With the onset of China's anti-ship ballistic missiles, anti-ballistic missile technology looks set to be developed for aircraft carriers.
So what can beat an aircraft carrier that has anti-ballistic missiles? If you have a carrier with both long range ballistic missiles and anti-ballistic missiles you basically have a floating fortress with the addition of having it's own airforce.
I would suspect it's vulnerability would be limited to submarine attack. Thoughts?
fast attack boats, kamikaze doctrine etc...
Ask /k/ if you care
This is Sup Forums
Stop shitposting threads on muh China every hour
kamikaze from what? planes? if the carrier can take out ballistic missiles it can take out aircraft homing in on it.
fast attack boats with what weaponary? and how would those boats survive the carriers weaponary?
Huge lasers or a rail gun.
>So what can beat an aircraft carrier that has anti-ballistic missiles? If you have a carrier with both long range ballistic missiles and anti-ballistic missiles you basically have a floating fortress with the addition of having it's own airforce.
If you've ever played Wargame: Simply hitting them with more missiles than their defences can possibly deal with at once. This shouldn't be too hard for Murica to accomplish considering their military spending
>Ask /k/ if you care
>implying /k/ threads about big military programs are any better than Sup Forums or Sup Forums threads about same shit...
There is usually just as much shitposting, if not even more.
>So what can beat an aircraft carrier that has anti-ballistic missiles?
Politicians
Not sure how good anti-missile technology is though. And the enemy will try to overwhelm them. They could launch hundreds of missiles arriving at once.
I think they got a huge advantage recently with their computer system that coordinates and automates the defense of the whole fleet (focusing on keeping the carrier safe). Even then, it might not be 100% effective.
And dunno if they're designed to intercept ICBM. They could try to nuke the carrier group.
And yeah, I think submarines would be the main threat. Some nations have (or used to have) nuclear torpedoes that could take out multiple ships at once.
They usually have subs escorting the carrier group, but they can't do much until the enemy sub is detected. I wonder if they have anti-torpedoes defenses now.
yes it does seem that when it comes to ballistic and anti-ballistics assuming the technology is evenly matched, numbers become a factor.
sending more ballistic missiles than the defense system can cope with wins, which is essentially what russia developed to combat NATOs european ABM system, using lots of dummy missiles so the defense system can't work out which is the real one and there being too many to shoot down.
basically you could send thousands of anti-carrier ballistics missiles at once, overwhelming an effective, yet limited ABM on the carrier.
this is where forcefields would prove to be useful i guess.
>And the enemy will try to overwhelm them. They could launch hundreds of missiles arriving at once.
Yes exactly
>And dunno if they're designed to intercept ICBM
With satellites you could detect ICBMs covering the globe.
>I wonder if they have anti-torpedoes defenses now.
yes this would be needed otherwise you simply torpedo them
>Not sure how good anti-missile technology is though.
well since USA broke the ABM treaty in the early 00s both US and Russia have been developing the technology so they must think it is effective.
120mm Cannon, railguns are rapidly approaching feasibility as ship V ship weapons.
Boats have more than just missiles
Aircraft carriers are so WW2, we are at the stage were missle tech can take out carriers , 1 million each missle and you only need to get lucky onces ,only a few months ago a Chinese sub surfaced right in the middle of a US carrier fleet. Ouch that most of sent a hell of a msg !...carriers are for seating on the doorstep of a third world country and attackin pirates.
>With satellites you could detect ICBMs covering the globe.
Yeah, but they're hard to intercept. They arrive fast and have a large blast radius.
Possibly something like this, which is designed to fly low over water to combat large ships like aircraft carriers
youtu.be
it does seem the US uses current carriers for more of a PR demonstration of power, than actual power, but it can also bully the middle eastern geopolitical interests as well so current fleet is fit for purpose for that.
Railguns/DEWs will have limited range though.
But they would be useful for anti-missile defense.
...
Reactivate the Iowa's
here come the muh battleships meme
just because something is supppperrr dupperrr cool doesnt make it useful
this is the dumbest shit i've ever seen
This thread is /k/ overflow.
Intelligence is a 2 way street.
You know how little kids will think they're hiding when they cover their eyes? That's why you always hear the "we can not confirm nor deny..." or "we can't comment on..." all of the goddamned time.
yes battleships were proven to be ineffective in WW2. if you had one with an ABM system and ballistics you would have a floating fortress, minus the aircraft that a carrier has though.
which is exactly what the iowas are.
I agree, I'd rather the uk sent our money elsewhere tho! Too late now and it help the Americans out so not so bad, if I were china or Russia I'd sent money on missle tech n subs , just ignore carrier building, they are way to expensive for little gain
mother of god
>iowas
they dont have ABMs
well we have two carriers now. they are clearly for projecting power and they even state that is their purpose. need to be seen to be powerful, whereas russia and china already don't care about that PR battle.
>If you have a carrier with both long range ballistic missiles and anti-ballistic missiles
you don't have room left for the airplanes
destroyers will carry the missile interceptors for the carrier group
Sharks with lasers on their heads are coming back into fashion.
Yea carriers bring a lot of prestige,status symbol
That's why America has 11 . In the unlucky event of war with china or Russia,them carriers get sunk in minutes or you withdraw them far away from any danger and they become useless ,just tieing down a whole fleet of support ships,
Anti torpedo tech usually involves towing a decoy behind the ship. Just use a nuclear torpedo capable of destroying the decoy and the ship in one go
That is what re-fitting is for
Satellites.
maybe, but it turns out that most countries have a limited number of anti-ship missiles because they are expensive, and many of them can be destroyed with missile interceptors.
so you use interceptors until the enemy runs out of anti-ship missiles (missile gap), then steer the carrier closer to shore and start bombing them.
Missiles are very expensive and hard to engineer if you don't have many resources. China can have their missiles but they won't mean much if they fail to hit the target. Also when was the last time China tested it's weapons on its decommissioned ships? The US has conducted many SinkX drills to test suitability of its gear.
Aircraft carriers are the French Noble knights of the battle of agincourt.
China will develop the next english longbow
ICBMs are a moot point. Any doctrine dealing with them inevitably leads to MAD, so it's pointless to consider them.
submarines
Hypersonic missiles
Actually Carriers are more like the guy driving the Stagecoach while the Cruiser rides shotgun.
Dreadnoughts would be more adequate analogy.