4 ms·

Carrier strike group has to be careful not to repeat what happened to Moskva. Red Sea is small and it’s questionable if AA systems are up to the task with moder

Carrier strike group has to be careful not to repeat what happened to Moskva. Red Sea is small and it’s questionable if AA systems are up to the task with modern saturation threats from air, sea and sub water drones. Era of impunity for US is frankly over and in addition I am not sure what carrier strike group can do that Saudi Arabia could not do during their unsuccessful war with Yemen.

erulabs 3y ago
From what I understand, as a layman, comparing the capabilities of a US Carrier strike group and the Moskva isn't exactly apples and oranges, but it's quite close.
meepmorp 3y ago
US warships are generally better maintained than Russian ones, they'd probably stay on the other side of the straits. It's also several ships vs a single one. > I am not sure what carrier strike group can do that Saudi Arabia could not do during their unsuccessful war with Yemen. Fight effectively. They might buy our weapons, but the Saudi military is ass at every level.
matkoniecz 3y ago
> Carrier strike group has to be careful not to repeat what happened to Moskva. Remember to keep their radars and CIWS running? Moskwa was sunken by two antiship missiles, hardly modern saturation threats.
- User23 3y ago
  We are talking about a US navy that’s got a solid reputation for unnecessarily ramming ships into each other. It doesn’t beggar belief that the ball could get dropped.
  - SauciestGNU 3y ago
    Really makes me wonder if the crews around the Gulf are better than the Seventh(?) Fleet in the Pacific that keeps playing bumper cars. Maybe they're all inept, who knows.
- sudosysgen 3y ago
  CIWS is not very effective against fast sea skimming missiles, you'd have to expend expensive interceptors in a way that could threaten your magazine capacity.
  - nradov 3y ago
    And that's why the US Navy is gradually phasing out CIWS and replacing them with SeaRAM plus upgraded EW systems.
    - sudosysgen 3y ago
      Sure, but it's not like the rest of the world is standing still. Iran and China are starting to pump out cheap ballistic antiship missiles, and they're also demonstrating combined low-cost EO/IR/Radar seekers to defeat EW. Russia has deployed semi-autonomous EO seekers on their low-cost Lancet drones (image recognition detects a target, the operator confirms it, and then the drone navigates itself), and China even has EO/Radar fusion in their latest generation of air-to-air missiles. Also, SeaRAM only has 12 missiles worth of depth. Increasingly, it just seems like large surface ships are not very survivable at close ranges.
philwelch 3y ago
A single US destroyer has successfully shot down dozens of Houthi missiles in the Red Sea already. A carrier strike group has many destroyers. You have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about.
- sudosysgen 3y ago
  So did Russian destroyers in the Black Sea - it only takes one missile to get through, and so far the US didn't even confirm that US ships were the target.
  - philwelch 3y ago
    US ships being the target would make it easier, not harder, to intercept the missiles.
    - sudosysgen 3y ago
      If US ships were targeted the Houthis/Iran would aim to deplete interceptors.

erulabs 3y ago

From what I understand, as a layman, comparing the capabilities of a US Carrier strike group and the Moskva isn't exactly apples and oranges, but it's quite close.

meepmorp 3y ago

US warships are generally better maintained than Russian ones, they'd probably stay on the other side of the straits. It's also several ships vs a single one. > I am not sure what carrier strike group can do that Saudi Arabia could not do during their unsuccessful war with Yemen. Fight effectively. They might buy our weapons, but the Saudi military is ass at every level.

matkoniecz 3y ago

> Carrier strike group has to be careful not to repeat what happened to Moskva. Remember to keep their radars and CIWS running? Moskwa was sunken by two antiship missiles, hardly modern saturation threats.

User23 3y ago
We are talking about a US navy that’s got a solid reputation for unnecessarily ramming ships into each other. It doesn’t beggar belief that the ball could get dropped.
- SauciestGNU 3y ago
  Really makes me wonder if the crews around the Gulf are better than the Seventh(?) Fleet in the Pacific that keeps playing bumper cars. Maybe they're all inept, who knows.
sudosysgen 3y ago
CIWS is not very effective against fast sea skimming missiles, you'd have to expend expensive interceptors in a way that could threaten your magazine capacity.
- nradov 3y ago
  And that's why the US Navy is gradually phasing out CIWS and replacing them with SeaRAM plus upgraded EW systems.
  - sudosysgen 3y ago
    Sure, but it's not like the rest of the world is standing still. Iran and China are starting to pump out cheap ballistic antiship missiles, and they're also demonstrating combined low-cost EO/IR/Radar seekers to defeat EW. Russia has deployed semi-autonomous EO seekers on their low-cost Lancet drones (image recognition detects a target, the operator confirms it, and then the drone navigates itself), and China even has EO/Radar fusion in their latest generation of air-to-air missiles. Also, SeaRAM only has 12 missiles worth of depth. Increasingly, it just seems like large surface ships are not very survivable at close ranges.

philwelch 3y ago

A single US destroyer has successfully shot down dozens of Houthi missiles in the Red Sea already. A carrier strike group has many destroyers. You have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about.

sudosysgen 3y ago
So did Russian destroyers in the Black Sea - it only takes one missile to get through, and so far the US didn't even confirm that US ships were the target.
- philwelch 3y ago
  US ships being the target would make it easier, not harder, to intercept the missiles.
  - sudosysgen 3y ago
    If US ships were targeted the Houthis/Iran would aim to deplete interceptors.