F35 - superfighter or lame duck?

[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.

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.

Nothing hypersonic is highly maneuverable. It's an oxymoron. Missile are very lightly built even something small like a sidewinder can't make high gee turns. A big anti ship missile would tear itself in half trying to make any abrupt course change.

 

[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

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.

But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
“I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.

‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals

ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...

www.duffelblog.com

‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals

 

[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.

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.

Nothing hypersonic is highly maneuverable. It's an oxymoron. Missile are very lightly built even something small like a sidewinder can't make high gee turns. A big anti ship missile would tear itself in half trying to make any abrupt course change.

Anti ship missiles do not need be really large as even a small hole at the water line that does not sink the vessel forces retreat

 

[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.

But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
“I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.

‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals

ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...

www.duffelblog.com

‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals

Of course they are mounting. But, just like the fools who claimed the era of the tank was over when the Sagger made its appearance, so too are the idiots who claim the aircraft carrier is done.

 

[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.

Nothing hypersonic is highly maneuverable. It's an oxymoron. Missile are very lightly built even something small like a sidewinder can't make high gee turns. A big anti ship missile would tear itself in half trying to make any abrupt course change.

Anti ship missiles do not need be really large as even a small hole at the water line that does not sink the vessel forces retreat

That is false. An Exocet hitting a New Jersey class battleship won't do anything more than make a BONG sound when it bounces off the armor. The same missile hitting a aircraft carrier will make the same BONG sound.

 

[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

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.

But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
“I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.

‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals

ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...

www.duffelblog.com

‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals

Of course they are mounting. But, just like the fools who claimed the era of the tank was over when the Sagger made its appearance, so too are the idiots who claim the aircraft carrier is done.

LOL tanks are also useless against enemies with drone weapons. How are you going to invade China or Russia with tanks?

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

 

[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.

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.

Nothing hypersonic is highly maneuverable. It's an oxymoron. Missile are very lightly built even something small like a sidewinder can't make high gee turns. A big anti ship missile would tear itself in half trying to make any abrupt course change.

Anti ship missiles do not need be really large as even a small hole at the water line that does not sink the vessel forces retreat

That is false. An Exocet hitting a New Jersey class battleship won't do anything more than make a BONG sound when it bounces off the armor. The same missile hitting a aircraft carrier will make the same BONG sound.

A. Russia and China do not use French toy weapons
B. There is no NJ class battleship. The NJ is an Iowa class ship.
C. Next

 

[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.

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

CIWS isn't all the USN has. IF your mythological attack ever happened, the missiles would be engaged four or five hundred miles from the task force by missile armed fighters. Once the missiles got past the fighters, they would be engaged by ER Standards well beyond the radar horizon. Once the survivors got past the ER engagement zone they would be engaged by Standard SAMs, after the survivors got past the Standards, they would be engaged by five inch guns, After that by the three inch guns on the frigates and finally the few survivors would be killed by the CIWS mounts. It's called a layered defense. And even that's assuming that any of the launchers survived the attacks by cruise and ballistic missiles on the fixed launchers. We know where they are and would destroy them before sending carriers into their ranges. China is a paper tiger to use it's own vernacular. It hasn't fought a war against a peer level opponent in centuries. It's navy that you are so proud of is a bunch of destroyers, frigates and missile boats that can't target or engage opponents beyond the radar horizon. China is spending a lot of money on expensive toys, but developing a navy takes decades of intense work and a winning navy needs traditions that China lacks. China MIGHT be able to defend it's littorals. but it's a long way from projecting power. Why else would it be wasting so much time and energy trying to turn sandbars into fortified airfields in the South China Sea? Hint: sandbars are harder to destroy than ships and the PLAN knows it so they will keep their expensive toys in harbor while the PLAF tries to gain aerial parity over the SCS.

 

[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.

But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
“I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.

‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals

ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...

www.duffelblog.com

‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals

Of course they are mounting. But, just like the fools who claimed the era of the tank was over when the Sagger made its appearance, so too are the idiots who claim the aircraft carrier is done.

LOL tanks are also useless against enemies with drone weapons. How are you going to invade China or Russia with tanks?

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Yeah, that's what you children keep saying. And you keep getting proved wrong.

Good bye little kid.

Grow up some more.

 

[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

CIWS isn't all the USN has. IF your mythological attack ever happened, the missiles would be engaged four or five hundred miles from the task force by missile armed fighters. Once the missiles got past the fighters, they would be engaged by ER Standards well beyond the radar horizon. Once the survivors got past the ER engagement zone they would be engaged by Standard SAMs, after the survivors got past the Standards, they would be engaged by five inch guns, After that by the three inch guns on the frigates and finally the few survivors would be killed by the CIWS mounts. It's called a layered defense. And even that's assuming that any of the launchers survived the attacks by cruise and ballistic missiles on the fixed launchers. We know where they are and would destroy them before sending carriers into their ranges. China is a paper tiger to use it's own vernacular. It hasn't fought a war against a peer level opponent in centuries. It's navy that you are so proud of is a bunch of destroyers, frigates and missile boats that can't target or engage opponents beyond the radar horizon. China is spending a lot of money on expensive toys, but developing a navy takes decades of intense work and a winning navy needs traditions that China lacks. China MIGHT be able to defend it's littorals. but it's a long way from projecting power. Why else would it be wasting so much time and energy trying to turn sandbars into fortified airfields in the South China Sea? Hint: sandbars are harder to destroy than ships and the PLAN knows it so they will keep their expensive toys in harbor while the PLAF tries to gain aerial parity over the SCS.

No one engages a missile skimming the ocean under radar. SAM's, whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, you need a radar profile for those kid

Really

 

[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

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.

But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
“I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.

‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals

ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...

www.duffelblog.com

‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals

Of course they are mounting. But, just like the fools who claimed the era of the tank was over when the Sagger made its appearance, so too are the idiots who claim the aircraft carrier is done.

LOL tanks are also useless against enemies with drone weapons. How are you going to invade China or Russia with tanks?

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Yeah, that's what you children keep saying. And you keep getting proved wrong.

Good bye little kid.

Grow up some more.

Says the clown who knows about NJ class battleships.

 

[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.

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.

But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
“I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.

‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals

ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...

www.duffelblog.com

‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals

Air launched missiles always have less range than carrier launched fighters. Hawkeyes will spot the missile carriers long before they are in range and carrier fighter will kill then before they can launch their cargos. This will only happen in a war and the US Navy isn't stupid enough to blindly sail into range of Chinese missiles. The USN and USAF have weapons that can obliterate fixed launchers and the sandbar airfields long before US forces need to enter their range.

 

[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

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.

But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
“I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.

‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals

ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...

www.duffelblog.com

‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals

Air launched missiles always have less range than carrier launched fighters. Hawkeyes will spot the missile carriers long before they are in range and carrier fighter will kill then before they can launch their cargos. This will only happen in a war and the US Navy isn't stupid enough to blindly sail into range of Chinese missiles. The USN and USAF have weapons that can obliterate fixed launchers and the sandbar airfields long before US forces need to enter their range.

No need for air launched missiles as the carrier must get within 500 miles of the target and land based missiles work at far greater ranges than that. Making the carrier obsolete

 

[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.

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

CIWS isn't all the USN has. IF your mythological attack ever happened, the missiles would be engaged four or five hundred miles from the task force by missile armed fighters. Once the missiles got past the fighters, they would be engaged by ER Standards well beyond the radar horizon. Once the survivors got past the ER engagement zone they would be engaged by Standard SAMs, after the survivors got past the Standards, they would be engaged by five inch guns, After that by the three inch guns on the frigates and finally the few survivors would be killed by the CIWS mounts. It's called a layered defense. And even that's assuming that any of the launchers survived the attacks by cruise and ballistic missiles on the fixed launchers. We know where they are and would destroy them before sending carriers into their ranges. China is a paper tiger to use it's own vernacular. It hasn't fought a war against a peer level opponent in centuries. It's navy that you are so proud of is a bunch of destroyers, frigates and missile boats that can't target or engage opponents beyond the radar horizon. China is spending a lot of money on expensive toys, but developing a navy takes decades of intense work and a winning navy needs traditions that China lacks. China MIGHT be able to defend it's littorals. but it's a long way from projecting power. Why else would it be wasting so much time and energy trying to turn sandbars into fortified airfields in the South China Sea? Hint: sandbars are harder to destroy than ships and the PLAN knows it so they will keep their expensive toys in harbor while the PLAF tries to gain aerial parity over the SCS.

No one engages a missile skimming the ocean under radar. SAM's, whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, you need a radar profile for those kid

Really

There is no "under radar" when you have AEW aircraft like Hawkeyes or Sentinels. They can operate hundreds of miles in advance of a task force and provide missile targeting data via data link. The ships never need to even see the missiles they are destroying.

 

[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

CIWS isn't all the USN has. IF your mythological attack ever happened, the missiles would be engaged four or five hundred miles from the task force by missile armed fighters. Once the missiles got past the fighters, they would be engaged by ER Standards well beyond the radar horizon. Once the survivors got past the ER engagement zone they would be engaged by Standard SAMs, after the survivors got past the Standards, they would be engaged by five inch guns, After that by the three inch guns on the frigates and finally the few survivors would be killed by the CIWS mounts. It's called a layered defense. And even that's assuming that any of the launchers survived the attacks by cruise and ballistic missiles on the fixed launchers. We know where they are and would destroy them before sending carriers into their ranges. China is a paper tiger to use it's own vernacular. It hasn't fought a war against a peer level opponent in centuries. It's navy that you are so proud of is a bunch of destroyers, frigates and missile boats that can't target or engage opponents beyond the radar horizon. China is spending a lot of money on expensive toys, but developing a navy takes decades of intense work and a winning navy needs traditions that China lacks. China MIGHT be able to defend it's littorals. but it's a long way from projecting power. Why else would it be wasting so much time and energy trying to turn sandbars into fortified airfields in the South China Sea? Hint: sandbars are harder to destroy than ships and the PLAN knows it so they will keep their expensive toys in harbor while the PLAF tries to gain aerial parity over the SCS.

No one engages a missile skimming the ocean under radar. SAM's, whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, you need a radar profile for those kid

Really

There is no "under radar" when you have AEW aircraft like Hawkeyes or Sentinels. They can operate hundreds of miles in advance of a task force and provide missile targeting data via data link. The ships never need to even see the missiles they are destroying.

Hundreds of miles which way? 500 miles is under 5 minutes at 1.7 miles per second. Would the attack come from land or sea?

As Obsolete as a Battleship: Why Is the U.S. Navy Still Building Aircraft Carriers?

Sound policy will also require overcoming resistance to replacing manned subs with all manner of unmanned underwater vessels — from the very small to large-displacement unmanned vehicles. “History,” it has been written, “does not repeat itself, but it rhymes.” Today it’s rhyming with Gen. Billy...

nationalinterest.org

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

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

www.defensenews.com

 

[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.

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

CIWS isn't all the USN has. IF your mythological attack ever happened, the missiles would be engaged four or five hundred miles from the task force by missile armed fighters. Once the missiles got past the fighters, they would be engaged by ER Standards well beyond the radar horizon. Once the survivors got past the ER engagement zone they would be engaged by Standard SAMs, after the survivors got past the Standards, they would be engaged by five inch guns, After that by the three inch guns on the frigates and finally the few survivors would be killed by the CIWS mounts. It's called a layered defense. And even that's assuming that any of the launchers survived the attacks by cruise and ballistic missiles on the fixed launchers. We know where they are and would destroy them before sending carriers into their ranges. China is a paper tiger to use it's own vernacular. It hasn't fought a war against a peer level opponent in centuries. It's navy that you are so proud of is a bunch of destroyers, frigates and missile boats that can't target or engage opponents beyond the radar horizon. China is spending a lot of money on expensive toys, but developing a navy takes decades of intense work and a winning navy needs traditions that China lacks. China MIGHT be able to defend it's littorals. but it's a long way from projecting power. Why else would it be wasting so much time and energy trying to turn sandbars into fortified airfields in the South China Sea? Hint: sandbars are harder to destroy than ships and the PLAN knows it so they will keep their expensive toys in harbor while the PLAF tries to gain aerial parity over the SCS.

No one engages a missile skimming the ocean under radar. SAM's, whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, you need a radar profile for those kid

Really

There is no "under radar" when you have AEW aircraft like Hawkeyes or Sentinels. They can operate hundreds of miles in advance of a task force and provide missile targeting data via data link. The ships never need to even see the missiles they are destroying.

Hundreds of miles which way? 500 miles is under 5 minutes at 1.7 miles per second. Would the attack come from land or sea?

As Obsolete as a Battleship: Why Is the U.S. Navy Still Building Aircraft Carriers?

Sound policy will also require overcoming resistance to replacing manned subs with all manner of unmanned underwater vessels — from the very small to large-displacement unmanned vehicles. “History,” it has been written, “does not repeat itself, but it rhymes.” Today it’s rhyming with Gen. Billy...

nationalinterest.org

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

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

www.defensenews.com

OK now you are being willfully stupid. You are the one positing multiple thousands of launchers all launching for a TOT barrage. Don't you think that the US which has more and better satellite coverage than China will know where at least the majority of those missile launchers are? Or that we will know exactly where every ship in the PLAN is before we start fighting? Or do you think we are so stupid that we won't align our defenses along the threat axis? Hey, Hitler, Tojo, Mussolini and Sadam all thought we were stupid. You might reflect on what happened to them before making the same mistake.

 

[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

CIWS isn't all the USN has. IF your mythological attack ever happened, the missiles would be engaged four or five hundred miles from the task force by missile armed fighters. Once the missiles got past the fighters, they would be engaged by ER Standards well beyond the radar horizon. Once the survivors got past the ER engagement zone they would be engaged by Standard SAMs, after the survivors got past the Standards, they would be engaged by five inch guns, After that by the three inch guns on the frigates and finally the few survivors would be killed by the CIWS mounts. It's called a layered defense. And even that's assuming that any of the launchers survived the attacks by cruise and ballistic missiles on the fixed launchers. We know where they are and would destroy them before sending carriers into their ranges. China is a paper tiger to use it's own vernacular. It hasn't fought a war against a peer level opponent in centuries. It's navy that you are so proud of is a bunch of destroyers, frigates and missile boats that can't target or engage opponents beyond the radar horizon. China is spending a lot of money on expensive toys, but developing a navy takes decades of intense work and a winning navy needs traditions that China lacks. China MIGHT be able to defend it's littorals. but it's a long way from projecting power. Why else would it be wasting so much time and energy trying to turn sandbars into fortified airfields in the South China Sea? Hint: sandbars are harder to destroy than ships and the PLAN knows it so they will keep their expensive toys in harbor while the PLAF tries to gain aerial parity over the SCS.

No one engages a missile skimming the ocean under radar. SAM's, whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, you need a radar profile for those kid

Really

There is no "under radar" when you have AEW aircraft like Hawkeyes or Sentinels. They can operate hundreds of miles in advance of a task force and provide missile targeting data via data link. The ships never need to even see the missiles they are destroying.

Hundreds of miles which way? 500 miles is under 5 minutes at 1.7 miles per second. Would the attack come from land or sea?

As Obsolete as a Battleship: Why Is the U.S. Navy Still Building Aircraft Carriers?

Sound policy will also require overcoming resistance to replacing manned subs with all manner of unmanned underwater vessels — from the very small to large-displacement unmanned vehicles. “History,” it has been written, “does not repeat itself, but it rhymes.” Today it’s rhyming with Gen. Billy...

nationalinterest.org

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

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

www.defensenews.com

OK now you are being willfully stupid. You are the one positing multiple thousands of launchers all launching for a TOT barrage. Don't you think that the US which has more and better satellite coverage than China will know where at least the majority of those missile launchers are? Or that we will know exactly where every ship in the PLAN is before we start fighting? Or do you think we are so stupid that we won't align our defenses along the threat axis? Hey, Hitler, Tojo, Mussolini and Sadam all thought we were stupid. You might reflect on what happened to them before making the same mistake.

Again in order to attack the enemy the carrier needs to get inside of 500 miles of the target.

No the USA does not know where all of Chinas missiles are. Are you aware that many are actually on cargo ships?

No you obviously were not

 

[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?

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

hahahhahhah thank you --you fkd up!!!
1. the big one--the carriers have been used numerous times for various options--but how many times against Russia or China!!!!!!!????????--do you understand the point?

--a.no use against Russia or even China directly --I guess you could count the Korean War--but that was WAY back in 1953!! -SO, even if they do have these MAGIC MISSILES--no problem....we usually don't use them against China, Russia, or [ HAHAHAHAHAHHHAH ] BOTH!!! hahahhaha

--b. so they are useful for 99.99999% of the ''enemies'' we use them against

--c.. I have links also to refute your links

China Wants The Navy To Think Its Anti-Ship Missiles Are A Dire Threat (But Are They Really?)

We take a look behind China's arsenal.

nationalinterest.org

.

2. war with both China and Russia---THOUSANDS of missiles!!!!!!!!!!!?????????
GODAMN it, kid-----get out of your parents' basement and stop playing those PC games like Harpoon/etc

 

[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?

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

..allow me to reiterate---war with both China and Russia!!!!! = insane/idiotic scenario
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHA
....you must be spaced out from all those PC games you play-

THOUSANDS of missiles!!!! = insane

 

[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.

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

CIWS isn't all the USN has. IF your mythological attack ever happened, the missiles would be engaged four or five hundred miles from the task force by missile armed fighters. Once the missiles got past the fighters, they would be engaged by ER Standards well beyond the radar horizon. Once the survivors got past the ER engagement zone they would be engaged by Standard SAMs, after the survivors got past the Standards, they would be engaged by five inch guns, After that by the three inch guns on the frigates and finally the few survivors would be killed by the CIWS mounts. It's called a layered defense. And even that's assuming that any of the launchers survived the attacks by cruise and ballistic missiles on the fixed launchers. We know where they are and would destroy them before sending carriers into their ranges. China is a paper tiger to use it's own vernacular. It hasn't fought a war against a peer level opponent in centuries. It's navy that you are so proud of is a bunch of destroyers, frigates and missile boats that can't target or engage opponents beyond the radar horizon. China is spending a lot of money on expensive toys, but developing a navy takes decades of intense work and a winning navy needs traditions that China lacks. China MIGHT be able to defend it's littorals. but it's a long way from projecting power. Why else would it be wasting so much time and energy trying to turn sandbars into fortified airfields in the South China Sea? Hint: sandbars are harder to destroy than ships and the PLAN knows it so they will keep their expensive toys in harbor while the PLAF tries to gain aerial parity over the SCS.

No one engages a missile skimming the ocean under radar. SAM's, whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, you need a radar profile for those kid

Really

There is no "under radar" when you have AEW aircraft like Hawkeyes or Sentinels. They can operate hundreds of miles in advance of a task force and provide missile targeting data via data link. The ships never need to even see the missiles they are destroying.

Hundreds of miles which way? 500 miles is under 5 minutes at 1.7 miles per second. Would the attack come from land or sea?

As Obsolete as a Battleship: Why Is the U.S. Navy Still Building Aircraft Carriers?

Sound policy will also require overcoming resistance to replacing manned subs with all manner of unmanned underwater vessels — from the very small to large-displacement unmanned vehicles. “History,” it has been written, “does not repeat itself, but it rhymes.” Today it’s rhyming with Gen. Billy...

nationalinterest.org

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

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

www.defensenews.com

OK now you are being willfully stupid. You are the one positing multiple thousands of launchers all launching for a TOT barrage. Don't you think that the US which has more and better satellite coverage than China will know where at least the majority of those missile launchers are? Or that we will know exactly where every ship in the PLAN is before we start fighting? Or do you think we are so stupid that we won't align our defenses along the threat axis? Hey, Hitler, Tojo, Mussolini and Sadam all thought we were stupid. You might reflect on what happened to them before making the same mistake.

Again in order to attack the enemy the carrier needs to get inside of 500 miles of the target.

No the USA does not know where all of Chinas missiles are. Are you aware that many are actually on cargo ships?

No you obviously were not

No it doesn't you idiot. There is this thing called "in flight refueling" Talk about a know nothing. You are it.