3 ms·

>following this terrible plan Same reason PLAN is building aircraft carriers which may very well be obsolete against peer adversaries but still useful to overm

>following this terrible plan Same reason PLAN is building aircraft carriers which may very well be obsolete against peer adversaries but still useful to overmatch less capable powers aka basically everyone except US and PRC. Of course also a side of big dick energy prestige. Realistically current PLA strategy for US surface combatants and capital assets is a fuck of load missiles from land and plane, of which hypersonics is just one type. That said recent developments posted on SCMP, i.e. info PLA wants world to know suggest sufficient development in IR sensors that optical/terminal guidance without complex kill chain is possible. Combined with claim: >“With effective hypersonic precision strike weapons, the critical value of ‘strategic depth’ in traditional warfare will no longer exist. All the critical political, economic and military assets of a country will be at risk.” And another recent PRC reveal of AI assistance calibration to produce magnitude improvement in accuracy and I think PRC (as well as US) are pushing hard on prompt global strike capabilities which IMO is much more significant capability than anything proposed for force on force combat in future air and naval platforms. A fleet of conventional hypersonic ICBMs with accuracy/CEP measured in meters is basically conventional MAD. It guarantees PRC (or US) can sink each others expensive Navy's or other assets as long as they spend more than 30 minutes stationary, which is everything that needs maintenance. Stockpile of PGS hypersonics is potentially an end military hegemony capability. One that could also proliferate to smaller powers with time.

greedo 5y ago
Terminal guidance is already solved. It was pretty much solved by the Pershing 2 IRBMs in the 1980s. Once a missile is in terminal guidance, you're limited to killing it, decoying it, etc. IR sensors perform poorly in maritime environments, and though "un-jammable" in the strictest sense (since they're passive), you can confuse them. I'm also skeptical of using ICBMs for global strike. The chance of them being confused by peer opponents for nuclear armed versions is very high. And, if I'm a peer opponent and you whack one of my carriers, it's probably time to pull out the nukes. That's kind of the unspoken US policy if a CVN is sunk. And I don't think any of these weapon technologies will result in an end to military hegemony. There will always be the haves and have nots. And the US has only had unchallenged hegemony for a very short period after WW2.
- dirtyid 5y ago
  > IR sensors perform poorly in maritime environments Can you elaborate? One would think big open ocean that contrasts huge ships are prime environment for IR or optical sensors. I also think it's much more difficult to confuse multiple passive sensors enmass. Spamming EW will disrupt all kill chain in bubble / area, but a carrier group is probably not going to have enough dazzler to disrupt passive sensor in a saturation attack. It doesn't scale. >being confused by peer opponents for nuclear armed versions ... > it's probably time to pull out the nukes. That's kind of the unspoken US policy if a CVN is sunk. TBH I think that's just American exceptionalism thinking because up until now CONUS primary vulnerability was ICBMs and virtually no one had accurate ICBMs for conventional use. Same with ability to sink USN carrier groups. So there's this assumption ICBMs heading for CONUS is going to be nuclear/strategic. Or US can afford to scorch earth if CVN gets sunk due to massive overmatch in US power projection capabilities. But those illusions evaporate once adversaries acquire ability to strike first / retaliate conventionally, especially one backed by nuclear. Game theory has to shift to second strike. Reality is US adversaries already carve out exceptions for US bombers or SSGNs whose ordnance can all be nuclear tipped anyway. The line between US conventional and strategic platforms is already blurred, but there's benefit of doubt just knowing US can strike conventionally. Same allowance has to be made when others acquire capability. If US sinks PLAN carrier in ocean, one has to expect PRC to retaliate in kind, even if means sinking a US CVN docked in west coast port with an icbm/hypersonic. > end to military hegemony. Maybe not, but imo proliferation of accurate icbms dramatically elevates small/middle powers ability to deter when big powers can no longer project force with impunity. It's something more attainable for the have nots versus maintaining a competent navy/airforce. That's like any country more developed than North Korea (including North Korea).
  - greedo 5y ago
    The big open ocean is great for IR when weather conditions are clear. But clouds and moisture in general degrade IR imagery pretty quickly. Also, saturation attacks are expensive. Hypersonic missiles will be very expensive; even Tomahawks are far north of $1m per war shot. Same with the DF-21 type ASBMs. These are very expensive weapons, and while a CVN battlegroup is a juicy target, you'll need a lot to conduct a saturation attack. In the end, I think that ASBMs/Hypersonics etc will dwindle in time as a threat as DE weapons become common. Right now the biggest issue in defending the airspace around a carrier is magazine depth. But DE overcomes this, especially with nuclear powered vessels. In the long run, what the USN needs to worry about is the PLAN developing good submarine capabilities. We've let our ASW defenses wither, and reconstituting them will take decades.

greedo 5y ago

Terminal guidance is already solved. It was pretty much solved by the Pershing 2 IRBMs in the 1980s. Once a missile is in terminal guidance, you're limited to killing it, decoying it, etc. IR sensors perform poorly in maritime environments, and though "un-jammable" in the strictest sense (since they're passive), you can confuse them. I'm also skeptical of using ICBMs for global strike. The chance of them being confused by peer opponents for nuclear armed versions is very high. And, if I'm a peer opponent and you whack one of my carriers, it's probably time to pull out the nukes. That's kind of the unspoken US policy if a CVN is sunk. And I don't think any of these weapon technologies will result in an end to military hegemony. There will always be the haves and have nots. And the US has only had unchallenged hegemony for a very short period after WW2.

dirtyid 5y ago
> IR sensors perform poorly in maritime environments Can you elaborate? One would think big open ocean that contrasts huge ships are prime environment for IR or optical sensors. I also think it's much more difficult to confuse multiple passive sensors enmass. Spamming EW will disrupt all kill chain in bubble / area, but a carrier group is probably not going to have enough dazzler to disrupt passive sensor in a saturation attack. It doesn't scale. >being confused by peer opponents for nuclear armed versions ... > it's probably time to pull out the nukes. That's kind of the unspoken US policy if a CVN is sunk. TBH I think that's just American exceptionalism thinking because up until now CONUS primary vulnerability was ICBMs and virtually no one had accurate ICBMs for conventional use. Same with ability to sink USN carrier groups. So there's this assumption ICBMs heading for CONUS is going to be nuclear/strategic. Or US can afford to scorch earth if CVN gets sunk due to massive overmatch in US power projection capabilities. But those illusions evaporate once adversaries acquire ability to strike first / retaliate conventionally, especially one backed by nuclear. Game theory has to shift to second strike. Reality is US adversaries already carve out exceptions for US bombers or SSGNs whose ordnance can all be nuclear tipped anyway. The line between US conventional and strategic platforms is already blurred, but there's benefit of doubt just knowing US can strike conventionally. Same allowance has to be made when others acquire capability. If US sinks PLAN carrier in ocean, one has to expect PRC to retaliate in kind, even if means sinking a US CVN docked in west coast port with an icbm/hypersonic. > end to military hegemony. Maybe not, but imo proliferation of accurate icbms dramatically elevates small/middle powers ability to deter when big powers can no longer project force with impunity. It's something more attainable for the have nots versus maintaining a competent navy/airforce. That's like any country more developed than North Korea (including North Korea).
- greedo 5y ago
  The big open ocean is great for IR when weather conditions are clear. But clouds and moisture in general degrade IR imagery pretty quickly. Also, saturation attacks are expensive. Hypersonic missiles will be very expensive; even Tomahawks are far north of $1m per war shot. Same with the DF-21 type ASBMs. These are very expensive weapons, and while a CVN battlegroup is a juicy target, you'll need a lot to conduct a saturation attack. In the end, I think that ASBMs/Hypersonics etc will dwindle in time as a threat as DE weapons become common. Right now the biggest issue in defending the airspace around a carrier is magazine depth. But DE overcomes this, especially with nuclear powered vessels. In the long run, what the USN needs to worry about is the PLAN developing good submarine capabilities. We've let our ASW defenses wither, and reconstituting them will take decades.