Why does the USA have 12 of these? They get fucking rekt by hypersonic missles

how much in rubles though

>random retard thinks he is smarter than the pentagon
many such cases
how does this happen?
why are there so many of them?
why are these threads so common?
why do all these retards who probably couldnt figure out highschool math homework problem think they are smarter than 44 quadrillion dollar budget organizations?

but yeah any nation that operates satellites can track surface vessels, which should give advantage to submarines but idk someone much smarter is probably worrying about this already

>why are there so many of them?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

its a missile maneuvering at mach10+, maneuvering means it does not have ballistic trajectory so it can not be intercepted by contemporary anti air even if it is visually spotted
it also can not be tracked by radar because flying at such speeds creates a layer of plasma which diffuses radio waves, radars that work over the horizon have to bounce waves against ionosphere so those have 0% chances of tracking while short range is useless against the speed
rocket engine either uses nuclear fuel or solid fuel such as decilin, c16h10, its an air breathing engine so the range is practically unlimited in both cases
warhead, even if its kinetic it would generate enough energy to knock down city blocs but these days all strategic weapons have nuclear warheads

They will put railguns on them. The darpa guys probably have them already.

shut the fuck up worthless schizo mud

Corruption.

Different purposes.
Nothing is better for exerting control over an area than parking a big fucking aircraft carrier there. It's also a platform for invasion, which will only happen to shitholes.

Can you imagine the seethe if we put 2 of these between Taiwan and China?

Attached: 1645210204372.jpg (2043x2048, 294.88K)

>1 carrier in service, 1 in for maintenance and R&R, 1 in training.
>US strategic doctrine to being able to fight 4 high-intensity conflicts at once.

3x4 = 12

It's actually sub-optimum for purpose (and the US actually has 11) because making sure a carrier is continuously in an area requires 4, this is why the UK has 4 Trident Submarines so we can always shoot back. It's also suboptimal in the sense that carriers have different complements depending on the mission, you ideally want two carriers for an amphibious landing - one for air superiority and the other providing more helicopters and ground support. (Yes helicopter carriers exist but they're small)

Obviously the US doesn't really need that many at the moment because even 1 supercarrier has more aircraft than multiple nations but when it rains it pours - if the US goes to war with China in the late 2020s it will undoubtedly find itself in a crisis with Iran and Russia at minimum if they feel they sense opportunity.

>They get fucking rekt by hypersonic missles

Hypersonics are a meme when you have to both locate, overcome electronic warfare and pull off a direct strike (US carriers are stress tested with live explosives). People like to talk about satellites changing things but even assuming they're not immediately jammed, you can't run a satellite continuously and unless you have thousands they will need to be travelling on orbital periods over a given area - useful for a general sense of area but fuck-all good for live monitoring.

Killing a carrier isn't easy at all, the doctrine of hypersonic missiles is the same as submarines that really you're making the US think twice about deploying them close by and, if need be, actually destroying one takes an enormous effort across every battlespace but will pretty much win you a war against the US up until they chimp out and gorilla-rape you

Attached: Assbandit.png (396x385, 202.79K)

>>random retard thinks he is smarter than the pentagon
To be fair, after the disastrous (de facto) surrender of Afghanistan I'd say the average motherfucker is smarter than the they/thems in the pentagon.

The better question is why China, the country investing the most in anti-carrier defense, is also investing in six carriers.

>Obviously the US doesn't really need that many at the moment because even 1 supercarrier has more aircraft than multiple nations but when it rains it pours - if the US goes to war with China in the late 2020s it will undoubtedly find itself in a crisis with Iran and Russia at minimum if they feel they sense opportunity.

I should add the irony in this is that the US Navy itself once ran a policy of local superiority to the Royal Navy having recognised that Britain would need to have ships in every ocean. China is now embarking on a similar arms race while the US is trying to cut corners in its security doctrine using offshore balancing because it can't afford the position it once had.

only amphibious landing i can think of is dday
to me it looks like modern invaders dont use naval superiority, they use 3 day tourism visa and just enter legally, and proceed to organize a color revolution from there or out of nowhere all dress as 'little green men' all over crimea
al quaeda successfully invaded new york, also didnt need any naval power

these are the invasions i can think of: terrorists, cia/color revolutions, lil green men (crimea), all happened without amphibious assaults

For invasion invasions you want to launch aircraft off these things to knock out any AA and then send in the marines like the wars in the 90s and early 2000s