8 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- dirtyid 5y ago
  I think that's why PRC pursing SAR sensors for targeting as well. And chipping away at progressing in subs. Economics of ABM skew towards offense, defenders need more interceptors than incomings while advanced interceptors as are expensive AF, SM3 IIA used to for ABM defense are like ~35M per unit. There's also aforementioned magazine depth, can only fill VLS with so much defense before it compromises offense. As far as I know DE against hypersonics aren't credible, there was a panel on hypersonic defense by CSIS a couple years where experts concluded only counter against hypersonics are advanced interceptors. There's also some recent (but rough) literature about ineffectiveness of subsonics like tomahawk/tlams against active defense. The TLDR is 1 hypersonic is better at penetrating active defense than salvo of 15 tomahawks. At which point a cruiser with 15 hypersonics has as much offensive capability against actively defended targets as 2 destroyers with ~200 tomahawks. IMO USN would eventually need to move towards expensive attack and defense missiles against peer opponents, or perhaps equilibrium of advanced missiles and missile defense is going to make surface fleet economically obsolete.

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.

dirtyid 5y ago
I think that's why PRC pursing SAR sensors for targeting as well. And chipping away at progressing in subs. Economics of ABM skew towards offense, defenders need more interceptors than incomings while advanced interceptors as are expensive AF, SM3 IIA used to for ABM defense are like ~35M per unit. There's also aforementioned magazine depth, can only fill VLS with so much defense before it compromises offense. As far as I know DE against hypersonics aren't credible, there was a panel on hypersonic defense by CSIS a couple years where experts concluded only counter against hypersonics are advanced interceptors. There's also some recent (but rough) literature about ineffectiveness of subsonics like tomahawk/tlams against active defense. The TLDR is 1 hypersonic is better at penetrating active defense than salvo of 15 tomahawks. At which point a cruiser with 15 hypersonics has as much offensive capability against actively defended targets as 2 destroyers with ~200 tomahawks. IMO USN would eventually need to move towards expensive attack and defense missiles against peer opponents, or perhaps equilibrium of advanced missiles and missile defense is going to make surface fleet economically obsolete.