Just curious, because some people are claiming that they are old weapons that wouldn't last two days in a real conflict.
Are carriers obsolete? Or are they still relevant?
>>30257557
They would be the main target of the enemy fleet, so what do you think?
>>30257557
As long as planes exist and are relevant, then an aircraft carrier is relevant. Why would it not be? Planes are still the premier means of killing things. They provide standoff and sustained fighting capabilities unmatched by anything.
>>30257557
every fucking day
every single fucking day
>>30257588
Going to go with no.
Much like an AWACs asset, and the GPS constellation, they'd be the first thing knocked out of the fight.
>>30257620
Would they really? You do realize that carriers are the single best protected asset in the world? That a single CSG was supposed to soak up saturation attacks of hundreds of missiles at once, and that was during the Cold War?
>>30257557
OP it really depends on multiple factors on the topic of aircraft carriers.
Things like how many you can procure at a time, can you operate it or another year round, do you have the aircraft for it, do you need the force projection across multiple seas?
For countries like the US where they have essentially had at least 3 aircraft carriers roaming the oceans worldwide for the last 80 years, the force projection is vital to projecting american interests and supporting whatever conflict. France which often helps out countries in west africa on bombing terror groups sees it fit to have mistrals and the the CDG on rotation.
For countries like Britain and China, where for much of the last 50 years have had little conflict or need to project power (exceptions like the Falklands), they can be necessary it beefing up their strategic look.
Country position is also another factor. For Russia, the only reason they had carriers for the last 50 years has been to keep up with the US in terms of ship building and having at least one carrier. For the United states where they have two water borders and patrol every major sea, incredibly useful.
Having aircraft carriers also requires the necessary force to protect them. The United States again has things like Aegis and the Brits which have Sea Viper.
Countries which have carriers such as Italy, Thailand, Australia (without fixed wing jets though) and Spain mostly have from old NATO commitments or are surrounded with water and need them for smaller conflicts.
To the point on defense of a carrier, many of the smaller countries with carriers simply don't get into large conflicts. For the US, they have literally designed ships and multiple missiles to defend their carriers from threats. In a full on conflict between the US and another major power (Russia or China), carriers would be enormously useful, and with the defense infrastructure like Aegis, they would provide a good staging platform for strikes against adversaries
>>30257748
You forget that the CSG was to soak up dozens of missiles from Soviet bombers, fighters and subs with support from satellites and recon assets.
Not fucking Russian rust buckets claiming to be a navy.
>>30257748
The Vampire rush showed that you could sink a carrier in a conventional war.
It was gamed out, and the US immediately started trying to get Aegis and Standard working properly. Because the US lost the conflict.
And submarines continually sink carriers in exercises, to the point where crewman who serve on carriers get extremely demoralized.
Can't tell you how many times we sunk flat tops on exercise, and how many times the results were hushed up. Doubly embarrassing when foreigners do it to us. Diesel electrics are crazy quiet, and a real pain to find unless you've got active sonar pinging constantly.
>>30257797
The same shit happened before WW2 when the US Navy pounded its own battleships and fixed defenses in fleet exercises.
The exercises are meant to find holes and formulate tactics.
>>30257797
>It was gamed out, and the US immediately started trying to get Aegis and Standard working properly. Because the US lost the conflict.
So the USN discovered a weakness and immediately plugged it. That's what happens. Move and countermove. I also suggest you read a series of articles called Deception and the Backfire Bomber.
>And submarines continually sink carriers in exercises, to the point where crewman who serve on carriers get extremely demoralized.
Yeah, bullshit. Especially on the second part. Yes, submarines have occasionally sank carriers in exercises. No, it hasn't been hushed up. Are submarines dangerous? Sure. But you've got to be sitting right in the carrier's path in order to be undetected, and the ocean's a big place.
Once lasers and railguns become commonplace, will aircraft carriers become obsolete? If you can blow up missiles, you can surely do the same with much slower fighters, right?
>>30257924
Probably not. Planes are much better platforms for lasers, after all, and you have to target things with a railgun somehow.
Why not just nuke it?
>>30257980
I dunno, why not? I mean, it's not like living downwind of radioactive hellpits would suck or anything.
if satellites are real, every carrier is tracked and a duck for surplus silkworms the second anything real ever pops off.
>>30258038
Question, monsieur! How exactly does the satellite see the carrier?
I wouldn't say they are obsolete
However the super expensive & capable fleet carrier is an obsolete concept
>>30258035
tsar bomba, the largest nuke ever detonated, was 99.9% non- radioactive and had virtually no fallout. It was essentially a very large conventional bomb. Russia could only test it on their soil by ensuring there was no fallout. I forget the science of it, but I think the warhead lost a bit of its potential yield due to the way they had to build it to get it that way.
>>30258147
>However the super expensive & capable fleet carrier is an obsolete concept
Read this. Big CVNs are the most cost effective option.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.hudson.org/files/publications/201510SharpeningtheSpearTheCarriertheJointForceandHighEndConflict.pdf
>>30258278
Big CVN's are fine
Nuclear powered 12 billion dollar Ford class carriers are not
There are other ways to do things.
>>30258504
Realize that the Ford will actually cost less over its lifetime than the Nimitz, while providing more capability. Higher up front, lower sustainment. No, there's really not any better ways of doing things without severely hampering yourself. There have been studies to the death about this very topic, and the conclusions thereof have led the Navy on the path it is on. Or are you suggesting you know better than the many people who have studied this very topic to death for decades?
i think they're breddy good for force projection and transferring assets and shit
>>30258524
Any time a government organization declares that the way its done something for 60 years is the optimal and best way to do something, they are just lying
Maybe the Ford is the best the Navy can do, but thats because of their own limitations and problems.
>>30258578
So you're saying it's wrong without actually having a real reason for it, gotcha.
>>30257557
So think of it like this,
In surface vs surface engagement:
an anti surface missile launched from whatever platform has a range that is limited to the range of the missile, aircraft carrying that missile more than doubles that range while also providing much better scouting. Expecting a carrier attack group to engage in close combat with a surface fleet is really weird, and would say something about competency of the navy or the availability of other options.
In surface vs sub engagement:
I don't think this is even necessary to discuss, anti sub warfare is heavily dependent on aircraft.
During invasions:
They provide air support even when there is no base available close to destination. The only parts of the world they would fail to do that are quite irrelevant (landlocked countries in Central Asia or Africa).
So I don't understand why they would be obsolete, and you should post the claims made by some people in the explanation instead of just putting it out as you did.
>>30258150
>Hurr Durr I'm a fucking idiot
It wasn't clean and it wasn't '99.9% non-radioactive'.
It was RELATIVELY clean, it still produces fallout.
Not to mention that they'd never be able to deploy since you'd have to stick it on a Tu-95.
>>30257557
OP next time you think of asking retarded questions like this, ask ur self.
>are airfields outdated?
>>30258091
Radar. Are you really that dense?
>>30260015
Airfields are relatively cheap compared to a Carrier, and a Carrier is used for Force projection. If the carrier is denied access to an area, or worse, sunk, then it cannot accomplish its mission. An airstrip on the other hand, can't be sunk. Sure it can be mined/destroyed, but you can lay down some concrete slabs somewhere else.
Let me flip the question around, in a land battle/front scenario, airstrips are priority targets. Do you think a Carrier isn't a priority target in a major conflict?
>>30257557
I would say no. Honestly, It's one of the few fuck-huge ships that really isn't in my opinion.
>>30257601
It's better than the threads trying to validate bringing back battleships.
Friendly reminder that a single diesel electric Dutch sub took out pretty much an entire carrier fleet single handedly during a wargames exercise.
Just google uss Theodore Roosevelt and walrus.
>>30261732
It sucks that i cant find an english version of this article.
http://marineschepen.nl/dossiers/Hoe-Nederlandse-onderzeeboot-Walrus-Amerikaans-vliegdekschip-tot-zinken-bracht.html
Feel free to put it through google translate. But weed runes dont translate into english well.
>be capt. of proud Dutch submarine
>turdwithapropellor.tiff
>enter xbox hueg JTFEX 99-1 wargames
>given a couple of a4 papers with info
>"lol good luck losing to our awesome carrierfleet"
>only information on sheets is how deep you need to dive to safely pass underneath the ships and some general intel regarding the RoE
>fuck it. We rogue sub now
>slowly cruise through area the size of texas to find ships
>mapping salt layers for cover
>using electronic warfare equipment to listen in on radio and radar.
>map enemy targets calmly like a baked Dutchfag does.
>take out three subhunters after 1 day of wargamez
>haters gonna hate
>hear a lot of chatter coming in through the electronic warfare mast.
>carrier group spotted
>hide in carefully mapped salt layers
>peekaboo with periscope
>go in for a closer look, cuz fuckit it's an exercise, not war.
>see glorious pinacle of Burgerland engineering. A Nimitz class carrier with full destroyer group surrounding it.
>F14s taking off
>Mybodyisready.webm
>launch green smoke nades to signal torpedo attack
>nothing happenz.
>go in for a closer shot
>launch again.
>all hell breaks loose
>Dive underneath carrier
>anything that pings gets a torpedo
>all fregats and destroyers get shreked
>design t-shirt with a carrier on the tusks of a walrus
>get a compliment and the cold shoulder after debriefing
Such is the life onboard a dutch sub
>>30257797
>Can't tell you how many times we sunk flat tops on exercise, and how many times the results were hushed up. Doubly embarrassing when foreigners do it to us. Diesel electrics are crazy quiet, and a real pain to find unless you've got active sonar pinging constantly.
In a lot of those exercises, conditions were rigged in the submarine's favor. And they're never going to mention the situations where the sub WASN'T successful.
>>30257980
Because you don't want to be the country that started a nuclear war
>>30261628
>better than the threads trying to validate bringing back battleships
With gliderStugs, and armored Zeppelins! Fund it!
>>30261388
>Airfields are relatively cheap compared to a Carrier
They are not. Large, sophisticated airfields cost billions of dollars to build.
>>30257791
>the CSG was to soak up dozens of missiles
Incoming iCBM with thermonuclear warhead coming in, detonating at altitude. How do you soak it up?
>>30257797
>trying to get Aegis and Standard working properly
Aegis, the system that confused a civilian passenger aircraft with a hostile fighter jet. Did they ever get it to work properly?
>>30257825
>The exercises are meant to find holes and formulate tactics.
Sure holes were found. Did the formulated tactics plug the holes?
>>30257883
>Yeah, bullshit. Especially on the second part. Yes, submarines have occasionally sank carriers in exercises. No, it hasn't been hushed up. Are submarines dangerous? Sure. But you've got to be sitting right in the carrier's path in order to be undetected, and the ocean's a big place.
And how can you know this?
>>30258091
>How exactly does the satellite see the carrier?
Radar. Visible light. Infrared emission. Radio and radar emissions (unless under emcon). Indirect means like seeing the wake after gigantic groups of ships that make up a carrier group.
>>30261960
>conditions were rigged in the submarine's favor
Why on Earth would they do that? "Train as you fight" is a common principle so why would you deviate from the principle here?
>>30262085
Sufficient airfields are cheap and sappers are pretty good at putting them up quickly as they did in the Pacific theater back then. No one talked about *sophisticated* airfields.
>>30262518
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-031.htm
>ICBM
If nukes are flying it's past the scenario where carriers, or anything else on this earth, will be of use.
As far as the exercises, I recall that the operational area is limited so that the carrier has less area to hide in.
>>30262692
>http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-031.htm
There are some seriously big time problems with the scenarios described there. Author pretends not to know about AIS or SOSUS chains. Unbelievable.
>As far as the exercises, I recall that the operational area is limited so that the carrier has less area to hide in.
An area the size of Texas was mentioned.
>>30263284
>Author pretends not to know about AIS or SOSUS chains. Unbelievable.
>literally talking about exercises that were done
>he's just making things up and doesn't even know about X, how fucking stupid is he??
0/10
>>30262518
>Aegis, the system that confused a civilian passenger aircraft with a hostile fighter jet. Did they ever get it to work properly?
Never happened. It was entirely human error.
I see that you're just b8ing and not worth even replying to anymore, have a good day nigger.
>>30257557
Let me put it like this:
Every nation that wants to project power beyond the range of their shore bases has or wants a carrier. Ski jump carriers are a joke, but if you don't want the carrier to be the central point of your fleet then they're better than nothing.
>>30262518
>Why on Earth would they do that? "Train as you fight" is a common principle so why would you deviate from the principle here?
The same reason why we put Luneberg lenses on F-22s for air combat exeecises? You skew an unbalanced playing field so that both sides can best benefit from often costly exercises.
>>30263298
>Fails to rebut even one argument.
OK, you tried.
>>30263307
>It was entirely human error.
That was not in the report. The Aegis was blamed. And SPY-1 was not that popular afterwards. With one exception: the US sold it to the Norwegian frigates.
I asked a simple question. Not even rhetorical. And you failed.
>>30264036
>That was not in the report. The Aegis was blamed. And SPY-1 was not that popular afterwards. With one exception: the US sold it to the Norwegian frigates.
Utter and complete bullshit. Look at any account of the events at all. The captain was a madman who just wanted to shoot things. This can be seen in his actions prior to the shooting as well.
>>30262518
>Why on Earth would they do that? "Train as you fight" is a common principle so why would you deviate from the principle here?
Mainly because they want to give the less advanced side a more even playing field. There's also because they don't want to fully reveal the full capabilities of classified military tech. Even in Red Flag the USAF will put on the kid gloves to make sure foreign partners have a chance to learn the ropes.
>Sufficient airfields are cheap and sappers are pretty good at putting them up quickly as they did in the Pacific theater back then. No one talked about *sophisticated* airfields.
This was back during the time when planes used piston engines so they didn't need long runways and really didn't have to worry about FOD on their engines. Modern aircraft are an entirely different matter. You need at least a decent paved runway for a modern jet fighter not to mention all of the support facilities you need to keep it maintained. That shit adds up.
>>30261388
>Airfields are relatively cheap
USAF Civil engineer here: They most certainly are not
Also, Carriers can move around and are easier to defend
>>30264387
Mobility is there only real defense, you can overwhelm the escorting ships pretty easily. Or sneak by them.
>>30264844
>you can overwhelm the escorting ships pretty easily. Or sneak by them.
You don't seem to understand the concept of escort ships...
>>30264887
Brahmos. SSK. SSGN.
>>30264901
You make it sound like the USN wasn't preparing for missile spam ever since the Cold War. Backfire raids were supposed to achieve the same purpose.
Also, it's not like CSGs don't have their own sub forces protecting them, too.
>>30264844
Yeah, and any ADA the army setup or organic air defenses are going to provide more protection than escort ships.
You're also forgetting that maneuverability and disinformation is a CBG's greatest asset.
>>30264844
>you can overwhelm the escorting ships pretty easily
Yeah, fire up a game of CMANO and see how many missiles you need to do that. Hell, open up Clancy's Red Storm Rising, and realize that was all done with 30 year old technology. The USN is very much prepared to deal with saturation attacks of all sort, especially now that the SM-6 allows you to start shooting from even farther out now.
>>30264036
M8, >>30264207 is right. It was entirely human error.
Soure? United States Navy case study for the Iran Air Flight 655 incident. The US Navy literally teaches its officers that it was human error, so we can hope to avoid similar situations in the future.
>>30265039
>Yeah, and any ADA the army setup or organic air defenses are going to provide more protection than escort ships.
This is hilariously wrong. How many missiles does a Patriot battery have? The Navy's missiles are far more numerous, faster to fire, and arguably more potent. As of its last deployment, CSG 1's escorts had a total of 410 Mk 41 VLS cells available for use. Let's assume only half of them are filled with SAMs. That's still 205 VLS cells. But then, don't forget you can put four ESSM in a given cell. Let's assume roughly one quarter (50) of these cells were dedicated to ESSM. That means that CSG 1 has 355 SAMs with which to defend itself. Even allocating 2 per target, as is British doctrine, you still see how excessive the defenses are.
>>30265346
Anon I'm on your side, I was pointing out that nearly no amount of ground side ADA is going to match a CBG in pure output of defensive firepower. Especially if it's 'abroad' and engaging in offensive operations.
>>30265463
Sorry, sarcasm is hard to detect on the internet.
>>30265346
Refloating an airfield is a lot easier then refloating a carrier.
>>30265777
Not having to fix it at all is the benefit, mate.
>>30257826
The assblast is real.
t. 'Merican.
>>30258608
>The only parts of the world they would fail to do that are quite irrelevant (landlocked countries in Central Asia or Africa).
Disagree with that. The US has less focus on inner Asia precisely because much of it is beyond the footprint of CSGs. If they were closer to a coast they might be tempted to switch allegiance from Russia to USA.
This thread completely ignoring when the Russians forced a carrier group out of the Med in the cold war using nothing but ships and subs.
>>30257588
>88â–¶>>30257620
>>>30257557 (OP)
>They would be the main target of the enemy fleet, so what do you think?
I think that the surrounding fleet of Air Defense, Anti-Submarine Destroyers, Submarines doing patrols in the wider AO, exist for a reason.
And that the carrier exists to support amphibious landings, force projections and then secondarily as a platform for AWACS/AEW aircraft that will help the mentioned fleet and invasion forces.
Nothing has changed since the Falklands, and that was the worst case for an aircraft carrier, in contrast to modern US conflict where the fleet was used to block sea pathways or just bomb the ground from a distance,without realistic naval opposition. All those "BrAhMOS anti-carrier killer" shit is funny because it assumes OPFOR will know where the carrier it is, as if there isn't a whole fleet of ships,planes and technologies being developed for 100 years to stop exactly that. And all the CIWS upgrades, lasers and what not.
>>30264207
>The captain was a madman who just wanted to shoot things.
>literally gets his boat nicknamed Robocruiser after the Robocop movies
Lol, what a trip that guy was. Why didn't he get recognized for what he was earlier though?
>>30257826
but we cant turn them out right away
in dubya dubya too it took a year for an essex to come out, yeah
but doesnt a ford take a whole fucking decade to complete and comission
>>30262518
You are one of those people that don't know advanced jets on exercises (Russian or American) get a nice little device to emit EM waves, too both mask the signal and enable a more even scenario. The exercises somewhat PR, and somewhat free flying hours and a trip, and somewhat your learn about the capabilities of an airplanes aerodynamic and propulsion properties. The better-equipped, stealthier plane is still going to smoke that dogfighter from 40km away.
you don't need to sink the battle group, just stop the supplies ships from reaching the battle group. You know what they say, a yanky go without his colas for a day and he be drinking their friend's blood the following meal
They would be obsolete if they were the only thing you relied on during a war.
>>30267448
>but doesnt a ford take a whole fucking decade to complete and comission
It takes just about 5 years, maybe a little longer, of actual work. Of course, this is peacetime, non-rushed work, meant in part to build them at a slow, sustained pace both for budget reasons and for sustaining the manufacturing base.
>>30257980
>Nuking something classed as US sovereign soil
>good idea
>>30257980
Because you'd have to deal with the response.
>>30258038
>if satellites are real
come again?
>>30261360
And how does the satellite keep track of the carrier if the Carrier moves away from the satellite's orbit, which are well known to everyone.
How does the Satellite keep track of the Carrier when it's orbit takes it around the other side of the earth?
>>30261916
This is basically the same as those F-22 Killmarks you see on Eurofighters and Rafales.
Which definitely means that if a F-22 and a Rafale throw down for real, the F-22 will definitely lose.
>>30257557
>>30257826
Everyone else's carriers are obsolete.
America's carriers make them so.
(honestly, any non-american country that's thinking about getting carriers should really get a LHA helicarrier/troop transport like HMS Ocean, they're not huge, but they're perfect for ASW, shipping protection AND humanitarian relief operations, honestly if it comes down to a choice between a nation getting a LHA or a "real carrier", always get a LHA, they're more useful for a wider variety of things)
>>30257557
As long as our carrier borne warplanes so vastly outrange our anti-ship missiles, carriers are still in business.
>>30271377
A carrier groups speed is also reasonably well known, just like the satellite's orbit. You can pretty much set up a "box" based around speed x time, in which a ship will remain inside intill the next pass. The the satellite whill work that box to re-aquire it. You might fuck up a Backfire-strike by making them search said box for the target and thus limit their range, but thats about it.
>>30271665
Goddamn, America fuck yeah.
>>30273614
Course and speed are variable. Carriers have been known to change both as soon as a satellite comes over the horizon, and again when the satellite drops below the opposite horizon. That makes for a hellishly huge box that the Backfires have to canvass. It gets even more difficult when they come under attack by the CAP from the carrier, coming in from a misleading vector.
It's almost like this was planned out in the 70s and 80s.
>>30269624
All military vessels of all nations are considered sovereign soil. This isn't just a US thing, or a carrier thing. Read a little maritime law sometime.
>>30273831
The point I was making was that you would have to really, really hate your own country to nuke a US carrier, or indeed any nuclear armed nations carrier, as once you've done that, especially if it was unprovoked, then you're in for a real shit time.
>>30273812
Running the math, with an assumed max speed of 35 knots on the carrier group (how fast are they anyways?), being nice and rounding to 1 knot = 2 km per hour, it gives us a radius of 105 km. Given all possible directions that the group can travel, would result in a search area of about..... 35 000 square km. About half the size of Scotland. And thats before you factor in the flight time for a raid as well as data downlink/processing time.
I bet those wargames back in the 70's and 80's were quite interesting.
>>30273812
30 knots isn't that fast, in six hours (and face it, there will be a satellite overhead every 2 hours) the carrier can be 120 miles away from where it was. 120 mile radius is 240 mile diameter circle. That's super easy to find, to the point you could blind fire packs of ASMs into it, and the auto-targeting feature would take over. The missiles operate like a swarm, one or two fly high, using radar to find the big target, and the others all correct their course while sea-skimming in towards that target. It's actually a really complex system, but it was purpose built to kill carriers, even if the exact position at time of launch is unknown.
>>30274226
>. 120 mile radius is 240 mile diameter circle. That's super easy to find, to the point you could blind fire packs of ASMs into it, and the auto-targeting feature would take over.
Yeah, no. You aren't going to be firing into that large of an area, and you certainly aren't going to hit anything with it. And that's not an easy area to search, especially given that there are people actively preventing you from doing so.
>>30274226
You're not going to fire your missiles into a vague 240 square mile area and just hope one of them finds the CSG. That's not how saturation attacks work.
Keep in mind that the USN was able to sneak THREE carrier groups right up into visual range of Russia's coast in the '80s, where the Soviet military capability was arguably at its peak.
>>30274226
>120 mile radius is 240 mile diameter circle. That's super easy to find
Mate, that's an area of 45,000 square miles.
>>30274226
That sounds like a great way to cause an international incident.
>>30274205
>>30273812
>>30273614
>>30274226
>>30274347
>>30274356
This discussion makes me want to re-read Red Storm Rising, for like the eleventh time
>>30274356
>B5, miss. You hit a random cruise ship. Also, an oil platform.
>>30271665
Because that isn't outdated as fuck, is it
>>30262518
>ICBM
Not against moving targets.
>>30274493
Dancing With Vampires was such a great chapter.
>>30274567
Which part was that again? At Iceland? Or the "fuck me, we are killing drones"-part?
>>30274686
The whole chapter is the attack on the carrier group.
>>30257557
carriers can rek so much shit in two days you wouldn't believe
they are still relevant.
HOWEVER
they are too big, too expensive, too irreplaceable and very very sinkable
THEREFORE
they are a strategic vulnerability, a weak point, no matter their enormous tactical value
HOWEVER
they are not obsolete in any way, just like how battleships remained relevant to the end of WWII, the carrier will probably play a huge role in WWIII, but it won't decide the war
my bet is on submarines, as far as naval warfare goes
>>30274347
That's not a huge area, and that is assuming the strike comes after 6 hours, which is a VERY conservative timeframe. In all likelihood the vampires would be launched about an hour after having found the carrier. But I used 6 as n example. Sq Kilometres seems like a big number, but it's just deceptive. A standard radar can scan about a 1/4 of that in one pass from a given point. The other 3/4s will be scanned as the vampires close on the probable location. Call it 10 minutes tops to find the carrier. The escort ships will turn on their radar when their passive finds the missiles active, which will immediately narrow the search area, and then it's just a numbers game.
>>30274707
Probably the sanest answer. In a full scale conflict, carriers are dead. Subs will determine seapower advantage. In most conflicts the US plans to fight (aside from China) the carrier should still be able to get within 500 miles of a coast to launch airstrikes, with limited risk.
>>30274711
>Sea skimming missile with a 60 mile radar horizon
No
>Escorts will radiate, giving away the CSG
No
>Missiles won't be intercepted
No
>>30271385
F-22 can not be defeated
>>30274697
Ah. Like 1/5th of the book is about those fucking missiles, so had to narrow it down some :p
>>30264207
>The captain was a madman who just wanted to shoot things.
Why no court martial? Why instead medals? After all the officer that led a US boat into Iranian waters recently was kicked out.
>>30274760
not the guy you were replying to but
>>Sea skimming missile with a 60 mile radar horizon
>No
yes, actually. current AShMs can fly in packs. one of the missiles pops up, and tells the others, which remain on-deck, what it sees
>>Escorts will radiate, giving away the CSG
>No
actually, yes they will
you can't hang the fate of an entire CSG on a lonely E-3 and a couple drones, not when you have a serious suspicion that an entire regiment may be coming to wreck your shit
>>30274824
>yes, actually. current AShMs can fly in packs. one of the missiles pops up, and tells the others, which remain on-deck, what it sees
There's one missile that supposedly can do this, and has never demonstrated the ability to do so. SAMs such as the SM-6 or anything with an active radar themselves can locate and engage anything it finds well outside of the launch platforms radar horizon as well.
>>30274711
You have no clue at all. First of all, as has been stated before, you have to find the thing first. Which isn't easy, even with satellites. Do note the Soviets completely failed to notice the aircraft carriers in striking range of Vladivostok for quite a few days, despite doing their utmost to find them. Secondy, even if you think you see something on satellite, you need to confirm it with another system, because the satellite is bound to be spoofed, decoyed, or just jammed by something else.
And you think that maritime patrol aircraft will help you figure out where they are? Hell no. That's the glory of E-2s, baby. You can have a radar radiating without giving away your location. This applies to the attack too. An E-2D offset from the CSG by a hundred+ nmi is unlikely to give a workable targeting solution, while still giving you all the delicious information you could ever want. So you don't have a firing solution in the slightest. Now, let's think what happens if they do launch missiles anyways. How many missiles are they going to devote to a strike that's not likely to do anything? They need to husband their resources in order to be able to achieve enough mass to overwhelm the defense. This means that you can't be wasting missiles frivolously. And even if you do, the CSG can now react to these missiles without turning their radars active. Thank you, AIM-120D and SM-6. And, if you really wanted to, you could create a missile trap, where you send a ship farther out in front of the CSG, specifically so it can hit those missiles away from the CSG. Works better for planes, cause you can actually catch the launchers.
And I said square miles, dipshit. Not kilometers. You grossly overestimate maritime search and targeting capabilities when they're actively being fought against.
>>30274824
>you can't hang the fate of an entire CSG on a lonely E-3 and a couple drones, not when you have a serious suspicion that an entire regiment may be coming to wreck your shit
I can, would, and have in CMANO. And it's an E-2. E-3s are land based.
>>30274856
P-700, P-800, P-1000, Brahmos, all have this capability. It's in the sales brochure for the product..
Are these threads obsolete?
Just curious, because some /k/ommandos are claiming these are frivolous shit posts that wouldn't last two days in a defense contractor think tank.
Are carrier threads obsolete due to the rise of F-35 shitposts? Or are they still the perfect bait?
>>30274887
Ah yes, CMANO, the 'realistic' sim that still uses 1970s intelligence.
Trust me, naval engagements are like playing flashlight tag. He who radiates first, dies. And when your force can radiate at will (missiles) but your enemy can't, or is forced to (carrier groups) they die.
A carrier is a big target, and a holdover from WW2. It's dead meat in any modern engagement.
>>30274824
> pop-up missile is immediately swatted by an SM-6
> next one is immediately jammed
> whole pack of bazalt missiles fly around like headless chickens until they run out of fuel.
>>30274949
>Trust me, naval engagements are like playing flashlight tag. He who radiates first, dies. And when your force can radiate at will (missiles) but your enemy can't, or is forced to (carrier groups) they die.
Yep. This is why AEW aircraft are so great, and why I've been singing their praises while you purposefully ignore them.
Carriers are neither as invulnerable as the Yankees state nor as much of a sitting duck as the Chinks/Vatniks say.
P-700 has pop radar? SM-6 was developed with an active radar homing seeker so you can throw them over the horizon at potential ASHM threats.
Then the Russians can try to spoof SM-6 vollies by having lone missiles act as bait.
Then the Americans figure out their own countermeasure, like datalinking to SM-6 so the first one can tell the DDG exactly how many targets there are. If it's just one ASHM, nothing more to do, if there's a lot, throw more interceptors in the area.
Game of cat and mouse been going on forever, and the engineers who make carriers/ASHM's know methods and tricks that /k/ will never find out about.
>>30274856
> one missile
you're forgetting the chinks'
> engage
yes the lead missile might get shrekt if it doesn't pop down fast enough
yes look-down radar might find the entire flight
no, engaging supersonic sea-skimmers is still not trivial
>>30274887
> have in CMANO
you have never played against people in CMANO or you would have learned why this is a very, very bad idea
> it's an E-2. E-3s are land based
and air-refuelable. with how many bases the US has, there is literally no reason to not have one around when shit hits the fan
AN/APY-9 has a stated range of only 350 km, way less than a Bazalt missile
Carriers won't be obsolete as long as you need aircrafts at sea. Aircrafts perform vital roles such as early warning, anti-submarine warfare, and striking. Semi autonomous drones on carriers will make carriers even more useful. You need a flexible military and a boat with just missiles doesn't solve every problem.
>>30274966
it is never this simple
> pop-up missile finds carrier
> carrier escort fires up targeting radar to provide midcourse update to SM
> world + dog now has a fresh datum on the CSG
gg, wp, you get to see what a 350 kt blast does, up close
>>30275083
What does the range of a Bazalt missile have to do with the detection range of AN/APY-9?
What matters is how fast the Bazalt can go through that 350 km detection range and to the carrier, likely more because the E-2 is between the carrier and the threat.
Range helps increase the survivability of the launch platform, not necessarily the success rate of the attack.
> no, engaging supersonic sea-skimmers is still not trivial
Not trivial but definitely not all that difficult.
AMRAAM-C has 90% success rate against low-level targets in trials, no reason to expect SM-6 would be any worse considering it's the same seeker head.
>>30275136
> carrier escort fires up targeting radar to provide midcourse update to SM
Doesn't need one. Midcourse update is for manuvering targets. ASHM's are not manuvering targets, and they have a turning radius bigger than the size of most countries. From launch, it's an intercept solution coded into the INS. The DDG doesn't have to radiate at all.
Alternatively the DDG hands missile targeting over to the E-2, which can definitely see the pop-up and very soon the entire pod of missiles.
>>30262518
>Sufficient airfields are cheap
Sufficient for what? We're not flying Gripens which we can land and support on a roadway. We've got F-35s. The princess of the air which will need massive, specialized ground support (the ALIS ground support system being pretty broken at the moment). And that fuel had better not be too hot (like Goldilocks porridge).
>>30275212
>And that fuel had better not be too hot
You were already pretty bullshit, but instantly dissregarded here.
Do you just like sucking David Axe's cock or is he cutting you a check?
>>30275046
this man knows things and actually understands what he knows
>>30275146
you, on the other hand, do not
> What does the range of a Bazalt missile have to do with the detection range of AN/APY-9?
everything. launch with impunity means you can launch as many times as needed to get a hit, therefore ultimately obtaining a kill with even a low pK
> AMRAAM-C has 90% success rate against low-level targets
in tests, against subsonic missiles
you are severely underestimating the intensity of an actual conflict, because you're just a CMANO player with very little imagination
it would never, ever be just eight lonely missiles against a whole CSG
it's always systems of systems battling systems of systems, and in the end either someone pulls a fucking trump card out of their sleeve and it's gg wp, or it boils down to literal fractions of a percent chances deciding who lives and who dies
>>30275083
>you have never played against people in CMANO or you would have learned why this is a very, very bad idea
You don't keep it radiating all the time, but you do keep one up for when you need it. And yeah, I have. You just have to get good.
>and air-refuelable. with how many bases the US has, there is literally no reason to not have one around when shit hits the fan
I'll give you that to an extent, although given that we're talking about carriers, one would think you'd talk about E-2s.
>AN/APY-9 has a stated range of only 350 km, way less than a Bazalt missile
Check your numbers, you dumb cunt. That's 350 MILES. Not Kilometers. Miles. You're purposefully trying to confuse people with conversions. Stop that. And surprise, that's over the stated range of the P-500. Never mind the fact that you don't have the AEW aircraft flying right over the fleet. This ignores the fact that you don't have to see the missile the entire distance in order to defend against it, nor the fact that the E-2 could likely see the launching asset before it launches. Oh, and the fact that one should never trust the stated numbers. For US systems, inflate them unless it's range figures for an air launched missile. In that case, it's probably less, in most situations, as you probably aren't going to be launching at your flight ceiling at supersonic speeds.
And besides, the P-500 is a decades old design. Try quoting something newer if you want to try and prove your point.
>>30258038
>if satellites are real, every carrier is tracked and a duck for surplus silkworms the second anything real ever pops off.
That's not how satellites work. Satellites don't "track". They go in orbit and take a snapshot of a big ass area. Then some smart guys on the ground use the coordinates to locate a specific area on the image. Not only do you have blindness from orbiting, you also have a delay from image processing. That's why Chinks are trying to get a ton of satellites into space so they have more temporal coverage.
>>30275178
> ASHM's are not manuvering targets
pfffft hahahahahah the 70s called and they want their vacuum tube based computers back
> ASHM's are not manuvering targets
ahahahahahaha
> ASHM's are not manuvering targets
buahahahaha
> an intercept solution coded into the INS
u wot m8
> the DDG hands missile targeting over to the E-2
and the E-2 is being chased out of the sky by a K-100 because you're a faggot and you don't see the use for an E-3 and the bombers came with a few MiG-31s (or worse, chink stealth fighters) for company
and now what, faggot? you have to turn on the escorts' radars, yes? so everyone in an 800 km radius knows exactly where you are, yes?
>>30275247
>everything. launch with impunity means you can launch as many times as needed to get a hit, therefore ultimately obtaining a kill with even a low pK
Nope, not in the slightest. You don't get to launch with impunity when you don't have the missiles to do so. Never mind the fact that the AN/APY-9 has superior range to it. Besides, I'd bet BARCAP would take out the missiles before they got close to the CSG.
And you should know that a missile going supersonic doesn't mean it's that much more difficult to intercept.
>you are severely underestimating the intensity of an actual conflict, because you're just a CMANO player with very little imagination
I'd say the same to you. You have absolutely no clue how a CSG works, and think carriers are bad because of it.
And there's no trump card to pull, mate. It's a methodical process using all available resources at their allotted time and place, ensuring they make the most of their assets and deny the enemy the ability to use theirs. It's a slow peeling apart of the enemy's systems, until you can deliver a knockout punch to one key area of support. Then you have to exploit it.
Tell that to the 3rd world countries scrambling to make them.
>>30275309
>and the E-2 is being chased out of the sky by a K-100 because you're a faggot and you don't see the use for an E-3 and the bombers came with a few MiG-31s (or worse, chink stealth fighters) for company
Sure thing, bub. That's what BARCAP and HAVCAP are for. Or were you just retarded and never set up proper defenses for your AEW birds?
>>30275309
>(or worse, chink stealth fighters)
I was purposefully ignoring the F-35 for this. You really don't want these things in the sky, their sensors and stealth make defending a CSG a breeze. They're the highest example of "See without being seen'.
I also like how you've completely ran away from the targeting problem now.
>>30275309
>and the E-2 is being chased out of the sky by a K-100 because you're a faggot and you don't see the use for an E-3 and the bombers came with a few MiG-31s
And then you wake up to find that your MIG-31 was intercepted by a squadron of F15s and F16s before it can even reach the E-2
>>30275381
>And then you wake up to find that your MIG-31 was intercepted by a squadron of F15s and F16s before it can even reach the E-2
Those aren't carrier based, mate. Try F/A-18s of various stripes, not to mention the incoming F-35s.
>>30275248
350 miles is 550 km, which is incidentally very close to the stated 500 km range of Bazalt
a mere 50 km inside the detection range of the E-2 is not enough for CAP to react
> P-500 is a decades old design
it's no less deadly than it ever was, I am using it in my example exactly because it is old and relatively well known - it provides a floor for the capabilities of an attacker
> you don't have the AEW aircraft flying right over the fleet
can't have it very far away either
> you don't have to see the missile the entire distance in order to defend against it
unless it maneuvers even a little bit, in which case you pretty much need constant updates
> Oh, and the fact that one should never trust the stated numbers
they are all we have to go on. going on anything else is just pure wankery and wishful thinking
>>30275349
so you are proposing to intercept the actual anti-radiation missile, or what?
>>30275423
>a mere 50 km inside the detection range of the E-2 is not enough for CAP to react
Sure thing, buddy. At max range, that's plenty of time to react. And even then, the launching asset has probably already been spotted, because it thought it would be a good idea to get near an E-2
>unless it maneuvers even a little bit, in which case you pretty much need constant updates
You obviously have no clue what you're talking about. You don't need to follow a missile from start to finish to track it. It shows up on the radar all the same.
>can't have it very far away either
Oh yes you can. Like I said, offset it a hundred nautical miles. Or more. And that's just standard stuff, not even trying to be very tricky. So sure thing, mate, they would never see it coming. You're a fucking idiot.
>>30275531
I'm proposing you intercept the launcher. I suppose you probably could intercept the missile.
>>30275575
the launcher can die, no one gives a fuck about the launcher, as long as it can chase the E-2 off, it has done its job brilliantly
> intercept the missile
not happening, and unless you can claim 100% pK, the AWACS still needs to start running away
>>30275616
>as long as it can chase the E-2 off, it has done its job brilliantly
Unless that E-2 was just a decoy (which it probably was), so you just lost a valuable launcher to cause a minor inconvenience to an E-2 that was doing what it was supposed to.
>>30275561
>You don't need to follow a missile from start to finish to track it
> follow a missile from start to finish
this is literally what tracking means
are you twelve? not asking to piss you off further, just curious.
>>30275616
>the launcher can die, no one gives a fuck about the launcher, as long as it can chase the E-2 off, it has done its job brilliantly
I'm suggesting you intercept it before it even launches. Have BARCAP or HAVCAP set out 50-75 nmi in front of the E-2. If it does launch, start opening space with the E-2 until you can take out the guiding asset, then maneuver to avoid being where it goes active. It'll all be fine.
>>30275674
>this is literally what tracking means
Not in the slightest. You don't need to see a missile being launched in order to pick it up on radar once it comes into range. You're retarded for implying that.
>>30275709
> in front of
this implies you are not wrong about the probable axis of the attack, and also implies there will only be one axis
pretty big assumptions
E-2 is also slow as fuck. slow to run, slow to get back on station
>>30275709
you do need to KEEP it on radar to hit it though, that's what I was getting at
>>30275765
>you do need to KEEP it on radar to hit it though, that's what I was getting at
A CSG have no shortage of radars, and they don't all have to be clustered around the carrier. There's a reason why Aegis is a thing. It allows ships to share radar data from other sources without having to radiate themselves. This was shit the USN figured out in the Cold War.
>>30275813
yes, dearie
lots of big radars, but the minute one of the escorts lights up is the minute everyone knows where you are
brotip: this is why EMCON status exists
you're either quiet, or visible, there is no inbetween and no benefit to keeping just one ship radiating. they all do, or none does
>>30275765
>this implies you are not wrong about the probable axis of the attack, and also implies there will only be one axis
Nope. Let's say you have an enemy landmass to your Northwest. You are conducting missions at the edge of your range, darting in to launch and recover, and then edging back out again once the mission is done. You thusly prevent the enemy from using several avenues of attack simply by being outside their range. Then, you make use of available terrain and allied forces, and have already cleared your flanks. Thus, the enemy really has the option to come from a roughly 180 degree area, right in front of you. Split the difference, and there. Never mind the fact that you might be doing the same thing, and you're completely ignoring the difficulties in targeting the carrier in the first place. Or you could make use of other AEW and air search assets, as you slipped up earlier in naming, and have them cover sectors as well. Or you might work with multiple carriers, and have multiple AEW on different avenues of attack, some with their radars off until they're called for. See how this works? There are moves and there are countermoves. You completely ignore the countermoves, because they don't serve your purpose.
>E-2 is also slow as fuck. slow to run, slow to get back on station
It's fast enough for the job.
>you do need to KEEP it on radar to hit it though, that's what I was getting at
Not the entire distance from launch, as you've repeatedly stated. And even if you do lose a track, you can regain it later on and complete the intercept. If it isn't maneuvering too wildly, you'll still be in the ballpark.
>>30275913
>not using a missile trap
>not launching off tracks from E-2D or F-35s
>not preventing them from even launching on you in the first place.
Once again, you've magically gotten to the point where they've fired missiles, all without coming up with a good excuse as to exactly how they'd manage it.
>>30275923
> being outside their range
everyone has aerial refueling these days
there is no such thing as "out of range"
you're a child... I am sure of it
> allied forces
now you're pulling other CSGs out of your hat, because you're angry. be less angry and realize that you're going to have at most two in any given theatre
> you're completely ignoring the difficulties in targeting the carrier in the first place
no, but you're missing the point
the name of the game is to force the CSG to come out of EMCON
if you've done that, and it's easily done by well-timed probing attacks, you have a fix
at which point you vector in a strike package, with jammers, fighter sweep, the works
and when everyone is good and busy and having a good time, you smack a DF-21 in the middle of it all, if you're Chinese, or just keep adding missiles, if you're Russian, and bob's your uncle
or not
depending on the breaks
nothing is guaranteed, kid
>>30274862
>because the satellite is bound to be spoofed, decoyed, or just jammed by something else.
Did you just admit the US purposely jams Russian sats??
You might want to deny that.
>>30275957
missile trap? what? like a picket ship? you're even more dependent on guesstimating the axis of attack...
> tracks from F-35s
so now the F-35 is AWACS? what other bullshit will you come up with I wonder
>>30276074
>everyone has aerial refueling these days
This is correct, and I included it in range of the carrier's planes.
>there is no such thing as "out of range"
This is incorrect. While there is no theoretical range limit, there is a practical range limit. While you COULD launch daisy chained tankers to make a Hornet cross the entirity of the Pacific Ocean, in actuality this would be prohibitive. This is especially true once you start making larger strike packages, which drastically increase the tanker requirements. By operating at the edge of your range and falling back when you're through, you prevent a large number of land based aircraft from having any real effect.
You magically handwave this, and call me a child, because your arguments are bullshit.
>now you're pulling other CSGs out of your hat,
I thought you were the one talking about systems? Or can there only ever be one CSG? And besides, it doesn't matter if there are ally forces or not, because you can clear your flanks through many means and then keep them cleared by yourself. It'd be more difficult, but doable.
>be less angry and realize that you're going to have at most two in any given theatre
In a full fledged war? Absolutely. The USN would never send its carriers to the places they're needed. At the start of the war, sure, but what about in a month?
>the name of the game is to force the CSG to come out of EMCON
And I've pointed out numerous ways to avoid this. Further, you think that a random spread of missiles would cause the carrier to break EMCON. The ocean's a big space, and you have to find it before you can fix it. And even if it is spotted and breaks EMCON, guess what happens? They start launching lots and lots of fighters to reinforce the CAP and clear datum, to use a term from submarines. Even in the off chance that you find the carrier, as you've so graciously declined to counter, you still have to kill it. The CSG's the hardest nut there is to crack. Good luck.
>>30276194
> wwiii
> taking a month
we're done here
>>30276095
>Did you just admit the US purposely jams Russian sats??
I said that in the event of a war, the US would likely do so. Nice try, mister vatnik.
>missile trap? what? like a picket ship? you're even more dependent on guesstimating the axis of attack...
If you don't know what a missile trap is, we shouldn't be talking. And you can guesstimate, but you can also tell, because there's a sensor out there telling you all this information. AEW is a hell of a drug.
>so now the F-35 is AWACS?
Mate, the F-35C passing tracks to other things has been a cornerstone of NIFC-CA since its inception.
>>30276106
This is quoted >>30276234
>>30276212
>no arguments
Yep, we're done here.
And do note that's if there was no forewarning of the impending conflict, which is somewhat ridiculous.
