The fuck? That one is surely misunderstood…why would the carrier itself carry surface launched strike missiles?
LeroyoJenkins on
Meh, just strap a lorry full of drones to the deck and have a ball!
Frequently_lucky on
What’s the point? A carrier is always accompanied by destroyers, submarines and cruisers. Aren’t those ships better suited for those tasks than a specialized ship like a carrier?
Earl0fYork on
“”Carrier strike is already at the cutting-edge of NATO capability but much more rapid progress is needed in its evolution into ‘hybrid’ carrier airwings, whereby crewed combat aircraft (F-35B) are complemented by autonomous collaborative platforms in the air, and expendable, single-use drones. Plans for the hybrid carrier airwings should also include long-range precision missiles capable of being fired from the carrier deck,” the review states.”
Alright it made sense till the end now I’m just confused the review is especially vague on what long range means in this case
Silly_Triker on
So they’ve finally decided to put planes on the aircraft carriers? Nice
No-Programmer-3833 on
Since reddit has decided that it knows more about military strategy than the authors of the SDR… ChatGPT is here to play devil’s advocate:
****
Why Add Long-Range Missiles to Aircraft Carriers If Escorts Already Have Them?
Even though aircraft carriers are always escorted by frigates and destroyers with long-range missile capabilities, fitting missiles directly on the carrier adds several important benefits:
**1. Redundancy and Survivability**
If escorts are lost or out of position, the carrier retains the ability to strike back or defend itself.
**2. Increased Firepower / Distributed Lethality**
Adding launchers to the carrier increases the total volume of fire and spreads offensive capabilities across the fleet. It makes it harder for enemies to focus their defenses or attacks on just the escorts.
**3. Useful in Anti-Access / Area Denial (A2/AD) Zones**
In high-threat environments where it’s risky to launch aircraft (e.g., against advanced air defenses), missile strikes directly from the carrier provide a safer alternative.
**4. Aircraft Availability Limits**
Carriers only carry a limited number of aircraft. If jets are undergoing maintenance, grounded due to weather, or unavailable for other reasons, missiles offer another way to hit targets.
**5. Strategic Flexibility / Future-Proofing**
Missile-equipped carriers can act as powerful multi-role platforms, ready to integrate future weapon systems (like hypersonics or advanced cruise missiles) and serve in broader command-and-control roles.
—
TL;DR: Giving carriers long-range missiles isn’t about replacing escorts—it’s about making the carrier more self-reliant, survivable, and capable in more scenarios, especially in modern high-threat environments.
****
bukowsky01 on
Is that because the F-35 Bs can’t carry Storm Shadows or anything heavier? Aren’t the US ones able to use the LRASM which is in the same weight range?
Seems weird… put the large VLS on escorts and use your planes is what is usually done.
7 commenti
The fuck? That one is surely misunderstood…why would the carrier itself carry surface launched strike missiles?
Meh, just strap a lorry full of drones to the deck and have a ball!
What’s the point? A carrier is always accompanied by destroyers, submarines and cruisers. Aren’t those ships better suited for those tasks than a specialized ship like a carrier?
“”Carrier strike is already at the cutting-edge of NATO capability but much more rapid progress is needed in its evolution into ‘hybrid’ carrier airwings, whereby crewed combat aircraft (F-35B) are complemented by autonomous collaborative platforms in the air, and expendable, single-use drones. Plans for the hybrid carrier airwings should also include long-range precision missiles capable of being fired from the carrier deck,” the review states.”
Alright it made sense till the end now I’m just confused the review is especially vague on what long range means in this case
So they’ve finally decided to put planes on the aircraft carriers? Nice
Since reddit has decided that it knows more about military strategy than the authors of the SDR… ChatGPT is here to play devil’s advocate:
****
Why Add Long-Range Missiles to Aircraft Carriers If Escorts Already Have Them?
Even though aircraft carriers are always escorted by frigates and destroyers with long-range missile capabilities, fitting missiles directly on the carrier adds several important benefits:
**1. Redundancy and Survivability**
If escorts are lost or out of position, the carrier retains the ability to strike back or defend itself.
**2. Increased Firepower / Distributed Lethality**
Adding launchers to the carrier increases the total volume of fire and spreads offensive capabilities across the fleet. It makes it harder for enemies to focus their defenses or attacks on just the escorts.
**3. Useful in Anti-Access / Area Denial (A2/AD) Zones**
In high-threat environments where it’s risky to launch aircraft (e.g., against advanced air defenses), missile strikes directly from the carrier provide a safer alternative.
**4. Aircraft Availability Limits**
Carriers only carry a limited number of aircraft. If jets are undergoing maintenance, grounded due to weather, or unavailable for other reasons, missiles offer another way to hit targets.
**5. Strategic Flexibility / Future-Proofing**
Missile-equipped carriers can act as powerful multi-role platforms, ready to integrate future weapon systems (like hypersonics or advanced cruise missiles) and serve in broader command-and-control roles.
—
TL;DR: Giving carriers long-range missiles isn’t about replacing escorts—it’s about making the carrier more self-reliant, survivable, and capable in more scenarios, especially in modern high-threat environments.
****
Is that because the F-35 Bs can’t carry Storm Shadows or anything heavier? Aren’t the US ones able to use the LRASM which is in the same weight range?
Seems weird… put the large VLS on escorts and use your planes is what is usually done.