Let's face it....the day of big war ships is gone ...
- Thread starter justoffal
- Start date
justoffal
Diamond Member
- Jun 29, 2013
- 38,451
- 31,391
- 2,905
- Thread starter
- #122
Incredible stuff .... What a massive difference between someone who's able to present the facts such as they are in the gigantic pile of bullshit constantly being pushed on the net.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
Gold Member
SCMP is not "our media". No more than Press TV or Russia Today is. Or the BBC for that matter.
However, when it comes to military topics, I really do not "trust" our media either. Because the vast majority who report on military topics never served, never worked with military equipment, and know nothing about it. That is why I shake my head every time they call an armored personnel carrier a "tank", a destroyer a "Battleship", a Marine a "soldier", when talking about the F-35 fail to recognize there are three very distinct models, or a hundred and one other basic mistakes the uninformed make when trying to sound authoritative on something they know absolutely nothing about.
And when they know nothing about a topic, how in the hell can they ever be expected to be able to separate the truth from propaganda? That is why when it comes to things like hypersonic missiles being more maneuverable, most are outright wrong. Reporting what they got from a Russian or Chinese source, and not even trying to understand absolutely basic physics that actually prove it is the complete opposite.
There is a good reason why I recommend that people "vette their sources". In other words, check to see if they have an agenda, or are in fact knowledgeable about the topic they are writing about. For an actual source, a good first step is to look for their "about" page. That will give you information like their editorial policies. That will give you a good idea how they are going to slant their stories.
And along with that is what they are not saying. Take SCMP, nowhere on their "About" page do they even mention they are in fact owned by Alibaba. Oh, they talk all about how they were founded over 120 years ago, but not who owns them today.
South China Morning Post Publishers Limited – SCMP | Corporate Overview
South China Morning Post is a leading news media company that has reported on China and Asia for more than a century with global impact. Founded in 1903, SCMP is headquartered in Hong Kong, where it is the city's newspaper of record.
And for individual reporters, do the same thing. Look at their previous stories, and if possible their background. If they list themselves as some kind of "activist" and have a ton of articles about economics and how a President is destroying the nation, then odds are they do not have a single clue about the military.
And again, I do not say to not read those, but to keep in mind they are not really trying to present you with information, but to change how you think or understand things in a way to they hope follow their beliefs.
I am a strong believer in individual thought. To not simply believe everything you read or see, not even from me. I encourage people to take the time and fact check even what I say. To simply believe anything you are told is to be sheeple. And I encourage everybody to be the opposite.
Because in reality, I actually am about as moderate and neutral as you can find when I make posts. I have no agenda, other than passing information as correctly as I can and simply hoping that people look at it and then in the end decide for themselves. And I think that is quite often what confuses people about me. They are so damned busy looking for political angles all the time (and pushing their own political angles), that they assume anybody that dares to disagree with them is the "enemy" and has the opposite political axe to grind from their own.
Mushroom
Gold Member
Remember, most that are posting things quite often have an agenda. I'm sure you can tell the agenda of a lot of people in this area by what they post. Say Snitwin just to start, and on the opposite side you have Ringo. There are others, but those are clear example of people who post nothing without a strong political angle and should never be taken at face value.
One thing about me that is also very unusual in here. I absolutely detest politics, and never go into the "political" areas other than on the rare occasion somebody sends me a message where a thread has delved into something I am knowledgeable about. In particular, that is most likely to be something relating to air defense. Such as when Iran attacked Qatar not that long ago.
I also take part in the science and history areas. And that is about it, 95% of my posts are going to be related to military, science, or history. And if a new person pops up in those area and is talking a bunch of nonsense, good chance I am going to vette them the same way I do sources. If the vast majority of their posts are of a political nature and aimed in only one direction (any political direction), I am going to be far more likely to dismiss most of what they say because I know they are not going to be posting facts but propaganda.
To me, "Far Right" and "Far Left" are just two sides of the same coin. And neither should be trusted to give unbiased information.
Oh, and I freely admit I do have my own beliefs. But I try to actually keep things I "feel" or "believe" out of my posts. Even if something goes against what I "believe", I will post it because that is what really matters. Nobody should give a dam what I "believe", it absolutely does not matter.
A friend of mine about a decade ago stated I was a "militant moderate", and I am proud of that. Politically, I am actually quite a mess. Very much a "Libertarian" and "Classic Liberal" in a great many things, but also rather "Conservative". But do not confuse that with how most people who claim those titles, as I can guarantee I do not match their beliefs.
Last edited:
Mushroom
Gold Member
Well, they do have hypersonic weapons. That actually is true.
Of course, almost every ballistic missile ever made during the terminal descent phase exceeds Mach 5, so that makes them hypersonic.
That is why I laugh every time some new nation claims to have invented them. Of course, then you have the even funnier thing in that the video is claiming this is the Fattah II missile. And there has been no evidence that it's even real. There have been no tests of this weapon, and most believe it to be about as real as the Qaher-313.
I've seen more realistic movie and TV show props four decades ago than that piece of crap. I guess Iran does not realize that for the most part they are a sad joke, and nobody takes their weapon claims seriously.
justoffal
Diamond Member
- Jun 29, 2013
- 38,451
- 31,391
- 2,905
- Thread starter
- #127
But ...but....but...there's a picture of Ben Al Scimitar grand Mahdi in the corner! I mean surely this means it's legit!Well, they do have hypersonic weapons. That actually is true.
Of course, almost every ballistic missile ever made during the terminal descent phase exceeds Mach 5, so that makes them hypersonic.
That is why I laugh every time some new nation claims to have invented them. Of course, then you have the even funnier thing in that the video is claiming this is the Fattah II missile. And there has been no evidence that it's even real. There have been no tests of this weapon, and most believe it to be about as real as the Qaher-313.
I've seen more realistic movie and TV show props four decades ago than that piece of crap. I guess Iran does not realize that for the most part they are a sad joke, and nobody takes their weapon claims seriously.
Similar threads
