Why do we even have these pieces of shit?
It's not the 40's anymore, we're not shooting at japanese battleships or whatever we used them for back then. There hasn't been a single naval engagement in over a century and the US thinks it's a good idea to put 10,000 sailors and 300 planes directly in the crosshairs of chinese nukes?
Literally what the fuck is wrong with your country, americans? Perhaps you didn't notice but literally no other country has these anymore except for cuckistan and France.
Good job, you're literally France. Bravo.
Carriers are also very vulnerablecto missiles swarm. One will be sunk soon.
>>29524990
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-031.htm
Next!
>>29525027
404
nice site
>>29525006
Source? And what defines a "missile swarm"
>>29525075
>he doesn't know
>>29525006
Some of your are good guys.
Don't come to Nimitz class tomorrow
>>29525053
>http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-031.htm
Not 404'd for me. Nice try.
>>29524990
Honestly pathetic how much effort people on this board put into baiting and shitposting.
>>29525107
>it didn't 404 for ME, therefore it didn't 404 for YOU
is this your first day on the internet, kiddo?
not all websites function exactly the same in all parts of the world. the internet is not a magical cloud in the sky, it is a physical thing with limitations.
>>29525075
More missiles than what an Aegis destroyer or cruiser can track and shoot.
>>29524990
Because war with China, because USA is allies with Asstralia & other cuntries, who look at Murrika as protection from ping-pong people.
And USA has no airfields in that part of the world.
You DO realiase, USA is making fuckload of money from being world's policeman? (Like UK did before WW1).
/thread
>>29525156
Have you tried being American? That should fix any issues you're currently having.
>>29525156
>not all websites function exactly the same in all parts of the world. the internet is not a magical cloud in the sky, it is a physical thing with limitations.
I'm sorry your Chicom masters censor the free flow of information to you. Rest easy in the knowledge that the rest of the world will always have a better grasp of what's actually going on in the real world than you will.
We've got to do something with that big ass budget.
If it was up to me I'd start transitioning back to mostly baby flat tops with 2-4 supercarriers, modernized Pegasus class for littoral ops, etc and use the remaining cash for a space program.
>>29525231
>we're already wasting the money so we may as well waste even more of it
>>29524990
>there is no and absolutely will never be a need to project force better than anyone else ever again
This your post. 6/10 bait. Made me respond.
>>29525106
kek
>>29524990
What's the biggest most powerful air force in the world? The US Air Force.
What's the second biggest and most powerful? The US Navy
Force projection nigga...
>>29525526
just curious, where do these numbers come from? they are vastly different from wikipedias info on the number of military employees
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel
>>29525696
They're either pulled out of someone's ass or they include everyone who gets a check from the payroll.
Someone's looks to be wrong here.
>>29524990
>There hasn't been a single naval engagement in over a century and the US thinks it's a good idea to put 10,000 sailors and 300 planes
There is so much wrong here it hurts.
>>29524990
OP is obviously an assmad BBfag.
>>29525696
>Take the total population
>Slice it by half
There you go
>>29525173
What about a task force of destroyers and cruisers that protect the carriers? What size of missile swarm would get through that?
>>29525874
omg, you're right, lmfao, i never knew this was a joke infographic, i mean, i knew it was wrong, but not a straight up joke
>>29525053
I'm reading it right now, pay your internet bill pleb.
Did C&C predict the future?
Carriers using only drones and basically becoming a floating drone factory?
>>29524990
>Literally what the fuck is wrong with your country, americans?
all I get from this post is sour grapes.
>>29524990
France here. You're a fag. And that's coming from a mustached manlet eating a baguette in a white and black striped shirt.
>we're not shooting at japanese battleships or whatever we used them for back then.
keyword :
>back then
> the US thinks it's a good idea to put 10,000 sailors and 300 planes directly in the crosshairs of chinese nukes?
The US don't have nukes too. Stop the presses guys, we have a scoop.
also
>10,000 sailors and 300 planes
Better than 100.000.000 civvies and 300 cities.
Carriers are mobile devices allowing the projection of air power.
Also
>the crosshairs of chinese
The chinese are actively building several carriers, including a nuclear powered one as we speak. Guess they didn't got the memo about carrier obsolescence either...
>Good job, you're literally France. Bravo.
Merci beaucoup. I'm very proud to be a citizen of the only other country on the globe able to design and operate a nuclear aircraft carrier (even if she's tiny, quite heavy on maintenance, and could have been completed by two other nuclear carriers).
Can't wait for the end of the year when a dozen of Rafale M from the Charles de Gaulle will operate for a few months aboard a US aircraft carrier. It's gonna be glorious.
>>29524990
>look everyone! I'm posting shit!
>>29526981
>a dozen of Rafale M from the Charles de Gaulle will operate for a few months aboard a US aircraft carrier
Why will they be there?
>>29525195
How do the US make money from being the world's policeman? From my perspective, it looks like you waste a lot of money while we Europeans do spend next to nothing on military.
Not saying you are wrong, just genuinely interested.
>>29527603
He actually mean to say US military contractors made a lot of money.
>>29526981
>and could have been completed by two other nuclear carriers
The word is complemented. A word that literally comes from French. So, what's it like being black in France?
Okay, let's say I believe this shit. What do I do, write my congressman to stop making carriers?
>>29527698
Steal a C172 and crash it into Norfolk Naval Base.
>>29524990
>Why do we
> your country, americans
Ah, so another yuropoor being salty about America.
>>29525156
lol look at you living in some shit hole that blocks websites.
>>29527726
Nah, I'll just masturbate.
>>29527603
>>29527632
This is why I'm voting for Trump. He's been talking about making other nations pay us protection money since the 80s.
If we're going to be the world's gangster cops, we may as well get paid for it.
>>29527734
I'd bet money America secretly census the FUCK out of the internet.
I'd bet money they practically control everything you see.
>yfw you were the one living in a shithole while you made fun of people from other countries
>>29527880
And yet here you are, unable to see websites we can see, breathing in your Beijing smog
>>29527880
>census
I didn't know they were tallying the internet.
>>29527880
Let's bet money because you would be wrong. The only thing that gets blocked is when a judge orders a site shut down for CP.
>>29524990
>what the fuck is wrong with your country
Nothing except for the fact that we can level entire cities with just a carrier strike force.
>>29527162
To learn how to efficiently operate a carrier, numbnuts.
>>29527963
As long as it's a 3rd world country without an air force.
>>29527880
Why do you care so much about America if you hate it so much? Can't let it go? See it when you close your eyes? Jealous or just tsundere?
>>29527994
Kek. True.
>>29527894
>>29527941
>>29527959
>>29528021
Yea you guys may be right, I'm just a salty person lately
>>29525006
What is a carrier group?
US never sends carriers in alone
>>29527880
>wild speculations with no factual basis
Ooo, I'm so rustled
>>29528133
except for the USS Lone Ranger
>>29527869
Countries like Japan do pay for the US military garrison.
>>29527869
'course, nobody admits to the US being the world's police. That would give us license to violate sovereignty whenever we wanted.
>>29527994
If no allies came to their aid a carrier group could still destroy many of the smaller European countries. Austria can't even afford to fly the few jets they have.
>>29528290
>A carrier air group could destroy some countries that can't even afford to fly the few jets they have
Is this supposed to impress me?
>>29528290
>Can't fly new jets
Kek. Thats almost as funny as a designated shutting deck.
>>29527869
But they do. Just not in cash but in military equipment orders, favored trade, oil and of course, kickbacks. Just because you, a lowly plebian, do not see the money, doesn't mean the good ol uncle Sam isn't.
>>29525526
Why does best Korea have so many subs
>>29525087
>Anybody watches Robotech.
>>29529090
They count all their costal patrol boats that sink due to lack of maintenance as 'subs'. They just don't surface.
>>29529090
To visit the lost city of Atlantis.
>>29529090
They use a lot of midget subs. Not all subs are created equal, that chart is very misleading.
>>29525075
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxnC6jkJyEM
>>29525526
>Pakistan
>No nukes
what?
>>29524990
>nuclear strike
>on a carrier group
how to get your country glassed; the one step process.
we can't have airbases everywhere.
plus putting a nimitz on patrol around a country is a good way to let them know that they need to unfuck themselves.
>>29532143
So that's where all those retarded webms come from.
>>29532197
>is a good way to let them know that they need to unfuck themselves.
Has it ever worked?
>>29532206
Yes. Operation preying mantis.
Its more for the constant reminder.
>>29525526
Im pretty sure the US doesn't have 145,000,000 man military just saying
>>29532239
Those are just the numbers of military aged citizens for each country.
>>29532235
>Yes. Operation preying mantis.
What? The Tanker War ended because of the cease fire ending the Iran-Iraq War.
>>29532304
Nigger, op preying mantis was not about stopping the iran iraq war at all.
>>29532304
Holy shit.
Why do people so completely ignorant of history and geopolitics feel so consistently compelled to comment upon them?
Arguing that a USN CSG showing up offshore has no effect on diplomacy, regional power balance and regional politics is beyond stupid.
>>29532319
That is vaguely the point.
>>29532325
>has no effect on diplomacy, regional power balance and regional politic
Oh sure, it destabilises all those things.
>>29532347
It was not about stopping the tanker war either. It was about stopping one country from doing a certain action.
Last (you) you will get from me.
>>29532358
Oh yes, japan and korea destabilizes every time a CBG rolls up.
Go be a faggot elsewhere. >>>/trash/
>>29524990
India,Spain,Italy,Russia,Japan(just need to strap a catapult on those helicarriers) and China have carriers
>>29532395
>forgetting the UK
>>29532404
>implying the UK has active carriers
>>29532420
Forgetting france
>>29532430
GOT EM
>>29525526
Wtf. That's saying that China's man power in military alone is almost a billion people. That like saying one in every 7-8 people in the planet is in the Chinese military. Skeptical at best
>>29525896
Realistically? 5 or so. Missile defenses are far from perfect.
But a carrier is still incredibly valuable to modern surface warfare, because its air wing is a TREMENDOUS asset for monitoring enemy movements and holding the intel advantage.
>>29532672
It's just a (poorly conceived) way to note all military aged citizens which could be drafted in a maximum draft situation. All those numbers are the maximum total manpower a country could put in uniform and fight. It's pretty ridiculous and irrelevant as a measure of strength.
>>29532705
>Realistically? 5 or so.
Your funny anon.
>>29532705
>5 or so.
Even the AN-SPY1A could track 800 targets simultaneously, and the USN itself conservatively estimates 3 SAMs per successful missile intercept. It would take a hell of a lot more than 5 fucking missiles to saturate the defenses of even a minimal CSG escort (410 cells, many of which would be quad packed with ESSMs, and maybe a third or so of which would be loaded with Tomahawks).
>>29532742
In a Swarm scenario missles can be retracked on the fly, so its a certainty they will be better than 3 missles per.
With CEC, sea skimmers can be engaged at the missles max range too.
>>29532742
>Even the AN-SPY1A could track 800 targets simultaneously
Thats a lot of airliners.
>>29532776
>In a Swarm scenario missles can be retracked on the fly,
What sensor platforms exactly are performing this? Seriously. What possible sensor platforms do you imagine have raised LOS on a CSG in a warshot scenario and actually live to MAINTAIN that all the way to terminal? Think it through, junior. Think it the fuck through.
>>29532780
>Thats a lot of airliners.
*rimshot*
>>29532803
>What possible sensor platforms do you imagine have raised LOS on a CSG in a warshot scenario and actually live to MAINTAIN that all the way to terminal?
Your move.
>>29532730
Try looking at actual historical success rates instead of dick-measuring on-paper specs and "capabilities."
>>29532742
>Even the AN-SPY1A could track 800 targets simultaneously
Which means exactly dick when it comes to an actual combat situation.
>and the USN itself conservatively estimates 3 SAMs per successful missile intercept.
They used 2 PATRIOTs per SCUD during the Iraq war and about 30% still got through. And that's under pretty much ideal circumstances, with a big, dumb ballistic missile way above the radar horizon and with zero evasive maneuvering capability, not with a sea-skimming AShM capable of unpredictable maneuvers and course changes.
>It would take a hell of a lot more than 5 fucking missiles to saturate the defenses
I'm not even talking about saturation. I'm just saying, you roll the dice enough times and eventually you'll get Yahtzee.
>>29532742
That's ignoring the exceptionally challenging ECM environment of a surface group. Finding a target and tracking it long enough to make an attack is difficult.
>>29532825
I'm so fucking confused. Are you saying an E-2 would be vectoring incoming AShMs during terminal in against a USN CSG?
>>29532830
>Try looking at actual historical success rates instead of dick-measuring on-paper specs and "capabilities."
Well, being that a grand majority of both the standard missles and AShMs have not been used in combat, all we really have is testing, and the SM series as a whole tested well.
>patriot = standard missles
OH IM HAVIN A LAFF M8
>>29532830
>They used 2 PATRIOTs per SCUD
Patriots ain't SM-6s, ESSMs or SeaRAM. Shit. They ain't even SM-2ERs. You really should educate yourself on the topic upon which you're opining.
>>29532849
I thought you were talking about vectoring interceptors on incoming AShM's, because thats what i was taking about.
>>29532849
Well, a US Navy civil war really is the only way we are going to get awesome blue water naval battles.
>>29532830
>historical success rates
One AShM has been shot down in combat, and it was by the RN, not the USN (they missed it). And it was shot down after it had already missed its target.
>>29532843
Exactly. But even then, the USN loads VLS and plans to need 3 SAMs to shoot down each incoming AShM, just to be sure. That's current logistics and ops planning doctrine; it doesn't even count SeaRAM assets - just SM-6, SM-2ER and ESSM.
>>29532863
I thought you were talking about retargeting/tasking evasive patterns on inbound AShMs. So we pretty much completely agree.
>>29532878
No, i dont think any ashm can do that, by the time it gets to that point its already done.
Yes, we agree.
>>29532890
>i dont think any ashm can do that
There are many AShMs now in development or in service with one-way or two way datalinks for terminal control/support from standoff sensor/control nodes. It's just that they'd all require LOS on target during terminal plus a robust comms link which would be unaffected by target jamming/interference, which would be all but impossible against a CSG in this scenario.
>>29532878
>>29532890
Well, they kind of can. Terminal active radar homing is used in most, so when in the terminal phase they will pick out whatever radar contact they have that seems the most like whatever they were programmed to attack.
In theory.
In practice, they turn on the radar for terminal guidance, go FUCK PISS I'M FOOKING BLIND, sail past everything and get shot down by the British like an expensive clay pigeon.
>>29532920
I was talking about realistically.
I mean, imagine you are attacking a cbg and you think you land two missles on target. You are not quite sure because point defenses might have got it, but even then do you retask the 3rd or 4th to another target? By the time you are reasonably sure the target is out of commission, the attack is over.
Reminder that SAMs have never been able to stop a AShM, and have never been very effective against aircraft.
Only electronic countermeasures and chaff are proven defences against missiles (even then only basic missiles like the Harpoon, Exorcet, Termit and Ametist).
Naval SAMs are expensive ballast.
>>29532997
Naval armor is whats needed
>>29533020
>>29532997
Got to get something. You are always hearing about supercarriers being damaged by hostile action.
>>29532997
Thats more because every modern (last 20ish years) naval attacks have been shot out of the blue. Kind of hard for defensive systems to work if they are off.
>>29533066
>You are always hearing about supercarriers being damaged by hostile action.
Wut
>>29533085
It's a joke. No super carrier has ever been seriously damaged by hostile action. The worst damage a supercarrier has taken was because a purple shirt parked a aircraft starter too close to a bomb.
>>29533100
Ahhh, sarcasm over the internet.
Threw me off anon.
>>29533075
>naval attacks have been shot out of the blue
How many attack have been carried out in the last 20 years? Abkhazia 2008 is all I can think of.
Most war ships sunk by missiles have been in fleets on a war footing; various India-Pakistan wars, Six Day War, Falklands, Yom Kippur (when Israel defeated missile attack with a 100% success rate using electronic warfare).
In almost every instance the target ship didn't even detect the incoming missiles. Or if they did the 'kenitic' systems failed to launch missiles in defence.
$13 Billion is way too much to spend on a single ship.
i'm not sure, but i heard we had a budget deficit.
>>29524990
>There hasn't been a single naval engagement
https://in.rbth.com/articles/2011/12/20/1971_war_how_russia_sank_nixons_gunboat_diplomacy_14041
:^)
>>29533150
Whao nigger, if you noticed i parsed it down to the last 20 years.
There is to much of a difference in capability otherwise, and 20 years is pushing it.
I was thinking of the iranian attack on the USS stark, for one.
>>29533205
>Whao nigger, if you noticed i parsed it down to the last 20 years.
See the first line.
>I was thinking of the iranian attack on the USS stark, for one.
>1987
>>29533205
Fuck, even the stark incident is well outside the limit, on 2nd thought.
>>29533219
Yeah, i just realized it.
There is not to much data on actual attacks, and the data we have is hopelessly outdated.
>>29525075
390+ missiles
An Aegis destroyer has about 130 and there are 3 to a carrier group.
Hell, if you rounded up to 500 defensive missiles and fired 600 you would still fuck the Navy up real good.
>>29533236
Then the issue is getting 500 missles into a battlespace without getting shreked.
>>29533222
And involves a non-Aegis, non-VLS ship which had only the ancient Mk-13 with single SM-1MR per reload. It's like comparing a CIWS to a WWII 40mm BOFORS.
>>29533229
>There is not to much data on actual attacks, and the data we have is hopelessly outdated.
Yeah, pretty much.
>>29533236
>An Aegis destroyer has about 130 and there are 3 to a carrier group.
Plus a Tico with another 122 cells. Then divide the total number by three for ballpark loadouts:
>one third Tomahawks
>one third SM-6/SM-2ER
>one third quad packed ESSM
That's a grand total of 137 SM-6/SM-2ER plus 547 ESSM, or 684 total SAMs with which to intercept incoming. In a minimal CSG escort group, ballpark.
>>29533243
If you take all the upper estimates for defensive weapons in a carrier group, and generously assume all would hit their target, there is still some point at which all available defenses will be overmatched by another naval force.
So, you tell me then, how many missile boats would it take to sink an entire fleet?
>>29533248
Its also attacks carried out by a small hand full of obsolete missiles by (usually) two-bit forces. Which often gave good results nether-the-less.
i think we need to make like underwater boat,that can stay undetected while sailing and sink enemy ships while not being spotted
>>29533266
We could go off of testing data.
Pretty much all of the standard missles test favoribly
>>29533271
To sink/mission kill an entire fleet, and be sure, going by the USN estimate of three SAMs per incoming AShM and two AShMs for each of the five ships, that's 238 total incoming AShMs necessary.
Obviously, it would not take that many just to generate a hit or two because the intercept chance for 3 SAMs is not in fact 100% (very very close, but not 100%). Still, that tells you the level of thinking and planning the USN has put into the problem.
An entire Backfire regiment could only put 189 Kh-22s in the air at once, just for reference. Would the CSG take a hit or two? Probably. Would it be sunk? Not on your life.
>>29533271
>So, you tell me then, how many missile boats would it take to sink an entire fleet?
Well, for the PLAN it would take damn near every one of their active Type 022 missle boats to off ONE CBG.
The issue is getting around 70 missle boats together without anyone noticeing...that's the hard part
>>29533295
Then you got intel guys going "Gee bill, why does this airbase near our CBG suddenly have a gorrillian backfires?"
>>29533275
>Its also attacks carried out by a small hand full of obsolete missiles by (usually) two-bit forces. Which often gave good results nether-the-less.
Launched from point blank range (22.5nmi and 15nmi) by an aircraft from a country we were not at war with. It was the equivalent of a sucker punch. Flight time from aircraft to target was less than the time it would have taken to arm the CIWS and Mk-13, even if the Stark's radar HAD detected it (which it did not, because not AA focused platform and only a frigate).
>>29533279
>Pretty much all of the standard missles test favoribly
As did the Sea Slug.
>>29533304
I missed the USS Stark implication for some reason, I meant AShM strike in general.
And look at these tards in this thread simply counting SAMs.
40 Standards vs two Exorcets, who wins?
>>29533295
Oh, and this does not include ANY kills/defeats from EW or CSG aircraft intercept. My guess is that you would need two full Backfire regiments and then some, minimum. Call it 400ish AShMs to actually reach launch point with good target data. Two Backfire regiments only get it done if they can actually make it all the way to almost 100nmi inside AWACS detection range and live to launch.
>>29533316
>And look at these tards in this thread simply counting SAMs.
What, you mean just like the USN does when they decide to load VLS cells before a deployment?
>>29533305
The missle itself was fine, the sea slug was hampered by a very poor FCR and radar.
>>29533331
>poor FCR
Like the AN/SPG-62?
>>29533336
>AN/SPG-62?
The SPG-62 was just fine back in the day, hell its still good. Its just there for terminal guidence for non USN ships. Its a legacy piece of equipment thats getting phased out in the USN. (The sm-2 has an IR seeker for terminal now)
>>29533321
Alot of people forget that Aim-9s work as missle interceptors in a pinch as well.
So say the f-14s or 18s chase the backfires, launch their amraams, then can either go for the kill or help defend the fleet.
>>29533437
AMRAAMs themselves also work. The SM-6 has a bolt on AMRAAM seeker head.
>>29528212
Escorted by the USS Tonto and the USS Silver.
>>29533477
>Hi-Ho, fuckfaces! Who wants to meet Allah?!
>>29529541
> Anti torpedo torpedo
For real ? I've never heard of that.
>>29524990
Because they have aesthetic. If a real war breaks out these ships are to be sunk on the first day.
As usual: if the Civil sector isn't doing it, there's probably a good reason.
>>29533565
https://news.usni.org/2013/06/20/navy-develops-torpedo-killing-torpedo
It's already done a prototype cruise on the Bush. It's going on all carriers and many MSC/Gator Navy ships.
>>29524990
check for ban
>>29533617
Civil sector does not have any warships.
I guess navys are not worth doing?
>>29533681
>dumb assertion
>"le xD u said this"
Taking things out of context I see? Good job.
Now if you're planning to get reasonable in the foreseeable feature: aircraft can fly long distances themselves, aircraft tankers are a thing, and if you don't have allied airfields to land then perhaps your foreign policy could use some work.
>>29533565
>never heard of that
>>29533628
>a prototype
http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/507/525/
>>29533701
>.ru
Another russian project that will never see the light of day
>>29533693
I did not take a damn thing out of context. Verbatim, you said "As usual: if the Civil sector isn't doing it, there's probably a good reason."...civil sector does nothing offensively minded in the naval arena.
>>29533709
Paket is in service on 5 ships, with 11 others in two classes under construction.
>>29533709
>American damage control
It's in service since 2010, dumbass.
>>29533716
...while in fact as far as Europe is concerned most warships are built by the civil sector.
That aside, you don't see commercial airliners land on commercial aircraft carriers. Because after WWII it became obsolete.
>>29530472
kek
>>29528320
would that be the poop deck?
>>29533739
You also don't see commercial cruise missiles, commercial tanks, commercial nuclear submarines etc.
>>29533701
>>29533735
>>29533738
I've yet to see any proof this thing actually engages torpedoes as opposed to just being a standard torpedo launch system. They claim it does, but there is no publicity for successful intercept tests, which is damn strange for Russian chest thumping PR with successful projects. ESPECIALLY when they feel they've beaten the West to the punch.
Do you have a better source than I can find?
>>29532143
that was painful to watch
can't believe someone would sit through an entire show full of that shit
>>29533236
whats kinda funny with these numbers is that we assume the carrier group is on the defensive. Its safe to assume that each CG has a few nukes at its disposal, if you were getting this doomsday scenario where a wave of missiles is coming at it,they might defensively just nuke the incoming swarm, especially if they are far enough from land to avoid political fallout.
>>29533769
Did you just demand a source better than the web page of the very damn manufacturer?
>>29533776
Not that the USN ever confirms or denies nuke munitions on their ships, but I can't find any evidence that the US still fields ANY sort of nuclear SAM or A2A missile. Not since the Genie or Sprint. Do you happen to know which frames these payloads may be mounted on?
>>29533793
Yup. Let's not kid ourselves about Russian defense industry claims as far as completed systems timelines. Time and time again we have come to learn that systems which were claimed to be fully in service were only partially complete, still in testing, or only produced in very, very small numbers in their full capacity. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask if there are any Russian language news releases out there about operational anti-torpedo testing which I may have missed.
It's a weapons system designed for export, one they've been trying to sell. If there were successful tests, they'd be public. Especially considering the fact that this would represent a stolen march on the West. They never miss the chance to crow about that on the arms market.
>>29533801
>Lies
Ok, I see now.
>>29533805
>>Lies
It's really not that damn hard. If it's had a successful anti-torpedo interception, where's the press release? Do I need to remind you that the system is also a standard launcher for anti-submarine torpedoes? It's entirely reasonable they mounted the systems as a standard ASW mount and decided to keep working on the anti-torpedo part of the system and upgrade it later. The US does this all the time.
>>29533805
>IT TOTALLY WORKS, GUIZE! WE JUST WON'T BOTHER TELLING YOU ABOUT IT! HERE, BUY IT PLZ!
>>29533817
>“The Project 20380 corvettes carry an A-192 cannon and a one-of-a-kind anti-torpedo system,” Navy Commander Admiral Viktor Chirkov said.
http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150731/1025262183.html
>>29533823
>American on a damage control spree
No need to be upset :^)
>>29533875
>http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150731/1025262183.html
Again. Just describes what the system is designed to do. No word on any successful test. Ever.
I have no doubt the standard ASW portion of the system works. I just have serious doubts about the anti-torpedo side of the system. If it was operational, why is it not on refitted Kirovs? Why is it not on Yasen or Borei boats? Why is it not on any other Russian hulls?
>>29533905
Because it's a light 330mm system suitable for corvettes and frigates. Projects 1144, 885 and 955 use much heavier 533mm and 650mm systems.
Also your doubts and suppositions don't mean shit. Paket-NK is operational since 2010, it's and empirical fact.
>>29533823
>>29533817
Exactly how butthurt are you. The Russians have something the Americans don't have. Same thing with the waverider.
>>29533946
>it's and empirical fact.
No, it's not. It's demonstrated partial systems operations. This really shouldn't be that hard. If it works, you can bet your ass they had a press release about it. Where is it?
>>29533955
Proofs
>>29533980
>There MUST be a press release about EVERYTHING! I say.
Bet your ass however you want. Like I said, your doubts and suppositions don't mean shit.
>>29534001
Really? Because they seem to mean something to you. You've now brought in two sources (news and manufacturer) which claim something but neither state outright the systems functionality. Please provide a source which indicates it is fully operational.
>>29534001
Proofs
>>29534013
Please, provide a source that indicates in is for whatever reason all of the sudden only partially operational.
>>29533993
>>29534020
>Damage control intensifies
Okay, seems like my job here is done.
>>29534032
No proofs i see
>>29534028
See >>29533905
and >>29533801
I'm sorry. Are you having trouble finding any actual proof that the system, which is designed to protect warships and subs from torpedoes actually works? Especially in the face of the fact that the highest value Russian warships afloat and their highest value submarines have never been fitted for it, even though the greatest threat all of them face is USN SSN torpedoes?
>>29534032
>lol trolled!
+(You)
>>29533617
>not knowing it's actually nearly impossible to sink a carrier
>not understanding how bulkheads work
>never having been in the navy
>not understanding how compartmentalized carriers are
>not understanding that it would be easier to kill everyone on board than it would be to sink the ship
fucking casual. if real war breaks out, carriers will be one of the last to go down.
Danger ranger CV-61, signing out.
>>29524990
OP is either butthurt strayan or butthurt britcuck who's mad his country has perfected RAMP TECHNOLOGY
OP is a fucking retard
>>29533085
>>29534063
Well, I wouldn't say it's that hard to kill. 64mm steel with kevlar reinforcements is less armor than most tanks from WW2 carry.
That being said, escorts can shoot down missiles and the range of most aircraft exceed the range of most anti-ship missiles.
So the fleet carrier is pretty hard to kill so long as it has places to run and escorts to take the heat off.
>>29534063
>secretly set up specialized mines in ports and straits USN frequents
>boom
>carrier gone
>>29535155
Sonar
Aircraft carriers are just one part of the naval warefare business.
>>29525664
This really.
In conventional warfare, having a means to strike anywhere in the world with conventional means in mere hours really is the be all end all.
>>29535155
Iran tried mineing popular causeways.
Ask them how that worked out for them.
Also, a frigate hit one. It didnt sink. It did not even lose its combat stance, radar and missles ready.
Mines suck for sinking stuff
>>29527603
>pay nothing
>overrun with terrorists
Bloop
>>29535163
>key word being "specialized"
>implying sonar can tell the difference between a rock and a disguised mine not made from anything magnetic
>mine fills up balloons just before the carrier passes
>rises up under the keel
>too late for the carrier to do anything
>boom
Navy ships aren't invulnerable, dude.
Odds are I'm overcomplicating it, a team of divers could probably just bury a thousand pounds of HE and it would fuck up the carrier a hundred feet above it.
>>29533955
America has things Russia does not too...
Like money.
>>29535182
Iran probably used WW2 era mine technology
You could set up some sooper sneeky shit these days, it would have to be manned constantly and remotely triggered when the target is on the coordinates.
>>29535182
aren't mines for preventing access, not so much for sinking shit?
>>29535199
>carrier
>running in 100ft of water aside from active port.
>even then
>>29535211
Haha the America I've always known is dirt poor and rich people are tricked into paying over %70 of their earnings in taxes and economic penalties, if not more plus they are always working and never get to enjoy their money.
Welcome to America, here's your short end of the stick whoever you are and whatever you do. Enjoy getting fucked over.
>>29535219
>he didn't read the cap about the Enterprise practically beaching on a sandbar, sucking up silt and fish into the reactor cooling system
Anything that can go wrong will. And I doubt they'll send frogs to check out every possible place mines could be planted where the USN frequents.
Anyone that wants to blow up a carrier just needs money, balls, and patience.
>>29535218
Not the kind I'm thinking of, I will say it again the key word is "specialized mines".
A new kind of mine design that requires it to be manned and triggered by someone watching. Maybe one guy with a cell phone and the number to a dozen such devices scattered across a port on GPS locations he's intimately familiar with.
Money, time, balls, and patience.
>>29524990
>It's not the 40's anymore, we're not shooting at japanese battleships or whatever we used them for back then. There hasn't been a single naval engagement in over a century and the US thinks it's a good idea to put 10,000 sailors and 300 planes directly in the crosshairs of chinese nukes?
>Literally what the fuck is wrong with your country, americans? Perhaps you didn't notice but literally no other country has these anymore except for cuckistan and France.
Don't you think that not having a naval engagement has something to do with U.S. hegemony in the open ocean domain?
Air power rules modern warfare. If you don't have air superiority, you can't win a high level engagement. Your ships will be destroyed, your subs will be hunted by MPA, your supply lines will be decimated, your industrial centers will be bombed. You literally cannot do anything that enables you to win a war unless you have capable air power.
In the meantime, the ability to conduct airstrikes anywhere in the world within 48 hours is a convenient capability to have.
>>29535218
Yeup.
>>29535217
M-08 mines and their derivatives are some of the most prolific sea mines in the world.
The m2 browning is from wwii. Does not make it combat ineffective.
>>29535280
Air power only rules because that's been the focus nations concentrate on.
>>29535236
Did you watch propaganda films from north Korea to get this viewpoint?
>>29535288
Naval mine advancement isn't exactly equivalent to M2s. You don't need to worry about your ma deuce being detected on sonar.
>>29535272
A mine that is triggered remotly by a person is called a bomb anon.
>>29535299
No I'm just a bitter person. Like, I've had a severe case of asshole for way too long and its effected me mentally.
>>29527869
>Trump is going to extort other countries
Holy shit, you faggots need to stop with your meme candidate
>>29535182
So in your fantasy land, mines are less effective than jihadi boats
OK
>>29535337
I also think that's a double edged sword... America has kinda blown up a lot of shit in a lot of countries lately. That said, it appears we weren't as genocidal as communists, if the history I've read is true. And human lives are always the most expensive asset.
>>29535253
Can you post that cap? I remember one about the enterprise venting radioactive water or something at Norfolk too
>>29535355
Are you implying im lying about events, fucboi?
If you are, go ahead and lube that asshole before i fuck it reeeeeaaal good.
>>29535373
I don't have it, soz
>>29535355
>>29524990
I'm sorry, I didn't know that aircraft carriers were no longer a thing.
I apologize for not knowing that a boat filled with aircraft, some potentially armed with nuclear-capable weapons, could be regarded as anything other than an advantage.
Also, I'm sorry for not knowing that the ability to have aircraft nearly anywhere in the world, without needing anything more than the sea as an airbase, is definitely not an advantage.
>>29535396
If our destroyers are going to be as big as WW2 cruisers and WW1 battleships, I REALLY REALLY THINK THEY NEED A LITTLE ARMOR.
>>29525526
these numbers must be fukt, there's no way canada has that many people in its military
>>29535411
They do have a little armor.
The ship got hit with 700lbs of explosives.
>>29524990
Aircraft carriers are always useful as a mobile air base. One of the larger problems with them is having trained crew to operate them. By keeping many of them for decades, we have tradition in operating large naval vessels.
Besides which, we can blow up missile cruisers with airplanes. It's really fucking easy.
>>29533795
Its all bombs nowadays.
>>29535435
That much explosive at the waterline wouldn't even dent a battleship or heavy cruiser.
>>29524990
>>29526981
>>29529541
>>29533183
>>29534063
>>29535293
No, it rules because the only solution to fighting a capable air force is with your own air force. Ground-based and ship-based AA weapons are extremely limited in effectiveness and mobility.
>>29535396
>Be modern navy sailor in WW3
>Sit in ship when engaging enemy fleet 100 miles away
>press buttons and w8 for it
>eventually get blown off by fucking massive missle spam
I can't understand how anybody wants to go to the navy
>>29535411
Armor is silly to put on ship's. You can read any number of RAND Corp. analyses on the topic. The punchline: It's expensive, makes ship's slow, and doesn't enhance their survivability in combat.
The thing with modern ships is that it's all about getting a mission kill with over-the-horizon weapons. You can armor cruisers to your heart's content, that radar mast isn't going to withstand an ASCM or a few bullets from a 20mm vulcan attached to an aircraft any better. Once the radar is down, the ship is literally useless in combat.
>>29535642
...Do you even realize that it is very possible to effectively spam missiles at enemy missiles?
>>29524990
They're not for naval engagements, they're used to project the might of the Eagle Throne around the world, and discipline unruly countries, like yours.
And on the off chance that Chinamen could get a nuke to work and on target, they understand that they would be annihilated.
>>29535664
>>29535664
Hornets carry 2-4 Harpoon-sized missiles. F-35C can do the same, plus an extra 2 internally if JSM is procured.
Considering that Nimitz carriers generally go with three squadrons of strike aircraft, I don't see how you could ever justify that statement.
>>29535651
No, it's actually not. For the same reason it's really difficult to get OTH ASCMs to actually hit its target.
Take a Mach 2 missile flying from 100 miles away. It will take 4 minutes to reach its target. However, the target is a 400' ship moving at 30 knots (or in the case of carriers, a 1,200 ship moving at 40+ knots), so by the time the missile reaches the target the ship has deployed counter-measures and is 1 - 1.5 miles away from the original aimpoint.
>>29525053
Works for me.
>>29535617
It's not the only solution anymore.
Air power sprung up quicker than ship design and defense could adapt and that's why it is what it is today.
>>29524990
What do you care what my tax money pay for if you are not American?
>>29535741
...SAMs are a massive portion of said countermeasures.
>>29528097
Admittance is the first step to recovery
>>29525006
I love how this argument always ignores the fact that the USA has offensive capabilities of its own. If somebody is close enough that they can shot missiles at a carrier then that means that they're getting spammed by Arleigh Burkes at the same time.
>>29535788
No, SAMs are not counter-measures. Also, SAMs can't actually hit an incoming ASCM because ASCMs fly too close to the waterline in order for the SPY-1 to actually target it.
>>29535819
Burkes, at the moment, don't really spam, seeing that they have at best 8 Harpoons, and whatever Standard Missiles that haven't been launched at airborne targets.
Wait till LRASM and Block IV Tomahawks come into play.
>>29535754
No, it's pretty much the only solution in any high-level conflict.
In lower level conflicts it's not required, but that's only because the aim of the insurgents is just to get the U.S. to go home. If a country's aim in war with the U.S. was to topple the government and control the nation, it would need to defeat U.S. air power, and the only way to do it is with their own jets.
>>29535830
>CEC isn't a thing.
>SM-6 isn't a thing.
>Interception is impossible unless it's OTH.
>Direct interception isn't an active countermeasure.
Please, continue to demonstrate your ignorance/boredom.
>>29533183
>RT clone
trash
>>29535873
You're the one who is ignorant. As I said in my previous post, ASCMs are designed to fly too close to the waterline for U.S. ship's to target them.
A counter-measure is not an intercept missile. They are two different physical things. If you walk onto a ship and ask someone to show you the ASCM counter-measures, they are NOT going to show you where the harpoons and SM-6 are stowed.
Also, no modern naval engagement is going to occur between platforms that can actually see each other. It's all about long-range weaponry.
>>29524990
>Why do we even have these pieces of shit?
>Literally what the fuck is wrong with your country, americans?
said China.
>>29536029
Hooooly shit. Where to even start?
For one, SM-6 is designed specifically to attack sea-skimming ASCMs without guidance from SPY-1. Hence it's active radar seeker. And all SM-2s Block IIIB or newer have terminal IR guidence. So no, none of the long range USN SAMs NEED SPY-1 illumination. They all have INS and terminal guidance beyond SARG.
Aegis BMD is the architecture for all US fleet defense. See all those ancillary sensors and that box titled CEC? Even assuming that the fleet is completely unwilling to use INS guidance to terminal range and has zero SM-6s, those sea-skimmers below the radar horizon can still be tracked via CEC by literally anything flying within radar range, allowing engagement to be timed for the moment they break horizon.
This is, naturally, ignoring stuff like ESSM and RAM, missiles specifically designed for the closer engagement windows.
Your countermeasures argument is simply pedantic. No refutation needed there.
>>29535199
Invincible, no, but mines are pretty bad as far as ship killer go.
First off, you've got to accurately predict where the enemy will be at least a couple hours in advanced. If you can't get within a couple hundred feet the mine isn't even scaring them. Accounting for the range of the carrier's planes means that you'd need to mine hundreds or thousands of square miles of open ocean in order to even have a chance of killing a carrier.
Second, you've got to identify the target. Now, older mines didn't have IFF so you'd plant them and then merchant shipping would trip over them years later. Without accurate IFF the escorts will trip the mines instead which nets you an escort but means that there's still a carrier launching planes.
Third, adding a balloon phase means that it shows up on sonar which means anti-torpedo defenses apply. The carrier's escorts can launch counter torpedoes to kill the mine.
>thousand pounds of HE and it would fuck up the carrier a hundred feet above it.
Let me lay some math down. A typical WW2 torpedo could kill a ship by detonating directly bellow it's keel. Each one carried about 1000lbs of explosives. Explosions are omnidirectional so the power of the blast follows the inverse squared law. Assume the torpedo needed to be within 10 feet of the ship to kill it we're looking at a bomb with the power of about one thousand tons of TNT.
So...Got nukes?
In a real conflict carriers would only protect the sealines of communications in the middle of the Atlantic/Pacific.
Otherwise they just end as ASM and submarine food. Doesn't help that their air wing could be easil countered by land based assets, while they are the king several thousand miles away from the next air base.
>>29536358
>Air-wings easil countered by land-based assets.
I assume you speak of air bases. How is an advantage held by both sides a counter?
IADS are less useful on land than they are at sea, because ship-based systems do not need to deactivate to move.
>>29535741
Bring back flak guns
>>29536358
But anon, America has tons of good attack subs, carrier AEWC is invaluable for missile defense, and strike aircraft have as much access to standoff munitions as land-based planes.
You're full of shit, desu.<3
>>29536223
Dude, it's pretty easy to find out where a carrier will eventually be.
I'm saying if you create a mine meant to last years and place it in a spot you know a carrier will eventually be, you'll get it if you wait for it.
And you could probably do other things besides a balloon and good luck to the carrier that has to defend itself with less than a 30 second notice.
Like I said, it's literally just a patience thing.
Our ships are much more vulnerable than we think.
>>29536462
All those places that a carrier will 'eventually' be are ports and other highly secured location you'd never be able to access with mines. You sound like you've never been at sea. Any sea.
Nevermind that minesweeping is a thing. Or did you think that the USN just runs around blind everywhere?
>>29535535
It took 2 torpedoes with about 400-660 pounds of explosives to sink Kongo
Try again
