The immense carrier needed to operate a C-17
A rough comparison suggests a 550 to 600 metre ship with arresting gear, a much longer catapult, and far more landing distance than a Ford-class carrier.
Complete directory
Explore every watch point in reverse video-date order, then in timestamp order within each video.
A rough comparison suggests a 550 to 600 metre ship with arresting gear, a much longer catapult, and far more landing distance than a Ford-class carrier.
It could operate scouts, but the heavy, high superstructure and short flight deck would make it unstable and poor in combat; separate common-hull ships are preferable.
A hypothetical 35,000-ton carrier in 1915 could justify its size through repair facilities, at the expense of space for operational aircraft.
The proposed changes are so extensive that a new carrier would be cheaper, especially if barbettes, armour, and an oversized hangar remain in the design.
Conventional propulsion keeps tenders affordable enough to disperse several ships among possible rearmament and resupply positions.
A surface tender has unrestricted access to air, so expensive AIP machinery would add no useful concealment.
A tender for modern boats would need an enormous hull, potentially larger than an SSBN, making the cost prohibitive.
A converted battlecruiser could use its speed, accommodation, cranes, and defensive guns to establish a forward port.
Yes, but commercial liners offer fast transport without requiring the Navy to pay for their upkeep throughout peacetime.
No; trials showed that the aircraft monopolizes the flight deck and cannot carry an efficient load, while a purpose-built Greyhound fits the mission.
Several allies discarded mine-countermeasure capacity while assuming another navy would retain it, leaving no ready force when demand returned.
Russia's enthusiasm for destroyers and torpedo boats after the Russo-Japanese War shows how experience of an opponent's weapons can reshape a navy's own force.
Britain's move toward heavier protection and guns is contrasted with the relatively lightly armoured Leopard 1.
Helping the Marine Corps programme favoured the Osprey, but the panel argues that the reduced order and extra missions leave too few aircraft for carrier delivery.
A change in helicopter wheel arrangement can require structural reinforcement even when a frigate already has a flight deck.
Yes, in this comparison. The Osprey can land on amphibious ships, but supplying those additional destinations creates more demand on the fleet.
Nine 12-inch guns are suggested, with six 16-inch guns a tentative possibility and six 15-inch guns the more likely large-calibre fit.
Treaty carriers were generally limited to 27,000 tons, while the larger Lexingtons used exceptions for battlecruiser conversions; the precise London limit is recalled with uncertainty.
Keep production moving, make program decisions earlier, and stop changing requirements after those decisions are made.
An enlarged four-rotor tiltrotor would require more than multiplying the Osprey's existing machinery.
Brazil is considered plausible and Argentina uncertain because tectonic conditions and geological stability matter as much as available land.
A paper appears to have discussed the option, but it was probably an abstract procurement study rather than a serious acquisition plan.
Catapult and aircraft-lift design were the two most useful lessons because the intended aircraft imposed demanding launch and handling requirements.
A major postwar refit would replace some heavy guns with missiles, standardise the secondary battery around radar control, and rebuild the difficult boilers.
A rapid live estimate puts the design near 160,000 tons, with a proper answer requiring several hours of textbook-based calculation.
The expense would force the German Navy into a budget fight it loses to the Army, while treaty ceilings rise toward 50,000 tons and 18-inch guns.
The panel judges that M3 or N3 could broadly fit those imagined limits, though no detailed displacement calculation is made.
A proven Anglo-French CATOBAR design might have offered a useful 75 to 80 percent solution that additional yards could build as a backstop to nuclear carriers.
Doris Miller does not follow the modern presidential carrier convention, but withdrawing an already assigned honour would create worse optics and a political backlash.
Probably. Saddam expected the revolutionary government to collapse amid political chaos, so a larger Iranian inventory would not necessarily change his decision.
Iran would gain firepower and probably impose higher costs on Iraq, but isolation from suppliers and spare parts would limit the effect on the war's overall outcome.
No successor was planned because Britain had not completed the intended class before the question of replacement arose.
Ending US frigate production in the 1990s and 2000s erased the design culture needed for a true escort and encouraged every replacement to grow toward another Arleigh Burke.
Yes, the legal and planning mechanism survives, although fewer British-flagged merchant ships are available for wartime requisition.
Their structures, size, and cargo arrangements were built for land operations, while catapult launches and arrested landings impose severe rapid loads.
Start with Edgar C. Smith's short historical survey, then use D. A. Taylor's introduction or the specialised Reeds volumes for deeper technical study.
The Type 23 and Type 45 become much larger with roughly twice the missiles, while the Queen Elizabeth class grows into a CATOBAR carrier for F-35Cs, Super Hornets, and Hawkeyes.
HMS Walker entered service in February 1918 with four 4-inch guns and two triple torpedo mountings, then returned from interwar reserve for World War II.
A large stock of V and W destroyers allowed Britain to replace ships gradually, matching the limits of its shipbuilding industry.
A large stock of usable destroyers gave the Royal Navy room to train officers hard and accept greater exercise risk in the 1920s and 1930s.
A mostly ordinary destroyer reveals the routine service that accounts of famous ships and exceptional actions can obscure.
The V and W programme paired wartime blockade needs with an expectation that postwar austerity would make future shipbuilding difficult.
Walker came from William Denny and Brothers, one of several established yards chosen to build dependable destroyers with useful service lives.
Walker served mainly with the 11th Destroyer Flotilla and Grand Fleet, with detachments to Harwich Force whose exact timing is difficult to establish.
Destroyer screens had to protect a moving battle fleet, keep smoke clear of its guns, and turn rapidly into the path of enemy torpedo attacks.
They also had to practise manoeuvring as a fleet, which required coordinated shiphandling and crews who knew exactly what to do.
Repeated forward patrols and temporary destroyer reinforcements could make the opening movements of a planned attack on Wilhelmshaven look routine.
In 1919, Walker joined the 1st Destroyer Flotilla in the Baltic and survived two hits during the blockade of Kronstadt.