F35 - superfighter or lame duck?

[westwall]

even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.

Carve it in stone

Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.

Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously. Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.

And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time. The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.

They wouldn't even have to be shot down. If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.

Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second

“Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.

www.popularmechanics.com

1.7 miles per second. No carrier has a lifespan over an hour

And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth? They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality. Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.

Because we have basically the same stuff. The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan. The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2

Then why is china building them?

To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.

Partially. But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth. And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there. Have been for a long time. And they are very, very effective. One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.

 

[Dayton3]

even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.

Carve it in stone

Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.

Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously. Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.

And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time. The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.

They wouldn't even have to be shot down. If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.

Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second

“Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.

www.popularmechanics.com

1.7 miles per second. No carrier has a lifespan over an hour

And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth? They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality. Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.

Because we have basically the same stuff. The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan. The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2

Then why is china building them?

To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.

Partially. But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth. And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there. Have been for a long time. And they are very, very effective. One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.

Well, technically when they talk about "hypersonic missiles" they are not talking about existing missiles or shells that already travel at hypersonic velocities. The thing is with the "hypersonic missiles" that everyone refers to developing is for missiles that can travel at hypersonic speeds AT CONTINOUS THRUST meaning they are still highly maneuverable even at the end of their flights.

 

[westwall]

even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.

Carve it in stone

Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.

Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously. Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.

And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time. The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.

They wouldn't even have to be shot down. If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.

Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second

“Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.

www.popularmechanics.com

1.7 miles per second. No carrier has a lifespan over an hour

And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth? They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality. Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.

Because we have basically the same stuff. The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan. The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2

Then why is china building them?

To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.

Partially. But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth. And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there. Have been for a long time. And they are very, very effective. One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.

Well, technically when they talk about "hypersonic missiles" they are not talking about existing missiles or shells that already travel at hypersonic velocities. The thing is with the "hypersonic missiles" that everyone refers to developing is for missiles that can travel at hypersonic speeds AT CONTINOUS THRUST meaning they are still highly maneuverable even at the end of their flights.

So are the interceptors. They are short range high velocity anti air missiles. The Seawolf used by Great Britain is one example. To test them they intercept 4.5"
shells fired by their destroyers. The USA developed the SPRINT IBM interceptor. That sucker goes from 0 to Mach 10 in five seconds. Old tech that can be redone with more modern tech.

 

[Dayton3]

even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.

Carve it in stone

Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.

Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously. Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.

And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time. The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.

They wouldn't even have to be shot down. If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.

Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second

“Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.

www.popularmechanics.com

1.7 miles per second. No carrier has a lifespan over an hour

And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth? They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality. Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.

Because we have basically the same stuff. The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan. The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2

Then why is china building them?

To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.

Partially. But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth. And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there. Have been for a long time. And they are very, very effective. One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.

Well, technically when they talk about "hypersonic missiles" they are not talking about existing missiles or shells that already travel at hypersonic velocities. The thing is with the "hypersonic missiles" that everyone refers to developing is for missiles that can travel at hypersonic speeds AT CONTINOUS THRUST meaning they are still highly maneuverable even at the end of their flights.

So are the interceptors. They are short range high velocity anti air missiles. The Seawolf used by Great Britain is one example. To test them they intercept 4.5"
shells fired by their destroyers. The USA developed the SPRINT IBM interceptor. That sucker goes from 0 to Mach 10 in five seconds. Old tech that can be redone with more modern tech.

Yes. But those aren't continuously thrusting missiles. Which means they lack maneuverability the further they go into their flights.

 

[esalla]

even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.

Carve it in stone

Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.

Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously. Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.

And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time. The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.

They wouldn't even have to be shot down. If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.

Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second

“Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.

www.popularmechanics.com

1.7 miles per second. No carrier has a lifespan over an hour

And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth? They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality. Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.

Because we have basically the same stuff. The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan. The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2

Then why is china building them?

To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.

Partially. But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth. And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there. Have been for a long time. And they are very, very effective. One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.

Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.

How would a carrier attack Russia or China?

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

 

[Dayton3]

even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.

Carve it in stone

Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.

Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously. Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.

And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time. The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.

They wouldn't even have to be shot down. If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.

Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second

“Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.

www.popularmechanics.com

1.7 miles per second. No carrier has a lifespan over an hour

And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth? They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality. Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.

Because we have basically the same stuff. The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan. The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2

Then why is china building them?

To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.

Partially. But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth. And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there. Have been for a long time. And they are very, very effective. One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.

Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.

How would a carrier attack Russia or China?

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

U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.

 

[esalla]

even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.

Carve it in stone

Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.

Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously. Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.

And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time. The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.

They wouldn't even have to be shot down. If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.

Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second

“Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.

www.popularmechanics.com

1.7 miles per second. No carrier has a lifespan over an hour

And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth? They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality. Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.

Because we have basically the same stuff. The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan. The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2

Then why is china building them?

To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.

Partially. But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth. And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there. Have been for a long time. And they are very, very effective. One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.

Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.

How would a carrier attack Russia or China?

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

U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.

No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them. Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed. So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict

 

[westwall]

even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.

Carve it in stone

Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.

Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously. Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.

And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time. The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.

They wouldn't even have to be shot down. If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.

Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second

“Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.

www.popularmechanics.com

1.7 miles per second. No carrier has a lifespan over an hour

And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth? They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality. Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.

Because we have basically the same stuff. The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan. The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2

Then why is china building them?

To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.

Partially. But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth. And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there. Have been for a long time. And they are very, very effective. One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.

Well, technically when they talk about "hypersonic missiles" they are not talking about existing missiles or shells that already travel at hypersonic velocities. The thing is with the "hypersonic missiles" that everyone refers to developing is for missiles that can travel at hypersonic speeds AT CONTINOUS THRUST meaning they are still highly maneuverable even at the end of their flights.

So are the interceptors. They are short range high velocity anti air missiles. The Seawolf used by Great Britain is one example. To test them they intercept 4.5"
shells fired by their destroyers. The USA developed the SPRINT IBM interceptor. That sucker goes from 0 to Mach 10 in five seconds. Old tech that can be redone with more modern tech.

Yes. But those aren't continuously thrusting missiles. Which means they lack maneuverability the further they go into their flights.

Actually, they are. The Sprint had a range of 19 miles and the Seawolf is around 8 miles.

 

[westwall]

even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.

Carve it in stone

Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.

Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously. Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.

And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time. The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.

They wouldn't even have to be shot down. If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.

Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second

“Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.

www.popularmechanics.com

1.7 miles per second. No carrier has a lifespan over an hour

And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth? They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality. Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.

Because we have basically the same stuff. The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan. The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2

Then why is china building them?

To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.

Partially. But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth. And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there. Have been for a long time. And they are very, very effective. One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.

Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.

How would a carrier attack Russia or China?

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

First off you don't seem to understand that carriers operate as part of a group of ships and subs.

The first thing I would do is sink the Chinese navy.

All of it. Then I would take every one of the little bases they are building in the south china sea.

Institute a naval blockade and watch their economy collapse.

 

[westwall]

even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.

Carve it in stone

Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.

Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously. Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.

And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time. The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.

They wouldn't even have to be shot down. If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.

Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second

“Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.

www.popularmechanics.com

1.7 miles per second. No carrier has a lifespan over an hour

And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth? They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality. Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.

Because we have basically the same stuff. The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan. The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2

Then why is china building them?

To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.

Partially. But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth. And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there. Have been for a long time. And they are very, very effective. One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.

Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.

How would a carrier attack Russia or China?

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

U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.

No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them. Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed. So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict

That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with

 

[Dayton3]

even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.

Carve it in stone

Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.

Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously. Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.

And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time. The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.

They wouldn't even have to be shot down. If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.

Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second

“Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.

www.popularmechanics.com

1.7 miles per second. No carrier has a lifespan over an hour

And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth? They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality. Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.

Because we have basically the same stuff. The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan. The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2

Then why is china building them?

To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.

Partially. But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth. And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there. Have been for a long time. And they are very, very effective. One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.

Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.

How would a carrier attack Russia or China?

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

U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.

No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them. Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed. So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict

No attack like that has ever been launched. So you are trumping a hypothetical capability.

And if it takes 1,000 anti ship missiles to destroy a single carrier then the U.S. has already won the war.

 

[harmonica]

....again, you are playing board games---the carriers have not been sunk, have they.?....can they be?--sure---
---but they have had SAMs for a LONG time! and we still used aircraft in Nam when they had SAMs.....we used aircraft in Iraq, etc etc etc....planes were shot down--that's part of combat....
....the Brits used carriers in the Falklands while the enemy had Exocets

 

[harmonica]

even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.

Carve it in stone

Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.

Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously. Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.

And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time. The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.

They wouldn't even have to be shot down. If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.

Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second

“Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.

www.popularmechanics.com

1.7 miles per second. No carrier has a lifespan over an hour

And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth? They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality. Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.

Because we have basically the same stuff. The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan. The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2

Then why is china building them?

To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.

Partially. But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth. And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there. Have been for a long time. And they are very, very effective. One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.

Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.

How would a carrier attack Russia or China?

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

see my previous post

 

[harmonica]

even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.

Carve it in stone

Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.

Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously. Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.

And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time. The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.

They wouldn't even have to be shot down. If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.

Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second

“Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.

www.popularmechanics.com

1.7 miles per second. No carrier has a lifespan over an hour

And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth? They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality. Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.

Because we have basically the same stuff. The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan. The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2

Then why is china building them?

To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.

Partially. But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth. And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there. Have been for a long time. And they are very, very effective. One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.

Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.

How would a carrier attack Russia or China?

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

U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.

No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them. Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed. So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict

what enemy?? Iraq? Iran?

 

[harmonica]

even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.

Carve it in stone

Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.

Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously. Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.

And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time. The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.

They wouldn't even have to be shot down. If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.

Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second

“Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.

www.popularmechanics.com

1.7 miles per second. No carrier has a lifespan over an hour

And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth? They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality. Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.

Because we have basically the same stuff. The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan. The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2

Then why is china building them?

To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.

Partially. But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth. And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there. Have been for a long time. And they are very, very effective. One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.

Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.

How would a carrier attack Russia or China?

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

....that's what land based air is for--to take out those anti-ship missile sites and/or render them useless/etc
...and Tomahawks
...you people are playing board games....there is so much more to it

 

[esalla]

even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.

Carve it in stone

Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.

Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously. Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.

And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time. The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.

They wouldn't even have to be shot down. If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.

Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second

“Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.

www.popularmechanics.com

1.7 miles per second. No carrier has a lifespan over an hour

And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth? They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality. Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.

Because we have basically the same stuff. The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan. The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2

Then why is china building them?

To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.

Partially. But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth. And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there. Have been for a long time. And they are very, very effective. One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.

Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.

How would a carrier attack Russia or China?

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

First off you don't seem to understand that carriers operate as part of a group of ships and subs.

The first thing I would do is sink the Chinese navy.

All of it. Then I would take every one of the little bases they are building in the south china sea.

Institute a naval blockade and watch their economy collapse.

The Chinese navy is 3 times as large as the American navy or 20 times as large as the American navy if you include the armed merchant ships. Furthermore the chinese navy has nothing to do with land based missiles that will sink any attacking carrier. So tell us how would a battle group shoot down 1000 or more anti ship missiles arriving simultaneously?

The carrier is the most useless platform imaginable at this point

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

 

[esalla]

even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.

Carve it in stone

Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.

Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously. Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.

And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time. The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.

They wouldn't even have to be shot down. If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.

Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second

“Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.

www.popularmechanics.com

1.7 miles per second. No carrier has a lifespan over an hour

And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth? They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality. Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.

Because we have basically the same stuff. The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan. The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2

Then why is china building them?

To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.

Partially. But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth. And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there. Have been for a long time. And they are very, very effective. One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.

Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.

How would a carrier attack Russia or China?

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

U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.

No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them. Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed. So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict

That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with

Not my scenario kid

But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.

Yawning

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

 

[esalla]

even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.

Carve it in stone

Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.

Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously. Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.

And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time. The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.

They wouldn't even have to be shot down. If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.

Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second

“Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.

www.popularmechanics.com

1.7 miles per second. No carrier has a lifespan over an hour

And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth? They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality. Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.

Because we have basically the same stuff. The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan. The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2

Then why is china building them?

To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.

Partially. But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth. And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there. Have been for a long time. And they are very, very effective. One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.

Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.

How would a carrier attack Russia or China?

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

U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.

No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them. Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed. So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict

No attack like that has ever been launched. So you are trumping a hypothetical capability.

And if it takes 1,000 anti ship missiles to destroy a single carrier then the U.S. has already won the war.

So in your mind an attack will come from restored Japanese Zeroes?

You are living in the past and anti ship missiles are not hypothetical, we have them too but can not sink the carriers that Russia knows are useless anyway. Only the USA has 11 supertanker sized ocean targets that ate tracked by the enemy 100 percent of the time

LOL can they hide if they leave Pearl Harbor? They did, but no more

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

 

[esalla]

even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.

Carve it in stone

Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.

Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously. Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.

And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time. The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.

They wouldn't even have to be shot down. If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.

Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second

“Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.

www.popularmechanics.com

1.7 miles per second. No carrier has a lifespan over an hour

And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth? They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality. Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.

Because we have basically the same stuff. The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan. The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2

Then why is china building them?

To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.

Partially. But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth. And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there. Have been for a long time. And they are very, very effective. One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.

Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.

How would a carrier attack Russia or China?

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

U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.

No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them. Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed. So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict

what enemy?? Iraq? Iran?

China or Russia, or both. You are familiar with them correct?

 

[esalla]

even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.

Carve it in stone

Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.

Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously. Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.

And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time. The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.

They wouldn't even have to be shot down. If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.

Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second

“Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.

www.popularmechanics.com

1.7 miles per second. No carrier has a lifespan over an hour

And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth? They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality. Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.

Because we have basically the same stuff. The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan. The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2

Then why is china building them?

To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.

Partially. But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth. And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there. Have been for a long time. And they are very, very effective. One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.

Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.

How would a carrier attack Russia or China?

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

....that's what land based air is for--to take out those anti-ship missile sites and/or render them useless/etc
...and Tomahawks
...you people are playing board games....there is so much more to it

Again a carrier has to get within a few hundred miles of an enemy to give it's aircraft enough range to fly, once the aircraft strike thousands of antiship missiles fly in from various places including land, sea and space where the carrier is a big bullseye

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

All of the Reasons America's Aircraft Carriers Are Doomed

We know how to kill aircraft carriers—or at least we know how best to try to kill aircraft carriers. Submarine-launched torpedoes, cruise missiles fired from a variety of platforms and ballistic missiles can all give an aircraft carrier a very bad day.

nationalinterest.org