What's new

Doubts over whether newest US aircraft carrier can defend itself

serenity

FULL MEMBER
Jan 9, 2007
1,732
0
4,159
Country
China
Location
Australia
BTW I think some here are a bit ignorant of scale of world and geography. For example, every single piece of guided ordinance in the US inventory combined is not even enough to hit every major military target in a country the size of Japan. It is about choosing important targets.

Then there is the topic of range. B-2 range. F-22 range. F-35 range. F-15 range for the longer ranged attacking aircraft to see the combat radius. You need a defence radius where you will need your supply chain to stretch and to make war with opposing force coming to attack your supply chain. Against Afghanistan and even Iraq, there was no challenging the supply chain and the launching platforms.

Every piece of ordinance that can be dropped by the combined inventory of aircraft within reach of target is microscopic in reality and they need to be very selective about the targets it chooses.

Only thermobaric weapons offer the level of destruction that some imagine is real life. Real life is spending 100 cruise missiles to disable one airbase for two weeks at most before repaired and being used again.

The aim is therefore to strike production plants and the other side's supply lines but if you are doing the attacking you have a higher barrier to overcome. If the enemy has advanced weapons and a lot of those weapons and then also immense land size, there is no way. Some Americans say stupid things like a single B-2 can destroy all of China. The entire B-2 fleet cannot destroy a single city in real life. If they go nuclear, they choose nuclear path, then China responds with nuclear weapons too. These days B-2 has no chance. Against 1990s Serbia fine, really there are several techniques that have demonstrated ability to at least detect and track stealth aircraft to the point you can direct interceptions on them using fighters if nothing more. They will be escorted but again it's range, payload, attrition calculations and US method is designed for wearing down smaller undeveloped enemies. It is not designed and capable of truly all out war against any even near peer enemy with sizes greater than the insurgent level soldier they are designed to fight against.

They do precision warfare and they chose this path after starting wars in the middle east and realized they need to also specialize with this insurgency warfare.

The US cannot magically teleport all their equipment to other places of the world. They have CBG for projection but against near peer or peer enemy, they will be wearing blow after blow in offensive weapons too and their mainstream line will be attacked ceaselessly, if they end up winning somehow, the enemy will go nuclear as that is their end anyway.

War by US against Russia is unthinkable. At most they offer words against Russia and they supply their proxies with weapons. They have never directly gone to war with Russia. Last time the directly went to war with even impoverished and undeveloped 1960s China, they lost. They took all of Korea and then China carved pushed them from Yalu river to half way line. It was a 100% loss even using high tech military against a China without even any significant armor division and some basic Soviet air support.

War is about numbers, supply lines, attrition, production capacity, industrial strength, reserve resources, raw materials, range, payload.

The rule for missile to be able to intercept aircraft is 50G capable for 9G capable aircraft for example. Just how the physics of it is on the kinematics of the interception. The rule for far away power to project power is roughly USA level of military strength (of those above qualities) can barely go against Iran level position and military strength. It's not simply USA overall is three times stronger calculated somehow therefore it wins easily. You need to be 100 times stronger for example because of how you determine how supply and attrition, production rate, and available payload delivery rates and enemy's.

This is why USA can only fight Russia using proxy and will not directly confront Russia.

People should remember that military aircraft have VERY limited ranges. Bombs and missiles actually have limited destruction capability. The world is massive and it takes hours just to fly across main island of Japan. There isn't unlimited ammo weapons and unlimited payload or range aircraft. The enemy shoots back and hurts you a lot. The US even in Iraq suffered immense losses for such a first rate military force and only fighting a low tech insurgency war where they hold nearly 100 years of technology advantage against an enemy with then close to zero production ability and all on the size of land that is about the size of one state in USA.
 
Last edited:

Beny Karachun

SENIOR MEMBER
May 30, 2016
4,004
-38
1,974
Country
Israel
Location
Israel
Why US can't kill off Taliban? You can scream 100times but doesn't change the fact, US is just a paper tiger.

I have no respect for a country who don't even dare to retaliate when Iran fired ballistic missile at their bases. :lol:
Because to do so it needs to kill millions of Afghans which is a war crime.
 

Abid123

FULL MEMBER
Jan 1, 2021
1,469
-4
2,013
Country
Pakistan
Location
Norway
Yeah and do you know the importance US places on its carriers? We might be critical about their mercantile politics here in Asia, but let's admit it; their CBGs are the deadliest force projectors in the world. Do you think that the US won't use its missile arsenal from every damn ship in its CBG to strike that country's coast if hypersonic missiles are flying?

Come on man. Let's not assume them to be so naive after so many years.
"Yeah and do you know the importance US places on its carriers"? Yes I am aware about the importance of aircraft carriers for the US. They are their main power projection tool. It gives them the capability to project power to any place on earth.

"We might be critical about their mercantile politics here in Asia, but let's admit it; their CBGs are the deadliest force projectors in the world". I agree that their CBG's are the "deadliest force projectors in the world". I am not gonna dispute that. But that does not mean that there is no to counter them. There are lots of options on the table.

"Do you think that the US won't use its missile arsenal from every damn ship in its CBG to strike that country's coast if hypersonic missiles are flying"? I dont know what you are trying to say here. Off course if a Country fires a barrage of hypersonic missiles towards a US aircraft carrier, the CBG would use every missile to intercept them. Why would they strike the coast of the country? Intercepting 100+ hypersonic missile is a damn hard job to do.
 

KAL-EL

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Jun 2, 2013
6,455
7
9,406
Country
United States
Location
United States
Hubris much?

in peacetime? of course no one is going to attack a US carrier group. and those rouge actors(terrorist for example) have no ability to even if they wanted.

but this statement is pretty much true for naval vassals of any major power. even minor powers can be relative confident of safety from attack in peacetime.

"Let there be no doubt, no one will even dare to Attack British Air craft carriers with or without protection"

"Let there be no doubt, no one will even dare to Attack Russian Air craft carriers with or without protection"

"Let there be no doubt, no one will even dare to Attack Chinese Air craft carriers with or without protection"

are all true in peacetime.

in war everything changes. you go to war with russia and they have an opportunity to sink a carrier, they'll do it.

You conveniently forgot to mention that in Wartime, Russian assets would equally be targeted.

Or do you think War would be a one-way Street?
 

applesauce

SENIOR MEMBER
Jun 9, 2009
3,461
2
2,606
Country
China
Location
United States
You conveniently forgot to mention that in Wartime, Russian assets would equally be targeted.

Or do you think War would be a one-way Street?

and where exactly did i say they wouldn't be?
quit imagining things.

I only responded to the claim: no one would "dare" strike at us carriers .
with the fact that people absolutely would dare in war if they have the chance. even iraq took potshots at the coalition navy.
 

Abid123

FULL MEMBER
Jan 1, 2021
1,469
-4
2,013
Country
Pakistan
Location
Norway
Who said US carriers cannot defend themselves, of course, they can absolutely can, against a 3rd world country that is, A country that cannot hit back.
See that was so easy....
They are unstoppable according to the yankees lol.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom