5 ms·

I'm having a hard time believing that ships matter to great-power battles of the future. In total war these would be immediately taken out by hypersonic missile

I'm having a hard time believing that ships matter to great-power battles of the future. In total war these would be immediately taken out by hypersonic missiles.

mitthrowaway2 3y ago
Perhaps, but doesn't that same argument imply that submarines will be even more valuable in the future?
poszlem 3y ago
Of course they matter. Otherwise, the U.S. would not find it necessary to maintain so many allies close to the Strait of Malacca, as a strategy to manage China should a war arise.
nradov 3y ago
Hypersonic missiles aren't magic. They have very limited sensors and maneuverability. Targeting is still a huge problem.
- willis936 3y ago
  And limited range. We are still deep in the era where Navy is the dominant means of force projection.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
AussieWog93 3y ago
Wouldn't ships be able to intercept these?
BryanLegend 3y ago
I agree. The sinking of the Moskva last year highlights how vulnerable ships are now.
- Ancapistani 3y ago
  IIRC, wasn't that mostly an issue with poorly manning duty stations, combined with offline sensors?
jonmayer 3y ago
The jury is still out re: the efficacy of Kinzhal missiles. Ukraine reports it's been able to intercept them with old-fashion Patriot anti-missile systems. I agree with parts of the authors commentary, but I was disappointed that he didn't mention the LCS debacle as one of the reasons American shipbuilding is taking a beating.
- cameldrv 3y ago
  LCS and Zumwalt debacles. Most of the surface ships the Navy has purchased in the past decade are essentially useless.
Animats 3y ago
Or even regular missiles. Right now, the Russian Navy is retreating from its ports in Crimea to ports out of range of Ukraine.[1] Two ships were sunk, and the rest are being removed before they get sunk. We're seeing this former hypothetical play out for real. In the Ukraine war, we're seeing that systems which are mounted on trucks, or are even man-portable, can take out most high-cost assets - tanks, ships, aircraft, etc. [1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/satellite-imagery-indicates-russia-moving-navy-ships-to-other-ports-after-sevastopol-attacks/ar-AA1hKeoH https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/satellite-imagery-indic...
- nradov 3y ago
  Which is why the US Navy is pivoting it's battle fleet away from littoral operations and back towards blue-water sea control. The concept is to launch stand-off strike weapons and interdict sea lines of communication outside the range of shore defenses. It's also questionable whether the Russian Navy experience is even relevant. They are simply incompetent and poorly equipped. NATO has been feeding the Ukrainians real-time targeting data which gives them a huge advantage.
  - fatherzine 3y ago
    A blue sea Navy is vulnerable to a growing number of long range weapons. On top of my head, nuclear EMPs. Hypothetically, a hostile great power military may be willing to blast above uninhabited Pacific, compared to above densely populated Europe / Asia. Yuck.
    - nradov 3y ago
      The whole nuclear EMP thing is mostly science fiction. It's just not a serious threat to warships.
- grotorea 3y ago
  The Black Sea is smaller than the Pacific through. The theory I heard is that in an hypothetical US-China war the US Navy would be able to stay in the Pacific but far away from the coast.

I'm having a hard time believing that ships matter to great-power battles of the future. In total war these would be immediately taken out by hypersonic missiles.

mitthrowaway2 3y ago

Perhaps, but doesn't that same argument imply that submarines will be even more valuable in the future?

poszlem 3y ago

Of course they matter. Otherwise, the U.S. would not find it necessary to maintain so many allies close to the Strait of Malacca, as a strategy to manage China should a war arise.

nradov 3y ago

Hypersonic missiles aren't magic. They have very limited sensors and maneuverability. Targeting is still a huge problem.

willis936 3y ago
And limited range. We are still deep in the era where Navy is the dominant means of force projection.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

AussieWog93 3y ago

Wouldn't ships be able to intercept these?

BryanLegend 3y ago

I agree. The sinking of the Moskva last year highlights how vulnerable ships are now.

Ancapistani 3y ago
IIRC, wasn't that mostly an issue with poorly manning duty stations, combined with offline sensors?

jonmayer 3y ago

The jury is still out re: the efficacy of Kinzhal missiles. Ukraine reports it's been able to intercept them with old-fashion Patriot anti-missile systems. I agree with parts of the authors commentary, but I was disappointed that he didn't mention the LCS debacle as one of the reasons American shipbuilding is taking a beating.

cameldrv 3y ago
LCS and Zumwalt debacles. Most of the surface ships the Navy has purchased in the past decade are essentially useless.

Animats 3y ago

Or even regular missiles. Right now, the Russian Navy is retreating from its ports in Crimea to ports out of range of Ukraine.[1] Two ships were sunk, and the rest are being removed before they get sunk. We're seeing this former hypothetical play out for real. In the Ukraine war, we're seeing that systems which are mounted on trucks, or are even man-portable, can take out most high-cost assets - tanks, ships, aircraft, etc. [1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/satellite-imagery-indicates-russia-moving-navy-ships-to-other-ports-after-sevastopol-attacks/ar-AA1hKeoH https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/satellite-imagery-indic...

nradov 3y ago
Which is why the US Navy is pivoting it's battle fleet away from littoral operations and back towards blue-water sea control. The concept is to launch stand-off strike weapons and interdict sea lines of communication outside the range of shore defenses. It's also questionable whether the Russian Navy experience is even relevant. They are simply incompetent and poorly equipped. NATO has been feeding the Ukrainians real-time targeting data which gives them a huge advantage.
- fatherzine 3y ago
  A blue sea Navy is vulnerable to a growing number of long range weapons. On top of my head, nuclear EMPs. Hypothetically, a hostile great power military may be willing to blast above uninhabited Pacific, compared to above densely populated Europe / Asia. Yuck.
  - nradov 3y ago
    The whole nuclear EMP thing is mostly science fiction. It's just not a serious threat to warships.
grotorea 3y ago
The Black Sea is smaller than the Pacific through. The theory I heard is that in an hypothetical US-China war the US Navy would be able to stay in the Pacific but far away from the coast.