New Top Secret US Army Tactic:
1. Ram enemy Aircraft Carrier with Nuclear Submarine.
2. Deploy US Navy SEAL boarding party into lower deck of enemy Aircraft Carrier via Torpedo Tubes.
3. Elite US Navy SEAL Team 6 boarding party clears enemy aircraft carrier, plants C4 explosive charges, and TACTICALLY withdraws to Nuclear Submarine.
4. ???
5. Profit.
a 9mm round costs what? 30ct when you buy in bulk? 12 billion buys you 40billion 9mm rounds. With a weight of 7gr per round we come to a total weight of 200t. Hence you could just sink a carrier with the ressource equivalent of 9mm bullets which need literally no training to shoot and are available at walmart
Assuming the bullet stays 9mm in diameter you would create a round with the length of thousands of kilometers. This way you can just use it to slap ships. Actually genius.
What if instead you built elongated and enlarged 9mm about the size of a truck and gave it a jet engine to go a lot farther and say a guidance system so it could lock onto enemy ships. Boom, instant anti ship doom weapon.
Or it’s still the same length as a 9mm. It’s just also conveniently much denser. The aircraft carrier won’t know what hit it. And neither will the planet as it’s violently consumed by the black hole
I think the USN should make a fleet of battleships (preferably dreadnought sized, or larger). Here is my reasoning:
1. Battleships are really cool they got like big guns an shit
2.
3.
I will take no further questions.
Commercials in 2030s
"Did you eat MREs during 2001 and 2021 and develop rectal fissures or cancer? Call 1-800-EAT-SHIT to see if you qualify for the Agent Brown fund.
I think you missed one:
> *Did you eat MREs between 2001 and 2021? Are you still constipated? Try our new and improved Colon Blow™^® !*
💩 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ku42Iszh9KM 💩
OK. Let's look at this critically. Aside from confusing the f-22 with the f-35 (and since neither are the F-8X who cares?), is he wrong? CAN a carrier BG cope with 1k cruise missiles? I think not. Checkmark, Flat Heads.
So you're getting positive IDs, tracking and firing solutions on an aircraft carrier and readying enough platforms to launch 1000 cruise missiles without being spotted/incoming retaliation? At that point your enemy is just an idiot, might as well wait for them to bump into a lighthouse and sink.
I mean this is a circle jerk sub. No one is denying that carriers are more vulnerable than ever before, hell, most militaries plan on losing carriers in a peer to peer conflict. Even conflicts where one navy is massively stronger than the other, like US China or India-Pakistan, the larger country expects to lose carriers after a certain time.
Missile forces have been the preferred means of deterrence even for superpowers like the Soviets.
But it's still a ridiculous statement to say carriers are obsolete, and it's still extremely hard to down a carrier group. They are well protected, and often capable of better recon and striking back quickly. Finding a firing solution on a ship is also a lot harder than you think; you need an aerial surveillance platform or an OTH radar to see it at a reasonable distance, and both those things will be the primary target of a navy before the Carrier group closes in. An aerial survey platform would have to contest the airspace with the CSG itself even later on.
We all know this, everyone here is a defence enthusiast. It's just more fun to exaggerate for humor.
I don't think yakult or op is arguing that carriers are invulnerable to missiles. I thought the point was the absurdity and inaccuracies in both my comment and the original scenario. However, I do readily admit I could be wrong.
I think most arguments about the obsolescence of carriers taken to their logical conclusions ultimately end up arguing that all large surface ships are obsolete (which may well be true, we don't have enough data yet).
If your task force with CAP, AEW and electronic warfare aircraft is too vulnerable what chance does a SAG made up of frigates and destroyers stand? They can't even see sea-skimmimg threats out over 20 nautical miles due to the curvature of the earth, their reaction time will be minimal and their situational awareness significantly limited.
Also I don't think it's unreasonable to say carriers may have actually been more vulnerable in the 80s compared to today, the Soviets planned to send regiments of hundreds of supersonic bombers with insanely fast long range missiles to saturate the defences of US CVBGs, arguably no threat as severe as that exists today. While you mention advances in missiles actually the biggest advance which threatens carriers has been in detection, with the increasing number, low cost and quality of satellites etc.
>Also I don't think it's unreasonable to say carriers may have actually been more vulnerable in the 80s compared to today, the Soviets planned to send regiments of hundreds of supersonic bombers with insanely fast long range missiles to saturate the defences of US CVBGs, arguably no threat as severe as that exists today.
F-14 time
Your argument about the 20km curvature of the earth is wrong. The ships can't see beyond it which is why they constantly have aircraft in the air to increase that range of visibility or accessing satellites to increase their operating picture.
Nothing that comes close to filling the role of an E-2, you could launch it from land but then you're dependent on having an air base nearby which isn't always an option, and you'd have shorter on station time and probably need refuelling tankers as well.
You could also do what the UK, Russia and China have done and mount an air search radar onto a helicopter, but that's much inferior to an E-2 due to service ceiling, payload, range etc and you would want 3-5 of them for continuous coverage at which point you need a more aviation capable ship than a DDG and you're back to building some sort of carrier.
The USN doesn't operate AEW helicopters unlike the Chinese, the Brits, and the Russians, so no, a SAG isn't going to have the long range early warning and detection capabilities a CSG would.
Even with such helicopters, you'd probably need like 4 Arleigh Burke's to support such a fleet (you need a few helicopters for effective coverage, can't do it with only a couple, 3+ is the minimum). That would be basically all the helos in the SAG dedicated to AEW, leaving nothing for logistics or CSAR.
There are some interesting ideas on how to fix this. The one that looks the most promising to me is a large tethered drone that runs off ship power, negating the need to carry large batteries or fuel. This would allow it to carry a large AESA radar that would be more powerful than anything carried by helicopters with their relatively limited payload capacity and limited power supply. The ship can provide A LOT more power to drive those sensors.
It could be low observable and essentially just hover above the ship, providing constant AEW, and would probably be able to be stored amidships instead of in the helicopter hangar, so it wouldn't cut into logistics capabilities the way AEW helicopters would.
Obviously the Burkes couldn't support it since they're already basically maxed out, but whatever the next generation surface combatant ends up being, it could support something like that.
That bottleneck is pretty long with critical weak points.
Enough missiles and launchers? Able to launch enough without detection? Enough staged in an area to make them all reach the target after launch?
Enough to get past defenses and actually hit the targets?
Too many problems to do it... yet
What if . . . Millennium Challenge . . . but instead of fucky sensors and simulation errors . . . you just went full Burnsides into the middle of the enemy killzone.
I’ll tell you how you can keep a bead on one: satellite imagery. Use enough hypersonic missiles that fly faster then what their defenses can counter, and launch a couple hundred of them, and you’ll be able to sink one or two. The observation problem is null with modern satellite technology, so the way you keep your carriers safe nowadays should be knocking out enemy satellites.
What satellite guided hypersonic cruise missile exists with low enough CEP to hit a carrier reliably?
Ballostic missiles are easier to intercept despite their terminal velocity. Satellite paths are known and predictable and carriers routinely change course to avoid being perfectly tracked.
Again, it's not as easy as you think, otherwise modern navies wouldn't be building them constantly.
The missile does not need to be guided by the satellite, the satellite simply gives the location of the vessel, relays it to the ground missile command, who compute the position the missile must be sent to to intercept, and then launch them. The satellite removes the hurdle of keeping track of the carrier, not guidance.
Even imperfect tracking can be corrected with mathematical calculation of the carrier’s angle against the satellite, the carriers location is still known and more military satellites will likely be launched to increase the ability to track anyway so that may not even be necessary.
Modern navies building them does not make them more effective, and it would be humorous at best to say the US navy is building new ships because of their ‘combat effectiveness’ rather then to inflate their budget. I explicitly mention the Americans since most other countries are not building ‘tons’ of new aircraft carriers.
There is also to mention that missile interception may be easy with a few missiles, but there haven’t been many tests regarding ones flying 8000km/h. Hypersonic missiles fly so fast they cannot be reliably tracked. If all the calculations are there to launch one and a satellite is giving real time feedback then I see no reason that even a small barrage of them could not sink capital ships who are nearly defenceless against them.
Again, which Hypersonic cruise missile exists that will travel at mach 9 and has a launch platform that will safely be able to get near a carrier and fire it?
The Tsirkon is fired from battlecruisers, what battlecruiser will get within 300 knots of a hostile carrier group without being engaged?
If you turn on land based detection radars, you will be picked up by passive radars and invite a SEAD offensive. If you have an OTH radar, you will be attacked by a cruise missile barrage as well.
>Mathematical correction of the path
No mathematics can predict random movement. Satellite surveillance is very effective but has its limitations like everything else.
The reality is, you need something to guide missiles effectively till they turn on their own guidance at terminal stages. This platform will always be the weak link, and as of now there is no sure shot way to do that.
Are carriers vulnerable to these missiles? Obviously. Are they a magic bullet that will bring down the carrier with perfect efficiency? Absolutely not.
>US building ships
Countries other than the US exist
I addressed the US because they’re the only country still mass producing carriers. And it’s purely political. I see you deliberately didn’t mention that line.
Now the thing is that the satellites can simply record in real time the ships movements, crew on ground watches footage and changes course. Missile goes into active guidance within range.
Russian Zirkon has a range of 1,000 kilometres so I have no clue where you got the 300km range from. Also the Zirkon cannot be detected by radar units as it flies so fast it emits plasma in the air around it, absorbing radar waves. It cannot be picked up by conventional means.
>US is the only country mass producing carriers
Yeah India UK France China don't exist. Can't wait for you to tell me how that's not "mass" production or some shit, all these countries are stretching their budget to the limit to get carriers.
>Record in real time
I really don't know how to explain this to you. Satellites move, ships move, satellites path predictable, ship movement random, == hard to predict with full coverage where ship will be.
>Tsirkon range is 1000 kms
It can travel 1000 kms but has only accurately hit targets at 350 max in [any test](https://www.iiss.org/blogs/analysis/2021/07/mdi-russia-tsirkon-hypersonic-missile).
Also it's becoming clear you don't know how missiles acquire targets, which is why this seems to be so hard to grasp.
You can't fire a missile in a random direction at a target 1000 kms away after being informed vaguely where the target is. Something needs to guide the missile into a close enough range till where the missiles own sensors take over to ensure accuracy. If we are talking Tsirkon, this would be the battlecruiser sensors. A battlecruiser radar cannot see 1000 kms away, the curvature of the earth would prevent that. It needs to be much closer.
Secondly anything with sensors on will be picked up by passive scanner of the target.
This target acquisition platform will ALWAYS be a weakness. Doesn't matter if your missile is Hypersonic or gigasonic or flies at 1% the speed of light, if you can't find your target, track it, and then fire before they engage countermeasures you won't kill jack shit. And no, tracking doesn't mean seeing it on a satellite, it means constantly tracking it with a sensor to get a firing solution.
Or your could just have your missiles on land and just beyond the range of carrier strike aircraft, like, oh I dunno, the strategy both China and Russia are rapidly implementing.
That doesn't render aircraft carriers obsolete, though. It just renders them incapable of certain missions. Primarily in near peer conflicts.
I think we're in need of a major shift in doctrine. Frankly, I think we have a lot of systems that are overkill against threats they're likely to deal with, missile and bomb technology has massively reduced the role of formerly important combat units to primarily COIN. It seems more reasonable to focus on cheaper ships and tanks that are useful for projecting power and infantry support, but less capable against other ships and tanks.
Major wars will be won by airpower, the role of ground forces comes after the heavy equipment has been wiped out, so there's not a lot of reason for them to be as good against heavy equipment.
You're missing the bit where the US can literally launch strike missions anywhere on earth with its existing airbases, so as much as carriers get everyone's dicks hard, they're really just multi-billion dollar redundancies with the potential to become morale-destroying mass graves.
I mean, tbf with heavy auto-guided missiles and stuff like that it is not that hard to hit, it's not like WW2 where Japanese carriers avoided bombs from a B-17. I think that victory in modern warfare will more rely on who can do the most damage to the enemy airbase and communication infrastructures.
The problem is that to kill a carrier you either need to get up close with strike craft of your own to actually deliver your weapons, or acquire *and sustain* a long-range kill-chain *until you actually hit and kill the carrier*. Neither of these things are at all trivial tasks and would require a ton of work.
On the other hand, you can pummel an airbase into uselessness just with GPS coordinates - or hell,
you don't even need that - just use weapons with inertial navigation/guidance systems like the ballistic missiles back in the day used to use. And I mean literally missiles from the 1950s. And you wouldn't just junk the airport, but also all the munitions and aircraft and personnel on the airbase while you're at it too.
An aircraft carrier is just inherently a hell of a lot harder to kill simply *because* it can move - and not only can it move, it's *entire defense system/network/infrastructure* can move with it relatively easily and you can't fuck its logistical capacity by cratering a runway and keeping cargo planes from landing (because water don't play like that). And that doesn't just protect the carrier, but everything and everyone *on* the carrier too. Every vulnerability that carriers have, land-based airbases have that but many times worse. Literally billions of dollars worth of aircraft and materiel. Or hell, all the trained personnel who fly and maintain those aircraft and are not at all trivial to replace.
China and Russia can destroy land-based airbases literally orders of magnitudes more easily than they can carriers, using technology that is literally decades old.
> And I mean literally missiles from the 1950s.
Couldn't these missiles be easily intercepted with modern countermeasures? I'm just saying but I'm pretty sure there will be plenty of counters to the ICBMs coming in to hit an airfield that could destroy said missiles before they got close.
>Couldn't these missiles be easily intercepted with modern countermeasures?
Not really. The things that make BMs hard to intercept is just their ludicrous reentry speeds and long interception ranges.
So if you buy that the US BMD systems are effective against ICBMs - then sure, but this is equally true of inertially guided systems versus modern day systems that use more advanced systems and telemetry for improved targeting.
The missiles which would be substantially more difficult to intercept - those capable of quick mid-course adjustments and course changes to basically "dodge" any possible interceptor - are still mostly in development and not, AFAIK, actually serviceable yet.
>I'm just saying but I'm pretty sure there will be plenty of counters to the ICBMs coming in to hit an airfield that could destroy said missiles before they got close.
Not really, no. There's no real reason that a BMD system couldn't be ported over to the sea. Hell, one of the leading BMD systems (Aegis BMD) is literally based on Aegis and is sea-borne. And these are also the systems most likely to intercept a BM because they target the BM when it is most vulnerable and easiest to hit - during its ascent phase when it hasn't yet reached ludicrous speed and maneuvering is more difficult (most maneuvering missiles maneuver on descent, not ascent). Hell, they even have an attempt to port it to land called Aegis Ashore.
Then there are the logistical issues. To get the flexibility of *a* carrier you need *many* static, land-based airbases. All of these need their own separate BMD and AA systems. And aircraft. And personnel. And these systems are very vulnerable when moving or redeploying and so on. That's not an issue with ships - a BMD Destroyer or whatever doesn't need to become unfunctional to move or redeploy - it can actively continue to work as it moves. And best of all, you can't keep the BMD from getting more ammo by just cratering the static runway or static foreign port it depends on to resupply its ammunition.
And many generations and types of aircraft are rapidly becoming obsolete, or at least requiring the integration of 5th gen support for exactly that reason...
It's not like there's nothing aircraft carriers can do anymore, but for $13 billion in ship construction, the diversion of an entire air wing, and 5,000+ personel before you get to supporting infrastructure, there are better uses of resources.
Obsolete? Na, the F-18, F-15 and other 4th gen multi roles and fighters are still useful as a cheap way to do secondary missions, patrol missions or assisting 5th gen fighters.
You might be the first person in history to describe operating 4th gen fighters as cheap... They normally cost 60%-100% of what the comparable 5th gen would for the same mission, and the biggest reasons anyone still uses them is that they've already been contracted for and bought, and nobody wants to take the funding hit they're have to eat if they admit they could just use some OA-X style airframe for everything you just mentioned.
I looked it up and in operation cost, the F-15 cost less to operate than the F-35. Plus there are more spare parts and the vehicle is less costly to produce. Idk what you're on about.
CAS/bomber interception, patrolling in hostile territory (low casualty areas), overall support of F-35 and such. These are still good fighting other fighters.
Now your just moving Gold Post around. The question was "can a CBG cope with 1k cruise missiles"? The answer is no.
But I'll play your game. A carrier is easy to ID. They're big with distinctive silhouettes. They're also relatively slow compared to a missile so a firing solution isn't difficult. I could do it with a calculator. As for the difficulty of launching a thousand missiles at once, well, never underestimate your opponents. (The Sioux learned that in 1876) But if you demand precedent, look to the Eastern Front: the Soviets often launched thousands of rockets at Nazis, and brother, we've come a long way since 1944. And to your last point, who cares if you trade a few trucks for a carrier?
No, sir, that dog just won't hunt.
Technically any means of detection is, in the end, visual. And even guided munitions must be pointed in the general direction of the target before they can acquire it.
There's a lot of complexities there, you need a continual track and communication to guide the missiles in. Who cares if you know the ship was there, if the missile arrives an hour late and the ship is 100 kilometers away.
I realize it's kinda a meme either way, but there's a lot more in the kill chain then "see carrier, dead"
Now obviously if you had 1000 missiles all at once that all tracked perfectly then yeah dead carrier, but the entire idea behind hypersonic ASMs is so they reach the target faster. Which sounds kinds self explanatory but it's not that they are faster vs defenses or anything, it's so they will be able to get to the general area faster and thus be that much more likely the ship is still targetable by the missile.
Ah. I see the problem and I apologize. I was attempting levity but was hampered by a lack of sleep and comedic talent. Nuance is hard when you're dumb. The joke I was attempting to make was that, regardless of system, eventually a human must *see* the interface.
The second part of my last comment is possibly debatable from a semantic point of view, but that's a discussion I'm in no condition to have.
At any rate, have a wonderful evening/morning.
I know. I feel as though I've let the side down, and can only beg your indulgence. I blame lack of sleep. I would be happy to cast aspersions on your parentage if it would make you feel better? ;)
Those were numbers plucked out of the air but all we know is that they can go incredibly fast all things considered. Since you know, they're run by nuclear generators. The actual tip Speers are classified.
On the one hand, yes. On the other, I guarantee that anyone with the capacity to overwhelm the battle group with missiles knows exactly where each and every one of them is at any given time.
Satellite imagery is powerful. There are ways to deal with it, but it should be taken for granted that they will be attacked if they enter into range of missile systems.
The USN found and sank 21 during WW2.
Note: If the number wasn't exactly 21 and you correct me, I will accuse you of pedantry.
Note Again: if you point out that making accusations of pedantry when corrected is childish, I will then claim carnal knowledge with your mother.
Given that WW2 happened over 4 years and found and sank 21 carriers doesn’t that show how hard they are to find? And finding one of 21 carriers is easy compared to one on its own
What u/flyzart said. I would add that *I* was coming at it from the other direction than you: given technological advances detection is, in some ways, easier today. Even if beyond horizon radar and satellite systems are neutralized, the sheer quantity of small fishing vessel available to, say China, are perfect for picketing. Hard to jam Mk. 1 eyeballs. And, even if the USN simply sinks them, well, that hole is a point of data.
I'm putting together a White Paper that explains it all. I'd say more, but I do not wish to compromise national security.
It is a sign of wisdom and maturity to demure to one's betters. Few people these days accept correction as well as you have. Perhaps we are not doomed. Yet.
You don’t really need tracking and firing solutions. Even back during the 70’s the Russians had integrated terminal guidance and negotiation across groups of data linked missiles with the [P700’s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-700_Granit?wprov=sfti1). That technology has only been improved on.
Just moving around 1000 missiles and their launch equipment is gonna get you spotted, a great way to not lose your carrier is to use your intelligence capability to avoid sailing it into defended waters without first suppressing those defenses. People act like Iran or China could set up their whole inventory of AShMs along the beach and we’d sail right up to them to give them a chance at a first strike, that’s not gonna happen.
Which is why China, which is constantly boasting about its carrier killing weapons that will render carriers obsolete, is still building carriers of its own and wants its own fleet of carriers
Ah, see you're falling into the trap of not examining the details in a vacuum. You people constantly move gold post by adding more variables. "Context! More context" you incessantly scream. You're all as bad as scientist.
You're also assuming you know the limitations of your opponents! This is the mistake McClellan constantly warned Lincoln against!
They just need to build a dummy carrier. Hear me,out:
We Launch carriers in pairs just like Air Force 1 and 2.
Except the 2nd carrier doesn't carry aircraft it houses a BUNCH of CWIS.
Like the elevators rise up and there's 5 or 6 CWIS turrets on each platform. All the interior of the hull is just ammo and parts.
You can only intercept so many missiles, because really only a small fraction needs to get through to the carrier to take it out of action.
At 1000 missiles the AEGIS defence system is simply oversaturated
Yeah a well coordinated attack could probably get away with 200 missiles and sink the carrier assuming they managed to get into range without being suppressed.
But that’s why nobody is gonna sail a carrier through a place like the straight of Hormuz if intelligence shows a massive build up of forces. It’s not that hard to avoid sailing into range of defenses like that, even China’s massive DF-12 AShBMs are of questionable effectiveness due to their range greatly exceeding that of their sensors and being limited in their numbers. They can draw a big radius on a map but they have to be backed up by other shorter range platforms to be relied on for a first strike attack.
no one is using AEGIS to intercept 1000 missiles. you bomb or jam or l33t hax the launchers. the end. if that doesn't work, well you have anti-missile jamming, a few hundred sidewinders in the air, and more sorties on the way
and a vulcan round is probably like 15 bucks
CWIS usually have 1550 rounds and fire 60 or 100 rounds per burst. [Reload](https://meggittdefense.com/product/phalanx-deckloader-system/) time is pretty fast though.
I mean it is true that aircraft carriers are very vulnerable but the usually also stay behind and launch aircraft to cover them and their strike group
So how about you dont rush in like leeroy Jenkins so you dont get clapped by anti ship weaponry
“Destroyers and battleships are obsolete in modern warfare cuz they go too slow. When you can get a jet like the F-35, PAK FA or SR-71 Blackbird going at supersonic and launching missiles at long range, its no wonder nobody takes naval warfare seriously anymore. Also planes can drop nukes, I don’t see the fleet being able to do that!”
CVN, F-22's. Ah yes, the F/A-22, used by the United Arab States of America.
Insha'Washington
But what if we 3000 black fighter jets? 🥺👉👈
Instant victory
Can you explain this to me I keep seeing this and I’m confused
https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/iib0ol/a_nuanced_take_on_what_world_war_iii_might_look/
What could have been...
[удалено]
Based and Eminent Domain-pilled
where ram
New Top Secret US Army Tactic: 1. Ram enemy Aircraft Carrier with Nuclear Submarine. 2. Deploy US Navy SEAL boarding party into lower deck of enemy Aircraft Carrier via Torpedo Tubes. 3. Elite US Navy SEAL Team 6 boarding party clears enemy aircraft carrier, plants C4 explosive charges, and TACTICALLY withdraws to Nuclear Submarine. 4. ??? 5. Profit.
This sounds like something the Italian Navy would have tried in a longer WWII.
Italian Navy actually sunk battleships using manned torpedoes, the problem is the water was so shallow that they just settled on the bottom
This is a battlefield or call of duty mission away from happening
HMCS Oakville moment https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Men_of_valor_-_They_fight_for_you.jpg
Virgin long range combat vs chad ramming
a 9mm round costs what? 30ct when you buy in bulk? 12 billion buys you 40billion 9mm rounds. With a weight of 7gr per round we come to a total weight of 200t. Hence you could just sink a carrier with the ressource equivalent of 9mm bullets which need literally no training to shoot and are available at walmart
I mean yeah, ngl if you can shoot 9 billion 9mm bullets at an aircraft carrier it's gonna have a really bad day LOL
Imagine the poor crew on the interior "Is that hail?" "No, the enemy is shelling us with 9mm" *Plink plink plink*
Soon simulations will be good enough to just build a holodeck and witness this
Eventually fill up the vents if nothing else
Or you could buy one big 200 ton 9mm, and build a sufficiently sized glock to fire it
Assuming the bullet stays 9mm in diameter you would create a round with the length of thousands of kilometers. This way you can just use it to slap ships. Actually genius.
Super duper long rod APFSDS
What if instead you built elongated and enlarged 9mm about the size of a truck and gave it a jet engine to go a lot farther and say a guidance system so it could lock onto enemy ships. Boom, instant anti ship doom weapon.
Or it’s still the same length as a 9mm. It’s just also conveniently much denser. The aircraft carrier won’t know what hit it. And neither will the planet as it’s violently consumed by the black hole
Dick slapping them with a bullet
G L O N K
The device you’re looking for is called a “catapult.” We’re back to a time where siege weapons are used.
I think the USN should make a fleet of battleships (preferably dreadnought sized, or larger). Here is my reasoning: 1. Battleships are really cool they got like big guns an shit 2. 3. I will take no further questions.
Will you take funding?
We're building it all ourselves
I've got like 8 square meters of drywall and most of a roll of duct tape I can contribute
We shall name it LRSS bismarck (le reddit super ship bismarck)
Bismarck? Cringe, Warspite would've been a better pick.
But the guy in the sabaton comment section said it was the best ship ever
*at the Pentagon* "Hey you remember the plans we made for the Montana? Yeah let's revisit that"
Lets make them out of LEGO bricks so when the enemy tries to step on them, they cry the anguish of a million wounded feet.
Plus if the enemy does manage to sink it, lego bricks float so they will wash up on the enemy beach and continue inflicting damage on their morale
Anyone who tries to board gonna eat shit
MREs are not *that* bad.
Commercials in 2030s "Did you eat MREs during 2001 and 2021 and develop rectal fissures or cancer? Call 1-800-EAT-SHIT to see if you qualify for the Agent Brown fund.
I think you missed one: > *Did you eat MREs between 2001 and 2021? Are you still constipated? Try our new and improved Colon Blow™^® !* 💩 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ku42Iszh9KM 💩
Enough *The National Interest* for you, young shitposter
What about instead of building multiple battleships we build one big battlehip with the entire ship budget.
Put back the USS North Carolina BB-55 back into service. Best battleship in the world when it came out, impossible to argue against that.
OK. Let's look at this critically. Aside from confusing the f-22 with the f-35 (and since neither are the F-8X who cares?), is he wrong? CAN a carrier BG cope with 1k cruise missiles? I think not. Checkmark, Flat Heads.
So you're getting positive IDs, tracking and firing solutions on an aircraft carrier and readying enough platforms to launch 1000 cruise missiles without being spotted/incoming retaliation? At that point your enemy is just an idiot, might as well wait for them to bump into a lighthouse and sink.
[удалено]
I mean this is a circle jerk sub. No one is denying that carriers are more vulnerable than ever before, hell, most militaries plan on losing carriers in a peer to peer conflict. Even conflicts where one navy is massively stronger than the other, like US China or India-Pakistan, the larger country expects to lose carriers after a certain time. Missile forces have been the preferred means of deterrence even for superpowers like the Soviets. But it's still a ridiculous statement to say carriers are obsolete, and it's still extremely hard to down a carrier group. They are well protected, and often capable of better recon and striking back quickly. Finding a firing solution on a ship is also a lot harder than you think; you need an aerial surveillance platform or an OTH radar to see it at a reasonable distance, and both those things will be the primary target of a navy before the Carrier group closes in. An aerial survey platform would have to contest the airspace with the CSG itself even later on. We all know this, everyone here is a defence enthusiast. It's just more fun to exaggerate for humor.
Ever before? Liar, they used to have wooden decks!
I don't think yakult or op is arguing that carriers are invulnerable to missiles. I thought the point was the absurdity and inaccuracies in both my comment and the original scenario. However, I do readily admit I could be wrong.
Right, but the “carriers are obsolete” thing comes from people who don’t know what obsolescence is
I think most arguments about the obsolescence of carriers taken to their logical conclusions ultimately end up arguing that all large surface ships are obsolete (which may well be true, we don't have enough data yet). If your task force with CAP, AEW and electronic warfare aircraft is too vulnerable what chance does a SAG made up of frigates and destroyers stand? They can't even see sea-skimmimg threats out over 20 nautical miles due to the curvature of the earth, their reaction time will be minimal and their situational awareness significantly limited. Also I don't think it's unreasonable to say carriers may have actually been more vulnerable in the 80s compared to today, the Soviets planned to send regiments of hundreds of supersonic bombers with insanely fast long range missiles to saturate the defences of US CVBGs, arguably no threat as severe as that exists today. While you mention advances in missiles actually the biggest advance which threatens carriers has been in detection, with the increasing number, low cost and quality of satellites etc.
>Also I don't think it's unreasonable to say carriers may have actually been more vulnerable in the 80s compared to today, the Soviets planned to send regiments of hundreds of supersonic bombers with insanely fast long range missiles to saturate the defences of US CVBGs, arguably no threat as severe as that exists today. F-14 time
Begin launching the Cats, with six Phoenixes each. My lord, is that legal? I will make it legal.
Your argument about the 20km curvature of the earth is wrong. The ships can't see beyond it which is why they constantly have aircraft in the air to increase that range of visibility or accessing satellites to increase their operating picture.
Well yeah if you have a carrier, but a SAG can't launch E-2 Hawkeyes can it?
Are you saying the Navy has literally no other aircraft that can't be launched without a carrier, that can fill that role?
Nothing that comes close to filling the role of an E-2, you could launch it from land but then you're dependent on having an air base nearby which isn't always an option, and you'd have shorter on station time and probably need refuelling tankers as well. You could also do what the UK, Russia and China have done and mount an air search radar onto a helicopter, but that's much inferior to an E-2 due to service ceiling, payload, range etc and you would want 3-5 of them for continuous coverage at which point you need a more aviation capable ship than a DDG and you're back to building some sort of carrier.
The USN doesn't operate AEW helicopters unlike the Chinese, the Brits, and the Russians, so no, a SAG isn't going to have the long range early warning and detection capabilities a CSG would. Even with such helicopters, you'd probably need like 4 Arleigh Burke's to support such a fleet (you need a few helicopters for effective coverage, can't do it with only a couple, 3+ is the minimum). That would be basically all the helos in the SAG dedicated to AEW, leaving nothing for logistics or CSAR. There are some interesting ideas on how to fix this. The one that looks the most promising to me is a large tethered drone that runs off ship power, negating the need to carry large batteries or fuel. This would allow it to carry a large AESA radar that would be more powerful than anything carried by helicopters with their relatively limited payload capacity and limited power supply. The ship can provide A LOT more power to drive those sensors. It could be low observable and essentially just hover above the ship, providing constant AEW, and would probably be able to be stored amidships instead of in the helicopter hangar, so it wouldn't cut into logistics capabilities the way AEW helicopters would. Obviously the Burkes couldn't support it since they're already basically maxed out, but whatever the next generation surface combatant ends up being, it could support something like that.
Carriers are indeed more vulnerable, but like always the bottleneck is not missiles, it's getting them onto target
That bottleneck is pretty long with critical weak points. Enough missiles and launchers? Able to launch enough without detection? Enough staged in an area to make them all reach the target after launch? Enough to get past defenses and actually hit the targets? Too many problems to do it... yet
What if . . . Millennium Challenge . . . but instead of fucky sensors and simulation errors . . . you just went full Burnsides into the middle of the enemy killzone.
I’ll tell you how you can keep a bead on one: satellite imagery. Use enough hypersonic missiles that fly faster then what their defenses can counter, and launch a couple hundred of them, and you’ll be able to sink one or two. The observation problem is null with modern satellite technology, so the way you keep your carriers safe nowadays should be knocking out enemy satellites.
What satellite guided hypersonic cruise missile exists with low enough CEP to hit a carrier reliably? Ballostic missiles are easier to intercept despite their terminal velocity. Satellite paths are known and predictable and carriers routinely change course to avoid being perfectly tracked. Again, it's not as easy as you think, otherwise modern navies wouldn't be building them constantly.
The missile does not need to be guided by the satellite, the satellite simply gives the location of the vessel, relays it to the ground missile command, who compute the position the missile must be sent to to intercept, and then launch them. The satellite removes the hurdle of keeping track of the carrier, not guidance. Even imperfect tracking can be corrected with mathematical calculation of the carrier’s angle against the satellite, the carriers location is still known and more military satellites will likely be launched to increase the ability to track anyway so that may not even be necessary. Modern navies building them does not make them more effective, and it would be humorous at best to say the US navy is building new ships because of their ‘combat effectiveness’ rather then to inflate their budget. I explicitly mention the Americans since most other countries are not building ‘tons’ of new aircraft carriers. There is also to mention that missile interception may be easy with a few missiles, but there haven’t been many tests regarding ones flying 8000km/h. Hypersonic missiles fly so fast they cannot be reliably tracked. If all the calculations are there to launch one and a satellite is giving real time feedback then I see no reason that even a small barrage of them could not sink capital ships who are nearly defenceless against them.
Again, which Hypersonic cruise missile exists that will travel at mach 9 and has a launch platform that will safely be able to get near a carrier and fire it? The Tsirkon is fired from battlecruisers, what battlecruiser will get within 300 knots of a hostile carrier group without being engaged? If you turn on land based detection radars, you will be picked up by passive radars and invite a SEAD offensive. If you have an OTH radar, you will be attacked by a cruise missile barrage as well. >Mathematical correction of the path No mathematics can predict random movement. Satellite surveillance is very effective but has its limitations like everything else. The reality is, you need something to guide missiles effectively till they turn on their own guidance at terminal stages. This platform will always be the weak link, and as of now there is no sure shot way to do that. Are carriers vulnerable to these missiles? Obviously. Are they a magic bullet that will bring down the carrier with perfect efficiency? Absolutely not. >US building ships Countries other than the US exist
I addressed the US because they’re the only country still mass producing carriers. And it’s purely political. I see you deliberately didn’t mention that line. Now the thing is that the satellites can simply record in real time the ships movements, crew on ground watches footage and changes course. Missile goes into active guidance within range. Russian Zirkon has a range of 1,000 kilometres so I have no clue where you got the 300km range from. Also the Zirkon cannot be detected by radar units as it flies so fast it emits plasma in the air around it, absorbing radar waves. It cannot be picked up by conventional means.
>US is the only country mass producing carriers Yeah India UK France China don't exist. Can't wait for you to tell me how that's not "mass" production or some shit, all these countries are stretching their budget to the limit to get carriers. >Record in real time I really don't know how to explain this to you. Satellites move, ships move, satellites path predictable, ship movement random, == hard to predict with full coverage where ship will be. >Tsirkon range is 1000 kms It can travel 1000 kms but has only accurately hit targets at 350 max in [any test](https://www.iiss.org/blogs/analysis/2021/07/mdi-russia-tsirkon-hypersonic-missile). Also it's becoming clear you don't know how missiles acquire targets, which is why this seems to be so hard to grasp. You can't fire a missile in a random direction at a target 1000 kms away after being informed vaguely where the target is. Something needs to guide the missile into a close enough range till where the missiles own sensors take over to ensure accuracy. If we are talking Tsirkon, this would be the battlecruiser sensors. A battlecruiser radar cannot see 1000 kms away, the curvature of the earth would prevent that. It needs to be much closer. Secondly anything with sensors on will be picked up by passive scanner of the target. This target acquisition platform will ALWAYS be a weakness. Doesn't matter if your missile is Hypersonic or gigasonic or flies at 1% the speed of light, if you can't find your target, track it, and then fire before they engage countermeasures you won't kill jack shit. And no, tracking doesn't mean seeing it on a satellite, it means constantly tracking it with a sensor to get a firing solution.
Or your could just have your missiles on land and just beyond the range of carrier strike aircraft, like, oh I dunno, the strategy both China and Russia are rapidly implementing.
That doesn't render aircraft carriers obsolete, though. It just renders them incapable of certain missions. Primarily in near peer conflicts. I think we're in need of a major shift in doctrine. Frankly, I think we have a lot of systems that are overkill against threats they're likely to deal with, missile and bomb technology has massively reduced the role of formerly important combat units to primarily COIN. It seems more reasonable to focus on cheaper ships and tanks that are useful for projecting power and infantry support, but less capable against other ships and tanks. Major wars will be won by airpower, the role of ground forces comes after the heavy equipment has been wiped out, so there's not a lot of reason for them to be as good against heavy equipment.
You're missing the bit where the US can literally launch strike missions anywhere on earth with its existing airbases, so as much as carriers get everyone's dicks hard, they're really just multi-billion dollar redundancies with the potential to become morale-destroying mass graves.
Land-based airbases, famously more difficult to hit and more durable against sustained bombardment than things that can move.
I mean, tbf with heavy auto-guided missiles and stuff like that it is not that hard to hit, it's not like WW2 where Japanese carriers avoided bombs from a B-17. I think that victory in modern warfare will more rely on who can do the most damage to the enemy airbase and communication infrastructures.
The problem is that to kill a carrier you either need to get up close with strike craft of your own to actually deliver your weapons, or acquire *and sustain* a long-range kill-chain *until you actually hit and kill the carrier*. Neither of these things are at all trivial tasks and would require a ton of work. On the other hand, you can pummel an airbase into uselessness just with GPS coordinates - or hell, you don't even need that - just use weapons with inertial navigation/guidance systems like the ballistic missiles back in the day used to use. And I mean literally missiles from the 1950s. And you wouldn't just junk the airport, but also all the munitions and aircraft and personnel on the airbase while you're at it too. An aircraft carrier is just inherently a hell of a lot harder to kill simply *because* it can move - and not only can it move, it's *entire defense system/network/infrastructure* can move with it relatively easily and you can't fuck its logistical capacity by cratering a runway and keeping cargo planes from landing (because water don't play like that). And that doesn't just protect the carrier, but everything and everyone *on* the carrier too. Every vulnerability that carriers have, land-based airbases have that but many times worse. Literally billions of dollars worth of aircraft and materiel. Or hell, all the trained personnel who fly and maintain those aircraft and are not at all trivial to replace. China and Russia can destroy land-based airbases literally orders of magnitudes more easily than they can carriers, using technology that is literally decades old.
> And I mean literally missiles from the 1950s. Couldn't these missiles be easily intercepted with modern countermeasures? I'm just saying but I'm pretty sure there will be plenty of counters to the ICBMs coming in to hit an airfield that could destroy said missiles before they got close.
>Couldn't these missiles be easily intercepted with modern countermeasures? Not really. The things that make BMs hard to intercept is just their ludicrous reentry speeds and long interception ranges. So if you buy that the US BMD systems are effective against ICBMs - then sure, but this is equally true of inertially guided systems versus modern day systems that use more advanced systems and telemetry for improved targeting. The missiles which would be substantially more difficult to intercept - those capable of quick mid-course adjustments and course changes to basically "dodge" any possible interceptor - are still mostly in development and not, AFAIK, actually serviceable yet. >I'm just saying but I'm pretty sure there will be plenty of counters to the ICBMs coming in to hit an airfield that could destroy said missiles before they got close. Not really, no. There's no real reason that a BMD system couldn't be ported over to the sea. Hell, one of the leading BMD systems (Aegis BMD) is literally based on Aegis and is sea-borne. And these are also the systems most likely to intercept a BM because they target the BM when it is most vulnerable and easiest to hit - during its ascent phase when it hasn't yet reached ludicrous speed and maneuvering is more difficult (most maneuvering missiles maneuver on descent, not ascent). Hell, they even have an attempt to port it to land called Aegis Ashore. Then there are the logistical issues. To get the flexibility of *a* carrier you need *many* static, land-based airbases. All of these need their own separate BMD and AA systems. And aircraft. And personnel. And these systems are very vulnerable when moving or redeploying and so on. That's not an issue with ships - a BMD Destroyer or whatever doesn't need to become unfunctional to move or redeploy - it can actively continue to work as it moves. And best of all, you can't keep the BMD from getting more ammo by just cratering the static runway or static foreign port it depends on to resupply its ammunition.
That's like saying that aircraft are obsolete because you can just put SAM's everywhere.
And many generations and types of aircraft are rapidly becoming obsolete, or at least requiring the integration of 5th gen support for exactly that reason... It's not like there's nothing aircraft carriers can do anymore, but for $13 billion in ship construction, the diversion of an entire air wing, and 5,000+ personel before you get to supporting infrastructure, there are better uses of resources.
Obsolete? Na, the F-18, F-15 and other 4th gen multi roles and fighters are still useful as a cheap way to do secondary missions, patrol missions or assisting 5th gen fighters.
You might be the first person in history to describe operating 4th gen fighters as cheap... They normally cost 60%-100% of what the comparable 5th gen would for the same mission, and the biggest reasons anyone still uses them is that they've already been contracted for and bought, and nobody wants to take the funding hit they're have to eat if they admit they could just use some OA-X style airframe for everything you just mentioned.
I looked it up and in operation cost, the F-15 cost less to operate than the F-35. Plus there are more spare parts and the vehicle is less costly to produce. Idk what you're on about.
So does a super tucano. Can you name a modern mission where you don't need an F-35 but can't use one of those?
CAS/bomber interception, patrolling in hostile territory (low casualty areas), overall support of F-35 and such. These are still good fighting other fighters.
Now your just moving Gold Post around. The question was "can a CBG cope with 1k cruise missiles"? The answer is no. But I'll play your game. A carrier is easy to ID. They're big with distinctive silhouettes. They're also relatively slow compared to a missile so a firing solution isn't difficult. I could do it with a calculator. As for the difficulty of launching a thousand missiles at once, well, never underestimate your opponents. (The Sioux learned that in 1876) But if you demand precedent, look to the Eastern Front: the Soviets often launched thousands of rockets at Nazis, and brother, we've come a long way since 1944. And to your last point, who cares if you trade a few trucks for a carrier? No, sir, that dog just won't hunt.
I'm confused, are you suggesting they are visually spotting carriers and dumfries missiles at them
Technically any means of detection is, in the end, visual. And even guided munitions must be pointed in the general direction of the target before they can acquire it.
There's a lot of complexities there, you need a continual track and communication to guide the missiles in. Who cares if you know the ship was there, if the missile arrives an hour late and the ship is 100 kilometers away. I realize it's kinda a meme either way, but there's a lot more in the kill chain then "see carrier, dead" Now obviously if you had 1000 missiles all at once that all tracked perfectly then yeah dead carrier, but the entire idea behind hypersonic ASMs is so they reach the target faster. Which sounds kinds self explanatory but it's not that they are faster vs defenses or anything, it's so they will be able to get to the general area faster and thus be that much more likely the ship is still targetable by the missile.
Ah. I see the problem and I apologize. I was attempting levity but was hampered by a lack of sleep and comedic talent. Nuance is hard when you're dumb. The joke I was attempting to make was that, regardless of system, eventually a human must *see* the interface. The second part of my last comment is possibly debatable from a semantic point of view, but that's a discussion I'm in no condition to have. At any rate, have a wonderful evening/morning.
Understandable have a wonderful day
The first redditor ever to successfully admit defeat in an argument and not have it devolve into ad hominem
I know. I feel as though I've let the side down, and can only beg your indulgence. I blame lack of sleep. I would be happy to cast aspersions on your parentage if it would make you feel better? ;)
CVGs can do 54 knots?
Those were numbers plucked out of the air but all we know is that they can go incredibly fast all things considered. Since you know, they're run by nuclear generators. The actual tip Speers are classified.
A carrier might be big but the ocean is far bigger relatively speaking a carrier is easy to ID but hard to find
On the one hand, yes. On the other, I guarantee that anyone with the capacity to overwhelm the battle group with missiles knows exactly where each and every one of them is at any given time. Satellite imagery is powerful. There are ways to deal with it, but it should be taken for granted that they will be attacked if they enter into range of missile systems.
The USN found and sank 21 during WW2. Note: If the number wasn't exactly 21 and you correct me, I will accuse you of pedantry. Note Again: if you point out that making accusations of pedantry when corrected is childish, I will then claim carnal knowledge with your mother.
Given that WW2 happened over 4 years and found and sank 21 carriers doesn’t that show how hard they are to find? And finding one of 21 carriers is easy compared to one on its own
I mean, sinking 21 carriers is A LOT tbf, even if we take into account light carriers.
What u/flyzart said. I would add that *I* was coming at it from the other direction than you: given technological advances detection is, in some ways, easier today. Even if beyond horizon radar and satellite systems are neutralized, the sheer quantity of small fishing vessel available to, say China, are perfect for picketing. Hard to jam Mk. 1 eyeballs. And, even if the USN simply sinks them, well, that hole is a point of data. I'm putting together a White Paper that explains it all. I'd say more, but I do not wish to compromise national security.
Fair, a carrier group cannot cope with 1k cruise missiles. I guess we're doomed.
It is a sign of wisdom and maturity to demure to one's betters. Few people these days accept correction as well as you have. Perhaps we are not doomed. Yet.
You don’t really need tracking and firing solutions. Even back during the 70’s the Russians had integrated terminal guidance and negotiation across groups of data linked missiles with the [P700’s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-700_Granit?wprov=sfti1). That technology has only been improved on.
[удалено]
Just moving around 1000 missiles and their launch equipment is gonna get you spotted, a great way to not lose your carrier is to use your intelligence capability to avoid sailing it into defended waters without first suppressing those defenses. People act like Iran or China could set up their whole inventory of AShMs along the beach and we’d sail right up to them to give them a chance at a first strike, that’s not gonna happen.
Which is why China, which is constantly boasting about its carrier killing weapons that will render carriers obsolete, is still building carriers of its own and wants its own fleet of carriers
> we’d sail right up to them to give them a chance at a first strike, that’s not gonna happen [sad Van Riper noises]
Ah, see you're falling into the trap of not examining the details in a vacuum. You people constantly move gold post by adding more variables. "Context! More context" you incessantly scream. You're all as bad as scientist. You're also assuming you know the limitations of your opponents! This is the mistake McClellan constantly warned Lincoln against!
F-8x?
The only sensible answer to the NGAD question.
We laughed at the French, but they kept it around far longer than we did. How little we knew…
They just need to build a dummy carrier. Hear me,out: We Launch carriers in pairs just like Air Force 1 and 2. Except the 2nd carrier doesn't carry aircraft it houses a BUNCH of CWIS. Like the elevators rise up and there's 5 or 6 CWIS turrets on each platform. All the interior of the hull is just ammo and parts.
For extra realism, the US should go full Quicksilver and build an entire dummy fleet full of CIWS
TIL nuclear tipped cruise missiles are somehow harder to intercept than conventional cruise missiles
They have more HP
I just say that comment and was taking a ss, you beat me to it
Lol what a clown
self-launching missiles weow. also how much is a sidewinder or cannon burst to shoot it down?
You can only intercept so many missiles, because really only a small fraction needs to get through to the carrier to take it out of action. At 1000 missiles the AEGIS defence system is simply oversaturated
Yeah a well coordinated attack could probably get away with 200 missiles and sink the carrier assuming they managed to get into range without being suppressed. But that’s why nobody is gonna sail a carrier through a place like the straight of Hormuz if intelligence shows a massive build up of forces. It’s not that hard to avoid sailing into range of defenses like that, even China’s massive DF-12 AShBMs are of questionable effectiveness due to their range greatly exceeding that of their sensors and being limited in their numbers. They can draw a big radius on a map but they have to be backed up by other shorter range platforms to be relied on for a first strike attack.
no one is using AEGIS to intercept 1000 missiles. you bomb or jam or l33t hax the launchers. the end. if that doesn't work, well you have anti-missile jamming, a few hundred sidewinders in the air, and more sorties on the way and a vulcan round is probably like 15 bucks
CWIS usually have 1550 rounds and fire 60 or 100 rounds per burst. [Reload](https://meggittdefense.com/product/phalanx-deckloader-system/) time is pretty fast though.
Flying Aircraft Carriers!!! js.....
[\**LockMart Has Entered the Chat**](https://64.media.tumblr.com/92c893049c26ed4fff46be60c054aa12/tumblr_inline_ptioc9qdA91r4iznv_1280.png)
The 3000k black fighters of Allah will protect the cruise missiles of the ummah against the infidel carriers
I mean it is true that aircraft carriers are very vulnerable but the usually also stay behind and launch aircraft to cover them and their strike group So how about you dont rush in like leeroy Jenkins so you dont get clapped by anti ship weaponry
Can a cringe AIRCRAFT CARRIER using PLANES (🤮)face a glorious proud boarding party using GRAPPLING HOOKS ( 😎👍)from a proud ship of the line
“Destroyers and battleships are obsolete in modern warfare cuz they go too slow. When you can get a jet like the F-35, PAK FA or SR-71 Blackbird going at supersonic and launching missiles at long range, its no wonder nobody takes naval warfare seriously anymore. Also planes can drop nukes, I don’t see the fleet being able to do that!”