Would US carriers even work against a non-third world country?

F-16's on a carrier? I didn't know this was Ace Combat. Realistically a pack of Growlers with some regular super hornets could wreck alot more than you think OP. Not even gonna open the F-35 can of worms. Also why are we attacking a country with gripens and typhoons? I agree though, against a theoretical world power like Russia or China, they'd probably be used more for pushing in the enemy fleet's shit in blue water areas.

>>32048785

The problem is your carrier based F16. It can't land or take off, so you're right.

Why do faggots always talk about USN ships like they're just steaming around solo in a war? The entire fucking doctrine is based around CBG's.

>>32048819
nobody on /k/ understands how fucking awesome growlers are, or how much they'd fuck everyone else's shit up.

t. AO2

>>32048830
mmmm dat E-5 life. Being a sham shield in the Army or a Second Class Petty Officer is the tits.

Would any other country's fleet even work against a Carrier Battle Group? I get the idea is lob fuck huge missiles at the best AA defense ever built. But I just can't see an Kuznetsov or whatever going up against a Tico, Burke or LHD. Let alone a carrier with modern fighters.

>>32048855
kek

File: deadly-quiet.jpg (342KB, 2900x1000px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 2900x1000px

>>32048785
>I get the idea is to park a few off your enemies coast and gain air superiority or use them to wreck your enemies fleets

That's not how it works.

File: image.jpg (74KB, 944x670px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 944x670px

>>32048785
What a shitty bait thread

>>32048785

The second a carrier crew realized some planes weren't coming back there would be a complete collapse in morale. They just aren't used to taking losses.

>>32048855
Not shilling for Russia, but Kirov class would like a word with you comrade.

>>32048785
Maybe its bait, maybe you really don't know. It's never just a carrier. Ridiculous power projection aside, it's a 4 billion dollar asset with a crew of 6,000. What you're asking about is called a "Carrier battle group" It consists of the carrier, two guided missile cruisers,4 destroyers, two support ships and one or two attack submarines. Aircraft-wise, the F/A 18 hornets and super hornets are a match for Gripens,Rafales, and Typhoons. We have dedicated electronic warfare aircraft to suppress enemy radar systems. We have HARM missiles that seek out active radar. There are 4 destroyers with 96 vls cells and 2 cruisers with 72 vls cells and 70 combat aircraft with an 8 missile payload. That's minimum of 1,088 available missiles delivered in a variety of methods ready for a variety of situations. With a combat range of 400 nautical miles or so. So anon, tell me how useless a carrier is.

>>32048830
What do AOs do in VAQ?

>>32048830
If you're AO your ASVAB sucked

>>32048906
And you would know this because?

In 2001 the crew of the USS Cole wasn't used to being fucking suicide bombed yet they kept their shit afloat against all odds. It's like we constantly drill and prepare for the worst or something...

>>32049171
Nothing, doesn't mean we don't get talking about their cool shit though. Better than squeegeeing some aim-9's all day.

>>32049171

The Jammer Pods are attached by the same type of rail systems. They also work on the Chaff and Flare systems.

File: FM-2011-when-hornets-growl-1-FLASH_jpg__800x600_q85_crop.jpg (58KB, 631x300px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 631x300px

>>32049171

They also can carry the HARM Anti Radiation Missile

>>32049178
Thanks dad.

>>32049248
Hey, it could be worse, I hear they feed GMs crayons.

>>32049206
There was that time a US destroyer got buzzed by a russian jet and most of the crew quit. But I hear they just got beaten into line and a commissar kept them from running away the second time.

>>32049450
It's a little known fact that US ships have blocking detachments to machinegun the crew when they panic. Who can blame them since only one destroyer gets the missile and the other gets the VLS.

>>32049450
>There was that time a US destroyer got buzzed by a russian jet and most of the crew quit.
Even the Russian manufacturer called bullshit on "shut the AEGIS down" nonsense. The Vatnik propaganda post also claimed the "crew of 37" quit, which is just the Officer compliment of the Cook.

The US called it "about as tame a flyby as you can get."

>>32049334
Better than needle gunning as a BM for 20 years

>>32048906
When the enemy realized none of THEIR planes were coming back their morale would be a fuckload worse.

>>32048785
Everything else being equal, a land-based airforce will always beat a carrier-based air force. But the objective of a carrier battle group is to win the seas, not do what you said, which is only the plan when shitting on third-world countries. Then again, America has ten times the resources of a first world country, so they can win just by sheer attrition.

>>32049450
>just got beaten into line

Just like your mum

>>32048785
>would a floating airbase full of fifth gen stealth multirole aircraft, Super Hornets, and Growlers even work against a non-third world country?
OP is a fag.

>I just can't see an F16 or whatever going up against a Gripen

Why not? A gripen is just an F16 some swedes put together with the wings on backwards because of shitty IKEA directions. Also F16s are not carrier aircraft.

>>32050576
You know who else got beaten?

My mom!

>>32049140
The cruisers actually have 122 cells each. And we can quad pack ESSM into a single cell.

>>32049206
>In 2001 the crew of the USS Cole wasn't used to being fucking suicide bombed yet they kept their shit afloat against all odds.
>Against all odds
Lmfao the Cole bombing was the most action the navy has seen since Tonkin. They'd shit their collective pants if they were ever in actual danger.

>>32048785
They would work in the absence of a nearby US airbase. Which is a very limited space.

>>32051150
This. Russian sailors are the bravest because they crew the deadliest navy in the world.

>>32048785
Of course they would try to land army in America or send you oil tankers around globe during war and see what happens.

>>32049789
I disagree. Carriers have advantages. The main one is mobility. While a normal airfield would likely win in a standstill slugging match, the carriers can steam into range, launch a massive raid from the edge of range, hopefully without the carrier ever being spotted, something that is likely if it plays smartly. This alpha strike (the term actually originates from this) can flatten an airbase and whatever is on it. This doesn't mean that land based airfields aren't amazing. They are. If you aren't caught off guard you have a good chance at it.

>Gripen, Typhoon or Rafale

Countries with those aircraft barely have a military at all. It would be a walk in the park.