Why do the marines need their own carrier?

And their own F-35 version?

Wouldn't be far cheaper for the US gov to just lend airpower from the navy carrier to the marine corps?

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because they do drugs and rape the best

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    it’s a task force in a can. Infantry deployment capability, air support, and logistics supply all in one ship. Carriers have to be dedicated to air power, which is not the main task of the flattop.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Murder

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Think of it less as a traditional carrier and more as an instant invasion, just add water. Aircraft are just one aspect of what an assault ship does.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Why do the marines need their own carrier?
      It carries marines sure but surely it's crewed by navy, right?

      >an instant invasion, just add water
      I feel like the water is already present.

      They're definitely not faster than a Nimitz.

      >They're definitely not faster than a Nimitz.
      Are they fast enough to be considered an escort carrier?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >I feel like the water is already present.
        In an ideal world you want the water to stay mostly on the outside. Mostly.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Are they fast enough to be considered an escort carrier?
        What does an escort carrier do? It escort merchant shipping. What does that say about its speed? It means anything too slow to be one isn't a ship but an artificial island.
        And obviously this means an LHD is not a CVE (man, it's almost as if they gave it a different designation for a reason), but not because of its speed but because it isn't there to escort shit.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >man, it's almost as if they gave it a different designation for a reason
          Naval designations have almost never been about a ship's function. Or do you want to explain battlecruisers to me?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Naval designations have almost never been about a ship's function. Or do you want to explain battlecruisers to me
            Battlecruisers do entirely disprove your own point
            The reason there is so much arguement about if ships are battle cruisers or not is because different navies designated different roles for Battlecruisers and tried to apply THEIR designation to another navy's ships

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Alright, then what the fuck is a large cruiser then?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                is big boat

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                A niche that didn't really need to be filled by the time she came into service.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                CB, cruiser battle/large cruiser.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                They built the Alaskas to fight super cruisers the Japanese were thinking of building, but never did. They're not proper battlecruisers like the Lexingtons were supposed to be.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >From a design perspective
            because a Marine "carrier" is not really a carrier, it is an "amphibious warfare ship" meaning it is lots more dedicated to the task of housing and feeding a battalion of jarheads and their IFVs, and getting them ashore by helicopter or boat, supported by helicopter gunships or by multirole fighters

            In contrast, the guts of a "proper carrier" is taken up by huge reserves of missiles, bombs and aviation fuel, and it is designed to shit out as many fighters with bombs and missiles in as short a time as possible.

            >From a political perspective
            Because the Marines are tards who insist on having their own budget, their own ships, their own everything because the Navy can't lend them these things, while at the same time depending on the Navy to run most of these things

            frankly if I were the Navy, I'd be pretty sore about the simultaneous begging for feeding and biting one's hand the jarheads pull off. but c'est la vie de la America.

            >do you want to explain battlecruisers to me
            They are cruisers which can also battle, thus, battlecruiser

            https://i.imgur.com/V7YhVMt.jpg

            Alright, then what the fuck is a large cruiser then?

            >then what the fuck is a large cruiser
            A cruiser
            It is NOT a battlecruiser because it wasn't designed to fight alongside battleships against other battleships. The fact that it CAN fight older battleships, is entirely irrelevant. A late-WW2 Gearing destroyer can probably take an early-WW1 Arethusa cruiser to the cleaners, but that doesn't make it a "cruiser".

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >an instant invasion, just add water
        >I feel like the water is already present.
        That's kinda the point, anon.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Why do the marines need their own carrier?
        because in order to fulfill their mission as an expeditionary force they need a floating barrack to deploy from.

        >And their own F-35 version?
        organic fire support and being able to operate almost independently from other branches (aside from having the navy ferry them around), same reason why they have their own tanks (for now), air defense units, artillery, helicopter fleet, etc.
        they also have their own fighters on board of CVNs for the same reason.
        also having a VTOL plane gives a huge advantage as you dont need prepared airfields and can operate them from LHDs as additional tools at your disposal.

        >Are they fast enough to be considered an escort carrier?
        i guess the term you're looking for is "light carrier", which is what an LHD/LHA can do depending on the amount of planes loaded.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They don't need their own carrier and don't have them. That's not a carrier my friend it's an amphibious assault ship!

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    No ramps. Instead we taught fighter jets how to twerk.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    the Navy's army gets it's own little carrier as a treat and they carry all their stuff in that carrier and deploy from it to do their job.
    The rest of the Navy and the Navy's Air Force is then free to focus on it's own job, which would likely include helping the marines if need be.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    i imagine these little boats are faster, can go places a carrier can't, cheaper to send places, and, while grim, are more disposable in the event they get blown up or damaged

    if you gotta send marines to an island, you won't always have a carrier

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They're definitely not faster than a Nimitz.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Real carriers are the fastest ships around, because nuclear power plant gives them basically unlimited power 24/7. Can't match that on diesel boat.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Institutional indepence from the navy. Afaik they're still seething about navy leaving them on an island in wwii

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's also a presidential thing. USMC gets to go do the shit the president wants done but can't be fucked with to go to congress for. Having them on their own carriers with their own jets makes them much more useful in this fashion.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >the navy's army has its own navy and that navy has its own air force
    burgers are just trolling at this point

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Technically the ship still belongs to the Navy's Navy, it's just all the shit that's on it that belongs to the Navy's Army and Airforce.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        To be clear, not the Navy’s Airforce, the Navy’s Army’s Airforce

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because they are there for 2 reasons, both of which require being close to shore and therefore vulnerable
    1. Helicopter based transport and logistics to establish a beachhead
    2. Close air support with a rapid repeat rate

    While these ships are not as effective at generating air support a a carrier, the fact that they can be 10-20 minutes closer to the coast means 20-40 minutes when you need to return, rearm and sortie for follow up missions

    A carrier on the other hand is kept much further back and provides the air superiority that allows the landing ship to focus solely on support of its Crayon eaters

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    because the Navy doesn't have its own land attack force.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    to carry them

    duh

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Every single branch originally had airpower. And the schools equipment and everything else is shared between the usmc and the navy for aviation. Also the svtol version is extremely popular with our allies for their Baby carriers and places that don't think their airfields would survive first contact.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *