The world's newest aircraft carriers

I call bullshit, what the hell has the Prince of Wales ever done? Give the Earl of Sandwich his dues and give him a carrier already.

 

The airborne radar used by carriers usually orbits above the group. You’d have to get well within the defensive radius of the group to shoot it down.

Plus carriers carry more than one airborne radar.

How about Murmansk, Petropavlovsk, or Archangelsk to attack with a carrier?

 

How would you strategically handle the situation from the opposing side? Is there any hope aside from tactical nuke?

 

The Russian tactic is launching mass missile attacks from long range in hope of overwhelming the defenses.

 

emissions control without signal leakage, changing course whenever satellites (which have extremely predictable orbital paths and thus areas they can monitor) pass within range, deceptive emissions (that is have a couple of destroyers sail hundreds of miles away and transmit over detectable channels the same radio traffic expected of a carrier group,

Have all the ships Phalanx CWIS open fire into the air whenever an airborne radar source is detected (puts up thousands of false images).

That's just the methods publicly known and revealed.

 

in war time every carrier battle group is supposed to operate with at least one duplicate platform. Meaning in war time you would have at least two U.S. carriers operating in a region. If one carrier is damaged beyond conducting flight operations, the aircraft land on the other one to refuel.

And you bring up nuclear weapons. If one side starts using nuclear weapons, then we've gone far, far, far beyond needing to worry about carrier vulnerability.

 

OK ... Good Ol Murmansk.

The carrier winds its way leisurely through the Barrents sea - trying to avoid getting stuck in the ice .

As you can see https://southfront.org/u-s-deploys-aircraft-carrier-strike-groups-against-china-russia/ we normally do not have a carrier strike group within 5000 miles of Murmansk but OK..

Suppose we "sneak" one over there and the Russians pretend not to notice a carrier strike group wandering around where they never go.

This of course is nonsense as .. of course the Russians will notice a strike group wandering in never never land but,.. OK. So somehow we manage to sneak this strike group within 400 miles of good ol Murmansk.

Then what ? We launch an air attack on Murmansk ? A few minutes later our not so stealthy stealth fighters are detected. Fighters are launched to intercept air battles ensue with losses on both sides ... the few aircraft that make it through get taken out by the Russian air defense "SAM"s which are the best in the world.

Anti ship missiles then start coming at the carrier group in salvo's ... these are launched by land, ship, and plane. The strike group runs out of ammo ... after the first few salvo's ... and is then defenseless.

Should this fail ... short range nuclear cruise missile or two will not.

 

Our carriers could be within strike range of any of those targets within a week of sailing and they’d remain in international waters or allied territory the entire way.

They don’t have to get within 400 miles of Murmansk. Getting within a thousand miles will work, and note, that means they could strike at Murmansk while in Norwegian territorial waters.

Any nukes, means we respond with nukes, and then it doesn’t matter if you have carriers because the US and Russia become irradiated wastelands with no cities larger than 100,000 people surviving.

 

Exactly because that is the end game should we try and attack the Russian Mainland with a carrier and conventional weapons fail.

Not that they would because a carrier can not defend itself against salvo's of anti ship missiles. It simply runs out of ammo - assuming they can successfully shoot down the missiles to begin with which is highly unlikely. Its not easy to hit a missile traveling at multiple times the speed of sound with another missile.

 

And this funny guy suppose to be American now right? Lol...

 

Another schizo thinks he can pose as American... hahahha

 

You think the Russians (and before that the Soviets) or the Chinese have an endless number of launch platform (mainly bombers) to carry missiles to within launch range of U.S. carriers?

The U.S. navy has relentlessly exercised techniques for intercepting and shooting down bombers threatening carrier groups for decades. BEFORE they are able to launch anti ship missiles.

 

How much lift capability do you think the Russians have for any single anti-carrier sortie? A carrier group has hundreds of air defenses (SAMs, CIWS, Fighter launched missiles, chaff and flare rockets, jammers, etc.) that can be deployed at once.

It’s trivially easy to hit a missile with another missile when you are talking about anti-ship missiles.

 

1000 miles ? Where are you getting this from ? Please tell me which plane has a range of 2000 miles

And no ... so long as our mainland is not attacked with nukes ... we have no justification to attack Russia's mainland with nukes. You are skipping a step.

Regardless - should all else fail .. which it would not, Russia would nuke the ship.

The bottom line here is that we are not attacking Russia .. and so this conversation is pointless. Also, having aircraft so many aircraft carriers (on the basis that we would be attacking Russia with one at some point) is silliness.

 

Have you never heard of “mid-air refueling”? With refueling and stand off missiles, the combat radius of the Super Hornet is between 1,000 and 1,200 miles depending on the source.

If our military is struck with nukes, we have every justification and wiping out the base the nukes came from with nukes. An air field in Russia launched the attack that involved nukes, so we nuke the airfield.

 

We are talking about attacking the mainland which means the missiles can be launched from land or missile cruisers (or planes).

This is one of the reasons we are so pissed about China taking over that Island in the south sea of China. Our ships are totally vulnerable.

 

And the evidence for this claim is ?

 

Why do you keep suggesting nuclear weapons? No one is suggesting attacking a Russian base with nuclear weapons. Much less doing so first.

 

We could stand off at 2,000 miles and slag those Chinese airfields and missile launchers with Tomahawks. They wouldn’t last two days in a real war.

Do you think the Russians have an infinite number of planes everywhere in their country? Do you think their ship and land launched anti-ship missiles can be fired effectively across Scandinavia and be expected to actually hit a target at the other end?

 

Good luck keeping refueling ships in the air.

And no . we do not have justification to attack the Russian mainland with nukes unless they attack our mainland.

Obviously - if we did attack the Russian mainland with nukes ... they would be justified in nuking the USA into oblivion.

 

DECADES of tests of Standard II missiles guided by the AEGIS combat system.

 

Anti-ship cruise missiles (especially the big ones that can actually kill a carrier and fly supersonic for long distances) have about the same dimensions as a fighter jet. Are fighter jets impossible to shoot down?

 

We are discussing the possibility of a Carrier attacking the Russian mainland.

 

If the Russians deploy tactical nukes against our military, we have every justification to deploy tactical nukes against theirs.

 

Decades of a very high failure rate.