He complained at length that a new Navy ship was using electromagnetic catapults to propel planes off ships. He said steam was better and was incredulous the military would consider otherwise. “Would you go with steam or would you go with electromagnetic? Because steam is very reliable, and the electromagnetic, unfortunately, you have to be Albert Einstein to really work it properly,” he asked.
“You have to be Albert Einstein to run the nuclear power plants that we have here, as well. But we’re doing that very well. I would go, sir, with electromagnetic,” the officer responded.
Not only did they write that article like a shitty fanfic using trump quotes but he points out that its expensive as fuck and that the military wants it because "steam gets everywhere"
There's also the obvious aspect: if the enemy can fuck your electronics the enemy can fuck your catapults and your aircraft carrier is useless. I'd like to see someone actually argue against it.
>“You have to be Albert Einstein to run the nuclear power plants that we have here, as well. But we’re doing that very well. I would go, sir, with electromagnetic,” the officer responded. Fukushima wants a word with you. How retarded are officers? My colonel grandpa said the officer ranks are reserved for the biggest, bureaucracy loving faggots.
Anthony Harris
Having actually been on an aircraft carrier during flight operations, steam is a very difficult way to power the catapults, but it's also a solved problem. EMAL would make some parts much better, but you have to solve all the inherent problems, first.
In my opinion the bigger problem is the aircraft carrier as a platform. The way they are being employed now is not at all tactically or strategically wise. If you need a capital ship to send into close quarters to send a message, send in a retrofitted battleship with 200+ VLS cells and the good old big guns. Leave the carriers for blue water fleet on fleet engagements and long range strikes into enemy territory.
Nathaniel Morgan
Aircraft carriers are slowly but surely becoming obsolete. Long range bombers can fly a mission from a base hours away from the target and we aren't that far off from having drones take the place of fighters.
Nolan Allen
He's 100% right. Also for loving bureaucracy so much, they suck at bureaucracy.
Jaxson Evans
Replacing steam is a mistake.
Alexander Hughes
Well you don't make it to Admiral or General unless you're a political animal...
Nolan Hughes
You can't really take and defend land or blockade an area with just airpower. As long as there's a shore there will have to be carriers and support
Kevin Reed
Fug Boomer infographic faggots here
Chase Peterson
The purpose of the carrier is just to project airpower though. Destroyers and Missile Cruisers are more than capable of taking on that role.
Angel Peterson
Isn't it true if one of the launchers go down they have to shut them all off to work on it? With steam you can repair the one that went down while the others launch sorties
Ethan Price
Aircraft carriers were obsolete as soon as submarines that could stay submerged for several days were developed. USA just never had to deal with this because USSR didn't want to contest the oceans, just wanted nuclear deterrence and to extend communism throughout Eurasiafrica.
Camden Richardson
He's referring to the catapults. EM ones are new tech but there's literally nothing wrong with the current steam ones
Lucas Stewart
Afaik Aircraft Carriers only exist to look imposing when they visit a foreign port.
Jonathan Hall
The purpose of carrier is to place a big expensive boat somewhere with a shitload of support boats and to remind people you can afford to do this.
They are fulfilling the only really useful role battleships ever filled in the 20th century, diplomacy.
Evan Bailey
>defending muh coast You're thinking subs. Carriers (and increasingly, all surface water boats) are so expensive they're a prime asymmetric target. You want to keep em as far away from battle as possible.
This. The purpose of navy is to swarm some banana republic with democracy and short range ICBMs.
I should note, american supercarriers can full logistical roles as well, since they are large enough to land transports on and catapults are good enough to launch. You could have carriers as a floating stockpile. Close range amphibious assault carriers the US has i also like because they are designed to place troops on the ground and provide close range helicopter support. For combat however its true, the fixed wing strike carrier is deprecated.
Landon Garcia
Its not that simple. If your bombers are 4 hours away and something goes wrong you want airpower close by. You're also not considering our airbases being bombed to shit. Could happen
Oliver Diaz
US Carriers are designed for natural disaster support as well. The nuclear reactors are designed to hook up to electrical grids and provide enough power to run a city. Battleships were never effective, even at war they sucked. The only use they ever got was for shore bombardments in Korea. The only Battleship to score a kill was probably the Bismarck.
Lucas Powell
Couldn’t you have both electric and steam?
I know electric has a massive problem with providing that massive burst of electricity, whereas steam you just need a big steam tank and recharge it with waste steam from the nuclear plant. Steam just needs more maintenance on the seals. I would want a redundant system even though it adds cost. Heck the advanced power systems could also power lasers and rail guns if any of those work.
Jonathan Gutierrez
No im thinking 10 miles away from shore during an invasion where troops are located and things aren't going as planned. You want them in 20 minutes
Evan Walker
Ye, the asym strategy waxes and wanes. Subs with supercavitating weapons are supposedly the hot shit now.
Also its only a matter of time till someone accidentally detonates a nuke above a clustered fleet. It's one thing to glass civil clay somewhere, entirely another if you can hit near 100% military target with a nuke with no consequence for civilians.
Isaiah Barnes
The commie is right guys
Austin Edwards
Good point, I was thinking in terms of B-1s in Guam or B-2s in St. Louis.
Asher Wright
Definitely. And like all supply routes, a strategic target. Like armed train, difficult to hit, but well worth it.
