Russia's Aircraft Carrier Overhaul Hits Budget Problems

a reply to: anzha

But not as expensive as an aircraft carrier with accompanying equipment and personnel.

Seem to me it would be more than just cost-effective in the manpower and monies department to use hypersonic missiles to take out a carrier.

a reply to: andy06shake

EW WAIT ...submersible carriers...I gotta see that.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

The Japanese already done it to a fashion in WW2, America captured the thing and then sunk it.

en.wikipedia.org...

Factor in VTOL technologies of this day of age and it would be relatively simple to construct a carrier submarine.

a reply to: andy06shake

NO.NO .NO one of OUR WAY over budget LEVIATHANS, they'll cram full of every trick they think of.
...and POINTY, hypersonic AEROSPACE combat craft that look COOL like SR71s crossed with F104s.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Thunderbirds are go!

a reply to: andy06shake

DEAR LORD NOT SKYDIVER!

a reply to: andy06shake


This is pretty much the same argument from the 80s about the Kirov with its Shipwreck missiles vs the then CVs.

it kinda misses the point.

A cruiser or destroyer with hypersonic missiles cannot do what an aircraft carrier can do. Not even if you went for the old arsenal ship idea. They have very different roles.

For that matter, what's to stop a carrier's airwing from firing off hypersonic missiles? It'd have the first shot then. Long before the cruiser can get close enough to fire off its own missiles. A jet moves at over 10 times the speed of a cruiser at flank.

a reply to: anzha

Whats to stop submarine-launched hypersonic SS missiles from taking them out? How do you defend against one of those?

After all they have been known to pop up right next to carriers and their surrounding assortment of support ships now and again to the surprise of many a fleet.

a reply to: andy06shake

It would probably be better to take them out with torpedoes than a hypersonic missile if you are a bubblehead, honestly. UUVs are going to really complicate the bubbleheads' job though.

However, again, a sub can't do what a carrier can. Even the Ohio SSGNs will spit their wad waaaay, waaay faster than the carrier will and have far, far less flexibility about how it does so.

American carriers are meant to attack land primarily these days. They can do so in a sustained fashion other ships dream of. They are far from invincible. However, they have a role others just can't fill.

a reply to: anzha

Pretty much agree with you, but just like how aircraft carriers made the dreadnoughts and battleships of a time gone by obsolete, so will hypersonic weaponry make carriers obsolete in the future, simply down to the fact that they are just to big a target and like you said far from invincible.

Totaly agree all the same that no other ship can accomplish or carry out the role that the aircraft carrier currently does.

a reply to: aethertek

How dare you? Insulting Saint Vlad the Great like that? He's the greatest thing since vodka.

...

...

[/sarcasm, lots of it...]