23 ms·

Context: China very recently claimed to have struck a ship at sea over a thousand miles away with an ICBM fired from the interior of China. That's an obvious th

Context: China very recently claimed to have struck a ship at sea over a thousand miles away with an ICBM fired from the interior of China. That's an obvious threat to US carrier group-based force projection So this demonstration looks likely a response to that, not specifically about WMD threats this time Probably both these tests were under ideal conditions, as usual, but they're about sending a message as much as anything practical

PostThisTooFast 6y ago
Yeah, these things always seem to be fragile, impractical demonstrations of how much money we can waste on overcomplicated technology that can be easily circumvented by doing basic things like... zigzagging.
dirtyid 6y ago
This test (FTM-44) was a long planned test that got pushed back several times, congress had to mandate it to occur before end of 2020. Was scheduled for Q3 back in Feb [0]. But timing certainly serendipitous in response to Chinese tests. [0] https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/02/sm-3-block-iia-set-for-first-ever-icbm-intercept-test/ https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/02/sm-3-block-iia-...
nitrobeast 6y ago
I think the context in the article is more plausible i.e. defending Hawaii from NK. Anti ship missles are not ICBM.
- herendin2 6y ago
  The Chinese test was very specifically with extremely long range (2500 miles) ballistic missiles, not conventional anti-ship missiles https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/37662/chinese-long-range-ballistic-missiles-struck-moving-ship-in-south-china-sea-report https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/37662/chinese-long-ran...
DenverCode 6y ago
During my time in the Navy, there was a paper being passed around the officers concerning removing aircraft carriers from the fleet. Reason being that a single shot to the flight deck would render them useless in the aspect of air warfare and defense.
- chrisabrams 6y ago
  Hard to imagine Top Gun without the carriers... How often would a carrier get shot on the deck? Would the carriers be farther back than other ships?
  - alextheparrot 6y ago
    How often was a ship shot from under the waterline before torpedos or in the middle of the deck before dive bombers? If I were taking lessons from history, advances in naval technology have nullified or neutered entire fleets over less. To your actual question, if you look at the Battle of Midway at least the Akagi was fatally struck on the deck — carriers today are significantly more advanced in both technology as well as doctrine than those, though.
    - smogcutter 6y ago
      > at least the Akagi was fatally struck on the deck Along with the Soryu, Hiryu and Kaga! Afaik the “carrier debate” is the argument among navy nerds. I certainly don’t know enough to comment one way or the other. But my take is that if we’re in a real war with someone who can credibly sink a carrier group, a much more important concern is going to be how to restore civilization from the ashes.
      - andrewflnr 6y ago
        Really? Don't you just have to poke some holes in the deck? I mean, getting there is tricky, but you don't need apocalyptic weapons, just ability to dodge missile defense.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jeffbee 6y ago
Is there any plausible scenario in which American carriers aren't all at the bottom of the ocean after the first five minutes of a conflict with China?
- alextheparrot 6y ago
  The US has over 10 active carriers and did learn some lessons from Pearl Harbor in terms of concentrating ships in one place or region.
- netflixandkill 6y ago
  The scenario in which both China and the US are trying to minimize escalation to avoid all out nuclear war while still countering some regional moves or proxy wars. US wargaming had repeatedly found that escalation to nuclear exchanges is all but a given if serious attempts are made by either side to destroy naval and air base capability, and it's safe to assume their PLA counterparts reached similar conclusions. As an example, in a Chinese move against Taiwan or Japan, anything that crossed into attack range would get destroyed, but there would be no counter-attacks against Chinese facilities and bases. Does that play out in reality? Let's hope we don't find out.
  - magicsmoke 6y ago
    >but there would be no counterattack against Chinese facilities and bases. I think this is the key asymmetry in a US-China war, and whether US aircraft carriers can be sunk or not is irrelevant. At the end of the day, a carrier is a floating air base, and both China and the US need aircraft to provide targeting data for their munitions. In a sense Chinese airstrips are even more vulnerable to missile strikes as they can't move or hide, yet they can't be attacked because that could invite nuclear escalation. If sinking a US aircraft carrier posed the same risk of nuclear escalation would we even be worrying about their vulnerability to missile strikes? This seems more like a strategic problem than a tactical problem regarding carrier defense. If China is more committed and willing to escalate than the US, then sooner or later there'll be a line where China's willing to cross but the US won't.
bigpumpkin 6y ago
DF 21 and 26 are Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles (IRBM), not Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM).
jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
Nope, this demonstration was requested/required by congress a couple years ago. The timing is just due to the deadline starting to run out. It's not a proximate response to the Chinese test. Moreover, the Chinese test was an intermediate range missile, not an ICBM. The scenario tested here is more like NK taking a single shot at the west coast.
- SEJeff 6y ago
  A single, and final, shot. EDIT: I'm not saying the US should ever go to war with North Korea, only that there is no possible outcome where North Korea goes to war with the US that does not result in the total decapitation of military capacity of North Korea. It would be like when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor to "demoralize the American people". It just doesn't work that way.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Dude, everyone knows the relative geopolitical and military standing of the DPRK and the US. No one is enlightened by your grandstanding.
    - SEJeff 6y ago
      It isn’t about me. I was merely pointing out how there is no way whatsoever the leadership of North Korea would ever preemptively strike the US west coast with a missile. It might or might not hurt the US, but it guarantees the end of their entire way of life. I’m pointing out the silliness of thinking they would do it when they have the most to lose.
      - akamaka 6y ago
        Yes, we also all know that nobody rational would launch a pre-emptive strike. Nobody is saying NK would launch one.
      - baybal2 6y ago
        A much likely scenario would be for Kim family just sitting it out in some bunker in China, while his country burns. The type of leaders with such disdain for their own countries are like those well known African tinpot dictators who effectively live in Europe (and to the great delight of their European hosts...) most of the time, while their henchmen plunder their countries back home.
sudosysgen 6y ago
I don't agree that this is the relevant context. The Chinese Anti-ship ballistic missiles (AShBM) are veery different beasts. First of all, they have a different trajectory that is more difficult to intercept, so that they can maintain lower altitudes. These lower altitudes allows the ballistic missile to maneuver. This makes their trajectory unpredictable, which makes missiles like the SM3 almost useless. In combination with this, China also has hypersonic glide vehicles, which are not only harder to target, but also fly on non-ballistic, fully unpredictable trajectories at such altitudes that the horizon becomes a real issue. To top it all off, China and Russia are both in the advanced stages of construction (Russia is farther ahead and should Comission them soon) hypersonic cruise missiles, with possible sea-skimming terminal modes. All in all, the SM3 missile is pretty much useless against that threat. The better explanation is that this is a test that congress asked for, and that if anything is more suitable to target North Korea, not that it's very likely it would be perfectly effective against North Korea as they have second-stroke capability and sure as hell won't send a single missile with a single warhead, more like 15 real missiles with a mix of decoys and nukes plus multiple dummy missiles with no real payload. But it's a start against a North Korea class threat. Anyways, here's a lesson from modern warfare, never rely on countermeasures.
- mjsabby 6y ago
  Can you elaborate “never rely on countermeasures”. What are you referring to?
  - lambdasquirrel 6y ago
    I think it's in reference to ABM defense. The ABM is the countermeasure.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    As a general heuristic, in modern warfare, countermeasures seem not to be very reliable. If you have to rely on countermeasures working perfectly for your mission profile, you're probably doing things wrong. That's not to say they can't help you win, but even if it seems that they are perfectly effective history shows that they generally aren't.
Quai 6y ago
We have private companies softlanding (almost) inert ICBMs on barges in the middle of the sea. I dont think this military capacity comes as a surprise to anyone... ;-)
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  Do you mean the Falcon rockets? The whole point of them is that they aren't ballistic missiles, isn't it?
  - Quai 6y ago
    I guess it depends on how strictly you define a ballistic missile. I would think most warheads have some sort of terminal guidance. The only difference is that Falcon use the engines mainly to shed speed so that it does not burn up during entry, and dont destroy the barge on "impact". But, yeah, when they do boost-back to the Cape, the analogy breaks down even more.
1980phipsi 6y ago
How good are US anti-missile capabilities on ships more generally? How likely is it that the US could defend carriers from missile attacks?
- robotnikman 6y ago
  The 20mm Phalanx CIWS has proven itself in its land based version, which has been used to defend against rocket, mortar, and missile attacks on bases. The anti missile missiles on carriers such as the RIM-7 and RIM-116 have not been tested in actual combat though. Carriers usually carry a bunch of these, and are usually surrounded by other ships armed with them as well
- openasocket 6y ago
  The US Navy has some of the best missile defense systems in the world right now. An Arleigh Burke Flight IIA destroyer has a 96-cell vertical launch system for missiles. Each cell could hold an SM-2ER surface-to-air missile with a ~100 mile range, an SM-6 with a ~150 mile range, an SM-3 with ~600 mile range for ballistic missiles, or 4 ESSM missiles with a ~30 mile range. On top of that you have a Phalanx Close-in Weapon System (CIWS) which is a 20-mm autocannon designed to shoot down incoming missiles up to 1 mile away. On top of that, the US Navy has a networking system that allows targeting missiles using remote sensors. So a E-2D Hawkeye early warning aircraft could detect a low-flying cruise missile traveling below the radar horizon of the destroyer, and then even though the destroyer radar can't pick it up it could launch a missile and have the Hawkeye's radar guide it to the target. The exact numbers would depend a lot on the type of missile attacking, the angles they are coming in at, whether there are external sensors in the area, weather, etc. But a destroyer escort is more than capable of intercepting an incoming missile. In perfect conditions, where you detect and are tracking the missiles at extreme range, a single destroyer could likely take out dozens of cruise missiles. Scoring a hit on a carrier would require some combination of: advanced missiles (fast, stealthy, maneuverable, etc), multiple missiles, element of surprise, attacking from multiple directions at once, and jamming or otherwise degrading sensors.
buggythebug 6y ago
On a related note, I don't know how ships are the ultimate "god-mode" for a country. They are literally sitting ducks - shot 1 of 100 successful missiles at the them and it's sunk.
Just1689 6y ago
It's also relavant because there is a huge debate in defence community right now. On the one hand you have many saying that the aircraft carrier might go the way if the battleship - more and more redundant in a world with landbase anti ship missile systems. On the other hand there are some saying that ships will envolve to meet the threat.
- mrfusion 6y ago
  In that debate what’s the suggested alternative to the carrier?
  - openasocket 6y ago
    There isn't a one-size-fits-all replacement, though there are a couple of ideas. The USMC has their expeditionary advanced bases concept which is certainly an option. The idea is to leverage the fact that the F-35B can take off and land on improvised runways, like a parking lot or a flat grassy strip somewhere. You have a flight of F-35Bs and maintain 3-4 of these improvised bases, each meant to only support a couple planes. And every few days you pack up one of these bases and move them to another spot. Since you're always moving your opponent has to continuously search for these bases, and even if they find one and destroy it, they've only destroyed some supplies and maybe 1 or 2 planes that happened to be on the ground at that base at the time. And locating these bases will be difficult since they will be small, and there's a continuous CAP looking to shoot down surveillance aircraft, as well as SAM batteries. The big question is if they will be able to transport enough fuel, munitions, and spare parts to these bases to support them, and if the F-35Bs will be reliable enough. It also requires that you have friendly territory, or at least secured territory, to operate from. In the case of a Sino-American war, I believe the idea is to use islands in the Philippines, or Japan. This has some info on how it could work: https://warontherocks.com/2019/12/expeditionary-advanced-maritime-operations-how-the-marine-corps-can-avoid-becoming-a-second-land-army-in-the-pacific/ https://warontherocks.com/2019/12/expeditionary-advanced-mar... That isn't really a replacement for a carrier, though, more of a supplement.
    - mrfusion 6y ago

PostThisTooFast 6y ago

Yeah, these things always seem to be fragile, impractical demonstrations of how much money we can waste on overcomplicated technology that can be easily circumvented by doing basic things like... zigzagging.

dirtyid 6y ago

This test (FTM-44) was a long planned test that got pushed back several times, congress had to mandate it to occur before end of 2020. Was scheduled for Q3 back in Feb [0]. But timing certainly serendipitous in response to Chinese tests. [0] https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/02/sm-3-block-iia-set-for-first-ever-icbm-intercept-test/ https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/02/sm-3-block-iia-...

nitrobeast 6y ago

I think the context in the article is more plausible i.e. defending Hawaii from NK. Anti ship missles are not ICBM.

herendin2 6y ago
The Chinese test was very specifically with extremely long range (2500 miles) ballistic missiles, not conventional anti-ship missiles https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/37662/chinese-long-range-ballistic-missiles-struck-moving-ship-in-south-china-sea-report https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/37662/chinese-long-ran...

DenverCode 6y ago

During my time in the Navy, there was a paper being passed around the officers concerning removing aircraft carriers from the fleet. Reason being that a single shot to the flight deck would render them useless in the aspect of air warfare and defense.

chrisabrams 6y ago
Hard to imagine Top Gun without the carriers... How often would a carrier get shot on the deck? Would the carriers be farther back than other ships?
- alextheparrot 6y ago
  How often was a ship shot from under the waterline before torpedos or in the middle of the deck before dive bombers? If I were taking lessons from history, advances in naval technology have nullified or neutered entire fleets over less. To your actual question, if you look at the Battle of Midway at least the Akagi was fatally struck on the deck — carriers today are significantly more advanced in both technology as well as doctrine than those, though.
  - smogcutter 6y ago
    > at least the Akagi was fatally struck on the deck Along with the Soryu, Hiryu and Kaga! Afaik the “carrier debate” is the argument among navy nerds. I certainly don’t know enough to comment one way or the other. But my take is that if we’re in a real war with someone who can credibly sink a carrier group, a much more important concern is going to be how to restore civilization from the ashes.
    - andrewflnr 6y ago
      Really? Don't you just have to poke some holes in the deck? I mean, getting there is tricky, but you don't need apocalyptic weapons, just ability to dodge missile defense.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

jeffbee 6y ago

Is there any plausible scenario in which American carriers aren't all at the bottom of the ocean after the first five minutes of a conflict with China?

alextheparrot 6y ago
The US has over 10 active carriers and did learn some lessons from Pearl Harbor in terms of concentrating ships in one place or region.
netflixandkill 6y ago
The scenario in which both China and the US are trying to minimize escalation to avoid all out nuclear war while still countering some regional moves or proxy wars. US wargaming had repeatedly found that escalation to nuclear exchanges is all but a given if serious attempts are made by either side to destroy naval and air base capability, and it's safe to assume their PLA counterparts reached similar conclusions. As an example, in a Chinese move against Taiwan or Japan, anything that crossed into attack range would get destroyed, but there would be no counter-attacks against Chinese facilities and bases. Does that play out in reality? Let's hope we don't find out.
- magicsmoke 6y ago
  >but there would be no counterattack against Chinese facilities and bases. I think this is the key asymmetry in a US-China war, and whether US aircraft carriers can be sunk or not is irrelevant. At the end of the day, a carrier is a floating air base, and both China and the US need aircraft to provide targeting data for their munitions. In a sense Chinese airstrips are even more vulnerable to missile strikes as they can't move or hide, yet they can't be attacked because that could invite nuclear escalation. If sinking a US aircraft carrier posed the same risk of nuclear escalation would we even be worrying about their vulnerability to missile strikes? This seems more like a strategic problem than a tactical problem regarding carrier defense. If China is more committed and willing to escalate than the US, then sooner or later there'll be a line where China's willing to cross but the US won't.

bigpumpkin 6y ago

DF 21 and 26 are Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles (IRBM), not Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM).

jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago

Nope, this demonstration was requested/required by congress a couple years ago. The timing is just due to the deadline starting to run out. It's not a proximate response to the Chinese test. Moreover, the Chinese test was an intermediate range missile, not an ICBM. The scenario tested here is more like NK taking a single shot at the west coast.

SEJeff 6y ago
A single, and final, shot. EDIT: I'm not saying the US should ever go to war with North Korea, only that there is no possible outcome where North Korea goes to war with the US that does not result in the total decapitation of military capacity of North Korea. It would be like when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor to "demoralize the American people". It just doesn't work that way.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Dude, everyone knows the relative geopolitical and military standing of the DPRK and the US. No one is enlightened by your grandstanding.
  - SEJeff 6y ago
    It isn’t about me. I was merely pointing out how there is no way whatsoever the leadership of North Korea would ever preemptively strike the US west coast with a missile. It might or might not hurt the US, but it guarantees the end of their entire way of life. I’m pointing out the silliness of thinking they would do it when they have the most to lose.
    - akamaka 6y ago
      Yes, we also all know that nobody rational would launch a pre-emptive strike. Nobody is saying NK would launch one.
    - baybal2 6y ago
      A much likely scenario would be for Kim family just sitting it out in some bunker in China, while his country burns. The type of leaders with such disdain for their own countries are like those well known African tinpot dictators who effectively live in Europe (and to the great delight of their European hosts...) most of the time, while their henchmen plunder their countries back home.

sudosysgen 6y ago

I don't agree that this is the relevant context. The Chinese Anti-ship ballistic missiles (AShBM) are veery different beasts. First of all, they have a different trajectory that is more difficult to intercept, so that they can maintain lower altitudes. These lower altitudes allows the ballistic missile to maneuver. This makes their trajectory unpredictable, which makes missiles like the SM3 almost useless. In combination with this, China also has hypersonic glide vehicles, which are not only harder to target, but also fly on non-ballistic, fully unpredictable trajectories at such altitudes that the horizon becomes a real issue. To top it all off, China and Russia are both in the advanced stages of construction (Russia is farther ahead and should Comission them soon) hypersonic cruise missiles, with possible sea-skimming terminal modes. All in all, the SM3 missile is pretty much useless against that threat. The better explanation is that this is a test that congress asked for, and that if anything is more suitable to target North Korea, not that it's very likely it would be perfectly effective against North Korea as they have second-stroke capability and sure as hell won't send a single missile with a single warhead, more like 15 real missiles with a mix of decoys and nukes plus multiple dummy missiles with no real payload. But it's a start against a North Korea class threat. Anyways, here's a lesson from modern warfare, never rely on countermeasures.

mjsabby 6y ago
Can you elaborate “never rely on countermeasures”. What are you referring to?
- lambdasquirrel 6y ago
  I think it's in reference to ABM defense. The ABM is the countermeasure.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  As a general heuristic, in modern warfare, countermeasures seem not to be very reliable. If you have to rely on countermeasures working perfectly for your mission profile, you're probably doing things wrong. That's not to say they can't help you win, but even if it seems that they are perfectly effective history shows that they generally aren't.

Quai 6y ago

We have private companies softlanding (almost) inert ICBMs on barges in the middle of the sea. I dont think this military capacity comes as a surprise to anyone... ;-)

chrisseaton 6y ago
Do you mean the Falcon rockets? The whole point of them is that they aren't ballistic missiles, isn't it?
- Quai 6y ago
  I guess it depends on how strictly you define a ballistic missile. I would think most warheads have some sort of terminal guidance. The only difference is that Falcon use the engines mainly to shed speed so that it does not burn up during entry, and dont destroy the barge on "impact". But, yeah, when they do boost-back to the Cape, the analogy breaks down even more.

1980phipsi 6y ago

How good are US anti-missile capabilities on ships more generally? How likely is it that the US could defend carriers from missile attacks?

robotnikman 6y ago
The 20mm Phalanx CIWS has proven itself in its land based version, which has been used to defend against rocket, mortar, and missile attacks on bases. The anti missile missiles on carriers such as the RIM-7 and RIM-116 have not been tested in actual combat though. Carriers usually carry a bunch of these, and are usually surrounded by other ships armed with them as well
openasocket 6y ago
The US Navy has some of the best missile defense systems in the world right now. An Arleigh Burke Flight IIA destroyer has a 96-cell vertical launch system for missiles. Each cell could hold an SM-2ER surface-to-air missile with a ~100 mile range, an SM-6 with a ~150 mile range, an SM-3 with ~600 mile range for ballistic missiles, or 4 ESSM missiles with a ~30 mile range. On top of that you have a Phalanx Close-in Weapon System (CIWS) which is a 20-mm autocannon designed to shoot down incoming missiles up to 1 mile away. On top of that, the US Navy has a networking system that allows targeting missiles using remote sensors. So a E-2D Hawkeye early warning aircraft could detect a low-flying cruise missile traveling below the radar horizon of the destroyer, and then even though the destroyer radar can't pick it up it could launch a missile and have the Hawkeye's radar guide it to the target. The exact numbers would depend a lot on the type of missile attacking, the angles they are coming in at, whether there are external sensors in the area, weather, etc. But a destroyer escort is more than capable of intercepting an incoming missile. In perfect conditions, where you detect and are tracking the missiles at extreme range, a single destroyer could likely take out dozens of cruise missiles. Scoring a hit on a carrier would require some combination of: advanced missiles (fast, stealthy, maneuverable, etc), multiple missiles, element of surprise, attacking from multiple directions at once, and jamming or otherwise degrading sensors.

buggythebug 6y ago

On a related note, I don't know how ships are the ultimate "god-mode" for a country. They are literally sitting ducks - shot 1 of 100 successful missiles at the them and it's sunk.

Just1689 6y ago

It's also relavant because there is a huge debate in defence community right now. On the one hand you have many saying that the aircraft carrier might go the way if the battleship - more and more redundant in a world with landbase anti ship missile systems. On the other hand there are some saying that ships will envolve to meet the threat.

mrfusion 6y ago
In that debate what’s the suggested alternative to the carrier?
- openasocket 6y ago
  There isn't a one-size-fits-all replacement, though there are a couple of ideas. The USMC has their expeditionary advanced bases concept which is certainly an option. The idea is to leverage the fact that the F-35B can take off and land on improvised runways, like a parking lot or a flat grassy strip somewhere. You have a flight of F-35Bs and maintain 3-4 of these improvised bases, each meant to only support a couple planes. And every few days you pack up one of these bases and move them to another spot. Since you're always moving your opponent has to continuously search for these bases, and even if they find one and destroy it, they've only destroyed some supplies and maybe 1 or 2 planes that happened to be on the ground at that base at the time. And locating these bases will be difficult since they will be small, and there's a continuous CAP looking to shoot down surveillance aircraft, as well as SAM batteries. The big question is if they will be able to transport enough fuel, munitions, and spare parts to these bases to support them, and if the F-35Bs will be reliable enough. It also requires that you have friendly territory, or at least secured territory, to operate from. In the case of a Sino-American war, I believe the idea is to use islands in the Philippines, or Japan. This has some info on how it could work: https://warontherocks.com/2019/12/expeditionary-advanced-maritime-operations-how-the-marine-corps-can-avoid-becoming-a-second-land-army-in-the-pacific/ https://warontherocks.com/2019/12/expeditionary-advanced-mar... That isn't really a replacement for a carrier, though, more of a supplement.
  - mrfusion 6y ago