3 ms·

Is the suggestion that the USAF/Navy was previously better at intercepting SRBMs? What would have changed to make it worse - I would assume this sort of thing w

Is the suggestion that the USAF/Navy was previously better at intercepting SRBMs? What would have changed to make it worse - I would assume this sort of thing would be improving every few years.

sudosysgen 5y ago
No, it's newer weapons that cause this to be necessary while it wasn't needed previously. Historically, ballistic missiles were not accurate enough to hit a moving a ship. Nowadays, they are. It also used to be the case that SRBMs and MRBMs weren't able to acquire a target on their own - the plasma would interfere with radar, and optical sensors were completely unfeasible. However, it seems China and Russia managed to find a way to keep radar working. That wasn't that big of a problem either, because a warship should be able to jam the radar, but last year the Chinese claimed to have managed to get optical guidance work on an MRBM (DF-21D). It also used to be the case that finding large surface warship was unpractical, but modern satellites can spot them even from GEO while LEO SAR and optical satellites exploded in numbers, meaning that it's now possible to track large surface warships accurately around the clock. If that is actually the case, and it seems likely, then unless the US Navy gets very good at intercepting ballistic missiles, the entire fleet, and perhaps even the entire concept of large surface warships, may become untractable.
- steve_adams_86 5y ago
  I don’t know anything but my understanding is that large surface warships have become mostly obsolete because it’s far cheaper and easier to destroy them today than it is to build, use, and defend them. I’m not well versed in this stuff, but I’ve read several compelling pieces which argue this point.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    That has been argued since the Jeune École doctrine emerged in the 19th century, with first small and fast torpedo boats, and then submarines. It hasn't been proven right, with all big conflicts including sea faring nations since then having big surface ships playing a part at least blockading ( Russo-Japanese war, the World Wars, Korean war, Vietnam war, Gulf wars).
- sofixa 5y ago
  I don't think that changes the equation that drastically. I mean sure, it's practical to be able to destroy all the enemy's ships from MRBM range rather than cruise missile range, but considering the amount of submarines carrying "aircraft carrier killer" cruise missiles with already decent range it's not such a game changer.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    The difference is that cruise missiles in a naval envieonment are much easier to shoot down.

Is the suggestion that the USAF/Navy was previously better at intercepting SRBMs? What would have changed to make it worse - I would assume this sort of thing would be improving every few years.

sudosysgen 5y ago

No, it's newer weapons that cause this to be necessary while it wasn't needed previously. Historically, ballistic missiles were not accurate enough to hit a moving a ship. Nowadays, they are. It also used to be the case that SRBMs and MRBMs weren't able to acquire a target on their own - the plasma would interfere with radar, and optical sensors were completely unfeasible. However, it seems China and Russia managed to find a way to keep radar working. That wasn't that big of a problem either, because a warship should be able to jam the radar, but last year the Chinese claimed to have managed to get optical guidance work on an MRBM (DF-21D). It also used to be the case that finding large surface warship was unpractical, but modern satellites can spot them even from GEO while LEO SAR and optical satellites exploded in numbers, meaning that it's now possible to track large surface warships accurately around the clock. If that is actually the case, and it seems likely, then unless the US Navy gets very good at intercepting ballistic missiles, the entire fleet, and perhaps even the entire concept of large surface warships, may become untractable.

steve_adams_86 5y ago
I don’t know anything but my understanding is that large surface warships have become mostly obsolete because it’s far cheaper and easier to destroy them today than it is to build, use, and defend them. I’m not well versed in this stuff, but I’ve read several compelling pieces which argue this point.
- sofixa 5y ago
  That has been argued since the Jeune École doctrine emerged in the 19th century, with first small and fast torpedo boats, and then submarines. It hasn't been proven right, with all big conflicts including sea faring nations since then having big surface ships playing a part at least blockading ( Russo-Japanese war, the World Wars, Korean war, Vietnam war, Gulf wars).
sofixa 5y ago
I don't think that changes the equation that drastically. I mean sure, it's practical to be able to destroy all the enemy's ships from MRBM range rather than cruise missile range, but considering the amount of submarines carrying "aircraft carrier killer" cruise missiles with already decent range it's not such a game changer.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  The difference is that cruise missiles in a naval envieonment are much easier to shoot down.