F35 - superfighter or lame duck?

[esalla]

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

Carve it in stone

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

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

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

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

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

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

www.popularmechanics.com

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

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

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

Then why is china building them?

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

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

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

How would a carrier attack Russia or China?

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

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

www.theamericanconservative.com

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

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

what enemy?? Iraq? Iran?

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

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
View attachment 411790

Time for your tranquilizers

 

[esalla]

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

Carve it in stone

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

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

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

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

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

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

www.popularmechanics.com

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

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

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

Then why is china building them?

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

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

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

How would a carrier attack Russia or China?

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

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

www.theamericanconservative.com

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

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

what enemy?? Iraq? Iran?

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

..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

‘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

Was Charlie in a hole along the ho chi minh trail really a threat to any carrier? What about Iraqi scud missiles, or camels in Afghanistan?

Yawn, no carrier lives 60 minutes in an all out war

 

[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

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

Really in flight refueling over the enemy

Great idea kiddy

You ought to produce top gun 3

Where John McCain crashes 5 more times

 

[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

Seawolf does you silly child. Waaaaay back in the Falklands war, long before you were born the Seawolf was the terror of the Argentinian Air Force.

 

[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.

Really in flight refueling over the enemy

Great idea kiddy

You ought to produce top gun 3

Where John McCain crashes 5 more times

John mccain was a drunk, and not a very good pilot. You should learn something before you spout off more kiddo.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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

The F-35C is coming online now. I don't have the exact figures. But let's take a look at their range loaded with internal weapons. This includes Air to Ground Missiles.

1367 miles without external fuel. Now add two external fuel tanks and before it gets into range, have it meet a tanker to top if off and have it meet a tanker on the way out. Let's do a scenario.

The F-35C launches with a full load of internal and external stores. He launches with very little fuel. He meets a Tanker right after launch which tops him off. He's loaded out with two Aim-9Xs and four Aim-120s as well as a mix of the following stores.

• Air-to-surface missiles:
  • AGM-88G AARGM-ER (Block 4)
  • AGM-158 JASSM[170]
  • SPEAR 3[164]
  • Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
  • Joint Strike Missile (JSM, planned)
  • SOM
• Anti-ship missiles:
  • AGM-158C LRASM[384]

Some of these have a 1000 mile range and are self autonamous.

The range of the loaded F-35C is now at least 2000 miles. That means he has to get within 1000 miles of his intended target to make it home. The carrier can lessen that by closing. So let's say, the F-35C only has to do a 750 mile return flight with air refueling. But he can extend that by multiple air refuelings. That puts the Carrier out of range for attack. And if you try and come without 1000 miles you are going to run into a hornets nest of support ships and ECM birds.

If the Chinese want at the carriers, it's going to be a bloody fight in and a bloody fight out. Chances are, there will be a high presence of USAF involved as well with the F-22 and their refueling force and AWACs. And don't sell the F-18s short either. The Chinese will be greatly outnumber in both air assets and naval ships. Entire Corridors are going to be created where the B-2 and B-1s can do their magic.

I can't see ANY logic, other than population control, that would drive China into such an insane move.

 

[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.

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.

Really in flight refueling over the enemy

Great idea kiddy

You ought to produce top gun 3

Where John McCain crashes 5 more times

THOUSANDS of missiles ...at war with China and Russia
...you are definitely out of reality
...it's a common problem--people not thinking realistically

 

[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

Seawolf does you silly child. Waaaaay back in the Falklands war, long before you were born the Seawolf was the terror of the Argentinian Air Force.

Tell us kiddy, how many aircraft carriers have launched air attacks against nuclear and hypersonic missile equipped nations.

Answer ZERO. However carriers can attack North Korea in the 50's then Vietnam and Iraq with it's deadly scud missile and then there were the attacks on Afghanistan camel brigades. Why no attacks on Russia or China?

Because the carrier would be sunk inside of an hour. Seriously you clowns going back to the 80's to prove something is completely nerdy

 

[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

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

Really in flight refueling over the enemy

Great idea kiddy

You ought to produce top gun 3

Where John McCain crashes 5 more times

THOUSANDS of missiles ...at war with China and Russia
...you are definitely out of reality
...it's a common problem--people not thinking realistically

China has multiple thousands of various missiles actually. You are living in denial of reality

How China Would Use Anti-Ship Missiles Against the Navy

A terrible war it would be.

nationalinterest.org

 

[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

The F-35C is coming online now. I don't have the exact figures. But let's take a look at their range loaded with internal weapons. This includes Air to Ground Missiles.

1367 miles without external fuel. Now add two external fuel tanks and before it gets into range, have it meet a tanker to top if off and have it meet a tanker on the way out. Let's do a scenario.

The F-35C launches with a full load of internal and external stores. He launches with very little fuel. He meets a Tanker right after launch which tops him off. He's loaded out with two Aim-9Xs and four Aim-120s as well as a mix of the following stores.

• Air-to-surface missiles:
  • AGM-88G AARGM-ER (Block 4)
  • AGM-158 JASSM[170]
  • SPEAR 3[164]
  • Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
  • Joint Strike Missile (JSM, planned)
  • SOM
• Anti-ship missiles:
  • AGM-158C LRASM[384]

Some of these have a 1000 mile range and are self autonamous.

The range of the loaded F-35C is now at least 2000 miles. That means he has to get within 1000 miles of his intended target to make it home. The carrier can lessen that by closing. So let's say, the F-35C only has to do a 750 mile return flight with air refueling. But he can extend that by multiple air refuelings. That puts the Carrier out of range for attack. And if you try and come without 1000 miles you are going to run into a hornets nest of support ships and ECM birds.

If the Chinese want at the carriers, it's going to be a bloody fight in and a bloody fight out. Chances are, there will be a high presence of USAF involved as well with the F-22 and their refueling force and AWACs. And don't sell the F-18s short either. The Chinese will be greatly outnumber in both air assets and naval ships. Entire Corridors are going to be created where the B-2 and B-1s can do their magic.

I can't see ANY logic, other than population control, that would drive China into such an insane move.

A fully fueled and armed F35 can not take off vertical as it was intended making the jet a total failure which is why we intended to sell it to Turkey so the Russians could tale the pile of krap apart to learn how not to build a real jet.

Number of nations sold the F22

One, the USA

 

[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.

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

Seawolf does you silly child. Waaaaay back in the Falklands war, long before you were born the Seawolf was the terror of the Argentinian Air Force.

Tell us kiddy, how many aircraft carriers have launched air attacks against nuclear and hypersonic missile equipped nations.

Answer ZERO. However carriers can attack North Korea in the 50's then Vietnam and Iraq with it's deadly scud missile and then there were the attacks on Afghanistan camel brigades. Why no attacks on Russia or China?

We haven't used F-22s, B-2s, B-1Bs, B-52s, Tomahawk cruise missiles or Predator drones (to name just a handful of weapons systems) against Russia or China either. Can you seriously suggest all of those are useless?

Your condescension of other posters here is beyond disgusting.

 

[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

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

The F-35C is coming online now. I don't have the exact figures. But let's take a look at their range loaded with internal weapons. This includes Air to Ground Missiles.

1367 miles without external fuel. Now add two external fuel tanks and before it gets into range, have it meet a tanker to top if off and have it meet a tanker on the way out. Let's do a scenario.

The F-35C launches with a full load of internal and external stores. He launches with very little fuel. He meets a Tanker right after launch which tops him off. He's loaded out with two Aim-9Xs and four Aim-120s as well as a mix of the following stores.

• Air-to-surface missiles:
  • AGM-88G AARGM-ER (Block 4)
  • AGM-158 JASSM[170]
  • SPEAR 3[164]
  • Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
  • Joint Strike Missile (JSM, planned)
  • SOM
• Anti-ship missiles:
  • AGM-158C LRASM[384]

Some of these have a 1000 mile range and are self autonamous.

The range of the loaded F-35C is now at least 2000 miles. That means he has to get within 1000 miles of his intended target to make it home. The carrier can lessen that by closing. So let's say, the F-35C only has to do a 750 mile return flight with air refueling. But he can extend that by multiple air refuelings. That puts the Carrier out of range for attack. And if you try and come without 1000 miles you are going to run into a hornets nest of support ships and ECM birds.

If the Chinese want at the carriers, it's going to be a bloody fight in and a bloody fight out. Chances are, there will be a high presence of USAF involved as well with the F-22 and their refueling force and AWACs. And don't sell the F-18s short either. The Chinese will be greatly outnumber in both air assets and naval ships. Entire Corridors are going to be created where the B-2 and B-1s can do their magic.

I can't see ANY logic, other than population control, that would drive China into such an insane move.

A fully fueled and armed F35 can not take off vertical as it was intended making the jet a total failure

The F-35 was never intended to be able to take off vertically fully fueled. A Harrier can't either.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The counterforce strikes wouldn’t be coming from the carriers. They would be a mix of hundreds or thousands of air launched cruise missiles from B-52s, B-1s and B-2s and sub launched land attack missiles from the four OFMG converted Ohio SSGNs. They carry 154 land attack Tomahawks EACH. That’s six hundred and sixteen missiles just from those four undiscoverable platforms. That’s not counting the 656 active ballistic missiles armed with MIRVs in the inventory. Any Chinese war with the USA would be short and spectacular. Your “thousands” of hypersonic missiles would never get a chance to launch. Your armed merchant ships are sitting ducks and are constantly broadcasting their positions via locators so the search areas to destroy them would be small. The only way they could contribute to a war would be launching nuclear tipped missiles which would result in the total destruction of China by the six hundred and fifty six US missiles each carrying between three and six warheads.

 

[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

Seawolf does you silly child. Waaaaay back in the Falklands war, long before you were born the Seawolf was the terror of the Argentinian Air Force.

Tell us kiddy, how many aircraft carriers have launched air attacks against nuclear and hypersonic missile equipped nations.

Answer ZERO. However carriers can attack North Korea in the 50's then Vietnam and Iraq with it's deadly scud missile and then there were the attacks on Afghanistan camel brigades. Why no attacks on Russia or China?

We haven't used F-22s, B-2s, B-1Bs, B-52s, Tomahawk cruise missiles or Predator drones (to name just a handful of weapons systems) against Russia or China either. Can you seriously suggest all of those are useless?

Your condescension of other posters here is beyond disgusting.

They are a child. They are rude because they are insecure.

 

[verker]

Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run?

This are new shit even it is super planes ... prefers F-16 and F-18 ...

 

[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

Seawolf does you silly child. Waaaaay back in the Falklands war, long before you were born the Seawolf was the terror of the Argentinian Air Force.

Tell us kiddy, how many aircraft carriers have launched air attacks against nuclear and hypersonic missile equipped nations.

Answer ZERO. However carriers can attack North Korea in the 50's then Vietnam and Iraq with it's deadly scud missile and then there were the attacks on Afghanistan camel brigades. Why no attacks on Russia or China?

We haven't used F-22s, B-2s, B-1Bs, B-52s, Tomahawk cruise missiles or Predator drones (to name just a handful of weapons systems) against Russia or China either. Can you seriously suggest all of those are useless?

Your condescension of other posters here is beyond disgusting.

They are a child. They are rude because they are insecure.

Apple and google are up.

Yawning

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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

The F-35C is coming online now. I don't have the exact figures. But let's take a look at their range loaded with internal weapons. This includes Air to Ground Missiles.

1367 miles without external fuel. Now add two external fuel tanks and before it gets into range, have it meet a tanker to top if off and have it meet a tanker on the way out. Let's do a scenario.

The F-35C launches with a full load of internal and external stores. He launches with very little fuel. He meets a Tanker right after launch which tops him off. He's loaded out with two Aim-9Xs and four Aim-120s as well as a mix of the following stores.

• Air-to-surface missiles:
  • AGM-88G AARGM-ER (Block 4)
  • AGM-158 JASSM[170]
  • SPEAR 3[164]
  • Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
  • Joint Strike Missile (JSM, planned)
  • SOM
• Anti-ship missiles:
  • AGM-158C LRASM[384]

Some of these have a 1000 mile range and are self autonamous.

The range of the loaded F-35C is now at least 2000 miles. That means he has to get within 1000 miles of his intended target to make it home. The carrier can lessen that by closing. So let's say, the F-35C only has to do a 750 mile return flight with air refueling. But he can extend that by multiple air refuelings. That puts the Carrier out of range for attack. And if you try and come without 1000 miles you are going to run into a hornets nest of support ships and ECM birds.

If the Chinese want at the carriers, it's going to be a bloody fight in and a bloody fight out. Chances are, there will be a high presence of USAF involved as well with the F-22 and their refueling force and AWACs. And don't sell the F-18s short either. The Chinese will be greatly outnumber in both air assets and naval ships. Entire Corridors are going to be created where the B-2 and B-1s can do their magic.

I can't see ANY logic, other than population control, that would drive China into such an insane move.

A fully fueled and armed F35 can not take off vertical as it was intended making the jet a total failure which is why we intended to sell it to Turkey so the Russians could tale the pile of krap apart to learn how not to build a real jet.

Number of nations sold the F22

One, the USA

If you have ever seen a F-35B fully loaded take off, he takes off using both runway and his lift engine to get into the air and get his airspeed up as quickly as possible. And then he meets a tanker whether it be a F-18 configured for as a refueler or any number of refuelers. The same goes for the F-35C and A which can take off in REAL Monster mode carrying more ordinance than a F-16 or a F-18 ever dreamed of. And carry it twice as far. The F-35C used the space that the B used for it's lift fans and drive for fuel making it a very long combat ranged bird. And it's coming online as I type this in numbers. They don't have to get the carrier anywhere close to send even the F-18E/F/Gs since they can refuel them on the way in and on the way out.

As for the Russians being able to take the F-35 apart, their SU and Migs sold to various countries aren't doing such a hot job when the F-35A Recons are taking pictures almost directly over their runways completely undetected. You have to see it to shoot it down. If you don't believe me, ask the Iranians that are complaining about the Israelis overflights over Iran.

 

[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

The F-35C is coming online now. I don't have the exact figures. But let's take a look at their range loaded with internal weapons. This includes Air to Ground Missiles.

1367 miles without external fuel. Now add two external fuel tanks and before it gets into range, have it meet a tanker to top if off and have it meet a tanker on the way out. Let's do a scenario.

The F-35C launches with a full load of internal and external stores. He launches with very little fuel. He meets a Tanker right after launch which tops him off. He's loaded out with two Aim-9Xs and four Aim-120s as well as a mix of the following stores.

• Air-to-surface missiles:
  • AGM-88G AARGM-ER (Block 4)
  • AGM-158 JASSM[170]
  • SPEAR 3[164]
  • Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
  • Joint Strike Missile (JSM, planned)
  • SOM
• Anti-ship missiles:
  • AGM-158C LRASM[384]

Some of these have a 1000 mile range and are self autonamous.

The range of the loaded F-35C is now at least 2000 miles. That means he has to get within 1000 miles of his intended target to make it home. The carrier can lessen that by closing. So let's say, the F-35C only has to do a 750 mile return flight with air refueling. But he can extend that by multiple air refuelings. That puts the Carrier out of range for attack. And if you try and come without 1000 miles you are going to run into a hornets nest of support ships and ECM birds.

If the Chinese want at the carriers, it's going to be a bloody fight in and a bloody fight out. Chances are, there will be a high presence of USAF involved as well with the F-22 and their refueling force and AWACs. And don't sell the F-18s short either. The Chinese will be greatly outnumber in both air assets and naval ships. Entire Corridors are going to be created where the B-2 and B-1s can do their magic.

I can't see ANY logic, other than population control, that would drive China into such an insane move.

A fully fueled and armed F35 can not take off vertical as it was intended making the jet a total failure which is why we intended to sell it to Turkey so the Russians could tale the pile of krap apart to learn how not to build a real jet.

Number of nations sold the F22

One, the USA

If you have ever seen a F-35B fully loaded take off, he takes off using both runway and his lift engine to get into the air and get his airspeed up as quickly as possible. And then he meets a tanker whether it be a F-18 configured for as a refueler or any number of refuelers. The same goes for the F-35C and A which can take off in REAL Monster mode carrying more ordinance than a F-16 or a F-18 ever dreamed of. And carry it twice as far. The F-35C used the space that the B used for it's lift fans and drive for fuel making it a very long combat ranged bird. And it's coming online as I type this in numbers. They don't have to get the carrier anywhere close to send even the F-18E/F/Gs since they can refuel them on the way in and on the way out.

As for the Russians being able to take the F-35 apart, their SU and Migs sold to various countries aren't doing such a hot job when the F-35A Recons are taking pictures almost directly over their runways completely undetected. You have to see it to shoot it down. If you don't believe me, ask the Iranians that are complaining about the Israelis overflights over Iran.

Totally wrong. Why? Because in any emergency scramble into the air incident and those are the ones that matter there is no tanker waiting to refuel the piece of shit f35. In such a situation you must get into the air fully fueled and armed which makes vertical takeoff impossible. LOL the F35 is the jet that was supposed to take off like a helicopter but that takes off like a jet, it never should have been built. From what I read the Eurofighter Typhoon is flying circles around the f35

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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

The F-35C is coming online now. I don't have the exact figures. But let's take a look at their range loaded with internal weapons. This includes Air to Ground Missiles.

1367 miles without external fuel. Now add two external fuel tanks and before it gets into range, have it meet a tanker to top if off and have it meet a tanker on the way out. Let's do a scenario.

The F-35C launches with a full load of internal and external stores. He launches with very little fuel. He meets a Tanker right after launch which tops him off. He's loaded out with two Aim-9Xs and four Aim-120s as well as a mix of the following stores.

• Air-to-surface missiles:
  • AGM-88G AARGM-ER (Block 4)
  • AGM-158 JASSM[170]
  • SPEAR 3[164]
  • Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
  • Joint Strike Missile (JSM, planned)
  • SOM
• Anti-ship missiles:
  • AGM-158C LRASM[384]

Some of these have a 1000 mile range and are self autonamous.

The range of the loaded F-35C is now at least 2000 miles. That means he has to get within 1000 miles of his intended target to make it home. The carrier can lessen that by closing. So let's say, the F-35C only has to do a 750 mile return flight with air refueling. But he can extend that by multiple air refuelings. That puts the Carrier out of range for attack. And if you try and come without 1000 miles you are going to run into a hornets nest of support ships and ECM birds.

If the Chinese want at the carriers, it's going to be a bloody fight in and a bloody fight out. Chances are, there will be a high presence of USAF involved as well with the F-22 and their refueling force and AWACs. And don't sell the F-18s short either. The Chinese will be greatly outnumber in both air assets and naval ships. Entire Corridors are going to be created where the B-2 and B-1s can do their magic.

I can't see ANY logic, other than population control, that would drive China into such an insane move.

A fully fueled and armed F35 can not take off vertical as it was intended making the jet a total failure which is why we intended to sell it to Turkey so the Russians could tale the pile of krap apart to learn how not to build a real jet.

Number of nations sold the F22

One, the USA

If you have ever seen a F-35B fully loaded take off, he takes off using both runway and his lift engine to get into the air and get his airspeed up as quickly as possible. And then he meets a tanker whether it be a F-18 configured for as a refueler or any number of refuelers. The same goes for the F-35C and A which can take off in REAL Monster mode carrying more ordinance than a F-16 or a F-18 ever dreamed of. And carry it twice as far. The F-35C used the space that the B used for it's lift fans and drive for fuel making it a very long combat ranged bird. And it's coming online as I type this in numbers. They don't have to get the carrier anywhere close to send even the F-18E/F/Gs since they can refuel them on the way in and on the way out.

As for the Russians being able to take the F-35 apart, their SU and Migs sold to various countries aren't doing such a hot job when the F-35A Recons are taking pictures almost directly over their runways completely undetected. You have to see it to shoot it down. If you don't believe me, ask the Iranians that are complaining about the Israelis overflights over Iran.

Totally wrong. Why? Because in any emergency scramble into the air incident and those are the ones that matter there is no tanker waiting to refuel the piece of shit f35. In such a situation you must get into the air fully fueled and armed which makes vertical takeoff impossible. LOL the F35 is the jet that was supposed to take off like a helicopter but that takes off like a jet, it never should have been built. From what I read the Eurofighter Typhoon is flying circles around the f35

If you know anything about the Naval Procedures, they keep X number of Tankers in the air, X number of tankers on alert status 24/7. And can generate more when needed. And a monster loaded F-35B will NEVER be able to take off in hover mode. But he can take off in STOVL mode. And the requirements of both the A and the C are to be able to take off in Stovol mode in monster mode at all times. Granted, a Tanker will have to be met but I think the Navy and the AF can meet that requirement with the tankers better than any other nation on the face of the earth. I don't know about if it's better than the planet you come from so I won't comment on that.

As for the Typhoon flying circles around the F-35, how about a cite on that one. Just because you say so isn't reason enough for the rest of us to believe it.

 

[esalla]

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

Carve it in stone

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

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

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

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

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

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

www.popularmechanics.com

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

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

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

Then why is china building them?

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

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

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

How would a carrier attack Russia or China?

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

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

www.theamericanconservative.com

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

The F-35C is coming online now. I don't have the exact figures. But let's take a look at their range loaded with internal weapons. This includes Air to Ground Missiles.

1367 miles without external fuel. Now add two external fuel tanks and before it gets into range, have it meet a tanker to top if off and have it meet a tanker on the way out. Let's do a scenario.

The F-35C launches with a full load of internal and external stores. He launches with very little fuel. He meets a Tanker right after launch which tops him off. He's loaded out with two Aim-9Xs and four Aim-120s as well as a mix of the following stores.

• Air-to-surface missiles:
  • AGM-88G AARGM-ER (Block 4)
  • AGM-158 JASSM[170]
  • SPEAR 3[164]
  • Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
  • Joint Strike Missile (JSM, planned)
  • SOM
• Anti-ship missiles:
  • AGM-158C LRASM[384]

Some of these have a 1000 mile range and are self autonamous.

The range of the loaded F-35C is now at least 2000 miles. That means he has to get within 1000 miles of his intended target to make it home. The carrier can lessen that by closing. So let's say, the F-35C only has to do a 750 mile return flight with air refueling. But he can extend that by multiple air refuelings. That puts the Carrier out of range for attack. And if you try and come without 1000 miles you are going to run into a hornets nest of support ships and ECM birds.

If the Chinese want at the carriers, it's going to be a bloody fight in and a bloody fight out. Chances are, there will be a high presence of USAF involved as well with the F-22 and their refueling force and AWACs. And don't sell the F-18s short either. The Chinese will be greatly outnumber in both air assets and naval ships. Entire Corridors are going to be created where the B-2 and B-1s can do their magic.

I can't see ANY logic, other than population control, that would drive China into such an insane move.

A fully fueled and armed F35 can not take off vertical as it was intended making the jet a total failure which is why we intended to sell it to Turkey so the Russians could tale the pile of krap apart to learn how not to build a real jet.

Number of nations sold the F22

One, the USA

If you have ever seen a F-35B fully loaded take off, he takes off using both runway and his lift engine to get into the air and get his airspeed up as quickly as possible. And then he meets a tanker whether it be a F-18 configured for as a refueler or any number of refuelers. The same goes for the F-35C and A which can take off in REAL Monster mode carrying more ordinance than a F-16 or a F-18 ever dreamed of. And carry it twice as far. The F-35C used the space that the B used for it's lift fans and drive for fuel making it a very long combat ranged bird. And it's coming online as I type this in numbers. They don't have to get the carrier anywhere close to send even the F-18E/F/Gs since they can refuel them on the way in and on the way out.

As for the Russians being able to take the F-35 apart, their SU and Migs sold to various countries aren't doing such a hot job when the F-35A Recons are taking pictures almost directly over their runways completely undetected. You have to see it to shoot it down. If you don't believe me, ask the Iranians that are complaining about the Israelis overflights over Iran.

Totally wrong. Why? Because in any emergency scramble into the air incident and those are the ones that matter there is no tanker waiting to refuel the piece of shit f35. In such a situation you must get into the air fully fueled and armed which makes vertical takeoff impossible. LOL the F35 is the jet that was supposed to take off like a helicopter but that takes off like a jet, it never should have been built. From what I read the Eurofighter Typhoon is flying circles around the f35

If you know anything about the Naval Procedures, they keep X number of Tankers in the air, X number of tankers on alert status 24/7. And can generate more when needed. And a monster loaded F-35B will NEVER be able to take off in hover mode. But he can take off in STOVL mode. And the requirements of both the A and the C are to be able to take off in Stovol mode in monster mode at all times. Granted, a Tanker will have to be met but I think the Navy and the AF can meet that requirement with the tankers better than any other nation on the face of the earth. I don't know about if it's better than the planet you come from so I won't comment on that.

As for the Typhoon flying circles around the F-35, how about a cite on that one. Just because you say so isn't reason enough for the rest of us to believe it.

Dude there is no naval procedure keeping tankers in the air all the time around a carrier. 24 hours a day in all weather even while the ship is moving to a new destination. LOL also how much more range than the fighter do you think a carrier tanker has, including one that has been flying, this makes no sense at all? But it's all irrelevant when hundreds of anti ship missiles arrive skimming the surface

"No way an F-35 will ever match a Typhoon fighter jet in aerial combat" Eurofighter test pilot says

Lockheed Martin claims F-35 kinematics are "better than or equal to" Eurofighter Typhoon. A Eurofighter test pilot disagrees. In an interesting piece by

theaviationist.com

Germany officially knocks F-35 out of competition to replace Tornado

An official from the ministry confirmed that the F-35 is not a finalist in the competition, which seeks a replacement for the 90-jet fleet.

www.defensenews.com