So the Ruskies are building a submarine carrier.
What will the US create in response? ("Cold war is over" comments are not welcome).
>>30365567
What a retarded idea.
>>30365567
That is pretty cool. Won't the runway be slippery?
The idea is not so retarded in my opinion.
It can replace air refueling, instead of putting a giant tanker plane in danger.
The slippery runway shouldn't be an issue during landing thanks to the breaking cables they use on carriers.
>>30365567
A functional economy.
>>30365567
It's essentially useless.
Carriers need tons of planes to work. This won't hold more than few of them. Taking sortie rate into account it's likely that at a time 3-5 planes will be able to perform any missions out of that thing. Use the same cargo space for AShM/cruise missles and you're better off both economically-wise and payload-wise.
>>30365567
>things that will never leave the napkin-notes of a drunk russian engineer
>>30365567
This.
>>30365567
>What will the US create in response?
The only thing that could answer this is refitting and recommissioning the Iowas.
Hopefully the Super Gavin and Battlebox (tm) program is accelerated.
>>30365601
Why don't they just launch folded-wing gliders carrying Super Gavins from the main artillery barrels?
>>30365601
>making the Iowa into a Hyuga
Why.
>>30365567
I don't understand what this is going to do that an Ohio fitted with cruise missiles can't do.
If I was the US I wouldn't do anything about this, but then I'd put an anti missile battery in SK to protect against Nork missiles and another battery in eastern Eastonia to protect against ISIS threatening Europe via syrian refugee invasion.
And maybe more anti-missile batteries in Elbing, Danzig and Libau.
>>30365597
> Miss cables on landing
> Pilot fucks up on go around
> Get sucked into left main fan
> Entire helicarrier begins its final descent onto some poor farmer's cow
> Such is life in the air force
>>30365597
>plane misses cable
>gets shredded
>>30365635
>>30365634
Then learn how to fucking land you faggots. You remind me those retarded "7.62x51 has too much recoil" sprayers and prayers - if they want to kill somebody then switch from full auto so single and aim to kill, full auto is here only for covering fire and very short distance shooting.
>>30365634
>>30365635
Well, maybe there are some ahh.. slight design issues to be worked on.
But.. nothing major.
Notice the small sukhoi crawling out of mommies belly onto the deck.
>>30365567
A huge aircraft that drops submarines.
Your move, Russia.
>>30365649
Nothing major other than
Tiny aircraft capacity
Single catapult (Which the Russians have no experience using, nor any CATOBAR in service)
Tiny flight deck
No weapon lifts
the list goes on and on
>>30365667
>Tiny aircraft capacity
You don't need a lot of planes when you have accurate bombs
>Single catapult (Which the Russians have no experience using, nor any CATOBAR in service)
You don't need more than one, Russian military ships are known to be minimalistic in armaments
>Tiny flight deck
Enough for a super Pak-Fa
>No weapon lifts
Not needed.
>>30365692
>Russian military ships are known to be minimalistic in armaments
umm...
>>30365567
> loud
> slow
> useless unless it gets close to a shoreline
Every attack sub captain in the US Navy just came uncontrollably at the thought of sending one of these unwieldy fuckers to the bottom.
>>30365734
Anon please.
I didn't respond to that clear bait for a reason.
>>30365752
>Every attack sub captain in the US Navy just came uncontrollably
Happens every 10mins or so in those cum buckets
>>30365567
Carriers are going the way of the battleship it would seem. It is a submarine, a very large one at that. Presumably whatever submarine detection and neutralization systems the US has at their disposal will work just fine. Same goes for the Russians if we made our own. Though I think carriers are of more use to the Russians who don't enjoy the luxury of air bases sprawling the globe like the US.
>>30365575
Get a mop moran
>>30365567
Dude, the cold war is over. This is a shit thread.
>>30365567
Who cares, cold war is over.
>>30365634
>poor farmers cow
i got that reference
>>30365567
DIdn't the japs did this already
>>30365567
NEVA BEEN DONE BEFO. Considering that it would be hard to get the refueling schedules lined up with the submarine surfacing (because its a pig when surfaced) its not that practical unless you had some top side muscle protecting it, which would raise the obvious question.
>>30365583
>breaking cables
They don't work if they break, ya dingus.
>>30365953
Little different.
Its more of a seaplane tender than a carrier, and its for scouting.
>>30365953
Yeah Japs did it in WWII with the I-400 subs. One almost made it within striking range of west coast US
>>30365567
At least now when it sinks, Russia can say they did it on purpose.
>>30365567
>even retarded russian model makers know that skiramps are shit tier
>bongs still haven't figured it out
>>30365586
Really???
>>30365567
The Russians are retarded and this will go nowhere. Wanna know how I know this? Look at the PAK FA:) most advanced plane on the face of the earth:).
>>30365601
everybody always posts the split flight deck version of that but surely the design that removes the rear turret would be better, as it gives more space and you don't have a turret blocking the way when you broadside
>>30366042
golf clap
>>30365567
The fighter rolling out of the sub is somewhat cute, kek.
>Yay, fighter can play now.
>>30365567
>they designed a model
>they're gonna build it!
nah
Wouldn't it be easier to just have stealthy aircraft rather than a stealthy carrier? That said would there be a use for something like this but carrying choppers for insertion of SOF?
>>30365980
>The only aerial bombing of mainland America by a foreign power occurred when an attempt to start a forest fire was made by a Japanese Yokosuka E14Y1 "Glen" seaplane dropping two 80 kg (180 lb) incendiary bombs over Mount Emily, near Brookings, Oregon. The seaplane, piloted by Nobuo Fujita, had been launched from the Japanese submarine aircraft carrier I-25. No significant damage was officially reported following the attack, nor after a repeat attempt on September 29.
>>30365953
Shhhhhh: The japs lost the war maaan
>>30365976
You know damn well what he meant.
>>30365597
imagine the sheer amount of energy it would take to keep that beast in air
>refueling every 5 minutes?
>>30365649
Why haz it to be plane?
Heli carriere!
Inserting spetznatz and shiet.
>>30365692
Having few aircraft is bad.
You use thos you can count on looses.
Two migs su or what ever get shredet in seconds.
>>30366426
Well a carrier is supossed to have a better range, be capable to carry ammo, fuel and spare parts and being in support role for other tasks(those helis aren't there for decoration)
If that also means that, somehow, you can hide this humongous beast in the sea(like... how?) then it gets more usefull than ever.
Like having small airports in the antartic ice, and dissapear or inserting one of these in the mediterranean sea to deliver air support without the other powers not knowing where and how.
The problem is obvious, this thing will undoubtfully be big, expensive and carry very few planes, and the ammount of support that can be bring to them while at the same time being stealthy is some apollo-engineering level that no drunk R&D Russian team should be capable to accomplish with this technological level.
And haven't talked about how much time can expend on the seas doing sorties or the range. Or some little stupid things like, what happens when the plane is in an emergency and the sub is considerable deep, will you just loose the plane?
>>30366452
not to mention you'd have to armour the entire thing because it can be engaged from literally any angle, or risk a second 'oh the humanity'
>>30365588
Isn't the idea though that you make surprise attacks with it, also lessening the need for as many planes since you're not a giant " please sink me here" that constantly needs protection
>>30366485
Also there would be the issue of it being detected in the time it takes to ready planes for launch after it surfaces since it obviously can't keep planes on the deck. It could also be located just by tracking returning aircraft
>>30365575
I take it, you've never served in any nations navy?
Well, Army makes soldiers vaccume and sweep the desert as punishments, sailors have to mop the deck dry...while it#s raining!
>>30365597
The only way that thing vould work, is if it was a metal dhell put over a zepplin. So thise turbines are for assists.
>>30366515
>tracking returning aircraft
I guess that the idea then is that it would be usefull only in first strike tactics or really fast attacks(30 minutes for everything or so)
>>30365910
No it is not.
Thinking that is one of Bill Clintons biggest mistakes.
>>30365583
>Instead of putting a plane in jeopardy, let's position a number complicated carrier sized submarines that haven't been built yet.
>Implying physical presence of an entire CBG isn't part of the appeal of operating a carrier.
>Implying we don't need to refuel over land.
Dumb.
We Yuktobania now.
Jesus, Russia's defence policy must be entirely composed of 4chan screencaps
>>30365588
Isn't the idea though that you make surprise attacks with it, also lessening the need for as many planes since you're not a giant " please sink me here" that constantly needs protection
French did it first. They also strapped a gun from a battleship on it.
It was an unstable piece of junk that served no real role. Which is what this Russian monstrosity will be.
>>30365573
>This
>>30366589
Wouldn't this be very useful to seal types though? Being able to sneak a sub to the edge if radar range, and launching stealth helis for clandestine ops like in the ubl raid
>>30366581
if it's ever built
>>30365567
>nobody realized it's a fake, or rather just some model a guy made for fun and autists think it's real
is /k/ so eager to jump on the "muh stoopid rooskies" bandwagon?
>>30365567
>unable or unwilling to build a fullsize carrier
>instead expects me to belive that they will build a sub carrier.
Fake and gay.
>>30365627
But anon...
There are anti missile batteries in SK, arent there?
>another dumb Russian 3D model
It's fucking nothing.
>>30365692
>You don't need a lot of planes when you have accurate bombs
>Sir we have 2 russian jets approaching or perimeter
>Just scramble the whole carrier wing lmao
>>30366560
Best theme
>>30365659
FUND IT
I like this idea. A lot.
>>30365575
I'm sure it has a system designed to quickly blow off the water or suck it away.
>>30365634
Me thinks there would be a retaining wall to prevent such an event.
>>30366436
And the Germans nearly developed the nuclear bomb. Doesn't mean they didn't have good ideas that were practical.
>>30366532
Zeppelin's dont have the lifting power required for that.
They work by displacing air with a lighter substance, such as hydrogen or helium, and there's not a lot of weight difference.
>>30365567
No, they aren't building it. Stop making retarded shit up.
>>30365649
No major problem except he basic laws of physics.
>>30366683
No, it's that the ruskies are just stupid enough to try something like this
>>30365805
>Carriers are going the way of the battleship it would seem.
Which is why every major power is building one or trying to, amirite? US with the Fords and Americas, GB with the QE class, China with the Liaoning variant and future CATOBAR, Russia making random noises about it every so often and then doing... nothing.
This is about the same thing as the idiots who claim VLO features on aircraft are worthless while defending Russian/Chinese aviation, all the while ignoring as hard as possible the Russian and Chinese mad scramble to get a VLO aircraft into production and service.
>>30366374
Iowa fanboys don't want to admit that the turrets are dead weight. You could get a better carrier if you remove the other two, or you could just build an actual carrier which would cost less and be even more effective.
Bubbaing the Iowas will not produce an effective warship, Shit belongs in a Museum, if you have cash to blow on battleship fanboyism, pay to put it (and other classic BBs like the Texas) into dry berths so they don't rust to death.
>>30367238
Carriers are good for one thing and one thing only in modern war, inland force projection.
The US uses carriers because they like to bomb brown people who can't shoot back. A carrier air wing does this much more economically than battleship cannons or missiles. China dreams of one day doing the same thing, so they understand that they need carriers.
HOWEVER, if you are unfortunate enough to get in a fight with another superpower. Carriers and their massive air wings are a huge liability. All the eggs in one basket and all the point defense in the world won't save you from missilespam. In such a war, you will want missile platforms, either stealthy enough to avoid detection, or cheap enough to be expendable, submarines and corvettes, a carrier is neither sneaky nor cheap.
A carrier is the perfect weapon for a peacetime navy, 90,000 tons of diplomacy and all that. and China recognizes that. They are not however weapons to win wars with. Good missiles will either sink them, or keep them far enough away from shore to render their air wings useless.
Also, going by this logic, the submarine in OPs pic is absolutely useless. It has all the disadvantages and none of the advantages of carriers and submarines. It's air wing is not strong enough to do carrier things, and a regular submarine can have the same amount of firepower in a smaller/cheaper package. Modern naval warfare is about specialization, not do it all wonder weapons.
>>30367351
>Carriers are good for one thing and one thing only in modern war, inland force projection.
And ASW screening support across patrol routes.
And sea control against OPFOR SAG deployment.
And large scale convoy route protection against all three major threat axis.
And as a major ground force aerial resupply/reinforce node.
And as a major naval harbor blockade/shipping interdiction task force covering several major harbors.
And as a major tool of diplomacy.
And as a major asset for humanitarian missions.
And as quick response to regional flare-ups.
And as the only efficient means to enforce no-fly zones outside of USAF base tactical fighter range on short notice.
And...
And...
And...
I mean, if you're going to drop stupid bait, at least try.
>>30367351
>All the eggs in one basket
That's why we have ten of the motherfuckers, all protected by several of the most powerful surface warships on the face of the earth. What was Stalin's quote? "Quantity has a quality all it's own"? Well, the USN has both quantity and quality. Arguing that all eggs are in one basket when there would be at least 3 Nimitz CSGs and an additional 2-3 ESGs present in any major conflict AO is flat retarded.
>>30367351
>won't save you from missilespam.
Who in the world has both the targeting assets and launch platforms plus the stockpiled AShMs in enough quantity to take down 2 full CSGs, much less six or seven? Keep dreaming.
The end result is always that they will run out out of launchers or missiles long before the USN runs out of carriers and LHD/LHAs, and there will be nothing stopping them from turning the offending landmass into a national Medival Times theme park. Maybe they get lucky and sink two full CSGs. Who in the entire world believes that would be enough? And who in the entire world has a better option?
Also, how the fuck are they targeting this "missilespam" over the horizon without working naval aviation? Their pK would be absolutely abysmal.
And once more, if this is true, WHY IS EVERYONE SCRAMBLING TO BUILD CARRIERS?
Think it through, junior. Think it through.
>>30367159
>Germans nearly developed the nuclear bomb
do you actually believe this or are you fucking with me
>>30367351
>They are not however weapons to win wars with.
Their performance over the last 70 years directly contradicts you. Maybe you should ask the Argentinians what a couple of small carriers and a converted freighter accomplished against a missilespam strategy?
>>30367351
>Good missiles will either sink them, or keep them far enough away from shore to render their air wings useless.
You've got a single example of this happening in history, right? Did AShMs ever keep them out of the Strait of Hormuz, for instance? That's as tight as it gets, after all. If this was true, how did Operation Preying Mantis go? Oh, that's right.
>>30367351
>Modern naval warfare is about specialization, not do it all wonder weapons.
That's why no one uses universal VLS cells, multi-role tactical fighters, SSNs with VLS modules, SSGNs and multi-role LHD/LHAs, amirite?
>>30367410
>>30367429
>>30367459
>>30367475
>>30367486
>>30367492
You poor, dumb bastards. Either that was bait or Pierre Sprey levels of historical ignorance and working from false basic assumptions. Just ignore the potato.
>>30365567
That's fucking awesome. I hope they follow through and build it for real.
>>30365567
One wrong move and that jet becomes a large missile capable of taking down the entire sub. Which is what the world needs, more nuclear reactors littering the bottom of the ocean floor...
>>30366554
> >Implying physical presence of an entire CBG isn't part of the appeal of operating a carrier.
Not to the russkies it isnt, learn your naval doctrine.
Over land, you can, well, land, to refuel.
Other than that I agree with you.
>>30365567
yuktoboina called,
>we Ace combat now
beside the point what could this possibly do that a carrier can't
ITT: Several people mistake a single picture of a plastic model made by a hobbyist of a fictional aircraft carrier with a unsourced claim that russia plans a submarine aircraft carrier as being legitimate.
>>30367649
ITT: No fucks given.
>>30367572
>Which is what the world needs, more nuclear reactors littering the bottom of the ocean floor...
Funny thing about that -
In all the periodic studies of lost nuclear reactors on the ocean floor (the several Soviet subs and the Scorpion and Thresher), there has been no widespread contamination. Small, contained leaks, yes, but water is an excellent radiological shielding agent and the reactors are all too well contained with currents not strong enough to push silts through the reactors to pick up contaminated fuel/rod particles. I read through reports on almost all the known wrecks and was pleasantly surprised at how minimal the impact was.
The dumping of Soviet and British spent fuel/materials drums in shallower water, however, is a much more serious issue. This is a good place to start educating yourself on that sunny part of nuclear history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste
>>30365601
Field eXpediments have shown the tactical combat success vectors of projects like the ArchAngel SKS FOB backUp weapon systems platform, or the TurboProp driven AeroGavin NeXT GeN Infantry insertion system.
>>30367588
Not be a massive target for Harpoons?
>>30367471
I mean, a chalkboard drawing in a defunded office is pretty much almost all the way there... Right?
>>30365573
>when the vodka does it
>what a retarded idea
>when MURRICA steals the idea later
>BRILLIANT! JUST TAKE ALL MY MONEY
it's like MURRICA is populated by nothing other than feminist because that's all they act like 24/7
>>30368013
Please provide a source pointing to the USN proposing a nuclear powered underwater carrier in the last 60 years. And, no, the drone launcher in the Ohio SSGN refits does not count.
>>30367471
Could be worse.
He could be one of those mouth breathers that think Japan tested s nuke in '45
>>30365830
>moran
>>glp
>People unironically think this will happen
kek. Russia can't even build their own LPH's atm.
>>30365567
There's a reason subs aren't square.
>>30369034
Is this guy supposed to be a glove or a sock? I dont get this meme
>>30369064
It's a vatnik
>>30365588
Isn't the idea though that you make surprise attacks with it, also lessening the need for as many planes since you're not a giant " please sink me here" that constantly needs protection
>put all your money into one submarine
>remember that the US has spent decades working on ASW and Russian submarines are very loud
>Russia turns into a barren hellscape
>nobody can tell the difference
This is a stupid idea, and the Russians are lucky they are too broke to dump money into actually building one.
>>30369521
>Suprise attack
>Slow as fuck submerged submarine that has to surface ( like a WWI U-boat sibling ships with a cannon) to launch planes
The idea of a carrier in a carrier group is to bring a goddamn small nations worth of airpower, missiles, and infantry to a theater of combat.
A better concept for a super sekret helicopter carrier would be a faux commercial shipping vessel with a hangar bay that looks like stacked shipping crates.
>>30365567
>submarine aircraft carrier
>the aircraft are manned
>the aircraft aren't drones that can land on the water and be recovered while submerged
>>30369697
And then there's this dumb motherfucker, back for more.
>>30369688
That would also be illegal and it would jeopardize commercial shipping, trade, and civilian sailors
>>30369064
Vatnik. Look it up on wikipedia; it refers to a particular kind of jacket.
>>30369905
In the words of the CIA, "and"?
We are in the age of Drones, just make a vertical takeoff drone with a jet propulsion to save space and man power on carriers.
You can stack the drones in a vertical tube chamber to avoid making the submerged vessel longer than it has to be.
>>30367410
Almost all of those are some means of inland force projection. Superpowers need floating airfields to do superpower things, but in a war between superpowers they are a liability.
>>30367429
Just because you have 10 baskets with a dozen eggs each doesn't mean you aren't going to be losing 12 eggs when you drop them. It's great that america can afford so many carriers, and in fact, for the kinds of wars we fight, carriers are the best tool for the job, just don't be surprised when they get sunk by missiles that cost a fraction of what the carrier costs. The situation with carriers today is like battleships before pearl harbor.
>>30367459
>Hurr dur we have more carriers than they have missiles.
We spend more money on the military than the rest of the world combined and have the most advanced weapon systems. However, if we were to face an equivalent superpower that could spend as much money on missiles as we could on carriers, our fleet would more or less evaporate overnight. Russia, China, and India aren't there yet, but in a few decades that could change.
>WHY IS EVERYONE SCRAMBLING TO BUILD CARRIERS?
I already told you, they are essential for force protection. Particularly when your enemy lacks an equivalent navy. They want their own piece of the imperialism pie, and that requires carriers.
>>30367475
The US also hasn't been engaged in a full scale war with an equivalent superpower in that time either. Remember before world war two, people argued that battleships couldn't be sunk by planes because it hadn't happened yet.
>Muh Falklands, Muh Iran
Neither are superpower nations and neither had missiles that were good/plentiful enough to overwhelm a carrier. This does not mean however that such a scenario is not possible.
>>30367492
There is a difference between sensible modularity, and the abomination that is OP's picture. A sub carrier would be a shitty carrier and a shitty sub, and might even cost more than both.
>>30367159
>And the Germans nearly developed the nuclear bomb
they were not close at all you fucktard
>>30367351
JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP
Tuatha de Danann
Fucking
When
>>30370074
>Almost all of those are some means of inland force projection.
Are you fucking high? Literally half that fucking list is direct naval combat or blockade.
>Just because you have 10 baskets with a dozen eggs each doesn't mean you aren't going to be losing 12 eggs when you drop them.
Yup. He's fucking high. I'd LOVE for him to suggest a single plausible scenario that results in the USN losing all ten carriers. And, no, the entire would banding together for a sneak attack against the USN does not count as plausible.
>We spend more money on the military than the rest of the world combined
Not even close to true. Just the next 8 or 9 military powers combined.
>However, if we were to face an equivalent superpower that could spend as much money on missiles as we could on carriers, our fleet would more or less evaporate overnight.
Doesn't exist. Has never existed in history. AND THEY'D STILL NEED THE SHIPS AND PLANES TO LAUNCH THEM. Wanna guess what they'd use to do that? A single fucking guess. Here's a hint: every single power trying to build a blue water navy either has one or is trying to build one.
>Particularly when your enemy lacks an equivalent navy.
If carriers are only used for "imperialism", how do you explain the simple and undeniable fact that every major naval warplan for the USN with other great powers involves the CSG as the central striking arm in naval warfare? And the fact that every other power has to gameplan to try and at least mission kill them first and foremost?
Take your "waaaaa we spend too much on the military and I'm the only one that sees a better way" bullshit somewhere else and read a fucking book. Educate your dumb ass.
cont.
>>30370074
>>30370248
>Remember before world war two, people argued that battleships couldn't be sunk by planes because it hadn't happened yet.
Actually most of the world's naval powers had already recognized the utility and importance of carriers before WWII. Or the US wouldn't have already had 8 commissioned before Pearl Harbor. The Brits wouldn't have had 7 before they entered. The Japanese wouldn't have had 10. Do you even history bro?
>Neither are superpower nations and neither had missiles that were good/plentiful enough to overwhelm a carrier.
You just got done claiming missiles were the solution at 1/10th the cost to totally BTFO carriers. Now you're claiming navies would have to spend just as much on... what? small fucking missile boats that can't even operate in blue water? Are your goalposts on a rocketsled by chance?
>This does not mean however that such a scenario is not possible.
Yet it's been tried several times in history. And failed. Every fucking time. But it's totally possible, bro.
>There is a difference between sensible modularity
No. You said here >>30367351
>Modern naval warfare is about specialization, not do it all wonder weapons.
very clearly that modern naval warfare is completely specialization oriented. Now you're moving goalposts. Again. Just accept the fact that you've now made several exceedingly stupid comments on the internet revealing your complete lack of familiarity and education on the relevant subjects. Your entire conceptualization is retarded because you started with especially ignorant and retarded assumptions. Fix your shit. Read a book.
>>30370248
>>30370258
Don't even bother. It's listerinefag again. Pic related.
>>30365567
This looks like something out of Ace Combat.
>>30365601
Every fucking thread about anything naval warfare related, there's some faggot going on about recommisioning the Iowa.
Hey anons, I'm thinking of enlisting in the Navy.
>recommision the Iowa!
China is building another carrier.
>recommision the Iowa!
Hey /k/, anyone down for meetup?
>recommision the Iowa!
We get it, decommissioning it was a mistake, give it a ducking rest.
>>30365601
>>30366374
>>30370311
>We get it, decommissioning it was a mistake, give it a ducking rest.
Except that it wasn't. Not even remotely. That's why this is so sad. The idiots have actually convinced rational people that we should still have gun battleships from WWII in service.
>>30370274
I have made like ONE post in this entire thread
>>30370336
Your special kind of stupid is unmistakable. Fuck off.
>>30365573
It really is even a subsurface contact that large with that much machinery cannot hide effectively. Plus how are you going to keep moisture out of the jp 5 tanks?
So many stupid things with this idea that's the reason we never built these after the one the Japanese built that got btfo.
>>30366570
>make surprise attacks
>have to wait for planes to return
why not just launch a missile or two and get the hell out of there?
>>30370355
Your ignorant if you think there aren't others
>>30370407
Nah, ignorant would be being constitutionally incapable of learning the difference between "you're" and "your". Go back to middle school, and try to learn something this time.
>>30370074
>just don't be surprised when they get sunk by missiles that cost a fraction of what the carrier costs
Bru
>what is Aegis
>what is Burke
>What is Ticonderoga
>What is the entire carrier air wing
>What is the escort SSN
>WHAT IS 50 FUCKING YEARS OF EXTENSIVE AND DEDICATED EFFORTS TO BUILD AN IMPENETRABLE RING OF DEFENSES AROUND THE CARRIER BATTLE GROUP
nigga
it's time to stop posting
>>30370258
Okay real talk, take a carrier battle-group and put it up against an equivalent force of submarines and missile corvettes. The missiles will win. That's all I'm fucking saying, any perceived goalpost manipulation is your willful misreading and straw manning.
The corvettes can't do all the things the carrier does any more than the carrier can survive a sustained missile attack from an equivalent superpower. And no the Argentinians buying a handful of Exocets does not count as an equivalent superpower. The Iranians are even less of a credible threat.
The prestige of carriers right now comes from the fact that america spends more on them than the rest of the world combined. No country with aircraft carriers has ever went to war with another country rich enough to build carriers of their own since WWII. As the geopolitical situation changes however, we will see a situation where a nation that spent their resources on missiles will defeat a country that spent a comparable amount of money on carriers.
It's also worth pointing out that all those countries that are "Racing to build Carriers" are also continuing to develop high speed missiles that can kill the carriers of other countries. Carriers are useful but only fanboys think carriers are completely invincible. It's a weapon for gunboat diplomacy not full scale war between equivalent powers.
>>30370596
>Carriers are so invincible we have to build an entire fleet around them just for their protection.
You are missing the point, you think those escorts are cheap? If you took all the money you spend on the carrier and it's escorts, you could have more than enough missiles to completely overwhelm it's defenses. Missiles do not grow on trees just because they are mounted on american destroyers.
>>30370699
>Okay real talk, take a carrier battle-group and put it up against an equivalent force of submarines and missile corvettes. The missiles will win. That's all I'm fucking saying, any perceived goalpost manipulation is your willful misreading and straw manning.
Once more for the short bus:
How the fuck do a handful of "missile corvettes" actually target their missiles? How do they even get close enough to launch? AWACS can see them long before they will ever see the CSG, and the carrier air wing can have (just right now with the 48 bugs and superbugs plus a handful of growlers) 192 AShMs in the air and inbound on these missile corvettes plus the dozen or so HARMs before they even get to maximum launch threshold on the carrier. ONCE AGAIN, fucking think about it. Plenty of actual military experts, far smarter and better educated than you are, have considered it as well. Their answer? BUILD FUCKING CARRIERS. Sending a couple dozen missile corvettes against a CSG in open water is a suicide mission. End of story.
>>30370699
>an equivalent superpower.
Nigger, what? What equivalent superpower? Doesn't exist. Period.
>>30370699
>As the geopolitical situation changes however, we will see a situation where a nation that spent their resources on missiles will defeat a country that spent a comparable amount of money on carriers.
Except that they aren't. What's China doing? Oh, right. Building carriers. What's Russia trying to do? Ha, again, build carriers. Are you really this stupid?
Last ditch area denial weapons as a stopgap to actually having a decent navy do not count as a superior strategy. Especially when they're actually fucking building carriers.
>>30370699
>It's also worth pointing out that all those countries that are "Racing to build Carriers" are also continuing to develop high speed missiles that can kill the carriers of other countries.
I'm sorry, are you suggesting the US is not developing and getting into production some of the most advanced AShMs the world has ever seen? Is the US not also building AShMs? Do we just magically discount this fact because it doesn't fit your narrative?
A mise that deploys 4 Nuclear submarines that fire nuclear missiles with multiple warheads.
>yo dog I heard you like nukes so we nuked your nukes so you could nuke while nuking
>>30370699
>If you took all the money you spend on the carrier and it's escorts, you could have more than enough missiles to completely overwhelm it's defenses.
This is the dumbest statement yet. Are you completely fucking forgetting that you need actual launch platforms for missiles? Or are you just rowing them out there on a fucking raft?
Fuck this. I've hit my stupid quota for the week. I'm out.
>>30370827
Missle*
We GI Joe now
>>30365634
They could speed up the carrier so the plane only needs like 10 feet to stop.
>>30370776
It could exist in the future, airplanes couldn't sink battleships before world war two either.
>>30370793
Like I said, they are building carriers, but they are also developing high speed missiles to kill the carriers of other nations. America hasn't been because up until recently our enemies haven't been doing much in the way of carrier building. (In b4 somebody tries to pretend the Admiral Kuznetsov somehow magically invalidates everything)
>>30370809
The superior strategy is having carriers to supplement missiles.
>>30370763
>What are drones
>What are satellites
>What are those submarines that have been sneaking up on carrier battle groups in the middle of exercises for decades.
>What are the Nato Allies which repeatedly sink carriers in war-games until the carer mafia complains and has the results arbitrarily rejected.
>>30370828
Cruisers, Destroyers, Submarines, Corvettes, Trucks, Fighters (either ground launched or from GASP, another carrier)
What do you guys think will happen when a Carrier force fights another carrier force? I'll tell you what happens, both countries lose a considerable fraction of their defense budget overnight. The 21st century's will have it's own battle of Jutland, but it will not be the cruisers who suffer this time.
>>30365567
a missle
>>30365567
y tho
>>30365567
Hello. I make submarines obsolete, and I'm just the first gen, soon there will be underwater stealth versions.
>>30366505
>>30366534
Except that most NATO countries have stand by squadrons/flights that are scrambled to interdict unknown radar contacts within minutes of that contact appearing. Also such a massive sub couldn't approach the Amerikan or Eurofailian coasts undetected close enough to strike before those planes get intercepted.
Also that fucking flight deck would cause insane harmonic disturbances on sonars.
>>30370979
>make submarines obsolete
>soon will become a submarine
wat
>>30371030
Submarines rely on stealth. A cheap drone pinging the location of every Russian sub at sea during peace time makes them worthless.
>>30370946
>What are drones
Things that would be seen miles away
>What are satellites
Predictable
>What are those submarines that have been sneaking up on carrier battle groups in the middle of exercises for decades.
Which ones? The diesels that sit at the bottom of the ocean in an area that they KNOW the carrier is going to be in due to prearranged exercises? Also, that only works during peacetime. And will only work once besides.
>What are the Nato Allies which repeatedly sink carriers in war-games until the carer mafia complains and has the results arbitrarily rejected.
See RE: submarines.
>>30370987
We may disagree on the Missiles vs Carriers thing, but I hope we can all agree that submarine carriers are the worst of both worlds. Is that reasonable enough?
Actually though, would it be possible to build a stealth carrier? What would it look like, and would it be worth it?
>>30370699
>Okay real talk, take a carrier battle-group and put it up against an equivalent force of submarines and missile corvettes
NAME ONE FUCKING COUNTRY WITH THAT KIND OF FORCE YOU DUMB NIGGER
>>30371056
Oh, also, those submarines can't actually guide anything. Due to, you know, having to be sneaki breeki.
>>30367870
>Not be a massive target for Harpoons?
Nope, just fish in a barrel for Ohios/SeaWolves.
>>30370699
>Okay real talk, take a carrier battle-group and put it up against an equivalent force of submarines and missile corvettes. The missiles will win. That's all I'm fucking saying, any perceived goalpost manipulation is your willful misreading and straw manning.
No.
Nigga, you have to understand that it is no longer the 80s. The Chinese are mostly using 80s era anti-ship missiles, while we're using 2010 era Surface to Air missiles to hit back with. Entirely aside from the SM-2, we have the ESSM, which can be quad-packed in every VLS cell, and has a range of 20nm (instead of 10 or so for the old RIM-7P Sea Sparrow.) The missile equation has changed, drastically, and in favor of the defender. This is precisely why a whole new generation of much more sophisticated ASMs are coming into play soon.
Additionally, remember that carrier air wings can defend against missiles - not just by destroying the launchers, either. The AIM-120's latest marks are very good at killing subsonic cruise missiles, and Hornets can carry four to six. A carrier carries a lot more AIM-120s than its entire escort group carries interceptor missiles. Because they're tiny, see. For putting on planes. We haven't even discussed defensive ECM systems yet; but IMO those are secondary to offensive jammers that make it hard for the enemy to precisely target your fleet even if they can pick it up on radar.
Not that any of this matters, because the missile attrition math is precisely why the Navy's already fielding a prototype of the laser defense system as we speak; they're focusing on next-gen defenses that can keep shooting down missiles as long as the ship has power.
>>30366427
>only bombing done by seaplane
They're forgetting the Japs also used balloons to drop bombs on the Pacific Northwest
>>30370946
>drones
>surviving
... okay, listen, here's the problem. You have two choices of detections systems.
System one: stuff that spots warships fairly well, but can't stay on-station long enough to actually provide targeting for missiles. This includes most low-earth observation satellites. They'll work okay for anti-ship ballistic missiles since those have hella range and arrive fast, but they have their own problems. Everything else will have a "last known location" to steam towards for several hours till another satellite comes into range.
System two: Stuff you can operate constantly but doesn't have nearly good enough resolution to provide an aimpoint for long range missiles. This includes OTH radars and "persistent stare" optical satellites in high orbits.
Your third option is aircraft/drones, which requires you to operate aircraft/drones within a few hundred miles of the best fighter pilots and aircraft on the face of the planet without getting an AMRAAM shoved up your ass. This is not easy.
>>30370699
ok real talk are you fucking stupid
how the fuck are they even going to target those missiles, or defend themselves from counter attack?
you fucking moron
>only fanboys think carriers are completely invincible
fucking nobody here has ever said that the carrier is invincible. the usn certainly doesn't believe them to be such, hence all the fucking escorts they're constantly surrounded with.
>You are missing the point,
the point went over your head a long time ago, negro
>>30371075
>All the armed forces and superpower nations of the world are locked in place and will never change ever.
>America will always be able to afford spending more on the military than the rest of the world combined.
>There is absolutely no chance that China will ever go to war with India or Russia using all those carriers they are supposedly building.
>>30371111
That's great and all, but I am and have always been talking about a war between equivalent powers. I don't deny that current gen countermeasures can stop last gen weapons, I'm just pointing out that there has never been a point since WWII where a superpower nation has gone to war against an opponent with a similar level of technology and resources. All things being equal, missiles beat countermeasures due to attrition, anti-missiles have to be more sophisticated than the missiles they intercept.
Now, lasers might change that, but remember they can also fuck up planes. It could just lead to a situation dominated by submarines. Supercavitating torpedoes exist.
>>30371154
You don't think it's possible to spam enough drones (the whole point behind drones is that they are cheap) until one survives, or to improve the resolution of persistent stare satellites?
>>30371187
Target the missiles using a network of cheap disposable platforms and survive the counter attack by virtue of being expendable. They need to kill all of you, you only need to kill one of them, how is this a hard thing to understand?
>>30370699
>You are missing the point, you think those escorts are cheap? If you took all the money you spend on the carrier and it's escorts, you could have more than enough missiles to completely overwhelm it's defenses.
Now try doing the math for carrier aircraft carrying cheap, shorter-ranged air-launched cruise missiles and see who wins. Aircraft have a long range. They let the carrier strike from well outside enemy range. Carriers are power projection assets.
I know this is hard, but you're stupid, so.
>>30370493
Its hard for me to wrangle my new keyboard.
Its autocorrect fucks me a lot
>>30371074
>would it be possible to build a stealth carrier?
Yes and no.
Is it possible? yes, technically.
Is it in any possible way practical? No, and never will be by virtue of the role a carrier fulfills. The entire idea of a carrier is to be able to project force on a target without putting the ship itself into danger in the first place. So if you're relying on VLO designs or some other stealth fuckery to protect your carrier, you're already doing it wrong. The idea is that if some radiating source gets close enough to get a return from the carrier somebody has done fucked up big time.
>>30365567
Russians are the Gods of engineering.
>>30370034
we Macross now.
>>30371220
>You don't think it's possible to spam enough drones (the whole point behind drones is that they are cheap)
Oh Jesus. Here, check out the US's advanced recon drone with a long-range surface-search radar and FLIR equipment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_RQ-4_Global_Hawk
>US$131.4M (FY13)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet
>US$60.9 million (2013 flyaway cost)
We don't use drones because they're cheap, but because they're cheap to operate and have insane loiter time. They are NOT cheap to lose to the enemy, and they are markedly inferior at dodging missiles, since that's best done by a pilot who's actually in a cockpit and has much better situational awareness than a nerd looking at a computer screen and waggling a joystick.
>All things being equal, missiles beat countermeasures due to attrition, anti-missiles have to be more sophisticated than the missiles they intercept.
False dichotomy. Most of our SAMs are SM-2s or ESSMs; the SM-2 is guided by track-via-missile (basically fancy semi-active) and the ESSM is just old-fashioned semi-active radar homing. There's a term for missiles like that: "cheap." Cruise missiles - which have to fly a lot further, at low altitude, and carry a radar to find their targets and perhaps penetration aids to help get through, like ECM - are going to be more expensive.
>or to improve the resolution of persistent stare satellites?
You have to put those in geosynch orbit, which is VERY high. Requiring a much bigger telescope on your satellite, and an even bigger booster to get it up there. Shit's hideously expensive.
Listen, nigga, I think you fundamentally fail to understand the cost-effectiveness of aircraft and aircraft-launched munitions. Aircraft are re-usable weapon systems that are also highly flexible and can load a wide variety of ordinance for various missions. They can also be employed in a pure defensive role. Subsonic cruise missiles are big, expensive, single use.
>>30371220
>Supercavitating torpedoes exist.
Which is why torpedo defense is right under missile defense in the development index for the navy.
>>30371220
>Target the missiles using a network of cheap disposable platforms
target detection/ targetting and cheap are mutually exclusive. why the fuck do you think aegis antenna are 11 feet fucking high and russian warships were covered in sensors. once you spend that sort of money, disposable is not an option, not even for the united states.
it's like this whole cheap and disposable drone thing. 70% of the cost of a fighter/any aircraft is the sensor and avionics. you cannot replicate that suite and those capabilities without spending money. the only thing you can save is the lifetime cost of the pilot. cheap is not a thing.
you would know this if you ever bothered to do any semi-serious reading of semi-serious publications, rather than jerking off to warisboring.com.
>>30371319
>Which is why torpedo defense is right under missile defense in the development index for the navy.
Hell, they already have an anti-torpedo torpedo in testing, which people said was impossible to make for a long, long time.
To say nothing of having to get a submarine within a few miles of a carrier, which is the second best anti-sub weapon ever made (since it carries tons of anti-sub choppers to sweep a wide area.) And that's after you get past the FIRST best anti-sub weapon ever made, the escorting fast-attack nuclear sub.
>>30371307
>You have to put those in geosynch orbit, which is VERY high. Requiring a much bigger telescope on your satellite, and an even bigger booster to get it up there. Shit's hideously expensive.
you forgot to mention that the rayleigh criteria imposes hard physcial limits to the resolution acheivable at any distance at any wavelength.
>>30371342
>you forgot to mention that the rayleigh criteria imposes hard physcial limits to the resolution acheivable at any distance at any wavelength.
Indeed, atmospheric scattering.
>>30371331
And the ASW destroyers.
>>30371331
not to mention the escorting destroyers.
>>30371354
>>30371356
Y'know to be honest I didn't even bother mentioning those because the towed-line passive arrays they'd be dragging about pale in comparison to their aircraft complement; Burkes can carry two ASW choppers apiece which offloads work from the carrier and just makes it even harder to get anywhere close. You might get within a few miles of a towed line array without being detected but good luck when a chopper drops a sonobouy right on top of your ass.
>>30371302
I love how that submarine has a slight deck AND ICBM tubes. Reminds me of this a bit
http://www.hisutton.com/Stalins%20Super%20Sub%20-%20Project%20P-2.html
Its a submarine that carries 3 minisubs, ungodly amounts of missiles and torpedo tubed
>>30371220
Okay bro, here's what's pissing me off so bad. You're sitting there saying "carriers are inherently vulnerable weapons systems" like this is FUCKING NEWS.
Everybody's fucking known this since literally day 1. Battle of Midway, right? The Japanese counter-attack with one carrier worth of aircraft - splitting it into two deckload strikes - and still managed to get through the combat air patrol of Yorktown and wound her in both attacks despite going up against much, much better AA and a carrier that actually had early-warning radar. Even after combat air patrol vectoring was refined greatly and the number of AA guns on every fleet ship increased by an astonishing amount, attacks would still get through and hit carriers in subsequent battles. Even the USS Hornet, which actually had the first CIC in history installed on her.
And yet they kept building carriers in WWII. In fact the Japs were so desperate to build more carriers that they started converting battleships and shit into carriers. That's because carriers were still the best weapon.
And they're still the best weapon today. You're sitting here spouting off shit everybody on fucking earth has known since ninteen-forty-fucking-one; that carriers are eggshells carrying sledgehammers and that they rule naval combat because of their incredible standoff advantage. The US has spent 60 fucking years developing a comprehensive set of weapons to defend the carrier battle group from any possible threat and yet here you sit, wanking off to "M-MUH MISSILES." Asshole, educate yourself.
>>30371443
Fact of the matter is, all weapon systems are inherently vulnerable. we live in the real world, perfect does not exist. some of them are just more worth the risk and cost than others.
>>30370204
>This can never happen
You realize every soldier, EVER, of the whole World's military stoty, would make you STFU RIGHT THERE if you were to so taunt Murphy, right? Piece of advice: Never, EVER, say that aloud.
>Defense contractors are not overcharging for their avionics.
>It is not possible to build good avionics for cheaper than the arm and leg the US pays for them.
>You need a super advanced drone designed to hunt durkas in mud huts in order to locate a giant floating chunk of metal surrounded by slightly smaller chunks of metal.
>It is not possible to build a cheaper platform for the sole purpose of locating gigantic carrier battle groups.
>Aircraft carriers are stealthier than submarines.
>>30371443
To be honest you have raised a lot of good points.
What pisses me off is when people compare cutting edge point defense systems to cold war era missiles. I never said carriers are worthless (or if I did, I was wrong and I apologize) just that modern missiles can defeat modern point defense. I'm also still not convinced that something as big as a carrier can reliably evade a dedicated search. Yes I heard of that story about the admiral who managed to go AWOL during an exercise because he memorized the satellite orbits, but the fact remains that detection technology is constantly improving, and that it's not going to get any easier for something as inherently unsubtle as a carrier and it's fleet of escorts to hide, particularly when it's attacking you. A drone or USV designed to spot large surface warships should not be as expensive as a global hawk, and even if that story about 80s era Russian anti-ship missiles using AI to hunt in packs is a myth, there is no reason why that concept couldn't be realized with today's technology.
Someday carriers must go the way of the battleship. This should not be a controversial statement.
>>30365752
>Every attack sub captain in the US Navy just came uncontrollably in the ass of another man
fixed that for you
>>30371634
>Defense contractors are not overcharging for their avionics.
>It is not possible to build good avionics for cheaper than the arm and leg the US pays for them. >You need a super advanced drone designed to hunt durkas in mud huts in order to locate a giant floating chunk of metal surrounded by slightly smaller chunks of metal.
>It is not possible to build a cheaper platform for the sole purpose of locating gigantic carrier battle groups.
>Aircraft carriers are stealthier than submarines.
this, what do you think this is? do you think that your simply saying something makes it true? if it was only because us contractors overcharge, do you not think that every other country wouldn't be fielding vastly superior analogues of the same shit in great numbers because they can do it better cheaper?
you have literally no fucking idea what you are talking about, you obviously have no technical education and apparently little formal education at all, informally you obviously haven't even bothered reading publically available sources because that would be too hard, and your only counter to everything is blaming faceless powers (defense contractors, lobbyists, jews) and making statements that you have no ability to back up.
you are a fucking worthless moron
you are wasting our fucking time
what is more, because of your complete refusal to listen to anything that contradicts your completely baseless, unsupportable, unverifiable, head-cannon narrative, you won't even educate yourself for all this time that is being wasted.
you're wasting your own time as well
>>30371634
>just that modern missiles can defeat modern point defense.
Son, you don't even know what point defense is. Literally the concept itself. It's time to stop posting.
Point defense only handles out to about 5nmi plus or minus from the ship. Modern AShM/aircraft intercept missiles launch from Aegis ships out to 250nmi (SM-6), then out to 100nmi (SM-2ER), then out to 27nmi (ESSM), before an incoming swarm even gets to PD (CIWS/Phalanx/SeaRAM) range. And that's just the ship launched shit being bird dogged with the AWACS. F-35Cs, for instance, will have an intercept radius of 857nmi against incoming AShMs (combat raidus with A2A loadout of 760nmi + 97nmi range of AIM-120D).
>>30371634
Believe it or not friend, but the gear needed to detect a warship over any significant distance is not something you can buy at RadioShack.
WE FMP NOW.
>you will never serve on TDD-1
Just shoot me already.
>>30365567
Oh man, I love that mission in Crimson Skies!
>>30371819
I never said that it was, just that it could be obtainable by a nation that spent a reasonable amount of money on it, and that it could possibly be cheaper (or stealthier) than other platforms not optimized for such a task.
A floating airfield is not exactly subtle. The idea the enemy will never be able to get a firing solution on something as large as a carrier is ludicrous.
>>30371931
>The idea the enemy will never be able to get a firing solution on something as large as a carrier is ludicrous.
you've been told this a couple of times in the thread and you ignore it. i'm going to put it into one post so you don't have to piece shit together, which apparently you're incapable of doing.
1. it's harder to detect a cbg than you'd think. the oceans are fucking huge. all kinds of crazy shit happened in the cold war that showed this was still an issue. it's needle in a haystack time, literally. look at an atlas, go spend some time at sea, take a plane trip, get a sense of perspective.
2. you can't just shine a radio beam and get your target, even if you know where to look. as soon as you do this, you have illuminated yourself and saved your enemy the bother of having to find you. this is not good for your prospects of survival. naval warfare is as much marco polo as it is anything else. not to mention you have to be able to generate different wavelengths for different jobs.
3. once the radars are on, all forms of electronic warfare/electromagnetic warfare are now in play. now you have to get a firing solution through a million watts of bullshit, and someone that wants to kill you as much as you want to kill them.
4. now you have to get your weapon to your target's location through all of the above, and stop them from doing the same to you
5. now you have to get your weapon onto its target, through all of the above, plus kinetic countermeasures out to a couple of hundred kilometers, and stop them from doing the same to you
6. now you have to survive the aftermath, because there is never simply one vessel in a battle group.
you've gone from arguing that the solution is cheap to arguing the solution is possible. please twist and turn some more.
while you're there, tell me how much you think the necessary for the above is going to cost you.
here's a hint, more than most nations can actually afford.
>>30372113
>you have illuminated yourself and saved your enemy the bother of having to find you.
Not to mention the simple fact that you can be detected by your radar emissions at a baseline four times the distance (assuming 1:1 return) that a return will show you your target, assuming t/r arrays of equal sensitivity. Inverse square law and all that. The emissions can also be detected over the horizon, and a return will not come back over the horizon. All this means that if you're out on the ocean looking for a CSG with ship or even fighter/patrol radar, they're going to see you long before you see them. AWACS makes this even worse.
On the other side of this, CSGs regularly disguise or spoof their own emissions. There are many ways to do this:
>EMCOM (no/controlled emissions) runs at high speed to a distant flight ops point
>sending one or more radiating AWACS birds 100+ miles away and keeping one over the CSG operating in passive mode
>using decoy pods to simulate carrier/aegis radar emissions mounted on orbiting aircraft away from the CSG
>positioning the carrier outside of or away from several CSG escort vessels which are radiating or spoofing carrier emissions
etc etc
The USN played these games with the Soviets for DECADES, and they NEVER knew where all the carriers were at any given time within 100mi, and it was rare that they ever had an extended target-grade track on any one of them.
>>30369905
So, commercial shipping would be threatened in a real war anyway
>>30372113
and something i forgot to add, a point i need to make because all of these 'hurr durr i can do it better' fucking autists always seem to forget, is that your enemy is not sitting around passively letting you do stuff, the us forces are not just sitting about blithely and ignorantly and innocently allowing the world to happen to them, only to react in stunned suprise that someone should actually have the malice to shoot at them. all of these moronic thread ops seem to have the notion that they're the super predator and the usn/army/air force/marines are innocent and helpless and passive like you think that girl you're stalking is. the navy is not sitting around waiting for contacts. they are taking constant, 24 hour a day active, aggressive measures to shape the battlespace for their own benefit, with an innate desire to fuck someone up the ass, hard and permanently behind it? why do you think you're going to find them before they find you? why do you think they're not looking? what makes you think you and your stupid fucking missile boat will have the initiative with your radio shack drones?
there is a level of aggression in the military that i don't think housebound autists understand.
>>30372241
good post. radio shack never bothers to do the dilligence to find out this shit, hence these stupid fucking threads.
i wouldn't even mind if they were ever a genuine attempt at education, but they're never some guy wanting to learn as much as possible. it's always some nigger hoped up on listerine looking for a fight.
it gets old.
>>30371634
>What pisses me off is when people compare cutting edge point defense systems to cold war era missiles.
Oooohkay nigga I get your drift. Listen, here's how it shakes out:
In the 90s, shit looked significantly different vis a vis carrier air wings. For starters, we had the A-6 Intruder's tanker variant - and we had the F-14 Tomcat (a long-range, high-altitude, high speed interceptor) equipped with Phoenix missiles (a very long range anti-bomber missile) which, in conjunction, were excellent at fucking murdering enemy bombers before they could even get within the 75-100nm standoff range of air-launched munitions.
Post Cold War we let a lot of those weapons systems lapse, and now we only have the short-ranged Hornet - and we only operate an air wing of about 60 per carrier due to constant budget cuts. However, the Navy is working hard to reverse that trend - for starters, that mystical flying-wing drone had its requirements suddenly sharply reduced to simply the air-refueling role, in order to field it faster; the F-35C will be rolled out to the fleet very soon, which has a significantly better range than the Super Hornet, and the latest version of the AIM-120 has an impressive 70nm range, pushing it up against the envelope of the old Phoenix (except its cheaper, smaller and lighter than the Phoenix.) This is in addition to weapons like the SM-6; it's a hideously expensive missile, yes, but it has the ability to engage targets well over the radar horizon; hitting incoming seaskimmers out to 100nm or more. And they're introducing an active-guidance ESSM variant soon to improve hit chances - more expensive, but it will still fit four missiles into one VLS tube. And then there's the laser systems, etc.
The US Navy knows *exactly* what you're talking about; i.e. we have to plan for the next generation of anti-ship missiles like the LRASM and the Kalibr. And they're busting their asses to keep ahead of the curve.
>>30371634
>but the fact remains that detection technology is constantly improving, and that it's not going to get any easier for something as inherently unsubtle as a carrier and it's fleet of escorts to hide, particularly when it's attacking you.
You might be surprised. With an aircraft carrier it's not about "hiding," but about masking the signature and/or reducing the RCS. A radar cannot tell you what a ship *is,* it just shows a blip; sometimes big, sometimes small. With various techniques you can make your carrier look like a big tanker, and the escort ships are getting pretty damn stealthy (look at the Zumwalt, RCS of a small yacht or something.) The ocean is crammed full of ships; you can't just fire missiles at every unidentified contact on the radar. You have to go out there to visually verify what the fuck it is (with modern FLIR, of course.)
But what if they find you anyway? Then you turn on your ECM systems and jammers and such. They'll definitely know your rough location, but only down to a ten by ten nautical mile box - if that. The jammers make it impossible for them to pinpoint your location accurately enough to launch a missile at, which is their whole point. Yes you can "hide" an entire fucking aircraft carrier strike group if you're clever, but strategy never counts on your ability to do that indefinitely. That's why all the ECM and shit exists.
For all the gazillions of dollars lavished on carrier strike group defenses, it has never, ever been considered ideal to have to use them at all. Ideally, you have your carrier's fighters waste any threat before it gets close enough to do harm.
>>30365567
>the Ruskies are building a submarine carrier
No they are not.
>>30372241
Also, everything this guy said. He laid it out really, really well. Naval combat like this is a very complex dance between recon assets and the carrier group's defenses and deceptions.
>>30365597
>giant ducted fan engines
Jet engine or bust.
>>30365567
>>30365583
>Replace air refueling
No...air refueling is its own thing because the aircraft continues flying.
Whether an actaul carrier or sub-carrier, the plane must land.
>>30371870
said here already
>>30370227
>>30370251
But yeah, she's a cool boat
>>30372869
i love wrecking that fucking thing with an A-10 and a shit-ton of hydras.
>>30370336
I don't know what's funnier, the fact that people always accuse you of making these kinds of posts or the fact that you're almost always around to deny it.
>>30373069
I'm not him.
And actually, despite this being an anonymous internet argument. I would like to apologize. Some of you have made some very convincing arguments and I have learned a lot here.
>>30373069
I'm not always here I was gone for like a week
>>30373128
WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU??
I'm Listerine.
>>30365567
Fuck off Sparky
>>30369933
AND it would destabilize a system used to feed and clothe people.
Are you gonna take up that responsibility???
>>30372273
There's a reason soldiers will get executed for dressing like a civilian or wearing an enemy uniform.
War has rules. If you can't understand that, you're inexperienced. And if you want to get away with breaking rules, you better have lots of experience.
>>30373214
i fucking lol'd
you're like the new hotaru fag. probably i wouldn't take that as a compliment.
>>30372876
This
>>30365567
>are building
You have an interesting sense of what that means
>>30373297
Its not I know it.
I've been shitposting here a decade suddenly I'm a meme for being severely alcoholic.
>>30373424
You're a meme for being a learning disabled felon alcoholic arguing military strategy, procurement and engineering in the most ridiculous and asinine of possible ways.
>>30373492
I literally have nothing else to do in my life....
Im bored, man.
And /k/ is all roleplaying anyways so it matters not
>>30373270
>AND it would destabilize a system used to feed and clothe people.
>Are you gonna take up that responsibility???
>GodEmperor Trump succeeds in telling globalism "you're fired"
>Oversea trade is a luxury we enjoy, no longer a staple
>Build militarized merchant marine ships for pirate hunting and international trolling
>Chinks and other SE azyn yellownigger can't harass shipping in fear of accidentally a USN stealth carrier.
>War were declared and have a fleet of functional helicopter carriers that can be painted with commercial colors and identification and seamlessly slide into shipping lanes.
Sounds good
Also you're full of shit, there are no maritime laws against armed merchantmen.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_merchantman
>>30373528
>implying there would be any merchant ships to disguise yourself as after trump gets through with globalism.
>>30367257
better idea: outfit the turrets with railguns
>>30373512
well, fair enough really. people do take 4chan maybe a little to seriously.
i've been here that same amount of time and wouldn't know who you are if you hadn't admitted the listerine thing. now you're known. well done i guess?
could be worse, could be a tripfag.
>>30373694
I used to namefag and my egos big enough that I would have tripped but I was too lazy.
Regardless I do shit up navy threads on the odd occasion because I believe naval artillery can outrange carrier launched craft.
I believe a modern battleship built around this requirement(outranging planes) could do the job of a carrier better, cheaper, and safer.
But I'm a dumbass that can't communicate his thoughts
>>30373748
You also believe unbelievably retarded shit, and refuse to learn when anons first politely, then mockingly, then mercilessly suggest all the different reasons why the idea belongs in a potato farm.
>>30373528
Uhh... Disguising a carrier as a cargo ship is ILLEGAL AS FUCK
We have to respect the laws of the global government to some degree. Especially if we want the UN to mean anything.
>>30373799
Yes. But only because I can't convey precisely what I'm imagining through a text medium.
>>30373748
>I believe naval artillery can outrange carrier launched craft.
No. They can't.
And they never will.
>>30373815
>But only because I can't convey precisely what I'm imagining through a text medium.
No. Literally everyone here understands what you're trying to say. This is not a case of misunderstood genius. Your. Ideas. Are. Retarded. The end.
>>30373748
well, you know there is nothing wrong with having ideas. but you should probably listen to what people tell you and go and do some reading for yourself. there are some hard physical realities due to living under gravity on a spherical rock mass in the middle of space. i understand you have learning difficulties but you should probably start at looking to work around them.
>>30373799
this guy is pretty close to the bone. heed his words.
maybe when you start getting confused in a thread you should withdraw to contemplate things before anon puts its rapeface on. maybe also instead of stating positions you should ask questions as to why your ideas won't work/aren't viable. like why long range strike with a railgun starts getting difficult, why offensive weapons mostly negate passive armor. that kind of thing. change your approach a little.
>>30373801
especially if you don't want other countries to start conducting reprisals
>fuck you waffen ss, no prisoners for two weeks
>>30373801
>Disguising a carrier as a cargo ship is ILLEGAL AS FUCK
So is wiretapping underwater comms lines in territorial waters.
So are black infil/exfils to recover or emplace assets or perform any one of a hundred other sneaky breaky tasks.
So is droning anyone in the world practically anywhere in the world.
So is wiretapping and/or infiltrating most of the world's telecom systems and internet.
Etc.
And I'm not just talking about the US. Other countries do most of this shit, too, and they'd do all of it if they had the toys and balls to get it done.
Especially when it comes to a hot conflict with munitions being exchanged. Shit gets done any way it can be, and reports get doctored/redacted later if need be, assuming they don't get caught red handed.
>>30365567
is this Putin's dildo?
>>30373748
>Naval artillery can outrange carrier launched craft.
I'm the missilefag, and even I see why that's dumb. Even the best possible raillgun would basically just be a ballistic missile, they are bound by the same laws of physics and would arrive at the same speed and same angle. The main advantage would be cost, but that would be offset by reduced payload. I'm actually not sure if they would be easier or harder to intercept than sea skimming cruise missiles or supercavitating torpedoes, can any of the experts advise? I imagine they would be coming in faster, but also be visible for longer, making them vulnerable to lasers if they can be powerful enough. (Right now I understand that lasers are only powerful enough to kill drones, mortars, and rockets, but raillguns have the problem of the barrel ripping itself apart, so neither are mature technologies)
Anyways, even if you were right (you aren't) range, as was explained earlier in this thread, isn't the problem. If you can't get close enough to aim a missile, how is a raillgun going to be any better? You would still need those magic targeting drones that everyone tells me can't possibly exist.
I can see the "Muh artillery support" argument, but I doubt raill-guns will be doing much ship killing unless like, lasers somehow magically make airplanes and missiles obsolete, and even then, they would by necessity be firing flat trajectories at short range.
Raillguns on cruiser sized platforms might be cool, but there is no real reason to make them battleship sized. Unlike carriers there is no "Muh air wing" argument to justify the hugeness.
>>30372937
>Hydras
Pffft
You're not Ace of Aces until you take it and its entourage down with nothing but FABs and Brrrrrrt
>>30374060
>drones that don't exist
Goddammit, you are dense.
It's not that they don't exist. It's that the cheap ones are shit and would be destroyed in droves long before they could do anything useful. And the good ones are expensive enough that nobody is going to use them in fear of losing them.
>>30374085
And of course, every sensor you actually put on the thing would have to be entirely passive, since radiating in a threatening manner anywhere near a CBG is an easy way to get deded
>>30373892
ok, i think you're getting confused with the definition of 'illegal'. being against the laws and interests of a specific country is not the definition we're using, being against the laws of armed combat, a collection of international treaties and customs almost universally abided by, is what we're talking about. there is quite a difference, generally because you're following them to the shooting already starting. at that point you don't deal with breaches by diplomacy and mean words, you deal with them by executing uniformed personel in a warzone and targetting civillian populations.
big. fucking. difference.
I know just the solution
>>30365575
Coat the whole thing with some kinda hydrophobic and it won't, though that shit won't be cheap and will scratch ALL THE TIME.
>>30374132
>being against the laws of armed combat, a collection of international treaties and customs almost universally abided by, is what we're talking about.
Yes. Exactly. Illegal wiretapping is called that for a reason. Inserting armed military/paramilitary troops into a foreign land is illegal. Entering territorial waters with a warship engaged in any of fifty shades of skullduggery is illegal. And so on.
All of these things are enumerated, and set within bounds of legality in several international treaties and agreements during peacetime in the absence of declared war. The US, and every other major player on the globe has done all or most of these things in peacetime. The point is that in wartime legality often takes a back seat to practical efficiency or risk aversion, depending on which law we're talking about.
In the case of an aircraft carrier disguised as a cargo ship, pic related is a modern example from the Falklands War. The British, by the way, were patted on the back for their cleverness internationally, and never sanctioned for it.
>>30365575
Don't boats get slippery anyway? Wouldn't the deck just be like a ship always in rain and heavy storms?
>>30365573
Are they supposed to land on that or are those SU-27s supposed to be a kamikaze strike force?
>>30365567
an army of 50 cal doges
>>30374085
Either way raillguns won't be able to use their max range without reliable Intel any more than missiles will.
>>30374289
I see what looks like arrestor cables so I imagine they are supposed to land. But landing on that tiny deck and squeezing them into the hangar bay is going to be difficult on rough seas, not to mention that you can only fit one aircraft on the deck at a time while landing, maybe a few more while launching.
>>30374376
im getting the feeling that those jets are for a suicide mission on a carrier force or coast line
>>30374250
>Illegal wiretapping is called that for a reason.
show me where in the laws of armed combat, 'wiretapping' is illegal. especially since they only apply when war has been declared or, arguably, when fighting (actual fighting) has started. which is something else you just fucked up.
>Inserting armed military/paramilitary troops into a foreign land is illegal.
show me where it says that. a war of aggression is illegal. not exactly the same thing. what you've actually discribed can simply be called 'war' and if someone has attacked me, or i have sanction from the security council, i am more than entitled to park my military right up their ass. so the way you've written this seems to indicate again you have exactly no idea what you're talking about. again.
>Entering territorial waters with a warship engaged in any of fifty shades of skullduggery is illegal.
do you know what actually comprimises territorial waters? just asking. i don't know that you really understand the concept. like apparently everything else.
but i see you're still confused. you seem to be confusing 'head-cannon' with 'reality'. in otherwords, what you think is illegal with what actually is. people do this all the time when it comes to 'war crimes' and the geneva conventions in particular, which most people have absolutely no idea about.
>never sanctioned for it.
explain to me how you're going to sanction the nuclear armed victor of a war no one else gives a fuck about. because that's the trick, especially in the 80s it was the responsibility of the other party to conduct reprisals if they believed a breach had been committed. hague wasn't a thing, and only is if you're a signatory. and do so especially without sanctioning the argies, who started the whole thing by committing the greatest war crime of them all, aggression.
admit it, you have no fucking idea what you are talking about.
>>30373821
Pic related.
It could give the Iowa's main guns a range of 700 miles. Its part jet, part missile, and part bomb. It needs no multimillion dollar planes and risks no pilots life.
Imagine combining these ideas with rail gun! Hell, a 5 inch WW2 navy gun has less than the range of a modern 5 inch artillery gun.
We have the technology to quit endangering lives of pilots.
>>30373845
I'm versed well enough on humanities history to know we are so retarded our collective stupitidy is responsible for most our history. 2000 years ago Jesus showed us farming is obsolete by multiplying food. He showed us water could he made into wine and the dead can be raised. Technically, we are all living in the past like the Amish.. Right? This is all info derived from the best selling book of all time, the bible.
>>30373883
You're right. But the reason I show I'm stupid is to fish out an education. I'm baiting you guys so I can learn and grow.
>>30373892
We should obey the rules more when it comes to respecting privacy and individuals rights. I know damn well I'm spied on and I respect people that have put their feelings in the open. I'll hear you out, but remember I'm hard of hearing. And dumb lol
>>30374060
Uhh... Carrier launched planes are just a pilot controlled missile. Cut out the middleman and maximize gains. Its that simple.
>>30374132
I'm not him but I started this issue.
Its illegal the same way as dressing in enemy uniforms is illegal.
If carriers began pretending to be cargo ships, every cargo ship would be fair game which would make the guilty navy worse than pirate and much more destructive to civil affairs.
Worse than the pirates the navy wants to protect us from. Think about that.
>>30374426
>explain to me how you're going to sanction the nuclear armed victor of a war no one else gives a fuck about.
This was my entire point within this entire interchange. As for the rest of your vaguely insulting mess of implications (yet I note you fail to even cite which embodied document of international law or treaty forbids the camouflaging of military vessels as civilian vessels) I shrug and go on my way.
Pearls before swine and all that.
>>30374427
>It could give the Iowa's main guns a range of 700 miles
No, it can't. I literally gave you the fuel fraction calculations myself a couple months ago. This is what I was talking about here >>30373799. Also, the F-35C has a combat radius with A2A loadout of 760nmi. So you're STILL not outranging it.
>>30374060
Wouldn't railgun rounds be a whole lot smaller than any cruise missiles? There are some hypersonic cruise missiles in development, planned to be going around mach 5, I think, but I would think they would be larger and more complicated than typical cruise missiles. I don't know how fast the proposed railgun projectiles decelerate, but I would think they impact going faster than mach 5. Short of total obliteration or avoidance (that's a relatively solid chunk of metal, probably relying primarily on kinetic force for damage), there's going to be some damage. So if it's a small uncomplicated projectile, no guidance or significant aerodynamic surfaces that can be relatively easily damaged, I'd think rail gun projectiles would be much more difficult to defend against.
That's a whole lot of what ifs and speculation, though.
>>30374427
>I'm baiting you guys so I can learn and grow.
But you don't learn. At all. I've literally NEVER seen your ideas change one jot, in spite of being repeatedly facefucked by publicly available information, basic historical fact and high school physics.
>>30374427
>Its illegal the same way as dressing in enemy uniforms is illegal.
Yeah, except every major power has done this several dozen times as part of intelligence, recon and espionage work in the last century.
>>30371111
>Chinese are mostly using 80s era anti-ship missiles
>The missile equation has changed
>in favor of the defender.
>AIM-120's
>AIM-120's latest marks are very good at killing subsonic cruise missiles
>subsonic cruise missiles
>Using your AIM-120's defensively instead of on your enemy's air-wing
>precisely why a whole new generation of much more sophisticated ASMs are coming into play
No, but they're still coming
>missile attrition math, laser defense system, keep shooting down missiles as long as the ship has power.
>Versus high supersonic/hypersonic missiles
ISHYGDDT, but it was always too late. This post gave me cancer.
>>30374398
Then what's the point of all those surface based defensive weapons if it's not going to loiter on the surface long enough to wait for it's (I'm assuming like, 6) flankers to land.
Whoever designed this didn't think it through very well.
>>30374427
Ramjets or no, a shell is just a ballistic missile with a shitty payload and a re-usable first stage. You can increase the range with ramjets and add all the terminal guidance you want, but the fact remains that you are squeezing a missile thorough a metal tube at high speeds for no good reason. The only thing shells have over missiles is cost, making fancy shells ruins that advantage. Remember any payload and avionics has to be designed to withstand the stress of firing, while a missile can accelerate more gently. The end result is something with more expensive avionics, less payload, and no real improvement in range, all to appease somebody's phallic fixation. I get it, big cannons are cool, but naval technology has moved on.
And as others in this thread pointed out, it has the same problems as anti-ship missiles, you need to know where the target is. If you simply want to save pilots lives, then a drone can do that. Which is funny, because it turns out Fighter Jocks love their jobs, and actively resist any attempt to replace them even when it's a good idea.
>>30374528
The thing about intercepting incoming ballistic projectiles isn't as much about obliterating them as destroying their terminal guidance and putting enough kinetic energy into them so that their course is altered. In the case of lasers vs raillgun projectiles, I think the idea would be to melt part of the incoming projectile so that the jet of molten metal pushes it off course.
And again, if you can't aim missiles, how the hell are you going to aim raillgun shells? At least cruise missiles could conceivably be designed to loiter around and actively hunt for targets in a given area.
>>30374552
Hey I've learned a lot here.
>>30374478
Our consciences convict and haunt us.
A murderer feels remorse even if he gets off scot free. We know what's wrong before we do it. Otherwise there would be no debate
>>30374514
Anything a plane can do a missile can do better. Look at ICBMs. No carrier launched craft can outrange those. One ICBM can destroy more than a carrier ever thought about.
Missiles are better. Our doctrine is flawed. A plane is just a pilot controlled missile meant to land a be reused.
A battleship launching missiles via rail guns could outrange any plane.
>>30374531
I have admitted I'm a brain dSamaged person with a learning disorder, too. Sorry.
>>30374478
>Pearls before swine and all that.
given that pretty much everything you posted is straight out wrong, stop with the pretension.
you're the one that thinks that once the bullets have started flying (when the laws of armed combat apply), tapping your enemies comms is illegal.
>This was my entire point within this entire interchange.
you had no point whatsoever, because if you did you'd understand that it was the responsibility of the other party to do so, not everyone else on the planet, hence
>war no one else gives a fuck about.
finally
>yet I note you fail to even cite which embodied document of international law or treaty forbids the camouflaging of military vessels as civilian vessels
casting pearls before swine and all that old chap. i shrug and go on my way.
you are clueless and have been shown as such. now fuck off.
>>30374678
Why do you need raillguns to launch missiles?
Why do you assume that missiles can magically find their targets without planes to spot for them?
>>30374679
kek. i dunno, anon. he seems super cereal. you'd better run along before he interwebs tough guys you to death.
>>30374717
Don't bother. He's had fuel fraction, sensors at all levels of the kill chain, basic physics and all the relevant hardware broken down for him multiple times. He's literally incapable of learning. At all.
>>30374552
Every major power relys on indentured servitude, slavery, etc.
It doesn't make them right.
Oh, your American and slavery is illegal???
Tell me more about the free men that made your license plate and cell phone!! Tell me more about the porn stars you watch that are forced to whore themselves or be homeless!! What do you think happens if you stop paying taxes???
Your a fucking serf.
And every country that broke those rules needs to submit those responsible to be publicly hanged because they broke rules they swore to uphold. And if it's impossible for our troops to obey the law, we should get rid of those laws. Imagine that
>>30374679
>>30374754
There's a hell of a lot of completely missing the point going on ITT. Not even that anon, but you guys are ridiculous.
>>30374427
>I'm baiting you guys so I can learn and grow.
you know, you could just ask.
>>30374717
PLANES NEVER SPOT FOR MISSILES
that's like saying you need another soldier to guide the bullet the other soldier just fired
