Carriers are obsolete

That drone is stupid because it’s the size of a plane with no advantage.

If you want to take out a carrier you need drones that are small enough to be mistaken for birds, large enough to have the range and cheap enough to be mass produced to swarm.

The tech is fast approaching, they will be autonomous and spread out enough to be almost impossible to stop a few getting through.

The key is how to do damage without large warheads. They could go for the bridge, sensitive antennas, planes on the deck or sailors. They could use shaped charges, radiological payloads or anything else that could disrupt operations and butter the ship up for further attack

The first naval engagements of the next world war are certainly going to be a shock for a lot of people.

Carriers are great for buck-breaking weaker nations with little to no anti-ship weaponry.

Attached: 245680978345645.jpg (393x497, 32.45K)

>tfw the future of warfare is a bunch of dorks monitoring an AI as it sends waves of drones to intercept/destroy the enemy's waves of drones, endlessly requiring more production of drones and thus 'stimulating the economy'

Attached: Gerald wisdom.jpg (620x427, 83.74K)

Fpbp

>more cheaper

I think you are in the middle of the bell curve with that take. At either ends are people that know you can win wars without infantry.

carriers pre-date long range aircraft

stop taking meds immediately, you're correct

Russian hypersonics on subs have a 1500 km range. No carrier group can sub screen for that range. I don't disagree about the likely escalation to nukes, but I do suspect that this is the pathway:
escalation of war in Europe
some Russian ship somewhere gets wrecked by NATO naval forces
Russians respond by blowing the fuck out of carrier groups with hypersonics against which there is basically no defense
Nuke exchange

Prepare.

Attached: 1653155835530.jpg (500x391, 137.23K)

>more cheaper
Another educated user sharing knowledge I see

How does a sub detect and engage a target 1,500km away?

small drones go in first and knock out radar/point defense, then the big missiles from the cargo container launch platforms hit

Attached: iu[1].jpg (474x315, 24.85K)

Have you considered launching drones from carriers is also advantageous to close the distance ?

This seems like a vatnik cope, to be honest, as they're too poor to build a proper carrier.
Meanwhile USA, China are both building new fleets of carriers, UK recently built two, France is going to start building a new one soon. Hell, even India is planning to build their own carrier.

>your entire country is DEFCON Fucked in nuclear hellfire.
you are retarded

We laughed about their hypersonic technology, we can shoot them down if they attack a carrier group, it's a much easier problem especially given SBIRS.

More cheaper? Nice engrish chang

Cities are obsolete. A nuke is more cheaper than a city. Think about it for a second

Attached: 8373738836.jpg (1136x852, 200.98K)

Dumb nip doesn't realize how resilient carriers are in the past and present.
Well, if you exclude fucking Japan with their fucking terrible damage control teams.
Yea, Nips, I'm calling you out for your shitty handling of damaged carriers that were lost that wouldn't happen with the US Navy.

Except at depth they are in constant contact and communication with their space based and air recon, just like NATO assets. It doesn't have to be a sub either, depending on the location of the CG. Think of east med or the gulf.