We dont spend that much on the military

Also defense spending doesnt all equal the military

troll thread spotted/hidden/reported

>>737085

Why waste 3 billion to reactivate something that the Chinks could easily sink with modern technology when we could do everything we want better and faster with missiles?

> implying cruise missiles and submarines don't pwn modern naval warfare.

I see your obsolete warship and raise you one exocet.

inb4 oh OP you noob.

>>737092
depends how you count it I suppose

>>737085
Navyfag detected

Your shitty branch of the military will be irrelevant until spaceborn combat is a reality, enjoy waiting for that to happen.

>>737115


Only 2.3 trillion?

Huh.

>>737102
well, battleships are fucking scary, for one

>>737105
refit with countermeasures?

>>737103
well of course we should keep the ohios in service for a protected nuclear arsenal, but the iowas have successfully carried tomahawks

lrn2 sunburn

it could work OP, if the enemy isn't among civilians when those guns lay waste to square miles at a time, but you'd have to spend lots more on missile defense

hence the aircraft carriers and fa18 flying weapons delivery systems, guided missiles, cruisers etc

Missiles obilterate all the expensive hardware of modern warfare.

Got a tank? Send a TOW.

Got an apache? Send a Stinger.

Got a task fleet? Send some cruise missiles.

We need a navy to transport a tiny expeditionary military armed with cruise missiles. We need an airforce for home defense and intelligence gathering. We need an army for a dozen divisions of mechanized infantry to roll in and level our enemies before withdrawing and recieving the best vet care in the world (which they don't at present.)

We don't need 200 million dollar raptors, 65 million dollar abrams tanks, destroyers and floating cities and huge fleets and airforces. We spend more than the rest of the world combined on our military. It has gained us so little and cost us so much.

>>737131
> countermeasures against an enemy unit that can attack using both cruise missiles and underwater torpedoes at the same time.

>>737115

Yes the FBI, homeland security, CIA, all of those are branches of the military.

>>737126
i'm a civilian but shit we might as well just have a fucking navy at this point. who needs strategic bombers when we got these motherfuckers? pretty much they only thing they can't hit is russia, i can't see them fitting into the baltic sea.

>>737130
2.3T what?

>>737134

Didnt take long for you to show up and fag the thread with ignorance. Our navy unless bombarded with tons of missiles, is safe.

But what would a college civi know right?

Battleships were already obsolete in WW2.

>>737133
no that's exactly my point. fucking obliterate civilian population centers. hence the whole diplomacy thing.

they're basically a b-52, except they can fire all fucking day and all fucking night long.

>>737134
not shit but they -can- carry missiles. the guns are just there for just blowing the fuck out of everything.

>>737142

No.

ONE missile can take out a warship.

An attack wing of fighter-bombers will own any naval fleet.

Problem, navyfag?

>What the battleship was in 1941, the aircraft carrier is now: a big, proud, expensive...sitting duck. Aircraft carriers came out of WW II looking powerful, but that was before microchips. Now, when an enemy tanker can fire 60 self-guiding cruise missiles from hundreds of miles away, no carrier will survive its first real battle.
>Carriers are not only the biggest and most expensive ships ever built--they're the most vulnerable. Because even one serious cruise-missile hit means the carrier can't launch its planes, its best weapons. They will sink to the bottom with their crews, not having fired a shot.

http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=6779&IBLOCK_ID=35&PAGE=3

>>737151

LOLOLOL

>Attack wing
>warship
>figher bomber

sure is civilian in here

>>737152

Opinion articles are great

Jebus, is everything being replaced by missiles?
Soon even aircraft carriers will be replaced by arsenal ships.
Hell I wouldn't be surprised if infantry started using mini missile launcher guns instead of regular bullets.

>>737159

Sure is american tactical doctrine in here.

>>737152
same goes for a battleship. the difference is a battleship can lay insanely destructive waste to a major population center before going down.

>>737164

Or you know, just the real words. I cant take you seriously when you literally do not know what you are talking about.

Inb4 mad

Guided AT Missile: $1,000
Infantry Squad that fired it's annual salaries: $100,000
Jeep weapon platform it fired from: $50,000

Watching a $65,000,000 tank get obliterated from heavy cover, without ever having seen you: Priceless.

There are some things money can't buy, for everything else there is old guard traditionalism that takes hundreds of years to get rid of obsolete doctrines and adapt to the times.

Cheer up, I'm sure those carriers will make real nice artificial corral reefs.

>>737171

*giggle.jpg.

Yes, because America is the only country in the world that has a military, isn't it?

Lasers are going to make missiles obsolete soon.

battleships with these kinds of guns went obsolete after WW2

/trolled

>>737186

It's still drone weapons-platforms at the minute fella.

>>737175
they're actually doing that to the Forrestal, which is currently parked down the street from me :(

I dunno they don't just scrap them, do something useful with all of that metal.

>>737186

Possibly, but right now they're the top dogs. I can see a missile that broke apart into a cluster once it got into detection range, exploding into a cloud of reflective chaff, though, for really expensive sophisticated ones like the multi million dollar missiles that will still be raping task groups at sea.

If they could get them efficient enough to put on tanks though, they might be able to counter the massive cost gap between dirt cheap AT guided missiles and the targets they destroy and disable so easily.

>>737175

So you think tanks, armored vehicles, jet/prop aircraft ,helicopters in general, ALL naval ships, trucks and jeeps/humvees etc , and bases are obsolete because of missiles?

>>737203

> implying you need guided missiles to disable tanks.

All you really need is landmines + molotovs...

>>737205

Everything is obselete provided you have enough money to buy the best weapons in large supplies.

This has been true ever since the ancient times.

>>737209

Landmines maybe, molotovs? Do you know modern tanks are immune to fucking biochemical attacks, and the crew inside is safe because of air filtering and you think a small fire will do better than mustard gas?

>>737214

Molotovs are used for disabling the visual equipment, thereby forcing them to pop the hatch.

>>737219

Sigh I cant argue with ignorance all day

>>737229

Oh i'm sorry, are we having an argument?

>>737219
And this is why the germans bombed us at pearl harbor

>>737231

Modern tanks have more than one way to "see" things. Those are nigh immune to bullets, but you think fire is better.

Tanks, beleive it or not, with no visual equipment working can still land shots with deadly accuracy because of how its possible for the computers in all of the tanks to work together, sharing their information.

Example, oh noes by pure fucking magic a small fire made my tank blind - tank 2 target something for me so I can share your info and shoot with it.

Fuck off

>>737240

Wow, no need to get mad.

I was simply unaware there was no way to disable their communications equipment.

I suppose i'll have to factor that into my future tank-busting activities too.

Thanks dude.

>>737205
Probably not, but aircraft carriers seem to be, and battleships have been for a long, long time now.

>>737246

Best have a magical EMP grenade to go with your molotov

your welcome

>>737252

Or just use some sort of jamming device and blanket the whole area.

Actually, that would stop missiles too...

>>737254
Yes! A device!

>>737264

Those R&D boffins should get on it, it'll make lots of obselete equipment useful again.

>>737186

>Cuntservatives latch onto one guy talking about molotovs because they know that they were losing the debate about missiles horribly.

>>737142 Didnt take long for you to show up and fag the thread with ignorance. Our navy unless bombarded with tons of missiles, is safe.

There is no defense for any ship against ballistic missiles. Anyone with 70's era tech can completely wreck our navy with zero risk and low expenditure.

Gigantic, floating targets like battleships and carriers are relics of WW2. The only reason they're still around is because the Navy has a lot of political pull.

>>737309

Problem, conservatards?

conclusion of thread: we completely modernize our military by outfitting each squad with an unguided anti-tank missile and, wait for it.....a device!

welcome to the battlefield. of tomorrow.

>>737322

Being able to stop your front-line troopers from being blown to tiny little bits by missiles would be rather useful, yes.

>>737309

There was no missile debate refer to this post I made here

"So you think tanks, armored vehicles, jet/prop aircraft ,helicopters in general, ALL naval ships, trucks and jeeps/humvees etc , and bases are obsolete because of missiles?'

But you ignored this because it showed how ridiculous the statement is. Hell ever soldiers are outdated now, missiles kill them too.

Its ok though your a woman hater because your mommy abused you, so what would a butthurt civilian know who posts with a trip on 4chan.

>>737186
Missiles with frickin' laser beams on their heads.

>missiles

nigga please

If the current wars we're waging are any indication, we are moving away from 'invasion' type fighting. There really is no need for that shit anymore. tactical nukes, precision etc

>>737340

Look out! A Gigantic Faggot!

See here gigantic faggot;
>>737213

>>737357
no kidding. iraq pretty much proves that invasions and occupations are hell. hence why we reactivate the battleships. just bombard major population centers and call it a day.

it'll be like the clinton administration all over again, just way cooler.

>>737355

> implying those are not even more expensive than missiles.

>>737340

Fuck lets also add actual MISSILES are obsolote because of MISSILES designed to kill MISSILES.

EVERYTHING IS OBSOLETE NOW

>>737373

NICE GET

>>737371
>use $10.000 of ammo
>waste opponents $1.000.000 missile

>>737373

Well someone did say i believe that warfare of the future will be fought by people sitting in dark rooms pressing buttons.

I guess Buttons are the most powerful weapons known to man these days.

>>737373
lol'd because it's true

airborne based lasers I suppose? they can shoot down missiles, and fly away from ground based lasers and other airborne based lasers.

Missiles will be worthless once laser warfare is perfected.

Then you'll need tanks/warships/etc again.

>>737386

> I use 10 missiles on a wide-spread incoming vector costing $10,000,000.
> It's super-effective.
> Wild Battleship faints.

>>737405
>implying anyone except the jewish military can afford such a waste of resources

Omega left this thread quick, anyone surprised, Id rather talk to flowergirl than that faggot.

>>737413

> implying that you can waste resources in a wartime scenario.

>>737414
Fuck you, all tripfags are burn in hellfire trashy whores.

>>737414
I think the anti-missile missile 73 GET pretty much pwnt everything he said.

>>737405

You know pretty much all fullsized navy ships have two or more of those missiles defense systems, and CSGs all help defend each other

but whatever missiles are outdated because of anti missile missiles.

>>737386
>>737355


They don't work. There is no current anti-missile system that can defeat ballistic missiles. Seriously, even the fucking Navy admits it:

>Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack.

https://www.usni.org/forthemedia/ChineseKillWeapon.asp

>>737431

links opinion pieces as fact

laughingelf.jpg

>>737431
Do you really know?

What if they're just bullshitting just to see if someone is stupid enough to try it, then they'll pull some high tech shit out of their asses and be like, Blamo!™

>they are literally the most destructive conventional platforms of warfare ever constructed.

Typhoon here.

Battleships are small time.

>>737447 links opinion pieces as fact

It's not an opinion piece, it's a report.

>>737443 What if they're just bullshitting just to see if someone is stupid enough to try it, then they'll pull some high tech shit out of their asses and be like, Blamo!™

When you're reduced to arguing "Maybe they have a secret magical weapon!" you know you've lost the argument.

Actual cruisemissles are very expensive and easily taken down with modern anti missile technology.

The battleship may get a rebirth. With new guided ordnance technology new munition design you could land one of those big shells right no on top of a target with precision with an improved range. They could be a cheaper alternative to cruise missiles.

>>737458
>conventional

things are different now then they were in the old day. way back when everyone knew how to aim, fire, and clean a gun, how to make a shelter, how to gut and prepare a dog/rat/etc for food. today it takes between 9 weeks to over a year to train up a soldier with the minimum knowledge they need to have to be effective. without a standing army our country could be easily overrun before even the first waves of basic infantry were ready, and what partially trained infantry we could field would be slaughtered due to lack of support (air, artillery, navy, intel, combat engineering, etc)

>>737485
overrun by what?

we have strategic bombers for a reason.

See Midway, battle of or the Mariana Turkey shoot. Destroyers are useless in modern warfare. The Nay is more about projection of power via carriers.

OP, where the fuck have you been the last 60 years?

>>737517 The Nay is more about projection of power via carriers

Carriers have been obsolete since the 70's as well.

Missiles have been obsolete since missiles were invented because of anti missile missile shields.

Omega your rebuttal please?

>>737539
Carriers are a deterrent force and an excellent way to have mobile air bases.I kn ow we are fighting the SDurkhas now, but in the future we will have to fight civilized people so better to have them around. Same reason we had to save GM: We may need the production facilities to fabricate tanks.

How about we spend some of that 900 billion
on getting our own shit together at home, and
stop trying to control the rest of the world?

>>737594 Carriers are a deterrent force and an excellent way to have mobile air bases.I kn ow we are fighting the SDurkhas now, but in the future we will have to fight civilized people so better to have them around

That's just the thing though; carriers work fine for staging attacks against crappy third world armies, but they're very vulnerable to modern anti-ship missiles.

>>737562
navy fag here, missile shields and close in weapons systems can't deal with volume.

Well if everything is obselete

What is the best:
Naval Unit?
Air Unit?
Infantry Unit?
Mechanized Unit?

>>738568
>Naval Unit?
Sub
>Air Unit?
Stealth Bombers
>Infantry Unit?
None
>Mechanized Unit?
None

>>738583

>Play DEFCON
>Watch youtube videos on war
>Read articles

Please....

Copypasta is relevant here.

How does a CSG defend its self?
Lets say you are approaching the CSG in the air. The first sign of the proximity is the Combat Air Patrol.
The CAP will be situated at about 200 nm from the group and will have the support of an E-2 AEW which will be situated between the CAP and the group its self.
The CAP will consist of 4-6 fighters in normal two-ship formations.
Lower than the CAP but about the same distance you will find the Area ASW forces.
S-3's and SH-60's will be out here dropping sonobouy fields along the CSG's path of intended motion.

Next in at about 30 nm is the picket screen.
these Frigates and Destroyers are The first real line of defense from incoming missiles.

And then we have the Area Air Defense from the Bunker Hill/Tico class cruisers and the AEGIS system.

So lets start with the Multi-Regiment Backfire raid. As the aggressor we will use the Soviet Northern Fleet in 1988 but equip them with the most recent operational aircraft and weapons.
so in 1988 the Soviets had the 5th MRAD with 63 Tu-22M-3 in three regiments (in reality it was two Tu-22M-3 and one Tu-16 rgmts)

>>738616
Given the choice the US commander would sail as far south as he could to make the bombers be able to only carry one missile but lets say he cant
and the CSG is forced to sail closer than he would like.
We are going to arm the Backfires with AS-4. I know that there are some more recent missiles but the seeker is fairly advanced and it is the longest ranged supersonic cruise missile in the Russian inventory.

So for the moment we are going to ignore the problem of finding the CSG except to say that the CSG would have to be aware of the imminent strike for the ESM detections of the Recon planes radars.
The Russians would have a general idea of the location of the group due to its own ESM detections of the AEW aircraft and the CAPs radars.

>>738624
But as I mentioned, the CAP and AEW aircraft are some 100-200 nm away from the CSG. So a Radar return is important for the Russians.
The PNA radar on the Tu-22M-3 can detect large ships about 200-250nm away. Which is right about the perfect distance to meet the CAP.

But lets say that the CAP was out of position or the Backfires had the fuel to come in from a direction different from the expected threat axis.
So the Backfires will be detecting the AEW and Fighter radars a good distance away. So they know the CAP will be about 200nm.
The E-2 APS-145 can detect large aircraft about 350 nm away. since the E-2 is 100 nm from the CSG itself, it will be extending radar coverage 450 nm out from the carrier. But its out of position and instead of detecting the Backfires at 450, it detects them at 350 nm out.
The CAP immediately turns to engage the distant targets, which might be 150 nm from them.

So now its time for a little math. The Backfires know they are spotted so they are racing in to get a fix and launch their missiles at max range which is 220 nm. That is within the radars detection range so that wont be a problem.
The problem is that its going to take the supersonic Backfires a little more than 6 minutes to reach that distance.
While the F/A-18E's will only take 4 min to reach launch point with their AIM-120's.
With a further one minute flight time for the missiles themselves, the Backfires are in a tight spot.

But lets assume that the AMRAAM has only a 50% pk. Half the Backfires are able to fire their missiles and retreat, mission accomplished

>>737126
butthurt civvie detected.

^
nigger don't know about my projection of seapower, and that control of the seas and sea logistics=global domination.

>>738636
So now there are about 60 missiles racing away toward the CSG.

And to make it worse, the SPY-1 radar can only see the missiles when they are within just a few dozen nautical miles from their targets. So what are they going to do?
Well every AEGIS equipped ship in the CSG can already start firing their missiles at the inbounds. Why?
Cooperative Engagement Capability.

The Ships can use the data from the E-2 to begin firing. So there are at least 4 AEGIS equiped ships in the CSG. The Arliegh Burke's can fire about 80 missiles a minute while the Bunker hill's can fire 40.
So the AS-4 is inbound at 2300 knots (2600 mph). Thats four minutes flight time to the 220 nm to CSG. The E-2 can track the missile for about 180 nautical
miles of that. The AEGIS itself can cover the remaining 40 miles.
So for that 4 minutes of flight time the AEGIS equipped ships can fire between 280 and 320 Standard Missiles A MINUTE at the incoming missiles. They will empty their magazines in one minute.

4 missiles a minute at each incoming.

And thats before the ESSM's and RAMs from the Pickets have a crack at them.

>>738583
>>738520
>>738511
>>737539

and all the other HURRDURR CARRIERS ARE OBSLEET fags

Status:
[_] Told
[X] Fucking Told

Could a laser shoot down a tungsten slug traveling at mach 5 shot from a railgun?

>>738642
Ex-Navy here. Navy Strong. I miss the service, civvies are useless.

the real problem is what to do about china, if they start manufacturing row-boats and in a huge spread-out wave send half their population toward the us each in their own boat with some basic infantry equipment, sheer numbers say we'll be overrun even with nuking some of them and hoping a certain percentage springs leaks or whatever, and remember the crappy stuff they sell us is because they don't like us and they want anything they sell us to be crappy, things used to destroy us would obviously be built to better standards.

>>738636
>>738624
>>738616
Fucking save.
I love making armchair generals cry....

3 billion? LOL. Newsflash: The Iowas are so decrepit by now, you could build them completely new and it's be cheaper. The engines are complete junk and would have to be completely replaced, the gun barrels have been made unusable etc.

For fucks sake, the Iowas are dead. All that's left are some rotting carcasses that would cost more to bring back from the grave than building completely new BBs.

>problem with china? no need to wait for a carrier battle group, just sail one of these motherfuckers 20 miles past shanghai. insert trollface.jpg and "problem, china?"

Cue the Chinese rolling up one or two dozen mobile ground-based ASM launchers. "Problem, US Navy?"

>>738694

I would wager so if the targeting systems are fast enough to track it accurately.

As % of GDP America actually doesn't spend that much on military, even with the fucking retarded wars.

However, we don't need these. It has been proven in multiple war games that cheap speed boats and cruise missile spam can easily defeat carriers/destroyers at a fraction of the cost.

>>739253
Read>
>>738616
>>738624
>>738636
>>738642

>>738642
your carrier group just spent 10x more to defend itself than the russians did to attack it. half an hour later, a few more backfires pop up to unload on the carrier group. repeat as needed. who runs out of ammo first?

also, subs.

also, ballistic missiles (with conventional warheads)

>>739326

So your just assuming the Naval and Airforce assets are just going to allow them to fire missiles all day without harassment?

You think we wouldnt do the same thing to did to Iraq in desert storm and rape their missile sites/radar first?

Fuck off civilian

>>737151
One HIT can mission-kill a warship. Too bad that you need massed wave attacks to have any chance to actually score even a single hit against the combined point defense of a carrier group.

Not to mention that carriers are still necessary to get all those airplanes whereever they are needed, so that they can then use bombs and missiles to flatten stuff.

>>737152
Oh wow. So if the CBG gets zero warning of an incoming attack and if the entire poitn defense fials utterly, the carrier is gone... Yeah, and? The chances of that happening are lower than all life on Earth getting wiped out by an asteroid.

>>737310
Ballistic missiles? ROFL. Fucking original version Patriots can intercept ballistic missiles. The SM-2 adn SM-3 used by modern western warships outclass Patriots in any way imaginable. Ballistic missiles are retardedly easy to intercept the moment you have a honkin big radar and some good SAMs.

Any claims to the contrary are nothing but bullshit.

I take your obsolete hunk of junk, and raise it with the Ohio class SSGN. Armed with up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles (or an assortment of other weapons), as much firepower as an entire battle group of surface warships.

We have 4 of these bad boys in service right now.

>>739311
I was answering to the moron who thought that having a refurbished Iowa go in for shore bombardement agianst a modern nation would be a good idea.

That'd mean far lower flight times for anything incoming as well as ground-based launchers becoming viable. Or, hell, just someone opening up with old fashioned rocket- and tube-artillery.

someone better start ww3 soon so we can find out who has the biggest, the baddest, the meanest shit going for them

>>739326
That was the entire Backfire force the Northern fleet had at its peak.

How long do you think it takes to fly back, rearm, refuel, and perform maintenance?

That was EVERY backfire the Soviets had, and half of them were shot down by the CAP.

So you get one more shot with half the forces.


Subs cant carry as many missiles as the bombers and are harder to coordinate.

The AEGIS BMD upgrade can intercept ballistic missiles in the boost phase and in the terminal phase.

>>739387
Oh may bad.
You are right, the Iowas had no air defense systems except for Phalanx and thats a last ditch system.

>>739326
>your carrier group just spent 10x more to defend itself than the russians did to attack it. half an hour later, a few more backfires pop up to unload on the carrier group. repeat as needed. who runs out of ammo first?

The Russians. Rather, they run out of Backfires first. Subs are what ASW assets are for.

Ballistic missiles are utterly unable to hit anything that can move and change it's course and easy prey for any remotely modern SAM.

>Why waste 3 billion to reactivate something that the Chinks could easily sink with modern technology when we could do everything we want better and faster with missiles?

People aren't afraid of missiles that can kill them 1000 miles away. They are afraid of that giant boat sitting on their shores. We all got a bunch of nukes pointed at each other but nobody gives a shit (outside of select protests/poltiical shindigs).

On the other hand, by giving china a nice juicy target to take pot shots at, even if they did destroy them, we would then be given some nice warnign that shit was going down, instead of just waking up one day and finding chinese troops marching down the street/missles raining down the sky.

Remember, you can not occupy foreign land with missiles or bombs.

>>739498

China only wants us to buy stuff. Even moving enough Chinese out to colonise the rest of the world if it was empty would bankrupt them.

This's the best thread on /new/ right now.
Keep going guys. This's seriously fascinating.

>>739428
Actually, prior to modernizing, the Iowa's carried something like 104 40mm anti aircraft guns. They used to have way more than the 16in and 5in guns that are left on them now.

>>739573
And even if they still had them, they would still be sitting ducks for airstrikes.

A anti aircraft missile system is what they lack and its what makes them useless for the purpose describes in the OP and this morons post:
>>739498

Just re-activate one... Park it in the gulf
and ask Iran to talk a while. . .

They touch it.. they get turned into a glowing glass ashtray.
Wait - they're already an ash tray, now we need to make
em glow a bit.

>>739729
>threaten sovereign state with show of force
>think it is justified to nuke them if they retaliate to the perceived threat.

typical american idiot.

Well - we could fight them,
But why not just buy them instead?

A navy can provide air and fire support. They won't be considered obsolete in our life times.

>>739757

-Clandestinely build nuclear bomb facilities,
-Claim your doing it for energy when you sit on an ocean of oil
-Deny to the world it's your fault when a cook sprinkles 1 pound of plutonium Pixie dust on your subway system.

Time for the Russian Carrier Battle group discussion.

First up is a little history on the Soviet Navy.
The Soviet Navy waffled back and forth between wanting a western style carrier fleet and keeping the fleet focused on large cruise missiles.

There were a few abortive attempts to construct western style carriers, but every time one would get started, an Admiral would fall for favor and someone would ask the very simple question, "Why?"

Why do we need this? Unlike the Western Powers, the Soviet navy had no real need to project power far from its borders. Its main task in war would be to disrupt the flow of supplies heading to Europe. The main weapon in this battle was to be the submarine.

The Soviets had studied the performance of Germany's sub fleets in the two wars and believed that they could just better during the first 60 days of war to win any land battle in Europe.

It would remain that way for a while, the sub fleet growing while the surface fleet plodded on with Great War era vessels, until Admiral Gorshkov would began to expand the fleet.

The Soviets always felt that any conflict would not last more than 60 days. They believed that the war would either be over with one side victorious, or that would have passed into the realm of out right nuclear Armageddon.

>>740033
To this end the Soviets never built much sustainability into their surface fleet designs. This is most clearly demonstrated in the lack of attention to underway replenishment and even the lack of reloads carried onboard the ships themselves.

This mentality of disposeability and of a short intense conflict in the north Atlantic explains the Soviets love of cruise missiles. Why have your 80% of your offensive power on one ship (An American type CV) when you can have each ship with its own small air wing. After all, what is a cruise missile if not an unmanned, one shot fighter plane.
To the Soviets there was little down side. Even the smallest ship could carry a powerful offensive punch with no need to train pilots, make room for fuel and munition stores.

But there was still a role for aircraft for the Soviet Navy.
The first vessel to have a fixed wing air group was the Kiev Class.
The Soviets did not call these ships Carriers. They were "Tactical Aircraft Carrying Cruisers". These ships had an air wing but its main offensive punch came in the form of its SS-N-12 missiles, not its relatively weak Yak-38 Forgers.

But the Kiev was never meant to be an offensive weapon. It was designed for a defensive role, either defending a SAG prowling the North Atlantic for a convoy to attack the SAGs cruise missiles, hopefully a coordinated attack with a few Bomber Regiments and a SSGN or two, or defending the SSBN bastions in the Kara Sea.

>>737085

>>bitching we spend 900 billion on military
>>suggesting we spend 3b more on military

>>740042
Of the two roles, the bastion defense mission was the one the Soviets considered the most important.
The follow on to the Kiev was the Kuznetsov Class.
This ship is a lot more capable with a advanced air wing of modern fighters, but it is interesting to note that the carrier still carries a very potent cruise missile armament.

So now on the the scenario:

It is 30 days since NATO crossed the Polish border into Belarus in an attempt to force the Russians into lifting the Gas embargo on Europe. Instead of capitulating, the Belorussian forces fight tenaciously, buying time for the Russians to make the decision to intervene.
4 Days after the NATO Advance started, the first Russian units enter the front lines.

Unfortunately for the Russians the war is not going well. What tips the war in favor of NATO is the surprise entry of Ukrainian forces into the war on NATOs side.

Three days ago, With advance elements of the German III Army within 30 km of Moscow, the Russians use Tactical nuclear weapons to forestall the NATO assault on the city.

With the nuclear threshold broken, NATO makes the decision to send a US CSG into the Kara sea to track down and sink the four Russian SSBNs before the Russians do something really desperate.

(Please note I'm not looking for critiques of the story, I dont care if you think, "HURR NATO WUD NEVER ATAK RUSSA" or you think the great Russian Army would have punched the invaders back into Spain, thats not the point. I just want a good reason for a US CSG to be moving into a SSBN bastion.)

>>740050
First up are the forces on each side:
The US CSG

1 CVN
2 Bunker Hill Class CG's
4 Burke Class DDG
4 Perry Class FF
3 SSN's
1 Supply Class AOE

Russian CVBG
1 CV
1 Slava Class CG
3 Sovremenny DDG
2 Udaloy DD
2 Neustrashimy FF
2 SSN

Force dispositions:
The CSG has three 4-ship CAPs up
2 E-2's
3 MH-60R's
None of the other Ships radars are operating

The CSG commander has a pretty good fix on the location of the Russian CVBG.

The Russian CVBG has Three 2-ship CAPs up
2 Ka-31 AEW one is not radiating
6 Ka-27 ASW helo's laying sonobouy fields

None of the other ships Radars are operating

The CVBG commander has a poor idea of the CSGs location.

Both sides are in deep water, 500 nautical miles away from each other, the US CSG is sailing Easterly while the Russian in moving in a north-south racetrack pattern on the western end of the Bastion.

Place your bets.........

Posting the rest in 15 min.

>>740055
The CSG commander wants to strike first, he has a good idea from the last satellite pass, of the Russian CVBG's location. So he puts together a strike package.
12 F/A-18E for maritime strike
4 F/A-18E for SEAD
10 F/A-18E for Escort
The remaining F/A-18 Squadron is on CAP duty

Also going with the package is 3 EA-18G
The US commander plans to launch his strike whenhe is 475 nm out.

The Russian commander is aware that there is a US CSG out there somewhere hunting for him.

He knows that he can not spare the aircraft to Go hunting the CSG so he must plan defensively. He plans on using the Ka-31 to give him advance warning of the raid.
Once he knows it is on its way, he will launch his alert fighters and have them join the CAPs at 100nm out.
The Russian CAPs are further in because the primary defense against air attack is not the MiG-29K fighters, but the Slava Class Cruiser.

The Ka-31's Oko radar can detect the F/A-18E's at a range of 34 NM. The F/A-18E, while not a stealth aircraft, is not as easy to detect as its predecessor.
The point is moot in any case, as at 100 nm from the Russian CAP station, 200 nm from the Kuznetsov, the Growlers start the ECM.
The Screens on the Ka-31 go white as the radar begins to show numerous false returns.

At first this might seem like a terrible turn of events for the Russians, but the Ka-31s hav e a nice trick up their sleeves.
The two helos can determine a bering to the sources of the jamming, and with the two bearings, a good idea of the location of the strike package is known.

The Russian Commander launches his two alert fighters and begins to ready his two back up fighters. As of now he has
eight of his 12 fighters up and two more will be up in fifteen minutes.

At a distance of 140 nm from the carrier, and 40 nautical miles from the KA-31's and the CAP stations, the Ka-31 goes off the air as a AMRAAM missile brings it down.
The MiG-29s at the CAP station realize the Ka-31 is down and switch on thier radars. The MiGs and the F/A-18s are 40 nm apart and closing at a rate of 800 kts.
As the ESM systems begin to detect the Russian Radars, the escort Hornets turn on their radars and accelerate to put themselves between the Russian CAP and their primary Targets, the strike aircraft.

The Zhuk-M radar can engage 4 targets apiece for eight tragets from the two MiGs at this CAP station.

The APG-79 can engage 6 targets.

The MiGs are in trouble.

The R-77's perform well. Almost 80% hit, taking down 7 of the F/A-18E escorts.
The remaining three begin to hunt for the other CAP aircraft that must surely be inbound.

With the loss of his AEW aircraft, the Russian commander orders the Slava class to begin radiating his MR-800 3D radar. The Enemy strike package must now be 100 nm away.
This is a risky move. The Harpoon Missiles can be fired at almost 100 nm away, but he has to know where the strike package is so he can begin the SAM engagement.

The F/A-18G and -E Hornets ESM systems begin to detect the powerful signals from the Slava class cruisers radar.
They are now 80 nautical miles out, but due to the Hornets relatively low radar observability, the MR-800 will be unable to see them until they are almost 50 nm away, and they have no plans to get that close.

But first the 3 remaining escort fighters have found the six MiG's still in the air. The APG-79's have detected the MiGs almost 70 miles away and closing fast.

The Migs themselves have almost no idea that have been found, as the MiG-29K ESM systems can not detect the LPI radars of the Hornets from this distance.

The only idea the MiG's have that they are under attack is from the seekers of the AMRAAMS as they activate for the final few seconds of their flight.

Four MiGs go down as the AMRAAM suffer a 50% failure rate and the other two finally detect the three escort Hornets, who have closed to within 20 nm during the AMRAAMs flight.
The three other escort Hornets go down to the 100% fatal R-77.

>>740210
During the melee with the MiGs, the rest of the package has been busy. The SEAD Hornets fire a salvo of HARMs at the MR-800 radar.
the Four F/A-18Es each fire two missiles.
The HARMS race toward their targets at 2000 kts. They will reach the Cruiser in a little over one minute.
Unfortunately for the Cruiser, the MR-800 will not detect the HARMS until they are 20 nm away. A little more than 5 tenths of a second flight time.

The AK-630 performs very well, shooting down 90% of the supersonic missiles. But one is all it takes and the HARM explodes above the MR-800 radar mast, shredding the antennas and blinding the ship.
Once the strike Hornets see the MR-800 disappear off their ESM, they begin launching their Harpoon Missiles at the last bearing they had.
As they loose their last one and begin to turn, the two Remaining MiGs jump the package. In the melee that follows, the MiGs down three more Hornets before being shoot down themselves.

Meanwhile, 48 harpoon missiles are streaking their way to the Russian CVBG.

The Russian Commander orders his two destroyers to light up their radars, knowing that the Hornets were well within launch range and expecting to be on the receiving end of a missile strike at any time.

>>740217
The Sovremmenys can fire 6 SA-N-7s a minute, and the Harpoons will take 3 minutes to reach their targets. The two DDGs can fire 36 missiles. Lets say that the Russians missiles are 75% effective killing 27 Harpoons.
The Harpoons turn on their seekers and begin to look for the target that most closely matches the criteria set before launch. And lets say that 50% go for the massive return of the carrier, and the others go for the escorts.
The Carriers point defense system has 4 tenths of a second engagement time. Enough time to shoot down 8 of the incoming Harpoons.
Of the remaining 13, four fail to fuse or strike the target, leaving nine harpoons hitting the carrier.
That probably will not sink her, the damage will probably render her combat ineffective for a day or more and may even require yard time to be effective again.

During which time the CSG can strike again as she limps to port.

The CSG lost a whole squadrons worth of Aircraft and men, 13 F/A-18E.

The Russians lost a 10 MiG-29K, a carrier and at least two of her escorts, depending on how the other half of the surviving harpoons targeted themselves.

So thats CSG vs Russian CVBG.

uh, can we archive the time a fucking rear admiral magically showed up on 4chan?

>>740244
I think this a a tripfag named policywonk.
Ive seen him on /k/ posting things like this.

In the era of Computer controlled flight, GPS, and supersonic cruise there are only two kinds of ships. Submarines and targets.

>>740351
Because we all know carriers travel alone without any kind of specialized support ships designed to counter subs and missiles.

mmm, yes, I can really see how some Battle ships could come in handy in landlocked Afghanistan. Or gaining the support of Iraqis.

>>740425
no iraq, no problem.

>>740425
Taliban be needin' a LOT of car bombs...

In b4 - in b4.

If we really wanted to cause as much indiscriminate damage as possible we would simply use nuclear weapons.

>>740222
>>740217
>>740210
>>740203
>>740198
So basically, even with the Russian gear out performing the American gear, the Russians STILL lose?

So are you purposely over performing the Russian gear?

Problem, China?

>>740950
Yes.
That way its not a question of the individual weapon systems capability, but rather the employment of those systems that effects the outcome.

Obama spent almost a trillion dollars in one month.

Best korea has the torpedo.

>>740997
So if the Russian equipment was equal to the US the outcome would be even worse for the Russians?

Self-destructing turrets!
Fuck YEAH!!!!

God, I can't stand these missilefags. They seem to have no comprehension of the fact that you need boats on the water, and troops on the ground, to properly control an area. All the missiles in the world wouldn't make warships obsolete.

Also, submarines are immune to missile spam.

>>737085
Best thing ever to come out of IOWA

>>742490
>>742490
>>742490
>>742490
>>742490
this

>>737085
The Iowas are as cool as hell, but the big guns have a range of only about 20 miles. Aircraft mounted bombs and missiles are far more accurate, and at a much greater distance. Pearl Harbor, the destruction of the Prince of Wales and Repulse, and Yamato and Musashi showed the heavily armored, cool as hell battlewagon to be obsolete.

>>737105
Exocet would not even scratch the hull of an IOWA. Armored belt over 12 inches thick, designed to resist 2,000 pound high explosive shells fired by other battleships.

>>742899
>Implying an EXOCET can't hit a ship's superstructure.

>>742967
Implying that a hit to the superstructure would sink a battleship.

>>742967
Um, you know, the conning tower and decks are also armored. The ship also has a good firefighting system. An exocet is only effective against modern ships, which have virtually no armor.

American armour makes great target practice for British subs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Phoenix_(CL-46)#Post-War

>>743057
>Implying you need to sink a battleship to render it a non-threat.

>>743074
Name a modern warship loaded down with 16" shells.

Remember HMS Hood or USS Arizona? These things are powderkegs, I don't care how good your firefighting system is.

The last naval triumph will be the rail gun. It will be put on a cruiser and called a "super cruiser" or something of the like. It will support ground troops inland. blah blah blah. But after that i don't see any big naval guns in the future. The main functions of ships today are cruise missiles, and anti missile systems...

>>743153
The Hood? Battlecruiser, not a battleship. Destroyed because a shell penetrated a lightly armored magazine containing hundreds of 5 inch shells. Arizona was hit by an armor piercing shell dropped by a dive bomber, penetrating a 2 inch deck and hitting a magazine. Iowa class has two six inch thick armored decks, total of 12 inches. Battleships are not unsinkable, but the guy who said an exocet could sink an Iowa was full of shit. The Yamato and musashi were sunk by air attack, they had 18 inch thick armor belt, but each took about a dozen torpedo hits and a dozen heavy bomb hits. Iowas also had phalanx system to defeat missiles, specifically anti ship missiles like an exocet.

>>743226

Have you missed the development of bunker buster bombs? There are no capital ships that can survive a spectrum assault. They even have a ballistic missile that can destroy a carrier now. The giant hole in the ocean where you throw money is a dead issue.

>>743256
Did you read what I wrote? I said that battleships are not unsinkable. I also said that they could not be sunk by an exocet. A bunker buster bomb is not an exocet. You are a true moron, it is obvious that a number of bombs or a nuke could sink a battleship. Learn to read before trying to argue.

>>743256
Have you missed the development of nucear bombs and missiles? The planes on carriers can carry them. All surface ships and submarines fire missiles, including nuclear. Any nation that attempted to launch a ballistic missile attack on our fleet would disappear from the face of the earth no more than a few minutes later.

Fuck, I love this thread!!!

>>743489
Seconded.
My great-uncle served, USN during WW2, Pacific Theatre. He let me read through his old issues of Jane's Navy International when I was a kid. About fifteen years of classic Cold War shit.
Keep this thread afloat!

>my face when this thread is over a day old

>>743575
>7AM Monday to 9:20PM Monday
>A day

This thread is hilarious. Most Battlechips, Destroyers, and Cruisers are equipped with missle defense systems and flak cannons to shoot down a majority of missles and they always escort Aircraft Carriers. It is still possible to take these warships down, but good luck trying. Soon with the militarization of lasers, missles will be something can be easily defended against. There will always be room and use in the military for Cruisers, Aircraft Carriers, Destroyers, and Battleships. However, the age of convential engagements between Battleships is over. These days, they are used for support, detterence, and artillary.