Nah, they could just take of backwards.

Not enough headwind

```Fate: Scrapped 1978```

It's a fucking biplane, how much headwind do you need?

I suggest the Sopwith Camel as a low cost alternative

Anything positive, which isn't what you'll get if you keep moving the ship forward but take off backwards. ```Fate: Scrapped 1980```

```Planned: 4
Cancelled: 4```

```Planned: 2
Cancelled: 2```

```Completed: 3
Scrapped: 3```

Better scrapped than blown up, like most US non-Essex main battle WW2 carriers

At least that's a warrior's death. Enterprise got scrapped, but other than that we bothered to actually save ships.

Or, in the case of USS Constitution, keep it in active commission in the US Navy and keep the ship sailing under her own power 200+ years later

Somehow I don't think the military planners are of the same opinion

as far as warrior's death is concerned

They actually do, because if you keep ships as museums, there exists a possibility to return them from the mothball

Anyway, contrast USS Constitution with HMS Victory, the latter of which looks like the ship's on fucking life support: https://www.nmrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/styles/event-image-large/public/field/image/how_adjustable_steel_props_will_look_on_hms_victory_credit_nmrn_2.png?itok=A074yAfu

I was referring to the "warrior's death"

not that armoured carriers make sense nowadays....

That idea of preferring a ship be sunk than scrapped dates back nearly 200 years on this side of the Atlantic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Ironsides_(poem)

American "history" lmao

No such thing

He says as the UK scraps would-be historical sites, while the Old Statehouse in Boston still stands from the days of the Boston Massacre

I love how Yanks get so proud of the frigates like the USS constitution when their navy was literally just those 3 frigates

6, though the real thing to be proud of is the 33-0 battle record on Connie

HMS Shannon hoves into view

Yeah the constitution was a really good design, but not good enough to hold a candle to the RN of the time

It was successful enough to outrun what it couldn't outgun or outgun what it couldn't outrun, and indeed as shown by the 57-hour chase involving 5 smaller Royal Navy ships, they could even outrun ships that were SUPPOSED to be able to outrun them

Basically the interwar UK battlecruiser doctrine

Yeah it was a fine ship, but there is a mystique around those ships that aint really justified

They DID pull experimental designs that proved to work, like the diagonal braces in the hull

e.g a really well managed RN frigate like the Shannon managed to beat the USS Chesapeake

Otherwise, they didn't, and weren't designed to, compete with ships of the line

hence their speed

and razees were shown to handle them well

They only did so well because the cream of the RN were in Europe dealing with Napoleon

presumably being manned by the sailors the UK had to impress into service due to lack of domestic manpower

which is the biggest reason the US even got involved to begin with

I mean they probably wanted a land grab in Canada whilst Britain was distracted

and used impressment as an excuse

That was a minor factor among those who wanted to expand, which was still a comparatively fringe idea by that point given that the Louisiana Purchase was only made a decade prior

One attempt was already made at ~~Canada~~ British North America in the Revolutionary War, in which the southern Quebecois were sympathetic, but the northern Quebecois were less interested, to say the least