Just watched trumps speech on how we need more aircraft carr

the airplanes can fire missiles to intercept this stuff

Also the US needs way more carriers, not just 12
The idea that land bases will exist in a real conventional war is nonsense.
Need to step up to building 1 carrier per year

>>33174009
t. country without aircraft carriers

>>33174009
Carriers are the current pinnacle of force projection in the world.

Carriers don't travel alone.

Carriers have CWIS and ECM, as do the other ships a CSG travel with.

Destroyers have anti-missile systems as well as ECM.

Long range missiles aren't fired in volleys, and even if they were, those sights are 100% guaranteed to get blown the fuck out after launching.

You're an idiot.

File: irans-missile-arsenal.jpg (130KB, 735x640px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 735x640px

>>33174047
>>33174051
I mean look at the range of these. And I doubt that you can intercept a volley of them.

Carrier strike groups are almost the entirety of US force projection, without them the US is mostly empty threats

>>33174047
Lol are you high m8?
China has one handmedown carrier they bought from russia and russia's carriers are garbage. When it comes to airforce and navy power no one in the world can even come close to the US

>>33174087
Do they have enough missiles to fire a "volley?"

Do they have good enough electronics and sensors to do it?

Are the missiles 100% reliable and 100% accurate?

Do you even know how electronic countermeasures work?

Do you not realize that anything that locks a target lights up like a Christmas tree in the dark?

Do they have enough launch systems or vehicles to fire a volley? If they do, are they vulnerable to airborne ECM?

>>33174089
Except for our bases pretty much everywhere.

File: US military bases.png (273KB, 2400x1349px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 2400x1349px

>>33174089
>Carrier strike groups are almost the entirety of US force projection
Lolno, not even close.

>>33174009
>Can someone explain how aircraft carriers help in (x specific situation)

>>33174105
US carrier force will be fighting against China's or Russia's land based forces

Thats not a war that the US can win, not easily

The US can't use all those land based fighters/bombers when their airbases in range are attacked
Also they then need to maintain a huge force of aerial refueling planes too, that isn't cheap.

>>33174145
And how many bases have any relevant ability aside from just being a minor radar site? A CSG carries 50 some modern strike aircraft, that is more than what most countries have

>>33174009
>a volley of long range missiles can take it out without it even getting close to the combat zone?

You realize you can put standoff missiles on airplanes too, right? You also have to keep in mind that you need to find your targets; spy satellites have known orbits, search is limited by radar horizon and acoustics, AEW has to be at a high and obvious altitude to maximize range, and blasting active sensors is the fastest way to let everyone know that you are, in fact, a warship.

>>33174009
Carrier Strike Groups have alot more defense to ASHM's than you think. This isn't WWII anymore. The guidance systems on just one CIWS allow it to take on mutliple threats within a shorter amount of time than it takes to fire a land based ASHM.

Not to mention that capabilities of a CSG.
>can be anywhere in the world within the week
>provides a floating Base Of Operations for command and a runway for CAS aircraft to land and refuel
>provides the capability to deter the worlds largest fleet of what ever they can throw at them
>not to mention rain alot of fire down on on-land targets, such as depots and HQ's of different armies
>can host a multitude of batalions and their command staff inside the carrier itself, not to mention Amphibious Assualt Carriers, that hold entire batalions and their LAVS for landing on beaches
>not to mention the terror it can cause just by pulling into range of any enemy

It does more than carry aircraft, dofus

>>33174181

t. brainlet with no concept of logistics

>>33174194
>lol u r retard ergo i'm right qed

>>33174089
The minuteman would like to have a word with you.

>>33174009
>a volley of long range missiles can take it out
>buying into this Chinese propaganda

The Chinese have been working on anti-ship ballistic missiles for quite some time, claiming that they can take out a US aircraft carrier with it. Additionally, they have developed over the horizon radar systems which they claim give them the capability to see carriers before entering the combat zone. This is probably why you hold this uninformed, inaccurate belief.

In reality, while the Chinese likely do possess some form of both of the aforementioned technologies, there is no reason to actually believe that a ballistic missile could actually target an aircraft carrier reliably enough to score a hit. Even with OTH radar, there is more to scoring a hit besides just spotting the target, and the ability to hit a fast moving target on the open sea is no small feat.

Additionally, as others have mentioned in the thread, the US does possess anti-ballistic missile capabilities in the form of AEGIS in the Navy and THAAD on land. THAAD is set to be deployed in South Korea to counter possible North Korean ICBMs, and would potentially be able to spot if not intercept Chinese ballistic missiles.

Don't believe the Chinese propaganda.

>>33174181
>And how many bases have any relevant ability aside from just being a minor radar site?
Almost all of them.
>A CSG carries 50 some modern strike aircraft
Wow, it's fucking nothing.

Literally look at pretty much any US military operation in recent history. Almost all of them have been overwhelmingly land-based. Even those against coastal nations like Korea, Vietnam or Libya.

US military strategy relies on the idea that we'll have to fight two wars at once. Any war with China would rely on a huge naval presence, even more so with declining support from southeastern Asian Nations. If we need two carrier groups in the Baltics or in the ME, and we lose one or two carrier groups in the Pacific, our war effort would be crippled. The MIT international journal has a good piece on possible conflict with China and the rest of my info comes from foreign affairs.

>>33174408
The biggest problem the US has is the overwhelming amount of non-whites in the Navy who would all be at risk of mutiny in a real war
Happened constantly with the blacks in WW2, Korea, Vietnam

>>33174421
>We wuz Amistad n shit

>>33174087
>And I doubt that you can intercept a volley of them.

Look up "SM-2" and "SM-3" for me champ

>>33174421
Source on WW2 and Korea? I can believe Vietnam, everyone was fragging officers like it's cool then

>>33174421
Correct and it's why the US can't afford to not have its defense systems work perfectly. If the US finds itself dragged into a real and serious conflict against an enemy who shows at least a somewhat reliable ability to target and destroy the best of the US's equipment, the forces will completely fall apart.

>>33174480
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_mutinies_in_the_United_States_Armed_Forces