[mrPronmaker]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Az is right, the deck is curved to compensate for it's length. I believe first carriers also used that technique. I always thought it must have been a ***** to land on such deck. I think you land on the non-curvy side

[O25YtQnn]

Originally posted by VetLegion


It's a matter of national pride. If they could do it alone they would certainly have done it alone. It's puzzling to me why they can't.

Look how the French managed to build a fairly advanced one just to spite USA

Yeah, and it only took them fifteen years from laying the keel down to complete it. Plus the screws broke off during intial sea trials. It's an abortion of a carrier, too small and too big to be efficient.

[WertyNtont]

Originally posted by Serb

Russian designs are pretty unique.
It's smaller than your Nimitz class, but it can take care of itself thanks to its enormous missile armament. The Nimitz class is 30+ years old and but they've come up with a new enlarged and improved Nimitz class like the USS Ronald Reagan (commissioned into service in 2003). At 104,000 tons it is the largest warship afloat and carries significantly more aircraft then even the old Nimitz class super carriers. In a fight against an enemy carrier it is going to be hard to beat given the number of escorts and the superior number of aircraft it has not to mention that it can launch and land more aircraft at the same time.

[BorBitExatini]

Originally posted by Patroklos
And those aircraft have significantly more capabilities than a VSOL carrier.

VTOL= not tactical control aircraft or tankers. The idea is that by not using catapaults they reduce the need for special reinforcement of the undercarriage. OTOH it reduces the amount of weight the plane can carry anyway, so while the SU-33 is faster than a Harrier it can only carry 3 tons of armament.

[putza]

Good reading.

[Redys]

Tell that to Serb...

[wepoiyub]

I don't know if I would say expendable, just really expensive vice priceless

[Phywhewashect]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Tell that to Serb... Did I ever deny that?

[kazinopartnerkae]

I think our approach is is more tactically sound, but like I said your approach is still cool

[Rabbahpuptiopp]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I think our approach is is more tactically sound, but like I said your approach is still cool

Only actual combat can answer the question which approach is the best.

EDITED:


I don't claim our aproach is better. Afterall you have much more experience with a naval aviation. But this happens sometimes - Brits invented first tanks, but Germans had their own vision of panzer forces, which combat proved to be more effective. Brits made the first Dreadnought, but your Iowa class (which was a symbiosis of a battleship and a battlecruiser) became a perfection of a battleship evolution. Your aproach has won, though they had more experience (probably experience is not a proper word here, they had more time for experimenting).

[moopierof]

Have patience. The time will come.

[ddxbovMQ]

I wish I was wrong

But we will never surrender!

[Shemker394]

Originally posted by TheStinger
The UK is building 2 new proper carriers to replace our mini versions.

Our mini versions were designated as through deck cruisers to get them past the government who wnated to get rid of all carriers why would any government of the UK of all places want to get rid of any major naval asset much less some thing as critical as carriers?

[MgpojuWy]

Originally posted by Geronimo


why would any government of the UK of all places want to get rid of any major naval asset much less some thing as critical as carriers? We were skint

[Appeselve]

Also, I can have an anti-ship missle with a 1000 mile range, doesn't matter because a shore or ship mounted surface search radar is only going to see max 30nm

[Jadldqys]

Can't shoot if you have no target. Though aircraft are very useful for relaying targeting data...