Given today’s available technology and the US Navy’s budget, one might wonder why aircraft carriers are not built bigger/longer so they can accommodate more aircraft, especially that there are bigger /longer commercial vessel traversing the oceans every day. In this video, we will give you our take on this question, and it may not be what you think.
Note: “The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement.”
source
What do you think of the 4 reasons listed?
Are there other reasons why carriers are not built in longer length that should have made it to our list?
Our supercarriers are so fucking sexy
"helping stabelize a region wich would then allow for economic growth" HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Good one. As if the US Military had ever done anything like that
Any bigger and it would take up 6 squares. Terrible for a game of Battleship.
This vid is screaming"that's what she said"
Reasons are junk
Bigger ships => longer runway => no additional speed necessary
Why is thw miniature an batleship
1. Speed – it needs to go fast for jets to take off on a short runway
2. Docking – Smaller ships can dock anywhere easier
3. Manuveurability – Bigger ships are difficult to turn
4. Cost – Less steel = cheaper costs
saved you 5 minutes there
There are only so many aircrafts that can use the limited runway space of the carrier, and I don't think a longer deck would add any more starting/landing capacity, not significantly, at least. So for the carrier the returns diminish really fast from some point on. If they are as big as to utilize the flight deck fully, I'd guess that would be a #1 reason to not make them any longer, better to build another one.
Carriers are faster than cruisers, destroyers and frigates.
No wider than 1' narrower than the Panama canal and no taller than what can go under the Brooklyn Bridge!
What percentage of an aircraft carrier is above the water?
What percentage of an aircraft carrier is below the water?
SS United States probably could keep pace with any carrier if it were still in full working order. Though the liners were far different beasts than cruise ships, If the jet airliner had for whatever reason never been invented we would probably have massive nuclear powered ocean liners pushing 40kts. As ocean liners were about speed, Okay comfort too if you were rich. But most of all it was raw speed.
speed requirement is not determined by need to take off aircraft. it's determined by the speed of your enemy fleet. you cannot be 10 knots slower than enemy destroyers.
Ask any Lady, size does not matter !
They are smaller so they can fit through the Chinese Canal at Panama.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DCd8jYQa0fU&feature=youtu.be
It's all cost ..
Everything else in this video is completely false
S P E E D (I knew that would be there after i heard the 3# reason)
Wouldn't a longer ship have a longer airfield and thus giving the aircraft a higher take off speed?
I guess the other reasons are valid. Not having to head into the wind would also give it more flexibility.
Did anyone notice the the plane that missed the wire
so it´s not always bigger is better
I feel the speed point is a bit moot. If the carrier was longer would equal a bigger take off surface so the carrier wouldn't need to go as fast. More runway= more time to accelerate. The rest are on point though
And American aircraft carriers need to fit through Panama Canal.
It's simple. United States can't handle their bills of 26 billion dollars
When it's exactly what you think for the first time ever…..NWYT is slipping-