The world's newest aircraft carriers

Even so, can those carriers launch before incoming reaches them? Often there are pilots on standby, not just close and ready to run to their aircraft, but seated in the cockpit, at the ready, just in case.

There is no war without death.

There can be no life without death.

 

Which means that if an anti ship missile is launched from about 30 minutes away that by the time the missile gets to the last reported location of the carrier it can be anywhere within a 17.5 mile radius.

In case you don't know, missiles once fired have very limited ability to maneuver. Certainly not over several miles.

 

It depends on the type of war they are going to have. A floating airfield can create an air superiority, sink ships and bomb fortifications or cities. The was for the islands in the Pacific can't be won without carriers. Still. But is it really going to happen? Even such countries as N.Korea and Iran are too tough for carriers.
A carrier is good for power projection, for defending of trade routes and threatening such states as Libya. All the money is paid off with these tasks so far, But what kind of use would it be in a nuclear war against China or Russia?

On the other hand a loss of couple of these carriers in a war with such country as Iran, just a couple of carriers, would be devastating blow.

I am sure that the current carriers need to get replaced and am sure that americans will be able to replace them with new models for a couple of decades ahead. I am just not sure that it will be worthy of it.

 

I haven't been keeping track but I'll take your word for it.

 

Modern rockets are able to speed up when approaching the target. Most of them make less than 1000 km\h and speed up 3-5 times when approaching. They hardly fly for half an hour. 300 km will be a good range.
The rockets are much cheaper than a carrier and more cost effective. So they will sink or at least kick it out of the battle.

 

Loss and death are acceptable in war as in life. The question is can the enemy be hit harder with more loss and more death.

 

In war time, it is very unlikely that any anti ship missile launching platform will get to within 300 km (180 miles) of a large aircraft carrier.

 

What you say was true at one time, a long, long time ago. Now, you can lock onto a target (especially one with as big a 'footprint' as an aircraft carrier), deploy missiles, and wait for the detonations.

Please don't get me wrong -- we build far more and far better aircraft carriers than anyone else in the world. Nobody else even comes close! But, to cut to the chase, given the versatility, power, and speed of missiles, launched from anywhere, and controlled by devices that interact with DISA's network of satellites above the entire Earth, the best use of our money is on missiles. For strategic purposes involving the oceans, nothing's better than nuclear-powered submarines -- and we make the best nuclear submarines in the world, by far! That's where we should be putting our 'Navy money'... not in any more aircraft carriers.

 

In a major war with the Soviet Union in the 1980s, the U.S. estimated it would lose one third to one half of its carrier force. (5-7 or .

So its not like the U.S. Navy expects to fight a major air and naval war without losing carriers.

 

Submarines are only good for fighting a major war. But most of the U.S. Navy's time is not spent fighting a major war. A submarine is basically useless for showing the flag and sending a message, for humanitarian missions, or for warfare against second rate powers.

 

What do they do .. put a blanket over top of the sky over the carrier ?

 

You do not see a modern anti ship missile coming until it breaks the horizon at which point there is 25-30 seconds to react... and yes modern anti ship missiles have very good maneuverability and in fact conduct evasive maneuvers just prior to impact.

 

I am not sure how this helps the carrier but, OK ... also where do the planes land if the carrier is destroyed.

At the end of the day this convo is really only about smaller nations and not larger such as China Russia.

A carrier can not approach Russia close enough for its air power to have a significant effect - just way too much defensive firepower. Should that not work, tactical nukes would be used and should that not work Russia would nuke the US mainland.

The fact of the matter is that conventional will overwhelm the carrier groups ability to defend in the above case. Basic arithmetic shows that the group will simply run out of ammo to defend itself.

 

We know the orbital interval of RORSATs and IMINT sats. We know weather movements.

By maneuvering to exploit thick cloud cover and moving between the orbital inveral of the satellites, you can hide.

 

Except our carrier groups have airborne radar that extends that detection radius out hundreds of km.

 

Submarines have quite a varied assortment of weaponry now, Dayton. And nearly all of it is capable of being deployed from beneath the surface of the sea. We no longer need to practice "gunboat diplomacy" like we did from the time of Commodore Perry sailing into Japan, showing the flag, and demanding access, way back in 1853.

Today in the 21st-century, any country that has risen above the Stone Age has a fairly good idea of what kind of capabilities we have. Our purview, power, and the prerogatives these afford us obviate the need to "show the flag", and it does away with the necessity to sober everybody back up after all the nostalgic fun times at "ports-of-call" that we waste even more money and effort on.

We're a nation in economic distress, trillions of dollars in debt. We need to spend defense money on effective, modern weapons systems, not on those whose time has gone....

. Devastatingly powerful, fast, maneuverable, and it doesn't get venereal disease or hangovers....

 

For sure but as soon as the sun comes out ... your found. If you are getting close to the mainland there are other methods of detection even if there is cloud cover.

 

Cloud cover, especially think cloud cover, degrades the effectiveness of those detection methods.

A strike group doesn’t have to be invisible forever. A few hours of non-detection can mean moving into position to launch a strike.

 

In an actual war scenario with a major superpower = attacking the Russian mainland ... that airborne radar would be one of the first things to go.

 

And how exactly would they manage that?

 

Surely a system that is designed to detect Submarines ... will not miss a Carrier.

Further, a carrier group that is being monitored as it comes range of the Russian mainland ... needs more than a few hours to move into position to launch a strike.

A carrier getting close to Russia have the Russian navy and air force accompanying it.

 

They are called fighter Jets and anti aircraft missiles.

 

A carrier can strike Russia at any place within a thousand miles.

 

And the will get within range of the carrier group to bring down its airborne radar without being destroyed themselves, how?

 

Where is this airborn radar located relative to the Carrier and where is the mainland relative to the airborn radar ? To make this even more realistic ... pull up Russia on Google maps and suggest a place of military significance in Russia to attack.