Let's face it....the day of big war ships is gone ...

[Hafar1014]

Anti-missile lasers are a fantasy. And probably the worst place you could even try to use one is at sea.

Israel and America have already deployed them successfully

 

[rightwinger]

Targets

 

[justoffal]

And no, missiles are not really any faster, more powerful, or more accurate than those we had 40 years ago. (This is a complete crock)
They most certainly are both faster and more accurate. Soooo you're telling me that a heavily clad warship has nothing to fear from any modern anti ship missiles? I dunno....methinks you are the one that needs to reassess the facts. You don't have to sink a ship to defeat it.
Also if this was even remotely true then why has Ukraine had so much success early on sinking Russian warships?

You are arguing with points I never presented.
The above statement would actually be humorous of it wasn't so sadly inaccurate.

I will defer to your obviously superior knowledge on the subject. You appear to have your facts from personal experience.

However carriers are not the invincible Valkyries you make them out to be.

Key Historical Data:

• WWII Losses (Total):Over 100 carriers from all nations, including 20+ Allied/US carriers
  .
• • U.S. WWII Losses: 12 total (5 fleet carriers, 6 escort carriers, and 1 light carrier) due to enemy action.
  • Last U.S. Carrier Sunk (Enemy Action): USS Bismarck Sea (CVE-95) on February 21, 1945, by kamikazes.
  • Last Carrier Sunk (General): Brazil's Sao Paulo (ex-French Foch) was scuttled in February 2023.

Causes of Sinking (WWII):

• Submarines: 18 carriers.
• Carrier-based Aircraft: 16 carriers.
• Land-based Aircraft: 5 carriers.
• Other: Non-combat, scuttled, or target tests.

Since 1945, some retired U.S. carriers have been intentionally sunk for target practice, such as the USS America (2005) and USS Oriskany (2006).

 

[Mushroom]

Israel and America have already deployed them successfully

No, they have tested them. Do not confuse the two.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

And no, missiles are not really any faster, more powerful, or more accurate than those we had 40 years ago. (This is a complete crock)
They most certainly are both faster and more accurate. Soooo you're telling me that a heavily clad warship has nothing to fear from any modern anti ship missiles? I dunno....methinks you are the one that needs to reassess the facts. You don't have to sink a ship to defeat it.
Also if this was even remotely true then why has Ukraine had so much success early on sinking Russian warships?

You are arguing with points I never presented.
The above statement would actually be humorous of it wasn't so sadly inaccurate.

I will defer to your obviously superior knowledge on the subject. You appear to have your facts from personal experience.

However carriers are not the invincible Valkyries you make them out to be.

Key Historical Data:

• WWII Losses (Total):Over 100 carriers from all nations, including 20+ Allied/US carriers
  .
• • U.S. WWII Losses: 12 total (5 fleet carriers, 6 escort carriers, and 1 light carrier) due to enemy action.
  • Last U.S. Carrier Sunk (Enemy Action): USS Bismarck Sea (CVE-95) on February 21, 1945, by kamikazes.
  • Last Carrier Sunk (General): Brazil's Sao Paulo (ex-French Foch) was scuttled in February 2023.

Causes of Sinking (WWII):

• Submarines: 18 carriers.
• Carrier-based Aircraft: 16 carriers.
• Land-based Aircraft: 5 carriers.
• Other: Non-combat, scuttled, or target tests.

Since 1945, some retired U.S. carriers have been intentionally sunk for target practice, such as the USS America (2005) and USS Oriskany (2006).

The Oriskany was suck as an artificial reef.


So no modern carriers have ever been sunk in combat and the ex-USS America had to be sunk by placing explosive charges placed on board because she would not sink after being used as target practice.

 

[Mushroom]

They most certainly are both faster and more accurate. Soooo you're telling me that a heavily clad warship has nothing to fear from any modern anti ship missiles?

Name a single one and how that makes any difference.

Absolutely nothing has "nothing to fear", but such a missile is not sinking most WWII era ships above a Destroyer because they have actual armor. As in 12 inches +, not the 2-4 inches of aluminum they have today.

Once again, you are simply making statements and not actually talking about anything.

The Harpoon is fractionally more "accurate" since it came out in 1977. But 90% is the same thing as it was almost 50 years ago.
The "accuracy" is in long-distance traversing because of GPS. But here's the thing, bubba. No missiles use GPS as primary guidance. It's a secondary checkpoint, used to verify their other methods of navigation (primarily inertial).

Oh, there are claims of "hypersonic", but here is the kicker. Those are just air launched ballistic missiles, and designed to be used against land targets. And they have been regularly defeated by land based air defenses. How well do you think they would do against the more powerful sea based air defense systems?

And you better get your damned facts straight, bubba! The USS Oriskany was not "intentionally sunk as a target". She was scuttled without a shot fired against her.

And come on now, the USS America? She also was scuttled! Yes, she was the targets of over two weeks of weapons testing. Where they detonated explosives against her hull to replicate the affects of various weapons including mines and torpedoes. But not a single one of those did any significant damage.

At the conclusion, that ship was also scuttled.

Good gods, you are actually talking against your own claims, are you even aware of that? You are making outright false claims, and giving no evidence or examples of anything to back up your claims.

And the one time you do try to present some actual data, you are presenting them so incorrectly that the results are completely the opposite of what you are claiming in the first place!

 

[Mushroom]

The Oriskany was suck as an artificial reef.


So no modern carriers have ever been sunk in combat and the ex-USS America had to be sunk by placing explosive charges placed on board because she would not sink after being used as target practice.

Almost everything they said was completely wrong. Including that two carriers were sunk by weapons.

Apparently they have no idea what "scuttled" means. For those from backwards locations, that means the ship was intentionally sunk by internal forces. Most times from opening valves inside a ship purposefully put there for that purpose, or with specially placed explosives placed on the hull.

The Oriskany has been on my bucket list along with Truk as places I would like to dive at someday.

 

[Mac-7]

The increase in speed, power and accuracy of the new generation of killer missiles pretty much eliminates threat of large sea going war ships.
Hell even smaller and faster ships are no longer safe.

Unless some comes up with a bubble field ( the power plant necessary for that would never float) .... No amount of defense can be totally effective against a multiple launch of dozens of hypersonic projectiles at the same time

Time to re-think.....
Maybe the new battleships all need to be submarines?

Jo

I think anti missile technology will catch up with offensive missiles

Its a game of hop scotch without end

 

[Mushroom]

I think anti missile technology will catch up with offensive missiles

Oh, it has already passed that. The air defense missiles have actually had the high ground in this area since around 2000.

At one time, missiles did not need to be very sophisticated. That is why those first generation systems were so effective. The missiles themselves did not have to be very fast or accurate, as there was damned little that could stop them.

Simply look no farther than the ship losses by England in 1982 to see that clear as day.

However, this is now a long time since 1982. Even then many were predicting what would happen to the UK because they did not have systems like CIWS. And yes, as a member of NATO they had been offered the system by the US. But they turned it down thinking it was too expensive and was not needed.

And since they there is also RAM, SM-2 and SM-3. Which can not only hit inbound targets like bombers and fighters, but also ICBMs and satellites.

And on the ground, the screaming of how invulnerable the Iskander and Kinzhal were has been brought crashing down with simple PAC-2 PATRIOTS. I still remember people ejaculating all over themselves screaming how those missiles were so super-awesome and nothing would bring them down. Then some old surplus PATRIOT systems they got from either Poland or Germany started shooting them down regularly.

Or even more recently, the attack on Al-Udeid by Iran. Every single inbound missile targeted was intercepted. Every single one. Which is not a surprise to me, as every missile the US targeted for intercept in 2003 was shot down also.

There is nothing "new" or "magical" about any of the missiles some nations are now starting to deploy. Although in the case of Russia, they made claims that were nothing special, nothing new, and it made no difference because they were still shot down. China has long been making similar claims, and most of us take those with a gigantic grain of salt.

Once PATRIOT PAC-3 was fully operational in 2000, the tide really shifted in the favor of defenses. And even more so now with systems like THAAD and AEGIS Ashore.

 

[Mac-7]

Oh, it has already passed that. The air defense missiles have actually had the high ground in this area since around 2000.

At one time, missiles did not need to be very sophisticated. That is why those first generation systems were so effective. The missiles themselves did not have to be very fast or accurate, as there was damned little that could stop them.

Simply look no farther than the ship losses by England in 1982 to see that clear as day.

However, this is now a long time since 1982. Even then many were predicting what would happen to the UK because they did not have systems like CIWS. And yes, as a member of NATO they had been offered the system by the US. But they turned it down thinking it was too expensive and was not needed.

And since they there is also RAM, SM-2 and SM-3. Which can not only hit inbound targets like bombers and fighters, but also ICBMs and satellites.

And on the ground, the screaming of how invulnerable the Iskander and Kinzhal were has been brought crashing down with simple PAC-2 PATRIOTS. I still remember people ejaculating all over themselves screaming how those missiles were so super-awesome and nothing would bring them down. Then some old surplus PATRIOT systems they got from either Poland or Germany started shooting them down regularly.

Or even more recently, the attack on Al-Udeid by Iran. Every single inbound missile targeted was intercepted. Every single one. Which is not a surprise to me, as every missile the US targeted for intercept in 2003 was shot down also.

There is nothing "new" or "magical" about any of the missiles some nations are now starting to deploy. Although in the case of Russia, they made claims that were nothing special, nothing new, and it made no difference because they were still shot down. China has long been making similar claims, and most of us take those with a gigantic grain of salt.

Once PATRIOT PAC-3 was fully operational in 2000, the tide really shifted in the favor of defenses. And even more so now with systems like THAAD and AEGIS Ashore.

Still the missile defense side can never afford to rest

 

[Mushroom]

In short, all of the "new technologies" that nations like Russia and China have been crowing about are actually all very old technologies. Ones experimented with and discarded by the US over six decades ago. But they through they would try them out because just maybe they would work where conventional missiles were failing.

And the thing is, they also have largely failed. One thing about the war in Ukraine, it has given the US and NATO a hell of a lot of great data on not only their defensive systems but the missiles Russia has used. Russia has even attempted "missile storms", as did Iran last year, and they have also failed. Russia is now using their missiles in places they believe there are no air defenses.

 

[Mushroom]

Still the missile defense side can never afford to rest

No, that is true. That is why the US has rolled out PATRIOT PAC-3 MSE. Just the thought a decade ago of doing a 12 missile reload on a launcher in under 30 minutes was laughable, it simply could not be done. At most we could reliably do an 8 missile reload in that time frame on PAC-3 (a 2 missile reload on PAC-2).

With MSE, not anymore. That is what has largely put the fear of "missile storms" to bed, as really nobody has enough launchers to overcome the capabilities of the newest systems.

Go back a decade, and a US PATRIOT Battery would have 36 missiles. 20 PAC-2 missiles, 16 PAC-3 missiles. But with MSE, that same battery if loaded entirely with PAC-3 missiles can have 72 missiles ready to use. And reload times are cut in half, as instead of 4 canisters in the old configuration that is just 2 canisters. Half the time to reload.

What we saw Iran do is what we knew they were capable of a decade and a half ago. They literally launched a "missile storm", firing everything they had within range as quickly as they could. And it did not even come close to overloading the defenses in place in Doha and Al-Udeid.

Of course, in reality they will not have all 72 loaded as PAC-3. As at least some of the missiles loaded will be PAC-2 missiles (specifically GEM-C for air breathing threats or GEM-T for ballistic and ABT). But even this I know is a stop-gap, as the Army is still working on a replacement for PATRIOT. Operationally (not functionally) that system has been obsolete for two decades.

That is why THAAD does not use the tractor-trailer model of PATRIOT, and why two decades ago the Army wanted MEADS to replace it. Tractor-trailer solutions were how things were when the system was designed back in the Johnson Administration. And how it was still done in the Reagan Administration when they were first deployed.

But today, because of miniaturization and advances in trucks the optimal solution is in an "all in one" vehicle that is mover and launcher both. And even as great as MSE is, if given the money the Army would still likely dump PATRIOT if given a chance and jump on an updated MEADS.

 

[Mushroom]

Oh, and two more caveats.

The configuration of a US PATRIOT Battery is six launchers. Either five PAC-2 and one PAC-3, or today with six PAC-3 MSE launchers.

But that is not the "ultimate configuration". That is simply because that is the manageable size in most situations for the TO&E manning level of a US PATRIOT Battalion.

The equipment is actually capable of supporting eight launchers. I have even taken part in exercises where the RADAR was taken out of service of one of the batteries (simulated failure or enemy action). And if that was to happen the six launchers assigned to it are then hooked up to the other batteries in the battalion. Either by physically moving them to another battery, or firing in place via radio. So instead of four batteries of six launchers each, it became three batteries of eight launcher each.

And if there really was a need in a major war, we had the configuration on paper to deploy with eight launcher batteries. We already saw in Qatar what six launcher batteries could do when faced with a missile storm (and there are only two batteries of six launchers each in Qatar - twelve in total). Imagine a Battalion with 32 launchers instead of the standard 24 launchers. Literally nothing else needs to change, since 1975 the RADAR and command van has been capable of supporting eight launchers.

Most people really have little idea of what PATRIOT is really capable of. That system was originally designed in the 1960s, and a hell of a lot of it can actually be operated manually and has so damned many redundancies that short of taking out every RADAR in the battalion is almost impossible to take out of action.

And even in the 2010s they were well on the way to linking it with Navy and Air Force RADAR systems. So even if the Army RADAR was taken out of action, it could still be used. Not unlike how the Navy and Air Force aircraft can now get guidance from AWAC aircraft. I remember working with that system in 2008 when it was first being played with. And in the almost two decades since I can only imagine it's almost ready for actual use.

And we were already at that time speculating on the applications. Keep the RADAR silent so the enemy would have a harder time locating us. Then when an attack comes, suddenly able to fire all of our missiles from an unknown location getting all the tracking data from an AWAC bird behind our lines. Then di-di mau to a new location as they are triangulating our location and scrambling a response. Or if along a coastline like in Taiwan getting the tracking data from Navy AEGIS systems (which are far more powerful than our own ground based mobile RADAR systems).

A lot of the limitations of PATRIOT is simply the fact the RADAR only puts out 300,000 watts. That is because of the limits of the mobile power plant. Meanwhile, an AWAC RADAR pumps out over 700,000 watts. And a modern AEGIS RADAR? Over 6 million watts.

All we have to power our RADAR is the EPP. Two 150 kilowatt diesel generators on a truck. The Army has long known the limitations of that, but it was only in the 2000s that the data link capabilities existed to allow them to work around that by using more powerful RADAR systems.

When Iran attacked us last year in Qatar, the world saw the response of only half a Battalion (two batteries). Now take it to the ultimate configuration. Four batteries of eight launchers each, using 700 kilowatt or 6 megawatt RADAR systems. And that is still just using PATRIOT, not even including the capability of THAAD (which has a 2 megawatt RADAR).

 

[justoffal]

Oh, it has already passed that. The air defense missiles have actually had the high ground in this area since around 2000.

At one time, missiles did not need to be very sophisticated. That is why those first generation systems were so effective. The missiles themselves did not have to be very fast or accurate, as there was damned little that could stop them.

Simply look no farther than the ship losses by England in 1982 to see that clear as day.

However, this is now a long time since 1982. Even then many were predicting what would happen to the UK because they did not have systems like CIWS. And yes, as a member of NATO they had been offered the system by the US. But they turned it down thinking it was too expensive and was not needed.

And since they there is also RAM, SM-2 and SM-3. Which can not only hit inbound targets like bombers and fighters, but also ICBMs and satellites.

And on the ground, the screaming of how invulnerable the Iskander and Kinzhal were has been brought crashing down with simple PAC-2 PATRIOTS. I still remember people ejaculating all over themselves screaming how those missiles were so super-awesome and nothing would bring them down. Then some old surplus PATRIOT systems they got from either Poland or Germany started shooting them down regularly.

Or even more recently, the attack on Al-Udeid by Iran. Every single inbound missile targeted was intercepted. Every single one. Which is not a surprise to me, as every missile the US targeted for intercept in 2003 was shot down also.

There is nothing "new" or "magical" about any of the missiles some nations are now starting to deploy. Although in the case of Russia, they made claims that were nothing special, nothing new, and it made no difference because they were still shot down. China has long been making similar claims, and most of us take those with a gigantic grain of salt.

Once PATRIOT PAC-3 was fully operational in 2000, the tide really shifted in the favor of defenses. And even more so now with systems like THAAD and AEGIS Ashore.

Nothing distatsteful about being proven wrong in this arena.....it's not my forte for sure but I will comment that the current batch of military info porvided by those sites that claim to represent the facts indicates constantly that we lose a war with China and that all of our carriers will be bottom bound in less than a day in an all out conflict. Who is writing that stuff and why? Is it the CCP? Iran seems confident enough in their UAV programs to threaten our newest carrier group....and our military is apparently paying attention to that threat. This is real time TODAY news.....however If what you are saying is legitimate then I am acutally quite happy to hear it...I have no interest in debatong the subject simply for debate that much is for sure.

The calculus of improving attack systems versus the massive target area of the average aircraft carrier is still an unavoidble
hazard though....nevermind military knowldeger or logistical data....this is a simple equation based on physics.

Excellent contributions and Kudos for coming forward with the actual numbers and the real history.

It's not that easy to find it amymore.

JO

 

[JWBooth]

The increase in speed, power and accuracy of the new generation of killer missiles pretty much eliminates threat of large sea going war ships.
Hell even smaller and faster ships are no longer safe.

Unless some comes up with a bubble field ( the power plant necessary for that would never float) .... No amount of defense can be totally effective against a multiple launch of dozens of hypersonic projectiles at the same time

Time to re-think.....
Maybe the new battleships all need to be submarines?

Jo

They do make damn fine targets, as the US powers that be are bound and determined to find out.

 

[Mushroom]

Nothing distatsteful about being proven wrong in this arena.....it's not my forte for sure but I will comment that the current batch of military info porvided by those sites that claim to represent the facts indicates constantly that we lose a war with China and that all of our carriers will be bottom bound in less than a day in an all out conflict. Who is writing that stuff and why? Is it the CCP?

Those are normally CCP fanbois.

Let me guess, they claim it's because of the DF-21D, a weapon that I have been laughing about for over a decade now.

One thing has to be remembered about any weapon developed by China or Russia. Any claims they make should be taken very skeptically, as both have a long running problem of lying through their teeth and claiming that everything they make is the best ever.

Take the DF-21D for example. That's an MRBM, that they have given absolutely miraculous capabilities to. It's a medium range missile with a range of just over 1,000 miles. Yet, they claim that they can land it right on the deck of a carrier.

To begin with, the CEP (Circular Error Probability) is 50 meters. Now that is not exactly "accuracy", but it's close enough to fill in for it when talking about weapons with a ballistic arc. And that means that half of any such missiles fired will fire within a circle 50 meters across.

The width of a carrier is only 75 meters. So right off of the get-go, you have a working CEP where the chance to hit is just a tad better than 50-50. But wait, there's more.

That CEP is against a stationary target, that is what every ballistic missile has been designed to hit. Logistics dumps, fortified troop positions, bridges, air bases, runways, things like that. Fairly large stationary targets where actual "pin point accuracy" is not really important. Ballistic missiles are not used to strike mobile targets unless fired in a barrage where they are trying to hit it like a shotgun would.

And to top it all off, what the hell are they going to fire at? No carrier is going to be just strolling up and down the coast in time of war. No, it's going to be way in the hell off shore, as in a couple of hundred miles off-shore. And it's going to be moving, just one of around a dozen ships.

How are they going to find it, be able to single it out to target just the carrier, and then hit a moving target traveling at 35+ miles per hour? And this is a ballistic missile, it's trajectory is almost straight down. And the target as soon as the missile is fired is going to know it's on the way so will make a radical change in direction and go to full speed. And continue to change directions.

I have long dismissed this for several reasons. First, there is a reason ballistic missiles have never been used for attacking moving targets. That's simply not how they work, the moment you fire one you're pretty much done. The weapon from start to finish is then pretty much locked in by physics. And at a descending arc of Mach 10+, damned near no find control can be done even if it was possible.

And then the most important aspect, how in the hell are they even going to find the carrier with that degree of precision in the first place? It is going to be way the hell outside of any kind of RADAR coverage. So where is this targeting data coming from? AI? Magic? I Ching?

Compare it to I give you a football, and tell you that you are going to throw it in a high arc so it lands inside of a fruit basket. But first, I'm going to blindfold you and erect a 25 foot tall wall in front of you so you have to throw it over the wall. Then I am going to put the fruit basket into motion, and making it make random turns.

What do you think the odds are of getting the football into the fruit basket?

Oh, and don't forget. There are going to be multiple other smaller fruit baskets trying to hit your football with shotguns. And the target fruit basket also has their own shotguns.

There is a reason why anti-ship missiles have almost all been "sea skimmers". It greatly simplifies your attack profile. Your weapon does not really have to be all that accurate, your target is "that a way", and you fire. You don't need to be highly accurate, just aim it at the believed location and let go. Once fired it is going to scan everything within range of the sensors (RADAR or optical). And once it sees the target, it aims for it. Such weapons only have to worry about "one dimension", if it's in front of it and within range the missile can hit it. Adding a second dimension like in a ballistic arc you magnify the odds of missing exponentially.

And this is a weapon with a TTH (time to hit) that is measured in 8-10 minutes. Not like artillery from our old school battleships which was measured in 20 seconds or less (at extreme range of 20+ miles around 40 seconds). And the CEP of the guns from an Iowa class Battleship? About 50 meters. The same as this missile.

And remember, the Iowa class ships were a lot closer to their targets, within visual range. And fired volleys of up to 9 rounds at a time in order to try and hit a moving target like another ship. And we are supposed to believe a single ballistic missile that can't even see the moving target is going to hit it?

And the PLA also wants you to forget about all of the destroyers in the area, who's only mission is protecting that carrier. All of which have SM-3 missiles, which are specifically designed to take out ballistic missiles.

No, this is the same thing we have seen China and Russia do for decades. Come up with some new idea, then claim it's the best thing ever. Sometimes not even realizing the idea is not even new, has been played with before and dismissed because of various issues.

 

[Mushroom]

Then there is the other wunderwaffe that both of them are screaming about, "Hypersonic missiles".

It's new! It's faster than any other missile! We are the first to ever deploy one! Nobody has ever done this before!

Here's the thing, those are literally just ALBMs. Air Launched Ballistic Missiles. They take a ballistic missile, and instead of firing it from the surface they fire it from an airplane. But once the thing is fired, it is just another ballistic missile. It immediately goes into a climbing arc, then falls to the earth like any other ballistic missile. The only real advantage is that the launcher is mobile when launching, so no need to have a launcher go somewhere then set up like the SCUDs that Iraq used.

But here's the thing, the idea is nothing new. All the way back in the Eisenhower Administration, the US developed the GAM-87 SKYBOLT. This is one of the weapons that the US considered using way back during the Cuban Missile Crisis.



Now the Kennedy administration cancelled the program after testing was completed and as Douglas was just starting wide-scale assembly. Because once the POLARIS missile was developed, there was really no need for it. But the idea did not completely die, the US gave the plans to the UK who developed their own BLUE STEEL air launched ballistic missile. A missile they then kept in service until 1970.

So no, the idea of a "hypersonic" missile is absolutely nothing new, nor is the ALBM. And the very reason that the Kinzhal operates "hypersonic" is because it is a ballistic missile. Almost all but extremely short range ballistic missiles are hypersonic, that is how ballistic weapons operate. It literally works in the exact same way as the SKYBOLT from over six decades ago.

And like so many others, they claimed that because of the speed it was safe from intercept. Which has been proven to not be true at all, with the large numbers shot down over Ukraine. Shooting a target is not all that complex, you predict when it is going to be within range of your own missiles, then fire before it gets there so the two can meet. About the only thing speed matters in is that you will only get one shot at hitting it, unlike multiple times with a slower target. But there is nothing impossible about hitting a hypersonic missile, the US has literally been doing it since 1990.

Now I have no idea where you are getting your information, but it sounds like those sources that make out everything that Russia and China produces is absolutely perfect. If you want some real information on topics like this, I suggest "Habitual Linecrosser" to start.





I admit I love HLC when he talks about things like this, because we actually share the same background. We're both PATRIOT guys, and did this for years for a living. You get people that are into World Football, or NASCAR, or Test Cricket. And at the drop of a hat they can drop on you all kinds of statistics or data on their favorite sport.

Those of us in the Air Defense areas, we do the same thing but we talk about our capabilities and the capabilities of our potential adversaries. We watch for new developments (ours and theirs), and compare them. After all, that is our literal profession.

Then you get what I call the "spokesholes". Propaganda pushers. Fearmongers. Fanbois. People that will not only take the claims a country releases about something, they then also often add in their own claims that are almost nonsensical because that is what they want to believe.

And if you want to know how seriously the claims of Russia and China should be taken, consider the various conflicts in the last several years including Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Ukraine. All of them had some of the best air defense systems exported by the Soviet Union - Russia and China. And in all of them they failed rather spectacularly.

Myself, I have about as much interest in "propaganda" as I do in "politics". I simply discuss facts, with real world examples. In fact, if you watch HLCs video you will see that he does the exact same thing I do when I make a post here. And that is go to Wikipedia for our data.

And no, it's not that we do not know many things we talk about. I can go on all day about the differences between PAC-2, PAC-3, GEM, GEM+, GEM-T and GEM-C missiles. What each will do, their ranges, and when to use one over the other. But the problem is that we know information that is classified. So in order to avoid ever getting somebody investigating us for releasing classified material, we use public open sources like Wikipedia. That way if we are ever investigated we can point and say "Nothing I said came from my knowledge of classified information, it all came from Wikipedia".

Go back 15 years ago, and I could have pointed out where every BMOA (Ballistic Missile Operating Area) of every fixed and mobile launcher that Iran had. I knew within 24 hours where they were located, how many TELs they had, the reload speed of the launchers, and how large of a salvo could be launched with what kinds of missiles and how long it would be between salvos.

But that was in 2009-2010. But here is the thing, not much has changed in the decade and a half since then. No missiles they have are really "new" when compared to the ones back then, and their number of TELs (launchers) has not changed significantly. Therefore, no change. That is why the same number of air defenses in Qatar were able to get the results we predicted back when I was doing the job.

 

[justoffal]

Those are normally CCP fanbois.

Let me guess, they claim it's because of the DF-21D, a weapon that I have been laughing about for over a decade now.

One thing has to be remembered about any weapon developed by China or Russia. Any claims they make should be taken very skeptically, as both have a long running problem of lying through their teeth and claiming that everything they make is the best ever.

Take the DF-21D for example. That's an MRBM, that they have given absolutely miraculous capabilities to. It's a medium range missile with a range of just over 1,000 miles. Yet, they claim that they can land it right on the deck of a carrier.

To begin with, the CEP (Circular Error Probability) is 50 meters. Now that is not exactly "accuracy", but it's close enough to fill in for it when talking about weapons with a ballistic arc. And that means that half of any such missiles fired will fire within a circle 50 meters across.

The width of a carrier is only 75 meters. So right off of the get-go, you have a working CEP where the chance to hit is just a tad better than 50-50. But wait, there's more.

That CEP is against a stationary target, that is what every ballistic missile has been designed to hit. Logistics dumps, fortified troop positions, bridges, air bases, runways, things like that. Fairly large stationary targets where actual "pin point accuracy" is not really important. Ballistic missiles are not used to strike mobile targets unless fired in a barrage where they are trying to hit it like a shotgun would.

And to top it all off, what the hell are they going to fire at? No carrier is going to be just strolling up and down the coast in time of war. No, it's going to be way in the hell off shore, as in a couple of hundred miles off-shore. And it's going to be moving, just one of around a dozen ships.

How are they going to find it, be able to single it out to target just the carrier, and then hit a moving target traveling at 35+ miles per hour? And this is a ballistic missile, it's trajectory is almost straight down. And the target as soon as the missile is fired is going to know it's on the way so will make a radical change in direction and go to full speed. And continue to change directions.

I have long dismissed this for several reasons. First, there is a reason ballistic missiles have never been used for attacking moving targets. That's simply not how they work, the moment you fire one you're pretty much done. The weapon from start to finish is then pretty much locked in by physics. And at a descending arc of Mach 10+, damned near no find control can be done even if it was possible.

And then the most important aspect, how in the hell are they even going to find the carrier with that degree of precision in the first place? It is going to be way the hell outside of any kind of RADAR coverage. So where is this targeting data coming from? AI? Magic? I Ching?

Compare it to I give you a football, and tell you that you are going to throw it in a high arc so it lands inside of a fruit basket. But first, I'm going to blindfold you and erect a 25 foot tall wall in front of you so you have to throw it over the wall. Then I am going to put the fruit basket into motion, and making it make random turns.

What do you think the odds are of getting the football into the fruit basket?

Oh, and don't forget. There are going to be multiple other smaller fruit baskets trying to hit your football with shotguns. And the target fruit basket also has their own shotguns.

There is a reason why anti-ship missiles have almost all been "sea skimmers". It greatly simplifies your attack profile. Your weapon does not really have to be all that accurate, your target is "that a way", and you fire. You don't need to be highly accurate, just aim it at the believed location and let go. Once fired it is going to scan everything within range of the sensors (RADAR or optical). And once it sees the target, it aims for it. Such weapons only have to worry about "one dimension", if it's in front of it and within range the missile can hit it. Adding a second dimension like in a ballistic arc you magnify the odds of missing exponentially.

And this is a weapon with a TTH (time to hit) that is measured in 8-10 minutes. Not like artillery from our old school battleships which was measured in 20 seconds or less (at extreme range of 20+ miles around 40 seconds). And the CEP of the guns from an Iowa class Battleship? About 50 meters. The same as this missile.

And remember, the Iowa class ships were a lot closer to their targets, within visual range. And fired volleys of up to 9 rounds at a time in order to try and hit a moving target like another ship. And we are supposed to believe a single ballistic missile that can't even see the moving target is going to hit it?

And the PLA also wants you to forget about all of the destroyers in the area, who's only mission is protecting that carrier. All of which have SM-3 missiles, which are specifically designed to take out ballistic missiles.

No, this is the same thing we have seen China and Russia do for decades. Come up with some new idea, then claim it's the best thing ever. Sometimes not even realizing the idea is not even new, has been played with before and dismissed because of various issues.

Here ya go.....

With first missile of its kind, China overtakes US in hypersonic defence: report

A big reason is the long-range CJ-1000, the world’s first and so far only operational land-based scramjet-powered hypersonic missile.

www.scmp.com

I'm glad that I had the interchange with you because it actually put me at peace and reestablished the some of my credence in our own military prowess.... But the internet is absolutely inundated with stuff like the link I just gave you.

It's constant and non-stop and little wonder why people develop inaccurate viewpoints of the true military standing.

Jo

 

[Mushroom]

The calculus of improving attack systems versus the massive target area of the average aircraft carrier is still an unavoidble
hazard though....nevermind military knowldeger or logistical data....this is a simple equation based on physics.

I wanted to circle back to this again.

"massive target area of the average aircraft carrier"

OK, let's look at that realistically. To start with, an aircraft carrier is not all that "massive". This is somewhere around 200,000 square feet.

There is around 28 million square feet in a square mile.

A Carrier and her support group will in general be spread out over around 10 square miles of ocean. That 280 million square feet.

And once again, you have to add in the almost insane factors like those targets are all moving in almost random directions, and you can't see them.

Oh, when talking about weapons like the DF-21D things for an attacker would be much simpler, if the Captain of the carrier was stupid enough to be operating his ship 10 miles off the coast and by himself. Then a 10 missile barrage would most likely have a decent chance of hitting the ship.

But that is not how the Navy operates. Outside of very selected locations like the Persian Gulf (specifically around the Straight of Hormuz), the carrier is in reality going to be something like 80-100+ miles off shore. If possible it will even be behind some geographical feature like an island so no how powerful the RADAR is there is no way to not only bend it so that it can see beyond the horizon (which they can not do), it also can not see through the island.

That is the biggest reason why such groups operate "over the horizon". Once an object is over the horizon (around 25 miles depending on height of the object), it's simply invisible.

Once again, this is "simple physics". When setting up a RADAR, a lot of care is taken into where we place it. First, always try and place it on the highest ground available. This is why back in the NIKE era it was almost always placed on mountaintops. That negates some of the curvature of the earth and extends the range. But only by a couple of miles, not by 30 miles unless you can somehow find a mountain that is a mile high right on the shoreline.

Then you have the effects of backscatter of the surface and the almost impossible issue of trying to decide which of the moving targets out there is the one you want to attack. I have actually been simplifying a lot of the problems, but another one that is well known is the backscatter of the water itself. For objects on the surface (land or water) it tends to make them "fuzzy" and hard to separate out. Even more so the more you add effects like waves.

But the most effective way to keep surface groups out of danger of anything land based is to simply keep your ships over the horizon. Because it is a simple fact that what you can't see, you can't hit.

And yes, I have talked to Squids about the expected actions of the Navy say if China decided to attack Taiwan. In the early phases of build-up and negotiation, the Navy like would have a Nimitz class carrier sitting between Taiwan and China. But that is only during the "pre-game warm-up" to a war as a show of force. Still over the horizon of China, as a show of force.

But once it got closer to an actual war starting, that carrier group would move to the other side of Taiwan. Leaving an independent Destroyer Group between China and Taiwan for early warning and air defense purposes. Meanwhile, the actual carrier is far to sea behind Taiwan. Invisible both due to distance but the island would be obstructing it.

After all, the range of an F-35C is over 1,200 miles. Why in the hell would the carrier be sitting between the island and mainland? It would not, even during WWII our carriers did not sit right off the shore and launch their aircraft against islands the Marines were storming. That was where the Battleships and Cruisers were. The Carriers were 50 miles or so off-shore, well out of the range of any kinds of weapons that could possibly be used against them.

 

[Mushroom]

Here ya go.....

With first missile of its kind, China overtakes US in hypersonic defence: report

A big reason is the long-range CJ-1000, the world’s first and so far only operational land-based scramjet-powered hypersonic missile.

www.scmp.com

I'm glad that I had the interchange with you because it actually put me at peace and reestablished the some of my credence in our own military prowess.... But the internet is absolutely inundated with stuff like the link I just gave you.

It's constant and non-stop and little wonder why people develop inaccurate viewpoints of the true military standing.

Jo

Yep, Chinese fanboi site, and locked behind a paywall so I can't even read their claims.

And here is something really funny. Do you know who owns SCMP?

The Alibaba Group.

Since 2016 when they acquired it, most of the international respect for them had pretty much vanished. It is almost literally a "Temu News Source". It is now considered to be simply another outlet of the CCP. No different than Russia Today or Press TV.

And yes, I still read those two outlets at least weekly (unlike once when I read them daily). And back in the day I also regularly listened to "Radio Moscow". But here is the difference, I know I have to take all of those with a huge amount of skepticism because they are mouthpieces for their government.

Just like every press site in Venezuela, as almost twenty years ago the Chavez government closed every media outlet in the country that refused to follow the government line.

And notice, I have not said you should not read such sources. Simply that you should read them with a lot of skepticism, because they are propaganda sites and as an adult one needs to learn how to separate out facts from propaganda.