A Carrier Strike Group is worth like $30-40 billion easy. A

Cruise missiles don't launch themselves.

>>31073304

Maybe not now, but just wait until the Gerald Ford gets the laser installed.

>>31073304
Have you also factored in the cost of the launch systems (you'll need a lot if you actually want to saturate them) and the ISR assets you'll need if you want to track that group in real-time so you can feed guidance updates to the missiles in flight? Or the ships and fighters that will have to protect those ISR assets while they do their job? And that's not counting the logistics you'd need if we don't assume that a CSG will sail right into range of everything.

>>31073324
What an insightful point anon you must be some kind of super genius.

.05 LockMart bucks have been deposited in your account

>>31073304
false equivalence

the purpose of a carrier strike group isn't to blow up a thousand cruise missiles worth of stuff

likewise the purpose of a thousand cruise missiles isn't to do the myriad of jobs that a carrier strike group is tasked with

>>31073304
All the peeps who can afford to buy so many cruise missiles have too much to lose.
Sinking a carrier means hard committing to a war with the US

>>31073351

His point is that you need to figure the cost of launch systems into your equation. What is your platform for firing these missiles? Bombers, Destroyers, Submarines? That stuff is expensive.

1000 cruise missiles later we can still park one our remaining CBG off the coast and pummel you into submission.

In realty though, you sink a carrier your gonna get nuked. So how well did that work out for you?

>>31073350
You use civilian fishing boat spotters to figure out roughly where the carrier is. Drop the cruise missiles out of a hole cut in civilian 737s and program them to fly figure 8's in the general area until they find a boat to sink.

>>31073360
The purpose of 1000 cruise missiles is to kill American CSGs

>>31073397
What are you planning to do after your successful YOLO Harbor Mk.2?

>>31073412
When have a thousand cruise missiles ever been launched simultaneously? In what situation might that ever happen?

>>31073387
>Nukes

/K/ says this but I don't believe this. America won't use nukes even if somebody starts sinking their big meme boats. It's too taboo.

File: We Just Don't Know.gif (998KB, 250x251px) Image search: [Google]

998KB, 250x251px

A US soldier costs $44,000 to train and equip.

1000 7.62 x 39 rounds cost $200.

There is no way a US soldier can defend himself against 1000 bullets. He just can't.

>>31073449
The country that has used nukes in warfare surely won't use nukes in warfare

Has nobody told you about learning from the past and history repeating.

>>31073349
Lasers don't work in the rain

>>31073468
There are plenty of non thermal ways to just fuck their shit up. Like a full naval embargo.

>>31073304
But cruise missiles are launched and guided by Carrier Strike Group, anon... It like replacing gun by bullet.

>>31073468
>there is no difference between how the world was in 1945 and today

nukes are a big fucking deal, if they are going to be used it won't be by anything other than a rogue nation

>>31073397
>disguise war machines as civilian craft

>Oh fuck why are the Americans killing all of my civilian craft now
or
>oh fuck why am I being tried for war crimes

>>31073515
>Like a full naval embargo
wiped out with the remaining cruise missiles.

>>31073540
It's a good job you can see the future, must come in handy

>>31073387
Why would we nuke someone just because a CV got sunk? In a real shootin' war we'd be shitting CVs out to replace any losses.

>wahhh we lost a battle bring out the nukes!!

Why is /k/ filled with literal manchildren who believe themselves to be the tactical and strategic masterminds of their era?

>>31073515
Embargos happen to countries that are doing bad things to other people.

Sink a multi-billion dollar carrier and kill thousands of servicemen and that country is forfeit.

>>31073561
>Why would we nuke someone just because a CV got sunk? In a real shootin' war we'd be shitting CVs out to replace any losses.

Are you a fucking moron? First, you think sinking a carrier is a trivial event, second, you think they're easy to replace.

>>31073554
Your missiles reach around the globe or something?
USN rules the waves and surface ships aren't all you have to worry about.

>>31073397
>Drop the cruise missiles out of a hole cut in civilian 737s
and then what? hope that they magically deignate themselves into the targets? you need all the equipment to program them to their target and the equipment to transmit them new orders on the way

>>31073561
Where else would they go?

>>31073561
>Why is /k/ filled with literal manchildren who believe themselves to be the tactical and strategic masterminds of their era?

>In a real shootin' war we'd be shitting CVs out to replace any losses.

A "real shooting war" would be over long, long, long before a new carrier could be built.

>>31073557
Obviously I can't see the future. But come on, why would a stable state use nukes? They'd be despised the world over, lose massive amounts of trade, face huge amounts of backlash in almost every way imaginable and in all likelihood face civil unrest as a portion of their own citizens would protest against the use of the nukes.

File: 1450301741958.gif (27KB, 158x132px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 158x132px

>>31073561
>Destroy a strategic asset

>Don't expect a strategic response

The best way to take out a carrier is to put on a navy uniform and say yo dude im hundred percent american to the guard and walk inside with a suicide vest and blow up near the powerplant

This would actually work this is how shit the security is

>>31073598
>But come on, why would a stable state use nukes?

Because WWIII just fucking started you tard.

You think there's going to be international backlash when apparently a country with the capability and motivation to sink US carriers decides to start shooting? You're not thinking of the bigger picture in the slightest.

>>31073598
>why would a stable state use nukes?
Why would a stable state go to war?
Obviously things become twisted when fighting erupts

>>31073582
not so easy when civilian craft are being used, what USN going to commit war crimes by targeting all of them?

>>31073615
>Because WW3 just fucking started you tard.

Who's predicting the future now?

>>31073627
Fair enough, it's true that war fucks things up. Personally I just can't imagine a situation where a stable state would use nukes, regardless of if there's a war or not. Nuclear nations have gone to war since 1945 and none of them have used nukes.

>>31073598
>Massive threat starts destroying the US's largest strategic assets

>Gee why would they use nuclear weapons people wouldn't like that

>>31073633

If the aircraft are shooting cruise missiles then they aren't really civilian craft at that point.

>>31073639
Nuclear nations have gone to war since 1945 and none of them have used nukes.
Because they didn't need to
But when THEY DO NEED IT one day, you don't doubt for a second that THEY WILL use them

why can't american babies accept the facts that their carriers and navy are shit and easily defeatable?

>>31073583
>USB cords are top secret technology

Cruise missiles are just big drones with a fancy radar. Programming them is literally high school club tier. The only reason you think it's difficult is because contractors make them needlessly proprietary for those sweet sweet ongoing service contracts.

>>31073676
>I think it's easy because I don't know the first thing about it

And other amazing tales from /k/

>>31073435
World War 3, during wich the safety of CSG will be of very little concern.

>>31073667
what makes you think that they're shit and easily defeatable?

admittedly they've never been properly tested, but they're state of the art and crewed by well trained people

>>31073693
>World War 3

What nation can launch 1000 cruise missiles right now aside from the United States? Russia sure doesn't have the capability anymore.

>>31073609
You could also post up on a tall building in Norfolk and lob civilian legal .50 cal into the radars of the ticos and burkes parked at the pier.

>>31073654
>THEY DO NEED IT


If they need nukes something has gone so bad that nuclear war doesn't seem like a bad option. At that point large cities going boom will likely be the least of your worries.

>>31073710
>about to lose the war and the country
this is the point a country will use nukes

>>31073627
Mate, we already commit war crimes, you think we give a shit?

>>31073304
but why just stop at 1,000 cruise missiles

>>31073704
>crewed by well trained people

Hahahahaa

>>31073667
Then why have they never been defeated?

>>31073729
care to elaborate?

>>31073707
Maybe China.

>>31073733
US has lost every war since WWII...

>>31073728
Indeed. There's no reason cruise missiles should cost $1 mil either, if you has an assembly line and non corrupt contractors.

>>31073745
Oh, you're a vatnik... disregarded.

>>31073737
When was the last time USN operated multiple carriers together? They don't even know how to fight a real war anymore.

>>31073609
This guy is actually in the military or was at some point and gets it. Security is a joke.

>>31073474
"Oh fuck, I never thought of this" - Secretary of the Navy

Srsly, how did they not think of this?!

>>31073468
This

These fags think our "progressive" and "liberal" mask is anything other than psychological warfare. Liberalism in the USA is a military experiment. If the US military has to go all out nukes would be the least scariest things in our arsenal. We'd start seeing tech 50 years ahead of anyone else.

>>31073633
>what USN going to commit war crimes by targeting all of them?
You're committing a war crime by using them.

File: PKVanRiper_USMC.jpg (4MB, 1600x2000px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1600x2000px

>implying that a corvette cant carry 1 billion missiles
>implying that you cant send messages t the speed of light with motorcycles.
yoou are right op carriers are usless

>>31073456
underated post familia

>>31073791

Is there any proof that actually happened?

>>31073779
Idk about the first part, but I agree if we really did go full scale war we'd be pulling shit out of our ass. Rail guns and space weapons would become very suddenly operational.

>>31073810
I honestly believe people started making that up and it's now accepted as fact.

>>31073772
Lasers and railguns programs are just LockMart gibs

>>31073598
>trade
USA export is only 12% of our gdp
The entire world's economy Could collapse tomorrow, every country, and we'd barely notice it. Face it USA haters., you'll be sucking fat burger cock for at least the next 200 years.

>>31073810
No. It's just a meme create by people booty blasted that "total information awareness" is retarded and their perfect communications systems aren't perfect

>>31073829
I know this is bait, but if the world economy collapsed tomorrow the US would obviously feel it. Sure 12% of your gdp is from exports, but the remaining 88% is heavily reliant on imports.

File: 14300781976871.jpg (90KB, 800x500px)

90KB, 800x500px

>>31073772
>Srsly, how did they not think of this?!
Because some sort of projects exists only to spend money.

>>31073860
It's also massively inflated by money printing and stock market faggotry. All just numbers on a screen.

>>31073829
>being this retarded

File: 1470539002309.png (1MB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 900x900px

How many cruise missiles does USA have in inventory, total?

File: 1471305856010.gif (216KB, 748x500px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 748x500px

>>31073304
Wait; I've got a way to improve this:
>have each cruise missile trail a pretty long cable to tow a glider

>>31073449
The entire point of the cold war was that the Soviets were so afraid of our nukes they built their own to scare us away. Patton was advocating for an invasion of the USSR before V-J day.

>>31073860
>>31073879
>>31073894
>all just numbers on a screen

How do I know yourone of those Alex Jones retards.
Seriously, USA economy is a lot stronger than you believe and learn from YouTube videos. Russia and China will collapse within 10 years again. And you'll all still be licing that sweet tasty burger choad and buying our technology and culture while you complain about us.

>>31073914
And they are launched from a battleship right

>>31073551
>War
>Rules
You can only pick one.

WW3 will involve bioweapons btw. Inb4 "that's not honorabru!" Total war, nigga

>>31073822
This. America would produce exosuits, and railguns if we were in the same position as Germany in 1944

>>31073979
Wrong ww3 will involve space tech, exo skeleton suits, kinetic energy weapons, precision and small scale 60,000 force of highly trained special warriors.

>>31074003
Also weaponized smallpox.

>>31073994
>buh buh fat burgers unsuitable infantry force.

Oh hey there overweight neckbeard. Welcome to basic. Heres comes your immunobooster shot. Which is totally not meth, steroids, and testosterone. See you tomorrow if you're not the 5% that dies of heart failure.

>>31074015
Zika is ISIS

>>31074003
Alternatively: ten million conscripts with AK74s in BTR-90s.

1000 Cruise Missiles need Launchers and resources almost as expensive as the weapon to be fired effectively. So you are down to 500-700 weapons.

Those weapons can only blow up stuff. They cannot board, occupy, invade, observe, transport, intimidate or do anything else.

With warning 500 cruise missiles could probably actually be stopped with some of CBG surviving. Especially if you are shooting them without any in theater support.
And if you do successfully make a attack on a US CBG expect your home country to be a shooting gallery for all the US assets available. They probably would not nuke you but you probably just get a front row seat at the US non nuclear strategic response.

The US has about 3500 Tomahawks.

Can probably put about 70 B-1Bs into a theater.
(Bones can actually do air support they way they are kitted out today.) Infantry tags a target and B1 gives the target a gift.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/12/30/the-under-appreciated-workhorse-of-americas-air-wars-the-b-1-bomber/

The US has about 70 B-52 with about 20 in reserve.

If someone only put their money into cruise missiles expect their military to be bombed out of existence.

>>31073324
China has 3000 miles of tunnels dug, some are three train cars wide.Also 7000-9000 miles of railroad track. They could scoot and shoot railcars for weeks until the whacka mole Navy/Air Force finally gets them.
I am not saying China could pull it off with crappy quality control, but it's a threat.

>use a billion dollars in cruise missiles to sink carrier group
>is this the cheapest way to get nuked?

>>31073350
Let's not act like CSGs don't have extrinsic costs as well.

>>31074307

Any platform (or group of multiple platforms) capable of firing 1000 cruise missiles in rapid succession is gonna be pretty darn expensive.

>>31073474
FEL systems absolutely work in the rain.

>>31073772
Becaise It's bullshit.
FEL can destroy missiles made of aluminium or even titanium and has also had tests on artillery shells, if a raindrop goes in the beam it vaporizes instantly

>>31074202
nah, there's realistically no way they could launch enough simultaneously to successfully zerg defenses

Russia could spam the shit out of a CSG if they had a fleet of bombers fire at standoff range, but there's no way they'd ever devote that many resources to a single target

>>31073397
please try to drive your shark fin snatcher within 100km of a carrier in the taiwan strait, or to rephrase it kys

>>31074202
If you're doing shoot'n'scoot your chances of saturating the defenses of the carrier just went down 100 fold.

What if you sent 10,000 dive bombers?

>>31074162
300 million screaming chinamen

File: 1464515866810.jpg (50KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 500x500px

>Send in inflatable decoy carrier group

>>31073397
Your 737s cost 350 million apiece to produce and retrofit.

A sparrow missle costs 125,000.

For the price of one of your 747s, I can buy 2800 sparrow missles.

There is no way a 747 can defend itself against 2800 sparrow missles. It just can't.

File: webchamprev.jpg (504KB, 982x776px) Image search: [Google]

504KB, 982x776px

>>31073304
I'll see your swarm of flying electrical devices and raise you one CHAMP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-electronics_High_Power_Microwave_Advanced_Missile_Project

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2014-10-02/airborne-directed-energy-technology-maturing-us

http://www.boeing.com/features/2012/10/bds-champ-10-22-12.page

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsQWWQFQWkA
check out about 47 seconds in.

Few missiles are made to be hardened to that level of EMR protection.

File: lefronche.jpg (17KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x360px

>This entire thread

File: space-shuttle-launch-300x221.jpg (21KB, 300x221px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 300x221px

>>31073304
>>31074626
>>31073456

gentlemen we have meme off

>>31074640
CHAMP is actualy for suppressing Air Defense. So bringing this into equations lessens the chances of carrier strike group ...

File: 1462239076378.jpg (10KB, 360x280px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 360x280px

>>31073456

kek

>>31073791
I too love it when my inflatable boat can carry two silkworm missiles.

>>31073456
A new pasta is born.

>>31074651
What is this from?

>>31073934
>We are living in the end of a game of Civilization

File: 1466057570162.jpg (22KB, 400x290px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 400x290px

>>31075942
oh my god you are serious arent you

fuck me

im old

File: 1470379646311.jpg (14KB, 480x712px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 480x712px

>>31075942
>

>>31073304
cruise missiles are worthless if they don't know where their targets are and are destroyed before they have the opportunity to leave their launchers

File: B7f2_OECEAAyijj.jpg (27KB, 545x362px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 545x362px

>>31075942
>about to insult you for being underageb&
>realize that video came out 13 years ago
>mfw

>>31074626
A single Brewster F2A Buffalo costs $54,00.
We can build Arisakas for less than $200 a piece.
It costs less than $10,000 to arm and train a formation of 50 men.
Good luck avoiding all of that rifle fire. Stay mad burger fags.

>>31073468
>The country that has used nukes in warfare surely won't use nukes in warfare
>Has nobody told you about learning from the past and history repeating.

America has gone longer without using nukes than any other nation in history. What will you learn from that?

File: burke_10-ts600.jpg (27KB, 600x399px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 600x399px

>>31073304

>There is no way that a CSG can defend itself against 1000 cruise missiles. It just can't.

Lol. 1000 missiles. You'd need at least 10000 to even have argument.

>A bullet costs a fraction of a human life
>An ATGM costs a fraction of a tank
>A SAM costs a fraction of an aircraft

Why don't we just get rid of all weapon carrying vehicles since they're so expensive? OP's logic in a nutshell.

>>31074202
>China has 3000 miles of tunnels dug, some are three train cars wide.Also 7000-9000 miles of railroad track. They could scoot and shoot railcars for weeks until the whacka mole Navy/Air Force finally gets them.

So the war lasts a few weeks, and China loses?

>>31074472
>please try to drive your shark fin snatcher within 100km of a carrier in the taiwan strait
Not to join the shitposting but this is just false. Carrier groups pass by commercial shipping all the time, often within visual range. There's no magical exclusion zone of where you can't be in peacetime.

They stop in commercial ports all the time too.

>>31073304
>There is no way that a CSG can defend itself against 1000 cruise missiles. It just can't.

Tell me about the launch platform(s).

>>31078054
I have frequently wondered why there aren't more AT and AA infantry teams

I can understand that a vehicle carries more ammo but why not have more units like the Hussars that drive around in trucks throwing down with tanks like they don't afraid of anything? It's not like two tanks meeting end in a stalemate, anyway, a tank can still demolish another tank.

but
>A SAM costs a fraction of an aircraft
this is why complete air superiority is secured before anyone starts conducting air strikes, and why high flying bombers are used at first if there's a question of SAMs or AA guns instead launching A-10 memehogs or other similar strike planes.

anyone feel like the OP is some junior officer in the Chinese military trying to come up an idea to impress his boss?

>>31078224
I assume anon means in wartime

>>31073351
>.05 lockmart bucks
thats like 650 million dollars. id fucking shill for .001 lockmart bucks holy fuck.

>>31073456
>getting shot at by 220k 7.62 rounds
>all. at. the. same. time.
rip literally everyone and everything

>>31078224
>Not to join the shitposting but this is just false. Carrier groups pass by commercial shipping all the time, often within visual range. There's no magical exclusion zone of where you can't be in peacetime.


Nations don't go from zero to full retard overnight, anon. For China to do what's being suggested, they'd have to see an existential threat that required the most extreme measures--we're talking war crimes, here.

There will be exclusion zones long before tensions rise to that level.

>measuring combat potency in usd

Ladies and gentlemen, the United States of America!

>>31076855
Holy shit

File: Petak+used+roll+picture+petak+rolled+image+yeahno+we+need+reasons+_d8cfd0722b6b2e74ee4a04b175f9ac08.jpg (10KB, 235x200px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 235x200px

>>31073474
Or smoke. The best thing to do would to just launch the cruise missiles to hit everything instead.

>>31075942
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCpjgl2baLs

>>31074162
This.

>>31074651
>Alaska joining California and Hawaii
Fuck that shit

>>31073456
You just learned the whole point of wat anon shooting thousand of bullets at the enemy

>>31078720
>7.62
>seriously referring to anything as just "7.62"
Seriously fucking stop posting

>>31075942
Millennials make me feel old.

I can see someone un-ironically asking me what "all your base are belong to us" means, in the not-too-distant future... next Sunday AD.

>>31079657
What?

>>31074515
I thought it was a billion screaming chinamen.

>>31073387
>you sink a carrier your gonna get nuked
Angry teen with power fantasies please.

>>31073304
>implying platforms to launch missiles from are free
>implying all your shit wouldn't get absolutely rekt before even being able to launch 10 of those missiles

kys

>>31073397
Aaaaaand another screencap for my incoming "worst of /k/" post. I'm still mad I missed glider fag

>>31074624
It worked on a smaller scale in WWII, I say do it

>>31073304
>when Ichiro Itano gets drunk and decides to post on /k/

Meanwhile at naval int.

Yo bob, check this out, (country) is stockpiling cheap ass cruse missiles.
Ok, tag it for follow up and put it in the daily report.

At the pentagon.
For the last two months we have observed (country) stockpiling first strike weapons. We are confidant we know the location of 80% of these weapons.
Ok, any asset with in range of (country) goes anti missile free. Get the state department briefed.
Re task satellite surveillance to give us ether coverage, send the U2s a task warning for oblique multi spectral scans.

National command centre.
For the last three months (country) has developed and deployed a first strike capibility.
State will pressure (country) through diplomatic channels to stand down.
Airforce will develope Strike plans to reduce the capability.
Navy will posture within range, layers defence people, any missile launched must run the gauntlet.
CIA, I want intentions, capabilities and vulnerabilities.

(Country) preps for launch.
National surveillance assets monitor.
Navy is prepared.
Airforce is prepped
Plans in place for regime change.

>>31079623
Was that supposed to be funny?

>>31073397
>sailing a fishing boat anywhere near a CSG

say hello to the fishes for me m8

>>31073609
Have you actually ever been on a nuclear powered ship? The only access to the reactors is through a hatch that's guarded 24/7 by an armed guard that has strict orders to shoot to kill anyone who steps into the red square in front of the door.

>>31073304
you're the faggot that starts the battleship threads, arent you

>>31082602
>to shoot to kill anyone who steps into the red square in front of the door.

h...how are the technitions fed?

Im assuming they are in the ship as it is built...sealed...like a tomb....

God, now i know why everyone hates going nuke!

>>31073351
LMT stock is around $250 USD per share now. So $12.50ish.

Not bad for shitposting. You chinky people don't make enough!