Is making bigger aircraft carriers practical?

i was reading something random when i came across a super carrier and i wondered if building bigger aircraft carriers is practical

Attached: big boi.jpg (273x185, 13K)

Why though? US supercarriers are enormous and what do you gain by going even larger?

No
Submarine supercarriers on the other hand...

Why don't we make a double carrier that can hold bombers and helicopters and maybe ballistic missiles and a detachment of marines and a submarine launch bay and integrated torpedo launchers with custard mouth geese

...are retarded weaboo bullshit

>T. flattop niggerfaggot

The larger the ship, the cheaper it is to transport shit

Attached: 1531908627873.jpg (680x680, 128K)

"nice ship mate. It would be a great shame if it gets hit by one of these" ;)

Attached: 1920px-Dong-Feng_26.jpg (1920x1434, 809K)

Those are not the anti ship ones. That's the DF-21. They've never been tested in addition to only so many being made.

You post this this in every navy thread bud

Well i'll be, they do have a anti ship version. Just entered service like a month ago

Bigger maybe not, but why not more? Force projection is the cornerstone of American and NATO foreign policy. A carrier is an immensely powerful - if vulnerable - tool of war. A few more parked around the world, while at great cost, seems more practical to me than fielding fewer but larger versions.

>i was reading something random when i came across a super carrier and i wondered if building bigger aircraft carriers is practical
Practical in this sense is a loaded term.
American Super carriers are the size they are because that is the current "Sweet spot" between the practicality of construction weighed against the consideration of stocking, fitting, arming and sortieing wings of combat aircraft.

They could feasibly be made bigger but you would not gain efficiency at a rate that makes that desirable, up to this point the efficiency gain out weighed the construction issues.

Tl:Dr - We Could build bigger, but currently don't need to

Niggas acting like I'm going to be scared of a missile named "dong".

Attached: 30711048_10156376801298669_2870089836599967744_o.jpg (2048x1139, 228K)

>Sir, AWACs has detected 3 *mppfff* Dongs heading towards us
>CIC bursts into laughter
>shaves off precious seconds of reaction time

One day, an American carrier will get fucked hard by a Chinese Dong...
The next day China will get royally fucked by the entire American armed forces.

compared to what?

Kek

Your momma's fat ass

Guys guys. What if like. Yeah. What if we like build a supercarrier but it only has drones! Like we could fit double or triple the number of drones instead of manned planed. Whoaaah.

>50% hit rate against stationary targets

How big are we talking about?

Attached: 3ocg.jpg (1184x562, 231K)

That's a general problem of all hyperfast weaponry. Their guidance systems simply can't keep up.
See the Shkval. 250 knots final run speed, with a turn rate that would make a Maersk megacontainer seem nimble.

>i was reading something random when i came across a super carrier and i wondered if building bigger aircraft carriers is practical

Not quite sure, but with the new A2AD strategies being deployed by other nations we may have to. We need jets that can outrange those ASCMs, and if that requires a bigger flight deck then we'll need bigger carriers.

In terms of actual size? Ehh, maybe. Carriers are as big as they need to be to support their air wing. Maybe make them a little bigger to accommodate future growth potential. But much bigger than that and you’re just wasting space.
In terms of air wing size, no. Ninety is about the upper limit as to what’s practical in terms of command and control. Midways originally could carry upwards of 120 aircraft, but they ran into the issue that it was difficult to co-ordinate them from one ship.