Military Planners Conclude the Gerald R. Ford And Its Fleet Could Be Destroyed ‘With Certainty’

[ABikerSailor]

US war-games have also confirmed the exact same outcome !!! And yes, I have been on several USN carriers.

Okay, provide links to US war games that confirm that exact same outcome if you can. And, what "several" carriers have you been on and in what capacity? Me? I was with a squadron on them doing actual deployments.

 

[ABikerSailor]

There is nothing magical or invincible about a "hypersonic missile". In fact, they are even easier to detect than others because for most of their flight they have to operate at a very high altitude.

And they can not operate "hypersonic" at lower altitudes. I mean, you are aware that hypersonic flight can only happen at high altitude, right? If they tried that at anywhere close to sea level they would burn up.

That is why the SR-71 could operate in excess of Mach 3. But it could only do that at altitudes of 26,000 meters (85,000 feet - 16 miles), or the air density would have destroyed it.

It's also why they had to make it out of exotic materials to be able to handle the speed. Even at high altitude, friction from the speed would cause the entire aircraft to heat up and start glowing at certain parts.

Also why they have to refuel it as soon as it gets into the air, because it would leak like a sieve on the ground, as there had to be gaps allowed due to the expansion of the metal when it heated up.

 

[Mushroom]

It's also why they had to make it out of exotic materials to be able to handle the speed. Even at high altitude, friction from the speed would cause the entire aircraft to heat up and start glowing at certain parts.

Also why they have to refuel it as soon as it gets into the air, because it would leak like a sieve on the ground, as there had to be gaps allowed due to the expansion of the metal when it heated up.

Exactly.

Hypersonic flight is not what most people seem to think. The biggest thing is that they can only operate at hypersonic speeds at extremely high altitudes. You are not going to have a "sea skimming" hypersonic missile, that is a complete contradiction.

In fact, even at Mach 4+ the thing got so hot that they had to create a special fuel with a high flash point specifically so it would not ignite inside of the tanks at hypersonic speeds. It was so "thermally stable" that is was also used as coolant and lubrication inside the engine, and had to be run through the ending as coolant in order to rea a high enough temperature where it would even burn as fuel. And because it is so thermally stable, it does not "boil off" at extreme temperatures,

And here is the interesting part, I tried to find the boiling point of water at that altitude. And was fascinated to find that the calculators literally broke down and returned the nonsensical figure of -14f as the boiling point of water! Quite literally if you put water at that altitude it would boil away before it froze unless it was in a pressurized container. That is how special the fuel has to be in order to operate at those altitudes and speeds.

Of course, that is why the "Russian Hypersonic" missile uses none of that. In fact, most people are completely wrong about it and have no actual idea how it operates.

Very simply, it is just a ballistic missile that is launched from an aircraft instead of the ground. It is launched from an aircraft, then climbs to a high altitude as if it was a land launched ballistic missile. It then enters a completely unpowered flight profile which due to gravity and terminal velocity attains hypersonic speeds. The exact same way that any other ballistic missile can.

And their claims of "accuracy" have largely been destroyed, as those used in Ukraine have been hitting targets almost at random. Apartment buildings, unoccupied office buildings, road intersections, and other things of no military value. This has caused their claims of "pinpoint accuracy" and "ability to hit mobile targets" into serious question.

And yes, PATRIOT and other air defense systems have been taking them out.

And even launching ballistic missiles is nothing new. The US back in 1974 actually successfully launched a Minuteman ICBM in flight from a C-5. But much like the idea of "hypersonic missiles" themselves, they never followed it up because ultimately it was realized it was a rather stupid capability to have in the first place. In the military, there is such a thing as "too fast".

 

[scruffy]

The technology to intercept or nullify these hypersonic missiles is.going to need to be invented. Regardless, the true life or death advantage is held in U.S nuclear subs.

Subs don't project force.

 

[shockedcanadian]

Subs don't project force.

They concern every nation, Chinas is no exception. This is especially.true when they are nuclear powered and armed.

 

[Mushroom]

They concern every nation, Chinas is no exception. This is especially.true when they are nuclear powered and armed.

But it is true that the do not project force. Fear is nowhere near what force is. Subs can project fear, but never force.

Do not confuse the two.

 

[Mushroom]

Subs don't project force.

Especially as by far, our "Nuclear Submarines" do not actually have "nuclear missiles".

We have 25 SSN attack submarines, and they are only armed with torpedoes and conventional Tomahawk as well as Harpoon missiles. The subs that actually carry nuclear missiles are our 14 SSBN submarines.

And at one time we actually had 18 of those Ohio class SSBN subs. But in 1994 it was decided that 4 of them would have their nuclear missile tubes removed, and replaced with conventional Trident missiles. Now granted, each of those is a potent weapon as it can carry up to 154 Tomahawk missiles. But that is still only 154 conventional missiles.

So in total, of our 43 nuclear submarines, only 14 carry nuclear weapons.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Yet China keeps attacking us because we are so weak.

Oh, wait.

 

[Batcat]

Aircraft carriers have had their day.

Just like WWII battleships.

 

[BackAgain]

Moscow and Beijing could be glowing in the dark, with certainty, too.

 

[scruffy]

No amount of Slavs and Chinese can defeat the United States.

You're an idiot.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Subs don't project force.

In WWII subs didn't project force. Now they do. With SSBNs (ballistic missile subs), SSGN (cruise missile subs), and even SSNs (attack subs) all carrying land-attack missiles, subs certainly DO project force today.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Especially as by far, our "Nuclear Submarines" do not actually have "nuclear missiles".

We have 25 SSN attack submarines, and they are only armed with torpedoes and conventional Tomahawk as well as Harpoon missiles. The subs that actually carry nuclear missiles are our 14 SSBN submarines.

And at one time we actually had 18 of those Ohio class SSBN subs. But in 1994 it was decided that 4 of them would have their nuclear missile tubes removed, and replaced with conventional Trident missiles. Now granted, each of those is a potent weapon as it can carry up to 154 Tomahawk missiles. But that is still only 154 conventional missiles.

So in total, of our 43 nuclear submarines, only 14 carry nuclear weapons.

Each Ohio SSBN carries 20 Trident missiles. Even without MIRV warheads, that's twenty Chinese targets vaporized times 14 subs or 280 Chinese targets vaporized. That's just the ballistic missiles, then add in the 4 Ohio SSGNs carrying a total of 316 TLAMs with conventional warheads and thing look grim for China. That's not even counting the B-52s, B-1As and B-2s all of which can carry land attack missiles and launch them from far outside the range of Chinese fighters or even detection by Chinese systems. China would face literally thousands of incoming missiles coming from different directions and aimed at different targets.

 

[frigidweirdo]

“He who defends everything, defends nothing”. The US and its allies can pick the time and places to attack. China needs to defend its entire coastline all the time. If China launches an attack against the US Navy, the entire world will turn against it and China’s economy will die.

Thing is, the US picks the opponent, and it's ALWAYS a weak opponent. The US would NOT risk putting the US navy anywhere near the Chinese coast.
Look at D-Day, they weren't that far from the French coast in the UK, even though they chose Normandy instead of Calais. From the closest place in the US to the Chinese coast is much, MUCH further, even from the Philippines it's a long way.

Why would you risk your fleet for nothing?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sorry, that makes almost no sense. Care to try again?

Sorry you can't understand. It makes sense. Try harder.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Subs don't project force.

Apparently, you don't understand what force projection (or power projection, they are terms used interchangeably) is.

Here...........lemmie help you out..................

Power projection - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Power projection (or force projection or strength projection), in international relations, is the capacity of a state to deploy and sustain forces outside its territory.[1] The ability of a state to project its power into an area may serve as an effective diplomatic lever, influencing the decision-making process and acting as a potential deterrent on other states' behavior.[2][3][4][5]

I suggest you re-read what AZrailwhale wrote in posts 72 and 73. Yes, submarines in today's US Navy are very capable of projecting force, as well as that is what they were designed for.

 

[Kruska]

That's not even counting the B-52s, B-1As and B-2s all of which can carry land attack missiles and launch them from far outside the range of Chinese fighters or even detection by Chinese systems. China would face literally thousands of incoming missiles coming from different directions and aimed at different targets.

You have a vivid imagination - I give that to you.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You have a vivid imagination - I give that to you.

You might wanna look up the capabilities of those platforms that AZrailwhale just posted. No, it's not imagination, it's reality.

 

[Mushroom]

Each Ohio SSBN carries 20 Trident missiles. Even without MIRV warheads, that's twenty Chinese targets vaporized times 14 subs or 280 Chinese targets vaporized.

But I don't see us using those as any kind of pre-emptive strike. They are a strategic asset and not one that is really useful in a conflict as they are for deterrence and not traditional combat. The LA and Virginia classes however are something completely different.

The only Ohio subs that would be used in a traditional war would be the 4 that had been converted to SSGNs.

 

[Mushroom]

Thing is, the US picks the opponent, and it's ALWAYS a weak opponent.

It does? When was the last time we actually "picked"?

In WWII, Japan attacked us. In Korea, Vietnam, and Kuwait it was because somebody attacked one of our allies.

And in 1990 and 2003 Iraq was hardly a pushover. They had one of the largest military forces in the world, and some of the best imported equipment that was available on the open market.

The US would NOT risk putting the US navy anywhere near the Chinese coast.

Of course not, that is stupid and there is no reason to ever do so short of making an amphibious landing.

Look at D-Day, they weren't that far from the French coast in the UK, even though they chose Normandy instead of Calais. From the closest place in the US to the Chinese coast is much, MUCH further, even from the Philippines it's a long way.

Uh, try less than 200 miles. Less than 600 miles to mainland China.

And obviously you forgot that the Seventh Fleet and Third Marine Division are both in Japan.

Why would you risk your fleet for nothing?

I guess you place no importance in protecting allies. I would hardly call that "nothing".