cost of a missile = 1.5 millions cost of an aircraft carrier

americarriers BTFO

File: 123157345.png (647KB, 838x655px) Image search: [Google]

647KB, 838x655px

>>70360657
THIS

>muh Aegis tho muh anti-missile measures

Carriers are great against goat herders but thinking your big hunk of floating metal can't get sunk by any competent nation is on par with thinking that the Ratte was a good idea in WW2. Only reason supercarriers haven't been abandoned yet is because there's no war with modern nations that can show everyone how vulnerable they are.

Again it's like the Ratte if it were used only against Poland, it'd seem invincible and amazing in that case.

>>70360626

Let's get to the point:

How much money do I need to open a bank account in your country?

File: US-carrier-group[1].jpg (367KB, 1600x1071px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 1600x1071px

>bitches think they will ever find an aircraft alone in the wild

thats why we win
stay jelly

aesthetics of a carrier with a ramp = shit

aesthetics of a carrier without a ramp = GOAT

RAMPNIGGERS BTFO

>>70360852
1k for an offshore
0 for bank
i think lol

>>70360819
carriers are the best force projection possible, they sustain a large amount of men and vehicles
In an actual war with Russia or China the US NAVY is not going to put them in range of missiles

>>70360872
what if 1 missile finds its way to that big target in the middle?

Tbh Carriers are just for force projection outside your region.

A simple Assault Amphibious Ship does the job of patrolling the coast.

but you can't do with a missle what you can with an aircraft carrier

this is like equating achilles with an arrow

So why doesn't someone just make a torpedo that goes 100m+ under the target before going vertical and hitting from below?

File: m3tXcgC.png (31KB, 657x527px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 657x527px

during the falklands war we had to use ours in shallow waters close to the coast to avoid subs

File: railgun-weapon-technology-diagram[1].jpg (128KB, 668x432px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 668x432px

>>70361068
then a few thousand sailors arnt doing their job

what if that one missile falls apart midflight because it was built by a bunch of drunken sub-mexicans?

also protip: wars arnt won with hypothetical situations

File: diver-propulsion-device.jpg (20KB, 597x398px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 597x398px

>>70361140
business idea: get close enough with a raft, then send divers with enough limpet mines

>>70361068
I roughly see 7 destroyers/cruisers in that pic, carrying at least 100 anti-air missiles each. Good luck trying to maneuver your way past dozens of SM-3s, SM-6s, SM-2s, ESSMs, RAMs and gun based CIWS.

>>70361036
>In an actual war with Russia or China the US NAVY is not going to put them in range of missiles

that's the point. they would be useless then, as some of anti carrier missiles have a longer range than carrier-borne planes'. what's the point of sustaining lots of stuff in the middle of the ocean when you can't put them in range of missiles, which is synonymous with battlefield?

>>70363429
theyre like chink exploration boats of zheng he, big and useless

>>70360626
>>70360726
>>70360872
>>70361236
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcwDfaY4OW4

>>70361462
Don't forget our developmental but in use LaWS.