3 ms·

I don’t know what you’re arguing against. The parent comment made a verifiably false statement, I provided video evidence to the contrary. It may not be carry

I don’t know what you’re arguing against. The parent comment made a verifiably false statement, I provided video evidence to the contrary. It may not be carrying out battle manoeuvres in the canal, but it also isn’t immune to threat while it’s there. I don’t see much reason why it couldn’t operate CWIS or launch missiles or aircraft while it’s there if necessary. They could also serve at least some of their other, non-war, support functions while in shallow waters.

Retric 5y ago
As to why you wouldn’t launch aircraft, surface winds while unable to reorient the ship are a problem. Now, they could probably launch an aircraft which is going to land somewhere else, again depending on wind conditions. Also, shallow waters means something specific, the surface waves are affected by the sea floor. The US Navy actively avoids those conditions for a host of reasons.
- pdonis 5y ago
  > they could probably launch an aircraft which is going to land somewhere else They couldn't launch anything that wasn't a helicopter or a VTOL aircraft. Carriers need upwards of 30 knots of wind over the deck, in the right direction (blowing from the front) to launch ordinary planes. You won't get that transiting a canal. Carriers do it by going to full speed in the open sea.
pdonis 5y ago
> It may not be carrying out battle manoeuvres in the canal, but it also isn’t immune to threat while it’s there. The threat in such a place would not be an underwater explosion a couple of miles away, or a shock wave similar to that caused by such an explosion. It would be bombs or missiles targeted directly at the carrier. Which is not the kind of threat the test in the article under discussion was testing for. > I don’t see much reason why it couldn’t operate CWIS or launch missiles or aircraft while it’s there if necessary. Operate CWIS, yes, in the unlikely event that it had to. I don't think carriers carry missile launchers of their own. Launch aircraft, not unless they're helicopters or VTOL aircraft; see my response to Retric downthread. Even that kind of launch would be dicey while transiting a canal, since the carrier still needs some room to maneuver for such launches.

Retric 5y ago

As to why you wouldn’t launch aircraft, surface winds while unable to reorient the ship are a problem. Now, they could probably launch an aircraft which is going to land somewhere else, again depending on wind conditions. Also, shallow waters means something specific, the surface waves are affected by the sea floor. The US Navy actively avoids those conditions for a host of reasons.

pdonis 5y ago
> they could probably launch an aircraft which is going to land somewhere else They couldn't launch anything that wasn't a helicopter or a VTOL aircraft. Carriers need upwards of 30 knots of wind over the deck, in the right direction (blowing from the front) to launch ordinary planes. You won't get that transiting a canal. Carriers do it by going to full speed in the open sea.

pdonis 5y ago

> It may not be carrying out battle manoeuvres in the canal, but it also isn’t immune to threat while it’s there. The threat in such a place would not be an underwater explosion a couple of miles away, or a shock wave similar to that caused by such an explosion. It would be bombs or missiles targeted directly at the carrier. Which is not the kind of threat the test in the article under discussion was testing for. > I don’t see much reason why it couldn’t operate CWIS or launch missiles or aircraft while it’s there if necessary. Operate CWIS, yes, in the unlikely event that it had to. I don't think carriers carry missile launchers of their own. Launch aircraft, not unless they're helicopters or VTOL aircraft; see my response to Retric downthread. Even that kind of launch would be dicey while transiting a canal, since the carrier still needs some room to maneuver for such launches.