6 ms·

I'm relatively sure the search/track radar doesn't go with individual bullets, but yeah, you have a high PK (percentage of kill) when defending against one, two

I'm relatively sure the search/track radar doesn't go with individual bullets, but yeah, you have a high PK (percentage of kill) when defending against one, two missiles. But that's not how they'll be employed - your problem is attack mass and engagement time. You'll have maybe a swarm of cheap drones, a few dozen Mig-21s revamped for drone control, a few incoming guided ballistic missiles at mach 7, fifty or so subsonic sea skimmers, maybe a dozen supersonic sea skimmers, plus maybe some airplanes somewhere out there waiting for a hole to shoot your AWACS or tankers. If your defenses are just amazing, and you take out one every three seconds, you're still going to run out of time. You're on the right track with "firm kill" DEWS though. Gotta be a little careful with those, because the engagement range for DEWS is always going to be short, due to attenuation, mist/fog/spray, dust, and good old line of sight. Also, it's quite surprising how little it takes to shield electronics from even nuke-class EMP. But the short engagement range means you have even less time.

nradov 3y ago
Towards the end of WW2 the US Navy got pretty good at anti-aircraft gunnery. The Japanese responded by sending their "guided missiles" (kamikazes) to attack in column formation. By the time the target ship shot down the attacking aircraft at the head of the column the others shielded behind it would be that much closer. Often the last one would get through to score a hit. The weapons are faster and more lethal now, but similar tactics would probably still work to an extent. The Navy has run some computer simulations but they've never done an all-up fleet exercise of a realistic saturation attack that requires emptying the magazines. So, no one really knows for sure how well the defenses would hold up. There would probably be some nasty surprises.
- JohnBooty 3y ago
  At this point, I think the burden of proof is on anybody who thinks a serious saturation attack on a carrier group (hundreds of missiles and/or decoys per wave, multiplied by multiple waves) from a peer adversary wouldn't work. If a conflict with Russia or China breaks out, I think the first thing that happens is aircraft carriers are going to immediately become obsoleted by antiship missiles as quickly as battleships were obsoleted by air attacks in WWII. Probably even more quickly. I sure hope I'm wrong. And even more than that I hope we never find out.
  - actionfromafar 3y ago
    I agree with the general threat, but an aircraft carrier can still project force at a distance, so a foe must strike from a great distance. It's doable but expensive. So not sure about how quickly carriers will be obsolete or ever really. Only a really advanced and large foe can threaten them.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      Or a single sub. Happened more than once suring NATO maneuvers,a single sub getting into a firing position completey undetected, armed with torpedoes able to sink the carrier. No weapon is beyond reach in war, or indestructible. And still, they have their use cases.
    - JohnBooty 3y ago
      but an aircraft carrier can still project force at a distance In terms of the levels of force being exchanged in a full-scale war, it's not that much force and it's not that much distance, relative to what a peer adversary like China can bring to a fight in their own backyard. It's ~130 ship-launched guided missiles and ~75 fighter jets. They will not be operating at a stand-off distance relative to the reach of cruise and ballistic missiles launched from Chinese homeland. And the planes are not going to be able to take off and land if the carrier is executing evasive maneuvers because of missile attack. If you were China, how would you tackle that? Is there any reason you wouldn't just send several waves of several hundred missiles their way? Carrier strike groups are still useful. 130 missiles and 75 jets is plenty to dissaude most countries on earth. Just not the biggest ones, if they have committed to waging a full-scale war against you. China would definitely not emerge unscathed. The CSG would be augmented with a lot of longer range stuff such as US fighters/bombers/missiles/subs launched from elsewhere. But I mean, I think the CSG gets effectively deleted in the first few hours of war. Hope I'm wrong.
      - Tostino 3y ago
        Even in Taiwan defense simulations, from what I remember reading, the US always loses at least 1 CSG.
somenameforme 3y ago
I also don't entirely understand how directed energy stuff can work against things that aren't just going on a ballistic trajectory like hypersonics. You need to nail that target for an extended period of time. And it's safe to say that if these things ever taken off then the countless sorts of passable protection (multiple layers of thick highly reflective surfaces for instance) would end up being applied to important weapons, meaning you need to hit them for even longer. And these sort of defenses could be done for quite cheap and a very low weight. And then like you said, the engagement range is also going to be quite short - meaning all of this becomes just that exponentially more difficult.
- 15457345234 3y ago
  > You need to nail that target for an extended period of time. I think the idea of DEW is that you're not trying to literally melt the thing out of the sky, you're trying to penetrate it electrically and scramble something. To that end a very sharp pulse (chirped pulse) is the better approach as then you're more likely to cause damage once you exceed the capacity of (for example) the input isolators on the radar antenna to divert excess energy away from the very sensitive amplifier. Or, to put it a simpler way, you're trying to make sparks jump across gaps.
- red-iron-pine 3y ago
  > multiple layers of thick highly reflective surfaces this protects from lasers, but also makes it glaringly obvious to EW and radar systems.

nradov 3y ago

Towards the end of WW2 the US Navy got pretty good at anti-aircraft gunnery. The Japanese responded by sending their "guided missiles" (kamikazes) to attack in column formation. By the time the target ship shot down the attacking aircraft at the head of the column the others shielded behind it would be that much closer. Often the last one would get through to score a hit. The weapons are faster and more lethal now, but similar tactics would probably still work to an extent. The Navy has run some computer simulations but they've never done an all-up fleet exercise of a realistic saturation attack that requires emptying the magazines. So, no one really knows for sure how well the defenses would hold up. There would probably be some nasty surprises.

JohnBooty 3y ago
At this point, I think the burden of proof is on anybody who thinks a serious saturation attack on a carrier group (hundreds of missiles and/or decoys per wave, multiplied by multiple waves) from a peer adversary wouldn't work. If a conflict with Russia or China breaks out, I think the first thing that happens is aircraft carriers are going to immediately become obsoleted by antiship missiles as quickly as battleships were obsoleted by air attacks in WWII. Probably even more quickly. I sure hope I'm wrong. And even more than that I hope we never find out.
- actionfromafar 3y ago
  I agree with the general threat, but an aircraft carrier can still project force at a distance, so a foe must strike from a great distance. It's doable but expensive. So not sure about how quickly carriers will be obsolete or ever really. Only a really advanced and large foe can threaten them.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Or a single sub. Happened more than once suring NATO maneuvers,a single sub getting into a firing position completey undetected, armed with torpedoes able to sink the carrier. No weapon is beyond reach in war, or indestructible. And still, they have their use cases.
  - JohnBooty 3y ago
    but an aircraft carrier can still project force at a distance In terms of the levels of force being exchanged in a full-scale war, it's not that much force and it's not that much distance, relative to what a peer adversary like China can bring to a fight in their own backyard. It's ~130 ship-launched guided missiles and ~75 fighter jets. They will not be operating at a stand-off distance relative to the reach of cruise and ballistic missiles launched from Chinese homeland. And the planes are not going to be able to take off and land if the carrier is executing evasive maneuvers because of missile attack. If you were China, how would you tackle that? Is there any reason you wouldn't just send several waves of several hundred missiles their way? Carrier strike groups are still useful. 130 missiles and 75 jets is plenty to dissaude most countries on earth. Just not the biggest ones, if they have committed to waging a full-scale war against you. China would definitely not emerge unscathed. The CSG would be augmented with a lot of longer range stuff such as US fighters/bombers/missiles/subs launched from elsewhere. But I mean, I think the CSG gets effectively deleted in the first few hours of war. Hope I'm wrong.
    - Tostino 3y ago
      Even in Taiwan defense simulations, from what I remember reading, the US always loses at least 1 CSG.

somenameforme 3y ago

I also don't entirely understand how directed energy stuff can work against things that aren't just going on a ballistic trajectory like hypersonics. You need to nail that target for an extended period of time. And it's safe to say that if these things ever taken off then the countless sorts of passable protection (multiple layers of thick highly reflective surfaces for instance) would end up being applied to important weapons, meaning you need to hit them for even longer. And these sort of defenses could be done for quite cheap and a very low weight. And then like you said, the engagement range is also going to be quite short - meaning all of this becomes just that exponentially more difficult.

15457345234 3y ago
> You need to nail that target for an extended period of time. I think the idea of DEW is that you're not trying to literally melt the thing out of the sky, you're trying to penetrate it electrically and scramble something. To that end a very sharp pulse (chirped pulse) is the better approach as then you're more likely to cause damage once you exceed the capacity of (for example) the input isolators on the radar antenna to divert excess energy away from the very sensitive amplifier. Or, to put it a simpler way, you're trying to make sparks jump across gaps.
red-iron-pine 3y ago
> multiple layers of thick highly reflective surfaces this protects from lasers, but also makes it glaringly obvious to EW and radar systems.