3 ms·

There must have been _some_ intersections of time/technology and/or cost/efficiency where this didn't hold? Where a weapon system became _so_ vulnerable that, d

by latch 4y ago

There must have been _some_ intersections of time/technology and/or cost/efficiency where this didn't hold? Where a weapon system became _so_ vulnerable that, despite being the best at its job, it still wasn't good enough. As an example, is there a point where hypersonic weapons become so effective that aircraft carriers are [temporarily?] retired? Surely the cost (time, money, human lives) that goes into the weapon system is part of the equation.

dotancohen 4y ago
With Russia fielding hypersonic weapons now, could you imagine if they threaten the US with "Send arms to Ukraine, we sink your aircraft carriers"? In that sense, hypersonic missiles may replace much more costly to maintain and much harder to deploy nuclear weapons. In fact, it looks like the US has 11 active aircraft carriers [1]. It seems that they are all near port right now [2], this might be the reason. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_the_United_States_Navy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_t... [2] https://www.marinevesseltraffic.com/vessels/USS-George-H.W.-Bush-(CVN-77)/CURRENT-POSITION/1/369970663 https://www.marinevesseltraffic.com/vessels/USS-George-H.W.-...
- raxxorraxor 4y ago
  Still don't understand the value proposition. Mobile air support is pretty important but supersonic missiles and modern submarines could sink or severely damage an aircraft carrier. Perhaps a sub getting away again would be almost impossible but the damage of the carrier would be much more costly, worst case you also lose all the planes. So I would place them in shallow waters near ports too...
  - brutusborn 4y ago
    My naive understanding is that carriers are not designed for use in conflicts where your enemies are those who can develop hypersonic missiles. Think about Iraq / Afghanistan; the carriers sitting nearby provided support for the invasion. They could easily stay far enough away that they don't have to worry about their safety because their opposition military was not very sophisticated. Simple: carriers are for power projection against weaker enemies with low tech militaries. Thus their vulnerability against high tech miliraries is a moot point since wars between high tech powers == World war == unlikely (hopefully).
openasocket 4y ago
Hypersonic weapons have a lot of FUD around them. First off, they aren't some new technology. Most ballistic missiles achieve hypersonic speeds, including the V2 rocket from WW2. What's new are hypersonic glide vehicles that follow a ballistic trajectory up and then are capable of moving and maneuvering down to a target. Notably, this method means that the hypersonic glide vehicle is traveling SLOWER than a ballistic missile traveling to the same target, but the trajectory is depressed and the ability to make some maneuvers complicates targeting and tracking. And that isn't even overly new technology, there have been tests of the hypersonic glide vehicle concept dating back to the 1950s and 1960s. An example of a hypersonic glide vehicle that was actually used was the space shuttle. There's also hypersonic cruise missiles, which are able to achieve hypersonic speeds in level flight. So what does Russia have? Currently, all they have fielded is the Kinzhal missile. But is it neither a hypersonic glide body nor a hypersonic cruise missile. It is simply an air-launched ballistic missile. It would not be suitable for an anti-ship mission, unless striking a ship docked in port. The impressive and novel thing about it is that they managed to get a ballistic missile to be launched from an aircraft, which is rather tricky to do from an engineering standpoint, and IIRC is the first ALBM to actually be deployed. They also have Avangard in development, which is a hypersonic glide body deployed from ICBMs for the nuclear strike mission. Finally, they have the Zircon missile in development, which is a hypersonic cruise missile meant for the anti-ship mission. Russia claims to have completed testing of the missile, but it doesn't appear to have been deployed yet. It's unclear how effective it would be against a carrier strike group, with air defenses, electronic countermeasures and decoys. Notably, it cruises at a high altitude, unlike most anti-ship missiles which try to skim the surface to make it harder to detect and track on radar. Ultimately, I don't think that hypersonic weapons fundamentally change the security of the carrier. It may necessitate the development of some anti-missile missiles better tuned for the counter-hypersonic mission. It may necessitate altering doctrine towards the anti-ISR (intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance) mission to complicate targeting such missiles. I could be wrong of course!
ufmace 4y ago
I suppose it's possible that might happen at some point in the future, but I don't think that's ever happened. Humans are about the most vulnerable thing out there. Yet nobody suggests that we should get rid of the infantry because they're too vulnerable. Instead, we give them camouflage gear, some armor, train them to stay behind cover and move carefully, and work on better medical care if they get hit. FWIW, hypersonic weapons are likely overrated. The hard part has always been finding an active deployed carrier and tracking it well enough to guide a weapon into it. If you can do that, there's no shortage of weapons that can sink it. The carrier's tactics are to use its air wing to stay outside of radar range from any targets while still being able to strike, and using airborne radar as needed to monitor the area without revealing the precise position of the actual carrier. Foreign militaries are just as prone to exaggerations about how effective their weapons are as American military contractors. Results of well-run tank divisions against anti-tank teams, some of which are documented in the GP's video, show that the kill rates against tanks are often underwhelming even in situations where the tanks are at a disadvantage.

by latch 4y ago

dotancohen 4y ago

With Russia fielding hypersonic weapons now, could you imagine if they threaten the US with "Send arms to Ukraine, we sink your aircraft carriers"? In that sense, hypersonic missiles may replace much more costly to maintain and much harder to deploy nuclear weapons. In fact, it looks like the US has 11 active aircraft carriers [1]. It seems that they are all near port right now [2], this might be the reason. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_the_United_States_Navy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_t... [2] https://www.marinevesseltraffic.com/vessels/USS-George-H.W.-Bush-(CVN-77)/CURRENT-POSITION/1/369970663 https://www.marinevesseltraffic.com/vessels/USS-George-H.W.-...

raxxorraxor 4y ago
Still don't understand the value proposition. Mobile air support is pretty important but supersonic missiles and modern submarines could sink or severely damage an aircraft carrier. Perhaps a sub getting away again would be almost impossible but the damage of the carrier would be much more costly, worst case you also lose all the planes. So I would place them in shallow waters near ports too...
- brutusborn 4y ago
  My naive understanding is that carriers are not designed for use in conflicts where your enemies are those who can develop hypersonic missiles. Think about Iraq / Afghanistan; the carriers sitting nearby provided support for the invasion. They could easily stay far enough away that they don't have to worry about their safety because their opposition military was not very sophisticated. Simple: carriers are for power projection against weaker enemies with low tech militaries. Thus their vulnerability against high tech miliraries is a moot point since wars between high tech powers == World war == unlikely (hopefully).

openasocket 4y ago

Hypersonic weapons have a lot of FUD around them. First off, they aren't some new technology. Most ballistic missiles achieve hypersonic speeds, including the V2 rocket from WW2. What's new are hypersonic glide vehicles that follow a ballistic trajectory up and then are capable of moving and maneuvering down to a target. Notably, this method means that the hypersonic glide vehicle is traveling SLOWER than a ballistic missile traveling to the same target, but the trajectory is depressed and the ability to make some maneuvers complicates targeting and tracking. And that isn't even overly new technology, there have been tests of the hypersonic glide vehicle concept dating back to the 1950s and 1960s. An example of a hypersonic glide vehicle that was actually used was the space shuttle. There's also hypersonic cruise missiles, which are able to achieve hypersonic speeds in level flight. So what does Russia have? Currently, all they have fielded is the Kinzhal missile. But is it neither a hypersonic glide body nor a hypersonic cruise missile. It is simply an air-launched ballistic missile. It would not be suitable for an anti-ship mission, unless striking a ship docked in port. The impressive and novel thing about it is that they managed to get a ballistic missile to be launched from an aircraft, which is rather tricky to do from an engineering standpoint, and IIRC is the first ALBM to actually be deployed. They also have Avangard in development, which is a hypersonic glide body deployed from ICBMs for the nuclear strike mission. Finally, they have the Zircon missile in development, which is a hypersonic cruise missile meant for the anti-ship mission. Russia claims to have completed testing of the missile, but it doesn't appear to have been deployed yet. It's unclear how effective it would be against a carrier strike group, with air defenses, electronic countermeasures and decoys. Notably, it cruises at a high altitude, unlike most anti-ship missiles which try to skim the surface to make it harder to detect and track on radar. Ultimately, I don't think that hypersonic weapons fundamentally change the security of the carrier. It may necessitate the development of some anti-missile missiles better tuned for the counter-hypersonic mission. It may necessitate altering doctrine towards the anti-ISR (intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance) mission to complicate targeting such missiles. I could be wrong of course!

ufmace 4y ago

I suppose it's possible that might happen at some point in the future, but I don't think that's ever happened. Humans are about the most vulnerable thing out there. Yet nobody suggests that we should get rid of the infantry because they're too vulnerable. Instead, we give them camouflage gear, some armor, train them to stay behind cover and move carefully, and work on better medical care if they get hit. FWIW, hypersonic weapons are likely overrated. The hard part has always been finding an active deployed carrier and tracking it well enough to guide a weapon into it. If you can do that, there's no shortage of weapons that can sink it. The carrier's tactics are to use its air wing to stay outside of radar range from any targets while still being able to strike, and using airborne radar as needed to monitor the area without revealing the precise position of the actual carrier. Foreign militaries are just as prone to exaggerations about how effective their weapons are as American military contractors. Results of well-run tank divisions against anti-tank teams, some of which are documented in the GP's video, show that the kill rates against tanks are often underwhelming even in situations where the tanks are at a disadvantage.