Saudi F-15 hit by Converted AAM SAM

a reply to: intrptr

The Russians JUST tested their first hypersonic missile: its a converted ballistic missile, just like what we used for getting our scramjet prototype missiles up to Mach 5. It's also NOT sea skimming. No magitech there!

Lasers cost pennies per shot. And unless the hypersonic missile is sea skimming AND doing better than Mach 15, possibly Mach 20, the laser will get the kill.

You do realize your claims were made back when the Exocet came out, right? Carriers are dead! Carriers are dead! Yet, 30 odd years later, still here. AND the Russians and the Chinese and the Japanese and the South Koreans and the Indians are ALL building carriers.

Please, provide a cite for your claims that there is a sea skimming hypersonic missile.

Not to mention that the Russian conventional crude missiles did not all make it to their destination and those are easy to make reliable, relatively speaking.

a reply to: anzha

You do realize your claims were made back when the Exocet came out, right? Carriers are dead! Carriers are dead! Yet, 30 odd years later, still here.

Because nobody is shooting back, yet. Smart mimes, rocket torpedoes, and yes anti shipping missile are highly developed today, by nations that didn't spend all their money on flattop tech yet, because they are smarter than that.

They read historical accounts of ocean warfare from WWII. How three Japanese carriers were set ablaze at the battle of midway, how the Japanese sank a British Carrier, German Uboat and US submarine success, tactics of which haven't changed in all that time.

Add in smart modern guided weapons, above and below the water line, nations don't need Navy "Fleets" so much as the ability to defeat the only dufusheads that still use them.

Thats why other super powers haven't build them, derp.

Parallel that with this story of a single tinker toy missile defeating an expensive front line fighter...

a reply to: intrptr

If you attack a carrier, the country will be so mad that they will send the air force!

a reply to: intrptr

Because nobody is shooting back, yet. Smart mimes, rocket torpedoes, and yes anti shipping missile are highly developed today, by nations that didn't spend all their money on flattop tech yet, because they are smarter than that.

I'm preserving that one just because it made me laugh. I know its a typo, but even so.

Funny you should bring up Midway. Where did the planes come from that killed the Japanese carriers?

Also, you are absolutely wrong about the other powers building carriers. China has two (one rebuilt, one new built) plus one, maybe two under construction. They have stated they are building nuclear carriers and plan to have their first one done by 2025. They have outright said they want a ten carrier fleet. Not jeep carriers, but fleet carriers. The Chinese have been working on the acquisition of carriers for decades now: the Melbourne and the Varyag were both examples of that.

The Russians have used the Kuznetsov for strikes in Syria. They want to build more, but their industry is in horrible condition and the sanctions are slowly taking their toll. If the Chinese were not propping them up, then the Russians would be in dire straights: China continues to trade with Russia without restriction keeps them from going back to the 90s.

The South Koreans and Japanese are going to buy jeep carriers. They have said so.

India is working on a carrier now and wants to be able to field three of them at least. India has issues with their procurements that make the current American headaches look like a mild thing compared to migraines.

Britain is building two. France wants a new one. Even the Aussies waffle on whether they want to turn their amphibs into jeep carriers.

You keep stating carriers are going away. That they are obsolete. That they are waste of money. An American stupidity.

BUT!

If you look at the acquisitions planned and underway, that's quite the contrary: carriers are undergoing a renaissance.

Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.

And you're going ad hominem again. Tsk.

a reply to: anzha

You do realize building carriers doesn't mean they will be successful in actual combat against a first world nation.

Carriers are great against nations that can't fight back.

a reply to: gariac

It remains untested either way, tbh. However, there are lots of places that if you want to have a large-ish air force present, you can only do that with a carrier.

originally posted by: gariac
a reply to: intrptr

If you attack a carrier, the country will be so mad that they will send the air force!

That was funny. Mines, torpedoes and cruise missiles are exploded, theres nothing to fight back against.

The days of shelling, dive bombing and strafing carriers are long gone.

a reply to: intrptr

There's nothing to fight back against when a ship is being shelled. Why is Russia/China not investing in artillery to fight carriers? It's a much cheaper alternative than spending billions on missiles.

a reply to: intrptr

May I ask for a scenario where mines are taking out a carrier?

And I think you underestimate the role and success of the DIA.

USN is going to build 2 new Ford class at once.

Lessons learned from Falklands War..

a reply to: anzha

Saudis could open the taps again on oil and it would damage their economy significantly. The Saudis have enough money to ride through. The Russians don't.

Nah, Saudi cant. They are tapped out. That oil pie aint what it used to be.

originally posted by: C0bzz
a reply to: intrptr

There's nothing to fight back against when a ship is being shelled. Why is Russia/China not investing in artillery to fight carriers? It's a much cheaper alternative than spending billions on missiles.

I meant shelling from ship to ship action. Modern naval warfare is standoff , missile range. Naval guns won't enter into the equation. Neither will aircraft, for that matter.

Ships and planes won't get close enough, by the time they arrive it will be over already.

a reply to: intrptr

And yet aircraft carry standoff weapons and have for decades. The Soviets did it. America does it (LRASM).

The American F/A-18 carries at least two (IIRC) and has a standoff range of 300 nm. A relatively easy change could increase this to 1,000 nm. An F/18 can get off the deck and be at release range in less than 30 minutes, whereas a cruiser or destroyer would take ten hours to close to launch range for a similarly ranged missile. The Rhinos can return and do multiple missions in the time it would take for a surface vessel to get in range. Even then, let's say the surface task force knocks away enough to remain combat effective. The carrier can still zip away: the power those things have make it, ironically, despite its size, one of the fastest warships out there. A carrier, a nuclear carrier, can sprint away if necessary. The only ship that could possibly catch it is currently laid up, the old Kirov class.

The days of dive bombing and strafing are by and large gone (save for close air support for ground troops) and you have correctly noted that in the past. However, aircraft greatly extend the range of standoff missiles.

Ah ha! you say. What about hypersonic missiles. Those are being worked on. Even for carrier aircraft. Even at 300 nm, if a missile is coming at Mach 10, that's at least another 2 1/2 minutes which to bring a hypersonic missile launched by surface ship since the aircraft are able to engage further away from the carrier. 2 1/2 minutes is a long time in missile warfare: more than enough time for each missile baring ship to have salvoed at least three defensive missiles. And a carrier (unless sprinting) is never alone.

As for gun fights, both the Chinese Navy and the US Navy are building railguns. That's still TBD if they become naval weapons or not. If they do, the Zumwalts are probably going to get retrofitted with them since they have the power and most other ships do not, as yet. Though, amusingly, there's enough space in Independence class you could put all the power plant in and the gun.

At any rate, standoff warfare, yes, most definitely. No more strafing and diving bombing. Utterly undeniable. Carriers not useful in standoff situations? Very very wrong.