Can a unusually heavy storm actually sink a modern carrier?
No
>>62883092Theoretically, it's remotely possible. You'll have to define which carrier and how it's constructed. That's a big word to be using without defining it. Same for "rogue wave." Until about 15 years ago they were considered a sailor's myth, until one finally got documented with satellite imagery. We only have very vague ideas of what cause them, and there's no assurance that there is only one type of conditions that can generate one.Top-of-the-line U.S. carriers are probably safe, based upon what rogue waves we've documented so far. However, we really don't know how big they can get. And, storms forming over the oceans today are only getting stronger and stronger, so we probably haven't seen just how big a storm-generated wave can get. Yet. What was safe before today (ship design & construction) may not be nearly so safe by 2050 or later. We'll probably see oil tankers and container ships obliterated in our lifetime.Carriers are a very different construction, but it could also be dependent upon how much warning a carrier gets and does it have time to maneuver before it's hit. There used to be footage o youtube from 2011 when that tsunami hit Japan of a military ship that had time to turn its bow into an oncoming wave. Something like a 30 meter high wall of water and the ship just went nose-up & over the top of it, shit sliding all over the deck, but it didn't break or go under. Had it been hit broadside it probably wouldn't have fared so well.There are erosion features on the East side of Africa that suggesting strongly that there was once a massive tsunami event in the Indian ocean. There may have been a wave (or set of waves) something like 800-1000 meters high. We don't know what caused that, likely a more "traditional" tsunami caused by earthquake or volcanic explosion, maybe a meteor impact. Point being, just how high can waves get for different mechanisms? 50-100 meters are "reasonably" survivable. 200-300 meters or more probably isn't.
>>62883092The biggest recorded rogue wave was 17 meters with indirect evidence (water damage) of waves upto 30 meters.I don't know if a carrier is designed to take this without breaking it's back but cargo ships have been snapped before.
>>62883092Yes
>>62883135>We'll probably see oil tankers and container ships obliterated in our lifetime.It's already happened with MV Derbyshire, and at ~100,000 tons it was a pretty big ship
>>62883092Can a whirlpool sink a carrier?
The wind in the wires made a tattle-tale soundAnd a wave broke over the railingAnd every man knew, as the captain did tooT'was the witch of November come stealin'
>>62883135> There used to be footage o youtube from 2011 when that tsunami hit Japan of a military ship that had time to turn its bow into an oncoming wavehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06huCv3cCaM
>>62883176That was a lot less dramatic than expected
>>62883160did the front fall off?
>>62883187Kind of.>Ultimately, it was determined that waves crashing over the front of the ship had earlier sheared off the covers of small ventilation pipes near the bow. Over the next two days, seawater had entered through the exposed pipes into the forward section of the ship, causing the bow to slowly ride lower and lower in the water.[11] Eventually, the bow was made vulnerable to the full force of the rough waves, which caused the massive hatch on the first cargo hold to buckle inward, allowing hundreds of tons of water to enter within seconds.
>>62883092Rogue waves and severe weather such as hurricanes can absolutely fuck up any ship up to and including carriers. With the possibility of even less severe weather and waves being able to sink or fuck up carriers and other large vessels if approached poorly i.e. getting rolled. A DEI captain can also sink any ship, so there's that as well.
>>62883135>There are erosion features on the East side of Africa that suggesting strongly that there was once a massive tsunami event in the Indian oceanDo you have a wiki link or similar for this? Sounds interesting.
>>62883135>Point being, just how high can waves get for different mechanisms? 50-100 meters are "reasonably" survivable. 200-300 meters or more probably isn't.heh, me when I cum.
>>62883389>Do you have a wiki link or similar for this? Sounds interesting.Nah, sorry. It was in one of my geology classes. A professor used the anecdote to explain some other erosion and sea level change features we were studying. We never followed up on the Africa thing because it was a bit too specialized and somewhat off-topic for the main focus. But, I never forgot it. He chalk-boarded what he was talking about, it looks like the sort of thing you see in beach sand as waves come in and out. There are specific ripple patterns that show where the water came in, and where it flowed out, just like ripples in beach sand. Except, instead of a few centimeters in size they were hundreds of kilometers. It's really fucking chilling because it meant that, at one point, almost all land surrounding the Indian Ocean was under a few hundreds meters of water. If it happened today it would probably kill about 25% of all humanity. I always felt something of that magnitude probably had to be a meteor impact in the Indian Ocean basin, but nobody has ever been able to locate the impact point. There are several similar events in the past couple million years, evidence that SOMETHING happened and there was catastrophic coastal flooding, but the surface of the Earth is too environmentally active for impact craters to survive. It would take a massive effort to map out the entire basin with sonar and various other crust-penetrating shockwaves. If I would have had the chance to go for a Masters degree I'd have followed up on it, but life took me elsewhere.
>>62883510It's possible a comet might have exploded above the Indian Ocean, much like the Tunguska event. That would explain the lack of impact crater and associated debris layer in the geologic formation. The KT boundary layer is clearly defined, but I guess that's because the Chicxulub impact occurred on what was most likely land, or extremely shallow sea at the time. A meteor could have struck the Indian Ocean and disinterested too I guess, but one large enough should have left some kind of debris field on the sea bed that would have been noticed by now.
>>62883628>would have been noticed by nowNot necessarily. Indian Ocean is big and deep, only a small fraction of it has had any serious exploration. Also, an impact in deep ocean doesn't take a huge meteor to generate huge waves. It could be fairly small, like Meteor Crater in Arizona which is considered tiny and probably only about 100 meters across. The only reason we know it ever happened is because it was so recent and located where the evidence is preserved. It would leave a small, more-or-less insignificant debris field in 2 miles of water, and it would easily be covered with deep mud after half a million or five million years. Not enough crap in the atmosphere to generate a KT boundary layer.Chicxulub is basically undetectable even for its monstrous size until you run magnetic profiles across a 200-mile diameter piece of ocean bed for an intense and expensive investigation (such as trying to map out potential oil fields). And it's shallow, making it both accessible and it fills with debris more slowly. There are several dozen meteor impacts around the world, quite large ones, that we know happened and we even narrowed down the time windows for some of them based on other observed evidence, but we haven't been able to locate the impact sites/craters. Due to when & where they happened, the evidence has been mostly erased and otherwise obscured.You are correct about a comet, though. It would have to make actual impact, not an airburst like Tunguska, but the surface evidence would be a lot less than a nickle-iron meteor and likely erased over time where we would need far more advanced science than we have now to map out positive, conclusive evidence.
>>62883182It kinda makes sense, a tsunami only really becomes properly large when it nears the shore.Most of the water rushing towards the shoreline is still well below the vessel.
>>62883092Absolutely. Any modern vessel of size is at risk from repeated impacts and straining, as square cube law also extends to structural strain.It's like with planes. Any small craft of either can handle a storm better than a big craft. It'll get thrown about, but as long as it doesn't capsize, flood or hit land, it'll be fine in the end. Wheras a carrier or big plane can be much more easily split, back-broken or otherwise crippled because it can't ride the waves so good.
>>62883510It was someone spilling jizz on a giant-t. knower
>>62883176There's a shaky vid from the 2004 tsunami that shows two navy ships turning into the wave and getting what looks to be a wild ride. Approx 3 min mark.https://youtu.be/bgqa7ebMvB8?si=3iW5qCNWDfGO-ciR
>>62885925WHY DID THEY PUT MUSIC OVER IT WHAT THE FUCKGermans never cease to commit crimes against taste
Your mom can sink a carrierBecause she's so fat
>>62883160That thing looks like an absolute rust bucket[Captcha: N0 MAR]
>>62883092There were shitty old fishing boats that survived the Lutiya mega-tsunami. A carrier won't do any worse unless it runs aground or whatever
>>62883160>Tide goes super far out>Everyone uses that as an excuse to o to the beach>See giant wave>People just fucking stand there watching itHow many died to that thing because of rank stupidity?
>>62883092There exists the possibility if she were to get broadside to the waves for some reason.Typhoon Cobra, 1944.
>>62883092There's a lot of effort that goes into predicting and avoiding storms. That said, the government will soon be privatizing that, so who knows.
>>62883092With stupid orientation decisions, sure
>>62883092Anything is possible with enough force. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on your view) the probability of it happening is very low
>>62886012I was about to say, didn't Halsey nearly lose a whole carrier group because he sailed straight into a storm in 44?
Comparing the RMS Titanic to the USS Nimitz isn't nearly as embarrassing for the Titanic as I thought it was going to be
>>62886150She was a big ol bitch
>>62883510Somebody found evidence that dirt which is presently above water was previously under water and the conclusion was that there was a big tsunami? You might want to consider alternatives, like maybe millions of years ago that area just happened to be below sea level, or part of a big lake. That seems a lot more probable than "uhhh actually there was this 2 km high wall of water and it you know made these ripples that we see in coastal India."
>>62883135ty anon, interesting readdo go on if you care to, i find your contributions interesting
>>62886670>if only there were some way of understanding what makes mountains rise and continents move>if only those mechanisms left some evidence of themselves that we could use to understand how geological features formed and when
>>62883092I'm prretty sure a Ford Class can push through a hurricane. The planes on deck will be destroyed, and there will be damage, and everyone onboard will have lost their cookies a few times, but it'll go.
>>62886702>alas>these processes just happen too quickly to leave behind evidence>and even if they happened more slowly, rocks and metals are just too soft to retain the evidence they'd leave>we will have to just keep guessing at how major land features form and hope that none of our cities are instantly replaced by mountains in one of these transient and rogue events
>>62886705>The planes on deck will be destroyedProbably not desu. There was green water over the bridge of the New Jersey in Cobra, and plenty of aircraft that were on decks in Cobra survived it. Aircraft can take way more of a beating than they could in WWII, and the decks of carriers are higher now than they were then.
>>62886702Did you read the post you replied to?
>>62883160It happened with the Fitzgerald too
>>62883092Yes, it's possible, but it's unlikely. It'd have to hit broadside with very little warning - carriers are surprisingly nimble and have good radar coverage - or be fucking huge. A smaller 15-20m wave tagging a boat with the hangar bays open would be an effective mission-kill to the airwing and kill a lot of the ships' company but it wouldn't sink the boat. >>62883148>30m>back snappingI've been in a storm with waves over 70 feet, albeit mostly in the 20-ish meter range, on the North Pacific in a Nimitz-class. For three DAYS. It was fucking miserable, we had to face into the wind and make about three knots towards the North Pole the whole damn time. And when I say over 70+ feet, I mean it. We had waves breaking over the flight deck that stripped the decking off a good chunk of the nose, they took out a plat-cam on the conning tower, there were several feet of standing water in the smoking sponsons and the anchor room flooded. The ship herself wasn't happy but she also wasn't creaking. Whole boat ran out of seasickness meds on the morning of day 3. Fun times. >>62885925I was in Hong Kong for that, eating at the Ruth's Chris with a buddy. There was a ~4-5 foot tsunami in the harbor but the breakwater outside the harbor took most of the force. We headed over immediately to Thailand and Malaysia to do rescue work for a few months until the hospital ships could get out there. The Straights of Molucca were fucking horrifying even a couple days afterwards, I'd rather not see anything like that for the rest of my life. Let alone running past a chunk of Thailand were there was just.. nothing left. At all. >>62886705>The planes on deck will be destroyed, and there will be damage, and everyone onboard will have lost their cookies a few timesThe planes get taken belowdecks and everything gets chained down as hard as you can chain it. Anything that can't stay in the hangars takes the biggest fuel load it can and runs like fuck. Remainder is accurate.
The first rule of the sea is not to underestimate her
>>62888591Yeah. 1) She is the most bueatiful thing you will ever see2) She is trying to fucking kill you. All the time. Forever. 3) You are delicious protein. If you leave the boat in black water, by the time you have hit the bottom you will have already been through at least two digestive systems.
>>62886150What if we refit the Titanic with hypersonic missiles?
>>62886670Don't hurt yourself, kid. People with rilly, rilly big brains study this shit for decades trying to figure it out. There's a fuckton more to it than "some dirt was underwater once." Come back after you pass a few fluid dynamics courses.
>>62888569>I've been in a storm with waves over 70 feet, albeit mostly in the 20-ish meter range, on the North Pacific in a Nimitz-class. For three DAYS. It was fucking miserable, we had to face into the wind and make about three knots towards the North Pole the whole damn time. And when I say over 70+ feet, I mean it. We had waves breaking over the flight deck that stripped the decking off a good chunk of the nose, they took out a plat-cam on the conning tower, there were several feet of standing water in the smoking sponsons and the anchor room flooded. The ship herself wasn't happy but she also wasn't creaking. Whole boat ran out of seasickness meds on the morning of day 3. Fun times.Thank you for your service. Great "war" story. Glad I wasn't there but ... also kind'a wish I had been. Not every thing in life worth doing is always 100% fun while it's happening.
>>62883092maybe if it was running a sub-skeleton crew in a state of disrepair, had bad leadership and sailed straight into numerous record breaking storms. they are machines, stuff will break, and if the wrong stuff breaks in a storm it can be very dangerous to the ship. A perfect sequence of, maybe a plane braking loose in the hangar, starting a fire, then something happens to propulsion and the ship is understaffed and can't deal with both conditions and responses are hampered by the severe weather. it isn't likely, though. critical systems are redundant and crew is plentiful when flight ops aren't running.
>>62888591The second rule is no outside food
