Can you name a worse fucking spot to be on in case of conventional war with Russia or China? I bet you can't. Flattop is the fucking worst. I wouldn't wanna be on one of them if it was the most well paid position in the mil.
>constantly being shadowed by ruskie missile subs
>have a dozen AShMs pointed at it at all times
>all the defenses are fucking useless and none of them will be sufficient to defend against hypersonics
>even smaller countries can now buy AShMs that can kill it
>when the ship gets hit, you will die. nothing will save you.
>no place to hide
Flattops are fucking outdated and are sitting ducks. How the Navy still gets money for these billion dollar targets is beyond me.
Disagree? Prove me wrong!
>>30480227
hey at least you guys got better grammar and spelling.
it seems pretty hard to type enlish on a dvorak keyboard
>>30480243
The word, English, is capitalized.
>>30480243
I'm also pretty impressed. I always prefer Ivan over Zao anyway, gooks are dumb
>>30480227
While super carriers have their use as diplomatic tools, especially in peace time, there needs to be more but smaller carriers with more drones
>>30480243
>hey at least you guys got better grammar and spelling.
>>30480227
>>all the defenses are fucking useless and none of them will be sufficient to defend against hypersonics
We have hypersonic interceptors, nor are the missles hypersonic at terminal.
>The provocative photo, above, depicts the masts of the U.S. Navy attack submarine USS Dallas near the carrier HMS Illustrious during a naval exercise in the Gulf of Oman on Oct. 3, 2013. Six warships including Dallas and Illustrious conducted an anti-submarine-warfare exercise that saw Dallas stalking Illustrious while British and American surface warships and helicopters attempted to locate and “sink” the undersea vessel.
>Neither navy has published the results of the exercise, so it’s not clear whether Dallas got close enough in the course of the war game to simulate firing Mark-48 torpedoes at the flattop, which at 22,000 tons displacement is one of the largest ships in Royal Navy service.
>But there are good reasons to assume the 7,000-ton Dallas did succeed in pretend-sinking Illustrious. In 2007 HMCS Corner Brook, a diesel-electric submarine of the Canadian navy, sneaked up on Illustrious during an exercise in the Atlantic.
https://warisboring.com/how-to-sink-an-aircraft-carrier-f281fbc518fd
Relevant if they weren't protected by more firepower than most nations.
>>30480404
you're a fucking idiot. none of that firepower can do shit against subs. subs are the absolute apex when it comes to modern warfare. to a sub, everything else is prey and the chance that a CSG can detect one is slim.
>>30480227
>aircraft carriers are outdated
I wasnt aware that there was a better way to transport and support a shit ton of aircraft to anywhere in the world in 48 hours.
>>30480474
Anti sub patrols do work, hell, the US is working on an anti torpedo torpedo.
>>30480489
Point was that in case of a war with a country like Russia or China, all of them will at the bottom of the sea in the first 24 hrs.
And if you care about transport, you can pack up planes and put them onto container ships.
>>30480497
LMAO... are you in the Navy? Is that the type of bullshit they feed you to assuage your fears?
>>30480539
Wut.
What makes you think that they dont? Why do you think attack subs are assigned to CBGs? Why do you think the burk and ticos carry helicopters?
>>30480474
>none of that firepower can do shit against subs
>>30480243
Dvorak is a lot easier than qwerty
>>30480539
I'm not in the navy; and no, that's not BS. It's open source news.
>>30480873
i'm sure it is ivan
>>30480489
I wasn't aware that aircraft carriers sailed at 500 knot.
>>30480227
Yes. A worse spot would be employed in a munitions factory in one of those shit places.
>>30480896
they lock all the aircraft down topside then run them full tilt so the carrier goes 500 knots broadside.
would you fuck with an aircraft carrier sailing at 500 knots?
>>30480896
They arent all in the same place.
>>30480915
at least you can call in sick. once you're on one of the CSG ships, there's no way to escape.
>>30480227
>another bait thread about carriers are outdated
how boring.
>>30481683
>bait
Hahaha... is that the best argument you can provide? everyone with half a brain can tell you that carriers are undefendable in the case of war with someone like China or Russia.
>>30481752
>everyone with half a brain can tell you that carriers are undefendable
Yes, anyone with limited mental faculties can say that.
>>30480227
The worst place to be in a conventional war is on the front lines in the opening hours/minutes.
Both the Soviets and NATO had absolutely horrific casualties projections. The 11th ACR considered itself lucky if it could hold out for 3-4 hours.
>>30481815
>The worst place to be in a conventional war is on the front lines in the opening hours/minutes
Brother, you said it. I definitely agree.
>>30481815
I'd take the odds of surviving in a foxhole from surviving on an aircraft carrier. If you're on the carrier and it sinks, you have near zero chance of surviving.
>>30482207
Only if you're too retarded to swim.
>>30481759
>obviously a retard from plebbit
show me a single credible expert who says that a CSG can survive a salvo of AShMs and torpedoes fired from a single sub <50 miles away.
>>30482218
>swim, in the middle of an ocean, possibly in the middle of the night
srsly, go back to plebbit you fucking baka.
>>30482233
A carrier can't survive all those hits. good thing Carriers have a ton of air defenses and sub defenses though, no sub or missile will ever strike a carrier.
Congratulations, you're a russiaboo
>>30482233
A soldier can't survive a bullet to the head, and we still use those.
>>30480518
Do you get all of your information from the Battlefield 4 campaign?
>>30481676
>call in sick
>be executed by your commie overlords
>dies either way
>>30482233
That's why carriers have 3 rings of defenses around them.
That's why the US has literally built it's navy around protecting those fucking things.
INB4 some very fucking angry person actually knowledgeable about such things.
>>30482233
>Implying the CSG isn't the one firing the salvo of AShMs and torpedoes
>>30480894
>>30480873
Just to set you 2 dickheads straight, Dvorak was designed to be faster to type on. All the most common characters used in latin languages are near the home finger positions.
Qwerty was designed to SLOW typists down, to somehow increase accuracy.
A showdown was organised to compare the two, and establish a standard for typewriters going forward. Qwerty keyboard typist won, and rules being rules, was declared superior. Expert assessment later found it was the players involved - the qwerty typist was simply better.
Under equal skill and familarity, dvorak is ergonomically superior to qwerty.
Wiki that shit for the real story.
>>30480227
Well, there's one worse place.
Anywhere in Russia or China.
do we really need 5 fucking "hurr durr carrier vulnerable, and plz no bully don't mention we're trying to build our own carrier" threads a week? Fucking really?
>>30482463
Yes they can
people survive being shot in the head all the time.
>>30482567
Qwerty was designed for typewriters so that it wouldn't jam when people typed.
>>30482391
>no sub or missile will ever strike a carrier.
Holy fucking shit. You're the most indoctrinated retard in this thread.
>>30482463
>A soldier can't survive a bullet to the head, and we still use those.
Yeah, but that soldier and that bullet doesn't cost $40 BILLION DOLLARS. And it's a lot harder to kill mobile soldiers than a carrier.
>>30482531
>That's why carriers have 3 rings of defenses around them.
As if that makes any difference.
https://warisboring.com/how-to-sink-an-aircraft-carrier-f281fbc518fd
>>30482726
>And it's a lot harder to kill soldiers than a carrier.
This is the retardation of the people who make these threads
>>30482734
you should seriously fuck off and go back to plebbit.
>>30482726
So you are a US commander tracking some shit tier chinese sub thats shadowing your CSG during peacetime. He blows, and pops up for a childish dick wave publicity stunt.
Do you....
A: be even more childish and go "NUH UH, I KILLED YOU FIRST!!!!' Therefore letting your foe know that you jnew he was there, therefore making him change tactics.
B: Say nothing and let them saber rattle to their hearts content knowing you could have splashed him 140nm's away when he started tailing you.
>>30480227
The problem with your assertion is the idea of "conventional war". No nation on earth is interested in going to war with an opponent that's even close to on par with them militarily. The real powers are all going to avoid one another however they can for fear of nuclear war and their globally interconnected economies. It's just not going to happen.
They're mobile airfields that are used against nations that have resources we want and cannot fight back.
I don't know what point OP is trying to make but things killing things don't make the dead things obsolete. Russians and Chinese will waste more money trying to kill a carrier.
>>30482837
Litterally the argument for those saying WWI would never happen.
>>30482718
This. Old piano-key strikers needed a key spacing that wouldn't cause a clusterfuck every other word. Even then, typists had to slow down for certain words.
>>30482829
>no option to fire torpedos
>>30482829
>tracking a Kilo on battery at 380kyds.
What universe do you live in?
>>30482726
>And it's a lot harder to kill mobile soldiers than a carrier.
Carriers are mobile though. And carriers can also shoot back.
>>30483016
>Kilo tracking a CSG at all on battery
You do realize it's very rare they're doing less than 18 knots, right? Right?
>>30483057
A CSG can outrun any sub trying to be quiet, barring the seawolf class. Kilo is more of a mobile minefield than anything.
>>30482968
I thought it was implied. War is always an option.
>>30483016
Reality.
>>30480227
>>constantly being shadowed by ruskie missile subs
Attack subs*. And they wouldn't be shadowing the supertender, they'd be dancing around the perimeter of the ASW screen.
>>have a dozen AShMs pointed at it at all times
So, a single Slava and a single Sovremny? And they'd also be dancing around the screening perimeter. At best they'd be aiming at the Burkes and Ticos. The supertender would be somewhere away beyond their radar horizon. A myth, really, as far as Russian AShMs are concerned.
>>all the defenses are fucking useless and none of them will be sufficient to defend against hypersonics
Think again.
>>even smaller countries can now buy AShMs that can kill it
Think again.
>>when the ship gets hit, you will die. nothing will save you.
Other than your effective damage control training and procedures. Assuming you ever actually get hit in the first place.
>>no place to hide
At the heart of a Carrier Strike Group seems like a great place to hide.
>>30480227
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Combat_System
The only nation on earth that every had a high probability of success in sinking a carrier was the Soviet Union. They would have used a combined sub surface and naval aviation attack with nuclear weapons.
Thats why the F-14 tomcat and Los Angeles class where fucking built to keep the bad things far away from the Carrier.
>muh hypersonics launched at maximum ranges
Low KPA due to jamming,physical countermeasures and Aegis.
>muh AIP diesel boats
yeah aint gonna be in the Broad Ocean Area traveling at Flank speed(thats what carriers would be doing in a massive war.moving very fast in deep water at all times to avoid submarines and stay away from land based fighters.
Cyberwarfare is the best way to knock out a carrier not actual missiles,hence why the US has put a lot of money into distributed networks to keep assist a flat top if vital systems have been compromised
>>30480227
>constantly being shadowed by ruskie missile subs
Lol, why would Boomers be trying to get close to carriers? I'm like 100% it's the other way around.
>>30484791
>Other way around
No, but for an odd reason: Russian missile subs never leave port. In the event they have to launch, they do so from dock because they aren't considered survivable or safe to operate. The missiles they carry have the range to reach targets from dock anyway.
>>30484977
You should acquaint yourself with something called the Bastion Strategy. And no, it does not involve "launching from dock".
>>30484999
The VMF HATES IT! Find out this one wierd trick about how the soivets would have got their naval infrastructure wrekt by TLAMs!
>>30480227
>Can you name a worse fucking spot to be on in case of conventional war with Russia or China?
being in USA's Moscow and Beijing embassies respectively would probably suck at least as much
>>30480349
>memeblog
>nothing but bullshit speculations and lies
>>30480227
Oh hey, another "I know better than the entire US Navy and i should tell them how much they are doing wrong" thread. No fucktard, thats not how it works. If carriers still exist within a superpower, they are still viable. When the US Navy decide to remove them, we can all say that they are not. Don't bother arguing something like this. Stop posting.
>>30484999
>You should acquaint yourself with something called the Bastion Strategy. And no, it does not involve "launching from dock".
Considering how routinely we infiltrated those bastions during the Cold War, they may as well launch right from the dock, lol.
But yeah that guy was confused.
>>30480227
>>30480227
Stealth aircraft carriers when?
>>30482567
>Qwerty was designed to SLOW typists down, to somehow increase accuracy.
Not quite, more like keep something in the typewriter from overheating or some bullshit.
You can still type pretty damn fast on a QWERTY though. With enough practices the distinction is pretty damn minor.
>>30480300
>We have hypersonic interceptors
Ha
>>30488842
its been posted before QWERTY was designed so that key positions would be in places that would least likely result in the typeset stamps binding on each other
if youve ever used an old analog typewriter you know why pretty early on
>>30482233
>show me a single credible expert who says that a CSG can or will even be engaged by a salvo of AShMs and torpedoes from a single sub <50 miles away
>>30488820
Once f35 goes to fleet
Go ahead, sink a flat top.
I can assure you that your capital city will be glass within an hour.
>>30491114
>within an hour.
Might take 24 hours. Either way, it'd be a done deal.
Can you faggots not go one day without one of these threads?
>>30480497
>the US is working on an anti torpedo torpedo
Nice to hear the US is finally trying to catch up.
>>30484218
Missile subs.
>So, a single Slava and a single Sovremny?
That's two dozens.
>At best they'd be aiming at the Burkes and Ticos
They'd be aiming at all ships in the CSG.
>Satellite guidance
>radar horizon
Think again.
>A myth, really, as far as Russian AShMs are concerned.
The only myth here is American capability to intercept a supersonic AShM salvo.
>>30482245
>he thinks carriers are ever out by themselves
top retard
>>30491219
The little ones need to eat, so they shitpost.
>>30482609
As shown by this thread.
>>30482726
Ah yes the incident where the US CBG with it's oldest CV in the fleet announced days before hand that it would be holding flight op exercises in XXX location to surrounding nations. The Chinese sub then went up-current, preceded to go dead in the water and let ocean currents carry it to the location of the exercise, performed an emergency blow (cuz lol no real power) and popped up in the middle of the fleet to find itself staring down weapons from every direction well before it could even bring it's main power back on line.
>rwar rwar we got you
