[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Home]
4Archive logo
What's the point of a ship that's...
If images are not shown try to refresh the page. If you like this website, please disable any AdBlock software!

You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons

Thread replies: 343
Thread images: 42
What's the point of a ship that's too "valuable" to actually put into combat?
>>
It's a mobile FOB
>>
>>28590325
Whats the point of being good looking if your gonna die a virgin :(
>>
>>28590330

This would be valuable if the Hornet wasn't pitifully underanged as an aircraft.
>>
>>28590333
i know that feel desu
>>
File: 1453108249674.png (63 KB, 181x166) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1453108249674.png
63 KB, 181x166
>>28590325
>it is another navy shitposting thread
>>
>>28590396
>>
There is nothing "too valuable for combat" there is simply a level at which it would be used.
Are you going to use your $8000 Cabot guns 1911 with chrome finish and mamoth Ivory grips as your EDC so it gets beat up daily? No. You are going to carry your $600-1200 gun for that. But of someone really really pisses you off and needs to die, then you bring your fancy gun
>>
>>28590325

Are Russiand and their non existant navy still having sour grapes over thing?
>>
>>28590662
b-but muh kuznetsov is invincable toovarich no missiles ever hit because we jam them with same technology as that which sank the donald cook. russian ciws is 200% better in anyway then any weststern ciws. And if all fail we have lazer dazlers that blond any missile or aircraft that come close.
>>
>>28590802
we also can shoot flares and chaff to scare away any missiles we not jam
>>
Aircraft carriers are the battleships of this century and will be obsolete the minute war breaks out.
>>
>>28590820
this is not true only nato carriers stand no chance when su-33 fire brahmos on them they stand no chance of stopping. while american harpoon and lrasm do nothing to kuznetsov with their shitty subsonic speed
>>
>>28590820
>will be obsolete the minute war breaks out

collaborate your statement with references, citations and a bibliography matching the Harvard System of Referencing
>>
File: 3 American Carriers.jpg (548 KB, 3008x2000) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
3 American Carriers.jpg
548 KB, 3008x2000
>>28590325

To be the sexiest style of ship that has ever existed
>>
File: 1450917074099.jpg (361 KB, 1700x1375) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1450917074099.jpg
361 KB, 1700x1375
>>28591082

A E S T H E T I C S
>>
>>28591082
I know it wouldn't be feasible for reasons but it would be awesome if they could have all 10 sailing next to eachother for a pic like that.
>>
Cruiser > Carrier for aesthetics
>>
>>28591104
grimmy and smelling like soot or diesel eww.
>>
File: 1030551801.jpg (125 KB, 1000x541) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1030551801.jpg
125 KB, 1000x541
>>28590338

>This would be valuable if the Hornet wasn't pitifully underanged as an aircraft.

Good thing both the super hornet and within a few years the F-35 also exist.
>>
What we need is 100 cheap conventional carriers

Not 10 super expensive supercarriers
>>
>>28591284

>100 ships will be cheaper than 10 ships, I swear

Just stop
>>
>>28591294
Unit costs are reduced with big purchases

You control costs by using limited new technologies, not thousands of new ones that aren't even designed yet..

Commercial ship builders manage to build ships for very cheap, no reason why military shipyards can't do the same.
>>
>>28591352
>I know nothing about aircraft carriers: the post
>>
>>28591352
>cheap "disposable" carrier
That's retarded, since the planes on it are worth north of 50 million each.
>>
>>28591284
>>28591352

collaborate your statement with references, citations and a bibliography matching the Harvard System of Referencing
>>
>>28591375
don't worry we'll just replace the planes with modified cessna drones and 40mm dual bofors for aa cover
>>
>>28591375
>>28591365
>>28591386
You could still have expensive fleet carriers if they actually serve a role

But we need light carriers as well
>>
>>28591416
so literally america class amphibious assault ships
>>
>>28591416
>need
Why?
>>
>>28591416

That's not an answer.

I'll go easy on you.

Give me *one* and I mean *one* study by the DoD or Navy that backs your thinking.

Just one.
>>
>>28591443
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Control_Ship
>>
>>28591449

A study.

Not a Wikipedia page, you fucking retard.
>>
>>28591184
>unironically expecting the F-35 to be useful.
>>
File: 1452916731168.jpg (3 MB, 3600x2400) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1452916731168.jpg
3 MB, 3600x2400
>>28591620

Pierre pls leave
>>
>>28590325
Because airplanes.
>>
>>28591184
At the rate things are going, we'll all be dead and buried before more than a handful of F-35s enter main service.

>Super Hornet
>bigger engines and less range than normal Hornet.
>>
>>28591459
>anon doesn't know what helicarriers exist and fill the proposed role
>trying to have anon self-educate
Wasted time, bud
>>
>>28591014
Not that guy, but I'm interested in hearing the other side of the argument--is there any form of asymmetrical engagement that would be able to effectively exploit the weaknesses of a modern carrier group?

I know that hypersonic anti-ship missiles have a long ways to go before they become an actual threat due to how long their kill chain is, but what else is out there that we know of?
>>
>>28591102
Also a ridiculous national security risk
>>
>>28592465
Shitloads of antiship missiles. Also, a carrier just needs a few good hits to the catapults and elevators to halt its launch ability, so sinking it isn't essential.

Of course, getting missile platforms that close without detection is the problem...
>>
>>28592580
>Of course, getting missile platforms that close without detection is the problem...

How close can a modern submarine get before it stands a reasonable chance of being detected? Would a large number of attack submarines (let's say 15, for example) have a good chance of being able to disable a carrier without taking such heavy losses that it would be a phyrric victory?
>>
File: b7515184.jpg (184 KB, 1280x907) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
b7515184.jpg
184 KB, 1280x907
everything above the QEs
>>
>>28590419
"I call her Vera"
>>
>>28592668
Zero chance.
t. attack submarine
>>
>>28590403
GTFO with this Photoshop shit everyone knows carriers can't be sunk. That's why we put 30 billion dollars of military hardware on them. Carriers are invincible
>>
>>28592837
is this a retarded burger or slavboo bait? cant tell sometimes
>>
>>28592733
Would your assessment change at all if the attack submarines had LRASMs instead of just Harpoons?
>>
File: rbs70_1.jpg (44 KB, 500x338) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
rbs70_1.jpg
44 KB, 500x338
>>28592465
Sneaky commandos with small missiles like pic related or just some mortars. They rent an apartment in Norfolk VA, set up on the roof top, and break all the fancy radars, catapults, f35s on deck, etc from a mile or two away.
>>
>>28592668
Excellent chance. Every time we do exercises with diesel electric subs carriers get killed. Especially the new super sneaky AIP subs.
>>
>>28592930
Got a link I can look at about some of these exercises?
>>
File: 1386688065755.png (725 KB, 4001x2850) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1386688065755.png
725 KB, 4001x2850
>>28592930

But sure to note that exercises or wargames do not represent true or fully capabilities of any platform or system.
>>
>>28592948
I thought it was common knowledge actually. You should Google this topic, evidence is pretty damning for CSGs
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/sweden-has-a-sub-thats-so-deadly-the-us-navy-hired-it-t-1649695984
>>
>>28592948
http://m.theaviationist.com/2015/03/05/us-aircraft-carrier-sunk-by-subs/
>>
>>28592948
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2008/April/Pages/AntiSub2301.aspx
>>
>>28593019

Isn't foxtrotalpha discredited on /k/? Not that we have much credibility anyway.
>>
>>28590820
That must be why a record number of countries are pursuing carrier acquisition programs.
>>
>>28593019
> I have literally no idea how reality works
That's you.
>>
>>28593032
>>28593019
I had heard all the hubbub about Diesel Electric subs, but I figured that they were just another meme. Guess not, unless the carrier groups were operating under RoE that massively handicapped them.

Thanks for the links in any case, these were quite interesting. It makes me wonder what countermeasures the Navy is developing in response.
>>
>>28593072
I have no idea. Honestly I just googled "diesel electric submarine sinks carrier" and picked a couple links. There's a shitload of info about this topic.
>>
>>28593112
I think it's a serious problem actually. The navy has been letting its ASW and MCM capabilities atrophy for years now.
>>
>>28593112

The navy got the leese on the sub [HSwMS Gotland] for two years, I'm sure they've got something working in the background but haven't had the funding brought forward yet.

>>28593149

I find it funny that the Royal Navy has more MCM platforms than the US Navy.

The Royal Navy even have a new class on the drawing board to replace the current MCM ships.
>>
>>28593093
Nice burn
>>
>>28591102
>>28592555

I wonder if there is a hard cap on how many carriers you're allowed to have within a fixed distance of each other at any given time?
>>
>>28593019
>jalopnik
>>
File: Montana.jpg (55 KB, 740x350) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Montana.jpg
55 KB, 740x350
>>28591097
Still awaiting on my Montana Class navy...
COME ON WE ALL KNOW WE WANT, JUST ONE OF THEM!
>>
To be honest I think the US Navy has been heading in the wrong direction for a while, then again I'm a dinosaur who believes firmly in big guns more than missiles.
>>
>>28590403
Amazing that they managed to save her.
>>
File: Bismark at sunset.jpg (239 KB, 1280x873) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Bismark at sunset.jpg
239 KB, 1280x873
>>28593914

>16 inch guns

What's the fucking point?

Should have stuck with only three turrets so they could have had nine 18 incg guns or (EVEN BETTER!) six 20 inch guns in double-gun turrets.
>>
>>28594045
>broadside with 6 20 inch guns

i need this because of reasons
>>
>>28593077
In their defense, that is exactly the case during the first half of the 20th. Everyone was busting ass to get a navy only to mothball it until jutland for fear of submarines. Navies pored over the results of the battle of port Arthur to find out how modern techs were doing. They regained use during the convoys and what not.
>>
>>28594100
>Everyone was busting ass to get a navy only to mothball it until jutland for fear of submarines.
Uh no, the RN was extremely willing to duke it out and had the entire continent on a lock down.
The High Seas fleet meanwhile was 'mothballed' for fear of the RN, not submarines.
>>
>>28594045
They stuck with the 16"/50 Mark 7 because it had similar penetration to the Japanese 18.1". A complete redesign of the gunhouses and turret architecture as well as designing a new gun along with introducing new ammunition to the supply chain would've been idiotic. The Montana's could have easily pulled the Yamato apart with their designed armament, no need to redesign to accommodate heavier guns for no damn reason.
>>
>>28591352
>Commercial ship builders manage to build ships for very cheap, no reason why military shipyards can't do the same.

Well, it turns out there are reasons. Commercial vessels are essentially floating boxes for hauling stuff around. Those are fairly cheap to build.

Naval vessels are much more resource intensive than commercial vessels of similar displacement. Naval vessels are also more complex than commercial vessels.
>>
According to the learned naval tacticians here on /k/, we should just build thousands of small missile boats.

Instead of investing in a fleet of modern carriers, we should just build large numbers of cheap, expendable ships that are equipped with as many guided missiles as they can carry.

Explain why this plan won't work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_boat

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osa-class_missile_boat

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiten
>>
>>28592930
>Excellent chance. Every time we do exercises with diesel electric subs carriers get killed. Especially the new super sneaky AIP subs.

The problem with attacking a carrier with submarines is that aircraft are, and have been, the most potent anti-submarine weapon since they were first used in that role in WWII, which makes carriers the most potent anti-submarine weapon you can ask for, with the possible exception of another submarine. Look at the JDS Kaga, and other ships of its ilk in service with many navies in the world, i.e. helicopter carriers. There are two main roles for a helicopter carrier:

1. Amphibious assault; i.e. attack choppers and transport choppers to put Marines and their supplies ashore.
2. Anti-submarine work.

That's right - submarine work. That's also the main reason every frigate and destroyer in the modern age carries at LEAST one helicopter, or two if they can manage - airpower is king against subs, because of how much distance they can cover. Cruisers in WWII carried at least two floatplanes who's primary jobs were scouting and ASW patrol - modern 'destroyers' are the same tonnage and fill the same role, and happen to have the same integral airpower.

Now a big, powerful fleet carrier has an escort group which carries choppers of their own (and the escort always includes an SSN, as well.) And then there's the airpower of the carrier itself, which just carries a shitload of choppers. Navy Luddites have been screaming blue murder over the retirement of the Viking (carrier-launched fixed-wing ASW plane) because of the severe reduction in range, but from what I can see, that was a money-saving measure on the Navy's part - the new P-8 Orion land-based patrol plane has an insane range and loiter time, and we have airbases literally all over the world - with tanker support from those same bases, there's no patch of ocean we can't have sanitized by P-8s within a reasonable timeframe.
>>
>>28594238
Literally the same argument made since 19th century when it was torpedo boat spam vs. battleships. Asymmetrical warfare doesn't work at sea because there is nowhere to hide and the ocean is rather unforgiving on small vessels. Also small vessels have shit for endurance.
>>
>>28592694
Based
>>
>>28593019
>I thought it was common knowledge actually. You should Google this topic, evidence is pretty damning for CSGs

Not really, bru. We're scheduling multiple exercises with our allies that operate (and sell) these modern ninja AIP diesel boats for the express purpose of learning how to find, fix and kill the little fuckers. Add to that the ton of Navy acquisitions developed in recent years with a focus on asymmetric littoral ops. For instance, one of the interim armament packages being discussed for the Littoral Combat Ship (it is literally called the Littoral Combat Ship, you might notice,) is a VLS mounting 48 or so fucking Hellfire-L missiles. Tiny little anti-tank missiles in a VLS - a miniaturized VLS for the express purpose of handing swarms of small boat attacks. This literally translates to "A ship/weapon system specifically designed for taking the Strait of Hormuz from Iran if they try to start shit." Then there's the Mark 54 air-dropped ASW torpedo, which has been optimized for shallow-water operation (and the new version of the Mk. 48 ADCAP also optimized for same.)

One reason the F-35 is being pushed so hard is because it combines superstealth with vastly superior range to the Super Hornet - the Navy wants the C model on their decks fucking yesterday for that exact reason. The Navy let integral tanker ability lapse for the same reason as integral fixed-wing ASW - the same shitload of bases worldwide that host long-legged P-8s also host KC-135s. But you want to be able to control the airspace those tankers will operate in, and you definitely want to have a long-range strike on the deck ready to go in case you find something that needs killing fucking yesterday. I see two things when looking at modern Navy acquisitions - perusal of regaining carrier standoff range lost with the retirement of several legacy airframes, (the F-35 serves as the A-6 *and* F-14 replacement, which is why the Navy has been apocalyptic at the program's delays,)...
>>
>>28592465
At the low end of the spectrum, a swarm of suicide boats could be problematic. Start by swarming the escorts, one at a time. Figure each boat has 500 pounds of explosive, small arms, a couple of RPGs and some Strelas or comparable. Crew of 6 or thereabout. Swarm a Burke or Tico with 30 of them, from all points of the compass. Once 2 hits are achieved, the survivors withdraw.

Regroup, replace losses, go after the next escort. Sinking escorts isn't important, they just need to be damaged to the point of mission kill.

If you have enough speedboats and enthusiastic young men, attack multiple escorts simultaneously. You want to reserve a large part of your force for the carrier, though. You want to get at least 10 hits on that. There's no realistic chance of sinking a carrier this way, but you can do damage and possibly force a withdrawal.
>>
>>28594343

... and a whole bunch of shit designed for fighting in shallow littoral waters *anyways.* I mean, we developed the Tomahawk missile specifically to avoid this problem - it has a 1,600 fucking mile range, for fucks sake, and most of the cells in our Arleigh-Burkes are loaded with them at any given time - but the thinking seems to be "fuck enemy area denial tactics." Getting our 80s carrier standoff strike range back; with A-6 tankers that can drag a whole flight of heavily-laden attack planes out to 800 frikkin miles and fuck up someone's day would be a big boon, but the Navy seems invested in having their way anywhere, anytime. And it makes sense - if the enemy increases the range of their carriers, just increase the range of your denial systems. Pound for pound it's easier to make diesel boats with bigger fuel tanks (or build forward refueling areas, like the Chinese are doing with their island construction,) than it is to significantly improve the weapons *and* planes of the carrier groups, which are hideously expensive procurement programs just to get off the ground.

Yeah, we're specifically training against these weapons, as well as spending millions in counters.
>>
>>28593843

Probably not, but only because no captains would be that dumb.

'Watch the fuck out when you have two ships sailing side by side' is a lesson in sailing mankind learnt many, many, many centuries ago.

Ships are constantly being pushed on all sides by the sea. When they are side by side they are both shielding one another from the sea in that direction. Which means the sea pushes them closer and closer together. Which means ships that sail side by side crash.
>>
>>28594374
Air power would tear them apart in open water, where a CSG would realistically be operating. Hell, Iran tried it back in Operation Praying Mantis and the whole swarm got chased away by 2 A-6s.
>>
>>28593149
That's two of the primary LCS missions.

>>28593112
AIP and DE subs have to get very, very lucky with positioning to get position on a carrier group. They simply cannot travel fast enough underwater to "chase" one down. In exercises, you have set AOE boxes and even courses worked out, which vastly simplifies this problem. ANY sub can put fish on a carrier if it's lying dead quiet like a hole in the ocean across it's course. The trick is getting there far enough in advance that escorts don't hear you snorkeling/moving into position. In reality it requires a lot of subs in picket and you STILL have to get lucky. Even in this eventuality, though, the USN has now deployed anti-torpedo hard kill torpedoes (CAT) and torpedo warning systems (TWS) on the carriers to counter just such a perfect storm. See:

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2014/pdf/navy/2014sstd_tws_cat.pdf

TLDR: It's a threat, and the USN and RN have developed hard and soft kill countermeasures just in case someone gets a golden BB.
>>
>>28594157
Not to mention the fact that at the time, the 16"/50s had a range which matched the visual/radar horizon for a battleship, and no one would be firing accurately OTH with ship VS ship naval gunnery for quite some time.
>>
>>28594238
Because they get fucked from two hundred miles away.
>>
>>28594412
No No, I don't mean "Stay x amount of distance away from each other" i mean is there a Navy doctrine that states "There will never be this many carriers within this many nautical miles of each other" because of fear of a crippling strike.
>>
>>28594249
I agree with you anon, but modern AIP DE subs are sneaky as fuck, and modern torpedoes are more lethal than ever. Who even knows how mine warfare has changed, but I wouldn't be surprised if people have supercavitating torpedoes that bury themselves in the sand for months at a time, waiting for an encrypted signal that sounds like a whale song or something.

Have our ASW and MCM capabilities improved proportionally?
>>
>>28593112
>RoE that massively handicapped them

That's usually the case. In most of these exercises the carrier is often restricted to a small geographic area, and the sub crew is told where it will be in advance.
>>
>>28594456
Not an issue, just get 1000 missile boats that carry SAMs.
>>
>>28593944
>I can't be fucked to learn the military history lessons of WWII, much less understand the modern threat environment but I still need to open my cockholster and inflict my opinion on those around me

FTFY
>>
>>28594238

Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper pls

literally nobody thinks this but you
>>
>>28594464
No missile boat can carry a SAM large enough to protect itself outside of the range of a stand off weapon.
>>
>>28594464
But then how are the going to fit the radar and fire control systems, much less the missiles themselves, without sinking under their own weight?
>>
>>28594374

This. This is *exactly* the scenario that led to the creation of the LCS in the first place, and why the multiple successive fuckups of the defense industry to produce a suitable missile system for it has greatly, greatly stressed out the Navy. The current "swarm defense" armament plan is 48 Hellfires in a VLS plus twin 30mm cannons; an entire ship designed just to fend off that kind of an attack.

Of course the LCS is hideously fucking expensive for a corvette - easily the cost of a frigate - and that's a ton of money to spend on such a limited role, so the Navy tried to make the equipment modular, and we all know how well that fuckup turned out. Now people are reasonably pointing out that a ship with no serious anti-air defenses, in the age of mass anti-ship missile proliferation, is fucking retarded. Currently they mount a single SeaRAM launcher, which is a missile-based upgrade to CIWS - strictly point-defense. Very good point defense, but still something you should never have to fire if you can fucking help it. Thus the push is on to provide them with 1. anti-ship missiles of their own and 2. air defenses. 1. is pretty fucking simple - you could slap a Tomahawk/Naval Strike Missile box launcher on them tomorrow and pay some asshole in the defense industry too much for the software integration, and you'd pretty much be done. 2. is the sticking point. A Mark 56 VLS is small and light enough to cram in there pretty easily and could give the LCS 16 ESSMs (evolved Sea Sparrows) which is a pretty good short/medium range anti-air defense for a ship that size, but'd also require the installation of a few fire control radars and all the software integration, etc. The ESSM can be used in anti-surface mode, and the size of the warhead makes it pretty ideal for fragging boghammers - but it can only carry 16 of them, and the Navy sees itself needing rather more than 16.

But the critics are right; without the ESSM it's highly vulnerable.
>>
>>28590849

Slavaboo: The Post
>>
>>28594238
Because literally EVERY conflict or patrol zone the USN is expected to operate in is a couple thousand miles from the US coast. The logistics of keeping these things supplied, much less repaired in rough seas, would be staggering.

The USN is built the way it is primarily because every time we need to reach out and touch someone it's literally on the other side of the world.

That's not even considering the myriad of tactical and strategic reasons these things suck in a conventional naval battle.
>>
>>28594461
>Have our ASW and MCM capabilities improved proportionally?

http://news.usni.org/2013/06/20/navy-develops-torpedo-killing-torpedo

That would be a resounding, gigantic, earth-shattering "yes," anon.
>>
>>28591352
>If we buy carriers in bulk, they'll be cheaper

Let me just go over to Costco or BJ's, I think I saw them selling carriers in bundles.
>>
>>28594484
1000 radar boats
>>
>>28594488
>People crying out for more specialized boats
>Bitching about boats that do too much.
>Now complaining the LCS doesn't do enough outside of its intended mission set.

People are impossible to please.
>>
>>28592694
I am become kek, laugher of jokes
>>
>>28594518
No wanting a ship that can at least do the job of the ship it replaced is reasonable, especially when other navies made modular warships that work.
>>
>>28594531
But the LCS isn't replacing anything. It's a completely different ship and role from the OHP, whose role was basically taken up by the Burkes.
>>
>>28594433
LCS is a national embarrassment anon.
>>
>>28594382
>Pound for pound it's easier to make diesel boats with bigger fuel tanks (or build forward refueling areas, like the Chinese are doing with their island construction,) than it is to significantly improve the weapons *and* planes of the carrier groups, which are hideously expensive procurement programs just to get off the ground.
Except that you forget this simple fact: as the range radius increases, the area a diesel boat has to cover to find the carrier's location and course, sprint to and lie doggo on it and kill it also increases by a SQUARE of that radius. To retain the same denial capabilities with diesel boats (range, supply and very speed limited in non-permissive waters) you have to square the number of diesel boats you're operating. While on the surface it looks like you just need more fuel, the truth is you need more boats. A lot of them. THEN the acquisitions programs for adding that little bit more standoff range for carrier air wings look a hell of a lot cheaper for the counter they provide.
>>
>>28594543
OHP's and Osprey/Guardian-class minesweepers
>>
>>28594238

Frankly? Because missiles kind of suck. Missiles cannot really jink to dodge incoming fire (with the notable exception of the terminal maneuver most missiles use to dodge the last-ditch point-defense fire,) they cannot react to "pop-up" threats (i.e. a new ship revealing itself between the missile and intended target when it turns its radar on to start engaging the missiles,) and in general they're just... dumb. A piloted aircraft is a hell of a lot more effective, and it can add its own impressive range to the range of whatever weapon it launches. Plus, the plane and pilot actually come home, unlike the missile. The only cost you lose with the missile is whatever's needed to make a weapon with just enough standoff to keep the plane safe. Plus, even an impressively long-ranged missile often can't match the threat radius of missile-armed planes. For instance, the picture you posted - look at the size of the fucking missile bins on that motherfucker. Those are BIG fucking missiles, probably Granits - which they have to be, since they have to 1. have very long range and 2. carry a warhead big enough to mission-kill a carrier in one hit. Big missiles == less missiles on each missile boat == more missile boats. And you WILL need lots of missiles, because missiles are vulnerable. Back in The Day missiles were hard to shoot down just because they were small(ish) and fast - but they were pretty easy to spoof with primitive ECM and decoys. Nowadays the ECM and decoys don't have much of a chance, but defensive missiles are shit-fucking-hot. Go look up the promotional video for the LRASM - you'll note how much crazy stealthy clever shit it does; all to counter the problems I just listed. That's the next-generation. Maybe that will bring the balance back in favor of anti-ship missiles. But for the last several decades, if you could afford a fleet carrier and planes to put on it, it was hands-down better than missile boats.

Missile boats are cheap deterrence.
>>
File: 800px-Wea00810.jpg (147 KB, 800x1021) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
800px-Wea00810.jpg
147 KB, 800x1021
>>28594382
Good luck operating your MTB in this.
>>
>>28594433
>AIP and DE subs have to get very, very lucky with positioning to get position on a carrier group. They simply cannot travel fast enough underwater to "chase" one down. In exercises, you have set AOE boxes and even courses worked out, which vastly simplifies this problem. ANY sub can put fish on a carrier if it's lying dead quiet like a hole in the ocean across it's course. The trick is getting there far enough in advance that escorts don't hear you snorkeling/moving into position. In reality it requires a lot of subs in picket and you STILL have to get lucky. Even in this eventuality, though, the USN has now deployed anti-torpedo hard kill torpedoes (CAT) and torpedo warning systems (TWS) on the carriers to counter just such a perfect storm.

In other words modern diesel submarines have the exact same problem that WWII diesel submarines had. They can't go charging around, offensively prowling like an SSN can - and nobody, but nobody can build an SSN as quiet as ours, especially the new Virginia-class subs. Depending on who's guesstimate you believe, the Virginias are a shade quieter than some of those new diesel boats, due to the shrouded propulsors!
>>
>>28594488
>easily the cost of a frigate
anon, an LCS of either class costs about HALF what a Layfayette class Frigate costs. where are you getting your numbers?
>>
>>28594425
They have to be true jihadis for the tactic to work. That's also why they would have the Strelas or whatever, to hold off the air interdiction long enough for the boats to complete their runs.

It's not an elegant tactic, nor is it efficient. All it takes is one successful strike for it to become effective, though. The jihadi shitposting would be monumental, and every dingbat with a Costco kayak would be loading up on tannerite.
>>
>>28594045

What >>28594157 said: mostly because of the development of the "super-heavy shell," which packed more AP power into the 16 inch diameter than anyone had expected possible.

>>28594454
>16"/50s had a range which matched the visual/radar horizon for a battleship,

Yep. In fact the radar horizon is a bit further than the visual horizon due to radio waves bending around the curvature of the earth a little bit (fucked if I can tell you the name of the effect, but it happens.) Their FC radar was also good enough that it could pick up the return of shell splashes; allowing the ship to range its own salvos even during total blind-fire.
>>
>>28594567
There's nothing the OHPs did that a Burke can't do, and the USN's current minesweeper ships are ancient, unarmed, and basically obsolete anyways.

Oh yeah, and the LCS only costs half of what a brand new OHP would.
>>
>>28594546
The LCS does exactly what it needs to, or will. Just because you can't understand where it falls in the mission capability spectrum and how it counters the threat environment, you dismiss it. Congrats. You're too stupid/lazy to understand why it is essential.

>>28594567
The LCS does fill some OHP capability gap in the ASW arena. It'll be a primary counter for DE/AIP boats as an ASW picket, using hull sonar and the huge aviation facilities for the mission.
>>
>>28594465
I said I know I'm old fashioned. I spoke my opinion. What are you gonna do M8?
Fight me?
>>
>>28594621
Except loading up enough explosives to cripple a ship would weigh them down. Speedboats are NOT designed to carry heavy loads nor can they handle rough seas very well.
>>
>>28594615
>LCS
>$432 million

>Lafayette
>$466 million

?

It's $30 million less with 1/10th of the capability?
>>
>>28594606
That's not the primary reason why VAs are so quiet while hunting/ASW. They can operate their reactors on natural circulation up to certain load levels (12+ knots in the case of VAs, perhaps as much as 18, depending on your source. the USN ain't saying), which completely removes one of the largest primary noise radiators in a nuke boat's sound profile: reactor coolant pumps. This makes it literally just as quiet as a diesel or AIP unless it is sprinting. This tech isn't new as it was on 688, Ohio and Seawolf class boats, but each class can go faster and faster on natural circulation as the reactors and propulsors/screws get better.
>>
>>28594606
It's a basic problem for subs. They have a short engagement range and move slowly, very slowly when operating in the vicinity of ASW systems.

Carriers move very quickly. Far more quickly then a sub can without being easy to find, even when simply performing routine operations. If the carrier's course and timetable isn't known it's nearly impossible to intercept one with a sub.
>>
>>28594664
Nope. Just point out how irrelevant and ignorant your opinion is.
>>
>>28594518

A-FUCKING MEN, ANON, A-FUCKING MEN. That is exactly why the whole LCS debacle has pissed off the Navy so much. Then again, it's their own fucking fault for trying to fit a quart into a pint pot with the whole "mission module" thing - they were hoping they could have an anti-small boat weapon system installed on Monday, (for protecting Burkes that could cover the air threat just fine) and then switch to anti-air missile loadout by Wednesday (for independent long-range ASW patrol where they'd need to protect themselves.) Now they're stuck with one ship that ate up the budget for both roles, but now can only do one - and they've got to choose between them.

Right now they seem to intend to make the last 20 ships of the LCS class the "Small Surface Combatant" with anti-ship and anti-air missiles (and a bit bigger/longer to accommodate all that, to boot,) so literally making two separate ships for each role without having to design an entirely new vessel.

>>28594546

Not really. They ARE good ships - or will be, once they finish shaking out the usual bugs - but they lack sorely for a decent fucking weapon system. The only thing keeping them from being all they ought to be is the current ongoing clusterfuck - THAT is the embarrassment. Ever since they wised the fuck up and equipped the LCS with a towed sonar array, it's already a very good, small ASW platform - especially since it operates the same number of choppers as a Burke. (Two seahawks, or a seahawk and a drone. Technically you can operate all three at once, but only during operational 'lily-padding' and such.)
>>
File: 1438279497200.jpg (85 KB, 500x628) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1438279497200.jpg
85 KB, 500x628
>>28592896
>small missiles
I mean relatively speaking yea, but godamn.
And do you think a missile going off inside a small room wouldnt incinerate it's operators?
>>
I've followed a little with the LCS debate, but isn't the real issue the fact that the navy can't just pick one design and run with it?
>>
>>28592896
My bad, you didnt say inside, although you are assuming you could set up a manpad in plain view with no one noticing
>>
File: d (14)_FAWD.jpg (51 KB, 640x480) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
d (14)_FAWD.jpg
51 KB, 640x480
>>28594504
> type 53-65K torpedo enters USSR service in 1969
> countermeasures against it expected to attain IOC in 2018
I'd say the answer is more of a sheepish "umm... kinda, but not really"
also picrelated exists
>>
>>28594679
The La Fayette is barely any better armed than the LCS, and has less hangar space.
>>
>>28594553
>Except that you forget this simple fact: as the range radius increases, the area a diesel boat has to cover to find the carrier's location and course, sprint to and lie doggo on it and kill it also increases by a SQUARE of that radius. To retain the same denial capabilities with diesel boats (range, supply and very speed limited in non-permissive waters) you have to square the number of diesel boats you're operating. While on the surface it looks like you just need more fuel, the truth is you need more boats. A lot of them. THEN the acquisitions programs for adding that little bit more standoff range for carrier air wings look a hell of a lot cheaper for the counter they provide.

That's... abso-fucking-lutely correct, thank you. This nicely illustrates why China is basing more of their area denial strategy around missiles (the anti-ship ballistic missiles being the best example.) However your point still stands there, too - it's relatively easy to find a surface battle group (even without satellites, in the event of a serious war most of them will be soft/hard killed pretty quick) with big planes mounting surface-search radars. They also have great range - 300nm or so for the radar and up to a thousand for the plane itself. Problem is, the fighters that would escort them usually don't - and the carrier group will pick up those radio emissions and send fighters to murder them before they get anywhere close enough to detect them. Then the range of the planes comes in. And the range at which you can start launching strikes of course multiplies the ocean box from which threats can emerge, forcing the enemy to devote more search planes, more escorts for the search planes, etc...
>>
>>28594679
I'd love to see where you're getting your numbers. The Lafayettes are over 780m accounting for inflation. And they are actually LESS well armed than the NSM-equipped LCS ships coming, and have HALF the aviation facilities. Oh, and half the speed.
>>
>>28594584

Yeah, that, too. As the other guy said, carriers are power PROJECTION assets. If you can't operate in blue water, you ain't projecting SHIT.
>>
>>28594726
They actually already decided to drop one of the designs. I think they went with the LM one.
>>
>>28594718
>thinking man portable missiles, even a half dozen of them, could mission kill a cripple a carrier in dock beyond about a two week repair job

shiggy
>>
>>28594747
this is all well and good, but the ocean is only so big and the targets the US might want to hit using a CSG only so many
>>
>>28594615
>anon, an LCS of either class costs about HALF what a Layfayette class Frigate costs. where are you getting your numbers?

Bitching whining articles on the internet, so they could quite easily be full of fucking shit.

Thing is - as >>28594743 points out - the LCS *as is* isn't far behind a lot of actual frigates in service, and it has yawing, lonely, unused tonnage and volume in its mission bays waiting for the military/industrial complex to unfuck themselves and put a fucking weapon or three in there. The point being that they could be *better* than most frigates in the world for *less* money, but right now they're *worse* for *more* all because of this ongoing retard clusterfuck slapfight fuckup.

Rarely in military matters is something so clear-cut. The difference between now and then - when they fucking give them a weapon it'll be like Jesus riding down from heaven on a Raptor dual-wielding golden deagles. Which just makes the wait for them to get to it all the more irritating.
>>
>>28594776
a half dozen Davy Crocketts might do it
>>
>>28594728
I'm assuming that trained commandos with a plan could set up on a rooftop at 3am and fire before anybody notices/does anything about it. Then they peace out before a response can be organized.

Not real hard to imagine anon. I think American commandos could pull off something like this in a foreign country... Not much of a stretch to think it could happen here too.
>>
>>28594754
Not to mention, the Laffies don't have a dedicated AA system as standard, and only have a single CIWS... just like the LCS.
>>
>>28594788
>this is all well and good, but the ocean is only so big and the targets the US might want to hit using a CSG only so many

Exactly, that's why range is so important. The further away you can strike, the further the enemy has to patrol from those relatively few fixed points.

This is also why the Chinese strategy is called "area denial," basically, they know they can't fuck with us on blue water, but they figure with heavy investment they can make the much smaller area of the south china sea too dangerous to enter.
>>
>>28594788
I think you still vastly underestimate how easy it is to hide a CSG even in a relatively small area like the East China Sea. The USN has been playing these games with the Soviets/Russians for 70 years. See:

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-031.htm
http://www.informationdissemination.net/2014/10/deception-and-backfire-bomber.html (part 1 of 4. read 'em all, they're good).
>>
>>28592896

... you'd have to get a direct hit on the propeller shafts to do any real damage.

... while they're running. Good luck.
>>
>>28594818

Heh, nice links, thank you. I just got done playing a CMANO scenario (CSG versus China in the South China Sea) and it did prove surprisingly easy to hide my forces. It just consisted of shooting down any airborne sensor before it could get close enough to pick up my ships.

So if you can win the air battle (and being able to stand and deliver against ground bases, not just raid, is what really defines a carrier battle group,) you're pretty much golden.
>>
>>28594794
>but right now they're *worse* for *more*
Except that's not true. They have larger aviation facilities, better sensors and are faster than any existing frigate while being 1-2 thousand tons smaller displacement and costing less. Do your homework.

I do agree that the wait for them to get all up and be fully capable is irritating and I'm excited to see what the full capability mix will be, but this isn't anything new for both brand new hulls/systems coupled with a brand new mission/capability mix. There's a lot of shit to shake down.
>>
>>28594776
How many spare Ageis radars do you think we have sitting around in a warehouse anon? How quickly can they be built? If you had a spare radar sitting on the dock, how long would it take to remove the damaged one and replace it?

If you kill a f35 on the ground/flight deck that's just as good as killing anywhere else.
>>
>>28594797
Sure. Let me just magic those into Norfolk. Shit, into the states period. And at the end of the day, that's just ONE carrier that you executed a nuke strike to disable/destroy (along with a good portion of a harbor and residential area). Tell me, what happened the last two times the US ate surprise attacks? Think the anger and focus for retribution following Pearl Harbor with that added nuclear spicy meatball. It'd be the fucking crusades, new world style.
>>
>>28594814
that's what I was getting at
it's one thing to play fuck-fuck with submarines in the Atlantic and quite another to go into their lairs
this is all wankery anyway as the naval superiority the US enjoys virtually guarantees that an all out war will be a nuclear war and any detected CSG will be a dead CSG twenty minutes and one very large warhead later
>>
Why haven't we reexamined submersible aircraft carriers? They combine the survivability and stealth of a submarine with the long-range force projection of a carrier.

The sub carrier would surface, quickly launch a fleet of drone fighters, and then dive to avoid attack. The drones would be controlled by satellite, and would launch conventional anti- ship missile attacks. After attacking, the drones would be guided to an open area of the sea, where the sub carrier would be waiting to collect them.
>>
>>28594871
all you're saying is true
we're only enumerating asymmetric options
and frankly, I'd rather see this happening in Yokohama than in Norfolk
>>
>>28594679
The LCS is closer to $300 million than it is to $400 million.
>>
>>28594825
Burger here, and while I think carriers are nowhere near as vulnerable as some in this thread suggest, a single modern Mk-48ADCAP sized heavy torpedo detonating under a Nimitz kill would absolutely mission kill it. Probably not sink it, but it would definitely be out of the fight and probably being towed back for emergency repairs.
>>
>>28594843
FILTHY GREEK PLEASE GO
>>
>>28594882
Typically because it is easier to just have them be drones known as missiles unless if there was a reason for them to loiter in an area.
>>
File: 1375978947659.jpg (80 KB, 492x559) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1375978947659.jpg
80 KB, 492x559
>>28590325
>my country is too shit tier to have aircraft carriers. better go take out my frustrations on /k/
>>
>>28594825
Or, you know, hit one of the $100,000,000 planes parked in plain sight on the deck.

Also, small torpedoes from unassuming civilian boats. Unless you think spare propellers just grow on trees and are easy to install.
>>
>>28594904
I'm not sure if I'd call it a mission kill. The Mk 48 ADCAP is the second best thing to Jesus, but a carrier is a big bitch with a LOT of compartmentalization. I'd wager that you'd probably get a mobility kill, which MIGHT be a mission kill, but I'd wager you could probably still conduct flight ops off the deck. At least, with lower payloads. If you're not steaming into the wind it might be difficult to generate enough lift to get the planes skyward if they're fully laden.
>>
>>28594867
Just how much shooting do you expect them to do before being engaged? Are you thinking they've somehow smuggled a dozen or more of the fucking things into the country?

Furthermore, Nimitzes and Fords aren't even AEGIS equipped. You're thinking of the AN/SPS-48E and AN/SPS-49(V)5 air search radars, not AN-SPY series popcorn cookers (which aren't even what the AEGIS system is, just one of the sensors for it).
>>
>>28594794
>Bitching whining articles on the internet, so they could quite easily be full of fucking shit.
They are full of shit. Current LCS costs are much lower.

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/lcs-production-surges-prices-drops/

Further, this is with both classes being produced. Congress wants to downselect to one class, which would naturally drive costs even lower.
>>
>>28594904
>Burger here, and while I think carriers are nowhere near as vulnerable as some in this thread suggest, a single modern Mk-48ADCAP sized heavy torpedo detonating under a Nimitz kill would absolutely mission kill it.

Oh, no shit, if hit in the right place. I was referring to the man-portable missiles that guy was posting about. The only way a warhead that size could mission-kill a carrier is the way Clancy posited in Debt of Honor - direct hit to the propellers while they're running; throwing their balance out of whack and fucking up the shafts, wrenching turbines off their mounts, etc. A carrier that can't move fast enough can't launch strike aircraft...

... well, not with full fuel and weapon loads, anyhow.
>>
>>28594872
>this is all wankery anyway as the naval superiority the US enjoys virtually guarantees that an all out war will be a nuclear war and any detected CSG will be a dead CSG twenty minutes and one very large warhead later
An interesting supposition, considering the nuclear warhead and delivery system advantages the US enjoys. NUTS would dictate an immediate and symmetrical reprisal. What do you think the US would consider Tit-for-Tat for a nuke CSG? Hint: it wouldn't be peanuts.

Also, you assume that the nuke being fired has a good enough target track, short enough kill chain and enough saturation in numbers to overcome CSG defenses. That's a pretty big if.
>>
>>28594922
Yes, because the Navy totally just lets random civilian boats near their docks, especially ones with giant torpedo tubes sticking out of them.

And what kind of launcher do expect to carry out the strikes with? The only ones portable enough to smuggle are unguided and inaccurate as hell at range, and guided launchers are either very rare or very large. Plus its a tactic that would work exactly once.
>>
File: Drone+recovery.jpg (113 KB, 1200x675) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Drone+recovery.jpg
113 KB, 1200x675
>>28594882

Recovering the drones would be the hardest part. Traditional landings would expose the sub-carrier to attack.

The drones would loiter until they run out of fuel. They would then land on the water, and would be later recovered by a crane.

This would give the sub-carrier plenty of time to travel to the drone landing location, or to avoid enemy surface attacks.
>>
>>28594937
It is worth mentioning that the AN/SPS-48s and 49s on the CVs are fucking insane radars with a metric shitton of power.
>>
>>28594967
Then there is the TERN, which is a VTOL flying wing designed to take off from DDGs and LCSs. I mean, if you REALLY wanted to, you could create a design like this. I just don't think it's the greatest idea.
>>
>>28594882

why have drones fire missiles when the sub itself can fire missiles? its not we cant launch them from hundreds of miles away.
>>
>>28594882
For the myriad of fucking reasons laid out in the last twelve "sub carrier" threads:

>can't actual conduct flight ops at flight ops speeds because bow wave and spray, even in calm seas
>no significant storage capacity, even on something the size of a Typhoon and obviously no deck storage
>massive, sucking, popping hull flow noise on any remotely operable flight deck design
>slow and loud as shit to move that much mass through the water from a power plant/reactor standpoint
>flight ops would keep it exposed on the surface for far too much of the time
>cheap, easy dog meat for ANY SSN/SS enemy asset in the area

In short, for about the 12th time, fuck off already.
>>
File: image013.jpg (72 KB, 794x521) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
image013.jpg
72 KB, 794x521
>>28594872
>it's one thing to play fuck-fuck with submarines in the Atlantic and quite another to go into their lairs

Which is exactly why the Navy is investing in new ASW tech, yeah. They're not unaware of the danger, and it seems that they feel they might not have the luxury of staying the fuck out of it.

>>28594867
Radar is a mission-kill for an escort ship, not so much for the carrier. Hell, the carrier's primary radar is an E-2 Hawkeye aircraft, which is hands-down superior to ANY surface radar due to being able to see sea-skimming missiles from hundreds of miles away.

>If you kill a f35 on the ground/flight deck that's just as good as killing anywhere else.

You'd have a much easier time gunning for them on an airbase - which is where Navy carrier wings go for training while the carrier is in dock.

>>28594882
>Why haven't we reexamined submersible aircraft carriers?

We already have them, anon. Check the attached image. That's a fucking Vertical Launching System on a submarine, bru. It launches cruise missiles that can hit land or sea targets. What is a cruise missile, but a plane and bomb united into one airframe? The Japanese submersible aircraft carrier was an early prototype of this system.
>>
>>28594932
A mobility kill IS a mission kill for a carrier, anon. They have to be traveling at speed and into the wind to perform flight ops. You can't CAT fighters off the deck from a standstill.
>>
It is worth mentioning that there actually are UAVs that take off from SSNs and SSGNs, used for peaking over somebody's border when we don't want to let them know we're there.
>>
>>28594882
Because carriers are outdated, senpai. What we need are submersible Iowa-class battleships.
>>
>>28594937
1. You're retarded if you think our borders are in any way secure. People drive 18 wheelers full of cocaine across the border daily. Not hard to imagine special ops guys smuggling in a few missiles.

2. Whatever man, you get my point. There is a whole lot of vulnerable, expensive shit in Norfolk. By the way name a US naval base, anywhere in the world - they are all shooting galleries for trained naval commandos.
>>
>>28594961
> good enough target track
for a 500 kt warhead? good enough is what, 2-4 km radius?
> short kill chain
Tupolev spots CSG, Tupolev broadcasts location, Akula fires Granats, Granats get to target on INS alone
> saturation
you have to spot and kill something like six to eight missiles flying on deck BEFORE they cross the horizon
good luck
>>
>>28594969
The beauty of abundant nuclear power, anon. It's a beautiful thing.

However, those air search and track radars are rarely lit off at full power in a real threat environment, as it's a huge unique signature neon sign screaming CARRIER RIGHT HERE to any EM collection mast in the hemisphere. That's the Burkes and Ticos' jobs.
>>
File: 1234.jpg (50 KB, 342x500) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1234.jpg
50 KB, 342x500
>>28594991
>radars a bitch on flat surfaces anon
>>
>>28595018
>dat 688i
>not Virginia class stronk
>>
>>28595063
meant for the sub carrier guy.

>sorry
>>
>>28595018
>Which is exactly why the Navy is investing in new ASW tech, yeah. They're not unaware of the danger, and it seems that they feel they might not have the luxury of staying the fuck out of it.
This is not a new capability for the USN. They've been sneaking into and playing around inside protected Russian/Soviet bays and harbors for decades. Read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ivy_Bells
>>
>>28595030
Do you not see me address that in my previous post? Let me lay it out more simply for you: It is technically possible to launch aircraft when not going into the wind. However, those aircraft can't be heavily laden down, as, like you said, they wouldn't have the amount of lift they'd normally have. If this weren't the case, it would be impossible to conduct flight operations in a sudden calm, which IS known to happen.
>>
>>28595051
Needs nanomachines.
>>
>>28594962
Just a matter of time anon. Software and electronics are always improving.

What do you mean this could only work once? How could you defend against this? Total surveillance in a 20 mile radius around evey naval base in the world?

Killing a ship when its tied up at dock is easier than killing it on the ocean. Always will be.
>>
>>28595053
>People drive 18 wheelers full of cocaine across the border daily.
Kek. You have an incredibly naive understanding of the drug trade and how it actually smuggles real weight.

>they are all shooting galleries for trained naval commandos.
While there are threats and vulnerabilities that can be exploited, I think you're falling into the easy trap of thinking the USN/USMC has never considered such attacks as a possibility and have no defenses for them. For instance, C-RAMs are pretty much everywhere now, just as a starter.
>>
>>28594667
Both valid points. But, Jihadi Joe is going to do his best with what he has. I was guessing a 500 pound payload, that would be the absolute top end. Halve that to increase range or speed. Then let's make it an EFP. One hit isn't crippling. Two or more are problematic if they happen roughly simultaneously, at locations at least half a ship length apart and near the waterline. Reason for that is, you've just engaged Repair 2 (fwd), Repair 3 (aft), and Repair 1 (topside) with separate problems. None of them is available to support the others. Also, depending on the location and penetration of the hits, you might also tie up Repair 5 (main prop) as well.

This is regarding attacks on the escorts, btw. The idea being to force a withdrawal or to get them tied up with self defense so that the main swarm has a shot at the carrier. Figure you have 200 speedboats. Dedicate 10% to each escort, the remainder go after the carrier. Remember, 1 hit on the carrier becomes a huge propaganda victory. Once that happens, you have a huge problem because now every jihadi in the world will be trying. Nuisance value has a quality all of its own.
>>
>>28595055
>Tupolev spots CSG, Tupolev broadcasts location, Akula fires Granats, Granats get to target on INS alone
There are several problems with this. First, the Bear not being shot down by carrier aircraft several hundred nmi away from the CSG. Second, actually finding said CSG. Third, the CSG not steaming in another direction after they detect incoming vampires.

>you have to spot and kill something like six to eight missiles flying on deck BEFORE they cross the horizon
Which is the beauty of AEW aircraft, anon. Your radar horizon isn't 25 nmi out anymore. It's several hundred nmi, even assuming the AEW aircraft is literally right over the CSG.
>>
>>28595018
True, but my point stands. I know we were talking about carriers here, but if you mission kill its Burke escorts, will the carrier be going anywhere without them?
>>
>>28595078
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ivy_Bells

Damn straight, anon. I referred only to surface ships - and even then, it's only regaining capability that was allowed to briefly lapse after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Our submarine forces have never, ever been neglected - not only are we cranking out Virginias right now, but we're already working on designing the successor class to the damn things!

It's odd how little people talk about US SSNs and how goddamned good they are in these threads - the fact that one escorts every CSG, alone, is a pretty strong answer to the "ninja diesel boat" fear.
>>
>>28595055
>for a 500 kt warhead? good enough is what, 2-4 km radius?
Much, much closer than that for an airburst, anon. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Crossroads#Test_Able
>Gilda detonated 520 feet (158 m) above the target fleet, with a yield of 23 kilotons. Five ships were sunk.
>The main cause of less-than-expected ship damage was that the bomb missed its aim point by 710 yards (649 m).[59] The ship the bomb was aimed at failed to sink.
>The battleship USS Nevada had been designated as the aim point for Able and was painted red, with white gun barrels and gunwales, to make her stand out in the central cluster of target ships. There were eight ships within 400 yards (366 m) of it. Had the bomb exploded over the Nevada as planned, at least nine ships, including two battleships and an aircraft carrier, would likely have sunk.

TLDR: the bomb missed by only 710 yards and failed to do even very significant damage to it. Radiated the fuck out of it, and would most likely have given radiation sickness to the whole crew and killed many outright, but did not sink it.

You want to sink ships with a nuke, underwater detonation is really the only way to be sure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Crossroads#Test_Baker
>>
>>28594961
> tit for tat
second strike with whatever you have left after a massive initial counterforce hit by your enemy, is more like it
>>
>>28595053
>2. Whatever man, you get my point. There is a whole lot of vulnerable, expensive shit in Norfolk. By the way name a US naval base, anywhere in the world - they are all shooting galleries for trained naval commandos.

What >>28595117 said. The C-RAM is a CIWS gun put on a trailer with specialized software for shooting down incoming artillery/mortar rounds. The Navy just announced a plan to put the RAM missiles (from the RAM/SeaRAM) system onto a similar installation for the same reason - same point defense, much longer range.

I did not, however, realize that the military was setting up C-RAMs around domestic military bases. That is... quite interesting, anon, thank you for that heads up.
>>
>>28595154
>It's odd how little people talk about US SSNs and how goddamned good they are in these threads - the fact that one escorts every CSG, alone, is a pretty strong answer to the "ninja diesel boat" fear.
There's not much to say. Not much is publicly known about SSNs other than they're fucking awesome. Some of us know quite a bit more than that, but comparatively speaking to their actual use, not really that much. SSN operations are probably the most difficult for those not involved to really understand them, in part due to how foreign it is, but partially because so much of that information is classified.
>>
>>28595156
that was "only" 23 kilotons
namely 10 times LESS than the warhead on a Granat
>>
>>28595055
>Tupolev spots CSG
At which point it is already 200nmi inside the F-35's combat air patrol radius, and 300nmi inside the kill radius for the AIM-120D, and has been on scope for the E-2D AWACS bird for over 200nmi, if not more. Good luck with that.

>Granats get to target on INS alone
EW alone would make it nearly impossible to get a 1km CEP out of that, not to mention they'd be in range and under fire of SM-6, SM-2ER, ESSM and then Sea-RAM for 200+mi, adding missiles as the range decreases. It takes quite a few to saturate that volume of fire.

>you have to spot and kill something like six to eight missiles flying on deck BEFORE they cross the horizon
That's what AWACS is specifically designed for, and the USN has done multiple successful intercept tests proving it works, even through ground clutter ashore.
>>
>>28595055
>you have to spot and kill something like six to eight missiles flying on deck BEFORE they cross the horizon

As the other guy said, that's why we have the E-2 Hawkeye carrier-launched airborne AWACS plane. However that's not enough - you can vector fighters to intercept with air-to-air missiles, but what if you have a fuckton coming in fast? Worse, what if they're supersonic rape machines like the BrahMos?

That's exactly why the SM-6 was built - it's basically an extended-range SM-2 but with the active-radar terminal seeker of the AMRAAM on the end, so it can hunt down and kill shit even if the launching ship's illumination radars are below the horizon. This lets the battle group's missile defenses kill sea-skimmers hundreds of miles away.

Your points are valid, which is why the Navy has paid attention to them.
>>
>>28595090
Don't forget that you need reactor power to run the cats, and if you're mobility killed from a keel detonation, you can bet that at least one of the reactors is in SCRAM lockdown and will be for at least a while.
>>
File: 1452825721810.jpg (19 KB, 319x320) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1452825721810.jpg
19 KB, 319x320
>too valuable to put into combat


It doesnt even have to go into combat , a single US Carrier with its air wing can effectively sink a whole enemy fleet with minimal losses + youd have to be stupid and have the balls of steel to attack a floating city with 5000 US servicemen.
>>
>>28595186
>There's not much to say. Not much is publicly known about SSNs other than they're fucking awesome. Some of us know quite a bit more than that, but comparatively speaking to their actual use, not really that much. SSN operations are probably the most difficult for those not involved to really understand them, in part due to how foreign it is, but partially because so much of that information is classified.

True, that. Even I had a hard time really understanding modern submarine operations until I got some good simulators and did a lot of reading (and the best sims are built by the people who are the best at making educated guesstimates from what is publicly available info.) In many ways surface vs. sub is similar to how it was in WWII; just with a few new toys, but sub versus sub? That's some crazy shit mang.
>>
>>28595165
Who in the world can execute a "massive initial counterforce hit" with nukes against the continental US and still have enough nukes left over for major harbors and dry docks, considering the drop in effectiveness of airburst against naval hulls? I'm not even sure Russia does anymore.

More importantly, who can do this and not shift US response from NUTS protocol to MAD protocol? No one. That's sheer insanity, and never an actual wartime option.
>>
>>28595237

Dear anon: you took the bait. I forgive you, I almost took the bait myself. A lot of people seem to honestly not understand that carriers were vulnerable from the day they were first conceived of, were vulnerable in WWII, are still vulnerable, and that their value lies entirely in the massive range of their power projection - which is designed to keep them from harm entirely. People also seem to not realize that most ships in the modern US Navy fall into one of three categories:

1. Carriers..
2. Ships that protect carriers.

The entire force is built around compensating for the vulnerability of carriers, and yet people still say "carriers are vulnerable." Well... no shit, you know?
>>
>>28595190
Doesn't mean that the blast/fireball radius is 10 times larger
>>
>>28595190
You still have a very steep inverse square energy output to shockwave damage curve to overcome with an airburst against ships, anon. You'd still need a minimum CEP of under 1km, and even then the ships would probably remain afloat. Underwater detonation is orders of magnitude more damaging and energy efficient for sinking ships. With the same exact CEP, you can be absolutely sure of outright sinking every ship in the CSG or rendering every single one completely incapable of being recovered due to radioactive steam/water/particle contamination.
>>
File: fingergun.png (264 KB, 510x486) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
fingergun.png
264 KB, 510x486
This fucking thread:

>Starts with obvious troll post.
>Fills with people who don't know what they're fucking talking about making valid points because they actually used their fucking heads and thought about what knowledge they do have.
>Answered by people who DO know their shit, listing the solutions the Navy has developed to the real problems the first anons identified.
>nobody gets assblasted
>nobody fiddycents

Today OP was a faggot, but /k/ sure as hell wasn't.
>>
>>28595288
Exactly. Inverse square law - it's only 3.2 as large, with atmospheric effects reducing the shockwave damage radius even further.
>>
File: 1407893012192.jpg (26 KB, 206x194) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1407893012192.jpg
26 KB, 206x194
>>28595301
This is me tipping my fedora, anon.
>>
>>28595310
Plus being against hardened targets, compared to residential structures on land, with almost no residual contamination due to wind/heat convection borne dust.
>>
>>28593072
It's hit or miss. They have some amazing interviews with pilots and so on about stuff they flew, but they also parrot hatchet pieces. It's the usual Gawker Network editorial nonexistance issue.
>>
>>28595339
Nothing beats sensationalism for selling ad space in the media except more over the top sensationalism, and there's even less integrity and responsibility in the age of internet blog journalism.
>>
>>28595339

Ah, thanks for that.

I didn't expect another reply.
>>
>>28594735
>53-65K
>just a standard torpedo

Anon, in the 70s we were operating a fuck-ton of WWII vintage carriers which only carried Skyhawks and SB-2s (fixed-wing ASW planes) and anti-submarine choppers. We literally had entire fleets of ships just for ASW patrols, specifically to pin down all those fucking Russian SSNs.

>supercavitating torpedo

I'm not so sure about those. Yeah, the Russkies make a big fucking deal out of them, but the problem is that they can't see out of their own cavitation bubble. The Russkies claim to have invented terminal guidance for them now, but honestly, I'll believe it when I see it.

Sure, they move hideously fucking fast, which makes targeting easier and increases the range - but so do airborne missiles, and airborne missiles most certainly do need terminal guidance to hit, even sea-skimmers that don't use pop-up attacks (such as many big Russian carrier killer missiles.) They're coming in "flat," 2D, so over or under shooting isn't a big deal, but do you think they'd have a significant chance of hitting the target if they came in completely unguided? The guidance issues really limit the effectiveness of supercavitating torpedoes.

The other issue is that their very nature makes them easier to intercept or destroy. Anti-torpedo torpedoes are fucking insane sci-fi shit that we're only just fielding because of the inherent fire-control issues in the problem. But there's other methods. The Russians were fielding a system that'd launch a three-layered barrier towards incoming torpedoes for years - the first layer is a shitload of bubble decoys to blind, and the second layer were basically neutral-boyancy depth charges that'd detonate in an effort to destroy, damage or decoy the incoming torpedo. Didn't work very well - torpedoes are pretty hard to kill with anything but a direct hit or very near miss, similar to depth-charges against subs - but it was something. But knocking in the gas bubble around a supercavitating sanic torp..?
>>
File: tips fedora.jpg (34 KB, 688x512) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
tips fedora.jpg
34 KB, 688x512
>>28595317

This is the board that spawned the F-35 bingo sheet I have filled out multiple times. I'll take what I can fucking get.
>>
File: No fedora to tip.jpg (105 KB, 432x597) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
No fedora to tip.jpg
105 KB, 432x597
>>28595369
For meta humor irony like the bingo card to work, at least a couple people on /k/ have to know what's actually going on. /k/, for all it's faults, actually does have a core handful of people with a clue. Shocking, I know.
>>
>>28595117
>>28595117
I don't think so anon. Base security is like the TSA - it's simply impossible to defend against a smart, determined attacker.

Naval based are not isolated, secure environments. There are people and cargo constantly going in and out, dependents living nearby, too many people to keep track of. Too many ways for a saboteur to slip through.

Say we install billion dollar magic railgun laser defense systems in all bases that can stop any conceivable missile attack. OK, now foreign commandos bomb the base elementary school. How many sailors abandon their post to check on their families? Or they suicide truck bomb the main gate during rush hour. Etc etc etc.

All to cause enough chaos and confusion to slip in whatever they need to pump a Burke's radar full of .50, or poison the water well, or set the jet fuel stockpile on fire, or poison the food in the mess hall or you get the idea.

You don't even have to touch a carrier to mission kill it. Get creative about the logistics it relies on. Because it's the hieght if idiocy to challenge a CSG on it's own terms. I garuntee our enemies are thinking about this stuff.
>>
>>28595357
IIRC, supercavitating torps were developed more as a retaliation weapon than as an offensive asset. If the Russian sub was getting pinged by something they'd shoot the torpedo at the source and hope the target wasn't fast enough to get out of the way.
>>
>>28591387
Are you Sparky's brother who was in the Navy?
>>
>>28595357
Don't bother, anon. He doesn't even understand how impossible it is to actually guide a supercavitating torpedo.

>Anon, in the 70s we were operating a fuck-ton of WWII vintage carriers which only carried Skyhawks and SB-2s (fixed-wing ASW planes) and anti-submarine choppers. We literally had entire fleets of ships just for ASW patrols, specifically to pin down all those fucking Russian SSNs.
Daily reminder that Russia actually operates less than a tenth the number of submarines they did at their height in the early 80's, and the USN has enough attack boats plus force multipliers like the G-I-UK gap SOSUS systems to track almost every single one every time they leave the barn.
>>
>>28590403
>Picture of a damaged Carrier.
>From a conflict where carriers were by far the most important vessels available to a navy and where carriers were constantly the difference between victory and defeat.
>T-THEYRE USELESS.
>>
>>28592465
The weakness of a CSG is the carrier's dependence on other ships for significant parts of its defense, and the distributed nature of its defensive systems. This means the CSG must wage a "war of pickets". It must be strong enough to resist attack everywhere, while the attacker only needs to be strong enough to overwhelm the CSG's defenses at a point of its choosing. This situation favors the attacker.

An asymmetrical engagement wipes out most or all of the attacker's advantage. However, there are two recent findings by the USN that offer hope to would-be opponents of a CSG.

One is the discovery in recent years that a well-built diesel-electric submarine can be very difficult for modern ASW to detect. The USN is undoubtedly working to close this gap, but if an opponent is able to maintain technological superiority in this one area even at the expense of all others, they should seriously consider doing so.

The other is the recent finding by the USN that swarms of cheap drones can overwhelm a destroyer's defensive systems. The USN is already acting on plans to turn this finding on its head, and prototype their own swarms for this purpose. They're also almost certainly upping their defensive game to close this gap as well.

I think China's force projection into the South China Sea makes for a good hypothetical scenario: Say China starts perpetrating shenanigans in the region, and the US wants to send a CSG in there to slow their roll. If China were to sortie several D-E attack subs, and launch several flights of drone swarms from one of those fancy new islands they've built out that way, the results could be very interesting and awkward for the CSG. Especially if China lobs salvoes of ASBMs from the mainland as well.
>>
>>28595408
Organized and sustained asymmetric attacks really only work if the population, or at least a large sect of it, actively support it. Even major terrorist attacks in developed nations have often been carried out because said nations have a large and militant muslim minority that can count on for support.

Really, I think the biggest risk the US faces is more from rogue domestic militias than actual foreign combatants.
>>
>>28595301
I'm proud of everyone here. Today was a good day.
>>
>>28595408
>All to cause enough chaos and confusion to slip in whatever they need to pump a Burke's radar full of .50, or poison the water well, or set the jet fuel stockpile on fire, or poison the food in the mess hall or you get the idea.
Yeah, this could happen. However, this is a small potatoes attack considering the scale of the response it would receive.

>destroy two faces of an AN/SPY-1D on a Burke with a sneak attack in port
>receive a country-leveling air campaign against your home country, your neighbor countries and every country you operate out of
>followed up with a ground invasion and occupation

Honestly, I think the US response to 9/11 caused a lot of the state-employed and connected terror sponsors to take a step back and think hard about facilitating major attacks against the US. Clearly it's still a threat and clearly idiots will still attempt/succeed in it, but they definitely sit back and weigh the risks now. They know we will come and flatten EVERYTHING they love. They know the target better damn well be worth it.

The kind of penny-ante bullshit you're describing (yes, it would suck, and yes, it'd be terrible for the families of the slain sailors, but it's still small potatoes on a Pearl Harbor or 9/11 scale while still provoking a similar response) is just tactically and strategically stupid.
>>
>>28595441
On the flip side, if the balloon goes up, probably the first thing the US will do is interdict the motherfucking shit out of those islands which might threaten the passage of a CSG. Rubble don't make trouble, after all.

D-E subs would be a little harder to deal with, but in a shooting war it might be worth the risk.

Keep in mind that Japan is also effectively a giant fucking aircraft carrier already, and they've invested heavily in ASW "escorts".
>>
>>28595441
While area denial is nice and all, it still all boils down to actually FINDING the carriers, like this article that was linked before talks about.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-031.htm

The USN has consistently demonstrated it has had the ability to park carriers in visual range of hostile shores without the opponents even realizing it. It's not just about technology, but also having the doctrine and strategies to use it effectively. Those drone swarms and subs won't do much good if they get drawn away to the wrong part of the ocean by a well placed decoy E-2.
>>
>>28595441
Don't forget the range/speed disadvantages for DE boats as range increases. Every bit of standoff for a CSG is radius squared for DE boats to search, picket and get into position.

Also,
>If China were to sortie several D-E attack subs, and launch several flights of drone swarms from one of those fancy new islands they've built out that way, the results could be very interesting and awkward for the CSG.
China's DE subs are little more than obsolete Kilos and Mings, and their training, boat design and sensors are abysmal. As far as China has come with designing and building surface combatants, they're still decades and generations behind the US in sub ops training, tradition and equipment. Of all the things in the threat environment mix with the PLAN, the subs both nuke and DE/AIP are the very last of my worries.
>>
>>28595428
>Daily reminder that Russia actually operates less than a tenth the number of submarines they did at their height in the early 80's, and the USN has enough attack boats plus force multipliers like the G-I-UK gap SOSUS systems to track almost every single one every time they leave the barn.

Ayep. Fuck, we were tracking every single one of them back in the Cold War, too! The vast drawdown of their boat numbers is why we no longer have all those carrier fleets, natch. But with P-8s stationed around the world, we probably don't need them.
>>
>>28595513
Not to mention that the biggest thing people forget about A2/AD or area denial strategies is that they're DEFENSIVE. They force the country to constantly defend and deny, rather than be aggressive, choose their time and place and attack to roll back enemy capabilities. Carrier standoff capability means they can avoid the counter strikes or severely degrade their capabilities while constantly choosing the time and place to roll back their defenses, capabilities and ability to resist.

At best, they are delaying tactics. Defense doesn't win wars. The USN didn't win in the Pacific through defense; Midway was a success not because the US was defending Midway but because code breaking and intel allowed the USN to dictate the nature, time and place of the engagement and attack the IJNs most important assets and put them on the bottom.
>>
>>28594718
>inside a small room
>clearly says set up on the roof
>>
>>28594238
This plan totally works, as long as you're operating close to your own shores, under the air cover of your land-based air force.

The USN actually uses exactly the same plan, with one major modification. USN research has shown that a missile boat operating far from shore must also act as an escort for its air cover. And the best kind of missile boat for this purpose is multi-purpose ship that is capable of fulfilling the ASW, air defense, and surface combat roles simultaneously.

Look at the weapons loadout on a Burke some time. It's basically a next-gen OSA, a Perry-class ASW frigate, and God's own air defense system all at the same time. Which is exactly what you need when Eagleland is half a world away and your only air cover is whatever is on that fleet carrier you brought with you.
>>
>>28590325

Any "X are obsolete" thread that doesn't begin by suggesting a superior alternative should be auto-deleted.
>>
>>28594374
>At the low end of the spectrum, a swarm of suicide boats could be problematic. Start by swarming the escorts, one at a time. Figure each boat has 500 pounds of explosive, small arms, a couple of RPGs and some Strelas or comparable. Crew of 6 or thereabout. Swarm a Burke or Tico with 30 of them, from all points of the compass. Once 2 hits are achieved, the survivors withdraw.

Not that I don't think it would work, anon, but how exactly do you envision surrounding a Burke with small craft undetected? Wouldn't it have to be really close inshore for you to do this? And wouldn't its ass be covered by other CSG assets to prevent exactly that possibility?
>>
>>28595651
Not to mention the fact that two hits from what amounts to small arms on a naval scale would not even mission kill a Burke. If the Stark could survive two exocets and not lose combat capability and Sammy B Roberts could eat a large mine directly under the keel, breaking her back, and still stay combat capable, two RPG equivalent hits on a ship twice the size is not going to do the trick, even if both shots are extremely lucky.
>>
>>28595310
3 times as large is 2.1 km, and that's your acceptable CEP
>>
File: lrasm_on_deck.jpg (3 MB, 2700x1800) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
lrasm_on_deck.jpg
3 MB, 2700x1800
>>28594573
>Missiles cannot really jink to dodge incoming fire (with the notable exception of the terminal maneuver most missiles use to dodge the last-ditch point-defense fire,) they cannot react to "pop-up" threats (i.e. a new ship revealing itself between the missile and intended target when it turns its radar on to start engaging the missiles,) and in general they're just... dumb.

Hi there.
>>
>>28595692
Except it failed to sink or even arguably mission kill the Nevada at that range, so you'd need to be much closer. Look at the damage reports from the Able shot.
>>
>>28595695

Exactly. That's the new generation of missile coming to the fore, to solve that exact problem.
>>
>>28595428
> how impossible it is to actually guide a supercavitating torpedo
how impossible is it, really? why bother making a torpedo head which can steer it, if you can't guide it?
>>
>>28595651
This is also assuming that the target ships are stationary, as well. A carrier group is ALWAYS mobile, and can go up to 30 knots. Regular civilian boats are considered "fast" if they can go past 20.

And those speedboats that go sanic fast? They're purpose built and not designed to carry heavy loads, are expensive as hell, and generally are very rare and you typically won't see bumfuck jihadis putting around in them.
>>
>>28594801
For what purpose, though?

The carrier in its home port isn't the one you have to worry about, it's the CSG that's already in theater, ruining your shit six ways from Sunday, that is your main problem.
>>
>>28595704
They were meant to be nuke delivery vehicles, which means "general vicinity is good enough". This means that to use them, you've first escalated the conflict to nuclear exchange. Secondly, they're super loud, so any ASW assets in the zip code can drop ASROC or even nuke depth charges on the sub's head for an almost assured kill. Thirdly, the range at which it would have to fire these torps ENSURE that the CSG would have ample time to maneuver and possibly avoid the kill radius. You can't launch a spread of these things, as fratricide ensures that only one, or if you're super lucky two, actually detonate before being destroyed by the shockwaves of the other torp in the spread.
>>
>>28595701
the Nevada was a BB with many inches of armor
a carrier has its thin deck full of thin-skinned planes
they would not fare so well
>>
>>28595725
This. Anyone who's actually been at sea, chime in and remind these anons just how incredibly unpleasant and damn near impossible it is to do 20knots in a 20ft speed boat in even relatively moderate sea state 3.
>>
>>28595753
you did not answer. why does the shkval have steering, UNLESS it has guidance?
>>
>>28590325
When it becomes a hotel
>>
>>28595480
Very good points.

However, I'm not describing a terror attack. I'm talking about a tactical strike in service of a greater war.

Say for example, China one day decides to conquer Taiwan after all. Part of their strategy involves taking the American Pacific fleet out of action for a week or two. They disable our fleet with naval commandos (they don't even have to kill a single sailor - carriers aren't going anywhere if Burke escorts don't have radar) and by the time we've gotten our shit together and ready to strike back, we're left with no options.

1. Do we try to remove Chinese troops from Taiwan? Full scale megacity skyscraper urban warfare in AA/A2 environment. Holy fuck.

2. Declare total war against China. Another holy fuck

3. Just eat it. Egg on our national face. But apocalypse averted, for today.

Our entire foreign policy is based around CSG force projection and pixie dust. They are the keystone of the current world order. They are vulnerable, and so is America.
>>
>>28595704
The Shikval has INS, so as long as it is given a general area to detonate in, it will try to guide itself there. While good enough for its original role as a nuclear torpedo, this is less than useless in terms of hitting actual moving targets. The reason for this is because in order to go fast, the Shikval needs to supercavitate, which means basically forming a giant air bubble around itself. However, this air bubble, as well as the high speed water getting kicked up around it, make it impossible for any current terminal homing system to see outside of it. Russia claims that they have one for the Shikval now, but it's really most likely them posturing.
>>
>>28595758
>thin deck
>mah armor

Anon, read the Able damage report. Just read it. Unarmored ships, even relative near the blast, were not sunk and even sustained minor damage. Also, a carrier deck is anything but thin against something like a shockwave. Against a penetrating HE bomb? Trouble. Shockwave? Totally different bag of cats.

>>28595779
Programmable dog-leg and course changes. All torps can be programmed with guidance and run out waypoints. Normal torps like the Mk-48ADCAP have silent-run long range propulsion modes that allow the launching sub to disguise it's firing point datum by "dog legging" the torp in from a different heading before it goes active at full spead. They can also be wire guided.

Shkvals are too loud for a deceptive run out but can still be maneuver programmed to accommodate for different tactics (dog leg into a harbor, for instance). Unfortunately, no sub would be able to wire guide a Shkval because they're so loud they'd immediately have to cut the wire and maneuver to avoid ASW munitions.
>>
>>28595165
>second strike with whatever you have left after a massive initial counterforce hit by your enemy, is more like it

You're thinking of MAD. We're talking about NUTS.

>You are now aware that Nuclear Utilization Target Selection is a thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_utilization_target_selection
>>
>>28595779
It has basic INS guidance. You program a predetermined point into the torpedo and it does its best to reach that point, similar to how a Tomahawk works.
>>
>>28595824
it's gonna blow thee fucking planes right off regardless, anon...
>>
>>28595795
A Chinese attack on American assets basically guarantees war. It will definitely be option 2. Remember the last time an overconfident Asian power tried to disable the American Pacific Fleet?
>>
>>28595851
NUTS is wishful thinking
the more powerful the US becomes the less likely anything BUT a devastating first strike becomes as a war-winning strategy against the US
>>
>>28595204
>At which point it is already 200nmi inside the F-35's combat air patrol radius, and 300nmi inside the kill radius for the AIM-120D, and has been on scope for the E-2D AWACS bird for over 200nmi, if not more. Good luck with that.

Plus the Burkes and Ticos escorting the carrier.
>>
>>28595795
>Say for example, China one day decides to conquer Taiwan after all. Part of their strategy involves taking the American Pacific fleet out of action for a week or two. They disable our fleet with naval commandos (they don't even have to kill a single sailor - carriers aren't going anywhere if Burke escorts don't have radar) and by the time we've gotten our shit together and ready to strike back, we're left with no options.
This whole scenario is basically a rehash of Japanese/IJN reasoning before the Pearl Harbor attacks. Maybe the Chinese should ask them how their "negotiated peace" and "American acceptance of losses" worked after Pearl Harbor.

I don't think anyone in Chinese planning is dumb enough to make the same mistake twice.

>3. Just eat it. Egg on our national face. But apocalypse averted, for today.
See, that's the thing. Even if China sinks HALF the entire USN, the USN is still 1.5 times it's size plus help from Japan, Korea, Australia and pretty much every other country in SEA/SCS. That's just displacement tonnage, though. USN SSN gear and training alone makes this an incredibly one sided fight. All the USN would have to do is sink every single freighter bound for China while sinking their navy piece by piece, rolling back their land based IADS little by little and then striking high value targets inland. All while China is effectively unable to strike back against the mainland US or even really overcome the USAF/USN/USMC defenses on the vast number of Pacific air bases and ports. Sure, the US would lose some, but not anywhere close to half or even 1/4.

Meanwhile, the coalition could completely ignore all but the most obvious PLA force concentrations on Taiwan and just pick away at and strike the Chinese mainland from standoff range.

The scenario you describe is indeed HOLY FUCK, but I see almost no endgame where it's not HORRY FUCK from a Chinese perspective.
>>
>>28595795
>Our entire foreign policy is based around CSG force projection and pixie dust. They are the keystone of the current world order. They are vulnerable, and so is America.

You do realize that this is why we don't keep all our carriers in one place, right? At any time, half of them are out at sea, and the other half are in port distributed across different shipyards. And the ones you hit in port are usually in for refits anyways, so the best you do is extend their refit schedule a little longer.

Unless you can decisively destroy the carrier AND the port facilities supporting it, all you're going to do is just piss off the US.
>>
>>28595864
What about the 40+ airframes in the hangar deck? What about the replacement airframes almost immediately delivered? What about the immediate NUTS counterweight strike delivered by the USAF?
>>
>>28595894
Name a single country other than Russia which could execute such a strike. The best China can do is hit a double handful of targets on the west coast. The only way they actually hit nuke launch assets is if they get lucky and catch an Ohio in port. After which the US counterstrike levels every even remotely strategically interesting target in mainland China.
>>
>>28595265
> who
Russia and only Russia, these days
> MAD
doesn't really work if your missile fields are actually crater fields now, Barksdale is glowing softly and the surface fleet is gone
you only have the subs, and those are only sufficient for countervalue now
>>
>>28595901
Unfortunately, the SM-6 doesn't yet have the legs to engage a Bear at 400nmi. That's the job of the CAP.
>>
>>28595949
> What about the 40+ airframes in the hangar deck?
good luck operating the elevators
good luck operating anything with 1/3 of your deck operations qualified people gone and the other 2/3rds in the initial stages of radiation sickness
> What about the replacement airframes almost immediately delivered?
delivered from where, lol
> counterweight
to win against the US you have to strike first and strike hard enough to ablate the USian counterforce strike capability. NUTS is wishful thinking
>>
>>28596005
>doesn't really work if your missile fields are actually crater fields now, Barksdale is glowing softly and the surface fleet is gone
>you only have the subs, and those are only sufficient for countervalue now

What is early detection? The US maintains a satellite network specifically to warn of ICBM launches so they have enough time to launch their own, ESPECIALLY if their own nuclear assets are being targeted. That's basically the tenets of MAD.
>>
>>28595997
there is none, of course
>>
>>28596036

>to win against the US you have to strike first and strike hard enough to ablate the USian counterforce strike capability.

And again, how many nations do you think could actually DO that? Only Russia. And even then it is sort of iffy.
>>
>>28596005
>doesn't really work if your missile fields are actually crater fields now, Barksdale is glowing softly and the surface fleet is gone
you only have the subs, and those are only sufficient for countervalue now
You're implying the US doesn't launch the second the Russian launch detection systems light up. The kind of strike you describe is a use it or lose it situation for the US, which is immediate and comprehensive launch territory. Would Russian warheads hit US launch facilities and command? Yup. Would there be anything left inside those silos when they did? Nope.

And then the USN STILL has all the SSBNs left, while hunting down and destroying every single Russian SSBN they can find. There's no way this doesn't end badly for everyone, but much much worse for Russia.
>>
>>28596046
there are ways to keep the silos from even launching anything, most notably SLBM barrages, which is why actually having a defensive fleet is all-important
>>
>>28596036
You still haven't addressed how a Bear is going to live long enough and get close enough to actually get a target track on a CSG.

>good luck operating the elevators
>good luck operating anything with 1/3 of your deck operations qualified people gone and the other 2/3rds in the initial stages of radiation sickness
You are now aware that deck elevators are some of the most robust systems on the entire carrier. It would take a nearly direct hit to put all three out of commission. You are also now aware that you have no clue how radiation sickness works.

>delivered from where, lol
Within 24 hours, they'd have replacement squadrons from any NAS within 2,000 miles if still capable of flight ops. Within 72 hours there'd be a second carrier on station. Within 7 days, there'd be a third nearby as the first carrier retired for repair and decontamination. Congrats. You've damaged one carrier. We've got 9 more plus another 9 gator flat tops, and at least 5 of those carriers will be surged and up your asshole with a blow torch within two weeks. The SSN/SSGN fleet has executed unrestricted merchant and military asset erasure on all your assets plus launching saturation cruise missile attacks at your high value targets and NUTS weighted counter strike nukes have been launched from Ohios with depressed trajectory and almost no warning.

Have fun with all that.

>to win against the US you have to strike first and strike hard enough to ablate the USian counterforce strike capability. NUTS is wishful thinking
The only country in the world that can do this is Russia, and exactly no one in the world can do this without the US detecting and counterlaunching. Good luck.
>>
>>28596127
Except that was never really a serious issue thanks to Russia's bastion strategy, which basically kept all their nuke subs close to their own shores anyways. The US actually has a much better capability to first strike Russian assets in this field.
>>
>>28596061
yes, and the iffier it gets, the itchier the Russian trigger-finger becomes
>>
>>28596127
The Russian SSBNs can never even leave their bastions anymore, they cannot achieve the range for a depressed trajectory launch, and their launches are just as visible as land launches no matter where they launch. Why are you so lazily ill informed?
>>
>>28596147
except they're perfectly able to hit North Dakota from Kara sea
>>
>>28596169

>the itchier the Russian trigger-finger becomes

Not really.
>>
>>28596171
> can never even leave their bastions anymore
and now we have come full circle
for the war to be won, the CSGs simply MUST be nuked
>>
>>28595886
How exactly do you think USA could possibly conquer China? Are you imagining the USMC rolling tanks into Beijing? No.

Full scale nuclear war is the only way. Maybe our politicos are dumb enough to start that kind of shit, but good lord I hope not. The only rational thing to do is back down, let China turn Taiwan into history's biggest clusterfuck, and pray to God that shit isn't the harbinger of WW3
>>
>>28596227
yes really. use it or lose it...
>>
>>28596230
Anon, that has nothing to do with CSGs and everything to do with the huge lead in hulls and technology the USN holds in SSN/SSGN ops.
>>
>>28596238
>How exactly do you think USA could possibly conquer China?
Why would they even try? It's a fools errand. If you want to stop China from fucking with Taiwan, all you have to do is destroy all their shipping, roll back their IADS and then level every strategic target and production facility you can reach until the CCP cries uncle or the starving populace revolts.
>>
>>28595435
This

If you're saying they're no longer relevant in warfare... You're still wrong, but at least you have an argument
>>
>>28596247
wrong. take the CSGs out of the picture, even temporarily, and the Russian surface fleet is suddenly sufficient to hunt those wonderful Seawolves down
>>
>>28596203
But they can't do it undetected or at close range like anon says. They're basically just underwater ICBM silos at that point.
>>
>>28596242

>use it or lose it

NUTS is totally based around avoiding such a scenario where the other side feels like launching everything is their only option.
>>
>>28596238
Who said you had to ruin a nation by invading it? We brought Japan to heel while barely even stepping foot on the Home Islands.
>>
>>28596288
but such a feeling of inadequacy is inevitable! already the US is just as powerful militarily as the rest of the world taken together! NUTS is wishful thinking!
> m-maybe if we nuke them just a little, just to show we're serious...
>>
>>28596280
So, how exactly are you going to take these CSGs out when you don't even know where they are? And what's going to stop the US from nuking Russia's fleet in response?
>>
>>28596280
Holy kek. First, you think the Russian Navy has the ability, even with nukes, to take down 6 CSGs almost simultaneously, next you actually believe that the outdated and almost completely Soviet-designed surface fleet can "hunt down" the 688Is, much less the Seawolf and Virginia class boats. Would the USN lose a few boats? Absolutely. Would it stop the USN from destroying every major Russian port and shipyard with cruise missiles, putting 4 out of every 5 SSBNs on the bottom, almost completely destroying the entire Russian SSN fleet and putting 2 out of every 3 sortieing surface ship on the bottom? Nope. There's not a fucking thing in all of Russia which would stop this, especially after they try to nuke 6-10 carriers.
>>
>>28596280
>Russian surface fleet is suddenly sufficient to hunt those wonderful Seawolves down

>Implying Russia ever had the capability of hunting down the US' top of the line subs.

The USN was penetrating Soviet "bastions" at the height of the Cold War, and you're saying the neutered Russian Navy can do better?
>>
>>28595795
>Say for example, China one day decides to conquer Taiwan after all. Part of their strategy involves taking the American Pacific fleet out of action for a week or two. They disable our fleet with naval commandos (they don't even have to kill a single sailor - carriers aren't going anywhere if Burke escorts don't have radar) and by the time we've gotten our shit together and ready to strike back, we're left with no options.

All of my what.

Anon, the CSGs are *already at sea*. All the time. The ones in port are their reserves. At best your naval commandos will have created a situation several weeks from now, where US naval power is somewhat degraded. In reality, the US would probably shift CSGs from other regions to cover the gap.

>1. Do we try to remove Chinese troops from Taiwan? Full scale megacity skyscraper urban warfare in AA/A2 environment. Holy fuck.

Why? If the US and Japan can cut off resupply, the occupying forces will have to surrender in a few weeks regardless.

>2. Declare total war against China. Another holy fuck.

Which is what would happen. Which is why China won't start shit.

>3. Just eat it. Egg on our national face. But apocalypse averted, for today.

I'm not gonna lie. With the right President in power, this could actually happen. Maybe someday we'll see if China feels lucky.

>Our entire foreign policy is based around CSG force projection and pixie dust. They are the keystone of the current world order. They are vulnerable, and so is America.

CSGs on deployment may be vulnerable, but not to your fantasy ninja commandos in their home port.
>>
File: rorsat.jpg (30 KB, 539x413) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
rorsat.jpg
30 KB, 539x413
>>28596311
> when you don't even know where they are
look to my coming at first light on the fifth day. at dawn, look to the East
>>
>>28596306
The problem which you completely ignore is that not even Russia has enough nukes to completely destroy or even render the US industry incapable of outproducing it.

And the US has better nukes with much, much smaller CEPs. There's literally no nuclear exchange with the US for any country or even group of countries in the world that turns out well for the side first launching. There's absolutely no reason so suggest they wouldn't take it just as hard if not hard than they give it.
>>
>>28596349
>I'm not gonna lie. With the right President in power, this could actually happen. Maybe someday we'll see if China feels lucky.

Good thing it's Congress that declares war. If a President pussied out in a situation like that he'd get fucking impeached.
>>
>>28596354
Russia has exactly two (reduced capability compared to the late 80's sats they launched) RORSATs aloft, and neither of them are the planned Naval version, which has been delayed over 18 months and counting. Do you have any clue how many RORSATs are required to keep a constant track of just ONE CSG while dealing with orbital LOS windows?
>>
>>28596354
>Implying the USN doesn't calculate movements specifically to avoid being seen on satellite.

Anon, satellites have been a major concern since the '50s and even then, CSGs can just move to a different direction so by the time that data is relayed to the proper parties that can actually act on the intel.

Satellites and ICBMs are only good at spying on STATIONARY targets. Guess what CSGs can do? MANEUVER. This is precisely what makes them so damn hard to attack.
>>
>>28596326
> the Russian Navy has the ability, even with nukes, to take down 6 CSGs almost simultaneously
with nukes, yes, easily enough
> hurf durf retaliation
that is to be expected. however, our hypothetical mad-dog Russia only needs about an hour for a devastating first strike, plus the ability to disperse its few remaining SSBNs and bombers to provide credible deterrence against a USian countervalue second strike
>>
>>28596397
> how many RORSATs are required to keep a constant track of X
full time global coverage is not needed in a first strike scenario
>>
>>28595078
not just the USN either
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9602103/HMS-Conquerors-biggest-secret-a-raid-on-Russia.html
>>
File: fa18409.jpg (34 KB, 600x475) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
fa18409.jpg
34 KB, 600x475
>>28594238
>According to the learned naval tacticians here on /k/, we should just build thousands of small missile boats.
This is literally what naval aviation is anon. Uber fast missile boats. They are so fast that can even fly!
>>
>>28596422
>with nukes, yes, easily enough
Anon. Excuse me, I mean, retard. Read the fucking thread. Either address the detailed objections to the fact that Russia would have a hard time getting target track on ONE CSG much less six of them simultaneously or fuck directly off.

>that is to be expected. however, our hypothetical mad-dog Russia only needs about an hour for a devastating first strike, plus the ability to disperse its few remaining SSBNs and bombers to provide credible deterrence against a USian countervalue second strike
How retarded do you have to believe that there is ANY deterrence value in ANY platform in the situation you describe, or to believe there is much of anything left of Russian C4SIR after the American response to the detection of a Russian alpha strike? There is NO way, ZERO chance that Russia lands a full value first strike on US nuclear facilities that does not result in an immediate US counterlaunch while the Russian birds are still incoming.
>>
>>28596422
Again, early detection. How is Russia going to launch without the US knowing and launching in response before those missiles even land? How do you evade the vast American surveillance network PURPOSE MADE to warn us if the Russians are even having a vague thought about launching their missiles?

>>28596444
So, how do you propose that you'll actually GUIDE your ICBMs to the CSG? Which can maneuver? Or you know, use its built in ABM capability?
>>
>>28594277
>Asymmetrical warfare doesn't work at sea
>i don't know Naval warfare history
>>
>>28596444
>full time global coverage is not needed in a first strike scenario
You don't even have a single naval RORSAT aloft. With the two you have jury rigged for the job, the best you can do is get a vague target track on a SINGLE CSG, which would still require further recon to refine. Even if you launched on it and got lucky, those sats get immediately shot down, and good fucking luck hitting the other 5 carriers at sea, much less the rest of the USN, USAF or USMC.
>>
>>28596444
America's navy doesn't sit at the pier 24/7, so yes, it is.
>>
>>28596478
>an air attack from land-based bombers on a battleship and a battlecruiser is somehow relevant to this discussion or an example of asymmetric warfare
>>
>>28596478
>asymmetric warfare
>Posts a prime example of how air power trumps navies with no air defense

Because battleships are so much better than carriers, right?
>>
>>28596466
> address the detailed objections
radar and electro-optical tracking from satellites and naval surveillance aircraft
passive sonar tracking from ships, subs, buoys and hydrophone chains
SIGINT and good old HUMINT
> immediate counterlaunch
a counterforce first strike is the only credible option left for Russia. the effectiveness of this counterlaunch is given by the effectiveness of said first strike
"ideally", only the SSBNs would be left
>>
>>28596298
By fire bombing them to hell and back. Not possible in the modern world. AA is too cheap.
>>
File: Kim-Jong-un-467.jpg (76 KB, 467x310) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Kim-Jong-un-467.jpg
76 KB, 467x310
>>28593914
>NOT TO BE RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION
>>
>>28596488
>>28596518
It is exact case of asymmetrical warfare small but ridiculously fast and heavily armed combat vehicles brought down battleships. It right here before you eyes but you are blind to see it.
>>
>>28596540
>radar and electro-optical tracking from satellites and naval surveillance aircraft
>passive sonar tracking from ships, subs, buoys and hydrophone chains
>SIGINT and good old HUMINT

All of which the US does far better. Do you realize that since the '80s, the USN has been consistently trolling the USSR by parking carriers off their coasts without them realizing it?

>>28596541
Because air dropped munitions haven't evolved since the '40s, right?
>>
>>28596377
> Good thing its Congress that declares war

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!
>>
File: 1436585303129.jpg (1007 KB, 2577x975) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1436585303129.jpg
1007 KB, 2577x975
>>28591416
wow

good idea

thanks anon

you're the smartest

military should listen to u
>>
>>28595894
>NUTS is wishful thinking

Create a thread about that.

I'd love to see Oppenheimer discuss this with you.
>>
>>28596564
Except the effectiveness of air power against ships was well known and already demonstrated. Force Z was originally supposed to have a carrier present to provide them their badly needed air cover, but were forced to go without it after the carrier accidentally grounded itself. Plus, Force Z was never intended to be an actual combat force, but a "fleet in being" to deter Japan from attacking Singapore.

This was less about asymmetric tactics and more about Britain being horribly unprepared for a full scale Japanese offensive.
>>
>>28596477
> early detection
air and sub-launched cruise missiles, SLBMs, good old GRU Spetsnaz
> GUIDE your ICBMs to the CSG
don't be daft. that's Chinese thinking. Russia would do it with stand-off supersonic sea-skimmers with fuckhueg radars that can generate their own tracks
>>
Trolling is a violation of Global rule #6, no matter how effective the troll
>>
>>28596488
Go back to sleep, sweetheart. The grownups are talking now. Everything will be OK in the morning. Here, take your teddy bear, he will protect you from the closet monster
>>
>>28596573
once the political decision is made, all there remains to be done is to wait for a day when all relevant CSGs' positions are known, if even for a few minutes
I hereby posit that it's more like four than six, given that one is in the middle east usually and one keeping an eye on China
>>
>>28596605
So how do you expect to get those airplanes within range of any US asset without being shot down first, and what makes you think a sub launch can't be detected (Because they can)? How are seaskimmers going to change anything when the USN has spent the past 50 years learning how to specifically counter them? GRU Spetsnaz could cause some damage but I doubt it would be serious enough to really factor into a full scale nuclear exchange.
>>
>>28596540
>radar and electro-optical tracking from satellites
You don't have the assets aloft to provide a target refined track for ONE CSG, much less all at sea.

>naval surveillance aircraft
Don't have the sensor range coupled with radar horizon to detect and achieve target track on a CSG without being in range of hard kill CAP weapons for over 300nmi

>passive sonar tracking from ships, subs, buoys and hydrophone chains
You don't have any understanding of how SONAR works. Even from out at the first convergence zone, which is pretty close in the grand scheme of things, you could not refine a target track beyond a 5km radius and a vague idea of course. Only by getting extremely luck are you getting closer with the ridiculously loud Russian boats. And you don't have ANY installed seafloor hydrophone nets installed beyond certain protected bays and harbors plus in the Sea of Okhotsk. None of them or the processing monitoring them were enough to significantly deter the USN in 1990, and they haven't been updated significantly since.

>SIGINT
Because the USN has no clue about LPI comms and EMCOM. Because they haven't been playing and winning this game for 70 years. Riiiiiiight.

>"ideally", only the SSBNs would be left
Why do you keep completely ignoring the fact that the US is more than capable and has stated doctrine which requires immediate and comprehensive launch against Russia before those alpha strike missiles land? Use it or lose it works both ways, dumbass.
>>
>>28596578
I'll probably raise this with OPie if I see him around
>>
>>28596630
>once the political decision is made, all there remains to be done is to wait for a day when all relevant CSGs' positions are known, if even for a few minute

And what day would that be? Russia's long range ELINT and detection capabilities have done done nothing but degrade over the years.
>>
>>28596605
>with fuckhueg radars that can generate their own tracks
Surely you can provide a link to such a thing and some clue how it could possibly bypass the EW systems on Burkes and Ticos which are several orders of magnitude more powerful.
>>
>>28596639

Just start a nuke thread, he'll turn up

Been a bit of a while since we last had one
>>
>>28596630
>I hereby posit that it's more like four than six, given that one is in the middle east usually and one keeping an eye on China
God, I love that slavaboo delusion. He actually thinks the USN keeps FOUR CARRIERS on station to keep an eye on Russia. Holy kek.

News flash, you vodka-addled product of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome: RUSSIA IS ALMOST COMPLETELY GEO-POLITICALLY IRRELEVANT outside of eastern Europe. CHINA exerts more worldwide influence on economy and diplomacy and projects more soft power than Russia does.

You vodka niggers are just sad, empty shells of what you once were.
>>
>>28596598
>Except the effectiveness of air power against ships was well known and already demonstrated.
It doesn't change fact that nature of that battle was asymmetrical. Not battleship vs battleship action but aircraft vs battleship action. You asked for asymmetrical warfare you got it. Naval powers transferred from huge size low numbers combatants to the swarm of expandable relatively cheap vehicles as primary anti-ship power.
>>
>>28596774
And you still haven't espoused why lots of cheap little speedboats are going to overthrow the current carrier doctrine other than "It's asymmetrical!"

Just because you can pelt a tank with rocks doesn't mean you're going to win against it.
>>
>>28596632
> how do you expect to get those airplanes within range
by a combination of trickery and not caring if they come back or not
> sub launch detected
ideally it would be too late to do anything
> supersonic seaskimmers
change everything because you need to first find them, then vector things to intercept them, then deal with there being a lot of them
> Spetsnaz
ideally they'd kill some important people, cut some important comm links and disable some important EW radars, which will in itself constitute early warning but might not provoke a full countervalue strike, especially with NUTS in place
> you could not refine a target track beyond a 5km radius and a vague idea of course
which is more than enough for a swarm of nuclear armed supersonic sea skimmers which also have radars for terminal guidance
> you don't have ANY installed seafloor hydrophone nets
except for those that are installed and the extensive network of active LF sonar buoys
> the processing
don't be daft. processing is no longer a bottleneck, everyone can just buy Chinese
> playing
yes
> winning
sometimes. you only have to lose once...
> completely ignoring
i'm not ignoring anything. precisely because of this, Russia must make sure that only a few, if any, of the silo-based nukes and of the bombers actually get to launch
this means depressed SLBM shots
this means the CSGs MUST die, before they can shrek Russian SSBNs
>>
>>28596666
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-800_Oniks
> EW
what is home-on-jam
>>
>>28596819
Again, you seem to think that in ALL of the Cold War, the US wasn't assuming and preparing for a Soviet nuclear first strike.

Also that somehow Soviet weapons work 100% as advertised and American weapons have 100% failure rate.
>>
>>28596844
What is SM-6, AEGIS, and CIWS.
>>
>>28596695
> slavaboo
I fucking hate and fear Russia, you dolt
you would too, if only you knew what they really are
>>
>>28596811
> throwing rocks
> throwing anti ship missiles

Same thing
>>
>>28596869
>you would too, if only you knew what they really are

You mean the shadow of a superpower that still played second fiddle to the US in its prime?
>>
>>28596901
Because there have never ever been counters against anti-ship missiles ever developed, right?
>>
>>28596865
> SM-6
a credible counter to Oniks. trouble is it has to achieve 100% success on its first operational employment, or else the CSG dies in a ball of nuclear fire
> AEGIS
a battle management suite from the seventies. much vaunted, much improved, still way too expensive for what it can do.
> CIWS
a fucking joke you made for some reason, the engagement window is non-existent
>>
File: Mikumaburns.png (562 KB, 872x823) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Mikumaburns.png
562 KB, 872x823
>>28595435
>>
>>28596914
I mean a bunch of subhumans with nukes and big fat rockets
>>
File: 293815.jpg (52 KB, 509x467) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
293815.jpg
52 KB, 509x467
>>28596811
>And you still haven't espoused why lots of cheap little speedboats are going to overthrow the current carrier doctrine
They will not. Becuase aircraft is better 'speedboat'. Carrier doctrine is pinnacle of speedboat warfare itself (you still don't see a forest behind trees). Why should it fall against inferior version?
>>
>>28596844
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-800_Oniks
Standarts and RIM Missiles meat.
>>
>>28590820
wow.
I have officially read the dumbest shit I will read this year. Kudos anon, I didn't think it'd happen until at least May but goddamn if you didn't pull it off.
>>
>>28596819
>except for those that are installed and the extensive network of active LF sonar buoys
Gee, I'd love to see any sort of source for this.

>don't be daft. processing is no longer a bottleneck, everyone can just buy Chinese
Holy kek. Chinese sonar processing is even worse than Russian.

>this means depressed SLBM shots
YOU CAN'T PHYSICALLY DO THAT FROM BASTIONS. Period. And if the SSBNs begin moving out from the bastions, they'll each grow their very own tail. One with teeth and a very tense trigger finger. Soviet/Russian boats haven't left bastions since the mid-70's. Them leaving en masse is in itself a high alert event.

>this means the CSGs MUST die, before they can shrek Russian SSBNs
Dipshit, for the last time, CSGs have NOTHING to do with hunting SSBNs. That's SSN work, 668s, Seawolfs and VAs. And they are very, very good at it. There's not a fucking thing the Russian navy can do to stop them, even within bastions.
>>
>>28596869
I lived in Russia for half a decade. I have a very good appreciation for Russian psychology, history and am fluent in their language. You're the one consistently ignoring or handwaving reality.
>>
>>28596966
>a credible counter to Oniks. trouble is it has to achieve 100% success on its first operational employment, or else the CSG dies in a ball of nuclear fire
Ok, cool, lets totally ignore EW, SM-2ER, ESSM and Sea-RAM, and pretend like SM-6 is the only weapons system available to counter this threat.

>a battle management suite from the seventies. much vaunted, much improved, still way too expensive for what it can do.
Too expensive you say? Even though it tracks four times the targets and coordinates the AA fight across ALL platforms, compared to Russian systems which have laughable 1970's era fleet integration? Jesus, you're thick. However "old" the baseline Aegis system is (which resembles modern Aegis almost not at all), Russian systems are a decade older and far less upgraded.
>>
>>28596574
It's true, actually. The President has limited authority to use small amounts of military force without special authorization from Congress.

Waging war on a large scale, such as a major conflict with China, has to be approved by Congress.
>>
>>28596605
>supersonic sea-skimmers with fuckhueg countermeasures targeting beacons

My sides.
>>
>>28596966
>still way too expensive for what it can do.

If what it can do is protect the fleet, and the Burgers can afford to buy it, what does it fucking matter how expensive it is?
>>
>>28598761
30 days to do whatever he wants to before telling Congress, in fact.
>>
>>28596478
How the fuck is that an example of asymmetrical warfare? Or do you think asymmetrical warfare means any battle where two sides weren't composed in exactly identical way?
>>
>>28595651
Run the boghammers from a few motherships. Where to get motherships? Piracy! Integrate the whole mess into a civil fishing fleet to complicate the targeting picture for countermeasures.

This isn't exactly a blue water counter to CSGs, it's more like the naval equivalent of IEDs or maybe punji sticks. It's something that irregular forces could do, maybe in conjunction with regular naval forces. Covering for DE subs or something. Or maybe a few real gunboats with real AShMs.

Figure this whole jihadi mess doesn't venture more than 200 miles offshore.
>>
>>28595686
I was envisioning more along the lines of suicide boats, with charges in the 150 to 500 pound range. Something along the lines of the Cole attack, only with EFP instead of shaped charge.

The Strela and RPGs aren't so much for the attack as to fend off aviation or smallboat defenses. This is very much a 1 way ride.
>>
>>28599334
Aviation assets are a direct counter to this, especially helicopters. Fortunately, the US decided that pretty much every surface ship needed at least two helicopters.
Thread replies: 343
Thread images: 42
Thread DB ID: 436848



[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.