What would modern ship-to-ship combat look like?

Large, disaggregated formations mutually supporting eachother while still carrier centric with land based assets assisting the fleet

Attached: InsideOut-3.png (568x364, 467K)

That's probably the most likely scenario, starting off far apart. Though I could think of some like where geography forces the two sides closer. Or where it starts as posturing, the two groups sail closer to be threatening, closer, and eventually one side starts shooting.

carriers are useless piece of shit in naval conflicts. 10k crew members? What the fuck. With that you can operate 20 cruisers at max capacity.

It's about 2500 crew. The air wing doubles that.

The carrier hangs back and strikes distant targets, suppresses enemy air assets and keeps them from operating effective ASW.

Subs fuck up everything else ahead of the fleet and if trouble comes run back to the safety of the fleet. Mutual support is life.

Surface ships provide ASW and AA support, but are very unlikely to fire on other surface ships. They just won't be in range.

thanks pfg guy

Shitshow is right. I don't know how close tabs the Navy keeps on foreign warships, but guarateed it isn't enough. Remember you can't just shoot somebody without identifying the target (if they shoot at you, that is good enough.)
Plus you have the multinational merchant ships of every flag, and mostly the tax free flags, what happens to those guys? Not everyone has a track record of following the laws of war.

Blowing all your ammo on the first available target and being completely defenseless against the next missile corvette

Dongfengs scrubbing the entire island chain clean.

Intelligent mines destroying all hostile forces within the 1st island chain.

Chinese strikes against US fleet and airbases in the region.

Taiwan invasion completed after major alpha strike against ROC C4ISR.

America retreats in shame.

>dong
they knew what they were doing

twitter.com/OedoSoldier/status/1151127967281471488

>we are deliverin ur mom's dildo at incredible hihg speed

Ok Pajeet

That's an active fantasy life.

We know that's an empty transporter Pajeet. Go back shitposting on your Indian forum

Correction: It's a log transporter.

One that transports mammoth tree logs vs. normal logs

Attached: ZtT1z17.jpg (640x489, 54K)

This shit is huge.

And to think that bottom is also an ICBM with 12k km range... Is the DF-41 a Mars rocket?

missiles, lots and lots of missiles

oh and eventually lasers to shoot down those missiles

length and girth are optimized for maximum climax.

like this.

Attached: 1552308817050.webm (640x288, 197K)

Remind me again, but what tactical advantage does Japan get by being able to field two dozen F-35Bs on the water?

Aircraft carriers are the new battleships. There's literally no defensive advantage to having them at sea. Just a big waste of military resources, really.

They can now move their F-35B airbases even further into the range of Chinese missiles. Yay.

An stealth strike aircraft is a significantly more flexible and survivable platform for attacking a ship than a destroyer. On top of that, if you lose one, it’s a lot less of a big deal than losing a ship. This is why all relevant countries are investing heavily in carrier designs at the moment, just as the US has since the 40’s.

I wanna see how actual battleship armor holds up to those missiles, period HE shells could have bigger payload yet be insufficient

Attached: Design_A-150-Super-Yamato_IJN.jpg (317x315, 21K)

you're an actual retard

shooting off all of your offensive anti-ship missiles does not mean that you have no countermeasures left. they are two entirely separate things.

I will not be replying to any more of your fag shit replies.

Yeah, subs are pretty much king in naval warfare. Once you network them with data from naval surveillance satellites, they’re pretty much the ultimate weapon.

until when real war happens and navies suddenly stop giving two shit about not killing all sea life with sonar

Consider how it only took two Fritz X bombs to turn the Roma into scrap metal.

Battleship armour designs were based on receiving shellfire at a moderately shallow angle. That's why Jutland was considered an eye-opener. The shells were being launched from so far away that they started plinking down through the typically lightly armoured turret roofs, blowing up ships in a single salvo.

Armour just doesn't work at sea. You're dealing with weapons exponentially larger than what you'd find on land, and coming at you from every conceivable angle.

Attached: 2mhy2at.jpg (1500x950, 148K)

>submarines, a ship type that was rendered obsolete more than 70 years ago, is "the king" of naval warfare

imagine being this much of a cocksucker. just take a beat and try to imagine it. there you are, a normal person, and this huge cock suddenly flies straight into your mouth. you have no chance to avoid it in any way of all. suddenly this cock is jammed into your orifice and you just have to suck. so you do suck it, hundreds and hundreds of times, for decades, for almost a full century - an oral administration, without end. you SUCK and you SUCK and you SUCK. FOREVER.

there's no happy ending to this. you just pretend that this is all true, and normal, and real. then eventually someone proves that you're a faggot who has been wrong for a century and you're dead. nobody remembers you. "submarine" is not a word that anyone can recall. it's over. but somewhere in the distant past that no-one remembers, "submarine" was an excuse for behaving like an abject and utter cuck who was fucked over and over and over again for an entire century without end. everyone who was ever like you is remembered as a pliant subhuman piece of shit who literally urged their enemies to thrust their cock inside of them and nothing else. your only legacy is to be a receptacle for their opponents sperm.

doesn't seem like a great end. in fact, I - and everyone else who has ever lived - hate you, and hope that you are forgotten as quickly as possible. a mistake like you should never have existed and has only served as a warning to the remainder of the species.

Still mad about the Belgrano, are we?

>britcucks completely cucked the fuck out at the first moment they ever cucked the fuck fuck at the cuck moment of cuck, so, KEK - FUCK! FUUUUCK!

British "people" are not human and that fully explains Jutland. There have been many documentaries and books about Jutland that end in some sort of gay half-truth "it was complicated" fag shit but if you simply accept that the apes who live on the 'british' isles are subhuman monkey retards it is obvious why 1) The "royal navy" lost the battle and 2) """"""""white people"""""""" cannot create a lasting civilization of any kind

Where was there a ship-to-ship fight in the last 50 years?

Falklands, Operation Praying Mantis, sorta the tanker war. None of these were purely ship to ship, but neither will any future engagements.

I'm feeling "off topic" but "this user is underaged" is almost certainly true as well.

...except any battleship designed AFTER Jutland was well protected against plunging fire and, by extension, bombs. Iowa had an armored weather deck, a large gap, and then 6" of armor over machinery. Good fucking luck.

That reply doesn't mean anything. Sounds like schizophrenic word salad.

>any battleship designed AFTER Jutland was well protected against plunging fire

Completely untrue. Study the engineering diagrams of any WW2 battleship and you will immediately discover that this is not the case.

Falklands.

Apart from some brown-water navy stuff, I think the last 'actual' naval gun battle was the sinking of the Haguro in 1945. If you're a fan of fast-paced naval narratives, Winton's 'Sink the Haguro!' is a classic.

>every ship designed after Jutland

I made a point of including the Roma before talking about Jutland. The Littorio class was a good example of how deck armour, and by extension, the all-or-nothing armour scheme, wasn't foolproof.

The missiles both punched through the weather deck, crushing their way through until one exploded on it's way out the bottom, and the other (allegedly) exploded against the thinnest armour of the barbette below the waterline.

Italians are dumb though, compare the armor of the Littorio to the Iowa.

Battle of the Paracel Islands and some other Sino-Vietnam war in the 70s

Both had a 6" non-inclined armoured deck in the immediate area around the machine spaces and barbettes.

The Iowa-class may have had a more effective arrangement of armour, and undoubtedly better quality materials, but the fact remains that their armouring beneath the waterline was just as short-sighted as any other. The whole 'oh, it's thin armour, so it'll pass through without detonating' doesn't apply when the bomb proceeds to hit the bottom of the ship and detonate where the armour is its weakest.

Were the Iowa-class technical marvels ahead of their time? Yes, nobody argues that.
Were the Iowa-class invincible against a rapidly evolving manner of naval warfare that had almost entirely strayed away from gun battles?

Another two to add are the Indo-Pakistani War in 1971 and a few naval battles between Israel and Egypt in 1973.

You're a fucking idiot if you think you can hit a moving target with a ballistic missile at a range of hundreds of miles.

>AShMs are useless because boats can move

Attached: cringee.png (225x225, 12K)

Decent carriers have plenty of automation and a crew of 679 not including air wing with berths up to 1600

>What is an exclusion zone?

>AShMs are ballistic
cavedbrain.jpg

>what was Pershing II
>what is a MARV

Because having to locate the carrier is harderd than locating the airport, increasing survivability. Also you aircraft can no attack from unexpected vectors.

From what I know shipboard helicopters are mostly useful in ASW roles, but could they have a role in early detection of enemy ships? Why or why not? Probably a dumb question but please be patient, I'm autistic.

Attached: 1496317576271.png (682x461, 363K)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westland_Sea_King#Airborne_early_warning
Not as good as hawkeye, but cats and traps are for fags so we're stuck with this.

They don't have the endurance to stay up in the air as long as fixed wing AWACS aircraft. They're definitely useful for countries that don't have access to CATOBAR carriers, though.

That's interesting, I wondered what the Brits were using for their shipboard AWACS. Thanks.

>Cats and traps for fags
>Implying cats and traps arent the straightest most testosterone filled invention ever
I bet you like ramps you fucking degenerate.

NP. There was an Osprey variant in development, not sure why it wasn't adopted
web.archive.org/web/20110927052605/http://navy-matters.beedall.com/masc.htm

Of course I do! I bet you don't like having twin islands, weirdo.

quit being a pedant

B-based schizo poster?

why does every country but america's carriers look so retarded

Attached: kuznetsov.jpg (1200x594, 159K)

Poverty.

and ramps

How the hell did the Vietnamese even manage to lose against chinese copies of Soviet rustbuckets. It would make for some nice tabletop, though.

Falklands. And funny enough, they showed that similar to Jutland, large, unarmoured warships *cough* modern destroyers *cough* are godawful when they don't have the room to maneuver and will fall apart to even outdated weapons in those situations.

It doesn't
This is the correct answer.

Modern ships are pretty much mobile sensor arrays that can attack ground targets, nearly every modern naval battle has been aircraft attacking from long range or submarines
This is what modern naval warfare is
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_General_Belgrano

In 1 years when the Chinese EMALS carrier launches, all of AMerican carriers will become obsolete.
>steamed
lmao

Yeah, it will be an amazing home for China's zero naval aviation squadrons. The ship should also be pretty roomy and relaxing to work on without any air wing on board.

Attached: IJN_Zuikaku.jpg (736x479, 64K)

>moving the goalpost

Distinguishing between ballistic and guided missiles isn't pedantic in the slightest.

one second everything is fine, the next you get blown the fuck up by a hypersonic missile at Mach 10+

Ballistic missiles aren't going to hit a maneuvering ship. They are for hitting stationary targets or air bursting a nuke on a formation (which means getting nuked in return).
Naval warfare comes down to anti-ship missiles and torpedoes. Where the AShMs will be expected when the enemy ships are detected. Torpedoes are the bigger threat since submarines may sneak through the defensive screens, but launching one will make every ship capable very interested in killing the sub.

a better question is which ship is better to be on during a conflict. Carrier, surface warfare ship, or submarine?

Ballistic missiles and cruise missiles are two different beasts

south vietnam incompetence, but at least they gave the chinamen a good beating during the sino -vietnam war. Chinese as always claim victory, but it was Nam who actually won that war.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Latakia
for example (i know of it because my grandpa was on the INS maznek) + plenty of other missile boat fights later.

I like it, honestly it is probably the best looking carrier.

Nope

Attached: DarfU-TUQAAFW6Z.jpg_large.jpg (2048x1340, 340K)

cringe

Attached: nimitz class.jpg (4288x2848, 758K)

I'm not trying to argue if it's really a carrier or not, but either way I like it.

Attached: 1488092926531.jpg (1777x2000, 860K)

>Russian in charge of aesthetics
lol

Attached: beauty.jpg (4928x3296, 1.01M)

Oh yes, painting it light grey makes it 100% 'original carrier & air wing do not steal'

already being done by China.

>You're a fucking idiot if you think you can hit a moving target with a 16" shell at a range of dozens of miles.

What a waste of numerals. Kys.

You.
Dumb.
Motherfucker.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ship_ballistic_missile