Are carriers pretty much at the end of their tech trees? Huge maintenance costs and subject to way faster kinetic weapons since they first appeared. Is gerald r ford class going to be the last we see of their development?
What blew up in west taiwan today?
Retarded slide thread is retarded.>subject to way faster kinetic weaponsMAy we see them?
>old chinkspammer finally stops spamming>phoneposting poorfag crawls out of the woodworkpottery
>>64477831ur mum>>64477852You may! The R*ssians have Zircon, the Americans have Dark Eagle, and China has five or six different hypersonic antiship missiles at this point. Lasers will boost ship's survivability a lot, but they'll balance that by undercutting planes' survivability.
>>64477827Isn't your pic of a carrier that basically ate everything in the US arsenal short of a nuke without a DC crew and had to have scuttling charges planted?
>>64477873Well technically speaking 1940s carrier designs have survived a tactical nuke
>>64477869Now post 1 (one) single test of any of them hitting a moving target.
I think the escort/carrier ratio will go way up and countries will field less carriers with more long range planes and more escort layers around them
>>64477852>brownoid momentNukes aren't fake either, jeet.
>>64477880>August 2020 China Paracel Islands testAnd now for your next copes!
>>64477869West taiwan is paper tiger.
>>64477906>underestimating your opposition is totally kosher, goys!
The Exile is a blast from the past. Carriers still are useful for flexing on the poors.
>>64477916west taiwan got their ass kicked when they tried to invade Vietnam twice. No one is underestimating west taiwan.
>>64477905>doesn't post videoa test from 5 years ago that has zero footage that hasn't been replicated since is totally real guys!
>>64477827>Are carriers pretty much at the endNo.>Huge maintenance costsAre a meme spoken of by people that seem to think "muh cost" - in any capacity - suddenly became *the* decider on whether something is viable or not "anymore.">way faster kinetic weaponsHas never been the problem, and you betray your lack of relevant knowledge on the topic (and your likely shill angle) by making it your focus.>Is gerald r ford class going to be the lastNo. Not from the US. And if carriers are obsolete someone better tell the Chinks, they seem to be wasting their money despite having the most of these "faster kinetic weapons.">The R*ssians have Zircon, the Americans have Dark Eagle, and China has five or six different hypersonic antiship missiles at this point.None of these in and of themselves present a particularly "new" threat against carriers, not in any realistic, ground-breaking way. The nations which stood a chance at defeating Macross Missile Massacre Spam in the first place (a very, very small list of nations, smaller than the list of nations that have the weapons you think make carriers obsolete) are more or less in the same place they were when the US had to worry about massed Backfire/Bear raids slingling cruise missiles in the hundreds at carrier groups. The mechanics of the threat can and do change, but the nature of the threat has generally stayed more or less the same.>>64477873Yes, yes it is.>>64477879And you'd be surprised how few people understand how resilient US carrier design is, having been the recipient of knowledge gained from a nation that's been doing sea warfare shit almost uninterrupted for 250 years, after having inherited a sea-warring tradition from the Royal Navy of British Empire vintage.>muh shipbuildingDoesn't effect the robustness of design on the blueprints that became any of the US' super carriers. >>64477905NTA but if you've got one test from a thirdie propaganda mill nation, that test is inherently dubious.
West taiwan new carrier is a failure for sure.
>>64477916>underestimating your oppositionYou'd have a point if people weren't adequately estimating China as an inexperienced upstart larping hard as a Real Modern Military™ until the moment of truth. Whether they'll do more than be flashy at the start and ultimately wind up like Japan is anyone's guess, but none of the available information suggests China could even accomplish what the Imperial Japanese did at their high-water-mark in the Pacific.
>>64477827Im betting on alternative launch methods that isn't hundred meters of deck.
>>64477827Let me guess, only American carriers will die while PLAN will rule the pacific, right?
>>64477947>And you'd be surprised how few people understand how resilient US carrier design is, having been the recipient of knowledge gained from a nation that's been doing sea warfare shit almost uninterrupted for 250 years, after having inherited a sea-warring tradition from the Royal Navy of British Empire vintage.I mean I wouldn't, but yeah a lot of people who's family didn't make their money from being in the USN for 20 years and getting to interact with other nations sailors and even seeing their designs. One of the most frequent comments I drop in these threads is that Anons should look at DC perf from various nations in the last 50 years to really understand the differences experience makes. That being said most of the time it deteriorates to my shipbuilding capacity shit flinging. I truthfully expect very little from any "Navy" threads on /k/ because it is the greatest example of people not understanding total picture. >inb4 some memer says I am neglecting the total picture due to shipyard buildingTonnage weighs a ton in future planning, but it becomes a little less interesting when you realize one nation has for the last 20 years had the singular goal matching the tonnage of an experienced navy and one of those navies has 60+ years of flawless reactor deployment on its designs and the other is just now learning how to do the first part of that.
>>64478204They also try to directly translate peacetime civilian output directly to wartime military output, which is retarded. The main reason American yards had such great output in WWII was that they had all necessary resources available domestically in quantity and were thousands of miles from the war. Neither of these are true for China. They are heavily reliant on Australian coal and iron exports, as well as Middle Eastern oil. In a total war scenario Australia is likely to halt these exports on their own, while oceanic oil shipments are likely to be interdicted at Malacca. Their yards will also be the target of air and missile attack, as they will largely be within the combat zone. China has a lot of advantages due to the likely location of the war, but they come with their own set of massive disadvantages that the shills of course never want to mention. If it was going to be as easy as they want to say it is, they’d have done it already.
>>64478238Yeah but never tell these posters that "US shipyards existing only due to subsidization" is actually good for war and even better for their focus. Watching shitter planners trying to understand why the US military building capacity is ran more akin to its ideological opponents and how economic planning has made USN designs some of the best bang for buck/upgradable in history really makes them angry and spout nonsense about catapults and elevators and the lack of importance in nuclear ship designs.
>>64478187>carriers are still relevant if the USAF/US Army kill Chinese ones!It's not looking good for naval fans
Off the top of my head, active development is being done on laser drone/missile defense systems, electromagnetic launch systems, enhanced propulsion (helical, dimpled, and tuberclized screws, for starters), and the foamed metal alloys (allowing lighter, tougher hulls with increased resistance to sinking)
It might not be queen of the fleet in the future, but a portable airbase is always going to be useful.
>>64478333If US carriers are kill so are Chink ones. Can't have it both ways nigger.
>>64477827If ballistic anti-ship missiles work as well as the chinks claim, they stop being peer war instruments and remain as bullying tools, which is frankly how they've been used since WW2 anyway and how china will probably use theirs.
>>64477827Global south Mr Putin spam thread.
>>64477896What countries have more than one carrier in the first place, Anon?
>>64478506Your /pol/brain is showing. This is a weapons board, take your seething elsewhere.
gerald r ford is a pretty cool guyeh launches plens and doesn't afraid of anything
>>64478556this is purely a speculative threadlet people enjoy things
Well until rods from god are approved, it's the only way to tactically bombard someone precisely from across the globe
>>64478524If anti-ship ballistic missiles worked as well as the chinks claimed, they'd proliferate to client states, rendering carriers obsolete as bullying tools. The fact that China is putting so much into its carrier program shows that it has no confidence in its ASBMs.
>>64477827I have said it before and I'll say it again for the slow kids.FOR A PLATFORM TO BE OBSOLETE SOMETHING ELSE HAS TO DO IT'S JOB BETTER.There isn't another way to get a fighter wing with AShMs, JDAMs, Bunker Busters, Nukes, HARMs ect. anywhere on earth so carriers are not obsolete.
The War Nerd turning out to be a vatnik sympathiser was a great disappointment
>>64478061Yeah bro and an alternate recovery method too. As soon as planes can just take off and land vertically I'm sure they'll stop building full size carriers.
>>64481045XBAT.
>>64477827>This is how carriers will dieHaving to be intentionally scuttled after proving unexpectedly resilient to attack, even without any crew aboard to conduct damage control, to the extent that the SINKEX failed to sink her?
>>64477879Right, right, Operation Crossroads.
>>64480328>Tanker aircraft are a bigger threat than hypersonics.
>>64480989He was a midwit reformer type from the very beginning. It's how he gained followers - appealing to people just like him but lazier.
>>64481045Imagine an F-35B on a ZELL rail
>>64478187Of course. And as at least one Chinese simulation assumed, a single hypersonic missile has a 100% hit rate and a 90% pK against a Ford-class.
>64478702Evasive as always you chinx faggot.
>>64477827So long as destroyers remain effectively helpless against modern fighters and submarines flounder against helicopters, carriers are here to stay.
>>64481061This unironically
>>64481205We tried that in Operation Crossroads. Only sorta works.
>>64481226it's a topsy-turvy world, ain't it?
>>64478238Not to mention the idea that building X number of cargo ships per year means you can flip a switch and build an equal number of DDGs is beyond retarded.
>>64477916>underestimatingbold assumption.
>>64481251Reminder that China has and always will be bottlenecked by modern fire control/avionics systems despite having a supposed gorillion times more manufacturing capability than the US. Turns out them fancy radars aren't easy to make.
>>64478333>s-ships g-g-get s-sunk in wars?!?!
>>64481260Wait? Manufacturing capacity isn't an abstract resource that can be spent interchangeably like currency? So my extruded plastic factories can't build an equivalent dollar amount of jet engines?
>>64481260B-but gallium! It only grows in China or something. That means can spawn an infinite number of destroyers with trained crews while Americans will hear a disembodied voice say "you required more vespene gas" and then have their vision replaced by a game over screen.
>>64481260>desperate fudds living in the pastThey have so much AESA they put it on their export missiles and in their hog hunts. What is it with this boomerslop - it's as if you're mentally trapped in 2005. All the kneejerkers trying to dunk on the Chinese out themselves like this.
>>64481297I know, right? It's almost as if global economics are a complex affair with local laws, climates, cultures, and infrastructure can all affect how goods are manufactured.
>>64481331>Le hog hunting radar memeConfirmed chink shill
Yep
Honestly guys we've had the solution all along
>>64481375>>64481367>just land on the VLSFucking mikey sparks, never take the meds. I want more stories of demon fighting james bond.
>>64481395SALBATION
You mean only 11 super carriers.
>>64481331>the US can produced eleventy billion AN/SQS-53 sonars per year because the fishing boats at Cabella's have depth finders.
>>64481468Tight
>>64481331Has the "China's problems abruptly disappeared 5/10/15/20 years ago" line ever worked? I've even seen it claimed that Chinesium doesn't anymore and that everything sold on Amazon by companies named shit like FJKALFHUF have actually been very high quality since the late 2010s
>>64477873OP posted a pic of the former USS Oriskany becoming a reef. You may have been thinking of the CV-66 SinkEx.
>>64481558To be fair, they look a lot alike when stripped down for scuttling.
>>64481367>>64481375>>64481381>>64481389Thank you based Sparks.
>>64481260This is (hilariously) why they are so booty bothered about the Dutch just saying no to their little grab at that company a little while back
>>64485484The Dutch...? Oh, you mean that one company that makes Transistor Foundries.
>>64477827I don't think the Chinks would be building a fleet of them if they thought that.
>>64477827>Are carriers pretty much at the end of their tech trees?In the sense that you can only make small improvements upon the nuclear carrier?Yes, there's pretty much no drastic way to make it better. You can still make it a little bigger if you feel like it, but that's about it.The modern nuclear carrier is as close to a perfect ship as you can get with, not just modern technology, but modern doctrinal vision.There are zero ways to drastically improve on "floating airstrip", purely in terms of design.And no doctrinal shift will obsolete "floating airship" either. Unless you can figure out a way to build ships that are immune to missiles and aircraft in general. And even then, the carrier would not change but shift into a support role for these turtle ships.
>>64485849Sortie count has already quasi-obsoleted them for some things. A land base generates more sorties in less time for less money in more safety. There's also XBAT to think about. If airstrips are obsolete, floating airstrips are too, or at least need a drastic redesign.
>>64485880That's the thing, if you want to sortie planes out on the ocean, you have to use a carrier. There's no way around it. There is no conceivable way to build a better ship. If you want to do the thing the carrier enables you to do, you MUST use a carrier.It is a dead end, conceptually and in terms of execution, as well. That's not a bad thing, because you cannot improve on perfection.
>>64485880>XBATWhy the hell are you retards fixated with this thing? The F110 in that thing alone will cost $12m for a platform that doesn't do anything better than existing CCA designs. VTO gives you abysmal payload performance and it's a gimmick to have a high performance engine in something that's supposed to be attritable.
>>64485880land bases famously don't float over oceans
>>64485880yeah sure would be nice if you could fly all your sorties out of land bases but the thing about them is they can’t move using the things called oceans to the places called operational areas dipshit
>>64485913>>64485925we should build a land base that's also a boat, so you can sortie anywhere you wantthink about it
>>64485927that's a fucking crazy ideaperhaps we could call it the boatstrip
Because I already know that the retard is gonna quote the '2000 mile' range (impossible with a payload or even VTO) of the XBAT I will preemptively ask>What is transit time?>What is time on station?>What is loadout configuration?
>>64485952what if we put the airplanes on the boatstrip, so it carries them around?We can call it a "carry boat"?
>>64485970carry boat is a really bad name, i think it would be better off having a name that better describes it, perhaps something like Crewed Afloat Rocketcraft/Rotorcraft Interceptor Enabling RunwayIf need be we could perhaps shorten that to make it a bit more punchy though
>>64485927no thats retarded it will never catch onwhere are you going to store all the planes? fuel? ammo? and even if you do it wont have any way to defend itself from real ships. its dead in the water and the planes wouldnt even be able to launch fast enough or with enough payload to actually do anything. bigger guns and more armor is a way better use of a ship, look it up thats how its been for all of history since the spanish galleon
>>64485996just make it an acryonymC.A.R.R.I.E.R.Still a bit long though.
>>64486018
>>64486018You cant name it that. Carrier is already the name for drone ships from Starcraft. And its not flying in space now is it.
>>64486029we can put some drones on it?
>>64486033a daring synthesis
>>64477827>end of their tech trees?submersible carriers are an obvious potential upgrade.
>>64486065lmao>>64481395
>>64481251They still commissioned more surface combatants in the last year than the US did in the last 6
>>64486363 West taiwan's temu navy is so powerful lol.
>>64486363
>>64477827>Are carriers pretty much at the end of their tech trees?No way. These things will be turned into massive dron swarm launch and recovery vehicles. Also, this>>64477896>I think the escort/carrier ratio will go way upI think we will see an increase in missile destroyers and more sophisticated anti-submarine vehicles.
>>64486363Notice how you had to narrow it down to surface combatants because Chinese subs are absolute dogshit and half of their surface combatants commissioned are 4000 ton frigates without any implessive diapersanic offensive or even group level self defense capabilities.
>>64477827Near misses with KKVs are measured in dozens of miles, Chinanon.
>>64477827>Are carriers pretty much at the end of their tech trees? Huge maintenance costs and subject to way faster kinetic weapons since they first appeared.Hi yes, once starship tier methane based reusable rockets become common it's fucking joever for navies, spamming kinetic attack from space at ridiculous speed becomes possible.In fact it may even be possible already with even lower tier things like Israel golden horizon rocket tough that may not be enough to cause damage to sink a ship still could make it non operational since it's most likely that radars on ships are not able to detect them fast enough to take them down.
