4 ms·

Every Carrier Battle Group has two ships in it that are essentially devoted to just protecting the carrier whether from missiles or other threats. We've yet to

Every Carrier Battle Group has two ships in it that are essentially devoted to just protecting the carrier whether from missiles or other threats. We've yet to see how effective systems like Aegis are against anti-ship missiles (though I'm sure the DoD has done plenty of tests) but it's far from clear that anti-ship missiles obsolete carriers. And given that China is starting their own carrier fleets I'm guessing they don't think things are so clear cut either. The Exocet was made way back in the early 70's yet carriers and surface fleets in general still aren't obsolete.

barrkel 6y ago
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/china-likely-tested-missiles-can-kill-aircraft-carriers-south-china-sea-65881 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/china-likely-tested-m... https://globalnews.ca/news/4810853/china-railgun-warship-weapon/ https://globalnews.ca/news/4810853/china-railgun-warship-wea... https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2019/3/22/incoming-can-aircraft-carriers-survive-hypersonic-weapons https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2019/3/22/i... https://news.usni.org/2019/03/05/report-u-s-carriers-need-new-lethal-unmanned-aircraft-new-fighter-to-stay-relevant https://news.usni.org/2019/03/05/report-u-s-carriers-need-ne... https://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-apparently-gets-its-ass-handed-to-it-in-war-games-2019-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-apparently-gets-its-a... Of course a lot of this is self-serving stuff designed to drum up more money to spend, but defence against missiles is fundamentally asymmetric. The defender need to get lucky every time, while the attacker only needs to be lucky once or twice. And MIRV is a big multiplier in favour of the attacker. Carriers are great against countries or factions without anti-ship missile capability.
jbay808 6y ago
Well, some of that certainly must come from an opponent's reluctance to sink them, not their inability to do so. If you use a nuclear warhead, you don't have to hit the ship directly.

barrkel 6y ago

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/china-likely-tested-missiles-can-kill-aircraft-carriers-south-china-sea-65881 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/china-likely-tested-m... https://globalnews.ca/news/4810853/china-railgun-warship-weapon/ https://globalnews.ca/news/4810853/china-railgun-warship-wea... https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2019/3/22/incoming-can-aircraft-carriers-survive-hypersonic-weapons https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2019/3/22/i... https://news.usni.org/2019/03/05/report-u-s-carriers-need-new-lethal-unmanned-aircraft-new-fighter-to-stay-relevant https://news.usni.org/2019/03/05/report-u-s-carriers-need-ne... https://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-apparently-gets-its-ass-handed-to-it-in-war-games-2019-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-apparently-gets-its-a... Of course a lot of this is self-serving stuff designed to drum up more money to spend, but defence against missiles is fundamentally asymmetric. The defender need to get lucky every time, while the attacker only needs to be lucky once or twice. And MIRV is a big multiplier in favour of the attacker. Carriers are great against countries or factions without anti-ship missile capability.

jbay808 6y ago

Well, some of that certainly must come from an opponent's reluctance to sink them, not their inability to do so. If you use a nuclear warhead, you don't have to hit the ship directly.