Explain to me why a nation with little resources can't just buy a few hundred fast speedboats, pack them with explosives and fit a 40mm bofors to the front and charge at this thing?
Zigzagging towards it spraying the superstructure with 40mm rounds and eventually slamming against the side detonating the explosives on board.
It's happened before. USS Cole iirc? Supposedly, might have been a false flag.
Anyway maybe they'd get away with it once as a surprise attack but its not a sustainable war tactic. Once the squids are wise to it they'll adjust their tactics and speedboats get fucked.
It was sitting at the dock in a friendly port. If they were at sea, on alert, it wouldn't have happened.
False Flag? What did it lead to? Literally nothing, but higher security while in port.
>how was it a false flag
You made me use Google to further elaborate my tin foil.
>The USS Cole bombing was a terrorist attack against the United States Navy guided-missile destroyer USS Cole on 12 October 2000, while it was harbored and being refueled in the Yemeni port of Aden.
>Start date: October 12, 2000
>Executed by: al-Qaeda
Because it was pre 911 and part of the propaganda to bring the US to war. And I'm not a hippy, I was in the war.
Jet fuel... Steal beams, you know.
Explain to me why a nation with little resources can't just recruit a few hundred fast soldiers, pack them with love for their glorious emperor and put a type 99 and katana folded 10,000 times in their hands and charge these gaijin?
Zigzagging towards their trenches spraying their CP's with 7mm rounds and eventually slamming against their bodies detonating the type 97's on their waists.
Nice pic of building 7, you can see part of the roof sagging before it falls, proof that it wasn't a controlled demo.
False flags have to lead to something, the Cole bombing didn't. If you think 9/11 is a false flag, then why bother with the Cole bombing if you knew you were going to blow up the WTC.
Simple fact is, al queda had been trying to figure out ways to kill americans throughout the 90s, and a destroyer sitting in port was an easy target if the guy in the boat was willing to kill himself.
Your argument is that 2 isn't better than 1.
Maybe they expected the American reaction to be greater, but it wasn't so they attacked the towers.
Anyway having multiple attacks shows its not an isolated event, further justification for war. The old, "they attacked us before!"
To launch an attack of this scale, a poor nation would need a well-secured beach to organize this project without the enemy noticing it.
I'm sure that most navies doesn't deploy carriers nearby coastlines where enemy movements go unnoticed. This would mean that the poor nation has to launch this offensive from a considerable distance, which would raise the chance that the enemy navy would detect the hundreds of small boats approaching the carrier and would use its superior airforce to destroy them.
Even if a few would be able to approach it, they would not be able to sink the ship, only to do some damage.
Iranians unironically think this would work.
It could, if their speed boats are able to survive dozens of Harpoons, CIWS, 5" artillery shells and machine gun fire directed towards them from all ships in the CBG. Or they would just let the air wing take care of it before the speedboats even get near.
Also don't forget a CBG won't ever get close to shore, so those speedboats would have to get at least 100 miles off shore to get near and have almost zero chance of returning
First of all I'm not American, you dumb fuck. Secondly, I don't see how your post even relates to mine.
If you honestly think this is a feasible tactic, go ahead and jump in a RIB and try it Achmed
Well it did work in those places. In none of those conflicts did the enemy forces have an advantage over the Americans in direct combat. Those were political failures rather than military ones.
You got pushed out of Vietnam and then pushed out of Afghanistan, it's both military and political. You also destabilised the entire middle East and led to the creation of Isis and the refugge crisis in Syria. Suck my dick amerifag.
Because we never ever fought the Iranian navy on their home turf and completely curbstomped them, right?
And before you ask, they did use fast attack boats...
>Iran responded by dispatching Boghammar speedboats to attack various targets in the Persian Gulf, including the American-flagged supply ship Willie Tide, the Panamanian-flagged oil rig Scan Bay and the British tanker York Marine. All of these vessels were damaged in different degrees. After the attacks, A-6E Intruder aircraft launched from CVN 65 were directed to the speedboats by an American frigate. The two aircraft, piloted by "Lizards" Lieutenant Commander James Engler and Lieutenant Paul Webb, dropped Rockeye cluster bombs on the speedboats, sinking one and damaging several others, which then fled to the Iranian-controlled island of Abu Musa.
...which proceeded to do absolutely nothing to contribute to the battle.
>Saddam Hussein dead
>Middle East in flames/chaos
Sounds like Mission Accomplished to me.
No it's actually designed for shooting down missiles going at mach 2. Phalanx could easily fuck up a few dozen boats before it runs out of ammo. Now factor in Harpoons, 5" artillery shells and .50 machine guns and you have yourself a fun couple of minutes of mowing down Achmeds
The issues with MC2002 make it useless as an example of the vulnerability of the USN.
The JSAF software used to resolve combat was not able to model the defensive systems in use by the navy, so the defensive systems had to be turned off.
In addition, due to real world limitations on deployment of ships (affecting the real world component of the exercise) when they moved to the JSAF software to resolve the combat, the Navy was forced into a deployment that did not reflect the reality of how they would have really deployed in that situation, without the artificial constraints that were forced on them.
Further, the goal of the entire exercise was to test new command and control system and how they interacted with the joint forces in the exercise. It had nothing to do with actual combat, which is why it was scripted. It had to be because they wanted to test the systems under specific circumstances, and the whole thing would have been a waste of money if those circumstances never occurred due to actions of either side.
Rather than attempt to understand the nature of the exercise, some in the press, and people like you, decided that it fit the narrative you like to tell yourself. So you ignored or didn't bother to dig too deep, and accepted what you wanted to hear.
Thats pretty ignorant of you, anon. It's ok to ask questions, and to dig deeper.
Nigger, politics is the entire point of war. If you cannot grasp that simple reality, you have no business ever talking about any military campaign.
At first, I wondered why Clemenceau said that "War is too important to be left to generals," I now understand.
It was sitting in port, as was repeatedly pointed out. And there is no compelling evidence to suggest that it was a false flag - which is an extremely high bar of evidence to clear.
>stealth deploy a dozen of these on a Iranian cargo ship
>have cargo ship go >15miles within carrier group on standard shipping line
>drop off the speedboats at night
>bum rush the carrier group and fire ASMs at like 2 miles out
>only seconds of time for CIWS to interact with missiles, majority still hit, carrier heavily damaged or destroyed
>boats in and out of radar range in minutes thanks to small size and 60mph+
>no fear of CIWS or .50 or 5in guns because still miles out and lol night time
Learn to 4chan
I said uss Cole "IIRC".
I also said " it may have" been a false flag.
I never said anything absolute about it, because there's no way to know. You're late to the party anyway, fuck off no one thinks you're cool for hopping on the bandwagon.
ALLAH WILLS IT BROTHER
Wew that's a lot of targets there anon. I wonder what would happen if you fired 150 cruise missiles at them (approximately the cost of a CSGs monthly fuel budget)
> be ww2 admirals
> nobody could ever mass 150 airplanes in a single attack! Don't be ridiculous.
> mfw we Davy Jones locker now
>implying there is another country with 150 cruise missiles
You know how much an ASHM weighs?
One of the many many reasons that Van Riper is considered a faggot is that he declared that his 15 ton fishing boats had a pair of 6 ton silkworm missiles each, while still maintaining their speed and agility.
Nothing under 50 tons is mounting weapons big enough to hurt a carrier seriously. Any boat that is 50 tons is easy prey for hellfires and 5 inch guns.
>>bum rush the carrier group and fire ASMs at like 2 miles out
2 miles from the group or from the carrier?
because good luck getting within 2 miles of a carrier that's in the middle of any kind of operation
>A standard formation provides a number of layers of defence, designed to give maximum protection to the fleet's high value units (HVUs) or main body. Furthest out are the picket ships, Combat Air Patrol (CAP) craft and early warning aircraft (AEW). These units operate at 200 nautical miles (370 km) or more out from the main body. The units of the outer screen operate between 12 and 25 nautical miles (22 and 46 km) from the main body. The inner screen is within 10 nautical miles (19 km) of the HVUs.
How are you getting a dozen speedboats out of a cargo ship? You need some sort of LPD for that with a well deck, and you sure as fuck aren't going to get one near a CBG without being detected. Even if you did, surface radar would detect the incoming speedboats and you'll still get your shit blown up before you get near. Plus, those speedboats can't launch proper anti-ship missiles. The only way it could do considerable damage to a carrier is to go full kamikaze with the entire hull full of explosives
>MC2002 wasn't fair, the USN totally isn't vulnerable
Didn't say that you moron.
I said that if you want to argue that the USN in vulnerable, then MC2002 is useless.
Answer me a fucking question:
If the USN didn't have its defensive systems and was deployed in a manner that did not reflect reality, how can you possibly claim that the results show the vulnerability of those systems and strategies?
I eagerly await your pathetic lack of an answer.
I can't believe we're still going over this shit
Actually if you read neoconservative doctrine prior to the invasion of Iraq their belief was regime change in Iraq would lead to a series of popular uprisings (instability) throughout the middle east. This did in fact happen. There were also advisers in their circle who argued those uprisings would have unwanted consequences.
This also happened.
If you have high end cruise missiles, why are you even bothering with such a complicated scheme?
Also, the longest ranged ashms like the P-1000 only go as far as 300nmi and those things are xbox huge.
Written by someone who probably have never been on a speed boat at sea compared with a even a small warship. Not a chance; Can't even mount a good gun on a small speedboat. Can't even go as fast as a slow warship can at sea. Fast Speedboat=Slow Warship add in anything higher than sea state 1 and you can't even catch slow targets.
>carriers are vulnerable to this specific tactic that I can't actually describe or explain
great thread, OP
In thousands of white papers, editorials, books, memos, and publications.
The Weekly Standard from the late 90's until well after the launch of the invasion would be a good starting point for further research.
Why would any navy conceivably want to do that? Even if you could convince a bunch of sailors to do this and somehow make it tactically sound, strategically you'd just get your nation nuked for no gain whatsoever
You wouldn't, because its stupid. Just scatter a bunch of long range cruise missiles packed in shipping containers. Literally no reason to have small missile boats. Sinking carriers doesn't even require a navy anymore.
>putting a larger fuel tank on a cruise missile
thanks bro, i needed that
Cruise missiles are just a warhead, small engine, wings, and a GPS. Pretty much off the shelf these days. Keep thinking that America is invincible and our enemies are eternally incompetent. I'm sure that will end well.
>ship moves 100 yards
>cruise missile lands harmlessly in the water
>i reply to bait
Well, the Viet Cong technically did sink a carrier, except it was sabotaged in port, it eventually got raised and repaired, and it was one of those vintage WWII carriers nobody gave a shit about.
The next gen destroyer needs an ever greater aviation section, and could mount a dozen TERN uav's which would shoot hellfires at any kamikaze speedboats or corvettes trying this shit.
i think a single frigate escort could deal with that bullshit easily enough.
the 5" gun fires like every second and would start firing from 11 miles it would take the boats almost 300 seconds to reach their target.
>These boats are difficult to detect by radar except on flat calm seas or at close range. The United States Coast Guard and the DEA found them to be stealthy, fast, seaworthy, and very difficult to intercept using conventional craft. Because of this, Coast Guards have developed their own high-speed craft and use helicopters equipped with anti-materiel rifles used to disable engines of fleeing boats. The U.S. Coast Guard go-fast boat is a rigid-hulled inflatable boat (RHIB) equipped with radar and powerful engines. The RHIB is armed with several types of non-lethal weapons and an M240 GPMG.
so basically the countermeasure is helicopters or speedboats but that is a chase scenario. maybe at night on stormy sea they could get close enough without detection to launch a torpedo or two.
Right, now imagine those issues compounded with the basic computer science of missile guidance
>The missile knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't!
>By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is ( whichever is greater), it obtains a difference or deviation.
>The guidance system uses deviations to generate corrective commands to drive the missile from a position where it wasn't to where it now is. Consequently, the position where it was is now the position where it isn't.
>In the event that the position where it is now is not the position where it wasn't, the system has acquired a variation (variations are caused by external factors, and the discussions of these factors is not considered to be within the scope of this report). The variation being the difference between where the missile is and where the missile wasn't. If variations are considered to be a significant factor, it, too, may be corrected for by the use of another system. However, for this to take place, the missile must know where it was, also.
>The "thought process" of the missile is as follows: because a variation has modified some of the information which the missile has obtained, it is not sure where it is. However, it is sure where it isn't! (within reason) and it knows damn sure where it was and also where it wasn't. It now subtracts where it should be from from where it wasn't (or vice versa) and by differentiating this with the algebraic difference between where it shouldn't be and where it was , it is able to obtain the difference between its deviastions and its variations, which is called the ERROR SIGNAL
The poetic justice would be if it got 200 feet into open water, realized it had no data, turned around and headed back to where it came from.
>video of massive takbir
>ISIS Husam missiles fired at carrier group in Persian Gulf
>5 minutes later roar of shitty rocket motor
>Go-Pro goes out
>Even the (cheap) expensive as shit Phantom quad-copters have at MAX 15 minutes of flight time
Now that we have a platform, all we have to do is add some C4 and sink American capitalist carriers. Brilliant.
Depends on the administration and the attacker and a variety of other considerations. What the Chiefs push for and what happens is not always one and the same. There is no certain absolute known response.
I don't get why people cite Iraq and Afghanistan as being losses, I really don't. Vietnam I understand. The objective was to secure south Vietnam and prevent a communist take over. Eventually, the Communists succeeded... The ultimate objective had failed, alright that's a loss
But in both Iraq and Afghanistan, both political and military objectives were completed. Sure, you can debate the dubious effects of those objectives and wether it made things worse or not, but the bottom line is we went to Iraq to depose saddam's regime and install a new government. We did that. We went to Afghanistan to end the era of influence of the Taliban and deny them the support of the majority of the country. We did that too. How are those losses?
Actually, the Germans thought that Americans were more technologically advanced and what's more, had a seemingly endless flood of advanced contraptions against good, simple German blood and iron
>both political and military objectives were completed.
The puppet governments in iraq/afghanistan would fall to islamists any time the US stops actively supporting them
How is that a success?
The US went to afghanistan to restart opium production, thats really the only success.
This was posted in a humor thread but seems relevant here
The opening moves of Afghanistan were well done. The problem is the Taliban is still a major force in the region. Nobody in 2001-2002 was envisioning peace talks and trying to bring the Taliban back to the table as a power sharing entity in Afghanistan. But it has been going on for many years now. It is not a loss yet but certainly not a win either.
Be hard to think the opposite desu. Can you imagine doing some close quarters combat as a German on the western front, realizing you're stuck with a goddamn bolt action while the other guy has a semi-auto ping machine and can put eight rounds in you before you can yell scheiße?
People who actually believe that jet fuel can't melt steel beams are retards who literally don't understand how a chimney makes fire hotter. I can melt steel with paper, never mind jet fuel.
An open fire at ground level is not the hottest way to burn a fuel source.
The false flag was allowing 9/11 to occur.
this guy has a point. i mean to get to a nimiz you have to go through a hail of many diffrent things designed to make sure you cant get anywhere near the CV. also, super Hornet
Escorts with cannon & ASGM, Phalanx.
It might work with a few boats and a unguarded carrier, but in real terms... never going to happen and also, torpedo boats would work better for that anyway, it's literally the whole design concept.
If you're going to do this, why not just put a whole mess of VLS cells on the cargo ship, hidden/disguised as you need? Get the cargo ship close enough and bam, launch 500 ASM's and hope for the best.
The speedboats and their launch are the weak link here.
>the largest gun being used anywhere on the planet today is 8 inch guns, few of them on a god damn all-gun cruiser
>soon they will dissappear aswell
>we will be left with nothing bigger than 6inchers
i dont care the iowas are to large, stupid or lol easy to sink (even if small missiles wont do much against it). i need them back
one at least? i mean the slavs get a kirov!
>container ship missile frigate
>primary hull has 4 48 cell VLS
>Conex containers welded top to bottom in stacks of 2
>each contains 12 cell VLS
>series of conveyors to removed spent Conex VLS
>up to 3500 12 cell VLS on a 19000 TEU ULCV
>Jet fuel... Steal beams, you know.
There's a guy on youtube that heated the same type of metal used in skyscrapers to near-jet fuel burning temperatures.
What he discovered is that the steel was able to maintain its ability to withstand weight along the vertical axis just fine, but when he pushed/pulled on it horizontally with only his pinkie's worth of force, the bar of steel bent and flopped over right away.
So... the World Trade Center would have been damaged, but fine, if it had merely caught on fire. But because the steel at critical points had been hit by an airplane, when the beams got hot enough to bend, the entire thing fell apart.
Since the Iowa class was modernized back in the 80s or so are they not capable of being used at least in a amphibious assault role?
not at all. Honestly i'd say an Iowa would have won an engagement with a Yamato
>dat damage control
dont even get me started on that fucking movie. there is so much shit in that that i am not even going to take my time sperging it out here, jesus fucking christ it was bad
but... i am physically incapable of not liking anything portraying an Iowa broadsiding some xeno filth, in 1080p
Vietnam was a victory, until they decided to pull out and abandon south vietnam. There were also heavy restrictions on what the US military could do.
Iraq and Afghanistan were victories, until Obama decided to prematurely pull out and let the Taliban and ISIS take over. There were also lots of restrictions on what the US military could do.
If liberals in the US had the balls to deal with things properly, the US could have stayed in south vietnam and we'd have another south korea there, and they would have stayed in Iraq and Afghanistan for the next 80 years.
We fought a bigass war to kick the shit out of Germany and Japan. We went in, destroyed their fucked up government, and took control. And then we stayed there until the present day. There are still US military bases and forces in Germany and Japan.
tl;dr the US could have stayed in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and with a bit more freedom to conduct the war rather than pussyfooting around it, in 50 years they would have considered all those wars as much victories as WWII.
Despite the lack of radar FCS, Yamato was deadly accurate in the single battle it fought. Japanese crews being well-trained was not a meme. At Guadalcanal, it was the radar FCS-equipped South Dakota that was being pummeled, not the Japanese battleships firing with search lights and star shells.
South Dakota got pummeled because some retard engineer fucked with her circuit breakers which caused catastrophic power loss so she was practically left defenseless.
Notice how Kirishima was basically unloading into SoDak at point blank and couldn't even sink her. Then Washington, which none of the Japanese ships knew was even present, just slips in and instantly ganks Kirishima.
Fat lotta good Japanese "training" was then.
Didn't an Iranian missile boat unload 1500 yards away from an American carrier?
And the CIWS didn't shoot down shit, neither did any other anti missile systems.
Did it detect that the missiles weren't aimed at the boat? How did the CIWS know the missiles weren't aimed at a friendly boat?
1500 yards is well within range.
they stuck the Iowa at tier 9 because they wanted to shove in the Montana. The Yamato stayed at tier 10 because hurr durr muh yamato stronk.
Which means the Iowa had to be a-historically nerfed.
>Nippon strong! Mighty IJN ruled the waves! Stupid Americans got lucky a few times!
The point is Jap crew were fully capable of hitting targets at night and targets over 20,000 yards without radar FCS. If it had been Yamato at Guadalcanal, both the SD and Washington would have been sunk.
>Despite the lack of radar FCS, Yamato was deadly accurate in the single battle it fought
Yes, because shooting a crippled escort carrier at point blank range is soooooo difficult, right?
did somebody mentions boats?
>under concrete and steel
So what, the building is designed to support that weight, even with the plane.
So unaffected steel just gave out when no other building fire EVER has collapsed?
Also you never had a source for your "science". Let's see that gem you fucking moron.
look, I get that you're trying to sound smart with your yelling about "war is about politics herp derp" but look, it's pretty simple. There's a difference between losing a war due to failed military action, and losing a war due to political decisions.
You seem to willfully ignoring the fact that SoDak was crippled before the fight even began and the Japanese literally did not know Washington was there.
Some sources claim it was an unguided rocket. Either way, modern CIWS and missile interception systems are smart enough to determine if a projectile is likely to hit the ship or not.
H O T B O A T S
shhh boat girl is sleeping
The problem with that is in Afghanistan the Soviets went in with the gloves off. Zero fucks given about civilian deaths and zero fucks given about ROE's. They even used chemwar for fucks sake. They still had to leave. inb4 Charlie Wilson's stingers and the Agency etc.
RIP Lion of Panjshir.
>If liberals in the US had the balls to deal with things properly, the US could have stayed in south vietnam and we'd have another south korea there, and they would have stayed in Iraq and Afghanistan for the next 80 years.
Or they could have just not got involved in Vietnam and it would have ended up as it is now; not communist. They've got McDonalds now, you won.
As for staying in Iraq and Afghanistan for next 80 year....in what insane world is that a good idea?
but did they spank her?
>USS Cole as an example of how small boat swarms can be used as a carrier battle group.
>Supposedly might have been a false flag
This is beyond >Van Ripper tier, educate yourself before you spew shit and try to hide behind a 'I-I SAID IIRC! Ii-I said it MIGHT have been a false flag!!' bullshit excuse.
So it only engages when it thinks it's absolutely necessary? I could do a flyby over a carrier in a recreational plane and as long as my trajectory didn't intercept any ships the CIWS is defending, it'll be cool?
Well, if proper safety procedures are in place, the CIWS has to be manually allowed to fire by the crew, or else it'll just evaporate anything that moves. The fleet's AEGIS system will tell the crew if the incoming projectile is a threat to them or not, and from there they activate whatever defensive measures they deem necessary.
Or you can be Indian tier and NOT engage said safety systems, and let a bunch of your crew get mulched by 30mm vulcans.
but kicking shit around all over the place and then pulling out, leaving it as an even bigger shithole than before instead of doing some proper nation building because muh peace at any price is fucking idiotic.
calm down numbnuts, im not the one who said the steel beam shit
The towers were designed to get hit with a 707, not a 767
>thousands of tons of steel/concrete
>falling about a story as one big unit
>not going to fuck up shit underneath it
>oh yeah and 10,000 gallons of jet fuel cant flow downwards, nor can fire spread so the only damage will be where the plane hit and the thermite detonated
At least educate yourself on the official story be fore you go full tinfoil.
Yamato was so deadly accurate and Japanese crews so well trained that a fleet of 4 Battleships, 8 cruisers and 11 destroyers couldn't destroy a 'fleet' of tin can destroyers and escort carriers.
It wasn't even designated as an aircraft carrier at the time. It was a WWII vintage escort carrier that had been converted into a glorified freighter and had put in to a civilian port.
Crewed by civilian, hull laid down in 1941, after 1959 was classified as a transport...so no, it doesn't count.
>proper nation building
elaborate further about what actions would constitute proper nation building. I'm reasonably informed about Japanese occupation and reconstruction, so that might be a good starting point
>In 2010, three crew men on destroyer INS Mumbai (D62) were instantly killed when an AK-630 Close-in weapon system went off as safety drills were not followed.
Doesn't matter - the chemtrail fluid in the wingtip tanks burns much, much hotter than any oil-based fuel. Fat chance of them ever admitting THAT was what brought down the towers though
KGB did WTC. They installed the explosives in it during the cold war covertly but could not return to remove them when the cold war ended. Due to an unforseen race condition the remote firing mechanisms triggered on that terrible day. The Agency figured this out after the fact but kept it quiet to prevent a possible war between the US and Russia.
The rockets were fired in the opposite direction and the carrier was warned 40 minutes in advance.
Just read the facts of what actually happened before you sperg out. It's not difficult.
>The magazine for those things extends 4 decks down
What the fuck are you talking about. It takes forever to reload those drums. Can't do it in the middle of a missile swarm, those r2d2s will be lucky to shoot down more than one missile before they run out
>>have cargo ship go >15miles within carrier group on standard shipping line
That does not happen. If a CSG needs to operate that close to a shipping line, it's cargo ship swerve.
>take 100 underwater Iowa-class battleships
>surface at point blank range for massive throbbing 16 inch guns
So I asked my CIWS tech friend for specifics, the drum holds 1500 rounds and they fire in 300 round bursts at 4500rpm (they can also do 6000rpm) with one burst usually being enough to kill the target (based on shooting down test missiles of course) with a battle reload taking about 20min if the crew is drilled. There are two ciws on a single carried, but they don't have overlapping fields of fire
Lets run things in reverse.
Last line: The Crew can be armed for defense if you get that retardedly close
Next: 4 M2's
Next: 2 Phalanx each with 1550 rounds of ammo, that's 20 secs of ammo at full 4500rpm, not 5 as spastics claim.
Next: CBG Picket ships forming a perimeter
These ships have multiple phalanx and M2 mounts
Next is the pickets have 5" rapid firing deck guns putting out 20 rounds per minute each at ranges of 13 miles
Is you assume, generously 40knots for the closing targets, it would take 16 minutes to reach the picket line, thats 320 5" rounds per picket ship
Next you have Helicopters from the fleet with MG's
Next you have small AShM's from the pickets
Next you have the airwing of the fleet and i'm not wasting my time if you can't see why it wouldn't work at this point
The 10 CVs is only temporary while the 11th is finished. They retired it a bit early, but got special dispensation from Congress to do so. You know why? Because it's a motherfucking law that we have to have 11 carriers.
>bum rush the carrier group and fire ASMs at like 2 miles out
>only seconds of time for CIWS to interact with missiles, majority still hit, carrier heavily damaged or destroyed
So your missiles are on launch acceleration burn in the main 2.2 mile engagement window of the CIWS, Clever
2 miles is the range the Phalanx was designed for and intercept profiles to threats are automated
People seem to have the erroneous idea that the USN parks its carriers right offshore of hostile nations. In reality, it's rare for a carrier battle group to come within 100 miles of the shoreline outside of port. F-18C/Ds have a 330 mile+ combat radius, Super Hornets an even larger one.
Now, your average speedboat cruises at 20 knots (25 mph) and tops out at 40 knots (46mph). That means at least 2 hours of dodging missiles, aircraft, and surface ships from the battle group, likely more since the carrier will be moving away.
Even if you replaced those speedboats with a set of $700,00, 91mph go-fast boats ($210 mil for 300), that's still over a hour for them to reach the carrier, assuming they even have the fuel capacity for it.
dial down the autism there, kiddo
he said "not in service", which in the real world means "not a part of the military", which does not describe a carrier in dry dock. it was the wrong term, period.
>good luck hitting a 30ft long boat going ~45mph
>with a weapon designed to hit 15ft long by 20" diameter missiles going 1918mph (mach 2.5)
>when it's been hit with a non-computer-controlled, 80-year-old autocannon with half the range fired from a boat moving at high speed (for a boat) over rough water and moving in 3 dimensions simultaneously
Your hypothetical haji speedboat going 45-60mph in rough, open-ocean waters isn't going to hit the carrier at all much less pinpoint the defensive systems. Regardless of who crews it. And since this is a 100%-guaranteed suicide mission they're going to get the diehard jihadis and retards with zero training on either the boat or the weapon and home Allah doesn't shit on them too fast. Which means, if they're lucky, they might hit the WATER once.
>BRRRRRRRRTTTT for 10 sec
>oh on guys, I need to reload, come back in an hour ok cause I have to do a bunch of shit to reload this thing
>pushed out of three theaters of operation
>where we achieved 100% of mission objectives then got screwed over by civilian politicians who threw in the towel when we were winning by a landslide
Do you even know the definition of either "push" or "out"? Because those are the exact opposite of what you're claiming.
Except that modern amphibious doctrine is physically impossible to carry out, rests on an assumption that no enemy force actually exists wherever they are landing, plus the marines suck at it.
No, apparently these 20-30 foot long, <2000lb speedboats are launching Silkworms and P1000's, which are 50-60ft long and >10,000lbs.
Also apparently every 2-bit middle eastern dictatorship has tens of thousands of these multimillion dollar missiles that have only had a couple hundred produced worldwide in the last 30 years.
Also they apparently go 2-3x their stated max range, sea-skimming the whole way, which they aren't capable of doing.
Its not like WTC7 was damaged or anything...
the building is designed to hold itself up when it hasn't had half its supporting columns damaged by a fucking passenger jet that hit it going 500 mph. Sever half the columns and start a massive fire that takes the rest of the steel support beams to half their structural strength, and that's perfect recipe for a collapse.
Go study some physics/engineering. You'll get it eventually.
do you believe it was a good idea to keep US military forces in Japan and Germany after WWII?
>fastest large speedboat in the world: 75kn
>11 miles at 86mph=7.93 minutes
>7.93 minutes=475.8 seconds
Your math was almost off by 52%.
Also I guarantee nobody we'd be getting shot at by has the dosh to waste on a 75kn speedboat, seeing as how those are a couple million dollars each. Before you put several-million-dollar-each weapons on them.
Also at the stated 20rpm of the 5" Mark 45 deck gun, that's 158 dead speedboats in 7.9 minutes.
>Orion detects launch imminent before doors are even off VLS due to "hey someone just targeted us with [whichever targetting sensor]"
>cargo ship on bottom of sea before 1 missile leaves the tube, because cargo ships aren't designed to get shot and stay afloat
Oh I should also mention the mk45 5" gun has an effective range of 20nmi, which is 23 miles.
That gives them enough time to fire 320 shells with time to spare (320.93).
Considering the gun is capable of intercepting 1000mph missiles with a cross-section smaller than a pizza with 95% reliability, that's basically a guaranteed 320 boats sunk.
>"We need this country's major metropolitan centers to not be there anymore. We have outfitted you with 9 gorillion RGM-109E TLAM Block IVs."
key word being "littoral"
a carrier strike group, or a destroyer division, sitting 100-200nm off the shore of a hostile country is pretty much invulnerable to a small fast boat. Sure, put a carrier 2 miles away from shore and yeah, it'll be vulnerable to some unconventional crap.
Please don't claim that the LCS being developed as a way to have a ship that excels in shallow water or near-shore operations is some kind of indication that a carrier in its normal realm of operations would actually be vulnerable to a fucking speedboat.
Yup, they don't even pretend they could do a contested landing. What's the name of that training exercise they do, gator something? It's more like a pep rally. No mines, no barbed wire, nothing. They're just going through the motions at this point.
What actually happens is
> South Dakota takes a beating, probably catastrophic loss of a turret.
> Japs don't notice Washington.
> Yamato sinks after eating 30 rounds at close range. At the range that Washington was shooting at, her shells penetrate 650mm of armor.
I'm active duty on an Arleigh Burke DDG and I can tell you for a fact those things are not accurate.
From my watch station I can see the targets we put out for CIWS on a screen and over half the rounds just splash the water. If we were fighting off a swarm of FAC/FIAC it would come down to the .50's, M240's, and 25mm's.
OP is right. Iran's small boats are a serious threat for us in the Gulf and we have yet to develop a warfare doctrine that counters it efficiently.
It's accuracy by volume. If half the rounds miss and you fire even 50 rounds, that's 25 rounds on target.
Besides, the accuracy, or lack thereof, is a design feature. It's SUPPOSED to spray instead of make a beam.