In the next war between major powers will aircraft carriers be turn out to be obsolete like battleships entering WW2...

user the ability to have a large robust mobile platform that allows you too drop tons of ordinance on foreign cities didn't go away, the platform from which that ordinance was launched changed.

What platform exactly are you suggesting will replace the aircraft carrier in that role?

>the ability to have a large robust mobile platform that allows you too drop tons of ordinance on foreign cities didn't go away
I doubt that. You can do it against African or Asian barbariens, but its not needed. Equal or at least Latin-tier opponent can smash these coffins with cheap missiles.

None. The advent of drones and high payload missiles did away with the concept of large, hugely expensive mobile sea platforms. The vulnerability and cost-efficiency of the concept makes them obsolete.

I think carriers were obsolete after the end of the Pacific theater in WW2. They were, and still are useful for political purposes more than anything, to the US primarily.

Yes

Hypersonic missile weapons exist as a anti-carrier weapon. Its not proven but math checked out.

We've been making "high payload missiles" since the V-2.

I bet you think infantry will phase out for robits too

Land forces able to volley missile fire onto a carrier battle group has already driven them 1,000 miles offshore. When ballistic missiles become capable of targeting them from longer ranges, they're really going to become a secondary platform, if they haven't already. It's too much money spent to only blow up mud hutters. 20 years ago, Clinton had 2 CBG's sail back and forth in the Taiwan strait, when the chinks were getting frisky. Nobody would dare do that today. Times change.

Battleships became obsolete because something else came along and replaced them. There is nothing out there that can replace what a carrier does.

This guy gets it.

the v2 couldnt be aimed at a moving target dipshit
an aircraft carrier can easily be destroyed by a missile salvo, a few computer controlled mini guns aren't going to save it

We've got computer controlled miniguns, smaller missiles, and now lasers. If anything I'll be surprised if missiles remain a viable weapon system in the future.

Once we develop world-range weapons, then they'll fuck off.
Drones need them, icbms aren't cheap enough, and orbital weapons don't yet exist, for now we still need them.

We already have world range weapons, our fighters can travel around the world from any airbase thanks to airtankers, but it turns out that having an airfield right next to the enemy for quick response is a fairly useful tool to have.

Who's we fagget?

>In the next war between major powers will aircraft carriers be turn out to be obsolete like battleships entering WW2.

Yes

>Possibly due to anti ship missile advances
>implying it won't be nukes

and none of those things is going to save an aircraft carrier from dozens of missiles

It wouldn't happen asshole. Where are these missiles coming from?

>and none of those things is going to save an aircraft carrier from dozens of missiles
What? Literally all of those things would save an aircraft carrier from dozens of missiles.

from dozens of miles away....hundreds even...or from a small destroyer....or from on land.....or from intercepting aircraft
FYI the navy has already pointed out that aircraft carriers would potentially not be effective against a real enemy like China or Russia

And then they get shot down by other missiles and lasers, if any lucky few missiles get through they get shot down by miniguns.

>Once we develop world-range weapons

We've had world-range weapons for a very long time. The first intercontinental bomber was the Boeing B-52, which was introduced in the 1950's. Back then, people were saying the exact same thing, that bombers like the B-52 would render carriers obsolete. Curtis E. LeMay and the Air Force seriously advocated for scrapping all the aircraft carriers in service to free up money for more bombers.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolt_of_the_Admirals

>Implying starship troopers esque nuke grenades aren't going to become commonplace.
Clean nukes are the way of the future.

a handful of computer controlled miniguns (aircraft carriers usually only have a few) aren't going to stop more than a few missiles....which would presumably only be in the minuguns range for 1-2 seconds before reaching the carrier
you can only carry so many small missiles, its not a thing that aircraft carrier currrently have
and lazers aren't proven to be effective against large numbers of targets either
maybe you need to google what a "salvo" is

AERIAL DRONE CARRYING SUBMARINES WILL RULE SUPRMEME.

Really grasping at straws.

>and lazers aren't proven to be effective against large numbers of targets either
So they'll put more of them on the carrier. Along with more small missiles and miniguns. It's a hell of a lot cheaper than the big missiles that would attempt to destroy the carrier.

The problem with this is that you're assuming that each missile is going to arrive at approximately the same time, when in reality, there is probably going to be several minutes (or longer) between each incoming missile. You're imagining a video game, rather than a real war scenario.

There is no country that can sink a deployed carrier in strike group today.

>a handful of computer controlled miniguns (aircraft carriers usually only have a few)
good thing every American carrier is surrounded by AEGIS destroyers that can intercept the missiles before they're in range of the carrier's CIWS

The idea that aircraft carriers will become obsolete is an overreaction. Funnily enough, because American strategic thought is prone to overreaction and overemphasis hey, maybe they will withdraw carriers entirely once they're done idolising them.
In any case, air craft carriers will remain super important, because air power remains super important, and aircraft carriers project air power over the ocean, over shipping lines and such. However, with the modern threats they face compared to cost, we might see a pivot towards lighter carriers in a supplementary role, rather than as the measure of a fleets power.

Even if carrier task forces can magically defend themselves against swarms of hypersonic missiles, they will get rekt by modern submarines. In the 21st century, there are two kinds of vessel in an blue water engagement: submarines and targets.

holy shit dude do you know what a "salvo" is
a 25 missiles could currently take out an aircraft carrier, there aren't enough defensive measure on them yet, laser haven't been implemented. If its supposedly a "video game scenario" then why is the navy and the fucking pentagon so god damn worried about it

>25 missiles could currently take out an aircraft carrier
This is under the assumption that you could launch 25 missiles at an aircraft carrier in the first place.

Why the fuck wouldn't you? These things have a range of thousands of miles and the Russians and Chinese stockpile them.

In the 21st century there is one kind of outcome, nuclear holocaust. Your shiny guns and ships will never see real conflict. They exist solely to project power in shithole countries.

If you launch them from thousands of miles away then that just gives the fleet plenty of time to intercept them.

it doesn't work like that, fleets dont have intercept capabilities like that...and what happens if its not thousands of miles away? what if its a handful of rocket artillery trucks a dozen miles inland?

>fleets dont have intercept capabilities like that
We got lasers and anti-missile missiles that can intercept before they get close.

If you park your Carriers right off the coast of hostile territory then you're a dumbass who deserves to have your carriers sunk.

Maximum range isn't the same thing as effective range. A missile might have a max range of 1000 miles, but unless you actually have the ability to aim precisely at a moving target at that distance, it doesn't actually mean that much.

How exactly do you plan on firing 25 missiles simultaneously at a moving target which might be as far away as 100 miles? There isn't any radar in the world powerful enough to track a target that far away.

GOOD.

Naval warfare is the realm of broadsides and the ram. Carriers are an abomination, they should be outlawed by international treaty.

I refuse to accept the results of any naval conflict until they get their act together.

Honestly guys future war sounds boring as fuck. Long range missiles, long range everything. It's kind of lame can we all agree on that?

doubtful. landlocked countries or countries with no appreciable naval power are at serious risk of getting BTFO by the swathes of ships that nest on these portable military bases.

Please name "these things" fag

Transcontinental missile is very risky since there's a chance people mistake it for icbm
ship missile based on those chink island would be easily detected and bombed

There is no surface to surface missiles capable of hitting a ship from thousands of miles.

Please fuck off. You don't know what you are talking about and have nothing to contribute.

Show me a video of a succesful missile interception of a mach 3 rocket

Chinese have mach 10 rockets dude

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21#DF-21D

Lasers travel at the speed of light, they can intercept a missile no matter how fast it is going.

If we're talking hypothetical weapons, then a railgun would destroy any carrier and there is no deterrent

Yes, which funnily enough means that the future of warfare will likely be aircraft and ship to ship combat via railguns.

>Railguns

Isn't it past your bedtime kiddies?

You should let BAE-systems know, they're apparently wasting their time on it

>he doesn't know that railguns already exist
Someone's been living under a rock

>ICBM's onbaord sensors doing terminal guidance on a moving target while going at mach 10

I'll believe it when I see it Chinks

The railgun project is dead, the government has withdrawn funding for it. The weapon requires far too much energy. It will never be practical for a warship.

businessinsider.com/navy-electromagnetic-railgun-will-likely-never-see-combat-2017-12

>After more than a decade of research and development and more than more than $500 million, the Office of Naval Research’s much-hyped electromagnetic railgun prototype is finally capable of flexing its futuristic muscles — but despite the swirl of science-fiction excitement surrounding the muscular new cannon, it will likely never see combat, Task & Purpose has learned.

>According to multiple legislative and military sources, insufficient funding for the railgun in the current defense budget will grind any meaningful progress to a halt, condemning efforts to R&D purgatory. As one defense contractor with direct knowledge of the project recently told Task & Purpose, underfunding railgun now would effectively render the decade-long supergun project “dead in the water” by 2019. “People at SCO don’t want to fund the railgun because they’re simply not buying it,” one senior legislative official with direct knowledge of the project told Task & Purpose. “They are imparting that priority on to Big Navy, which is pulling the money away from ONR.”

>Generating the electromagnetic fields necessary to accelerate a shell to tank-liquefying velocities without chemical propellants requires an energy farm or capacitor base significantly larger than what most Navy surface vessels can generate currently. Without actually mounting a working demonstrator on a surface vessel, sources say, the electromagnetic railgun could land in a “valley of death” between R&D and procurement that may prevent the ambitious, decade-long project from ever going to war.

The USA already has railguns in the form of low orbit tungsten rods falling to the earth. Also, the laser plane is far cooler, and there are already anti-personnel radiation laser weapons in use in the police.

A little sauce would go well with that.

rod of god

Drone development means that airplane carriers will just become drone carriers. That may make them slightly smaller or just able to carry more drones than they currently do planes. Don't see why that would make them obsolete though.

drones aren't suppose to be a replacement to aircraft. They're just for suicide missions. You could see them as nicer SMART missles

>ICBMs
>Relevant
You really think the three premier nuclear powers would be swinging their dicks around as much as they have been if they didn't have their defensive measures in place?

Eventually they might become good enough to replace air-craft. There's no reason why AI and machine-learning cannot develop a drone-flying program that is good enough to the point that fighter-jets, bombers etc are largely replaced by them and only a handful of manned aircraft remain for special bombing missions or dogfights.

It’s “rods from god” not “of god,” and I’m fairly confident we don’t have proof of a functioning version.

That's a theoretical weapon, no country actually has tungsten rods in space.

I swear you're the exact same poster as we have the exact same thread on /k/. OP is a confirmed faggot.

>nobody posted this yet

>tfw was on the Carl Vinson when Bin Landen was dumped overboard

Fuck that ship.

>"we will be shooting down salvos of missiles with our own missiles because we have these radars that can track them"

Refer to
No carrier ever goes alone anywhere

Yes, they use frigates/destroyers as meatshields.

>mfw the existance of a grand total of 5 (FIVE) shitty subsonicASmissiles had the entire british navy in panic

That's the entire point of a carrier battlegroup, to protect the carrier
The second they detect the missile they are gonna shit out tonnes of anti-missile munitions
And then scramble planes to rape whatever fired them

If it comes within range of a modern missile battery capable of volley fire, it will be destroyed.

If it is possible it is done. If it is impossible it will be done.

it's not gonna come in range you dense cunt
The entire purpose of carriers us that they are mobile air bases, they extend the already considerable range of modern jets, with an operational range of several hundred km and an entire supporting battlegroup dedicated to nothing else but the protection of the carrier
And pray tell, what moderns missile capable of volley fire exists today?

It better not come in range, you dense cunt.

Every missile battery is capable of volley fire and has been for some decades now, you double dense cunt.

Why are you young men getting so angry about boats on an anime forum?

THATS WHAT IVE BEEN SAYING FOR HOURS YOU FUCK A CARRIER STAYS OUT OF RANGE AND SPAMS PLANES THAT IS ITS SINGULAR PURPOSE, TO CARRY PLANES OUTSIED OF NORMAL RANGE

are you a sentient piece of osmium?

No way. They'll be used to be destroyed.

Kill chain nigga

>Dude carriers are such easy targets lmao

navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-031.htm

>boats

>2017
>doesnt have a railgun

>forum

Kek

The range isn't so far, there are plenty of radars the track well beyond 100 miles. The problem is the radar horizon prevents tracking surface targets that far.

There is a rail gun on DDG-1000

Didn't we make over a hundred mini carriers in ww2?