3 ms·

Carriers are not invincible, submarines have gotten clear views of them before in military exercises, let alone missile swarms. The strongest defense a US carri

by goatsi 8y ago

Carriers are not invincible, submarines have gotten clear views of them before in military exercises, let alone missile swarms. The strongest defense a US carrier group has is the fact that there are 10 other carrier groups distributed around the world. I think anyone who thinks that inflicting a sharp defeat on the US in the pacific would crush public morale and push it into a negotiated peace would have to be a very poor student of history.

fit2rule 8y ago
It takes a single Sunburn [0] to take out a carrier. There is no defence - yet. Of course, when the railgun and lasers are deployed, this all changes again, but in the meantime the US' carrier fleet is principally a policing tool, and would be dead in the water during an all-out war - assuming the US chooses to go against an enemy that has the Sunburn in its arsenal. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-N-22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-N-22
- abcd_f 8y ago
  Looks like these missiles are at least 20 year old. How come there's no defence against them yet?
  - fit2rule 8y ago
    They're simply too fast and too agile, employing evasion techniques. The only defence is lasers and railguns - thus, we're getting lasers and railguns Real Soon Now™.
  - AcerbicZero 8y ago
    There are several already deployed defenses against these, and weapon systems similar to these. The basic chaff deployment systems, CIWS systems for close in defense, and several anit-missile missile systems can all be leveraged to provide defense against an incoming attack. Additionally, the strongest carrier defense against weapons such as this is the size of the ocean, and their short(ish) range. You can't hit what you can't find, and/or what you can't get close too.
abcd_f 8y ago
>inflicting a sharp defeat on the US in the pacific would crush public morale and push it into a negotiated peace This would depend squarely on the context and circumstances. Historical precedents are of little to no relevance here.

by goatsi 8y ago

fit2rule 8y ago

It takes a single Sunburn [0] to take out a carrier. There is no defence - yet. Of course, when the railgun and lasers are deployed, this all changes again, but in the meantime the US' carrier fleet is principally a policing tool, and would be dead in the water during an all-out war - assuming the US chooses to go against an enemy that has the Sunburn in its arsenal. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-N-22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-N-22

abcd_f 8y ago
Looks like these missiles are at least 20 year old. How come there's no defence against them yet?
- fit2rule 8y ago
  They're simply too fast and too agile, employing evasion techniques. The only defence is lasers and railguns - thus, we're getting lasers and railguns Real Soon Now™.
- AcerbicZero 8y ago
  There are several already deployed defenses against these, and weapon systems similar to these. The basic chaff deployment systems, CIWS systems for close in defense, and several anit-missile missile systems can all be leveraged to provide defense against an incoming attack. Additionally, the strongest carrier defense against weapons such as this is the size of the ocean, and their short(ish) range. You can't hit what you can't find, and/or what you can't get close too.

abcd_f 8y ago

>inflicting a sharp defeat on the US in the pacific would crush public morale and push it into a negotiated peace This would depend squarely on the context and circumstances. Historical precedents are of little to no relevance here.