59 Tomahawks launched. Putin orders counterstrike on American fleet with 59 Russian cruise missiles.
Even if all 59 missiles were destroyed by the US Navy before impact (unlikely with the new ship killing missiles), what would the effect of this have been?
I mean America would be the aggressor and under international law a counterstrike is A-ok.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
It probably won't happen. The most we'll get is a proxy war with Russia supporting Syria against America and the jihadis.
What if, dude. What if. Putin and Assad had international law on their side and they got the weapons. What if Trump tries this shit again? How long will they just watch?
24 hours later every piece of concrete in Syria large enough to land a plane on would be turned to sand then about 2 weeks later about 85,000 marines would earn their Syria Service Ribbons. Then Exxon moves in and starts liberating Syria's oil.
international law is a line in the sand, user
so far, even at the darkest hours of the cold war a nuclear armed state never fired directly at another nuclear armed state
Risking ww3 over some syrians is not a course of action anyone is willing to take.
Radio active oil, BLACK GOLD. (Banjo starts playing)
>America breaks international law by attacking a sovereign nation
>Russia and Syria retaliate in line with international law
>America invades because of the legal retaliation?
Jesus, what? America would probably bitch that it got hit, but that is it.
>a nuclear armed state never fired directly at another nuclear armed state
Ahhhmmm, Trump just fired at Russian troops in Syria.
russia and china might be nuked into stone age
any more questions?
It was coordinated effort by all three leaders. This was planned. We already know this.
Fuck off shareblue. Reminder they are pretending to support Assad/Putin or Trump - You should still behind all three.
america didn´t attack russia so there´s no "counter"strike
assad would be made out to be a crazy dictator who eats children and a wareffort would be made to get rid of him
NATO is still a thing and Russia would get BTFO if they tried
China would help themselves to the Russian Far East in such an event
It's pretty easy
The massive media control that the globalists have would convince the public that it was actually putin who was the aggressor.
The media exists to tell people that white is black and black is white.
Until China help mother russia it's ogre for Putin
You act like international law even matters - it doesn't.
What matters is what will actually come of the actions, and in the EU and US it doesn't matter if 99% of the public is against a war, is against the strikes and everything else, it will happen regardless because we've collectively completely lost control of our governments to globalists and nobody is willing to give up their creature comforts and day-to-day life to take extreme risky action against the government, no matter how necessary and vital it is now.
>Syria got a slap on the wrist for illegally gassing isis
>North Korea is making the same ol nuclear threats since 20 years ago
>China is still a gutter oil and piss egg eating shit country.
>Russia is pissed because we slapped assad on the ass, but won't do anything.
Happenings : 0
IT'S LITERALLY NOTHING: 4
fuck off
America doesn't give a fuck about international law.
Ahhhhm they got warning and left, dumbass shill.
This is very likely.
India and Pakistan have and had military skirmishes all the time directly between their own armed forces. Legitimate army units too not militia
Fucking this. Well put leaf.
And who the fuck even still pretends that Russia or China are actually super powers?
The only reason they still exist is because they serve a purpose for us.
Trump is
Yeah they would be fine under international law. A retaliation for that strike would never happen outside of what ifs though because Assad had no means of retaliating and Putin doesn't care enough about Syrian planes to do so.
>Assad agreed to have a few of his own people killed so Trump can flex his muscles
no
His own people? All 6 of them? They were probably people he intentionally left there to die
America IS international law.
The Yakhont missiles are highly sophisticated swarm attack weapons with different shared roles and intelligent command, reconnaissance and attack architecture. It's an old system, but there is still no existing countermeasure available if a bunch of these monsters coming for your fleet.
yeah left them there while the Russians got away scot free
64 BIT CHESS
> this
> militarily forecasted
youtu.be
Putin and Assad can't retaliate against Trump because they are weak. Trump bombed the airport of Putin's greatest ally and he did NOTHING. Putin is a true manlet.
>muh kitten of damascus would never sacrifice human life, he a gud boi
its time to go back
>if you like Assad you're leftypol
The_Donald was a mistake
>that propaganda tier ending
assad fanboys are fucking retarded
>terrible what-if threads
Assad could have considered it a declaration of war, but chose not to. That's really the end of it, and not much more is worth discussing.
IS PUTIN REDPILLED?
>if Sup Forums is redpilled
>Putin has to be /redpilled/ - KGB etc
>therefore, Putin is well aware of Greater Israel Project
>so, he knows Israel aims to Balkanize Syria, and eventually claim a sizable part for itself
>and he knows US interests want oil in Syria/Golan Heights, and other interests are Zionist in nature
>Putin knows how driven Israel is to make Greater Israel happen, if not this decade, this century
>for Zionists, Greater Israel is prophecy, the promised kingdom God "gave them" fulfilled
SO, WHY DOESN'T PUTIN REGIME REDPILL AMERICANS AND ENTIRE WORLD ABOUT GREATER ISRAEL PROJECT?
This is what I don't understand. The odds are against Putin and Assad to maintain their authority of the present day. Hell, Israel thinks part of Syria is their destiny to claim. Putin is outgunned, and simply outmatched for manpower/technology. The only way Putin can win is to get Americans and the UN and other peoples redpilled.
A subversive minority on Sup Forums claims Russian shills have flooded the board post-Syrian airstrike. Why the fuck wouldn't Russia bombard YouTube and Twitter and Facebook with redpilled video content? Fight the infowar etc. Why wouldn't the Putin/Assad regimes go on Alex Jones, through un/official channels, since Jones is anti-Syrian invasion? Or use RT for chrissakes -- it helped Assange.
If *we* know the neocon plans for the region, how can the Russians not be a decade ahead of us (back to Clean Break Doctorine, Yinon Plan, PNAC etc).
People always cite the Aegis system, but I highly doubt a Carrier group could survive a volley of 60 anti-ship missiles like OP describes.
It likely wouldn't, but it'd also depend on the saturation of the missiles too. like if you sent 60 with 1-2 every minute or so yeah it might make it but if you just shit out 60 missiles as quickly as possible then probably not.
Get information about an oniks/yakhont attack scenario. The system is designed for an intelligent swarm attack.
aren't aircraft carriers vonurable by their very nature ?
always seems like something that would be relatively easy to destroy and thusly cost a hugh amount of money
I'm not an expert, but the major hurdle you have is that even 100 vanilla tomahawks are a tiny fraction of a % of the cost of a CV group.
Can the system you describe handle 200 such missiles? If not, then attacker is making a fantastic exchange.
Yes. All at once. I don't know how technically challenging that would be, but it should be a very high priority for anyone opposing the US Navy.
You ever heard of the Fire Control Weapon System? Or CIWS?
No missile is getting near the American fleet.
S-500
Hence why entire fleets are designed to protect them with layered defense
CIW's doesn't work worth a dam and can't engage multiple targets, thats the last line of defense anyway and if a volley of missiles makes it to that point its over anyway.
Yes, that's what I'm getting at.
US only gets away with it because we have such an overwhelming advantage. Would not be surprised if they're already well beyond obsolete.
US CV groups vs. equivalent cost stealth missile frigates. I think the victor is obvious.
There is currently no counter from any nation for hypersonic anti ship missiles in the final dive.
i think the US would be better off investing more in nucleair subs instead of carriers
Pretty much this.
He lets trump sling some missiles, and he gets to drum up support on his end for standing up to big bad America.
>look at this British WW2 carrier sinking, they're all super vulnerable!
NImitz CV group = 27 billion
Tomahawk ~= 1 million
200 tomahawks is 1% the price of a carrier battle group. I don't believe the CIWS is that capable.
I'm out of ships, so posting A10s.
Can't project force with a sub, we already have enough on hand to do what we need them to.
Nato has no obligations to support america in an offensive war against Syria (without UN resolution!)
Exactly. What everyone on Sup Forums must understand is the question isn't "why would he risk", But "why can he risk". I see the tech every work day. I'm telling you, NOBODY has what we have.
Carriers also have the advantage of power projection and are very versatile.
No, there is nothing CIWs can do about a Oniks swarm attack.
Balls. Putin has to steal ball from someone to respond like man.
Actually making my point.
>But WWII CV groups have so much anti-aircraft, there is NO WAY a kamikaze is getting anywhere close to USS Bismarck!
An added advantage to that would be that our politicians couldn't start shit so easily with other countries.
The issue with subs is you cannot project power. Also, they are not particularly versatile. Once a sub fires its weapon systems it is likely when facing a competent enemy that it has revealed it's position. Since a submarine's only defends is stealth, that's where it gets difficult.
US is prepared to lose one carrier group, and they would instantly if Russia wanted them to
thats why they are so careful about spreading them out, if they lost one they would try to exhaust russia's missile capacity with fighters/ their own missiles before deploying the rest within range
Yeah, I think stealth missile boats are the next evolution in naval warfare.
I'm not sure what versatility a CV group would have over missile boats with SSM, SAM, SRBM, etc.
59? Why not 60?
Unmanned bombers that cruise above the atmosphere for weeks at a time, 737 P8 posiden that hunts and destroys subs, Drones on drones on drones. Come on guys. It's no question.
t.
dumb fuck who has no clue about the seas
Under the NATO treaty, we would not be obliged to give a fuck because:
> You were on the offensive
> It's outside the North Atlantic, so it doesn't apply
Next you'll be telling me that NATO members have to spend 2% of GDP on the military or something stupid like that.
Why can't burgers learn what NATO rules actually are?
>thinks its still the second world war
are you aware of satellites and missiles?
NATO = US.
And it should be dissolved. Decades of us protecting you have made European men weak, which makes European women hate them, and want to import muslims.
...
>I mean America would be the aggressor and under international law a counterstrike is A-ok.
Except America wasn't attacking Russia.
Because he can't do it yet, since the (((legacy media))) still hold sway.
However, those days are ending. So if you can stave off the catastrophy for say, thirty years, and the world would then be ripe for redpilling, then he should do so because it's safer.
Play the long game. Could you imagine Germans being told in 1993 that middle easterners are pure fucking incompetent evil? No. But now in 2017, Wir Schaffen Das. Merkel might have taken these people on purpose, with sheer accelerationism. If Germany goes full Deus Vult at the same time as France, then she's done her job. And no media cuck can do anything because they've spent all their political capital on saying that it's a good thing.
I mean, look at the difference between Norway and Sweden. In Norway the left is slowly uncucking itself, and in Sweden they're doubling down so hard you'd think they were the f(x) = 2x function.
In 20 years there will be a Norwegian left, but there won't be a Swedish left. (There will also be a Norway left, and hopefully there will be a Sweden left too.)
CIWS is a meme that they put on ships so that they can pretend that the USN is invulnerable. It's not as effective as you want to think it is.
Hell, most stealth cruise missiles that can do passive IR approaches shit all over them too, not just Onix missiles. And if the US loses an entire CBG, then what? Do they go nuclear? Do they pull out of China? Do they skip maintenance on the CBGs that are currently portside?
CBGs are immensely powerful, but they're also immensely expensive.
That's a SAM. And most deployed systems are S-300s, which are no slouches themselves either.
>yfw aircraft are getting gayer by the generation
>International Law
lol it's rubbish and its use is only deciding reparations after any happening happens
Well, it's like having a airfield allowing you to achieve air supremacy which is incredibly useful. I do also agree that the number of carriers could reduce in the coming decades while stealth missile platforms increase.
I don't know man, that bomber shape still looks great as fuck.
>Yeah, I think stealth missile boats are the next evolution in naval warfare.
France had an interesting concept for this, an automated ship with limited submarine capabilities. It would travel at high speed to where it needed to attack as a surface vessel then loiter around either snorkeling or or slightly submerged. When it finds a target it fires 16 missiles and 4 torpedoes then returns to base at high speed.
You mean like stealth frigates, like the Nansen class, firing passively searching stealth missiles that don't alert their targets and then fucks off back to base for rearming?
That might be part of it. But the point about carriers is that it lets you put an entire country's worth of air force anywhere there's sea, ready to bomb the shit out of you. So you can protect ground troops, defend the skies, etc. You can do more than shell people.
It also costs a whole lot of money, but that's actually a good thing for the US, since the only block that can currently compete with them, the EU, isn't a federal entity yet, so they can't do it as of now. China might in a few decades of course, so Obama doing his best to destabilize the EU is going to bite the US in the ass about then, since they won't have an ally that can bring CBGs to bear on China to help them. But you get what you ask for. :^)
You protecting us? You have gotten more from that deal than we have.When was the last time the US got called in to help Europeans through NATO?
>they're gaying up boats now, too
Why can't we just outlaw radars and go back to not having every war machine look like it's made by apple?
Tbh you (and EU) still exist because of China. Check your debt with the chinks.
Range and ammo capacity. This strike on Syria? A carrier can shit out one of those every few hours and do so for weeks. Also a plane launched AShM has the advantage of a launch platform at altitude and speed, something no ship launched weapon has (hence why ship launched missiles are so much larger).
Take the above, combined with an AWACS bird the carrier group can launch that a group of stealth frigs can't, that is why a CV battle group is here to stay for a little while longer. I'd give the carrier the win until air defenses become capable enough to make 'it flies it dies' a reality. After that you need railguns or other practically uninterceptable ammo to sink hostile ships.
No that will not be the return of the battleships, you want as many ships out there as possible so small destroyers with one or two guns are going to be the norm.
Reminder that the true counter to the carrier in the modern context is the submarine, since the other ships in the fleet serve primarily to defend the carrier from those missile and surface ship tactics.
It is up to the wiley submariner to stop the eternal burger
Subs get waxed too.
This sounds familiar sort of like what we did to Russia using the Iranians and jihadist
...
Of course subs can get waxed, everything can, but CIWS and other anti-missile defences can't shrek a super-cavitating torpedo
True. But we put 2 of these in the air every week. I mean, Subs already found.
I like your points user.
My ultimate argument rests on cost. For instance, AShM is more efficient, IF you have a 35 million dollar plane, all the logistics surrounding that, and a pilot + lifelong expenses for him.
Pic related could carry 80 missiles, and appears would've cost around $2-3 billion per ship.
So you could have ~9-10 of these for one carrier group. Radar cross section is "similar to a fishing boat."
Looking at that boat, it would seem the carrier is still relevant only because our Pentagon keeps fucking up projects (probably on purpose to help defense contractor buddies get rich).
>having every war machine look like it's made by apple?
lol, i agree with this
don't forget the carrier strike groups will have 1 or 2 of their own attack subs, 3 or so destroyers and a helicopter squadron doing anti sub stuff
Cause you'll get fucked by people who do use radar?
Picture says max range 300km, but I am struggling to believe thats a realistic number against a military ship with ECM countermeasures.
Against a US vessel id be willing to bet its effective range is closer to 50km. Still an impressive number, but im just saying.
thats what tgey want "an excuse"
No it wasnt, you are an idiot. The strike as insignificant it might be, started the shift in US/Russia relationship regardin Syria and both sides are now 10x hostile as before, there is and will be no "bussiness as usual".
The only actual result so far is that US coalition doesnt fly attacks on ISIS in Syria now, in fear of being shot down by Russia as the air cooperation and communication been suspended.
US accuses Russia of being involved in Gas attack and thinks of new sanctions, while Russia considers what would be the best way to retaliate - and we will. Already by bombing the "moderates" right now actively, and in future likely using precedent created by Trump to attack Ukraine directly using "so that`d they not be able to attack civilian targets" premise.