Are surface combatant warships useless or nothing but massive wastes of money at this point?

>please explain.
US warships are made to navigate the ocean and endure the storms therin, including hurricanes when necessary, strictly speaking a nuke is comparable to a hurricane, I have full faith the structure of the vessel would survive (mostly). The crew on the other hand will have to be replaced. The real question is who would waste a nuclear missile on a surface vessel, and what makes you think it would be allowed to detonate?

You don't think a csg would be a viable target for an air burst nuke?

well, considering the sheer amount of missiles you need to overcome ANY kind of air defense that ships have had since the 80s, yeah, a SAG is kinda useless.

we're at the point of naval combat where you either go big or go home now that anti-torpedo hard kill systems are now being equipped everywhere

Most warships are at port, ICBMs can easily hit stationary targets and while ships further away from the bast may not be sunk they would be rendered mission incapable.

>allowed to detonate?
Stopping an ICBM strike by a major power is not a thing.

People like to pretend that the Falkands War didn't show that even a second-rate air force could absolutely shit on modern destroyers, and in a real conflict they'd be at the bottom of the ocean within a week.
The ship might not sink, but you can bet that any electronics on board will be turned into inert copper which would cost more than the ship's worth to remove and replace.

why do you think MAD exist?because after a ICBM go full speed,it's almost impossible to intercept.
a icbm blast radius alone can render mission incapable an entire strike group,and maybe destroy the ship that it hit head on.
>go bir or go home
maybe railguns are not a meme in the end,and no battleships are not coming back,not with the current classes,they might create a completely new design.

The risk of escalation to MAD? It's like how the Russians always point to their silos as a deterrent for any physical problems. A battle the size of Jutland is gone. Leyte is something that can only happen once. And that island is already catering to China.

>why do you think MAD exist
Because our leadership holds their lives in too high a regard.
>because after a ICBM go full speed,it's almost impossible to intercept
Hardly.
>a icbm blast radius alone can render mission incapable an entire strike group
No it doesn't.
>and maybe destroy the ship that it hit head on
What a waste of a missile.

>and no battleships are not coming back
>no dragoons are not coming back

>The risk of escalation to MAD?
Of course, they won't do anything.
>A battle the size of Jutland is gone.
That's going to happen when no one else can challenge our size.

>hardly
what timeline are you living?the ones where they stop a icbm going FUCKING MACH 20?
>no it doesn't
again,do you live somewhere were the crew is radiation proof?
>what a waste of missile
1 missile to disable 3 or 4 ships?it looks like a good trade.

Attached: 1526573854537.png (200x350, 74K)

>the ones where they stop a icbm going FUCKING MACH 20?
Of course.
>do you live somewhere were the crew is radiation proof?
I live somewhere that crews are made of people, who can be replaced.
>1 missile to disable 3 or 4 ships?it looks like a good trade.
I've sworn not to correct the enemy that makes a mistake.

>be replaced
because you can just spawn trained sailors right?and enter a radiation infested ship.then they die and back to step 1-replace the crew.
>we can just send people to take out the radiation
in the middle of a war?
>of course
now i know you are memeing,thanks for wasting my time.

Attached: 1520251760655.jpg (670x489, 76K)

>because you can just spawn trained sailors right?
Yes, keep the well trained ones in reserve to train replacements, we won't have to do this often.
>in the middle of a war?
Yes.
>now i know you are memeing,thanks for wasting my time.
You're the one with no faith in countermeasures available.

Exactly, I don't think CIWS could intercept it, and if it would I would think its dangerous

So you mean to tell me that a nuke couldn't flip a boat over?

Depends on the tonnage/design.

You're damn retarded. The aircraft carrier would lose its bridge for sure, the planes on top, anything inside of the ships would be fucked and the carrier group useless for years. First they needs to replace thousands of men, second, replace any logistical things like food, water, ammo, tools, etc. All electrical components would have to be fixed. The doors would probably be flashwelded shut. I'm sure that a nuke could flip a surface vessel, especially if detonated at surface level next to the boat.

Personally, I think we could do with a few less fleet carriers, just role the escort into another squadron. Of course if we need to, replace what needs replacing and send it back out.
>I'm sure that a nuke could flip a surface vessel, especially if detonated at surface level next to the boat.
Depends on the tonnage and design, for a fleet carrier? Not likely, unless it is under of course.

similarly, a land war in Europe just won't happen for this reason also

Will America risk nuclear war with Russia if Putin invades Poland?

but would Putin risk nuclear war with NATO to invade Poland?

any surface vessel is a waste when the russians and chinese have hypersonic missiles that cant be intercepted.

>Y is a waste when X can destroy it
Then there'd be no war.

Carriers are the obsolete wastes of money.
Cruisers equipped with rail guns and hypersonic missiles are the current must have assets.

How are things fifty years in the future?

>tfw there's no actual proof they can't be intercepted

From what I've seen and heard hypersonic weapons aren't very good at maneuvering in low-atmosphere due to the enormous forces placed up on them; therefore, they have very predictable flight paths with little deviation compared to subsonic and supersonic missiles, this means as long as their speed is taken into account intercepting them would be relatively easily unlike intercepting a LRASM which despite being subsonic is small, stealthy, manoeuvrable and designed to attack in swarms. You also have to realise that all the currently fielded hypersonic weapons use ballistic arcs which makes them even easier to hit due to predictability.

Weaponised shitposting is officially banned by unofficially used by all state and non-state actors.

NATO has the guts to go into a nuclear war with Russia?

since 1949

Attached: nato.png (311x311, 195K)

bring back glorious anti submarine cruisers

Attached: jeanned'arc.jpg (794x570, 72K)

Attached: 1520457894739.jpg (2359x2900, 2.46M)

Attached: 1520071624808.jpg (2167x2779, 657K)

kiev looks better with the right paintjob

Attached: 1520035750442.jpg (1886x2734, 532K)

Better yet bring back submarine aircraft carriers

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_aircraft_carrier

try again argy and I'll fucking shag your mum

Attached: 1920px-HMS_Daring-1.jpg (1920x1256, 465K)

>title cut off
Why do Jews, Pajeets and Jungle Gooks always do this?

Not entirely true but very accurate. Some don't go hypersonic until the descent phase, but some 'pulse' the engine, the sudden slowdown of something going mach 8 can make something that was in a terminal homing maneuver (for kinetic kills anyways) have to reaquire target. The bugger pulses back on and the defensive weapon has to retrack the incoming missile. Unless it has gone past, then no fucking way the defensive weapon is chasing it down.