalise Port tug (or other local service vessel) and commit VBIED attack
>Steep dive suicide ram with aircraft (so that being hit with AA stands less chance of deflection)

>>34637435
aren't half of these just the USS cole but now theres a precedent against it?

>>34637454
No idea, just posting off the top of my head.

>>34635498
How were they any worse than Dreadnought battleships of the same era?

>>34637046
desu the bismarck was really overweight for its main armament (and a poor design overall)

>>34631768
It's totally feasible to mix guns with aircraft guys. The US navy did it before.

>Targeted by 5 in (127 mm) gunfire from the destroyers and destroyer escorts, the Japanese cruiser Chōkai was hit amidships, starboard side, most likely by the sole 5 in (127 mm) gun of the carrier White Plains.
>Fires began to rage and she went dead in the water. Later that day, she was scuttled by torpedoes from the destroyer Fujinami.

>>34637796
>During the surface phase of the action, White Plains's 5-inch gun crew claimed six hits on heavy cruiser Chōkai,[2] causing its eight deck-mounted Type 93 "Long Lance" torpedoes to explode. The explosion crippled Chōkai, making it vulnerable to air attack.

File: Usscard1.jpg (24KB, 610x430px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 610x430px

>>34637435
>>Diver with large limpet mine (suicide likely)
Worked for the North Vietnamese.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_the_USNS_Card

>>34637435
He was talking about as close to a single guy as possible, and shooting from nearby high ground.
>Limpet
Possible, I mentioned the option here >>34633559
Just look out for torpedo nets.
Others:
>Ramming
The carriers are usually kept out of the way of regular traffic, so you'll get spotted pretty quick when you start coming (if your hostile takeover wasn't sufficient). IIRC large merchants accelerate really slowly, and turn like a cast lead shithouse. So it'll take quite a while to get to it, at which point action can and will be taken against you.
But a fully loaded Panamax freighter is going to leave a nasty mark at any speed it hits.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that fully armed marines are posted on the tugs to prevent this (and Cole inspired events), but if they aren't you could presumably ship-of-peace the carrier.
>tug SVBIED
pretty much the Cole, and one of the reasons I suspect the USN monitors tugs closely. Proven to work, but be prepared to load a fuckton of explosives.
>dive bomb Cessna
The flight deck is armored, and you are lightweight. Ignoring the fact that an ESSM would shred you (which is probably ehat will happen if you start diving from any great height onto the carrier), if you do hit you'd probably have less effect than a Grad.

>>34637796
That carrier was definitely not supposed to get caught in the middle of a surface action. You can't hope to rely on a lucky hit every time a cruiser is shooting at you.

>>34635965
75% casualty rate

>not very good at it

sure, maybe not at the start of the war but in the end U-boats got fucked really hard.

>>34635642
> lasers
> require line of sight

> Missiles
> over the horizon capability


The fuck is wrong with you. Also, the US Navy is working on railguns because they can also be fired over the horizon.

>>34638159
I sort of meant an airliner or air freight dive bombing, not a 172 or piper cub.

File: 59c54b3d81b8e84533a077ec0de425c9.jpg (553KB, 1329x1500px) Image search: [Google]

553KB, 1329x1500px

>>34632871
You really should have suspected, anon.

>>34635291
You could fire a torpedo anywhere in the vague direction of this vessel from 100km out and it would hit and detonate the whole thing.

>>34632044
So shoot the other way, away from the flight deck.

>>34638868
>The fuck is wrong with you.
The only thing wrong here is you somehow turning 1+1=2 into 1*1.5=0

Lasers make missiles obsolete because the hit ratio of such slow plodding explosive munitions will start to approach zero. Can't outrun the speed of light. Everything that relies heavily on guided munitions will suddenly find themselves unable to actually accomplish any strike mission, that includes pretty much all contemporary aircraft.

Aircraft are still good for transporting things and people around, so for carriers the next logical evolutionary step is to maintain its fixed-wing and helicopter landing & maintennance facilities, but then tack on some railguns so it can do something offensively in a fleet engagement and/or defend itself against tactical nukes.

Two landing strips is still excessive though.

File: Hyuga1943.jpg (23KB, 800x295px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 800x295px

Fuck Dunkirk, I want a watch movie about IJN Ise

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mLCaXvVPas

Battleship Hybrid Ise was slightly damaged in October 1944 in the Battle off Cape Engaño, during which Ise's gunners shot down five of the 10 attacking dive bombers, suffering from one small hit on the No. 2 turret. Ise's anti-aircraft cover was ineffective, and by the end of the battle, USN aircraft had sunk the Japanese aircraft carriers Zuikaku, Zuihō, and Chitose and the destroyer Akizuki. Towards the end of the battle, in the fourth attack, Ise was attacked by 85 dive bombers. After 34 near misses, Ise's hull plates near the waterline ruptured and port boiler rooms were damaged; a bomb damaged the port catapult, and five crewmen were killed, with 71 wounded.

After returning to Japan, from 29 October, the aft catapults were removed to improve the firing arcs of the No. 3 and No. 4 turrets.

Ise was dispatched south to Lingga and Singapore in early 1945 for Operation Kita. On the approach to Singapore, Ise was slightly damaged by a naval mine. In Operation Kita, Ise, her sister ship Hyuga, and cruiser Ōyodo were loaded with critically needed strategic war supplies (oil, rubber, tin, zinc, and mercury) and evacuate 1,150 oil field personnel back to Japan. Ise arrived back safely in Moji on 19 February 1945, having evaded or escaped pursuit by twenty three Allied submarines along the way.

i wonder what the usa would do if some their next punching bag manages to sink their carrier with a conventional weapon like some mine, long range torpedo or an asm

File: 1499304817804.png (172KB, 872x685px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 872x685px

>>34632628
LMAO well meme'd

>>34633283
It seems a little silly to operate a flight deck on any sort of flying carrier. First off, it would seem that any flying carrier that actually exceeds some 200~ km/h speeds would risk having all of the craft stationed on the deck catch lift and fall off the back edge.

Which brings us to another point; you don't really need runways or catapults to take off from a flying carrier, unless the carrier itself is hovering at a low altitude. You'd really just push your jets off the edge, and they'll pick up enough speed gliding and thrusting to 'takeoff' before they hit the ground.

Likewise, you wouldn't really need a flight deck to land craft, either. You could hang an arrestor cable from a pair of crane masts below the carrier and let fighters (with modified tailhooks) catch that cable and dangle while they're reeled in. Alternatively, you'd have something akin to a helipad where your jet craft would just slow down to the carrier's cruising speed and then just touch down on a pad and and somehow get attached and reeled in.

The major problems with seaborne carriers and their jet craft mainly comes down to differences with how fast the carrier crawls across the ocean, and how fast jets need to go in order to maintain lift. Catapults, afterburners, heavy-winds (and driving into the wind) and longer decks help jets accelerate to takeoff-speeds before falling off the edge. If a carrier could somehow accelerate itself and its craft to V2, there would literally be no need for a runway -- the craft would just start to float the moment they were unclamped from the deck.

>>34641145
>hit and detonate the whole thing
Unless you're talking about nuclear torpedoes, that's a non-starter of an idea.

File: F9C-2_Sparrowhawk_fighter[1].jpg (97KB, 740x596px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 740x596px

>>34633283 >>34633290 >>34633295

the stupidest thing with all these air carriers that they are drawn as if they were naval vessels

i mean, what's the point of an airstrip? yes, it's to give a plane time to make its speed either equal to the speed of the earth (which we consider as zero) or to the speed which is enough for it not to stall so it could fly by itself

now, those flying things move with a speed of possibly several hundred km/h, so there is no need for a plane to run any strip whatsoever, it should just slow down to the speed of the flying carrier and after that it can be taken aboard, and to launch it can be simply thrown overboard, simple as that

it was done too, pic related, a plane "landing" on a dirigible

>>34631768
Maybe in 1940.

Now it would be a missle cruiser/carrier.

Still not worth effort.

>>34641400
>>34641461

I'm almost impressed.

File: 1334664149467.jpg (103KB, 815x625px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 815x625px

Fuckhuge vehicles of any kind, be they ships. tanks, or even fucking Helicarriers or in-atmosphere spaceships docked in one position simply won't be a practical idea until
1: They can move with the same effectiveness as a few smaller ones
2: They invent some kind of bullshit energy shield or something to prevent your single giant rape ship from just getting bombed or shot up, when if you had 3 smaller vehicles they'd lose one but otherwise be fine
and 3: Actually have some reason to get that huge in the first place. Why would you ever need a Cathedral-sized tank in the first place? If you have a target you need a fucking 2 foot wide shell to crack open you'd be better off calling in a missile of some kind or another anyways. The only one that's even slightly worthwhile that huge would be a hypothetical giant flying airship, and even then that's mainly just because it means you can literally fly an entire military base anywhere in the world and shit direct fire weapons, launch aircraft, and garrison an entire army- but until there's some kind of magical bullshit shield to protect it, see >>34637084.


Also posting coolest giant impractical carrier.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=932mooNi5ak

>>34632092
Beam is wide, not long.

>>34636784
infrared missiles suck. The AIM-9X was decoyed by a piece of shit syrian cold war suhkoi monkey model. Imagine against 5th gen agility, missile warning systems, infrared masking, and countermeasures. Not to mention they barely even work if planes are coming at each head on. Stop looking at the max range on wikipedia articles and quoting that as average engagement ranges.

>>34641400
An exposed flight deck of any kind doesn't really make any sense for a flying carrier unless it is meant to be able to land on water.

A giant opening through the center of the carrier would work. Match speed then slowly fly in from the rear to land, accelerate out of the front to take off. The currently landing craft keeps its engines firing until it has fully been locked in by clamps since it needs to fight the air coming in from the front (unless the front doors are closed?), so it can still take off again in an emergency. Close both doors when not in use.

>>34631768
Because that abomination is fucking stupid.

File: Helicarrier_Up-view.png (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

>>34641733
To be fair the first time they showed a Helicarrier in whatever Marvel move it was (First Avengers I think?), it was in the ocean and looked like an aircraft carrier.

File: 300px-Route_of_operation_Kita.png (49KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 300x300px

>>34641243
Operation Kita is definitely movie-worthy

>Last battleships of the IJN repatriated to Japan before the country gets completely surrounded and locked down
>Entire USN submarine fleet plus a few extra planes for good measure is out to get you
>Still manage to get home unharmed and loaded with vital resources after a mad run through occupied waters

Channel Dash aint got shit on this.

>>34638150
>Retired jeep carrier sunk
>Refloated 17 days later.
>Served another six years

Typical north Vietnamese victory

>>34635516
They wanted to do a full conversion, but ran out of time. And doubtlessly there were a few old farts in the Japanese high command who believed battleships were still gonna be relevant even after Pearl Harbor.

File: IJN_Hatsuzuki_1942.jpg (24KB, 600x350px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 600x350px

>>34641243
If we're doing any movies about IJN ships, I want my fucking shipfu, Hatsuzuki.
Only good write-up I've found, though I think you need an account to view it: https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/99110-the-last-stand-of-hatsuzuki/

TL;DR, cute lil' destroyer with a main battery of little more than AA guns singlehandedly holds off an entire US battle group for over two hours in a suicidal last stand, to cover the retreat of her allies.

>>34641865
Not that it costed the North Vietnamese a lot either. It's all for propaganda points, just like Tet Offensive (although this one is definitely costly), and it worked well enough for that purpose.

>>34641865
0 vietnamese died, 5 burgers died and they had to spend nearly three weeks to resurfacing their vessel

if it had been a typical north vietnamese victory the usa would have lost its mainland territory to the north vietnam, lol

>>34641193
I think the point they were trying to make is that, if you have a flight deck on either side, there's no way to use the batteries during flight operations

>>34637435

Suicide dolphins.

The military is literally developing them.

>>34642078
taffy 3

>>34641856

You forgot to mention the allies knew in advance the exact fleet composition, route and time of departure in advance thanks to codebreaking. It's really a wonder how they managed to fuck ip up even though it was considered a high priority operation.

>>34639329
If you hit, you'll leave a mark. But after 9/11, you'll probably get shot down before you can complete your turn into the dive.

>>34636617

The VLS is hard to see because of all the launchers, but yeah there are some VLS launchers in there.

>>34631789

One carrier, two battleships.

>>34631789
A trimaran with a carrier in the middle and 2 battleships/DDGs on the outriggers.