Let that sink in for a moment y'all
>>65321148Get a job
>let that sink in
>>653211484chan needs to reinstate the proper English rule back so we don't have to read a 3rd worlder's gibberish attempts at English, and we can just delete these morons on sight.
how do you project power w/ missiles alone tho?
>>65321157get a life
>>65321148Carriers, and carrier groups, were always meant to achiveve more than simple destruction of ennemy targets. Yes, missiles are cheaper but they won't achieve everything a carrier can do. For example missiles wont thelp you secure an airspece while having the capicity to rescue allied forces, and track submarines at the same time. Don't forget that aircraft carriers are a symbol of power and technology prowess, hence why the PRC put a lot of money into theirs, and India did it too.So if your opinion is that missiles will make aircraft carriers obsoletes...no, they will force the change of use and conceptions of the vessels though.Picrel, EW aircraft deployed by carriers.
>>65321148>still trying to shill this narrative after yearsembarrassing lmao.carriers completely mindbroke the third world.
>>65321148Okay, and?
>>65321148Get a job.
>>65321148>yallDont appropriate my culture sukdeep dikhshit
Did a Chinese carrier sink because someone left a door open? Throwing a fit because the pool is closed again? The Global South seems really upset about US carriers again.
>>65321904they're mad that the Ford wasn't scuttled due to a laundry room fire.
LOL @ china carrier.
>>65321904TTD in the Sea of Azov continues.
>>65321148I let your horrific vocabulary sink in and now I don't want to read your posts anymore.
>>65321148Missiles turned out to be an overhyped meme tech that couldn't secure a strait that good old-fashioned gunboats and BBs would and did during the Gulf War. And they were several times more expensive to boot.
>>65322089AFUCKINGRAMP
>>65321228Carriers are obsolete now just like tanks are with drones. It's time to accept the reality grandpa
>>65323471First manage to sink a Carrier before you brag.
>>65321262you first unc
>>65323178Then how come the US lost to Iran with only missiles and drones?
>>65321148>more cheaper
>>65321203>proper English ruleHe's doing it on purpose to agitate the simpletons.
>>65323612>1000 missled aimed at iran>they wonSNORK!
>>65321148 You right op the missile that took out the iranian drone carrier was probably cheaper than the carrier.
>>65324596ACK!
>>65321148Shells are cheaper than battleshipsLet that sink in for a moment, fellows.
>>65321148Cheaper for what? If you want to drop a thousand 2,000lb warheads on the other side of the world the carrier will be cheaper than 1,000 ICBMs
>>65323612Missiles didn't do shit, it's the 610,000-strong army that's keeping the US at bay.
>>65326527NTA but the missiles helped a lot, Trump and Netanyahu would have bombed their power and water plants if not for the threat of Iran returning the favour on Israel, the UAE and SA.
>>65323471What if I launch drones from a carrier? Would that make it cutting edge or obsolete?
>>65321148
>>65326496I miss battleships, man. Modern warships are so lame and gay. Missiles ruined everything.
>>65326661Why not missile battleship?
>>65326662I'll accept it if the missiles are launched from the main guns
>>65326506I think the break-even point for a supercarrier is well over 1000. ICBMs are relatively simple things once you have the know-how. But a jeep carrier with F4U's could drop 2000lb'ers all day every day very inexpensively.
>>65326664>launched from the main gunsWhy use main gun when VLS cells do the same job at much lighter tonnage.
>>65326677Because it would be fuckin rad?
>>65326670>ICBMs are relatively simple thingsThe LGM-35A Sentinel ICBM is running about $162 million per unit / $162 billions per thousand while the Gerald R. Ford will set you back a mere $16B with a total expected live cycle cost of ~$70B.ICBMs aren't cheap.
>>65326706>using the price from a country that can't build anything anymoreMinuteman was $34 million each and the MIC was probably taking a 100% profit margin on them.
>>65326716>a country that can't build anything anymorenigger our rocket industry is basically number one in the world.
>>65326996>>65326992triggered and off topicbuzz word somewhere else noguns kiddos
>>65326996>jakposting in the current yearEmbarrassing
>>65326458>AchMAD
>>65323178Those "good old-fashioned" ships would have failed even harder to secure the strait. In the age of long range strike, it isn't enough to have ships somewhere in the area to protect shipping. You need to either totally and utterly deny both air and sea across the entire area at all times, or you need capable defensive platforms parked alongside (or directly mounted to) every single hull that transits the strait. There's no hull in existence, old or new, that is both cheap enough to be fielded in sufficient quantity to cover 100+ strait transitions per day (RIP BBs and modern destroyers), and also capable enough to themselves not be vulnerable to getting slapped by AShMs or drones (RIP old patrol boats). Similarly, constant overwatch of the strait requires enough sensors to monitor a few thousand square miles of water and the airspace above it for anything larger than a rowboat in the water or a football in the air, while also watching the surrounding land for literally any vehicle just in case of shoot and scoot attacks by regular artillery - this is also absurdly impractical. Ultimately, for the strait to be safe to transit despite Iran's wishes, the USN would have had to completely eliminate any risk whatsoever to civilian sailors who are sailing along a hostile nation's coastline in a fucking warzone, which is a complete fantasy no matter how you cut it.
>>65323178You're retarded.
>>65326992China's ballistic missile arsenal is larger.
