4 ms·
> 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 antish
by 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 agoWe 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 agoReally 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 agoCIWS 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 agoAnd that's why the US Navy is gradually phasing out CIWS and replacing them with SeaRAM plus upgraded EW systems.
- sudosysgen 3y agoSure, 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.