Tell me more about aircraft carriers

They are big ships

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

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

>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

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

How do you want your supply chain senpai

>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.

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

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

Why not just spam the guided missiles?

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.

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

t. Xiao Ming

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

more fuel = less maneuverability

>War is Boring
>Legitimate

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

What did you mean by that

For the decision-makers, it's greed.

For the soldiers, they've been duped.

For the generals, it can be FUN.

>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.

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.

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.

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.

sailboat-cruising.com/hullspeed.html

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

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

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

A hydroplaning aircraft carrier, can you even fucking imagine?

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

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.

navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-028.htm

That's just stupid