Size and Displacement>Supercarrier: Weighs 70,000 to over 100,000 tons fully loaded and spans well over 1,000 feet in length.Standard >Standard Carrier: Generally ranges from 30,000 to 60,000 tons (e.g., amphibious assault ships or smaller carriers operated by countries like France, Russia, or Italy).Aircraft and Deck Operations >Supercarrier: Features massive angled flight decks and specialized catapults (CATOBAR). This allows them to launch heavier fixed-wing aircraft at maximum takeoff weights, such as F-35Cs, F/A-18s, and E-2 Hawkeyes.>Standard Carrier: Often relies on shorter decks and may utilize "ski-jump" ramps instead of catapults. They primarily support Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) jets like the F-35B and helicoptersPropulsion and Endurance>Supercarrier: Primarily nuclear-powered (like the U.S. Nimitz and Ford classes). They can sail for decades without refueling and generate their own electricity for systems like EMALS (Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System).>Standard Carrier: Often conventionally powered (gas turbine or oil-fired boilers), limiting their range and requiring frequent port visits or replenishment at sea.Strike Group Command>Supercarrier: Functions as the mobile command center for a multi-ship strike group, capable of generating massive sortie rates over extended conflicts.>Standard Carrier: Typically suited for rapid-response, expeditionary, or regional dominance roles rather than sustained, large-scale theater campaigns.These things are pretty much alien mother ships and there's well over 12 of them.
>>65184080What happens if you are a pilot who has their home carrier destoryed? Do you link up with another carrier? Punch out near a destroyer or frigate and let them snag you?
We get a lot of shit, but that's what happens when one is on top and everyone else is wayyyyyyyyy below.
>>65184080>there's well over 12 of them.What did he mean by this?
>>65184100This scenario happened more than once during WWII. How was it handled then?
>>65184158>japs>dishonoraburu, should've died with the ship or rammed into the enemy one, don't deserve a rescue mission, will get punished if survives>US: parachute near friendly ships, get rescued, retire to teach new pilots, the guys who saw you get a bucket of ice cream
>>65184212Well said
>>65184125He means. Well I don't know.
>>65184125>>65185035Prob means the 10 Nimitzs + Ford and JFK which is on sea trials atm
>>65184080US can bomb any country from the US. Aircraft carriers are just used for jets that hunt down fired missiles. That's why all those carriers went to Iran for, to launch jets to hunt and shoot down missiles fired at israel.
>>65184158They recovered on a friendly carrier nearby in WW2.
>>65185128That's 12, not "well over 12."
>>65185142Are you saying aircraft launched from carriers don't conduct operations on ground targets?
These things are fricking huge. Totally bad ass. I should've joined the navy out of highschool but I was occupied with hentai and vidya.
>>65185186>Are you saying aircraft launched from carriers don't conduct operations on ground targets?I think that's what they're saying, I've no idea if it's actually true but it makes sense.An air-to-ground mission can be easily done from a base, the target isn't going anywhere, just pick a base within the combat radius and fly from there.The advantage of carriers is putting them wherever you want, they make more sense as a mobile air-interdiction zone rather than a base for striking at static targets.I'm guessing but that's how I interpret anon's post and it makes sense to me.
>>65185199They're like science fiction space ships but at sea.
>>65185162Or a nearby runway if no carrier was available. US carrier ops were pretty flexible.
More like super coomer.
>>65184080Well, the U.S. Navy has been operating aircraft carriers for over 100 years now, and it still doesn't have the necessary knowledge and skills to build a ramp, which is why it has to rely on catapults. Given such technical limitations, I doubt that the Ford-class is really such an engineering marvel.
>>65185204That's incredibly stupid.
U.S. Navy doesn't need 10 of them. USN fleet needs reconfiguration of force structure.Total of seven (7) CSGs is sufficient. Rest of the fleet needs more Arleigh Burkes, and nuclear powered CGNs. (Not the 'battlecruiser' or trump-class whateverthefuckitis either)Along with, obviously, the submarine fleet.
>engineering marvelthe Ford class would be if they could get the magnetic catapults to workContemporary MIC is a joke.
>>65186339You're incredibly stupid.
>>65186308I'm not sure if this is bait or if you are actually that stupid, but ramps are straight up worse than catapults for launching aircraft. All non-VTOL aircraft have a minimum speed which they need to be above to take off at all, and on a ski-jump carrier all of that speed has to be generated by the aircraft's thrust in a short period, which means that aircraft launched from that carrier need to have sufficient TWR to get to speed which cuts into their payload. Catapults get around this issue by externally accelerating the aircraft, so they can take off with much heavier payloads that dumpster their TWR. The only reason to use a ramp is to keep carriers technologically simple, which makes a degree of sense for small, cheap carriers run by nations that can barely afford them, but the US doesn't fall into that bracket.
>>6518640810 cvns and ten csgs measn three available at any time, 4 or 5 in a pinch.of ten four will be in some form of refit/overhaul at any given time, 3 will be in work up/shakedown/training cycles and three will be operational, with the most ready work/shake/train ship available for combat deployment if needed.It takes years to cycle a carrier in for overhaul and then a further year to train up a new crew since by the time the ship is out of the yard the enlistments of the crew will be up and half your sailors will have gone home with the other half being out of sea practice, they have to take on and train a thousand newbies and refresh the training of another thousand mid level ncos, all this takes at least a year.the result of all of this is a 1/3 availability rate,If we want three carriers floating around actively, on in the med, one in the pacific, one in the indian ocean all the time we need no less than 9 cvns and really you want to have a spare just in case something stupid happens like the shitters on your newest cvn explode.2 in deep overhaul, Norfolk unavailable2 in fitting out and working up, Norfolk, San Diego unavailable.2 in major training Usually WestLant and EastPac, emergency available, often does disaster relief.1 in "final" training, available for deployment but not deployed, ususally hanging around vaguely near whereever is currently making noise, but not actually in the AO ~4-7 days steaming from combat station. 3 actively deployed, Med, Indian Ocean, WestPactell me me wise one, which operational theater should we abandon to "save" 3 carriers? WestPac perhaps?
>>65184080>requiring frequent port visits or replenishment at sea.nuke carriers also do this
>>65186949>QE class: 3 million litres of aviation fuel>Nimitz and Ford class: 11 million litres of aviation fuelthe only oddball out is Charles De Gaulle which, because it is small although nuclear-powered, carries only as much aviation fuel as the conventional QE class
>>65184080Aren't they full of fuck ups like bad plumbing?
Make sure you dont land on the wrong carrier.
>>65187060No, why?
>>65187070NVM him, he's just an ESL who bought into the pre-Iran strike misdirection because he wanted to.
