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

[Mushroom]

Let's go one step further - imagine a WMD-capable hypersonic missile capable of striking the US.

There already is one, it's called an ICBM. As well as a SLBM.

What in the hell do you think these "Hypersonic Missiles" are? They are not like a Tomahawk or Harpoon missile that operate powered on a flat trajectory. They literally are just ballistic missiles that are launched from an aircraft. Not much more sophisticated in reality than the V-2 or SCUD of over half a century ago.

And news flash, both us and the Soviets have been able to intercept ballistic missiles for over 6 decades now. So the very idea that nothing can intercept one is very wrong and entirely propaganda.

And yes, the claim of a "carrier killing ballistic missile" is exaggerated, for the very reason that I just listed. Tell me, how is China going to locate that carrier beyond the horizon in real time, with enough pin-point accuracy to hit it while it is moving. Because I can tell you the first thing the captain will do when the launch is detected.

Now detection is nothing special, and an MRBM will have a flight time of around 15-20 minutes from launch to impact, and be detected within 2 minutes of launch. And the moment that launch is detected the carrier is going to go from around 20 knots immediately to a flank speed of over 35 knots (the actual top speed is classified but most experts agree it is in excess of 35 knots). And also start a series of radical course changes.

By the time the missile is in the end of its terminal phase, that carrier is going to be around 20 kilometers in a random direction from when the missile was launched. There is a damned good reason why nobody has ever tried to look into hitting moving targets with a conventional ballistic missile, it is simply a silly idea that is in no way realistic. Ballistic missiles against fixed targets that can't move, awesome. Against moving targets, might as well fire a gun up in the air at an 80 degree angle and try to hit a person on a bicycle 100 meters away. Oh, and that person on the bicycle will be warned that as soon as they hear the gunshot to start changing their speed and direction to avoid the falling bullet.

The only way such a weapon makes sense is if it has a nuclear warhead. Then, even if it only gets close it is going to be doing some damage.

 

[SavannahMann]

And there was another major reason why in war games they concentrated on those targets. And that it was believed that the ships were safe from torpedoes.

Torpedoes are a major threat to ships, either launched from submarines or aircraft. And unlike ship torpedoes, aircraft torpedoes require relatively deep water in which to operate. That is because when they hit the water they first do a deep dive simply because of the speed and altitude at which they are dropped, in that era needing 150 feet of water (45 meters) or they would strike the sea floor. And the depth of the water in Pearl Harbor was on average no more than 60 feet (and that is today after extensive dredging, in 1941 the average was 40 feet).

Therefore the only threat they thought was from bombs. And not only are bombs more effective against softer targets like fuel and repair facilities, they would take less damage in striking those lightly defended locations.

And yes, they were aware of the June attack by the British at the Battle of Taranto. However, they also knew that in order to pull that attack off the British used the Fairey Swordfish, a biplane with a maximum speed of only 143 mph (230 kph). This made the dive of the torpedo significantly less. The Japanese on the other hand primarily used the A6M Zero, with a maximum speed of 331 mph (533 kph). So those examining the attack concluded there was a danger, but did not think it significant as Pearl was more shallow than Taranto and the aircraft Japan would use would be much faster so the torpedoes dive even deeper than those of the British.

However, nobody knew that Japan had been working for over a year at modifying their aerial torpedoes to operate in the shallow depths of Pearl Harbor. Therefore, in none of the war games was the attacker ever given such a weapon to use in the attacks. So instead they concentrated primarily on the shore targets like air bases, fuel and munition depots, and the like.

The logistics are always worth more than a ship.

If you destroyed the fuel at Pearl Harbor none of the ships would be going anywhere. At least for six months given the shortage of fuel tankers in the pacific.

If you destroy the dry docks and repair facilities, you make it impossible to conduct repairs, and ships have to travel an additional 3,000 miles to get damage repaired for at least a year, or even 18 months.

Instead of destroying a dozen ships, Japan could have bottled them all up for at least six months. They didn’t fuel the ships up when they arrived. They fueled them as needed before they departed in peace time. That’s why Enterprise had to come in the evening of December 7th. She was out of fuel and other consumables like food. Without the fuel, Enterprise would have been unable to make it to San Diego for more.

Some of the bombers should have been targeted at the repair facilities and fuel depot. It was a huge oversight to ignore those.

 

[easyt65]

The only way such a weapon makes sense is if it has a nuclear warhead. Then, even if it only gets close it is going to be doing some damage.

Why do you think these Hypersonic Missiles are called 'Carrier Killers'?

I have been briefed by the Navy, listen to USN commanders, experts , and planners. I was briefed because it was my job to know as a planner to know. These missiles are not the 'non-threat' you seem to be trying to make them out to be.

 

[Mushroom]

I have been briefed by the Navy, listen to USN commanders, experts , and planners. I was briefed because it was my job to know as a planner to know. These missiles are not the 'non-threat' you seem to be trying to make them out to be.

Name for me a single ballistic missile in use by any nation that claims it can hit a moving target that is beyond the horizon.

 

[easyt65]

Name for me a single ballistic missile in use by any nation that claims it can hit a moving target that is beyond the horizon.

Why only 'BTH'?

 

[Mushroom]

Why only 'BTH'?

Do you really think that the US would be operating carriers less than 20 miles from the shores of China?

No, they would likely be on the far side of Taiwan. Therefore unquestionably out of site of any targeting RADAR systems. In other words, they will be firing blind.

And yes, I know of RADAR that can see beyond the horizon. However, those are very "nearsighted" and are worthless for targeting weapons and are only good for threat detection.

That is why flat trajectory missiles are the weapon of choice. They only need a bearing on the target, and it does not matter if they are 5 miles closer or father away as the missile travels until it hits it. A ballistic weapon can not do that and can only fire at a precise location.

Ax much of an expert as you claim to be, I am surprised you are not aware of these basic facts. I would have thought they were very obvious.

 

[Mushroom]

Some of the bombers should have been targeted at the repair facilities and fuel depot. It was a huge oversight to ignore those.

That was actually planned for the third wave. Both Commander Fuchida and Captain Genda urged Admiral Nagumo to conduct the third strike. However, the relatively light casualties they had taken and the loss of surprise would likely have resulted more losses than he was willing to take so he refused and sailed for home. Especially as by the time the planes were airborne after refueling and rearming they would have been returning in the dark. And at that time there were few pilots or navies in the world experienced in landing on carriers at night.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Why do you think these Hypersonic Missiles are called 'Carrier Killers'?

I have been briefed by the Navy, listen to USN commanders, experts , and planners. I was briefed because it was my job to know as a planner to know. These missiles are not the 'non-threat' you seem to be trying to make them out to be.

Why only 'BTH'?

Really? You were briefed by USN commanders, experts and planners? And, you stated it was your job to know as a planner? If you actually WERE a planner as you stated, you wouldn't have asked "why only BTH", because you'd already know.

And, it's basically for the reasons that Mushroom stated. Carriers DON'T operate in areas where they can be seen from the land, they operate in deep waters, generally way out in the middle of the ocean (i.e. beyond the horizon), as far away from threats as practical. Why do they operate like that? Simple, because carriers have these things on them called "jets" that are capable of flying a couple of hundred miles to their target to engage the enemy. How do I know this information about jets and carriers? Because I was stationed with VFA-131 Wildcats (an FA-18 squadron) and was deployed on the USS DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER (CVN-69), and the USS GEORGE WASHINGTON (CVN-73), and have actual experience of how they operate.

For someone who was briefed by Navy commanders and claims to be a planner, you make some pretty ignorant statements.

 

[easyt65]

Do you really think that the US would be operating carriers less than 20 miles from the shores of China?

Yes

 

[AZrailwhale]

The US abandoned it.

'Nothing Special'?

Except for the fact that nothing (so far) has been able to defend against / intercept it.

The term 'Carrier Killer' is not exaggerated.

Let's go one step further - imagine a WMD-capable hypersonic missile capable of striking the US.

Iran has reportedly enriched its nuclear material to 80% - 90% is weapons-grade. Iran has also bragged it has long-range hypersonic technology from the sources from which the Biden family reportedly received millions. Even if it isn't Iran, such hypersonic missiles with no chance of intercepting / defending against is a threat to any nation's national security.

Both the Patriot and Standard SAMs can reliably target ballistic missiles. Standards can receive targeting information from E-2Hawkeye AEW platforms located far out on the threat axis.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Yes

Fleet carriers would never operate within two hundred miles of an enemy shoreline. Carrier aircraft are stand-off weapons. Even in WWII carriers never planned to be within a hundred miles of a target. When it happened, it was a screwup by commanders, or just bad luck compounded by poor planning.

 

[easyt65]

Both the Patriot and Standard SAMs can reliably target ballistic missiles.

Agreed, but they are untested against hypersonic missiles.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The logistics are always worth more than a ship.

If you destroyed the fuel at Pearl Harbor none of the ships would be going anywhere. At least for six months given the shortage of fuel tankers in the pacific.

If you destroy the dry docks and repair facilities, you make it impossible to conduct repairs, and ships have to travel an additional 3,000 miles to get damage repaired for at least a year, or even 18 months.

Instead of destroying a dozen ships, Japan could have bottled them all up for at least six months. They didn’t fuel the ships up when they arrived. They fueled them as needed before they departed in peace time. That’s why Enterprise had to come in the evening of December 7th. She was out of fuel and other consumables like food. Without the fuel, Enterprise would have been unable to make it to San Diego for more.

Some of the bombers should have been targeted at the repair facilities and fuel depot. It was a huge oversight to ignore those.

It wasn’t an oversight. The IJN was supposed to launch a third strike to destroy the fueling and repair facilities, but Nagumo decided the risk was too great since none of the American carriers had been located. If the third strike had done the projected damage, the Pacific Fleet would have been forced back to San Diego for at least a year while the facilities at Pearl were repaired/rebuilt. That means no Coral Sea, No Midway, no Doolittle Raid. The IJN could have run wild without opposition.

 

[easyt65]

Fleet carriers would never operate within two hundred miles of an enemy shoreline.

You do realize US carriers transmitted the Straight of Hormuz all the time until a few years ago, right, until we explained that even if the US destroyed Iran for doing so they would claim 'victory' for sinking a US carrier in the straight?!

Given, US carriers operate further out, but when you have a hypersonic missiles that can reach out and touch them, how far out they are isn't guaranteed protection.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Agreed, but they are untested against hypersonic missiles.

Hypersonic missiles are nothing but ballistic missiles.

 

[AZrailwhale]

On

You do realize US carriers transmitted the Straight of Hormuz all the time until a few years ago, right, until we explained that even if the US destroyed Iran for doing so they would claim 'victory' for sinking a US carrier in the straight?!

Given, US carriers operate further out, but when you have a hypersonic missiles that can reach out and touch them, how far out they are isn't guaranteed protection.
One, it was peacetime and two, Iran’s silkworms were no threat to modern warships.

 

[AZrailwhale]

You do realize US carriers transmitted the Straight of Hormuz all the time until a few years ago, right, until we explained that even if the US destroyed Iran for doing so they would claim 'victory' for sinking a US carrier in the straight?!

Given, US carriers operate further out, but when you have a hypersonic missiles that can reach out and touch them, how far out they are isn't guaranteed protection.

You can’t hit what you cant find.

 

[Flash]

We can speculate on this and that.

However, the bottom line is that the US has the strongest military in the world and anybody that goes up against it is going to have a very bad day.

Our weak and stupid political leaders, like this Potatohead idiot, can give a victory away but if unleased the US military is a mighty force.

 

[easyt65]

Hypersonic missiles are nothing but ballistic missiles.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You do realize US carriers transmitted the Straight of Hormuz all the time until a few years ago, right, until we explained that even if the US destroyed Iran for doing so they would claim 'victory' for sinking a US carrier in the straight?!

Given, US carriers operate further out, but when you have a hypersonic missiles that can reach out and touch them, how far out they are isn't guaranteed protection.

The only reason that carriers TRANSITED (not "transmitted", that's for something else) the Straits of Hormuz was to get to the Persian Gulf. The straits were something to travel through, not a place to operate as they are too narrow and too shallow for effective maneuvering.

And, Iran was well aware that attacking a carrier would have been a very bad move. I transited through once on the USS DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER and Iran sent a couple of their small boats out to try to hassle us. They turned around rather quickly though when they were buzzed by our Alert 5 aircraft.

The chances of Iran actually doing something to a carrier that is traveling through the Straits of Hormuz is slim to none, as not only would they only piss off the carrier, but also the US, resulting in a very bad day for them.