What do modern naval tactics look like?

Depends heavily on what countries we are talking about. So what countries tactics do you want to discuss?

Macross Missile Spam

>fully-tenured professor at annapolis naval academy

>Fire missiles
>Fire more missiles
>Detect enemy missiles
>Counter missiles with anti-missile missiles
>Oh shit there's more incoming
>Missiles didn't get em' all
>Fire Countermeasures
>Still incoming
>CIWS activates
>Hope it takes out remaining missiles
>Either does
>Or does make it through and guts the fucking boat

Welcome to modern naval warfare.

Attached: 1566847034657.png (903x713, 326K)

How many sorties can a single carrier fly before resupply. Also do they have resupply ships deliver to the carrier group or what? The endurance of carrier groups seems questionable. Compared to WW2 pacific naval combat, where they had such a large number of carriers and ships, enough to challenge even land based air assets from Japan. Americas 10 extremely expensive carriers seem inadequate in comparison.

US: Satellites, reconnaissance aircraft and intelligence localize the enemy. It's attacked by submarine fired missiles or torpedoes and sinks. CSG forces follow up, providing ASW support. Missiles launched from fighters service any targets remaining after the subs are done and provide land attack. Land based antiship weapons and airfields are attacked by aircraft and sub launched missiles.

US Allies: Act in support of the US fleet, under overall US command.

Everyone else: Remain at port, under the production of land based anti-ship missile systems and land based aircraft. Otherwise: Sink.

>how many sorties
Idk but alot
>less carriers nowadays
Carriers today are miles more advanced in ww2 they did realize the importance till about midway through the war then shifted from battleships nowadays we know carriers win naval wars so they are much more heavily advanced. A single CSG can level a small country let alone 11 of them in total war

Didnt realize*

Depends. 100k ton US fleet carriers can support 200+ sorties between replenishment (and can run though that supply in two days). Smaller carriers can hold less supplies. Replenishment ships travel to the fleet and back to the world in a pretty much constant stream. They don't just load up with weapons and float there next to a carrier, supplies are planned to arrive when needed.

navy.mil/navydata/people/cno/Richardson/Resource/Design_2.0.pdf

SSNs having a field day.

The first one to detect, lock and fire missiles win. There is no more need for fancy maneuvers or ship formations.

>Americas 10 extremely expensive carriers
The US has 11 supercarriers and an additional 10 LHDs that, in reality, can function as the WW2 equivalent of a light carrier just + muhrines.

I like how early 80s naval anti-air was just shit.

Attached: time to panic.jpg (1024x685, 438K)

>Naval war isnt Kino anymore
Missiles and Aircraft were a mistake.

surrender

I am convinced that for all its technology the U.S. navy would be utterly incapable of performing in an actual war. Imagine a world where ships are constantly being damaged because they ram into cargo ships for no reason. Now imagine that a destroyer managed to actually crash into a cargo ship that was tied to a dock and thus completely immobile. All of this is evidence of extremely poor seamanship. Beyond that, you have issues like:

>The F-35B and F-35C still don't work and would not be able to carry out strikes against Chinese vessels in the event of war.
>The USS Gerald Ford is also still broken and won't be fixed for quite some time, assuming it gets fixed at all.
>The aftermath of the LCS boondoggle still haunts the navy like a malevolent spirit.
>At this point in time, the U.S. Navy has no MCM capability beyond a small number of extremely outdated vessels which would be unable to cope with the insane number of sea-mines which China has stockpiled.
>The marines are incapable of carrying out an amphibious assault against any target with actual strategic relevance.
>Pre-mature retirement of Iowa-class battleships and cancellation of Zumwalt destroyers means that the requirement for naval gunfire remains permanently unfilled.

And keep in mind, all this is just the tip of the iceberg. It ignores the multifarious morale and training issues which are taking their toll behind the scenes.

Attached: Billings.png (789x557, 388K)

Rooty tooty missile shooty.

Holy fucking fudd

USN ships are fucking everywhere doong shit all the time a couple fuck ups and they're incompetent says the brainlet. Yes it's unforgivable but considering the USN a paper tiger is utterly unforgivably retarded and I can only hope that the enemies of the USN share your thoughts.

holy shit this is the worst post ive seen all day

>Imagine a world where ships are constantly being damaged because they ram into cargo ships for no reason.

Ships are really damn clumsy and accidents like these aren't uncommon, especially with more active navies. It happened all the damn time in the cold war to both sides. The rest of your post is pure delusion.

>Pre-mature retirement of Iowa-class battleships and cancellation of Zumwalt destroyers means that the requirement for naval gunfire remains permanently unfilled.
This is the most embarrassing thing I've read all week.

Attached: 1568775007741.png (720x557, 592K)

Launch missiles and win.

Outrange your enemy with firepower

But user we retired the iowa ships a long time ago

Attached: ap_090911089838_wide-58102eebb732a70864dc08c1ff9321af5051b9f4.jpg (1400x787, 1.05M)

Based and accurate.

42681719
/thread

so what was/is the counter to nuclear missiles and torpedoes fired at a carrier group?

There is no counter

CSG are fast. To shoot one you need to know where it is. By the time you locate it you are already dead, because it has more tools to find and kill you.

A moment of silence for anyone left topside as your sub launches a retaliation salvo and crash dives.

The CSG is gonna sail into the middle of Siberia and take out a hardened nuclear silo before it manages to launch

Murica fuck yeah

In the half hour the Russian missile takes to reach the carrier it will have moved 35 kilometers.

Even if they tried to target carriers with strategic weapons, they'd fail and achieve nothing, in classic Russian fashion.

>Even if they tried to target carriers with strategic weapons, they'd fail and achieve nothing, in classic Russian fashion.

Naively hoping for the best is the pinnacle of American strategic thought. I guess we'll see what happens if there's ever a hot war.

>Russians have no effective weapons to kill US carriers and no effective reconnaissance assets to find them.

Yeah, that's blind optimism there. Eat Food.

based slut is based

Attached: IMG_20190919_000130.jpg (614x1230, 76K)

>use a satellite
or
>fly over with recon planes
or
>track sailors phone usage
or
>read one of a dozen blogs that reports on the positions of all US CSG 24/7

>high altitude nuclear blast above a CSG to fry everything with EMP
or
>drop a bunch of nukes in the general vicinity of every US ship
>drop a few more (there are plenty to spare)
>yousunkmybattleship.jpg

Attached: 8301_the_countries_holding_the_world_s_nuclear_arsenal_n.jpg (960x684, 210K)

How would naval tactics look for fleets without a supercarrier? There are some countries with helicopter carriers or carriers which have the possibility of carrying a small number of fixed wing aircraft, but nothing comparable to a supercarrier. However, even including this the vast majority of possible fleet formations are made up of frigates + whatever helicopters these may carry. And submarines are a whole other dimension.

It's the exact same thing, just less so. Less missiles and less jets.

No one cares about the helicopters in this scenario: their best use is either finding subs or staying the fuck out of the way. That being said if missile spam is already in the air my thought is that these helicopters have already failed in their one job.

Spamming the everloving hell out of planes and missiles while the carriers have an entire mini blockade including subs moving with it at all times for extra defense.
USN ships are everywhere and maritime accidents are not nearly as rare as you think. Hell Russia bricked its only carrier that already had lifesupport in the form of a trailing tugboat in fucking drydock, and the drydock fucking sank. For how active the USN is and all the retarded bullshit within it still performs pretty damn well, especially in regards to subs.
Take your (you).
Helicopters are mainly used for search and recovery as well as ASW, but regardless odds are they will be much more defensive. There really isn’t a country that could hope to compare with how the USN operates planes and carriers.

>There really isn’t a country that could hope to compare with how the USN operates planes and carriers.
They can mimic it on a smaller scale. For instance in the event that the UK and France for some reason were to get into a shooting war if their fleets met in battle you would see most of the same tactics of the USN just on a much, much, smaller scale. It's not so much that other countries are unable to use US naval tactics it's that they cannot approach the US in scale.