Thoughts about aicraft carrier/destroyer hybrids?
The Soviets tried it and it was shit.
>>65429210The soviets didn't have EMALS
>>65429182The soviets tried it twice and it was shit. The more sensible Moskva helicopter carrier still sucked.
>>65429248That doesn't fix:>Lack of hangar space>Reduction of onboard weapon capacity>Disruption of launch and recovery capacity when firing weaponsBasically there isn't enough room on the thing to do both at the same time.
>>65429248Then by all means, Chinks, waste billions on something which has already been shown to suck.
>>65429287They're pretty good at it.
>>65429248Where are they supposed to land? I honestly cannot see the functional or tactical purpose for an emals system on a short flat deck.
>>65429287>the US drops a extremely promising concept with virtually no downsides because of budget problems>this means the concept must suckYou're an actual nigger. Let me guess, D.C?
>>65429304Prease answer: >>65429294
Why are these chinkshills so fucking retarded
>>65429318That's a helicopter and drone carrier (as betrayed by the parking marks on the flight deck) not a aircraft carrier, dumbass. Bugmen have three (3) carriers, two of which are Kuznetsov class and one of their own making (which is the one with EMALS)
>>65429341>That's a helicopter and drone carrierObviously, dipshit. The point is: if you need an EMALS to launch your UAVs that means they're not able to reach sufficient velocities to produce the lift needed to sustain flight in relation to wing loading on their own in the given deck space allotted for a runway. Based on this basic information, it is assumed that those very same UAVs wouldn't be able to land on a short flat deck, either without the assistance of an arresting system. And even then, the whole deck would need to be completely cleared of any fixed and rotary winged aircraft to attempt a safe landing. It's a completely stupid idea with zero real world use.
>>65429341>The Type 076 landing helicopter dock (NATO reporting name: Yulan-class landing helicopter assault[7]),>It features a twin-island design superstructure,[9] a stern well dock,[10] a CATOBAR system of electromagnetic catapult, and arresting gears for operating light fixed-wing aircraft — likely unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAV) such as the GJ-21, making it both a landing helicopter dock (LHD) and a drone carrier.[3][11] The Type 076 is the world's first amphibious assault ship and drone carrier designed with an electromagnetic catapult.[12][13]
>>65429182It's been tried multiple times and always fucking sucked. Hell even in WWII when Aircraft needed less space to take off and land it still fucking sucked and was retarded. All you're doing is sending a bad carrier closer to the enemy to use the destroyer weapons or having a shitty carrier with a bunch of it's internal and deck space wasted on bullshit that doesn't help its job at being a carrier. Of course the chinks, unable to actually learn from people's mistakes and only copy everything everyone else has done are gonna make something that worthless again for propaganda
LOL
>>65429459>and arresting gears for operating light fixed-wing aircraftCan you show me where this arresting gear is, because this Type 76 >>65429248 doesn't have it at all. And no, a CGI pic with some retards conjecture isn't proof.
>>65429406These jet powered drones are much heavier than one might think so it makes sense they struggle to take off short runways.
>>65429182I don't see the point in taking half of two ship classes and making something that is worse at either role. What I could see a point in is adding a few VLS cells on a supercarrier for added missile defence, I'm sure space can be found for like 16 cells.
>>65429248>EMALS without a reactor
>>65429182its an idea so good the USN runs like a bitch from it.90% of what a destroyer does is "helicopter carrier" anyways.Missiles don't need the same type of heavy mounting etc as big guns.
>>65429210>Russians>Naval MattersNext you'll tell me something doesn't work because the Hindus can't into it.
>>65429248>another retarded chinkshill implessive threadnobody cares chinkshill, your opinion doesn't matter.>>65429304>chinkshill defends extremely retarded concept for literally no reason>this means the concept must be goodyou're retarded lol.
>>65433421>it's in idea so bad this moron continues to seethe about it's inferioritylol
>>65429517I think the three sets of diagonal patches next to the aft island are the arrestor gear area. They might be using collapsible arrestor gear, which would be... quite a thing. I'm not sure how well it would work, if at all. Then again, given we're talking about drones, they don't *need* to work with absolute reliability. There's no pilot dying if a drone goes overboard and into the drink, just material losses.
>>65429182I wonder how many VLS cells the next french carrier is going to have
>>65433632Yep, those are arrestor gear mounts. The Fujian and ShanDONG also have them, except they use 4 instead of just 3 (because of manned aircraft).
>>65429182More expensive, complex and requiring of maintenance than just building a carrier and a destroyer. Absolutely senseless hybrid.
>>65433391>EMALS without a reactor Err... yes? That's pretty much the single biggest advantage of EMALS over steam cat. You only need a lot of electricity, the source of that electricity is irrelevant. Turboelectric (nuclear, oil-fired, or gas), diesel genset, 50 billion gerbils running on treadmills, it doesn't matter.
>>65433619all DDs should be 1/2 carriers.most of what they do is operate choppers, so make them able to handle several big choppers.make them able to operated F-35b, so if the real carrier takes a hit at least they can provide some CAP.also, make Zero Launch baked into next fighter design, and put rails on every ship maybe even down to LCS size.Big deck and some hanger space makes a DD much more versatile, not just 20lbs of shit in a 5lb sack. Maybe carry unmanned anti-aircraft/anti-sub drone boats to radically expand foot print for "sea denial" and escort.No reason to build 20lbs of shit in 5lb sack ships in the age of radar and anti-ship missiles. In fact, lots of reasons to "air it out" with extra space.Hey, I'm not the guy who went from USS Zumwalt to TWO flavors of failed LCS concept, to USS Cancellation to now USS Trump class and ending EMALS and reposition control tower for "aesthetics" from a guy adding a lop-sided tumor to the White House.I'd go with ifty-50 split of traditional DDs and DD/carriers.
>take something like a ww2 era carrier>Take one of the ww2 era plane>Slap a air launched cruise missile to it>Now you can missile spam cheaply
>>65433663batteries are real good at fast discharge of lots of energy.I could make an EMALs able to shoot 100 full loaded F-18s an hour out of some cable, shaft, rail and 100 Teslas.Unlike current steam/EMALs, the Teslas could be easily programmed to make every launch perfect, by sensing the speed/acceleration regardless of weight, and re-calc 100x per second.
>all DDs should be 1/2 carriersno>most of what they do is operate chopperswrong>so if the real carrier takes a hittheir job is to prevent that and they're better off just doing that better.>much more versatilewe want it to be very good at the things it's already good at, there is no need for it to also be a carrier, you're retarded.>b-but t-the article said it's officialit's not, the EMALS reversion thing is a puff of hot air like it has been forever since it's never getting through congress.you're not much better than trump at designing a fleet, retard-san.
>>65429257>Moskva>sensibleThird shit of the class was cancelled and scraped on dock.
>>65433690no, capacitors are, batteries actually fucking suck at that, dummy.
>>65429248>The soviets didn't have EMALSNeither will the US now.
>>65433703see >>65433695you're retarded, chinkshill.
>>65429248why would you say this and post a webm where EMALS is not being demonstrated lmao
>>65433698Teslas are QUICKER than any "muscle car" and that isn't even their main design effort, it just came effortlessly as side effect of being E-car.The struggle is all about RANGE.
>>65433760What does that have to do with the topic at hand? Nobody is suggesting "muscle cars" to propel aircraft either. The point is that batteries are slow to discharge compared to capacitors or flywheels. If you just want to move a vehicle then they're fine but if you want to get a jet airborne it needs be be faster.
>>65429182double it and make a catamaran
>>65433760>Tesla God awful ugly shit brick of a car
>>65429182>carrier/destroyerWhat the fuck would that even look like, I think you mean carrier / cruiser.As for the practicality I think adding some deck space for VLS makes sense so you can deploy with a much smaller carrier group to low threat enviroments. Put some big SM-2ERs on it and you can get away with smaller escorts carrying SM-2MRs.>>65429210>>65429257Soviet missiles were fucking huge and horizontally mounted eating up a shitload of space, it could be done much better today.
>>65433932Let's say frogs decide to drill a hole, replace their Sylver A-43 VLS with A-70, and now are able to launch their cruise missiles.... For what purpose?
>>65433901it looks fine, it's a boring design but the only reason it gives certain people overwhelming strong emotions is because they don't like the person associated with it.
>>65433760nobody asked.
>>65434187>SM-2ERI said SM-2ER for a reason, why are you talking about cruise missiles?
>>65433663Using anything but reactor for mass power generation is stupid.
>>65433760You have no idea what is actually being discussed here.
>>65433901Whay does this A.I. slop have to do with that?
>>65433663To be more specific EMALS uses a flywheel to store and discharge the large amount of electricity required.
>>65435776 >EMALS uses a flywheel to store and discharge the large amount of electricity required.That's for AC EMALS. DC EMALS uses a bunch of capacitors.
>>65435779You should probably learn what the Chinese system is called. As a hint, it isn't EMALS as that is the name of the system used on the Ford class.
>>65429248Neither does America anymore soon.
>>65435802>he's still spamming this lieit's truly implessive how angry and obsessed chinkshills get about the most random shit for no reason lol.
>>65435792Don't care. If the USN didn't want people to genericize it, they should've picked a more specific nomenclature than ElectroMagnetic Aircraft Launch System.
>>65429210Has anyone else tried? Just to rule out the very real possibility that Soviets were just shit.
>>65436118It's just a stupid idea. >lets make one ship the jack of all trades >ends up being the master of nonecutting down on hanger and deck space means making it just a small aircraft carrier or LPH whilst at the same time being the same size but with a more awkward launch site. The same size means having the same vulnerability but the "destroyer" additions don't really help because it has less maneuverability and ease of weapons system use than an ordinary destroyer, it can't do ASW or DDG as would a destroyer built for those purposes. In an ordinary carrier you have basically two sets of crew: one which sails the ship and the other that is to do with the aircraft portion; in a destroyer or corvette etc you also hve specialist weapons crew and engineers, so now with a comb you basically have three jobs rather than two to do. So it doesn't really save on crew that much. The alternative to making Frankensteins monster is to just build a carrier and then destroyers to escort said carrier, then both can just do the jobs they are designed for. The only reason you wouldn't do that is if you didn't have the ship building capacity or money to do so, and then like most things its a false economy.
>>65429279What if you upscaled it to battleship super carrier?
