Do you agree with his assessment? >Are the US Navy Carri

carriers attack at night

didnt a bunch of speedboats rigged with silkworms BTFO a carrier group in a war game or some shit

>armchair commanders
opinion discarded

>>33762193
>>33762199
Nothing more to discuss here.

>>33762223
That war game also included motorcycles traveling at lightspeed

Already a thread

>>33762223
Yeah, but the scenario was retarded as shit. Things like couriers that traveled at the speed of light and the missiles outweighing the boats they were launched from.

>>33762127
He admits they're great for messing with smaller countries without missiles, submarines and shit. That's exactly what the US has been doing for the past +60 years, I'd say they're still relevant.

File: 1491765871232.png (978KB, 1822x846px) Image search: [Google]

978KB, 1822x846px

>>33762127
fuck no

>>33762127
Would it be possible to construct mini carriers? Like 15000 tons, 5 aircraft and 10 drones or so?

Distributed lethality and minimalizing the loss should anything happen.

No. They are not obsolete and never will be unless someone creates a way to: make aircraft infinitely stay aloft, have a steady supply of munitions, have quarters for the crew, and have enough people aboard to cycle crews.
Aircraft Carriers replaced Battleships because they had longer range. Nothing in the foreseeable future will out range a carrier or be able to supply all the services one does.

>>33762223
There were so many problems with the Millennium Challenge 2002 that anyone acting like it's valid should not be taken seriously.
Messages were assumed to be delivered instantly, speedboats were carrying anti-ship missiles that were bigger than the boats supposedly launching them, and US warships were forbidden from doing things that would help detect incoming enemies.

>>33762223
Yeah, Gary Bretcher wrote about it ages ago. It already sounded like self-congratulory bullshit at the time tbqh. For a start, Kebabs are Tusken Raiders and will never pull off operations on that scale without fucking up.

Carriers are fine, maybe they won't be as important as they've been at some point but they'll always be around.

>>33762286
I don't know about that but the Marines plan on using their new amphibious assault ships as light aircraft carriers when they get more F-35s.

http://www.businessinsider.com/marine-avation-plan-2017-f-35-b-carrier-killer-missile-gap-2017-3

>>33762286
That kind of goes back to the Escort Carriers but they were more geared towards anti-submarine warfare or being a deterrent to surface raiders.
Now it doesn't make much sense. Even if a carrier is a large and valuable target, there are an extreme amount of defenses on and around them.

If you're going to use small groups of drones to attack things from ships then may as well go for something like an Aviation Cruiser where you can have surface-based weapons, a flight deck, and a control center for the drones.

m-muh AShMs
m-muh 2002 war game
m-muh submarines

>>33762284
Only problem is the Tomcat and Phoenix combo is gone, while the opponent still retains his Backfire Kitchen combo plus true distributed lethality with supersonic swarm AI missiles fired from even corvettes.

>>33762223
No. You let someone tell you that, and you believed it because you lack critical thinking skills.

>>33762334
Gary is wrong.

>>33765728
They dont have SOSS. So none of that matters.

Carriers will go the way of the Battleship

>>33765860

You mean the thing that's probably coming back?

>>33762127

Our nuclear technology is unparalleled, but pretty much any submarine can BTFO a carrier with a torpedo aimed at the keel. Break the backbone of the ship and it's done.

>>33762127
>Carriers are obsolete
>This is why China is rushing to build as many as they can as quickly as possible.

>>33765896
where did you hear BB's are coming back?

File: rossin.png (1MB, 640x1121px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 640x1121px

>>33765896
Just no.

File: w8m9m8.jpg (127KB, 1200x1223px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 1200x1223px

>>33762127
no
we will never again see to major powers fighting directly, even the US attacking a shithole like North Korea would see devastating US losses, so it will never happen.
The future of war will look pretty much like the last 20 years, Major world powers arming opposing sand nigger armies and fighting it out by proxy.

How many backfire bombers do you think the russians could get in the air at the same time anyway? 10?

>>33765793
Satellites are easier to manufacture, and launch into orbit and you only need like 2 dozen for full coverage. They can have ready made sats held in reserve and launched and made operational just days beforehand. In contrast regenerating the long range counter-strike capability of the Tomcat + Phoenix combo would take years if not decades.

>>33762127
>Are the US Navy Carrier Fleets Obsolete?

They are nothing more than force projection theater.

>>33766114
It's one of the aircraft they actually take care off. I'd say they could actually get most airborne.
But with only a little over 100 in service they would be in demand for multiple missions.

>>33766059
The difference between the Royal Navy in the Falklands War and the US Navy in a hypothetical resuming of the Korean War is that the US does not rely on gun for anti-air defense.
In the Falklands the British were using 40mm Bofors and other guns to try to track Argentine A-4s. The US does have CIWS but a lot of anti-air missiles.
Plus, North Korea really does not have the ability to do both attack and defense. They put their air force towards attacking American ships (good luck) and American and South Korean aircraft go over the North's airspace virtually uncontested.
That's even assuming the North Koreans can make their way out to sea where American ship and subs would be launching weapons from.

>>33766114
>How many backfire bombers do you think the russians could get in the air at the same time anyway? 10?
A regiment is like 20 backfires, they have more than 150 in inventory, 50 of those in reserve if I recall and most are in pretty good shape as they aren't used much and probably held as reserve during the Soviet period. That's like 60 Kitchen missiles, I doubt 3 Aegis ships can defend against those without leaking a few and with the warheads and fuel loads of these things- erghh.

>>33762223
If the USA realized carriers were obsolete they wouldn't be investing so hard in them, nor would Russia and China be trying to make their own as well. Remember 10 years ago when everyone was asking if tanks were obsolete because everyone was thinking of urban combat in Iraqistan?

>>33765974
Probably thinking railguns will make battleships come back.

>>33766245
The RN missiles during the Falklands War.
Seacat, Seaslug, Seawolf and Seadart.
Seadart is actually the most successful naval SAM in history

>>33766436
In the Falklands the Seatdart didn't work that well up close, they were good for longer range.
Seaslug was older and only used against shore targets.
I know the RN had missiles on their ships but a lot of the fire being thrown up at incoming attackers were bullets. Technology has improve a lot since then so in a replicated scenario Argentine planes would not get as close to something like a Type 45 Destroyer, the same could be said of North Korean planes trying to attack an American Carrier Group.