What role would the surface fleet play during a nuclear war?

Not much desu. In fact the US has a policy of nuclear retaliation for sinking one of its carriers. They'd be kinda useless.

LARPing Waterworld after it's over.

nothing, just watching the world burn around you

>>33266198
>>33266584
>>33266668
>>33267016

Couldn't you at least use the destroyers and carriers to intercept incoming bombers and missiles?

>faggots detected
>implying that nuclear war never include use of conventional weapons.

>and What is Aegis system for?

>>33267202
what about WATERWORLD do you not understand

>>33266198
Carrier based nuclear bombing is a thing.

>>33267424
>you will never be enslaved by bald jet ski using sea people and forced to row a rusty aircraft carrier equipped with old telephone poles for oars
why even live

>>33266198
In Theory acting as mobile missile shields and/or intradiction sites before land based Missile Shields have engagement range on incoming missiles.

They would hopefully engage and destroy enough to allow land based shields to destroy the rest.

Ultimate goal would be survival of enough assets at home and abroad through use of said Shield to weather the brunt of the Nuclear portion of the war than who ever did the initial firing. These assets then go conventional or continue liberal use of Nuclear retaliation.

File: airplane.jpg (191KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 1920x1080px

>>33266198
If you were captain of an aircraft carrier that survives global nuclear war, what would you and your crew do? The U.S. and big chunks of the world are radioactive wastelands.

File: The_Last_Ship_Large_Promo_Poster.jpg (285KB, 1209x882px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 1209x882px

>>33269648
Routinely ignore the advice of all the competent people on the boat and continually endanger myself and my crew by leading every single mission on my own even though I have my own security team to do that for me.

some carriers do have nukes aboard for use to mount to aircraft it fields to perform nuclear strikes.
also, ghetto C&C and detection.

>>33269648
There would have to be some islands somewhere. Not every country would be fucked. At very worst the crew would be eating pengans in Antarctica.

>>33266584
>In fact the US has a policy of nuclear retaliation for sinking one of its carriers. They'd be kinda useless.

No it doesn't.

>>33266584
>In fact the US has a policy of nuclear retaliation for sinking one of its carriers

Post the fact that you mention.

>>33266198
carrier air wings are capable of dropping nuclear bombs

>>33266584
Citation needed.

>>33266584
BIGGEST FUCKING NUCLEAR WAR MEME OF /K/

>>33269671
What is the plot of Infinite warfare for 500, Dave?

>>33266584
>In fact the US has a policy of nuclear retaliation for sinking one of its carriers.
Post source.

>>33269648
How the everloving fuck could an aircraft come to rest like that mostly intact?

>>33266198
Pull one nuke from the mainland?

>>33266198
Immediate:
>interception of any ICBM, SLBM or nuclear cruise missiles launched in range with SM-3s and tracking from all relevant assets worldwide
>hunt for and sinking of all submarines in the AO, especially SSBNs and SSGNs, in conjunction with detached USN SSNs
>wipe the entire AO of any hostile air and surface targets
>airstrikes and tomahawk strikes on any C4SIR and IADS nodes in range, begin rolling back conventional air defense, surveillance, recon, command, control, comms, computing and leadership nodes of any launching country, just as in a conventional war
>reduction of enemy air forces, imposition of air superiority and opening paths up for USAF SACAIR strategic nuclear assets
>possibly provide cover for and ASW/naval patrol aircraft screening for any friendly SSBNs in the AO if threatened

Ongoing/second strike/longer term goals:
>prosecute conventional warfare against C4SIR nodes, rolling back any defenses as necessary to open up access to them, same as any conventional war, with a more urgent focus on strategic control and comms nodes
>sink, capture or blockade any relevant merchant or naval shipping in conjunction with the USN SSNs
>enact all emergency preparations/plans for tactical and strategic nuclear platform proliferation within the service (arm anything which is emergency-planned to employ nuclear weapons with nukes from any available stockpile) using UNREP at first and then refit when necessary. It's hard to say for an absolute surety what provisions exist for the worst case in this regard - anything from reappearance of nuke-armed tomahawks in VLS tubes (including the 154 VLS tubes in the four Ohio-class SSGN conversions) to scratch half-squadrons of nuclear-capable F-18D/Fs being deployed on carriers

Remember, the world doesn't end immediately in a nuclear exchange. People on all sides will hold back significant nuclear assets for follow up strikes. Conventional warfare would still be very important and the bulk of the fighting.

>>33269648
>cargo door
>right in the middle of the fucking wing
This pic looks cool but it's fucking retarded.

>>33269671
that show was triggering me on so many levels.

Such a good premise but ..holy shit.

>>33271518
>what is a escape door

Have you ever seen a plane?

File: 1452824901998.jpg (199KB, 554x603px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 554x603px

>>33269648
Is there any nukes on New Zealand? If not I'd tell the whole group to sail there

>>33271562
If they'd done that show on Netflix or HBO/Showtime/etc, it could have been incredible. As it is, it's a huge steaming pile of crap. My brother in law loves it, and I don't have the heart to get into it with him why the writing is such complete shit, much less the accuracy issues.

>>33269688
On the Beach was a really cool book about the Ausies sitting out a WWIII nuclear exchange, then the radiation coming for them anyway

>>33266198
In the old days they had tactical nuke lockers on Carriers and tactical nuke tomahawks. Neither are carried anymore, but reserves in certain ports exist for the F-18 compatible missiles.

Now I imagine they hunt attack subs that are hunting for our Ohios. Not sure, but even nuclear war has conventional components.

File: C1R8-9DUUAAvVaI.jpg (155KB, 1200x972px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1200x972px

>>33271468
>SM-3s
>Intercepting ICBMs

They are rated for IRBMs at best.

>>33273883
Thank you, Captain Autism, for needlessly nitpicking what was a catch-all term in a very general comment meant for those seemingly uneducated in the matter. You don't answer "Why is the sky blue?" with detailed spectrographic analysis and the particle physics of EM radiation. You say "Because water vapor in the atmosphere diffracts it." and wait to see if they want more explanation.

That said, the graph you posted is clearly labelled "DEMONSTRATED TESTING by Element, Intercept Phase and Threat". The key words being "demonstrated testing". Simply put, as with all problems of velocity, vector and time, there is no reason the SM-3 cannot intercept an ICBM in terminal or even other portions of the flight envelope depending on the geometry of the specific intercept. SM-3 has both the total delta-V and tracking to do so, again depending. If the SM-3 launch vehicle is in the right spot and tracking has it in the right time frame, it can potentially make that intercept.

As for why these specific capabilities, if completely extant yet, are not publicly emphasized, simply consider what credible, tested and deployed anti-ICBM defenses do for MAD/NUTS game theory. There's a reason they don't really talk about this capability outside Korean peninsula, Japan and western Europe intercepts.

>>33266198
sinking

>>33266198
That is a really, really old graphic.

>>33274058
>>33273883
Holy fuck, you just got absolutely destroyed.

>>33274058
The difference between "interception of any ICBM, SLBM" and firing of interceptors at targets they have not been tested against because you have no other option are two very different things.

The SM-3 Block IIA (which is a small portion of the USN SM-3 stocks) has the kinematic performance to perform an intercept during terminal or boost phase. This is the least challenging part of designing an ABM hit-to-kill interceptor. Even the GBI, which has far more dev time and testing is only given 50% Pk when salvo fired.

Implying that the USN can defend an area against ICBM attack right now is retarded.

File: uav.jpg (54KB, 424x318px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 424x318px

Hasn't the US invented something that can shoot down enemy nukes? Surely with lasers and rail guns being developed, there must be a way to shoot down enemy icbms?

Why hasn't Reagans star wars become a reality yet?

>>33274187
>Hasn't the US invented something that can shoot down enemy nukes
>Surely with lasers and rail guns being developed, there must be a way to shoot down enemy icbms
This isn't even good bait, try again

>>33274187
We have interceptors, but the reliability rate is in the single digits.

Shit's hard yo.

>>33274187
>>33274207
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile

>>33274170
>Implying that the USN can defend an area against ICBM attack right now is retarded.
No one implied anything of the sort. No system on earth will "defend an area against ICBM attack", only provide a limited intercept probability for a portion of the incoming munitions. Again, pull your head out of your ass. I said, >>33271468
>>interception of any ICBM, SLBM or nuclear cruise missiles launched in range with SM-3s and tracking from all relevant assets worldwide
which, perhaps, could have been worded better. Again, this is "naval roles for dummies", not a detailed answer. Obviously no intercept has a 100% pK, nor is it a given that ANY SM-3s, much less all of them, will be in the right position at the right time with the right data to attempt an intercept. Anyone who has given even a cursory examination of this issue will understand that total interception rates, including all currently deployed systems, in a large-scale exchange would be very small as a total percentage.

That said, it is one of the clear and obvious roles for the USN in a nuclear exchange scenario to attempt an intercept on all possible targets. Which is exactly what OP asked.

>>33274200

How is that bait? It's a legitimate question

>>33274207

What makes shooting one down so hard? We have missiles that can shoot down planes. Why can't we shoot down missiles reliably?
Too fast? Too small a target?

Didn't the ruskies supposedly have a missile that can shoot down the Sr 71?

>>33274187
The plan was to fire shitload of nukes at the nukes before they hit anything, hoping to take them out with a literal firewall

>>33274660
>It's a legitimate question

>What makes shooting one down so hard? We have missiles that can shoot down planes. Why can't we shoot down missiles reliably?
Too fast? Too small a target?

I wonder why you think it's a legitimate question. Possibly because you're just as retarded as him?

File: kaz pls.jpg (24KB, 331x271px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 331x271px

>>33268461

>>33274684
Those were the old, old 1960s to early 70's interceptor ideas. They've long been out of service due to incredibly high cost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_(missile)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIM-49_Spartan

Nothing like them were even still operational when Reagan became president, much less made his "Star Wars" proposal.

>>33274058
>as with all problems of velocity, vector and time,
yeah about that bud...
>"The methodology employed to perform the calculations discussed in this report assumes impulsive interceptors and missiles that spontaneously obtain their entire velocity immediately upon launch. This assumption is made to simplify the mathematical complexity. Similarly, the calculations were done assuming no air drag and a nonrotating Earth. The modeling of the interception was done assuming perfect tracking information and no countermeasures from the target missile. The end game of the interception process was also not modeled. Given the ranges and times involved in comparing the kinematic reach of different interceptors, these assumptions and simplifications are reasonable for a first-order estimation."
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR957.html

File: Spacey Unimpressed.gif (891KB, 325x252px) Image search: [Google]

891KB, 325x252px

>>33275146
>http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR957.html
Jesus Christ, it's right there in the fucking cover sheet under key findings:
>Aegis ships located in the North Sea and the Barents Sea equipped with SM-3 IIA missiles will be able to intercept Russian ICBMs only under an unrealistic zero time delay. The velocities needed for such interceptors under realistic time delays to reach Russian ICBMs launched from a number of sites inside Russia are higher than the maximum 4.5 km/s attainable by the SM-3 IIA interceptors under the restructured EPAA system.

It is physically possible, but unlikely from that position. In fact, from closer to the target it would definitely be able to achieve boost phase intercept. The entire fucking report talks specifically about interceptor systems in the Black Sea, Deveselu and Redzikowo not having the delta-V to achieve intercept against ICBM cites all the way over in central Russia. NOT THAT THEY CANNOT INTERCEPT ICBMs.

The whole point of the report is to piss on Russia being shitty about deploying ABM systems in those places because they feel it undermines their ICBM deterrence, to wit the Russians are afraid of our systems intercepting their ICBMs in boost phase.

Stop gobbling so much god damn cock and read your own fucking sources.

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

15KB, 374x378px

>>33274058
>>33274503
>>33275357
Fuck me but its fun to watch an informed anon get salty against obnoxious autism.