News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Japan to buy at least 20 more F-35A stealth fighters by badosu on Wednesday February 21, 2018 @01:20PM (#16431599)
Assuming there are no capable laser and railgun interceptors deployed and detection/jamming tolerance, probably ASBMs [0].

Or ASMs [1] if carrier air or seaspace is breached, carriers are heavily escorted though.

If nuclear deterrence (god forbid) is broken, then I guess aircraft carriers are pretty much sitting ducks.

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ship_ballistic_missile

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ship_missile

Re:Japan to buy at least 20 more F-35A stealth fighters by weberc2 on Wednesday February 21, 2018 @01:34PM (#16431723)
Even without nuclear weapons, I've got to think that countermeasures are easily overwhelmed, and the cost of a few dozen long-range anti-carrier missiles must be negligible compared to the advantage of incapacitating a carrier (at least for a top-tier adversary like China or Russia), right?
Re:Japan to buy at least 20 more F-35A stealth fighters by AnimalMuppet on Wednesday February 21, 2018 @03:33PM (#16432726)
I'm not sure. Throwing a few dozen missiles from long range against a carrier group, complete with airplanes, may not work very well. They'll have a few dozen fighters, multiple Phalanx guns, shipboard missiles, and a lot of electronic counter-attacks. I think they will only be "easily" overwhelmed if they've got an attack method that is hard for the carrier group to counterattack. That is harder than it looks.
Re:Japan to buy at least 20 more F-35A stealth fighters by weberc2 on Tuesday February 27, 2018 @08:43AM (#16473221)
I have no idea and I hope you're right, but airplanes and missiles aren't implicitly anti ballistic countermeasures. Certainly there are some anti ballistic missiles and fighters which are equipped with anti-ballistic tech, but I don't have any idea how effective they'd be in a barrage scenario.