Are aircraft carrier still important in age of drones and advanced missiles?
Yes because they usually have an on board McDonald's
>>535886197Only when they're beating up on weak people
yeah. now they are drone carriers.also drone payloads cant match aircraft payload yet
>>535886220That cause toilet clogging lol
>>535886197if you bully countries that do not have advanced missiles, yes
>>535886197You can give them to police forces like all the other military surplus gear.
>Russia 1Where's that sitting for ukris not to make a spectacle out of it?
>>535886197Spain doesn't have an aircraft carrier, it is an Landing helicopter dock that we use with the harriers because the army wanted to move infantry shit too
Yes, if you want to bomb people across the planet.Otherwise they've always been useless.Pure tools of agression.
>>535886434It not active anymore, but not due to Ukraine attack, Russian nigger just didn’t take care of it and there was small fire that happened on the ship long time ago They still have it but it not active
>>535886620Meh.
>>535886197nigger
>>535886197>Are aircraft carrier still importantthey are if we're gonna fight WWII again, so no they're not.
>>535886197The entire point of having a navy at all had been defeated by advancement in rocket and drone technology. There's nothing a battleship can achieve that a rocket 1/100,000 of it's worth won't.
>>535886260They will eventually. Or be replaced by submarines that deploy improved drones capable of covering long distances. Being stationed on a carrier that is actively swarmed by drones at sea sounds like hell.
>>535886951why dont the chinese and russians take over the seas with their "hypersonic missiles and drones" then?
>>535886197Why the fuck do Italians need 2 carriers?
>>535887157...what?
>>535887130Submarine are more important, China seems to not really speed up their air craft carrier building They focus on submarine, USA also focus on submarine. Submarine are just better
>>535886197drumpf bombed iran to pieces. this wouldnt work with drones you need a carrier off course. every military equipment has its purpos.
to reach military objectives via drones you probably have to spend 10x amount of time.a stealth bomber can just target x targets after the other. a drone just one.
>>535886197
>>535887239Bombing them doesn't change anything if you give up halfway through the war cause stock prices matter more to you.
>>535887386what needed to be done was minimizing the rockets send to israel this is what this was about. nothing else.
>>535887386>if you give up halfway through the war cause stock prices matter more to you.LOLthat would be the most stereotypically american thing to do
>>535886309Imagine the police rolling up in an aircraft carrier to check your fishing permit
>>535886197Nigga what do you think Israel is? We're literally an American aircraft carrier
>>535886197Probably not
>>535887198exactly, third worlder.
>>535887449Permitless niggers are decapitated with the steam catapult.
Yes.The reason is because if hit by a superpower, it gives the other superpower who was hit the chance to strike a carrier as well.Meaning, deesecalation potential. That is it, no other good reason including hiding stuff beneath waters... ops and so on.Floating deesecalation targets aka pawns, period.
>>535887386Politicians being retarded doesn't mean the carrier isn't useful though.
>>535886951You still need to move troops and heavy material.
>>535886197Why do you ask this? Planning for an USS Liberty style attempt on another US rust bucket?
>>535886197aircraft carriers are pretty much obsolete except to launch the next generation superweapon: the mothership drone. mothership can be launched from carriers and amphib assault ships. it carries up to 500 autonomous drones. the mothership can fly at altitudes of 80,000 ft and stay on station for up to 30 days. it has an umbilical that can be deployed to recharge its hybrid engine utilizing enemy powerlines. it also carries dozens of fuel drones that can descend and be charged inductively on powerlines, all autonomously. all coms are from the drone swarm to the mothership. the mothership has satellite coms that can be used to send and receive data.
>>535886197They are but only against countries that can't easily blow them up, which is still most countries.
>>535887157What do you think would happen? Your own pentagon affirmed a war against china is basically nukes or endless missile casino.
>>535887227>Submarine are just betterare they? we can track them via satellite and weve got torpedos that are pretty much unbeatable based on how they follow wake.
>>535887835KEK IKR
>>535886197They're a bit like zeppelins - big and impressive but you don't want to take them anywhere near someone that has missiles or drones that can reach them.
>>535886197AKSHULLY> France's "single Cariier" is the ONLY nuclearpowered carrier outside the US.> China's first-two carriers are cripples; though their "fourth" one is going to outsize the GeraldFord"China's New Fujian Carrier Changes Everything - Here's Why" - Sub Briefhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9hKalVX4uU
>>535886197They are mainly used for projecting power. Drones will just prolong warfare unnecessarily. You can't achieve decisive victories with drones To win you need submarines and heavy bombers and missiles.
>>535888860Thats not the same thing shitskin.Aircraft carriers are just mobile airfields, and airfields offer far more options than simply blowing up a target.
>>535887188Mare nostrum is not negotiable. Btw we're building another one, nuclear powered too
a carrier group is the most heavily fortified place on earth wherever it is>just shoot a missile and drone at it incelluh!i hate how stupid and brown this board is
>>535889364It is though. Any marine entity that might pose a threat would get blown up long before it ever reaches suitable distance. You think a carrier won't turn into an instant floating target? You of all flags should know a nuclear submarine is considered dead after emerging.
>>535889173Let me guess, it changes nothing.
>>535886197They are as important as XVIIth century spanish galleons in modern warfare and they are less beautiful.
>>535889364an aircraft carrier isn't just a a mobile airfield it's part of battle group of many weapon systems, including missile cruisers, battleships, submarines and logistical support. us carrier groups are also armed with aegis missile defense systems which are designed to intercept midcourse nuclear missiles. aegis is just one layer of missle defense as well, you have thaad to clean up what aegis doesn't get
>>535889400double digits IQ Calogero has entered the chat. Sad.
>>535886197Yes cos it's kino watching them sink! Or have lint fires or whatever
>>535889364>>535888860> Aircraft carrier mechanicscarriers are forcemultipliers best used in - NAVAL-only theatres- technologically-inferior LITTORAL theatres.versus china (or even .. maaaybe russia?); parking your carrier off the coast is a bad idea.You're pitting:- your single 'floating airstrip'- vs a continental group of 'unsinkable airstrips'
>>535886197american carriers can operate cargo planes which make them valuable for logistics.drones have limited range and so we might see something like large drones with jet engines flying somewhere to deploy swarms of small drones, and in that case you would need to launch the big drone from somewhere.Carrier launched fighters will become less and less important but i imagine they will take a long time to really fall off since you may as well have fighters on your carrier if you have a carrier.
>>535889639why do retards like you believe a carrier is just sitting there by itself? it's protected by a layered defense of ships, has its own defense and fighters can also function as missile interceptors
>>535886197They're more important than ever because drones/missiles can easily hit a stationary base.
>>535886197Complete waste of money.
>>535889920>entered the chatGo back to WhatsApp nonna Pina
>>535887438Based
>>535889520>immediately blows up due to laundry firekys retard, or get drafted for israel. your choice
>>535890011drone swarms aren't viable, they are countered by microwave weapons. there's a reason the only drone footage you see is these single drone attacks, that's about their maximum effectiveness. there's a place for these personal drones on a tactical level such as delivering ammo, evacuating injured soldiers and real time recon updates, but these tiny drones are not a wonderwaffle
>>535890104>carriers are faster than missiles or dronesBaby mind take.
>>535890229another memeflag shitskin coping and seething about being a perma virign. you can hide your flag, but you can't hide your brown stench
>>535886197I feel like it won't be long until we have a new classification of ship, something that is built purely to carry our drones and counter enemy drones. Realistically for drone warfare you would need some system that can significantly reduce the cost of shooting down drones so maybe something armed with a sort of small arms automated targeting system or lasers, with a built in drone bay. Maybe even stocked with 3d printers so drones can reproduce in the field so long as there is a supply of explosives.Imagine a ship basically that can endlessly produce drones, or at the very least that can produce and command thousands on a single shipment of plastic and explosives, while shooting down any enemy drones in a certain radius in which to protect your destroyers and aircraft carriers
Militarily speaking, you still need the naval testicles from which to launch the aviation phallus that will disperse the sperm drone that will carry the explosive genetic load to the target
>>535889902>... missile cruisers, battleships, submarines and logistical support ... aegis missile defense...1. yes, the carrier is the 'king' on the chessboard.2. but "when you're in range of the coast. .. the coast is also in range of you"actual-countries can 'logistic more missiles/drones' than the supply-ship feeding your carrier-group.
>>535887649No I'm literally shocked by your sheer stupidity. You're saying that a military theory is incorrect because it hasn't been used by China and Russia yet to start and win WWIII? How absurd is that sentence even
ITS EVOLUTION BABY!
>>535886197It may be old and a piece of shit but the Thailand navy has a carrier.
>>535889157You are wrong. Carriers are basically indestructible. They tried to sink a carrier on purpose one time and after 2/3 weeks of continuous bombing it still was floating.Carriers are the core of air attacks because it are floating airports. Also, they are protected by a large group of other vessels.
>>535886197Italy doesn't have two aircraft carriers, whoever made this is a retard
>>535890446> Ship called 911> 2001 in the file name Cursed
>>535886220Really?
>>535890509Be cool homo, it's called deterrence
>>535890412no, being able to strike first and strike hard is called the initiative and having and maintaining the initiative is how you win a war. you are not at a strategic disadvantage if you can strike the enemy's homeland, you are at the strongest advantage you can have. anyway the usa would start with a blockade of the strait of malacca, severing most of china's oil supply and if the usa chooses can play a game of attrition, striking china while china can't strike the usa directly. china would then need to divert a large force to secure the strait while all the while we still have multiple carrier groups in the region. the usa is capable of saturating china's defense, china has no answer to this
>>535890423you're the stupid fuck that has no idea what you're talking about. you genuinely don't understand anything, you're a low wage moron, i can tell
>>535890690This is the greatest /k/ope I've ever read since your Iranian debacle. China produces 13 times the steel you produce. They would just flatten all your allies in the region and after the heat becomes too hot for them (very soon lol) Japan, the Philippines, Taiwan and South Korea would beg you to end the war just like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE did. And that's assuming they don't flatten them with nukes on day 1
>>535890941and how would they do that? the only one coping is you, you just said it'll happen because... it will happen? meanwhile i explained exactly how and why china would lose. china can't even produce a blue water navy, most of their navy are brown water river boats, the usa still dwarfs it in tonnage>muh nukesanother retarded subhuman on /pol/
>>535890690> strike first and strike hard> but- but malacca1. 'decapitation strikes' don't work against nations prepared for war (war-footing).2. 'straites of malacca' ... how about 'straites of hormuz'? don't move the goalposts to 'straites mechanics' when you're losing about 'carrier mechanics'. Start another thread if you want.inb4 freedom, chinkcels, polllution etc
>>535891063Do you think you've won in Iran? Yes or no?
>>535890690>strait of malaccaShips can sail around the Sumatra, bro.
>>535891178iran lost in 12 hours, you accepting this reality or not doesn't matter>>535891113i knew you were a stupid fuck and i decided to respond to you anyway. the usa controls the strait, it's currently being blockaded and most of the oil goes to china anyway, literally 90% of iran's oil goes to china, you stupid fucking memeflag shitskin. i'm done, you'll always be stupid inbred fucking loser
>>535891191no, they can't. there's no logistical capability to support it
>>535891178America is very op. America always loses but their enemies never win
> In an annual comparison of production tonnage, China produces approximately 250 million tonnes of electronics, 1 billion tonnes of steel, 4.5 million tonnes of industrial explosives, and 270,000 tonnes of rare earths, whereas Iran produces roughly 50,000 to 70,000 tonnes of electronics, 30 million tonnes of steel, 70,000 tonnes of explosives, and virtually 0 tonnes of rare earthsYou lost (badly) against Iran and you think you stand a chance against this kek
>>535891410There's no logistical capability to force Hormuz open.
>>535886545True, if we're counting floating helipads as carriers then the US has like ten more the OP didn't count.
>>535891660I disagree
>>535887474Aircraft carriers never attacked the USS Liberty or ferried millions of 3rd worlders into the nation
>>535891305>90% of iran's oil goes to china> "america won straites Hormuz" but "china loses straites Malacca"> * triggered slur noises *1. china literally lives next-to-russia for oil. Iran trade is for belt-road 'good-will' (like africa trade)2. china is fucked with malacca, but so is america homuz. for the same reason LAND beats CARRIER.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malacca_dilemma
>>535892025>Closing a pool and opening a pool are the same thing Please refrain from posting abject stupidity.
>>535892736> inability to maintain consistent logic.(assuming you're NOT fighting 3rd world nations)unsinkable LAND beats floating CARRIERgroup ....... . every . single . time .
