Thread 64165046

Are aircraft carriers obsolete?

yes according to elon musk

They are a huge target that dont do anyrhing a missile cant do

No, you fucking retard

No, but the crewed aircraft are.

>>64165046 (OP)
it depends what you're trying to do
but they became obsolete in the 1990s when the sole operator of carriers on scale was able to get airbases on land near anywhere they wanted to bomb anyway

>>64165046 (OP)
Are Chinese aircraft carriers obsolete?

>>64165046 (OP)
Theyre for peacetime power projection.
So theyre not obsolete unless they leave their harbors in wartime.

>>64165046 (OP)
Are the ships that are the sole way to move and sustain an air wing and strike force the size of a country's entire airforce and navy combined to anywhere on the globe within a few weeks obsolete? Is China rushing to field their Fujian carrier into service, building their 4th one as quickly as possible, along with their air wing 5th gen carrier capable jets just for the fun of it, because clearly that money would be better put towards muh drones and robots, right?

>>64165048
they will have to stay farther away from opponents that can into cruise missiles and kamikaze drones, making them less effective. we already saw that with the houthis. a more serious player like china with dedicated bombers and stand off anti-ship missiles will cause even more trouble. the financial damage of having to launch interceptors alone will be problematic and once the interceptors are exhausted, the carrier strike group will have to leave the hot zone to reload interceptors.

>>64165046 (OP)
If I say yes, will you go away?

>>64165048
He says a lot of shit.

They're pretty useful for a surprise attack against third world countries that don't have any sort of long range missiles or nukes like iraq,

>>64165077
china has it easier than the usa. they dont need to operate off the american west coast, but the americans will have to operate right next to china if they want to protect taiwan, which means they will eat anti-ship missiles like crazy. barrages of 40 missiles and 60 drones every few days will eat up interceptors like crazy and eventually make the deployment unsustainable without the chinese having to actually damage a single ship.

Yep. And the Chinese wasting billions to put their 4th carrier to sea only proves they're half a century behind still.

>>64165046 (OP)
>>63784333
>>63741580
>>63725196

>>64165099
The Chinese also won't be hitting US ports, air bases, manufacturing facilities, and logstics chains.

>>64165099
Implessive.

>>64165046 (OP)

>>63784343
>>63741580
>>63725196

>>64165099
I think you're forgetting the land-based operations which will happen from Taiwan, Okinawa and Luzon at the very least. Your scenario assumes air superiority for China which is debatable even from a numbers standpoint.

>>64165046 (OP)
Yes. They can easily be countered and disabled by cheap FPV drones, as the Houthis have proved just recently.

>>64165136
So the PLAN will be defeated by fpv drones, right?

Missile chimpouts are only going to result in quicker Bolo tank syndrome for military vehicles, being that eventually you will have much larger designs capable of holding all the countermeasures needed to handle lower tech ballistic spam, such as a network of EW CIWS. Outside of sub 1-2km direct fire armor on vehicles as a whole is outdated in favor of having more active countermeasures against ballistic threats.

>>64165046 (OP)
>Is something that's never been defeated and causes endless seething cope in every phoney play pretend military in the world obsolete?
Yeah

These shitty 1 PBTID OP threads should be a bannable offense.

>>64165115
>land-based operations which will happen from Taiwan, Okinawa and Luzon at the very least. will they? your scenario assumes trump not chickening out and going full ww3 on china and the american people actually supporting that.

>>64165046 (OP)
Do aircraft carriers can be considered as intimidation over common sense (nowadays) >>64134897

>>64165167
Absolutely irrelevant to the conversation and you just ignored my question about air superiority. You could only wish that Trump would not deploy American forces.

>>64165046 (OP)

Of course they are obsolete in the event of war against a well-equipped nation.

Even an old French Rubis-class submarine managed to sink the USS Theodore Roosevelt during an exercise in 2015.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/rubis-class-how-french-submarine-sank-us-aircraft-carrier-212441

>>64165250
>exercise

>>64165252

>Despite being an older, smaller submarine, the Saphir successfully penetrated the defense perimeter of Carrier Strike Group 12, which included the USS Theodore Roosevelt

Nothing can stop a torpedo after that.

>>64165250
So the carriers that China is building will definitely be sunk thanks to US subs, right?

>>64165285

Of course.

>>64165250
>>64165267
This faggot won't stop spamming the same article in every thread when all it means is that the USN has learnt a flaw and had 10 years and 30~ multinational (not including the 40~ US only) carrier centric exercises to counter it. How many exercises has China done in the same time period?

>>64165183
>my question about air superiorit
as irrelevant as it is in ukraine. china will just throw standoff ammunition and the landmass of china will just tank everything the carrier group will dish out and continue spamming missiles and drones until the carrier group eventually runs out of interceptor missiles and is then forced to leave the area. th ehouthis managed to do that with just a handful of iranian drones.

>>64165305
>as irrelevant as it is in ukraine
You're actually retarded. This statement alone invalidates whatever you said after which is just 'yeah China's LANDMASS is gonna tank precision airstrikes cause I said so'

>>64165046 (OP)
If you are a nation that can maintain and deploy a full sized naval battle group then an aircraft carrier greatly expands on your strike capabilities.
If you are from a nation that can't then they are not worth the investment.

>>64165320
I'm sure chinese ports and military bases would be happy to become a part of chinese landmass, making it this much bigger and stronger in the process.

>>64165285
vance will declare that the americans had enough of funding foreign forever wars and that the beggar of taipeh can essentially go fuck himself. he will declare the defense of taiwan to be japans and the philippines and indonesias responsibility since its in their neighbourhood and blame the biden administration for having allowed china to attack taiwan. maybe trump will negotiate a surrender of taiwan with xi in order to prevent the horrible deaths and to prevent world war 3. euro cucks with their useless frigates will just lool concerned and send harsh diplomatic notes.

So this OP is what the /k/ moderator staff approves as traffic-building content for the board?

>>64165305
>untill the carrier group leaves

Lmfao, so they will waste assloads of their extremely expensive AShMs, BMs and almost certainly take hideous losses to their air wings only to...see the carrier group they've been fighting to get replaced by a fresh new one?
Lmao

>>64165357
>1945

>>64165340
ukraine has been doing precision attacks on russian bases in west and south russia for 3 years now. of course it does some damage, but it did not make russia stop producing and throwing stuff every few days. the american president will have to sell the largest war effort since ww2 to the american populace, while xi can just order obedience. its pretty clear who will bring his boys home in such a scenario.

>>64165344
So the Chinese carriers will be sunk by French supplied subs?

>>64165384
>ukraine has been doing precision attacks on russian bases in west and south russia for 3 years now.
so you're saying that china will lose most of its air force, a third of its industrial capacity and become a puppet state of North Korea but won't be conquered by US and this will be declared a victory? Quite optimistic assessment desu.

>>64165369
>almost certainly take hideous losses to their air wings
not really. the chinese will just do the russian tactic of launching all their stuff from the ground or from 500km away.

>>64165428
>the russian tactic of launching all their stuff from the ground or from 500km away.
doesn't work when your enemy can actually shoot back

>>64165428
Gonna have to bust out the DF-21s a bit further out for that one Chang, 500km is well within combined strike distance.

>>64165422
they really just need to harass the carrier group and make it deplete their interceptor missiles. they can do that from the ground unless the carrier stays far away. but then the carrier will be unable to really aid taiwan and they can spam the missiles and drones on taiwan instead. eventually the taiwanese people will say "fuck it, its not worth it, we make a compromise" and it all goes the hong kong way of slow assimilation into ccp china.

>>64165052
>*gets BTFO'd by Houthis*
>*forced to fuck off to the nearest port*
mr sandnigger would you please play by the rules ~mmmkay?

>>64165428
>500km away
They need to get within 500km first
And the chinks are going to have to divide their attention between bombing Taiwan, bombing the American bases in the pacific, and also dealing with the Filipinos AND the multiple reinforced American carrier groups pounding their shit day in and day out

>>64165450
500km isn't just within a combined strike distance, it's within surface/deck launched missile range by a sizeable amount.

>chinkfag hypes up shit to counter the USN
>pretends china won't be vulnerable to the same style of attack
Why are they like this?

>>64165458
>CG ends it's tour in that area of operations after casualty dunking od goatfuckers for weeks
>immediately replaced by another CG
>This is considered a win by subhuman turdies

>>64165455
so what happens once the carrier groups harasses your naval facilities back? decisive tang victory?

Yes according to Elon Musk.

>>64165455
Did xi himself write this post? Shit has more autofellatio and assumptions about what will surely happen once great victory befalls the CCP than actual discussion of strategy and distances involved.

>>64165450
if the carrier wants to protect taiwan it has to close in to mainland china. the taiwan straight is 180km wide. thats well in range for truck launched shaheeds and even the most primitive cold war era anti ship missile.

>>64165250
>>64165299
Lol
Submarines have been sinking carriers in exercises since NATO was formed
They sink all kinds of ships and are sunk themselves
Exercises are for everyone to practice which includes practicing setting up firing solutions and firing practice torpedoes

>>64165493
>if the carrier wants to protect taiwan it has to close in to mainland china.
no it doesn't. the whole point of a carrier is to carry aircraft that do that instead.

>>64165460
>bombing the American bases in the pacific
why would they need to do that? they will just sit at home and defend their air space, while sinking everything in the taiwan strait and shaheeding taiwan with cheap drones. the americans bombing some targets here and there will not change that.

>>64165493
>carriers are intentionally going to close to point blank range
Is this the best chinksects can do?

>>64165493
I think you have reading comprehension issues you sub 80 iq mongoloid. Please use this (You) to figure out what the previous message meant.

>>64165489
well what is the american strategy on chinese bases in mainland china? will one carrier just randomly send f35 into china for months, years and not be impeded by anything at all for the entirety of that time span and will that forever protect the carrier magically?

>>64165513
Yeah, you're right.
Why WOULD the Chinese bomb airbases which American planes use to sortie against china?


>just turtle lol
Except the part where they have to maintain an effective blockade of Taiwan while also trying to breach the Americans blockading them back

>>64165529
Why the fuck do chinkshills always assume that the Americans will just send their shit at them one at a time?

You're gonna be dealing with at the very least three reinforced carrier groups plus whatever the flips, japs and jeets throw in

>>64165529
>will one carrier just randomly send f35 into china for months
itt chang learned that planes carry missiles. educational thread.

>>64165512
then you have the carriers airwing having to fly from the carrier that is parked far away in safety, several hundred kilometres to the taiwan straight everyday and intercept drones there everyday, the cost of that will be astronomic and unsustainable. the chinese would laugh their ass off at being able to cause so much economic damage to the americans. and most drones would still get through to taiwan and cause damage there.

>>64165267
>exercise

>>64165529
>What is a strategic stealth bomber strike package
>What are airbases all over the 1st and 2nd island chain
The US wouldn't even have to do shit beyond counterbattery strikes on the mainland anyway, a strike campaign on your ports and blockade of the SCS and you bugs starve out with no oil by Christmas.

>>64165541
>several hundred kilometres to the taiwan straight everyday and intercept drones there everyday
why would the air wing intercept drones instead of striking china directly?
>the chinese would laugh their ass off at being able to cause so much economic damage to the americans.
is this before or after the food shortages kick in on the mainland?

>>64165529
Ohio, Michigan, Florida, and Georgia say “Ni hao”

Reminder that the chinks start eating each other like the animals they are at the first sign of distress.

>>64165046 (OP)
Are you seriously asking if force projection capabilities are obsolete?

>>64165567
and? we learned from the strikes on iran and the israel-iran war that american bomb stocks are pretty low and that b2 bomber strikes can easily be tanked. the americans would blow their load, cause some damage and then discover that china would not give up. the americans would sit there without bombs and without war time production capabilities. and repeated b2 strikes would give the chinese enough data to eventually come up with some counter. they might be able to force one to do an emergency landing in china or crash in chinese territory and then copy it.

>>64165559
>after the food shortages kick in on the mainland?
lol trump chickened out on the china tariffs pretty fast. not even the chip embargo was upheld. the american economy cannot function without china, thats the hard truth. thanks to democracy the people will demand a peace deal and vote against a "foreign forever war" and to "bring our boys home" and "american money for american people" etc.

>>64165619
>the genius Chinese plan to defeat the US is to...
>let themselves get bombed
Lmao

>>64165619
>we learned from the strikes on iran and the israel-iran war that american bomb stocks are pretty low and that b2 bomber strikes can easily be tanked.
lol
>lol trump chickened out on the china tariffs pretty fast.
as opposed to china's last warnings over any of the things that tick them off, like Pelosi visit to Taiwan?
>the american economy cannot function without china
and chinese population cannot live without US food.
>thanks to democracy the people will demand a peace deal and vote against a "foreign forever war" and to "bring our boys home" and "american money for american people" etc.
then do try something and find out.

>>64165619
You're genuinely going on a tangent so absurd it's not even worth replying to the shit you're just saying for the hell of it anymore

>>64165629
they dont need to defeat the US, they just need to keep the US away from defending taiwan and that is an achievable goal. history shows that the american people lose interest in a war pretty fast if it cant be won instantly without losses or costs. if china keeps course and keeps attacking, eventually defending taiwan will become unpopular in america and the usa will simply move on.

>>64165662
>they'll just blocade taiwan and us won't blocade china, take 10

>>64165662
>they just need to keep the US away from defending taiwan
Very loose definition of achievable there chang.
Did you forget about the Japs and Flips you mentioned earlier? Not that we need them, but the whole neighborhood is gonna be knocking on the door your 'achievable' goal.

>>64165662
>can't be won instantly
Yeah, that's why they decided to quit after losing tens of thousands of men in some of the most gruelling and hellish battles of the war.
Or why they spent a decade in Vietnam, or two in Afghanistan
Fucking retard

>>64165694
it's ok chinese people can handle a decade of being bombed, then they'll win and take taiwan for sure!

>>64165619
>>64165662
This is exactly the same idea the Japs had when bombing Pearl Harbor, how did that turn out for them?

>>64165046 (OP)

Just a reminder: A weapons system is not obsolete because a cheaper weapon can destroy it. A weapons system is obsolete when its capabilities are no longer needed or when it's role can be filled by cheaper and more survivable systems.

>>64165898
And before Chang starts crowing about destroyers or drones or whatever, a destroyer cannot carry five thousand tons of ordnance or provide 24/7 early warning coverage.

>>64165922
People who scream about muh missiles and drones are also funny, because a strike fighter is essentially a reusable boost stage for missiles which allows them to be substantially cheaper for the same capability as launching them from the ground.

>>64165369
have you ever heard of the opportunity cost of deploying said resources?

>>64165898
this, same reason tanks are not obsolete either

>>64166086
And the chinks magically have infinite resources which they can instantly replenish too?

>>64165167
So we went from "America would have to put their aircraft carriers near China" to "a-actually America won't fight at all".

>>64166086
So are you assuming the US will be fighting a war on 2 or theaters against someone other than China where she would not be able to easily operate her CSGs on a rotational basis? Are we just making up shit now? Because that's the only situation where opportunity cost applies here.

>>64166187
look man, it's not complicated to see they're gonna throw drones at us, as seen in the skirmishes with the houthis. The cost per drone for them is lower than our cost to deter, not to mention that the cost is technically much higher considering the ammunition was procured in the late 90s, which would have to be repriced in today's dollar terms

>>64166187
Considering their industrial output and the fact that they don't have a logistic chain that spans a quarter of the globe? Pretty much.

>>64166249
>us
Nice try, Chang. The majority of ESSMs and SM6s were procured in the late 2010's because the US actually keeps tech on the latest block updates. Here a CSG has the entire pacific to operate from, not some 20 mile wide trough.
>>64166253
Very implessive. Now show me how many percent the of raw materials and oil to support that industrial base is imported.

>>64166249
>drones
Those drones don't have the capability, let alone the range to do jack shit to warships

>>64166253
How is that logistics chain and industry going to function if the country is blocaded and the factories and ports are being bombed

>>64166299
what are ESSMs gonna do against a swarm of drones lmao
>>64166311
the war isn't starting tomorrow you know. The point is that once drones DO achieve that capability, we will be unprepared considering our current arsenal

>>64166339
So your assumption is that the US will just stand by and watch the Chinese develop their magical do everything drones without developing a countermeasure?
Like they have been doing anyway?

>>64166339
>a swarm of drones lmao
how is a "swarm" of drones going to fly 800 miles over sea?
>we
lol

>>64166362
Fake image, that's way too much rice to be allotted to only two of them

>>64166339
Ah yes either a couple thousand battery powered drones lumbering along at 50 miles an hour will fall into the ocean a dozen miles off the shore or a couple hundred saheds ALSO lumbering along at 100 miles per hour will not be engaged by the 5 inch gun, air wing, or hell even the CWIS. They'll literally have the entire night to leisurely pick them off.

And since you wanna bring future capability into the convo, US CSGs will have DEWs and AHEAD ammo operational a couple years down the line, along with whatever the fuck anti-drone drones Anduril is making.

>>64166299

Russia exists and has a land border with China.

>>64166567
how many years will it take to set up transport and mining infrastructure to get anything useful out of russia for china? or will it materialize out of thin air through global south sorcery the moment they decide to decouple from the decadent west and establish multipolar world?

>>64166601
Don't forget that Russia has well demonstrated they have no ability to protect important infrastructure from meme threats during the ongoing slavic slapfight, much less if the US decided they wanted to interdict shipping and production. The air defense cuckolds would jizz themselves to death if not for the fact they wouldn't be able to see any of the incoming.

>>64166567
>>64166601
>>64166639
kek
>>64163680

>is this thing thats in active service obsolete?
people have no idea what the word means

>>64166601

You know there's already a natural gas and and oil pipeline connecting the two right?

>>64165099
Why do people just assume the burgers will just park a carrier off the coast and give away one of the strongest advantages a carrier has which is its hard to find the fucking things?

>>64166661
>You know there's already a natural gas and and oil pipeline connecting the two right?
wow, the pipeline has throughput that will surely compensate for the rest 98% of chinese oil and gas consumption that's not coming from russia! what a wonderful observation.

>>64166661
Oh wow a barely 1 million bpd pipeline is going to make all the difference

Also refer to
>>64166639
>>64163680

>>64165046 (OP)
Ironically, drones will keep carriers relevant. Even a baby flat top can easily carry hundreds of drones. Manned fighters are big and heavy to carry human pilots. Pilots also need space to sleep and many support crew to look after them. You can drastically reduce the number of personnel needed on a carrier by replacing manned aircraft with drones. You also don't really care that drones get shot down, so carriers can be used more aggressively again. Heck, have a drone factory on board to manufacture new drones.

>>64165046 (OP)
No, they’re the only way you’re going to be able to bring air power to a far away enemy. If you can’t stop from getting sunk en route, that just means you’re picking a fight with the wrong enemy. Not like you’d have any better way of bringing your forces to them.

>>64165099
>if they want to protect taiwan
I miss Obama.

>>64165107
>US
>Manufacturing
AHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHA哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈

>>64165046 (OP)
No.
End of thread

>>64168964
>chink has a stroke because he’s mad that everything that makes chinese factories tick (including food for the underpaid wageslaves) is made in the US and europe
Delicious seethe, more please.

It is hilarious how poor serfs from both imperialistic shitholes endlessly shill for their billionaire political elites while working 12 hours a day for peanuts and having no land/homes and wives or children.
There will be no war you faggots the economic interests are too great. The maximum happening will be one side swooping in to claim supremacy after one empire collapses.
It will either be the US after China implodes demographically or the other way around if the US gets niggered to fast and loses the ability to project power.
You are both on a race to the bottom and all of the posters here will be much worse for it when it hits regardless of sides.

If any of you love model building, I really really recommend getting into building aircraft carriers. It's one of the most satisfying things you can ever create in life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz87EU_pfOU

>>64169008
>when it hits
nah I'm pretty sure nothing ever happens

>>64168979
Call me when the US isn't mogged tenfold in shipbuilding by finland and a hundredfold by china

>>64169097
Cause you can eat ships

>>64169097
>b-b-b-but muh shipbuilding
Where do all the expensive, complicated part of their supply chain come from?
Hint: it’s not china, china’s the bargain bin final assembly bitch, all the expensive and hard to produce subcomponents of anything implessive built in china are almost all from the west.

>>64165046 (OP)
Why not, as an experiment, take a modern carrier and exclusively use it as a drone platform for launching hundreds of them at once?

>>64165046 (OP)
yes but only us ones