F35 - superfighter or lame duck?

[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.

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

Actually the U.S. Navy has known how to conceal a carrier battle group for decades from both aerial surveillance and from satellites. Check out the NATO naval exercises in 1981 when a NATO fleet led by the U.S.S. Eisenhower of 83 ships avoided detection by Soviet aircraft and two Soviet satellites launched to track it. The fleet sailed all the way to near the Kola Peninsula without being detected.

 

[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

Actually the U.S. Navy has known how to conceal a carrier battle group for decades from both aerial surveillance and from satellites. Check out the NATO naval exercises in 1981 when a NATO fleet led by the U.S.S. Eisenhower of 83 ships avoided detection by Soviet aircraft and two Soviet satellites launched to track it. The fleet sailed all the way to near the Kola Peninsula without being detected.

Again kid you are stuck in the past. Lol 1981

Avoided 2 soviet satellites, now there are tens of thousands covering every square inch of the earth and resolution is improved millions of times

You are agreeing with me you know

 

[Dayton3]

Avoided 2 soviet satellites, now there are tens of thousands covering every square inch of the earth and resolution is improved millions of times

Prove it. By citing a reliable source.

 

[esalla]

Avoided 2 soviet satellites, now there are tens of thousands covering every square inch of the earth and resolution is improved millions of times

Prove it. By citing a reliable source.

No need to prove that what happened in 1981 is no longer state of the art.

PS. Tom Cruise has never flown a navy jet. He ask, they laughed at him.

Lol do you believe that you determine what is real and or what constitutes proof? You do not what you did is babble that 2 obsolete satellites from the defunct soviet union are equal to 10000 modern russian and chinese satellites.

Really rather comical

 

[Dayton3]

You do not what you did is babble that 2 obsolete satellites from the defunct soviet union are equal to 10000 modern russian and chinese satellites.

Prove there are " 10,000 modern Russian and Chinese satellites".

Otherwise just admit you are a stupid liar.
Your posts are way too ignorant to be comical.

 

[esalla]

You do not what you did is babble that 2 obsolete satellites from the defunct soviet union are equal to 10000 modern russian and chinese satellites.

Prove there are " 10,000 modern Russian and Chinese satellites".

Otherwise just admit you are a stupid liar.
Your posts are way too ignorant to be comical.

So you believe that I answer to you. I answer to no one

Kinda cool actually

Now, can you explain how 2 long defunct and lost or fallen soviet satellites are still relevant to modern battle in any way

Now by my quick calculations the 2 main enemies of the usa have increased satellite coverage by approximately 25,000 percent since 1981.

 

[Dayton3]

Now, can you explain how 2 long defunct and lost or fallen soviet satellites are still relevant to modern battle in any way

Now by my quick calculations the 2 main enemies of the usa have increased satellite coverage by approximately 25,000 percent since 1981.

Provide proof or admit you are an ignorant liar.

Of course satellite technology has advanced since 1981. But so have stealth and concealment techniques which were still in their infancy back then.

 

[esalla]

Now, can you explain how 2 long defunct and lost or fallen soviet satellites are still relevant to modern battle in any way

Now by my quick calculations the 2 main enemies of the usa have increased satellite coverage by approximately 25,000 percent since 1981.

Provide proof or admit you are an ignorant liar.

Of course satellite technology has advanced since 1981. But so have stealth and concealment techniques which were still in their infancy back then.

Lol how do carriers use stealth. Do they cover themselves in radar, sonar absorbing blankets

You are a confused 8 year old

 

[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.

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

The Chinese navy has 56 vessels that pose a threat. That is how many subs they have. All the rest are merely targets that have no chance against our carrier battle group. The subs do pose a legitimate threat though. Which is why our subs keep a very close eye on them. and because we do, we know where they are and can sink them at a moments notice. I do find your fantasy of 1000 missiles arriving at the same time to be quite humorous. First off, they don't have that many, and secondly you have to figure a 50% failure rate right off the top because chinese stuff sucks.

That leaves maybe 200 that actually get off the ground. 200 is difficult to deal with, but possible. Now kid, go play your video games.

 

[Dayton3]

Now, can you explain how 2 long defunct and lost or fallen soviet satellites are still relevant to modern battle in any way

Now by my quick calculations the 2 main enemies of the usa have increased satellite coverage by approximately 25,000 percent since 1981.

Provide proof or admit you are an ignorant liar.

Of course satellite technology has advanced since 1981. But so have stealth and concealment techniques which were still in their infancy back then.

Lol how do carriers use stealth. Do they cover themselves in radar, sonar absorbing blankets

You are a confused 8 year old

Most carrier and battlegroup detection is by detecting the signals they emit. Radio, radar what have you. Eliminate those emissions and finding a carrier battle group is almost infinitely harder.

To avoid actual satellite and aerial observations, carefully planned course changes will do the trick. Satellites have mostly fixed and predictable orbits and can directly observe only relatively narrow areas of the Earths surface at any one time. Changing course at the right times can enable ships and entire fleets to avoid satellite observation entirely.

 

[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

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

What was that junior? You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.

Kid.

 

[esalla]

Now, can you explain how 2 long defunct and lost or fallen soviet satellites are still relevant to modern battle in any way

Now by my quick calculations the 2 main enemies of the usa have increased satellite coverage by approximately 25,000 percent since 1981.

Provide proof or admit you are an ignorant liar.

Of course satellite technology has advanced since 1981. But so have stealth and concealment techniques which were still in their infancy back then.

Lol how do carriers use stealth. Do they cover themselves in radar, sonar absorbing blankets

You are a confused 8 year old

Most carrier and battlegroup detection is by detecting the signals they emit. Radio, radar what have you. Eliminate those emissions and finding a carrier battle group is almost infinitely harder.

To avoid actual satellite and aerial observations, carefully planned course changes will do the trick. Satellites have mostly fixed and predictable orbits and can directly observe only relatively narrow areas of the Earths surface at any one time. Changing course at the right times can enable ships and entire fleets to avoid satellite observation entirely.

Lol and satellites run visual scans that do not require any radar use. You have the carrier the shitty f35 all mixed up.

But you will never know

 

[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

What was that junior? You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.

Kid.

So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.

Okeedokee

 

[Dayton3]

Now, can you explain how 2 long defunct and lost or fallen soviet satellites are still relevant to modern battle in any way

Now by my quick calculations the 2 main enemies of the usa have increased satellite coverage by approximately 25,000 percent since 1981.

Provide proof or admit you are an ignorant liar.

Of course satellite technology has advanced since 1981. But so have stealth and concealment techniques which were still in their infancy back then.

Lol how do carriers use stealth. Do they cover themselves in radar, sonar absorbing blankets

You are a confused 8 year old

Most carrier and battlegroup detection is by detecting the signals they emit. Radio, radar what have you. Eliminate those emissions and finding a carrier battle group is almost infinitely harder.

To avoid actual satellite and aerial observations, carefully planned course changes will do the trick. Satellites have mostly fixed and predictable orbits and can directly observe only relatively narrow areas of the Earths surface at any one time. Changing course at the right times can enable ships and entire fleets to avoid satellite observation entirely.

Lol and satellites run visual scans that do not require any radar use.

Detecting something visually is even more difficult that detecting something by radar.

 

[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

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

What was that junior? You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.

Kid.

So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.

Okeedokee

No, kiddo, your thousand arriving at the same time is what is mythical.

 

[westwall]

Now, can you explain how 2 long defunct and lost or fallen soviet satellites are still relevant to modern battle in any way

Now by my quick calculations the 2 main enemies of the usa have increased satellite coverage by approximately 25,000 percent since 1981.

Provide proof or admit you are an ignorant liar.

Of course satellite technology has advanced since 1981. But so have stealth and concealment techniques which were still in their infancy back then.

Lol how do carriers use stealth. Do they cover themselves in radar, sonar absorbing blankets

You are a confused 8 year old

Most carrier and battlegroup detection is by detecting the signals they emit. Radio, radar what have you. Eliminate those emissions and finding a carrier battle group is almost infinitely harder.

To avoid actual satellite and aerial observations, carefully planned course changes will do the trick. Satellites have mostly fixed and predictable orbits and can directly observe only relatively narrow areas of the Earths surface at any one time. Changing course at the right times can enable ships and entire fleets to avoid satellite observation entirely.

Lol and satellites run visual scans that do not require any radar use.

Detecting something visually is even more difficult that detecting something by radar.

Satellites detect the wakes of the ships. It is a very highly advanced science now.

 

[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

What was that junior? You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.

Kid.

So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.

Okeedokee

No, kiddo, your thousand arriving at the same time is what is mythical.

How would a carrier group respond to that situation?

Well that's obvious, by sinking

This is why Russia does not rely on obsolete carriers

 

[AZrailwhale]

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.

So you seriously think any US opponent could mass 1,000 surface to surface launchers. The old Soviet Union couldn't even mass that much fire power. Not to mention the minor problem of actually targeting US forces which are equipped with electronic counter measures equipment and very competent at using it. Hawkeyes can spoof incoming missiles to think a task force is hundreds of miles away from it's real location, and frigates can make themselves look like aircraft carriers. In the modern world, numbers of missiles don't count. electronic warfare counts. Modern weapons can kill anything they can see.

 

[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

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

What was that junior? You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.

Kid.

So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.

Okeedokee

No, kiddo, your thousand arriving at the same time is what is mythical.

How would a carrier group respond to that situation?

Well that's obvious, by sinking

This is why Russia does not rely on obsolete carriers

Like I said, squirt, your mythological attack won't happen. The chinese don't have enough missiles for even a tenth of your supposed assault.

Stop playing those war games, they warp your thinking junior.

 

[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.

So you seriously think any US opponent could mass 1,000 surface to surface launchers. The old Soviet Union couldn't even mass that much fire power. Not to mention the minor problem of actually targeting US forces which are equipped with electronic counter measures equipment and very competent at using it. Hawkeyes can spoof incoming missiles to think a task force is hundreds of miles away from it's real location, and frigates can make themselves look like aircraft carriers. In the modern world, numbers of missiles don't count. electronic warfare counts. Modern weapons can kill anything they can see.

Does not matter, if even a hundred come in at a time emptying the phalanx type guns it would work. LOL by the way China has thousands if not tens of thousands of such launchers and missiles. I do not think this I know it