3 ms·
The problem is that the same massive range of area denial weapons and cruise missiles also puts fixed assets such as airstrips and bases as far as Guam in jeopa
by kosmic_k 10y ago
The problem is that the same massive range of area denial weapons and cruise missiles also puts fixed assets such as airstrips and bases as far as Guam in jeopardy of attack. Thus there is the problem of how do you get platforms capable of delivering payloads onto your adversary.
Carrier's are efficient at that. Unlike fixed bases, they're far more difficult to track and hit. They can launch a large number of aircraft which can hit a larger number of targets with stand off munitions. Drones can be used to delivery, although it is worth noting that most modern cruise missiles effectively are drones themselves with a several hundred pound warhead.
The author completely ignores China's increasingly sophisticated anti-submarine underwater listening network. Just how stealthy are our submarines in comparison to the detection capability of a potential adversary? Furthermore how long with a submarine stay hidden after launching a cruise missile attack? If we're to assume that the range places it within the sphere of A2/AD then it would be just as vulnerable as a surface ship after attacking.
Which then begs the question of how do you deliver payloads? You could opt to instead rely on munitions which can be launched for farther away, but such munitions certainly would be more costly. I would think that the optimal solution in respect to limited resources would be some mix of long range munitions to counter area denial capability followed by the deployment of shorter ranged assets.
But that's just my 5cent as an enthusiast who doesn't actually have any professional experience in the matter. Although from what I read about the author, it appears we're on similar footing in that regard.
- akiselev 10y ago》 The author completely ignores China's increasingly sophisticated anti-submarine underwater listening network. Just how stealthy are our submarines in comparison to the detection capability of a potential adversary? Our nuclear submarines would probably be easily tracked with their "listening network" (I don't know anything about it) but diesel-electric submarines, which seem to be making a resurgence although not with the pro-nuclear forces in the navy, are far quieter and harder to detect. Combine that with the sound matting being develop for next gen subs and/or titanium hulls like Russia used to make, and you've got a very formidable submarine capable of high speed travel which will be very hard to detect with passive or active sonar.
- Xylakant 10y ago> but diesel-electric submarines, Even better are fuel-cell powered subs. Less range than nuclear subs, but still formidable
- DennisP 10y agoWhy are diesels quieter? It seems like the opposite would be the case.
- Nokinside 10y agoDiesels are used only when the ship recharges batteries. When the sub is underwater, they can run very silently and be completely silent when they stop. Nuclear subs generate noise and vibration from the steam turbines, pipes etc. that can't be completely eliminated.
- DennisP 10y agoAhh, makes sense, thanks.
- dctoedt 10y ago> When the sub is underwater, they can run very silently and be completely silent when they stop. True, but diesel boats normally run on the surface, and on diesel, because battery life is limited; they generally submerge only to run an attack or to escape an attacker (or briefly at dawn, in case there's an unpleasant surprise out there that wasn't picked up). That's why nuclear submarines were once referred to as the first true submarines, as opposed to mere submersibles.
- Nokinside 10y agoModern air independent propulsion equipped diesel electric submarines have underwater endurance for several weeks. Even if they sprint full speed non-stop they could stay submerged several days.
- kosmic_k 10y ago