Danbooru
Login Posts Comments Notes Artists Tags Pools Wiki Forum More »
Listing Upload Hot Changes Help

Search

  • Help
guro
scat
furry -rating:g

Artist

  • ? setsuka. 6

Copyright

  • ? azur lane 138k

Characters

  • ? enterprise (azur lane) 2.6k
  • ? grim (azur lane) 443

General

  • ? 1girl 6.7M
  • ? aircraft 21k
  • ? airplane 15k
  • ? b-21 raider 5
  • ? bald eagle 715
  • ? bird 120k
  • ? boots 563k
  • ? character name 232k
  • ? coat 272k
  • ? coat on shoulders 14k
  • ? copyright name 139k
  • ? eagle 2.3k
  • ? f-35 lightning ii 123
  • ? fighter jet 3.0k
  • ? grey hair 792k
  • ? hat 1.3M
  • ? high heel boots 44k
  • ? high heels 227k
  • ? logo 57k
  • ? long hair 4.9M
  • ? military vehicle 19k
  • ? peaked cap 51k
  • ? rigging 14k
  • ? sitting 1.1M
  • ? uss enterprise (cvn-80) 2

Meta

  • ? bad id 1.3M
  • ? ↳ bad pixiv id 989k
  • ? commentary request 3.6M
  • ? highres 6.1M

Information

  • ID: 7861708
  • Uploader: PCCSantos »
  • Date: about 1 year ago
  • Approver: Diet Soda »
  • Size: 4.37 MB .png (2880x1620) »
  • Source: pixiv.net/artworks/120336820 »
  • Rating: Sensitive
  • Score: 66
  • Favorites: 61
  • Status: Active

Options

  • Resize to window
  • View smaller
  • View original
  • Find similar
  • Download

History

  • Tags
  • Pools
  • Notes
  • Moderation
  • Commentary
Resized to 29% of original (view original)
enterprise and grim (azur lane) drawn by setsuka.

Artist's commentary

  • Original
  • Enterprise (CVN-80)

    「…時代が私を変え、さらなる力を与えてくれた。私はCVN-80、エンタープライズ。この名は決して終わらない。終わらせやしない。私を求める声がある限り、私は何度だって蘇るさ。そう、"永遠"にな。」

    ええ、そうです。
    CVN-65で頂いた皆さんの声が、エンタープライズさんを3代目の姿に変えてくれました。
    エンタープライズの名は永遠に引き継がれるべきだという、強い想いがね、自分の胸にも響きましたよ。
    2代目で止めちゃいけないんだとね、そうですよね、何代目でも描いてやりますよ、葵氏の描くようなオリジナルKAN-SENでいいのなら!

    まあ、コンセプトアートになりますが。Painterの仕様でね、若干荒い、若干…

    …さて。
    せっかく描いたので、少し説明を。
    このCVN-80エンタープライズさん、実はビスマルクのZweiさんが横向きの立ち絵だったので
    同じように横向きで描いてみたんですよね。どことなく雰囲気似てますし、このお二人。
    だから、なんかエンタープライズさんもかっこよくしていいよね、みたいにね、勝手に…なんか申し訳ない。

    ちなみにB-21レイダーを発艦させてますが、このレイダーって、
    ドーリットル空襲のDoolittle Raidersからとった愛称らしいじゃないですか。
    なら、きっとCVN-80エンタープライズでも同じことができるんだろうな、と想定して発艦させました。

    で、武装ですが、CVN-65エンタープライズさんは、ただのCVN-65型甲板だったんですけど、
    CVN-80エンタープライズさんはね、CVN-80型甲板だけじゃなく、なんと原子力のビームカノン砲を備えました!
    アトミックカノンです、キャノンじゃなく、カノンです。
    え、原子砲?アトミックキャノン?いや、ビームがいいんです、ビームが…
    ほら、光のビームが10秒ごとに出るみたいな、うん、きっとそんな感じ。3発くらい欲しいかな、3代目だし。

    いや、だからね、実装しませんって。

    まあ、お気づきでしょうけど、これ、UNOFFICIAL、オリジナルKAN-SENです、オリジナル。
    ややこしいアズールレーンロゴまで描いてるから、間違える人いるかな~…いや、いないよね。

    • ‹ prev Search: user:PCCSantos next ›
  • Comments
  • Recommended
  • Loading...

    PCCSantos
    about 1 year ago
    [hidden]

    For those who don't know, CVN-80 is a Gerald R. Ford-class carrier and the second US Navy ship to bear the name Enterprise since CV-6. Currently scheduled to be in operation by 2028.

    10 Reply
    • Copy ID
    • Copy Link
    Fw190 Wurger
    about 1 year ago
    [hidden]

    PCCSantos said:

    For those who don't know, CVN-80 is a Gerald R. Ford-class carrier and the second US Navy ship to bear the name Enterprise since CV-6. Currently scheduled to be in operation by 2028.

    I don't understand why they need it. A heavy nuclear aircraft carrier in modern warfare is simply an easy target for hypersonic missiles, surface and underwater drones, and small submarines

    -10 Reply
    • Copy ID
    • Copy Link
    marcymal
    about 1 year ago
    [hidden]

    Fw190_Wurger said:

    I don't understand why they need it. A heavy nuclear aircraft carrier in modern warfare is simply an easy target for hypersonic missiles, surface and underwater drones, and small submarines

    Same reason armies still have tanks and choppers despite the existence of missiles; nothing else can do what they do as well as they do it.

    7 Reply
    • Copy ID
    • Copy Link
    Fw190 Wurger
    about 1 year ago
    [hidden]

    marcymal said:

    Same reason armies still have tanks and choppers despite the existence of missiles; nothing else can do what they do as well as they do it.

    Agree, but I think that the LHA is much better than specifically heavy nuclear aircraft carriers. LHA is much more multifunctional, smaller, easier to operate and 4 times cheaper than a Gerald Ford class aircraft carrier

    -9 Reply
    • Copy ID
    • Copy Link
    marcymal
    about 1 year ago
    [hidden]

    Fw190_Wurger said:

    Agree, but I think that the LHA is much better than specifically heavy nuclear aircraft carriers. LHA is much more multifunctional, smaller, easier to operate and 4 times cheaper than a Gerald Ford class aircraft carrier

    4 Americas is also much more of a strain on logistics than one Ford due to relying on precious oil, demand 1.5 times the manpower (not counting the marines), and that's on top of being less effective CVs, cent for cent, due to your vaunted multifunctionality.
    The Pacific Front was 80 years ago. The kind of conflicts the Navy is preparing for now are ones where air power matters far more than amphibious assault capability, where a single Ford is worth more than four Americas.

    Updated by marcymal about 1 year ago

    7 Reply
    • Copy ID
    • Copy Link
    Fw190 Wurger
    about 1 year ago
    [hidden]

    marcymal said:

    4 Americas is also much more of a strain on logistics than one Ford due to relying on precious oil, demand 1.5 times the manpower (not counting the marines), and that's on top of being less effective CVs, cent for cent, due to your vaunted multifunctionality.
    The Pacific Front was 80 years ago. The kind of conflicts the Navy is preparing for now are ones where air power matters far more than amphibious assault capability, where a single Ford is worth more than four Americas.

    yes, but the war is won by mass scale and accessibility, combined with technology, and the United States is now becoming more and more like Germany during WWII (and I’m speaking not only for the Navy, but also for the ground forces and the Air Force). LHA can carry several dozen f35b. This is the other side of the coin, that not every shipyard in the world can service nuclear powered warships

    -8 Reply
    • Copy ID
    • Copy Link
    KPDimentionWalker
    about 1 year ago
    [hidden]

    Fw190_Wurger said:

    yes, but the war is won by mass scale and accessibility, combined with technology, and the United States is now becoming more and more like Germany during WWII (and I’m speaking not only for the Navy, but also for the ground forces and the Air Force). LHA can carry several dozen f35b. This is the other side of the coin, that not every shipyard in the world can service nuclear powered warships

    Carriers have the capability and capacity to provide more than LHAs. The Aircraft that can be carried greatly variies and certain aircraft can't take off of LHAs. Also during natural distasters, carriers can provide ashore services beyond just carrying supplies. Carriers also have major logistical services they provide to their own fleet. The fact they bare nuclear powered makes them have nearly unlimited range. I understand your argument, but there are some things a Carrier can do that an LHA can't.

    5 Reply
    • Copy ID
    • Copy Link
    Fw190 Wurger
    about 1 year ago
    [hidden]

    KPDimentionWalker said:

    Carriers have the capability and capacity to provide more than LHAs. The Aircraft that can be carried greatly variies and certain aircraft can't take off of LHAs. Also during natural distasters, carriers can provide ashore services beyond just carrying supplies. Carriers also have major logistical services they provide to their own fleet. The fact they bare nuclear powered makes them have nearly unlimited range. I understand your argument, but there are some things a Carrier can do that an LHA can't.

    no, you misunderstood a little. I mean that in these realities, large expensive warships with large displacement, especially aircraft carriers, are ineffective against A2AD, hypersonic missiles, small submarines and surface and underwater drones, and current events in the Black Sea and in the Middle East region are an example of this. And LHAs are needed in modern warfare purely for air and sea landings

    -8 Reply
    • Copy ID
    • Copy Link
    marcymal
    about 1 year ago
    [hidden]

    Fw190_Wurger said:

    no, you misunderstood a little. I mean that in these realities, large expensive warships with large displacement, especially aircraft carriers, are ineffective against A2AD, hypersonic missiles, small submarines and surface and underwater drones, and current events in the Black Sea and in the Middle East region are an example of this. And LHAs are needed in modern warfare purely for air and sea landings

    No, you're misunderstanding. CVs have been vulnerable from air and sea since the day they were laid down, and yet militaries that can make them do.
    Why? Because capability matters more than a lack of vulnerability. You can cover for vulnerabilities, use destroyers to screen for USVs and missile cruisers and planes running CAP to shoot down enemy missiles, but you can't cover for a lack of capability. A fleet that can take a hit, but not hit back hard can't keep the Red Sea, Persian Gulf, or Straits of Malaya open, can't keep an invasion fleet away from Taiwan, can't keep the Kims out of Seoul while the rest of the force mobilizes, and can't keep the Baltic Sea Kalibr-free as well as one that can hit hard, but can't take a hard hit.
    Would it suck if the CVs got knocked out? Absolutely, that's why the US is researching ways to counter UVs, hypersonics, and who knows what else, just as they researched ways to protect CVs from submarines, aircraft, and cruise missiles.
    Would it suck if they lost carriers before those countermeasures are live? Absolutely, but it wouldn't be the first time they lost carriers, nor would it be the last. Losing valuable assets is painful, but it's better to lose them in the pursuit of victory than to lose a war in the pursuit of minimal casualties.

    Ask not what they can do to the carrier, ask what the carrier can do to them.

    Updated by marcymal about 1 year ago

    12 Reply
    • Copy ID
    • Copy Link
    toasatoshi
    4 months ago
    [hidden]

    yall are arguing over the strategic value of carriers and here I am gawking at her rigging

    -3 Reply
    • Copy ID
    • Copy Link
    Terms / Privacy / Upgrade / Contact /