3 ms·

> Nothing except nuclear attacks or another modern carrier group will defeat a modern carrier group in a single engagement. I have little interest in discussin

> Nothing except nuclear attacks or another modern carrier group will defeat a modern carrier group in a single engagement. I have little interest in discussing drone swarms (so does the article to be fair - a good two thirds are strictly about drones which could as well be by themselves) but this statement is simply untrue. It’s highly likely that a large number of sea skimming missiles would defeat a carrier group. So would a submarine intelligently positioned. The ability of a group to counter a strike from high altitude is also very questionable and let’s not mention the very real anti-ship ballistic missiles. Carriers really are a technology of the past for symmetric conflicts.

Pelic4n 4y ago
>It’s highly likely that a large number of sea skimming missiles would defeat a carrier group. I agree. But the only platform able to consistently engage a carrier group with this kind of firepower is another carrier group. Land-based artillery can be kept out of range or engaged using the force projection of the carrier. >So would a submarine intelligently positioned. Submarine capabilities are some of the most well-kept military secrets of the world. There is no way to assert that. In modern doctrines, they are mostly used for intel and as a platform for launching ICBMs, so I would really not bet on that. >The ability of a group to counter a strike from high altitude is also very questionable and let’s not mention the very real anti-ship ballistic missiles. That is true. Spamming ICBMs could work, and they don't need to be nuclear to defeat a modern carrier group :) >Carriers really are a technology of the past for symmetric conflicts. This is absolutely and provably false. No systems allows for the force projection that a carrier group afford. France was able to deploy & support an incredible amount of power from the Charles de Gaulle against the Islamic State. No other system could have achieved that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_aircraft_carrier_Charles_de_Gaulle#Operations_against_Islamic_State https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_aircraft_carrier_Charle...
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  There is no question that a modern offensive submarine could sink a carrier. Theoretically a carrier group should be able to detect it but it’s a very real threat. The exemple you give for the relevance of carrier is not a symmetric conflict. Thankfully the equipment available to the Islamic State was garbage compared to what a modern army can do. In a conflict between for exemple the US and China, carriers would be useless. They would probably be amongst the first things to be targeted.

Pelic4n 4y ago

>It’s highly likely that a large number of sea skimming missiles would defeat a carrier group. I agree. But the only platform able to consistently engage a carrier group with this kind of firepower is another carrier group. Land-based artillery can be kept out of range or engaged using the force projection of the carrier. >So would a submarine intelligently positioned. Submarine capabilities are some of the most well-kept military secrets of the world. There is no way to assert that. In modern doctrines, they are mostly used for intel and as a platform for launching ICBMs, so I would really not bet on that. >The ability of a group to counter a strike from high altitude is also very questionable and let’s not mention the very real anti-ship ballistic missiles. That is true. Spamming ICBMs could work, and they don't need to be nuclear to defeat a modern carrier group :) >Carriers really are a technology of the past for symmetric conflicts. This is absolutely and provably false. No systems allows for the force projection that a carrier group afford. France was able to deploy & support an incredible amount of power from the Charles de Gaulle against the Islamic State. No other system could have achieved that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_aircraft_carrier_Charles_de_Gaulle#Operations_against_Islamic_State https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_aircraft_carrier_Charle...

WastingMyTime89 4y ago
There is no question that a modern offensive submarine could sink a carrier. Theoretically a carrier group should be able to detect it but it’s a very real threat. The exemple you give for the relevance of carrier is not a symmetric conflict. Thankfully the equipment available to the Islamic State was garbage compared to what a modern army can do. In a conflict between for exemple the US and China, carriers would be useless. They would probably be amongst the first things to be targeted.