Aircraft carriers are as useless as battleships in an all out war with China or Russia

[esalla]

Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative

The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.

www.theamericanconservative.com

Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)

Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.

taskandpurpose.com

However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands

I think America should be working out how to protect the eventual Communist offensive against Taiwan, Japan and Australia rather than just their own offensive measures.

If they don't take Taiwan by force, they will just swallow them by squeezing them economically, denying them travel in various critical areas they require for trade, bribing and buying politicians (as they do to the West) etc.

China is probably just in wait for the right opportunity. They just took H.K and they are working on squeezing the Aussies and NZ economically right now also, keeping them dependent on them. Once done with these irritants, they will turn their sights elsewhere.

By the time China decides to go on the offensive, they could be too advanced, or too rapid in their activities. Worse, a passive, docile America that decides "it's not worth the economic 'benefit' we enjoy from cheap labour in China, so, unfortunately, you're on your own Taiwan".

China will know when to move, it won't be until they are in a much superior position, economically, geo-politically (they are in a great spot based on the U.N and WTO fiascos) and otherwise. They have to choose to eventually expand though with a focus on economics, but we saw their swift and deliberate move into H.K. 1.4B people and weak Western leadership? Just a matter of time...

The fix is actually quite simple: Taiwan needs to announce...
We have nuclear weapons.
If invaded, the invasion fleet will be attacked with nuclear weapons.
Low-yield nuclear missiles will be used to blow the every large dam in China.
If the invasion cannot be thrown back, every city in mainland China will be glassed by cobalt-jacketed dirty nukes.

There are 661 cities in China (according their definition and used to call "prefectures") and 19,522 of "towns". We need much more nukes than we actually have to glass them all. Say nothing about stupidity of "cobalt-jacked dirty (but weak) nukes".

There are 19,495 towns and cities in the USA. They do not all have to be destroyed, same for China

As of 2018, there are 19,495 incorporated cities, towns and villages in the United States. 14,768 of these have populations below 5,000. Only ten have populations above 1 million and none are above 10 million. 310 cities are considered at least medium cities with populations of 100,000 or more.

 

[Unkotare]

Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative

The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.

www.theamericanconservative.com

Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)

Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.

taskandpurpose.com

However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands

I think America should be working out how to protect the eventual Communist offensive against Taiwan, Japan and Australia rather than just their own offensive measures.

If they don't take Taiwan by force, they will just swallow them by squeezing them economically, denying them travel in various critical areas they require for trade, bribing and buying politicians (as they do to the West) etc.

China is probably just in wait for the right opportunity. They just took H.K and they are working on squeezing the Aussies and NZ economically right now also, keeping them dependent on them. Once done with these irritants, they will turn their sights elsewhere.

By the time China decides to go on the offensive, they could be too advanced, or too rapid in their activities. Worse, a passive, docile America that decides "it's not worth the economic 'benefit' we enjoy from cheap labour in China, so, unfortunately, you're on your own Taiwan".

China will know when to move, it won't be until they are in a much superior position, economically, geo-politically (they are in a great spot based on the U.N and WTO fiascos) and otherwise. They have to choose to eventually expand though with a focus on economics, but we saw their swift and deliberate move into H.K. 1.4B people and weak Western leadership? Just a matter of time...

The fix is actually quite simple: Taiwan needs to announce...
We have nuclear weapons.
If invaded, the invasion fleet will be attacked with nuclear weapons.
Low-yield nuclear missiles will be used to blow the every large dam in China.
If the invasion cannot be thrown back, every city in mainland China will be glassed by cobalt-jacketed dirty nukes.

There are 661 cities in China (according their definition and used to call "prefectures") and 19,522 of "towns". We need much more nukes than we actually have to glass them all. Say nothing about stupidity of "cobalt-jacked dirty (but weak) nukes".

Prefectures and cities are not the same thing.

 

[esalla]

Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative

The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.

www.theamericanconservative.com

Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)

Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.

taskandpurpose.com

However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands

maybe theyre useless as battleships because they are aircraft carriers,,
just like battleships are useless as aircraft carriers,,,

You are actually assuming that fighter jets will even fly in the next war. If so getting to within 500 miles of a target with a carrier puts the carrier 5 minutes from a hypersonic land based missile. The jets will have no where to land after attacking. Now this will actually never happen, because it is set in stone so it will never take place. However we can attack the camels in Afghanistan again

 

[progressive hunter]

Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative

The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.

www.theamericanconservative.com

Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)

Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.

taskandpurpose.com

However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands

maybe theyre useless as battleships because they are aircraft carriers,,
just like battleships are useless as aircraft carriers,,,

You are actually assuming that fighter jets will even fly in the next war. If so getting to within 500 miles of a target with a carrier puts the carrier 5 minutes from a hypersonic land based missile. The jets will have no where to land after attacking. Now this will actually never happen, because it is set in stone so it will never take place. However we can attack the camels in Afghanistan again

arent you assuming they wont???

and whos to say all their work is about wars,,, most of their time is spent preventing wars,,,

 

[esalla]

Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative

The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.

www.theamericanconservative.com

Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)

Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.

taskandpurpose.com

However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands

maybe theyre useless as battleships because they are aircraft carriers,,
just like battleships are useless as aircraft carriers,,,

You are actually assuming that fighter jets will even fly in the next war. If so getting to within 500 miles of a target with a carrier puts the carrier 5 minutes from a hypersonic land based missile. The jets will have no where to land after attacking. Now this will actually never happen, because it is set in stone so it will never take place. However we can attack the camels in Afghanistan again

arent you assuming they wont???

and whos to say all their work is about wars,,, most of their time is spent preventing wars,,,

The carrier is a useless first strike weapon against any hypersonic missile armed country.

US Aircraft Carriers Are Screwed In A Real Battle, According To Defense Analysts

When Dubya wanted to celebrate a “mission accomplished,” he flew in an S-3 onto a carrier hardtop. When Trump wanted to project American military

taskandpurpose.com

But hey I suppose I am not a real defense analyst like the guys above


There’s just one problem: A growing chorus of defense analysts says that in a real maritime battle, U.S. aircraft carriers are totally fucked.

“Beyond a shadow of a doubt, a carrier is just a target,” one former career Pentagon analyst told Reuters in a depressing investigation of flattops’ vulnerabilities that the news service published Thursday.

Related: Could China’s Military Capability Render The Aircraft Carrier Obsolete? »

Over the past two decades, as the United States cobbled together maritime and littoral strategies based on carrier airpower, potential adversaries have fine-tuned cheaper antiship missiles and torpedoes that can turn an $11 billion behemoth city at sea into a burning patch of ocean:

The new weapons include land-based ballistic missiles, such as China’s Dong Feng-21 anti-ship missile, which has a claimed range of 1,100 miles (1,770 kilometers) and moves at 10 times the speed of sound. Certain Russian and Chinese submarines can fire salvoes of precision-guided cruise missiles from afar, potentially overwhelming carrier-fleet anti-missile defense.

 

[progressive hunter]

Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative

The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.

www.theamericanconservative.com

Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)

Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.

taskandpurpose.com

However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands

maybe theyre useless as battleships because they are aircraft carriers,,
just like battleships are useless as aircraft carriers,,,

You are actually assuming that fighter jets will even fly in the next war. If so getting to within 500 miles of a target with a carrier puts the carrier 5 minutes from a hypersonic land based missile. The jets will have no where to land after attacking. Now this will actually never happen, because it is set in stone so it will never take place. However we can attack the camels in Afghanistan again

arent you assuming they wont???

and whos to say all their work is about wars,,, most of their time is spent preventing wars,,,

The carrier is a useless first strike weapon against any hypersonic missile armed country.

US Aircraft Carriers Are Screwed In A Real Battle, According To Defense Analysts

When Dubya wanted to celebrate a “mission accomplished,” he flew in an S-3 onto a carrier hardtop. When Trump wanted to project American military

taskandpurpose.com

But hey I suppose I am not a real defense analyst like the guys above


There’s just one problem: A growing chorus of defense analysts says that in a real maritime battle, U.S. aircraft carriers are totally fucked.

“Beyond a shadow of a doubt, a carrier is just a target,” one former career Pentagon analyst told Reuters in a depressing investigation of flattops’ vulnerabilities that the news service published Thursday.

Related: Could China’s Military Capability Render The Aircraft Carrier Obsolete? »

Over the past two decades, as the United States cobbled together maritime and littoral strategies based on carrier airpower, potential adversaries have fine-tuned cheaper antiship missiles and torpedoes that can turn an $11 billion behemoth city at sea into a burning patch of ocean:

The new weapons include land-based ballistic missiles, such as China’s Dong Feng-21 anti-ship missile, which has a claimed range of 1,100 miles (1,770 kilometers) and moves at 10 times the speed of sound. Certain Russian and Chinese submarines can fire salvoes of precision-guided cruise missiles from afar, potentially overwhelming carrier-fleet anti-missile defense.

they arent made to do that,,,

 

[Jarlaxle]

Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative

The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.

www.theamericanconservative.com

Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)

Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.

taskandpurpose.com

However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands

I think America should be working out how to protect the eventual Communist offensive against Taiwan, Japan and Australia rather than just their own offensive measures.

If they don't take Taiwan by force, they will just swallow them by squeezing them economically, denying them travel in various critical areas they require for trade, bribing and buying politicians (as they do to the West) etc.

China is probably just in wait for the right opportunity. They just took H.K and they are working on squeezing the Aussies and NZ economically right now also, keeping them dependent on them. Once done with these irritants, they will turn their sights elsewhere.

By the time China decides to go on the offensive, they could be too advanced, or too rapid in their activities. Worse, a passive, docile America that decides "it's not worth the economic 'benefit' we enjoy from cheap labour in China, so, unfortunately, you're on your own Taiwan".

China will know when to move, it won't be until they are in a much superior position, economically, geo-politically (they are in a great spot based on the U.N and WTO fiascos) and otherwise. They have to choose to eventually expand though with a focus on economics, but we saw their swift and deliberate move into H.K. 1.4B people and weak Western leadership? Just a matter of time...

The fix is actually quite simple: Taiwan needs to announce...
We have nuclear weapons.
If invaded, the invasion fleet will be attacked with nuclear weapons.
Low-yield nuclear missiles will be used to blow the every large dam in China.
If the invasion cannot be thrown back, every city in mainland China will be glassed by cobalt-jacketed dirty nukes.

There are 661 cities in China (according their definition and used to call "prefectures") and 19,522 of "towns". We need much more nukes than we actually have to glass them all. Say nothing about stupidity of "cobalt-jacked dirty (but weak) nukes".

Well, no, that's wrong. One Ohio-class sub carries 192 warheads. The point of the cobalt jacketing is to render the area uninhabitable for a century.

Now reread my post that you quoted, for comprhension.

 

[esalla]

Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative

The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.

www.theamericanconservative.com

Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)

Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.

taskandpurpose.com

However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands

maybe theyre useless as battleships because they are aircraft carriers,,
just like battleships are useless as aircraft carriers,,,

You are actually assuming that fighter jets will even fly in the next war. If so getting to within 500 miles of a target with a carrier puts the carrier 5 minutes from a hypersonic land based missile. The jets will have no where to land after attacking. Now this will actually never happen, because it is set in stone so it will never take place. However we can attack the camels in Afghanistan again

arent you assuming they wont???

and whos to say all their work is about wars,,, most of their time is spent preventing wars,,,

The carrier is a useless first strike weapon against any hypersonic missile armed country.

US Aircraft Carriers Are Screwed In A Real Battle, According To Defense Analysts

When Dubya wanted to celebrate a “mission accomplished,” he flew in an S-3 onto a carrier hardtop. When Trump wanted to project American military

taskandpurpose.com

But hey I suppose I am not a real defense analyst like the guys above


There’s just one problem: A growing chorus of defense analysts says that in a real maritime battle, U.S. aircraft carriers are totally fucked.

“Beyond a shadow of a doubt, a carrier is just a target,” one former career Pentagon analyst told Reuters in a depressing investigation of flattops’ vulnerabilities that the news service published Thursday.

Related: Could China’s Military Capability Render The Aircraft Carrier Obsolete? »

Over the past two decades, as the United States cobbled together maritime and littoral strategies based on carrier airpower, potential adversaries have fine-tuned cheaper antiship missiles and torpedoes that can turn an $11 billion behemoth city at sea into a burning patch of ocean:

The new weapons include land-based ballistic missiles, such as China’s Dong Feng-21 anti-ship missile, which has a claimed range of 1,100 miles (1,770 kilometers) and moves at 10 times the speed of sound. Certain Russian and Chinese submarines can fire salvoes of precision-guided cruise missiles from afar, potentially overwhelming carrier-fleet anti-missile defense.

they arent made to do that,,,

Then they are obsolete

 

[Jarlaxle]

Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative

The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.

www.theamericanconservative.com

Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)

Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.

taskandpurpose.com

However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands

maybe theyre useless as battleships because they are aircraft carriers,,
just like battleships are useless as aircraft carriers,,,

You are actually assuming that fighter jets will even fly in the next war. If so getting to within 500 miles of a target with a carrier puts the carrier 5 minutes from a hypersonic land based missile. The jets will have no where to land after attacking. Now this will actually never happen, because it is set in stone so it will never take place. However we can attack the camels in Afghanistan again

Yes, because it's not like the carrier group has any air defenses or...wait...

 

[progressive hunter]

Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative

The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.

www.theamericanconservative.com

Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)

Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.

taskandpurpose.com

However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands

maybe theyre useless as battleships because they are aircraft carriers,,
just like battleships are useless as aircraft carriers,,,

You are actually assuming that fighter jets will even fly in the next war. If so getting to within 500 miles of a target with a carrier puts the carrier 5 minutes from a hypersonic land based missile. The jets will have no where to land after attacking. Now this will actually never happen, because it is set in stone so it will never take place. However we can attack the camels in Afghanistan again

arent you assuming they wont???

and whos to say all their work is about wars,,, most of their time is spent preventing wars,,,

The carrier is a useless first strike weapon against any hypersonic missile armed country.

US Aircraft Carriers Are Screwed In A Real Battle, According To Defense Analysts

When Dubya wanted to celebrate a “mission accomplished,” he flew in an S-3 onto a carrier hardtop. When Trump wanted to project American military

taskandpurpose.com

But hey I suppose I am not a real defense analyst like the guys above


There’s just one problem: A growing chorus of defense analysts says that in a real maritime battle, U.S. aircraft carriers are totally fucked.

“Beyond a shadow of a doubt, a carrier is just a target,” one former career Pentagon analyst told Reuters in a depressing investigation of flattops’ vulnerabilities that the news service published Thursday.

Related: Could China’s Military Capability Render The Aircraft Carrier Obsolete? »

Over the past two decades, as the United States cobbled together maritime and littoral strategies based on carrier airpower, potential adversaries have fine-tuned cheaper antiship missiles and torpedoes that can turn an $11 billion behemoth city at sea into a burning patch of ocean:

The new weapons include land-based ballistic missiles, such as China’s Dong Feng-21 anti-ship missile, which has a claimed range of 1,100 miles (1,770 kilometers) and moves at 10 times the speed of sound. Certain Russian and Chinese submarines can fire salvoes of precision-guided cruise missiles from afar, potentially overwhelming carrier-fleet anti-missile defense.

they arent made to do that,,,

Then they are obsolete

yes as battleships,,, but they are aircraft carriers not battleships,,,

 

[esalla]

Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative

The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.

www.theamericanconservative.com

Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)

Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.

taskandpurpose.com

However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands

I think America should be working out how to protect the eventual Communist offensive against Taiwan, Japan and Australia rather than just their own offensive measures.

If they don't take Taiwan by force, they will just swallow them by squeezing them economically, denying them travel in various critical areas they require for trade, bribing and buying politicians (as they do to the West) etc.

China is probably just in wait for the right opportunity. They just took H.K and they are working on squeezing the Aussies and NZ economically right now also, keeping them dependent on them. Once done with these irritants, they will turn their sights elsewhere.

By the time China decides to go on the offensive, they could be too advanced, or too rapid in their activities. Worse, a passive, docile America that decides "it's not worth the economic 'benefit' we enjoy from cheap labour in China, so, unfortunately, you're on your own Taiwan".

China will know when to move, it won't be until they are in a much superior position, economically, geo-politically (they are in a great spot based on the U.N and WTO fiascos) and otherwise. They have to choose to eventually expand though with a focus on economics, but we saw their swift and deliberate move into H.K. 1.4B people and weak Western leadership? Just a matter of time...

The fix is actually quite simple: Taiwan needs to announce...
We have nuclear weapons.
If invaded, the invasion fleet will be attacked with nuclear weapons.
Low-yield nuclear missiles will be used to blow the every large dam in China.
If the invasion cannot be thrown back, every city in mainland China will be glassed by cobalt-jacketed dirty nukes.

There are 661 cities in China (according their definition and used to call "prefectures") and 19,522 of "towns". We need much more nukes than we actually have to glass them all. Say nothing about stupidity of "cobalt-jacked dirty (but weak) nukes".

Well, no, that's wrong. One Ohio-class sub carries 192 warheads. The point of the cobalt jacketing is to render the area uninhabitable for a century.

Now reread my post that you quoted, for comprhension.

Warheads vary and there can be up to 288 on 24 Tridents

 

[esalla]

Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative

The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.

www.theamericanconservative.com

Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)

Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.

taskandpurpose.com

However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands

maybe theyre useless as battleships because they are aircraft carriers,,
just like battleships are useless as aircraft carriers,,,

You are actually assuming that fighter jets will even fly in the next war. If so getting to within 500 miles of a target with a carrier puts the carrier 5 minutes from a hypersonic land based missile. The jets will have no where to land after attacking. Now this will actually never happen, because it is set in stone so it will never take place. However we can attack the camels in Afghanistan again

Yes, because it's not like the carrier group has any air defenses or...wait...

The Navy always shows 1 missile being shot down, never been a hypersonic missile and there have never been 100 or more launched simultaneously including dummies designed to draw fire.

There is also no way to hide a carrier now as in the past. The fact is that since WW2 the USA only attacked third world countries, N Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, none posed a carrier threat

 

[Jarlaxle]

The Navy always shows 1 missile being shot down, never been a hypersonic missile and there have never been 100 or more launched simultaneously including dummies designed to draw fire.

There is also no way to hide a carrier now as in the past. The fact is that since WW2 the USA only attacked third world countries, N Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, none posed a carrier threat

All the more reason the air defenses should include nuclear weapons.

 

[esalla]

The Navy always shows 1 missile being shot down, never been a hypersonic missile and there have never been 100 or more launched simultaneously including dummies designed to draw fire.

There is also no way to hide a carrier now as in the past. The fact is that since WW2 the USA only attacked third world countries, N Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, none posed a carrier threat

All the more reason the air defenses should include nuclear weapons.

Not sure how air launched or dropped nukes will keep a carrier afloat

 

[Jarlaxle]

The Navy always shows 1 missile being shot down, never been a hypersonic missile and there have never been 100 or more launched simultaneously including dummies designed to draw fire.

There is also no way to hide a carrier now as in the past. The fact is that since WW2 the USA only attacked third world countries, N Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, none posed a carrier threat

All the more reason the air defenses should include nuclear weapons.

Not sure how air launched or dropped nukes will keep a carrier afloat

DOn't worry, everyone else is. You're just not too bright.

 

[esalla]

The Navy always shows 1 missile being shot down, never been a hypersonic missile and there have never been 100 or more launched simultaneously including dummies designed to draw fire.

There is also no way to hide a carrier now as in the past. The fact is that since WW2 the USA only attacked third world countries, N Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, none posed a carrier threat

All the more reason the air defenses should include nuclear weapons.

Not sure how air launched or dropped nukes will keep a carrier afloat

DOn't worry, everyone else is. You're just not too bright.

You are not arguing with me, you are arguing with reality

Hypersonic Weapons Could Put The Aircraft Carrier To Bed—Permanently

A new age of missiles.

nationalinterest.org

With mounting questions about cost and survivability, a shifting political landscape for US aircraft carriers

The U.S. Navy's new chief got an earful from Capitol Hill about the cost and growing vulnerability of aircraft carriers.

www.defensenews.com

Will ground-based hypersonic missiles replace aircraft carriers in the defense budget?

A debate on the future of aircraft carriers is roiling the U.S. Department of Defense, and it is increasingly spilling out into the open.

www.defensenews.com

 

[LuckyDuck]

As aircraft carriers can be just outside Chinese territorial waters, the travel time for nukes to reach their destination is shortened considerably, rather than having the nukes raining down on China from Guam

 

[esalla]

As aircraft carriers can be just outside Chinese territorial waters, the travel time for nukes to reach their destination is shortened considerably, rather than having the nukes raining down on China from Guam

How is the time shortened? Presumably you do understand that subs can get much closer than a carrier

 

[HenryBHough]

Why am I not surprised to see so many liberals rooting for China in this "discussion"?

 

[Jarlaxle]

You are not arguing with me, you are arguing with reality

You would not recognize reality if it marched past you playing Thriller on a pink and green Sousaphone.