Building super carriers is just masturbating to WW2 using a trillion dollars for lube.
Fighters are like medieval knights they will drop like flies against missile swarm crossbows
Here's how you fix carrier strike groups:
1. Stop building super carriers
2. Build a smaller cheaper carrier that only launches pic related and drones. No fighters.
3. Pair this with an arsenal ship.
Maybe now we won't get humiliated in the first 24 hours of WW3
>>28425216
Is dat nigga serious?
You're the kind of guy who picture drones as unmanned planes?
G U E S S W H A T
U
E
S
S
W
H
A
T
they ain't dumb cracka
>>28425242
Autonomous drones will be the reality within a few years.
>>28425216
>arsenal ship
>not a larger, less flexible target
>come to /k/
>first post i see is obvious bait
>people will actually reply and get into arguments
>close /k/
>>28425262
Well, we'll see about that.
For the moment we have troubles building regular planes, so your nonsense will have to wait for a while.
btw, how do you man an unmanned aircraft in an electronic warfare context, if you lost the ability to "pilot" your planes from distance?
Just asking, cause the answer sounds like "you've lost the capacity to achieve aerial presence, and thus any kind of CAS"
>>28425302
Use unjammable communications
CAS? Equip your ground forces properly and they won't need CAS.
>>28425302
My point was that super carriers are super vulnerable. The main job of the carrier should be to carry shitloads of AWACS because right now our coverage sucks and its easy to sneak up on a CSG. Especially when you can launch cruise missiles from 600 miles away.
How else could you defend against a transport bomber squadron, for example? The only way is to see it coming. Right now we can't.
http://www.g2mil.com/bm747.htm
Plus those things are just too fucking expensive. We could have more carriers if we scaled them down a bit.
>>28425365
>>28425391
>>28425216
>>28425216
Something about Vietnam and how missiles proved to be useless IRL
Guns Guns Guns
“We had a Raptor salad for lunch,” one German pilot quipped after using his jet’s helmet sight and maneuverability to get the best of an F-22 over Alaska.
>>28425365
>Use unjammable communications
Fucking lol
Just go
Lol
Fuck
You don't know how to science.
>won't need CAS
Oh my literal fuck you're the guy who told them not to ship cleaning kits with muh plastic space guns.
You bring the average intelligence down in any room that you enter.
Euthanize yourself. I'd consider you an hero.
>>28425623
>You don't know how to science.
Maybe you don't, dumbfk.
If the US ground forces were properly mechanized, they wouldn't need to call for air support just because a sniper shot at them.
Absolutely wrong. Carriers will become unnecessary though, you are on the right path. United States of America will be the first country to use half hour anywhere missiles and space based missile platform rendering carriers absolete. We will project force with hyper sonic missiles this next century. But for now carriers are just fine.
>>28425582
Raptorfags would say that this is because the raptor was gimped
Missilefags would say that dogfighting is an extinct practice
I would say that we haven't experienced true war in over 70 years, and these fags have no idea what kind of chaotic bullshit stems as a result.
Everything inbetween World War Two and now has been one proxy war after another as part of various political movements. Come real war, real, even, and with no end in sight, we'd all be fucked regardless.
>>28425646
Need and want are two very different things.
I don't need to airstrike the fuck out of a compound, but it's safer.
If you equip our units differently, and change the aspect of warfare, you in turn change how your enemy responds. Not only would you likely never be equipped well enough to fend of any kind of aggression, it's also unrealistic to carry all of that bullshit with you everywhere you go.
Why not just equip all of our soldiers in flying suits of armor? Fuck it, give everyone a nuke.
That's unrealistic. You're dumb.
>>28425623
>You don't know how to science.
It's simple. When you have F-35 or F-22 - communications are unjammable, untraceable and undetectable. When you have same systems on drone - they can be hacked by kebab from Taliban via android smartphone.
>>28425658
Carriers won't be obsolete until navys are. The true strength if the carrier is in launching a bunch of airborne radars. This pushes out the defensive perimeter of the fleet. The most important factor in future combat will be information, and who can see and target the other guy first.
We're still using WW2 naval doctrine. Carriers aren't the strength of the fleet, instead they should supplement and support it.
>>28425216
>implies that planes get should down quickly
>let's use drones instead, because those can't get shot down.
>>28425971
Everything will get shot down, even super expensive stillbirths like f35 and their god complex pilots
Drone are cheaper and quicker to replace. Missiles are cheapest of all.
You are obviously retarded. You have my pity.
>>28425216
I love it when random idiots think they know better than a collective whole of professionals across the world, with years of training, decades of research material, and real world application experience. Yeah, you're right anon, they're all wrong. You alone are the beacon of knowledge.
>>28426262
Admirals are literally omniscient.
>>28426262
Except for you know, how every single war demonstrates one side was engaging in mass delusion about their military capacity or bad doctrine.
Like the US with their "use jeeps/lavs as combat vehicles".
>>28426342
>>28426354
Except this isn't one country, one navy, one admiral, or even a handful. This is the WHOLE world. This guy is seriously suggesting to get rid of fighters.
>>28426493
Other countries in the world don't spend 100 billion a year maintaining thousands of foreign bases
>>28426493
> this guy is seriously suggesting to get rid of battleships
this is how stupid you sound
>>28426493
Sorry anon. I know fighters are cool cause they got the VROOOM and the SWOOSH and they make my dick diamonds.
But they can't compete anymore and they're gonna get blown up by flying Uhauls full of missiles.
>>28425262
You go to war with the tech you have, not the tech you will have five years from now.
There are merits to your idea, however current tech is what it is and the best we can do is get it to that level then start building ships to suit it. Otherwis we end up with a multibillion dollar paper weight because someone picked a tech that didnt pan out.
>8 track will be big!
>Laser discs are the future of movies!
>horses will never be replaced by machineguns!
>>28425216
You're just butthurt that battleships are never coming back.
>>28426714
Every single ship the US builds is started before the tech is finished m8
Look at the LCS for example. None of the modules are even finished yet.
>>28426786
To be fair that is part of the reason procurement is so fucked up and expensive.
They just buy whatever the defense contractors tell them to, so they can get a sweet job with those same contractors when they retire.
70 year old naval doctrine is another sign the Pentagon has no idea what it's doing.
DARPA had a good idea I read recently. They suggested building a catapult to launch jets straight up. Then use VTOL to land the jets back onto the carrier.
>its an armchair general think he has figured out the future of warfare thread
>>28425216
What makes you think the carrier only has fighters to protect it?
