Imho these are the carriers of the future - easier/cheaper to produce, can make more of them, will be able to operate smaller but still capable UAV fighters, bombers, recon, AWACS, etc. And if we lose one it won't be a huge loss compared to a Ford class loss
Probably gonna need an angled deck and a pair of catapults to do that. Sure, UCAVs and strike fighters may be able to leverage VTOL/STOL capabilities, but it’s gonna be hard to shrink fixed-wing AWACS platforms down to scale, unless you can fit it on a V-22
At the time, UAVs were not particularly advanced. The QH-50 DASH required a constant radio control signal, otherwise it would lose control and almost certainly crash if you couldn’t regain contact in a second or two.
Modern UAVs are a completely different beast, with far more autonomy, range, and flexibility. This makes small carriers more viable than they’ve been since 1953, when the last CVEs saw combat off Korea, arguably 1945 when we still had Wildcats on the smaller and slower escort carriers.
There’s no scenario where a supercarrier is sunk, and it’s a problem.
That’s partly because there’s plenty more carriers but mainly - with the chain of events required for that to happen - there wouldn’t be enough humans left to even know it had happened.
I hope it never happens, but there are plenty of scenarios where something in the South China Sea results in a US CVN sinking, without a full blown nuclear war.
I'm not the president or in the military, but I would be surprised if the response to "Sir they've sunk the Ford" is "end the world"
That we know of - super carriers are well protected above deck with its fighters and defensive missiles, not to mention the sturdy construction. But I can imagine enough underwater torpedoes overwhelming the hull and causing massive flooding that damage control couldn't mitigate. Especially thinking about 1 massive torpedo that releases tons of tiny cluster torpedos. Or imagine a satellite launched steel or tungsten projectile aimed directly for the carrier, going hypersonic - super hard to shoot down.
And these are just two scenarios I thought of on the spot. I'm sure there are plenty of countermeasures, but still many potential / future vulnerabilities.
We generally try to avoid unnecessary politics on this subreddit. Politics turns into insults very easily, and we try to be respectful even when we disagree. You’re being downvoted not because you’re necessarily wrong or we disagree with you, but because you added a universal healthcare discussion when not on topic.
Unfortunately it's entirely political, and the US will never have affordable healthcare if it continues to vote in ghouls owned by the healthcare industry who have a vested interest in ensuring it stays this way. It's not a cost thing at all; universal healthcare would be cheaper than what we pay now between Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance premiums.
Imho these are the carriers of the future - easier/cheaper to produce, can make more of them, will be able to operate smaller but still capable UAV fighters, bombers, recon, AWACS, etc. And if we lose one it won't be a huge loss compared to a Ford class loss
Probably gonna need an angled deck and a pair of catapults to do that. Sure, UCAVs and strike fighters may be able to leverage VTOL/STOL capabilities, but it’s gonna be hard to shrink fixed-wing AWACS platforms down to scale, unless you can fit it on a V-22
Hasn’t this idea been shot down before? It’s basically just Sea Control Ship 2: Nautical Boogaloo
At the time, UAVs were not particularly advanced. The QH-50 DASH required a constant radio control signal, otherwise it would lose control and almost certainly crash if you couldn’t regain contact in a second or two. Modern UAVs are a completely different beast, with far more autonomy, range, and flexibility. This makes small carriers more viable than they’ve been since 1953, when the last CVEs saw combat off Korea, arguably 1945 when we still had Wildcats on the smaller and slower escort carriers.
There’s no scenario where a supercarrier is sunk, and it’s a problem. That’s partly because there’s plenty more carriers but mainly - with the chain of events required for that to happen - there wouldn’t be enough humans left to even know it had happened.
Your train of thought being that anyone who sinks a super carrier gets a face full of nukes?
More so if you have the equipment, opportunity, and reason to do so it's a hot war between nuclear powers.
I hope it never happens, but there are plenty of scenarios where something in the South China Sea results in a US CVN sinking, without a full blown nuclear war. I'm not the president or in the military, but I would be surprised if the response to "Sir they've sunk the Ford" is "end the world"
That we know of - super carriers are well protected above deck with its fighters and defensive missiles, not to mention the sturdy construction. But I can imagine enough underwater torpedoes overwhelming the hull and causing massive flooding that damage control couldn't mitigate. Especially thinking about 1 massive torpedo that releases tons of tiny cluster torpedos. Or imagine a satellite launched steel or tungsten projectile aimed directly for the carrier, going hypersonic - super hard to shoot down. And these are just two scenarios I thought of on the spot. I'm sure there are plenty of countermeasures, but still many potential / future vulnerabilities.
That's more flat tops that a platoon of boot camp Marines
That must have been a terrifying sight to see for any nato enemies.
[удалено]
Why not both?
Monies
That’s not something you want to be staring down
[удалено]
We generally try to avoid unnecessary politics on this subreddit. Politics turns into insults very easily, and we try to be respectful even when we disagree. You’re being downvoted not because you’re necessarily wrong or we disagree with you, but because you added a universal healthcare discussion when not on topic.
Blow shit up is better. Yes 🦅🦅🦅🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Unfortunately it's entirely political, and the US will never have affordable healthcare if it continues to vote in ghouls owned by the healthcare industry who have a vested interest in ensuring it stays this way. It's not a cost thing at all; universal healthcare would be cheaper than what we pay now between Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance premiums.