Russian/Chink/Iranians can't touch our carriers

File: anti-carrier.jpg (12KB, 300x169px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 300x169px

>>31219002
all it takes is one missile the size of your apartment. carriers are a thing of the past and used against countries that can't afford to make these missiles.

>>31219114
>carriers are a thing of the past and used against countries that can't afford to make these missiles.

Aircraft carriers are still the most powerful surface naval vessels by miles; their level of vulnerability is always going to be considerably less compared to other ships.

Carriers are here to stay, unless you're suggesting that ASMs are going to make navies obsolete entirely, which is nonsense.

>>31219114
I have a question, how exactly would an enemy carrier be located?

>>31219114
"These missiles" require sophisticated satellite tracking abilities that only three countries on the planet currently possess, and those satellites would almost assuredly be the first thing shot down in a war. And guess what? Almost all the ABMD ships in the US fleet are in the Pacific. The only way to get a reasonable shot at sinking a US carrier with one would be if it was parked relatively close to mainland China, where recon aircraft and other methods are used to verify the carrier's position.

You're also putting a shitload of faith in an unproven weapon system designed by people who can't even make good knock-off engines for replicas of antiquated Soviet aircraft.

>>31219114

Those missiles are pure propaganda. They would only be useful for finishing off a carrier that was already heavily damaged and immobile. There is no way a ballistic missile is going to be able to hit a moving carrier.

>>31219251
>I have a question, how exactly would an enemy carrier be located?
By Satellite imaging. Sonar, radar, infrared, thermal, etc, etc. The Problem with boats is they can't actually hide out at sea.

>>31219275
>There is no way a ballistic missile is going to be able to hit a moving carrier.
do you know haw retarded that sound?

>>31219292

Okay, so you find a carrier by satellite and you fire your missile. Guess what? The carrier keeps on moving and by the time the missile actually reaches that spot, the carrier is long gone. Also, locating a moving object via satellite is a bit like trying to find a needle in a haystack to begin with.

>>31219297

Do you know how hard it is to hit a moving target that is over 100 nmi away with a ballistic missile? It's really damn hard.

File: cow smile.jpg (18KB, 403x403px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 403x403px

>we'll just move our ship really fast
>try to hit me now motherfucker

>>31219350
Whats the time of missile launching and hitting targetted area? Let's say in middle of Pacific?

>>31219350

It doesn't even have to go fast. The simple fact that the carrier is moving, combined with the rotation of the earth, makes it really damn hard to hit, especially at a distance.

>>31219292
>The Problem with boats is they can't actually hide out at sea.
fucking idiot

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

>>31219644
Is he implying real life isn't Battleship?

>>31219114
Carriers are obsolete and useless that's why China is investing tons of resources in building 3 of them.

>>31219350
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4KnCqcTEOU

>Satellite that makes a full orbit every 90 minutes and is easily tracked to be evaded by the ships
>Tracking a ship that can move like that

>>31220503
>dat goofy short haired female on the deck

>>31220698

Imagine how much cock was reamed through her.

>>31220850
every one of those enlisted females

File: 1466123777520.jpg (46KB, 563x443px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 563x443px

>>31219292
Hahahahaha, oh wow

In a war between peer or near peer nations, satellite coverage would be the first fucking thing to go down

I'm looking forward to satellites blowing up, causing shrapnel to be everywhere in orbit, destroying everything they touch.

Permanently removing our ability to have things in orbit.

>>31220910
That wouldn't even be necessary, just jam the shit out of them or evade detection.

>>31221026
Depends who is fighting. Some countries supposedly in case of first strike/failing war their plan is to either self destruct their own sats to create a giant debris field or take out an opposing sat to create the same. They have no qualms about destroying all future space based capabilities as long as they survive the conflict.

just face it carriers are the dreadnoughts of xxi century

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rAfnkCCpkOU

File: The+fox+and+the+grapes+the+fox+and+the+grapes_2ddfa3_3545011[1].jpg (184KB, 688x1434px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 688x1434px

>>31221211

>>31221211
>we can't afford any of the real front line tools of warfare in the 21st century
>supercarriers, manned VLO aircraft, even decent submarines in real numbers
>so we'll lie and tell our people that we have never fail countermeasures
>AShMs without the resources to build a credible kill chain
>4+++++++ gen fighters based on airframes designed 40 years ago
>a barely VLO prototype series, underengined, underfunded and going nowhere
>wonderwaffle SAM systems with dubious at best claims to run a target track on VLO aircraft
>wonderwaffle A2A missiles to strike at AEW&C aircraft we cannot reach launch envelope on
>a bare handful of SSNs and SSBNs building which aren't even a match for subs the USN has had in service for 20 years
>we pretend to our people that these things are infallible war winners against the aggressive west
>but it's all still crumbling
>and we know it
>my god, we know it

File: 1458451863480.jpg (15KB, 374x378px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 374x378px

>>31221337

File: image%3A1747.jpg (114KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1200x675px

>>31221301
>>31221337
>>31221452

too bad walls of greentext and funny reaction images are the only existing countermeasures against things like onix, granit, shkval and kh-101

are carrier threads just /american butthurt general/?

File: 1458434153544.gif (3MB, 291x300px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 291x300px

>>31221829
>and we know it

>>31221829
You can't project power with missiles, buddy.

>>31221211
>>31221829
>purely defensive systems win wars
ok, ivan

>>31221943

you mean intimidate tropical aboriginals and bully into submission poor sandpeople half across the world. the only projection carriers are capable of

>>31222157

clausewitz would like a word with you

>>31222195
>clausewitz would like a word with you
I'm pretty sure you never read Clauswitz if you believe A2AD tools to be war winning in and of themselves.

>people worried about Kessler syndrome in LEO
Its dumb to shoot down stuff higher than LEO, and things you kill in LEO will fall and burn up in only a few years at the most. Even then theres some fairly large gaps between orbits that, say, cover your enemy and might be shot down, and ones that dont and wont.

>>31222284

a shield made up of well-directed blows. the difference being, clausewitz lived in the era way before supersonic sea-skimmers, aerodynamically manuevering cruisers and supercavitating torpedoes. in the age of long range precision, carriers are just massive sitting ducks

>>31219160

no, navies are not obsolete. but gigantic surface vessels are archaic relics of the past. pretty much all of ww2 battleships were sunk by the airplanes. next major war, carriers will follow the same fate due to ashms. unmanned submarines and ucavs will inherit the oceans

>>31222986
>in the age of long range precision
Once more, a slav misses the point of how vulnerable the kill chain is for these weapons. How am I not surprise.

An arrow one cannot aim is like a dick which cannot get hard.

>>31222986
>but gigantic surface vessels are archaic relics of the past
He says, as Russia refurbishes and returns to service its Kirov classes and claims it will be building carriers soon.

>>31219503
>what are guiding systems
You do realise active warheads exist since at least 1980s?

>>31223102
Hop shit anon. A kill chain is multiple links, stop fixating solely on the last one you fucking sperg.

>>31222986
>pretty much all of ww2 battleships were sunk by the airplanes
and I'm guessing those planes flew from land in every instances?

>>31223009

main purposes of russian navy for the next 25+ years are coastal defense, close/far naval zone presence, disruption of enemy landing operations and nuclear deterrence

main vessels of russian navy for the next 25+ years are corvettes/frigates with strike and anti-submarine capabilities, diesel subs, ballistic missile subs and heavy nuclear subs

everything else is loose gossip, abstract models or shipyard officials begging for government contracts

300+ history of russian navy underlines it's purpose as primarily defensive

>>31222794
>its dumb to shoot down high orbiting communications stuff
Hmmmm

>>31223277
>main purposes of russian navy for the next 25+ years are coastal defense, close/far naval zone presence, disruption of enemy landing operations and nuclear deterrence
>main vessels of russian navy for the next 25+ years are corvettes/frigates with strike and anti-submarine capabilities, diesel subs, ballistic missile subs and heavy nuclear subs
No. From your own Russian state mouthpiece news sources:
https://news.usni.org/2016/05/27/russia-modernize-lone-aircraft-carrier-next-year-new-carrier-start-2025
>Starting next year, Russia’s only aircraft carrier will start a modernization maintenance period to upgrade its arresting gear and launching systems, according to a report this week from the Russian TASS news wire

http://sputniknews.com/military/20160527/1040378612/russian-aircraft-carrier-future.html
>Last week, the Russian Ministry of Defense said that it might sign a contract on the construction of a new aircraft carrier; designed by the Krylov State Research Center, the construction of the ship would begin in the mid-2020s.

And then these:
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8706/iran-bases-russian
>Iran's Supreme National Security Council admitted on August 16 that Tehran is permitting Russian military aircraft to stage operations against Syrian rebels from an Iranian airbase.[1] Satellite photography previously confirmed Russian military aircraft on the tarmac of Iran's Shahid Nojeh Airfield in 2015.

https://theaviationist.com/2015/07/07/f-22-and-f-15-intercepted-off-alaska/
>Twice on Jul. 4, Russian Tu-95 Bear bombers on long-range patrol missions were intercepted by U.S. jets scrambled from airbases located on the West Coast.

http://www.ibtimes.com/russian-tu-95-bomber-intercepted-japanese-air-force-jets-1855868
>A Russian Tu-95 bomber was intercepted off the coast of Japan on two separate occasions on Mar. 20, according to the Japanese Ministry of Defense

CONT

>>31223538
Just as a small, small sample. If Russia were purely defensive and only "defending itself from big bully NATO", none of this shit would be going on.

>everything else is loose gossip abstract models or shipyard officials begging for government contracts
Statements made by your own MoD officials.

https://russiandefpolicy.wordpress.com/
>Recall that MOD armaments tsar Yuriy Borisov said an aircraft carrier contract won’t be signed until late 2025, and there are three existing “not bad” designs for it.

>300+ history of russian navy underlines it's purpose as primarily defensive
There are literally dozens of examples I can point out of this being demonstrably untrue just between 1960 and 1990, and just within your submarine service.

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/whiskey-on-the-rocks-when-sweden-woke-up-to-find-a-russian-submarine-stuck-on-a-rock.html
>In October 1981, the Soviet submarine (NATO codename: Whiskey) S-363 accidentally hit an underwater rock about 10 kilometres from the main Swedish naval base at Karlskrona, surfacing within Swedish waters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_K-19#Nuclear_accident
>On 4 July 1961, under the command of Captain First Rank Nikolai Vladimirovich Zateyev, K-19 was conducting exercises in the North Atlantic close to Southern Greenland when it developed a major leak in its reactor coolant system, causing the water pressure in the aft reactor to drop to zero and causing failure of the coolant pumps.
>On 24 February 1972, a fire broke out while the submarine was at a depth of 120 m (390 ft), some 1,300 km (700 nmi; 810 mi) from Newfoundland, in Canada.

CONT

>>31223542
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_K-129_(1960)
>The wreck of K-129 was identified by the USS Halibut northwest of Oahu at an approximate depth of 4,900 metres (16,000 ft) in early August 1968.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_K-324
>On October 31, 1983, the K-324 snagged the frigate USS McCloy's towed sonar array cable[1] 282 miles west of Bermuda, causing damage to the submarine's propeller.

And here's the topper:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_K-219
>On Friday 3 October 1986, while on an otherwise routine Cold War nuclear deterrence patrol in the North Atlantic 680 miles (1,090 km) northeast of Bermuda, the 15-year-old K-219 suffered an explosion and fire in a missile tube.

If your fucking navy was so goddamn "defensive" in nature, why were your fucking subs constantly sinking, having fires and full blown coolant/reactor leaks right off the coast of the fucking United States and friends?

Your completely bullshit "woe is us, we never did nothing" narrative is tired, played out and completely fucking laughable.

Go sell that shit to someone born yesterday, dipshit.

>>31223277
>everything else is loose gossip, abstract models or shipyard officials begging for government contracts

Yeah, no. Like always it went like this:
>but Yuri, we cannot build aircraft carriers
I don't care, Ivan
>but we just told world we would build it!
Blame it on stupid rumor mongerers later
>but you just made statement from Kremlin, Yuri!
Never happened. We will to deny later.

File: missilesbtfo.png (978KB, 1822x846px) Image search: [Google]

978KB, 1822x846px

>>31219114
>>31221829
>>31222986
>I'm a massive faggot who doesn't understand how modern wars are faught.

>>31219114
>carriers are a thing of the past and used against countries that can't afford to make these missiles.
But this is literally 1 country among 300. Chinese themselves build their own carriers because countries they plan to bully don't have such capabilities.

>>31219313
>The carrier keeps on moving and by the time the missile actually reaches that spot, the carrier is long gone.
Update target data via sat link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h449oIjg2kY

>>31223705
>we'll just build more
you just lost 5,000 trained sailors and airmen
a massive ship with nuclear reactors
and dozens of state of the art aircraft

TOO A MISSILE SALVO

cost effect says that the US should build more nuclear weapons instead of these missile spoonges in case of a serious war

>>31224367
seriously man, you are trying to troll way too hard. Instead of coming across as cool, funny, and edgey, you are coming across as that guy smiling and crying while people shake their head in pity and shame for you. Your only chance to survive is to invest in carriers.

File: Moskit_missile.jpg (78KB, 800x512px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 800x512px

>>31224423
you're right why would they use a salvo of conventional missiles at 1/10th the cost of the $6 billion carrier when they could just send in a $50 million dollar thermonuclear anti-ship missile.

>inb4 lazers

Having served on two Nimitz-class carriers while I was in, I can tell you they are far from obsolete. Ugly as sin sometimes, but they are the greatest intimidation we can use against our enemies.

>>31224191
>Update target data via sat link.
>I don't know how LEO orbital mechanics work

I love how these morons keep implying that in the future nobody will be able to project power across oceans because of missiles.

>>31223538
>>31223549
>>31223542

yeah nah. kuznetsov will be revamped and tugged to syrian coast to bomb arabs. claim that mod 'might' order it's replacement somewhere after 2025 pretty much indicates their level of interest in such costly and unnecessary endeavour. one have to base judgement on the future russian naval potential from the actual programs being currenly developed and procurred, and the things russia builds today are borei and yasen, not zumwalt and ford

>If your fucking navy was so goddamn "defensive" in nature, why were your fucking subs
committing routine patrols and exercises in international waters?
>Your completely bullshit "woe is us, we never did nothing"
contain your autistic rage and try to prove carriers' worth without diverting it into politics

>>31224679
>there is only 1 satellite

>>31219114
>>31219114

>ROCK BEATS PAPER

>>31221829
>zircon
>shorter range than SM-6
>only have obsolete cold war relics to launch them like the Tu-95 or the Tu-160, neither of which can come even close to a carrier
When will vatniks ever learn?

In addition to some of the techniques outlined in http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-031.htm, task forces use things like weather, cloud cover, diversionary formations, etc. to prevent the enemy from targeting a carrier with missiles. Most of these methods are so effective that the enemy will usually only be able to locate the carrier once it has come close to the coast, even if the enemy makes full use of drones and maritime patrol and scouting aircraft. This prevents targeting by the wonder weapon missiles, and keeps the task force safe. The enemy's real challenge is not designing a weapon that can kill a carrier, but rather developing a location and localization capability for finding the carrier to allow successful employment of weapons, something the Chinese and the Russians do not have yet.

>>31224727
>Implying you can afford the delta-v needed to maintain constant coverage on a ship that knows where the birds are and is evading

File: carrier sub.jpg (247KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 1024x768px

I agree OP, surface carriers are over make way for sub carriers.

File: latest[1].jpg (679KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

679KB, 1920x1080px

>>31225958
Full Metal Panic! season 4 when?

>>31224191
>Update target data via sat link.
Might actually work, if Russia had 3 dozen RORSATs in orbit for decent coverage.

Wanna guess how many naval RORSATs they currently have up? One.

>>31224553
>a $50 million dollar thermonuclear anti-ship missile.
Because that invites a counterforce strike of three or four low-deflection SLBMs against a naval port or two and any Naval Bomber regiments on the board.

>>31224719
>claim that mod 'might' order it's replacement somewhere after 2025 pretty much indicates their level of interest in such costly and unnecessary endeavour.
No. It's a clear indication of how far Russian military shipbuilding and naval funding has to go to get out of the hole it's still in. They're not building it before then because they can't. Period.

>and the things russia builds today are borei and yasen
Yes. At a rate less than 1/4 what the USN is pumping Virginias and soon Columbias out. It takes Russia an average of 6.7 years to commission a Borei from keel laying to commissioning, looking at their first three and where their fourth is in the process.

It's impossible to tell with the Yasens, because the first one took 20 fucking years and the second took 7 years from keel laying to launch in 2016 with no commissioning on the horizon.

Meanwhile, the USN shits out at least one Virginia a year, each taking an average of just over two years to complete.

>committing routine patrols and exercises in international waters?
Kek. Are you really claiming they were never caught in territorial waters? Even though one of them literally beached itself in Sweden and another was caught in US waters above? Do I really need to go run down another half dozen examples? Idiot.

>and try to prove carriers' worth without diverting it into politics
You made an assertion trying to divert attention from your shitty argument. It was ridiculous and wrong. You got corrected. Go fuck yourself.

File: 1464222129304.jpg (127KB, 715x1000px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 715x1000px

>>31219002

>After 1000 years of navy's being important, the Chinese obsoleted them all just by making a really big missile.

>>31219271
We can shoot down satellites in space?

>>31226989
Yes, anon. Easily, depending on their orbital distance.

>>31226989
Russia, China, and the US have all developed ASATs, and China and the US have actually shot down satellites before

File: 140323-N-NE138-349-1024x554[1].jpg (101KB, 1024x554px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1024x554px

>>31226989

Any Burkes is capable of murdering satellites with ease via SM-3.

File: ASAT_missile_launch[1].jpg (591KB, 793x1050px) Image search: [Google]

591KB, 793x1050px

>>31226989
ASM-135 Anti-sat missile, F-15 launch platform.

>>31226878
>an average of 6.7 years
7.7 years per boat by my math.

>>31226989
Yes, since the 1980s, and that's not including prototypes or black projects.