4 ms·

> Right now, there is no effective defense against a large salvo of precision missiles; even 1,000 high-end missiles might cost $1 billion - a great bargain for

> Right now, there is no effective defense against a large salvo of precision missiles; even 1,000 high-end missiles might cost $1 billion - a great bargain for sinking an aircraft carrier, whose defenses might have to shoot down 99% or more in order to survive. 20 cents of lead can kill a soldier. Are soldiers obsolete? 10,000 dollars of RPG can destroy an M1 Abrams. Is the Abrams obsolete? A single SAM site can destroy an entire squadron of F-16s. Are F-16s obsolete? Well...no. There is an ocean of difference between "can" and "will". Especially for something as insanely complicated as an anti-ship non-nuclear (read: needs a direct hit) ballistic missile (read: terminal course correction is going to be a bitch) trying to hit some of the fastest ships in the US Navy dodging like hell while being covered by a blanket of AA fire the likes of which the world hasn't seen since WW2. There is a very good reason China has recently started constructing its third aircraft carrier, and it's not because it looks pretty when you hang it over the fireplace.

forapurpose 9y ago
> 20 cents of lead can kill a soldier. Are soldiers obsolete? Soldiers (and tanks and F-16s) have effective countermeasures. The difference is that surface ships do not have effective defenses (or will not, when the missile technology matures). Tech does become obsolete; it happened to boarding parties and battleships; aircraft carriers are 80 year old tech, the distance in time between the US Civil War and WWII, and they'll become obsolete some day. I sure hope my side isn't still depending on them when they do - that has been the end of many nations throughout history. You may not believe it, but it's a pretty broad consensus among experts that I've read. Militaries are investing heavily in that outcome.
- j9461701 9y ago
  What militaries? Because France, the UK, India and China are all investing further in carriers. The broad consensus is demonstrably the opposite of what you're claiming. E pur si muove
  - IntronExon 9y ago
    Carriers are still good for projecting political power at s great remove from the mainland of whichever country has them. They’re also effective if your adversary isn’t likely to be armed with swarms or hypersonic missiles.
    - forapurpose 9y ago
      Agreed, and China's carriers are ineffective against U.S. or other advanced nations' naval power. The theory is that they are designed for lower-end targets and because China, wanting to be seen as a global power, wants the symbol of global naval power. Perception matters a lot in international affairs and politics: How many would take China seriously as a global naval power if they had no carriers, while the US, Russia, UK, France, and also India all do have them? People would perceive that China has not caught up yet.
CamperBob2 9y ago
This analogy doesn't hold water. We have hundreds of thousands of soldiers and sailors, and can muster more if/when needed. If we only had a dozen, then the fact that they can be killed by a 20-cent bullet would indeed be a HUGE problem. That's what a carrier is: an irreplaceable multi-billion-dollar sitting duck. This was adequately demonstrated by Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper, who (IIRC) spoiled a major wargaming exercise by spamming the enemy's capital ships with speedboats, USS Cole-style. Of course, the military's response was to change the rules to disallow Zerg rushes. Hopefully the Chinese, Russians, and/or Iranians got their updated copy of the rulebook.
- j9461701 9y ago
  Riper used his personal access codes and authority as a US general to cheat the test. He also exploited the wonky weapon allocation rules in the game to load down speed boats with several times their weight in heavy weapons - which outside a game would either sink them or make them utterly sluggish. He also communicated with his men using civilian phones, but then claimed he was using "motorcycle couriers" and therefore he should be totally immune to all surveillance. Motorcycle couriers who happen to travel at the speed of light, use no gas, and took none of his men to operate. He basically was trying to pull of a peasent railgun, and then got pissy when people told him he still had to obey the laws of physics with his strategies whatever other rules the navy's scenario involved. https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Peasant_Railgun https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Peasant_Railgun The idea of "spamming the enemy with speed boats" as a tactic is over 130 years old at this point. It was called "the young school" of naval thought, or Jeune École in its native French. It failed spectacularly in the real world, because militaries need only invest in a few destroyers armed with rapid fire cannons and the entire plan goes belly up. A hundred speed boats were simply no match for one destroyer armed with machine guns.

forapurpose 9y ago

> 20 cents of lead can kill a soldier. Are soldiers obsolete? Soldiers (and tanks and F-16s) have effective countermeasures. The difference is that surface ships do not have effective defenses (or will not, when the missile technology matures). Tech does become obsolete; it happened to boarding parties and battleships; aircraft carriers are 80 year old tech, the distance in time between the US Civil War and WWII, and they'll become obsolete some day. I sure hope my side isn't still depending on them when they do - that has been the end of many nations throughout history. You may not believe it, but it's a pretty broad consensus among experts that I've read. Militaries are investing heavily in that outcome.

j9461701 9y ago
What militaries? Because France, the UK, India and China are all investing further in carriers. The broad consensus is demonstrably the opposite of what you're claiming. E pur si muove
- IntronExon 9y ago
  Carriers are still good for projecting political power at s great remove from the mainland of whichever country has them. They’re also effective if your adversary isn’t likely to be armed with swarms or hypersonic missiles.
  - forapurpose 9y ago
    Agreed, and China's carriers are ineffective against U.S. or other advanced nations' naval power. The theory is that they are designed for lower-end targets and because China, wanting to be seen as a global power, wants the symbol of global naval power. Perception matters a lot in international affairs and politics: How many would take China seriously as a global naval power if they had no carriers, while the US, Russia, UK, France, and also India all do have them? People would perceive that China has not caught up yet.

CamperBob2 9y ago

This analogy doesn't hold water. We have hundreds of thousands of soldiers and sailors, and can muster more if/when needed. If we only had a dozen, then the fact that they can be killed by a 20-cent bullet would indeed be a HUGE problem. That's what a carrier is: an irreplaceable multi-billion-dollar sitting duck. This was adequately demonstrated by Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper, who (IIRC) spoiled a major wargaming exercise by spamming the enemy's capital ships with speedboats, USS Cole-style. Of course, the military's response was to change the rules to disallow Zerg rushes. Hopefully the Chinese, Russians, and/or Iranians got their updated copy of the rulebook.

j9461701 9y ago
Riper used his personal access codes and authority as a US general to cheat the test. He also exploited the wonky weapon allocation rules in the game to load down speed boats with several times their weight in heavy weapons - which outside a game would either sink them or make them utterly sluggish. He also communicated with his men using civilian phones, but then claimed he was using "motorcycle couriers" and therefore he should be totally immune to all surveillance. Motorcycle couriers who happen to travel at the speed of light, use no gas, and took none of his men to operate. He basically was trying to pull of a peasent railgun, and then got pissy when people told him he still had to obey the laws of physics with his strategies whatever other rules the navy's scenario involved. https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Peasant_Railgun https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Peasant_Railgun The idea of "spamming the enemy with speed boats" as a tactic is over 130 years old at this point. It was called "the young school" of naval thought, or Jeune École in its native French. It failed spectacularly in the real world, because militaries need only invest in a few destroyers armed with rapid fire cannons and the entire plan goes belly up. A hundred speed boats were simply no match for one destroyer armed with machine guns.