This is a completely 100% neutral thread about USA super carriers don't even think about shitposting here.
Don't even think about it.
>>29798249
I think instead of 11 super carriers America should have 30 regular carriers.
Dont worry OP, we will be too busy talking about your shitty picture.
ski ramps are superior to catobar
>>29798257
In all seriousness, would it be more advantageous in the context of redundancy/sortie rate/air wing to have 2/3 mid size carriers in a CBG than a single massive carrier?
I'm speaking from a position of relative ignorance on the issue, by the way.
>>29798259
>480x347
>31 KB
>>29798249
Millenium2k proves they are obsolete Iranians and best Koreans rek American pigscum glorified container ship
>>29798266
We really have no way to compare. The USN learned pretty quick in WW2 that the bigger carriers were more useful then the smaller ones and never really looked back. I think an LHA sized carrier with CATOBAR would be pretty cramped.
>>29798260
3rd post, pretty impressive. I'm sure you can be faster next thread though!
>>29798297
45 seconds too slow
should have just typed: anti-carrier missile
let me post this ahead of time real quick just incase someone wants to reference it.
>Implying ASBM won't just smash them down
RORORORORRORORO
CHINA WILL GROW LARGER
They're about 100,000 tons displacement?
I wonder what the new Chinese one will be when its finished. I doubt they're going to make it nuclear, but its pointless to make it under 1200 ft long.
>>29798266
its more cost effective to have one big supercarrier than multiple small ones.
>>29798442
It isn' really.
Cost/tonnage doesn't scale that way.
>>29798452
It's not cost/tonnage, it's cost/sorties/day, which is positively correlated with tonnage.
OK, here's a question that someone might know the answer to:
How does China plan on using their DF-21 against carriers? Won't the US think they are firing nuclear ICBMs?
>>29798513
>Won't the US think they are firing nuclear ICBMs?
No.
Ballistic trajectory is preditacble. The DF-21 also flies in a semi-ballistic trajectory, which reduces range but has all kinds of tactical adventages.
>>29798527
So there is zero chance of mistaking it for an ICBM?
>>29798492
A claim that isn't supported by anything.
>>29798266
Ask the Royal Navy since they've decided to switch from fleet carriers to super carriers.
>inb4 QE class isn't a super carrier
>>29798628
Well that's mainly a cost thing. Building 4 hulls is more expensive than 2. The QE's are a cost-saving exercise in maximum bang for minimum buck.
But when the buying power of the USN is behind you, pure cost can take second fiddle to efficency and potency.
If the US was to build say 20 QE equivalents (with EMALS of course) would two or three of them in a CBG be more potent than a Ford class?
small carriers with a4 type fighters are the cutest.
shame they're presumably militarily next to useless, like everything i dare to like.
>>29798746
The US budget is larger but that doesn't mean it's some unlimited pot of gold that can do whatever they want. The fact that we have budget problems as is in the US military should make that very clear. The numbers are bigger, but so are the requirements and especially the things pulling money from it in exponential ways.
>>29798746
Really clocks down to what you wants or how the USN wants to use them.
At a push a QE can fit aprox 60ish aircraft and so the three QEs can bring 180 aircraft to a single Ford's 90.
However, the caveat with that is QE doesn't have the sustainment capacity for surge like a Ford. Looking at the crew numbers alone you can make a pretty good guesstimate of that.
>>29798787
How many QE-size carriers could you get for the cost of a Ford? Especially with little to no R&D costs and 'bulk discounts'.
>>29798800
*what you want
>>29798802
Life time costs or unit cost?
Are we fitting US equipment?
>>29798249
>neutral thread about USA super carriers
>don't even think about shitposting here
>>29798827
It is a carrier probably more defensive in nature
>>29798827
best shitpost of all time is exempt.
I want to see a flying aircraft carrier carrying smaller flying aircraft carriers.
Just because.
>>29798879
Drones carrying drones anon.
>>29798912
Finally a weapon to surpass metal gear.
>>29798544
Except for the doctrine of navies around the planet, and USN studies into the idea.
Plus the Harrier Carrier concept.
>>29799004
>Except for the doctrine of navies around the planet
What navies around the world?
>>29798802
QE Class are just over $6b
Ford Class are just over $10b
so.. one.
Two if you're lucky, but operational costs would quickly make the two more expensive.
>>29799012
All the blue water relevant ones.
>>29799015
(numbers rounded up)
That price tag for the QE including the program cost and unit cost, which is $9bn for both, so that's around $4.5bn per carrier.
Ford's program cost is $38bn and unit cost is $13bn.
http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/668986.pdf#page=95
>>29799015
>QE Class are just over $6b
Not quite accurate. Two QE plus infrastructure came to £6.2b (we'll convert at the end of this) but a good £1b of that was for just the infrastructure nation wide, while £1b was added by Labour for purposefully delaying the program. Neither of these would factor in.
So it's left with £4.2b for two carriers, without including the trainup time that the US wouldn't need, because the UK hasn't operated such big ships in a while. So lets call it £4b for both ships. £2b each. That equates to about $2.92b each.
However that said, it's stil la dumb idea for the US to put out "lots of small ones", because the manning requirements, the docking space requirements, the additional escort groups, the additional stores requirements all go way up with more individual ships, it's not a consistent "requirements to support" trajectory graph that 2 medium = 1 large. It isn't at all.
It would just be horrendously more expensive to support, even if the individual carrier is cheaper. The "to buy" cost is the smallest one of the entire thing, and it's a continual moment of retardation on /k/ for ships and (especially) planes that the "sail/fly away" cost is considered the only thing that matters.
>>29799089
Thankyou. A clean and clear way of saying it why my idea is pants and why super carrier doctrine is the way it is.
/k/ is being really not shit today it seems.
>>29799015
>Ford Class are just over $10b
That is what they were supposed to cost, costs have overrun to $14b for the lead ship and $12b for the 2nd.
Smaller carriers make sense for everyone but the USN, or navies with the potential to be USN sized.
To maintain constant capability, you generally want 3 ships of a class in service, that way, you can always have 1 on cruise, 1 in maintenance, and 1 on training.
If a smaller navy tries to go for supercarriers, they can't afford 3, and either the maintenance/training situation for the ships deteriorates, or there are gaps where no carrier is fully ready to do things. The French only have 1 CDG, and as a result French naval aviation spends on a ton of time on USN carrier decks when theirs is in maintenance. I expect the Queen Elizabeths to have a slightly better situation, but still expect Royal Navy F-35B's on LHA's quite often.
The carrier size a navy should build is the largest that is technically feasible that they can afford at lest 3 of. The Fords are about as large as carriers can get with modern technology and not be too cumbersome with regards to available berths and shit like that.
>>29798395
You realize they would just ICBM the carriers right? Like they have missiles that do mach 15 or something. You can't defend against that.
So, once your carrier group's position is identified, you're fucked
>>29799751
Ah, yes the Dong 21 may may.
An utterly useless weapon unless you wish for nuclear war.
>>29799751
The defence against ICBMs is ICBMs, for a start.
But here you go
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_Missile_3
Maybe in the future we will have Unmanned Nautical Carriers that land Unmanned Aerial Vehicles upon their decks.
https://www.rt.com/usa/drone-landing-aircraft-carrier-902/
>>29798879
>>29798513
If you check their ballistic foot print and note that they are headed for a US carrier then it is surely a conventuonal missile. Do America have what it takes to start Mutually Assured Deconstruction? America politics is weak so they will not and would just accept any losses. Also draw a red line and wait for other people to cross it and do nothing.
>>29798746
Probably not by virtue of the QE being a ski jump carrier. You could carry more aircraft if you brought a few of those instead of a single proper supercarrier, but your aircraft would all be pretty limited in their capabilities.
The ability to launch aircraft at their maximum takeoff weight or larger fixed-wing aircraft more than justifies the cost if you want a carrier to be able to do more than just provide air cover to the rest of your fleet.
>>29799924
>If you check their ballistic foot print and note that they are headed for a US carrier then it is surely a conventuonal missile.
And why should the US give China the benefit of the doubt that the warhead isn't nuclear?
IIRC, (Oppen or someone else who understands BMD can correct me on this if I'm wrong) that your best chance for interception is before it tries to come back down again.
So why should the US wait to see where it is being aimed at?
>>29799993
>And why should the US give China the benefit of the doubt that the warhead isn't nuclear?
Because accidental nuclear war is a bad thing.
The US can adsorb the entire Chinese nuclear arsenal and still have plenty of warheads left over, there is no need to launch on warning and risk uncontrolled escalation.
>>29798289
That's not true at all, and the price tag of military ships is ENTIRELY optional. There are no fixed costs for a carrier, you could do things differently at dramatically reduced prices, if you wanted to.
It was a political thing for them, they want to keep their big flagship super carriers, pretend escort carriers suck so that they aren't forced to buy them anymore.
It was FDR who made them buy escort carriers in WW2 remember.
>>29798746
EMALS costs like a billion dollars just by itself.
>>29799633
It is all a question of cost, and cost efficiency
>The Fords are about as large as carriers can get with modern technology
Thats nonsense, they are the same size as the nimitz, they could have made them bulkier and a bit longer, maybe being 150k tons or more.
What's the difference with a normal carrier and super? Just size?
>>29799015
>QE Class are just over $6b
>Ford Class are just over $10b
Users also already stated that the numbers are wrong.
>>29800305
Super carriers are American. Everything else is not American
>>29799993
Because balance of terror is an NATO vs Russia thing.
Not an USA and China thing.
Any conflict between those two countries would be a local one.
>>29800305
Generally, yes, but before the QE all supercarriers had catapults to allow them to actually do more than their smaller counterparts besides carry more aircraft.
>>29800305
It's an unofficial descriptive term and descripes carriers types larger than other carriers.
>>29800037
How annoying, I had a nice write up and closed the tab.
So, you'd happily allow the risk for America to be hit with nuclear weapons, without any sign of retaliation? So totally rendering any creditability that America is willing to fight a nuclear war inert? Meaning that everything in America's nuclear stockpile isn't worth the rust they sit on, because their value is exactly proportional to their willingness to be used or rather how much your opponent believes you are willing to use those weapons.
Again, we're not talking about a single missile that would be launched, we're talking about a whole damn swarm of them and they may appear to be indistinguishable to a first strike launch.
China doesn't have the weapon numbers to do a counterforce slugfest like Russia or US, they target countervalue, meaning American cities.
China is the one who is escalating this to a possible nuclear exchange scenario, the US is just meeting it to its logical conclusion.
>>29800322
Not when they mix their conventional and nuclear warheads into one missile.
Whilst unlikely, there's no guarantee that China that any Dong-21 fired won't have a nuclear warhead.
China is the only country qualified to use 'super' on their military. Like Super Apache or Super Raptor. It is to differentiate normal Apache from superior Chines versions.
>>29798271
Someone doesnt know what they are talking about.
Its you btw.
>>29800365
The whole point of having a second strike capability is so you don't have to launch on warning.
Once you see a "swarm" of ballistic missiles there are three possibility
- A nuclear first strike is underway
- The system is returning a false positive
- The weapons have conventional warheads (if D-21)
If the reality of the situation is the 2nd or 3rd option then a launch on warning would be pointlessly starting a nuclear war. This is a bad thing.
Even if it is a nuclear strike there is no major benefit to launch on warning as we know the US arsenal will survive and its too late to stop the attack. We can retaliate after we know that its a real nuclear exchange. Again, we have spent massive amounts of money making a legitimate second strike capability for a reason.
Dead Chinese due to nuke = as long as Communist Party holds, China is ok.
Dead Americans due to nuke = riots on the street, black people blamin da white peopl for killin muh chilluns, sjw conspiracies, yellow people did nothing wrong, no freezed peach.
>>29798271
It also took OPFOR breaking the laws of physics and cheating like motherfuckers to do so.
>>29798827
Don't talk to me or my adopted son again?
>>29800457
>The whole point of having a second strike capability is so you don't have to launch on warning.
Jesus fucking Christ, no it is not.
The point of second strike capability is to deter a first strike with the knowledge that retaliation is inevitable.
>>29800457
That's the problem with your point.
China does not intend to fight an arsenal slug match like we know with Russia and the US. They do not have the weapons for it. Much like everyone else who falls below the <300ish stockpile, they intend their strikes for mass destruction on cities and populations.
They are not fighting a war, they're aiming to destroy. Fighting a nuclear war with China is not the same as Russia.
So who knows if official policy will hold up.
>>29800457
>we know the US arsenal will survive
What?
>>29800643
filtered
>>29800672
If there's one trip you shouldn't filter, it is Oppen, especially if we're talking nukes.
>>29800705
No. That guy is right. China does not have enough to take out every US nuke.
>>29800722
Thats not the point at all.
>>29800722
I don't know what Oppen was asking, but that wasn't my point. I was saying that you shouldn't filter Oppen when we're discussing nukes.
>>29800643
According to RAND most US nukes will be fine.
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR300/RR392/RAND_RR392.pdf
Do carriers have any armaments of their own, or do they solely rely on their CBG and the aircraft they carry?
>>29800722
1) No one launches all their nuclear weapons at once. There is always a reserve.
2) Any response is already designed before hand. There is no time to haul out a target list and build a new attack option on the fly.
If you allow the attack to finish before you launch, you run the risk of the degradation of your command and control systems to limit your ability to issue clear orders to your strategic forces even if those forces are otherwise intact.
>>29800780
Some carriers do carry their own armaments, mostly defensive though.
The Russia, Admiral Kuznetsov carries offensive arms.
>>29800772
And that doesnt matter.
It is the damage to your command and control systems that is the concern. Not the physical destruction of the weapons themselves.
>>29800780
US carriers have Phalanx or Rim-116 for anti missile defense, but for the most part relies on escorts.
>>29800803
That's what redundant systems are for.
If a force of >200 warheads can destroy the US nuclear capability we have wasted colossal amounts of money.
>>29800850
key words
>damage
>degraded
>>29798257
>I think instead of 11 super carriers America should have 300 mega carriers that combine to form an artificial America the size of a continent that is mobile for maximum rapeness.
FTFY
>>29799751
It's ballistic. You can defend against it by moving slightly after it launches.
>>29800860
Oh no we might not get optimal performance out of the 1495-988 warheads remaining. Better launch before we know if those DF-21s have nuclear or conventional warheads or if there is some weird meteorological shit messing with the early warning systems.
>>29800932
If you think early warning systems are easily confused by weather events and have no method of confirmation, I've got news for your buddy.
You're retarded.
>>29800932
Like any president wants to be known as "The guy who sat there and got nuked".
>Also, bring back nuke tipped ABMs, ought to shut those chinks up for a while. also purdy colors and fuck satellites.
>>29800961
Happened before.
>>29800977
In the fucking 80's with slavshit.
>>29800977
When?
>>29798628
>tfw no catobar
>tfw no carrier capable typhoon
why even live
>>29801009
We don't operate in the Pacific, so its of limited utility.
>>29800850
Those redundant systems depend heavily on launching under warning. They are flexible but they can and likely will break under assault.
Again, it is not an issue of the loss of the weapons, but rather the difficulty in communicating with those systems.
>>29800932
No.
You better launch now because if those DF-21D have nuclear warheads on them then you are now in a shooting conflict with a nation armed with nuclear weapons and a clear intention to use them.
If you strike now, before they escalate further, the only loss is a CSG.
By waiting you are placing the fate of your nation in the decisions of an enemy power willing to use nuclear weapons.
>>29798270
That looks good
>>29800294
missed the second part.
Bigger carriers means bigger slipways, bigger berths, bigger dry docks, and possibly not being able to pass through certain canals/under bridges.
>>29801029
but but but Sea Typhoon... Such a beautiful dream
;_;
>>29798257
10*
>>29798537
If we know China is about to attack, there will be 0% chance of mistaking it.
If it is completely random, chances are 5%, but I doubt we will nuke them before we know for sure. Don't want to start a nuclear war over a few thousands sailors.
>>29798537
Correct.
You wont mistake it for an ICBM, but you dont know if it is nuclear or not.
>>29799849
Stop this fucking meme. The SM-llA is not meant to take down true ICBM's. But it is decent against SRBM's like the DF-21.
Because you must expect that the enemy counter any nuclear first strike with an own nuclear strike.
There is basically no reason to expect that an enemy would even try a limited use of nuclear weapons to destroy a carrier strike group.
>>29801096
that's what RAIL GUNS are for bro.
The US's secret rail gun projects will save us all.
Umadson?
>>29798395
It's also really important to note that US supercarriers are really really fucking tough. CVN-66, the USS America, was used for weapons testing in 2005 and after 25 days of being hit with simulated ordnance she was still afloat. They had to scuttle her because their simulated attacks weren't enough to send her to the bottom.
>>29801137
Sorry, the America wasn't nuclear, so she was CV-66 not CVN-66. My bad.
>>29801137
That's wrong
>>29801137
Well then again one sizeable hit on the runway and it's mission killed.
>>29801137
>CVN
>>29801157
True, but that can be more easily repaired than if she's sitting on the bottom.
>>29801158
If you look right below the original post you'll see I corrected myself
>>29801155
Based on?
>>29799089
>The "to buy" cost is the smallest one of the entire thing, and it's a continual moment of retardation on /k/ for ships and (especially) planes that the "sail/fly away" cost is considered the only thing that matters.
/k/'s logistics experience begins and ends with Starcraft.
>>29801184
A mission killed carrier would be bait for every missile, plane, and ship in a nation's inventory.
The propaganda hit would be worth a tactical loss in unit numbers.
That's the main reason China, Russia, and others have invested so much in these ASHM's and SRBM's. They are a credible threat to strike a propaganda blow. Even if they are tactically mostly a meme.
>>29798249
The most powerful and important part of the US super carriers is the sheer amount of embarrassing asspain it causes slavs and chinamen
>>29801224
True. My dad flew F-14s for most of the Cold War and always said the only real hope the Russians had to kill a carrier was to have the small boy escorts use up all their missiles and hit the carrier with a nuke.When it's that hard to kill a ship, meme weapons seem reasonable.
>>29800984
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/military/nuclear-false-alarms.html
>>29799111
Its kinda strange when it actually turns into a decent discussion, isnt it? Warms my dead cold heart, i tell you.
>>29799142
isnt that kinda normal? The first ship of a class being shitloads over budged, because all things need to be worked out?
>>29798249
>don't even think about shitposting here.
>Don't even think about it.
I admire your optimism OP.
>>29798249
The US has carriers, more than everyone else, and current anti ship missiles can't get though a CBG.
>>29801787
The last US one was 36 years ago.
Can't account for shitty Russian equipment, but I wasn't really talking about them.
>>29801052
Nimitz class carriers:
CVN-68 - USS Nimitz - active
CVN-69 - USS Dwight D. Eisenhower - active
CVN-70 - USS Carl Vinson - active
CVN-71 - USS Theodore Roosevelt - active
CVN-72 - USS Abraham Lincoln - active
CVN-73 - USS George Washington - active
CVN-74 - USS John C. Stennis - active
CVN-75 - USS Harry S. Truman - active
CVN-76 - USS Ronald Reagan - active
CVN-77 - USS George H. W. Bush - active
Then there's the clusterfuck of the Ford class carriers...
So yeah. 10 for the foreseeable future.
>>29801915
You overestimate greatly the level of technology used.
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/americas-nuclear-arsenal-still-runs-off-floppy-disks
>>29799880
Is that thing VTOL? It doesn't look VTOL.
>>29801953
Ford's almost done.
>>29802031
No.
>>29802016
This is what happens when people don't want to spend on nukes.
>>29801859
Pretty much. That;s the way the Virginia subs and Burke destroyers were. After the first few they were delivered ahead of schedule and under-budget.
>>29802047
does the EMALS even work yet?
>>29802183
>>29802159
Virginia and Burke is made with pre-fab sections, right? As soon as those designes are worked out, shit is cash
>>29802183
Last series of test they did worked, don't know though.
>>29802202
Yeah. Bath Iron Works does both of them alongside few other contractors. They're like big metal Legos.
>>29802047
>The USS Ford, or CVN 78, is slated to complete Initial Operational Test & Evaluation in 2017, a key step before formally deploying in service with the Navy.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/01/31/navy-alerted-to-ford-class-carrier-reliability-issues/
>>29799751
How exactly does a missle like that find its target? At those high speeds you can hit a static target easy enough. Try hitting a moving stadium that has layered defenses, political consequences if attacked, and the fact that there's 10 of them scattered around the globe.
Good luck.
>>29802016
Those are the launchers.
Detection/Intelligence hardware has skyrocketed in terms of complexity and capability.
>>29802207
>>29802200
Yea I mean like, with a 10% failure rate?
>>29802289
Even hitting a static target is problematic for a warhead going solely on inertial guidance
>>29802327
are there any mention of where they are having problems?
capacitors? controlls? magnets/coils? calibration?
>>29798452
But cost/operational cycles does.
>>29798513
DF-21 can't hit a moving target. It's not maneuverable enough to correct for target movement, and it's not fast enough to cancel out the movement advantage. It's like trying to hit a hummingbird with a crossbow, at 100 yards.
>>29802475
Then aim at the ports that resupplying the CSG and let them all starve to death in the middle of the fucking ocean.
>>29802490
You're kidding right?
>>29798492
>>29798452
>>29798442
>>29798544
The actual cost savings is in the required crews. Multiple smaller ships require more highly specialized crewmen to properly man and maintain, which costs more to train and pay. Same kind of argument as multiple gen 4/4.5 fighters to a single gen 5 fighter, the cost of the fighters isn't the issue, it's the cost of training the pilots that is.
>>29802490
I guess that explains why Stennis was denied port call at Hong Kong yesterday. :^)
>>29802519
Commercial ships need tiny crews compared to military ships
The crew needs are determined by what you CHOOSE to put in the ship
I'd say a majority of positions could be eliminated with a focus on automation
>>29799924
So much wrong in this post. To begin with, it's destruction not deconstruction.
Secondly, China can't into MAD because they don't have the throw weight to assure the destruction of their opponent.
Thirdly, there's no way of knowing what kind of warhead is on the missile. Assuming nuclear would be reasonable because it's well-known that the DF-21 can't hit a moving carrier, thus rendering conventional warheads useless.
Fourth, American politics demanded the invasion of a country and dismantling of a regime because some airplanes flew into some buildings. You should also keep in mind what happened the last time an Asian country launched a surprise attack on USN assets.
>>29800037
>The US can adsorb the entire Chinese nuclear arsenal and still have plenty of warheads left over,
Or, the US can launch on warning and not have to worry about absorbing the entire PLA arsenal. There is no uncontrolled escalation if the Chinese arsenal ceases to exist.
>>29801045
The current Nimitz/Ford class carriers can't pass through most canals already. So you don't really need to include those.
Though that's likely to change in the next couple of decades because most canals are being enlarged to support larger merchant vessel classes that would be a bit larger than a Nimitz/Ford class footprint.
>>29802556
Commercial ships need smaller crews because they aren't conducting military operations. Hell Panamax ships probably carry fewer crew than a single Burke.
Also you forget that each smaller carrier will still need nuke techs, armory personnel, catapult techs, maintenance techs for the planes, flight controllers, flight deck controllers, arrestor gear techs and probably many more specialized jobs than that.
>>29802809
had to check, and the Emma Mærsk, one of the worlds largest containerships(14700 TEU) has a whooping crew of.....13 people.
>>29800980
Thank god the officer class knew their systems were shit and didn't trust them. We'd be Fallout now.
>>29802490
DF-21 doesn't have the range to hit all of the ports. You're also implying starting a nuclear war with something like a half dozen countries. That's an excellent way to cut all trade into China.
Somebody would wind up starving to death, only I don't think it would be the CSGs.
>>29803006
>You're also implying starting a nuclear war with something like a half dozen countries. That's an excellent way to cut all trade into China.
I'm sure thats why we haven't nuked each other already - trade embargoes.
Not MAD or anything
>>29802809
Dump the nuclear reactor & save a bundle.
Better more modern designs on the other equipment will reduce maintenance/operator needs
Some things can be totally automated, like munitions handling or cargo loading, or movement of the plane around on the deck/hangar.
>>29798249
Never mind super carriers.
Why don't our LHA's use ramps? Increased efficiency and ease for harrier and F-35B's flights.
I hear our marine pilots loved flying from the old british invincible class carriers.
>>29803095
Keep in mind that crews are on rolling schedule, 1/3 active, 1/3 resting, 1/3 training
You can go 50/50 but at some point people need to rest, which considerably raise crew requirements
>>29803095
>Dump the nuclear reactor & save a bundle.
Debatable.
Increased need for UNREP could make not having a reactor just as expensive, depending on where you're operating.
>>29803029
ah, yes because trade embargoes are exactly the same as launching weapons with nuclear warheads (as far as those countries are concerned)
jesus /k/
>>29803354
I see you have a problem with sarcasm
>>29803367
ah, yes sarcasm without any tone of voice
>>29803383
You may be retarded.
>>29803405
He's not entirely wrong, sarcasm can be hard to pick up over a written medium.
>>29803405
ah, yes the french the word for slow
>>29801096
Gee if only we had a missile designed to take on actual ICBMs
>>29798257
What if i told you it already has 20ish regular carriers under a few different names like 'Assault Ship'.
>>29800553
As i recall they had moterboats with ASM launchers on them that were significantly larger than the boat itself. Never did get a full explanation, do you have a link to some better info that the half remembered shit I have rotting in my brain?
>>29804194
LHAs aren't really carriers.
>>29798628
at 60k tons and 40 aircraft, no, it's not. and i'm a bong.
it's great for what we can afford, but it sure as fuck isn't in the league of american supers. at least we can say it's as good or better than everything else in teh world though.
>>29804226
Yes anon, they're carriers, they're just not supercarriers.
>>29804253
Their primary purpose isn't fixed wing aviation, I wouldn't judge that to be a regular carrier.
They're LHAs/LHDs.
>>29804253
They go out with like 4-5 fighters
>>29799751
>You realize they would just ICBM the carriers right?
fuck you
go and actually educate yourself on what an icbm is. then go stick one up your ass. after you've done that, stop using terms if you don't know what they fucking mean.
again, fuck you.
>>29801049
Honestly it would have probably been as shit as the Rafale-N, with near zero parts comparability, huge price tag and meh performance.
>>29802556
The navy admirals were also of your opinion, but early reports from the LCSs show that the automation isn't there yet and the crews get overworked because of this.
>>29804379
But the LCS isn't a great study due to how shitty it is.
>>29804266
Holy shit, I think this is the rare wild species know as the JSDFIDF, come to convince us that Japan has no carriers
>>29800322
according to who exactly
>>29804505
Right, because an Izumo-class is the same as a Wasp class.
>>29804379
LCS is a national embarrassment
>>29802687
They can go through Suez and the new Panamax, which are the important ones.
Very importantly, they can also berth at Yokosuka and Portsmouth.
>>29804722
Can they?
Because the last US carrier that was in Portsmouth didn't.
>>29803417
Unless you have severe autism that particular post should be very obvious.
>>29800869
The "blue" carriers are all rusty and filled with lazy crewmen BTW. Also they aren't issued service weapons.
>>29798395
That's not even funny. Submariner here. If that thing doesn't work, I'm pretty sure we are supposed to take the torpedo. 137 of us vs 8,000 of them. X.X
>>29804411
>>29804600
I'm not arguing the LCS is anything but a trash, but that, among its legion problems, it has too much automation, which failed to sufficiently take the burdens of the crew it supposedly replaced, and hence I don't see the level of automation the anon I replayed to as being realistically available for money or love in the present or near future. I swear people see LCS and stop reading their haste to let you know they too believe the ship to be crap.
>>29806965
The US navy and shipbuilders could easily have just done it wrong
Theres always the failures, and nay sayers going "It's impossible/too hard" up until something is done.
>>29807187
It is indeed possible the failure is simply that of the LCS, have there be any naval ships that have attempted a similar level of automation? I dont know of any, and without more data, all i can safely say is that no one knows how difficult (read expensive) it would be to get the concept working correctly. I do know that if it failes, it basically renders the ship(s) in question near impossible to use in real conditions; and with the expense of even a modest helicopter carrier, i don't think that a carrier is an appropriate test platform until a real ship of smaller size can demonstrate that it works and it works alright.
>>29804520
USA
>>29800869
FUND IT
>>29806965
>LCS
>Independence-class
>75 crew
>too much automation
There is nothing outstanding on that thing. Other ships with similiar tonnage operate with an even smaller crew.
>>29804223
fuck you, my jet ski can carry missiles
>>29798420
>I wonder what the new Chinese one will be when its finished.
the newest artificial reef in the NW Pacific Ocean
>>29799924
>Do America have what it takes to start Mutually Assured Deconstruction?
>China
>MAD
no
>>29802200
are they Ford trucks?
>>29808108
You got it Carlos.
>>29801040
>If you strike now, before they escalate further, the only loss is a CSG.
The scenario is a carrier attacking China, as China has the moral high ground, it is surely that China will not escalate further unless America starts it first. Therefore after the loss of the carrier, there will be no further escalation against the aggressor America.
>By waiting you are placing the fate of your nation in the decisions of an enemy power willing to use nuclear weapons.
China has proven time and again that they can be trusted more than the American politicians when in comes to global security.
>>29803029
China's not self sufficient. Cut trade, they starve. Imagine 100 million hungry Chinese doing food riots. Now imagine China trying to do any kind of coherent warfare while at the same time putting down widespread insurrection.
>>29808472
The point is they don't have to worry about trade when the entire area is turned to glass in retaliatory strikes, genius.
>>29802200
This is the greatest thing I've ever seen.
>>29808472
china IS self-sufficient on everything except oil
>>29808828
GOD no it isn't.
One of the largest food importers in the world.
>>29808729
Ahhh. I see. I missed the subtle intonation and that thing you do with your eyebrows, indicating sarcasm. My bad.
>>29808828
Not even. They abandoned their 95% self sufficiency policy last year. It was unworkable.
If they start throwing nukes around, you can bet nobody will risk shipping anything into China. That's how you lose capital assets. This results in domestic food production being stretched to cover the entire population. Less food, less variety- it's only a matter of time before the burgeoning urban population start rioting for a return to the status quo.
>>29809448
>If they start throwing nukes around, you can bet nobody will risk shipping anything into China.
Why would they ship anything to an irratiated wasteland anyway?
>>29804250
The frogs have an uncucked carrier complete with nuclear propulsion and catapults so no.
>>29798257
They need about 6 super carriers and 2 modern battleships. And large fleet or conventional destroyers and light cruisers.
>>29809964
That only operates for half the year at BEST.
>>29798395
Anti-missle systems like Phalanax don't work, there's no single instance when they've actually shot down any missile in operational conditions.
That includes Soviet derivatives of this shit.
The only thing that can defend you from anti-ship missiles is armour, which is something US Navy can't understand.
>>29809981
We'll see how your cuck carrier operates when it's finished
>>29810006
Basic logic dictates two conventional carriers are going to operate at a higher level of readiness and have at least one operational more than a single carrier with a shitty submarine reactor.
You seem overly attached to the work cuck.
>>29800316
>>29800405
the US is pretty much the only nation to use "super" on their military equipment.
is it because Superman popularized the name?
>>29800623
Uh, duh, your point is implicit in his.
>>29800639
There is no problem with his point that you have mentioned. China still has the exact same incentive not to fire at the US as Russia does. Nobody gives a fuck if the US only mostly dies, neither of them aren't firing nukes for other reasons.
>>29802974
Neh, the lasting effect of nuclear weapons is grossly exaggerated. We blew hundreds of those fuckers up all over the planet, under water, under land, in the air at all different altitudes, even some in space (oooo pretty nuclear rainbows). The subject of fallout and radiation general is wide and varied but with a 'normal' offensive detonation you could go to ground zero a month later and be relatively fine.
>>29804250
If you knew what you are actually talking about you'd know that QE has a hanger bay cap of 50 and top deck cap of 10ish, all coming around to a displacement in the 700+ tons bracket.
So no, she happily fits into the super carrier bracket.
>>29804266
The F-35's STOVL capability is precisely for giving those carriers fixed-wing capability though, no?
>>29800558
Fuck off, /pol/
Nobody cares about your disgusting fetishes.
>>29808828
REEEE the stupidity REEEEEEE
Part of the reason a US-China war will never happen is because China is dependent on US food imports. Their country would starve within a month.
This is why they're much happier with economic colonialism. They get to swing their dick around without having to pay for it.
>>29810755
so to win a china-US war, the US would just have to cut china off the food titty and wait them out?
neat
>>29810262
I have no idea what your point is now.
In this scenario, we're assuming that a swarm of D-21s has been launch because China feels sufficiently threatened by a carrier or carrier group, now as we both know, the D-21 can be equipped with either a conventional warhead or nuclear.
Now, as we've both agreed on, there is no known way of establishing if they are conventional or nuclear mid-flight.
Other than what's written on paper (China's nuclear weapons policy), how can you guarantee (excluding personal reasoning) those weapons are not nuclear?
Keep in mind we know that those who run China behind the scenes aren't stupid, they know exactly what they are doing by conflating conventional and nuclear warheads on a single missile.
>>29810758
Yeah basically. Unless someone in intelligence wants to correct me, that's why China is focused mostly on coastal defenses: to ward off a blockade.
China's ultimate problems are geography and population. They're too big, have too many people, and their economy is entirely export-based. It would be exceedingly easy to cripple them by containment and they know it.
>>29810656
AV-8 already did that.
Doesn't mean they're suited to it at all.
>>29803120
Does anyone know why this is the case? The only thing I've heard is that the ramp takes up a helicopter slot
>>29811666
Harriers are pretty sub-par for that role though.
>>29811782
and the big selling point of the F-35B is that it APPROACHES CATOBAR/CTOL performance.
Still doesn't match it, especially when taking off / landing on a Wasp class sized flight deck.
>>29811835
There's only so much that can be done to make a WWII design work as well as a more modern one.
>>29798271
Van Ripper pls go, you're irrelevant and no amount of wasting Gov. Money by ruining simulations will help you.
>>29811857
..what?
>>29811899
Flat tops are pre-WWII. Do you need more clarification than that?
>>29810110
It all goes back to when we were first ordering the stuff. The defense contractor asked if we wanted to supersize our order, we said yes. Damn that McDonalds conditioning.
>>29809991
So why is it that every navy in the world has abandoned armor and covers their ships in interpreter Missiles and CIWS?
What's the story behind this? I keep hearing about Van Riper "proved" that the US could not defeat Iran or North Korea. But I also keep hearing about how the Red Team commander basically cheated, by launching missiles from boats far too small for them etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
What really happened?
>>29813241
It was autism anon, autism happened.
>>29813241
Some retard thought he could fuck up an expensive exercise by shitposting
Then the media has shilled his dumbass for years
>>29813241
Military made a simulated Wargame trying to imitate the most realistic conditions possible.
Van Riper started doing things that were allowed under the program, but realistically impractical.
>>29815868
Total Information Awareness is "practical"
Unexpected happenings will never happen in war. The enemy is always predicable and our intelligence is always perfect
>Teleporting motorcycle messengers and stealth missile boats are unrealistic
>Yet perfect communications intercept and uncontested airspace are obvious inevitabilities in war
This is what Pentagon shills actually believe
>>29813241
He abused flaws in the rules of the exercise, creating a force that would be impossible in a real-life scenario and "winning."
The issue isn't so much that he went against the script, but that he did so in a manner that was not at all realistic, wasting time and money. Worse, he threw a shitfit after he was rightfully reprimanded, going to the media, who raised a shitstorm after only getting his side of the story.
>>29816053
The military has a huge and well funded PR/propaganda department if they had any facts that wasn't totally humiliating for them it would have been memed already.
>>29816048
They weren't 'stealth' so much as carrying 5,000lb AShMs from the back of jetskis.
>>29816307
The "jetskis" were suicide boats, not the ones that carried anti ship missiles. It was a mix. Suicide boats are effective weapons (USS Cole) quit shilling faggot.
>>29802327
Regular steam cats failed too from time to time.
10% is also a lie.
>>29816476
No, they were using fishing boats to launch AShMs, which is retarded.
Thats not the real problem though.
In the sim, (this is a computer program) you could NOT fire upon civilian traffic, full stop. Even if you see a missle on it.
So the carrier and escorts had ZERO way to engage the missiles or the boats.
MC02 was a sham, and you are a fool for buying it.
>>29816563
So the Sim was flawed an unrealistic. Sounds like (yet another) failure of leadership.
Don't blame Red team for poking holes in your propaganda parade. If we can't even design a realistic war game what makes you think we can fight a realistic war?
>>29816633
>So the Sim was flawed an unrealistic.
Yes, 100%.
>Don't blame Red team for poking holes in your propaganda parade.
Red knew the unrealistic design limitations and exploited them anyways, it was nonconstructive and a waste of time and money.
> If we can't even design a realistic war game what makes you think we can fight a realistic war?
Because it was not a full blown war game.
MC02 had a very specific goal, only tangentially related to actual fighting.
>>29798249
can you post a proper picture? this isn't the fucking 80s you can do better then a 480x347
>>29816563
>>29816697
can't they just run the program with better ruleset? it was a computer program afterall.
or it is one of those simulation that cost millions of dollars just to press go.
>>29809448
and guess what they're gonna do when all those people lose their only child (son)
china doesn't have the demographics to fight a war
>>29809964
lol fuck no
>>29810546
if you knew what you were talking about you would know that the class can't operate more than 40 aircraft efficiently.
you'd also know that the latter ship of the nimitz class are hitting 100k empty. fully laden? yeah.
>>29816563
don't forget unjammable cellphones and motorbikes that travel faster than light.
>>29816879
>if you knew what you were talking about you would know that the class can't operate more than 40 aircraft efficiently.
Give me a single citation on that, we're also not taking about efficiency, we're talking about total capacity.
>you'd also know that the latter ship of the nimitz class are hitting 100k empty. fully laden? yeah.
The weight of the Nimitz does not change the weight of the QE, at 70k she's the third heaviest and largest carrier class in the world.
>>29798395
God I see this posted everytime a fucking US carrier is mentioned and it's dumb
It's just some fucking buttblasted damage controlling americunt splerging out over some person who's thinking realistically.
>>29801128
>The US's secret rail gun projects
>implying it's not well known that a BONG company is testing and making them
lol
>>29817108
It was an American company before BAE inc. (NOT PLC) bought it, utter nitwit.
>>29816822
>or it is one of those simulation that cost millions of dollars just to press go.
Nailed it, because it was used in conjunction with actual ground assets in Nevada or some shit.
>>29817073
Agreed.
Any green shirts here tonight ? Is there any talk about the arresting cable parting on EISENHOWER last month ?
What are the dotted lines for that run near the foul lines ? Is that a "do not cross" line ?
>>29809991
>armour, which is something US Navy can't understand
Can you elaborate on this?
