• olgas_husband@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      honest question doesn’t aircraft carriers serves mostly to bully small and underdeveloped nations?

      like, something that size and slow, seems like a easy target for any decent navy or air force

      • h3doublehockeysticks [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yes, but also no. They’re explicitly FOR someone with a “decent navy or airforce”. Against an enemy using conventional naval forces and tactics aircraft carriers are king. You basically can’t beat them with a conventional ship.

        Three dudes in a dingy with a death wish and a big enough bomb? It’s fucked. Or at least none of its fancy defenses will do shit, if they can get past its escort. The US navy lies awake at night scared of drones and cheap SCUDs. But they’re BEGGING for someone to bring a “decent” navy against an aircraft carrier.

        • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          ·
          1 year ago

          Also want to point out that this is almost all theoretical doctrine. There hasn’t really been peer-level fleet combat since WW2 so realistically we can only guess at what kind of doctrine and weapons work and which don’t.

          • h3doublehockeysticks [she/her]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            24
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            We can only guess. But every single thing the US puts out about its doctrine, about its capacity and about its plans are about how much they can’t wait for China to try to build a modern-but-slightly-out-of-date Yamato (For some reason) so they can do the pacific campaign but better.

        • Shrike502@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Against an enemy using conventional naval forces and tactics aircraft carriers are king.

          What do you mean by “conventional naval forces” here? WW2 dreadnought? Or something like this, specifically with anti-ship missiles to kill carrier groups?

        • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Not really true, Swedes of all people proven several years ago that even farily cheap conventional submarines can be very dangerous to US carriers, and lots of navies have those.

          If you’re going for a “decent navy” plan, there is hardly any better use for your money than ordering few Kilo II subs or similar.

            • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              We are not talking about any conquering here though. And btw you can’t conquer anything with a carrier either, it’s pure racket weapon.

                • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Yeah but also on very small scale since each LHA can carry 1687 marines without heavy support. And there are 9 of them currently, so using just them and other ships for support they can conquer some islands or make a shore landing at most. That make them also mostly a terror weapon, like the XV - XIX century raids colonizers did. Not a serious conquering like in Iraq.

            • huf [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              you cant conquer things with weapons, that’s not how you occupy/hold land. the only thing that works is boots.

        • WashedAnus [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          All you need is a lot of cheap, shitty missiles on a lot of cheap, shitty platforms. Three dudes on one dinghy will get got by the .50 cals, 25mm, and Phalanxes (they learned from the Cole in the Gulf of Aden). Lots of dudes on lots of cheap, fast boats with the cheapest, most basic anti-ship missiles will take out any modern surface navy ship. The IRGCN swarm tactics will work.

      • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, US military is geared for that, the fact revealed by the ammunition and supply debacle in the Ukraine war.

        Carriers are used for the good old gunboat diplomacy.

        And it’s not only even hypersonic missiles that are danger to them. Quite long time ago Swedish navy proven during the NATO maneuvers that competently used non-nuclear submarine can sink the carrier too. There’s also strange coincidence between Iran proving they have working supercavitating torpedoes and USN reluctance to sail the carriers into Persian Gulf. Btw NATO still don’t have such torpedoes too while USSR had them since 1977.

        • Shrike502@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Don’t they cope about those torpedoes with “oh yeah well they’re unguided and therefore bad unlike glorious USN stuff”?

          • h3doublehockeysticks [she/her]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            23
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Their cope about this one is that Iran doesn’t have a good platform for it.

            The thing is they’re not coping about supercavitating torpedoes on their own. Like I’ve never seen anyone say that’s bad or lame. The US DID try to steal the tech back in the early 2000s too. With most stuff like this the tone is a combination of pointing out the US’ superior platforms and “We can’t allow a missile gap” rhetoric to build hype for more military procurement.

            • h3doublehockeysticks [she/her]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              20
              ·
              1 year ago

              Like think about it. If you say the weapon is useless you can’t sell the countermeasure. So the weapon is good, but they can’t use it well yet… BUT ONE DAY THEY MIGHT, so you need to buy the newest raytheon/general dynamics//whatever toy.

      • Addfwyn@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That is the US’s MO for their wars. To be fair, that has been the vast majority of conflicts they have engaged in so it makes a certain degree of sense. They are the world’s playground bully.

    • MarxMadness@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      1 year ago

      The Ukraine War is showing a lot of issues with how the U.S. would take a fight to any peer country’s shores. Carriers have never been more vulnerable and there was that recent report about how we’d need to restart conscription to keep up with the casualties of such a war.

      If I were a State Department ghoul this would drive home the importance of having heavily-militarized vassal states who can act as a forward base and do as much of the dying as we can get away with. Hopefully that plan is becoming increasingly obvious to the people and leaders of those vassal states as well.

      • Shrike502@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        this would drive home the importance of having heavily-militarized vassal states who can act as a forward base and do as much of the dying as we can get away with.

        That’s literally what Ukraine is doing. So I’d argue the ghouls knew that as far back as 2004 when they did the Orange “revolution”

    • Munrock ☭@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      They’re never slow to proclaim that Taiwan is basically an “unsinkable aircraft carrier” to them, but still enshrine the sinkable aircraft carriers as some unbeatable game changer.