why didnt the US look into at sea rearming?If in a war with china ports will be under attack being able to rearm at Sea would be a huge boost.
Take everything on an aircraft carrier and make each individual element float.EZ. See pic related, your fighter jet but it floats.
>>64888519They did. They even had a built in crane and everything.
>>64888519You're talking about the Navy who's biggest problem in WW2 was where to put the ice cream barge. Your understanding of the situation is so poor that it has exposed your idiocy.
>>64888536By jeebus, a Vertically Launched Crane. They've done it. Burgers for everyone.
>assuming the US Navy of all things is incapable of handling logistics
>>64888519>why didnt the US look into at sea rearming?Rearm with what?Count all the VLS cells of ships in service, then compare to missile stocks.The US roughly has enough missiles to fill all VLS cells, but that's it. There's basically no surplus to reload with.
>>64888643It's actually worse than that. There are enough SM-2 to go around, but for SM-3 or SM-6 they actually pull missiles out of ships coming in for maintenance and put them on ships going out on patrol. It's called cross-decking.There aren't enough of those missiles to go around atm.
>>64888643>>64888651What stocks do I need to profit off this when Taiwan kicks off? GE?
>>64888733RTX, formerly known as RaytheonI just sold one of my cars and might put the money from it into RTX and General Dynamics. Hopefully we don’t start bombing Iran for another week or so
>>64888547That ship building capability does not exist anymore
>>64888980mostly because shitting out liberty class rustboxes required a little less money, skill and resources than of a modern frigate.
>>64889050You don't understand bro, chinese fishing boat and cargo hauler shipyards are basically the same as a shipyard that can outfit and maintain a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier with fucktons of advanced electronic systems
