5 ms·

Ships are slow moving, high value targets that can be destroyed at lost cost --- given a little ingenuity.

PaulHoule 2y ago
Around the time of WWII there was a lot of talk in the UK about how aviation competes with the navy when it came to defending the homeland. The UK needed a navy to protect force globally but against the threat in WWII it may have been able to "rule the waves" locally without a navy. (Of course the aircraft carrier made the battleship obsolete for "grand power" competition although battleships were useful later in the Vietnam war and in the middle east because they were not at threat.) Today in the Black sea and the middle east though we are seeing forces very much able to strike at sea with missiles from land with dominating results in the first case and seriously annoying results in the second.
- taylodl 2y ago
  Interesting. I remember the Falklands War revealing how exposed Navy ships were to French-built Exocet missiles. I recall American military planners having a bit of a freak-out over the situation when they realized how vulnerable their fleets were to comparatively cheap technology. This realization accelerated the deployment of the Phalanx CIWS, the lasting legacy of the war.
bell-cot 2y ago
For warships - complacent, incompetent, and ill-equipped defenders are usually another requirement. One classic example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor
- jqpabc123 2y ago
  As far as I know, no one is currently equipped to defend a warship against a hypersonic missile. Doing so would require energy weapon technology that has yet to be invented or deployed.
  - bell-cot 2y ago
    Possibly true. OTOH, the original comment said "destroyed at lost cost" and "given a little ingenuity". At least for now, ship-killer hypersonic missiles are (at best) expensive, bleeding-edge tech. And - given the 1985 success of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-135_ASAT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-135_ASAT - knocking down mere hypersonic missiles may actually not be all that difficult with current-era tech.
    - jqpabc123 2y ago
      The latest and greatest Ford class US aircraft carrier costs over $13 billion for the ship itself --- not counting any aircraft on board. According to a CBO study from January 2023, a hypersonic missile capable of destroying it is expected to cost the Pentagon $41 million each --- 0.3 percent of the cost of the ship --- aka target. These Long-Range Hypersonic Weapons (LRHW) are scheduled for delivery to the US military later this year. Russia and China supposedly have already deployed similar. Relatively speaking, these missiles are "low cost". https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/ford-class-aircraft-carrier-the-us-navys-13000000000-mistake/ar-AA1oklNE https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/ford-class-aircraf... https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11991 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11991

Around the time of WWII there was a lot of talk in the UK about how aviation competes with the navy when it came to defending the homeland. The UK needed a navy to protect force globally but against the threat in WWII it may have been able to "rule the waves" locally without a navy. (Of course the aircraft carrier made the battleship obsolete for "grand power" competition although battleships were useful later in the Vietnam war and in the middle east because they were not at threat.) Today in the Black sea and the middle east though we are seeing forces very much able to strike at sea with missiles from land with dominating results in the first case and seriously annoying results in the second.

taylodl 2y ago
Interesting. I remember the Falklands War revealing how exposed Navy ships were to French-built Exocet missiles. I recall American military planners having a bit of a freak-out over the situation when they realized how vulnerable their fleets were to comparatively cheap technology. This realization accelerated the deployment of the Phalanx CIWS, the lasting legacy of the war.

bell-cot 2y ago

For warships - complacent, incompetent, and ill-equipped defenders are usually another requirement. One classic example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor

jqpabc123 2y ago
As far as I know, no one is currently equipped to defend a warship against a hypersonic missile. Doing so would require energy weapon technology that has yet to be invented or deployed.
- bell-cot 2y ago
  Possibly true. OTOH, the original comment said "destroyed at lost cost" and "given a little ingenuity". At least for now, ship-killer hypersonic missiles are (at best) expensive, bleeding-edge tech. And - given the 1985 success of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-135_ASAT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-135_ASAT - knocking down mere hypersonic missiles may actually not be all that difficult with current-era tech.
  - jqpabc123 2y ago
    The latest and greatest Ford class US aircraft carrier costs over $13 billion for the ship itself --- not counting any aircraft on board. According to a CBO study from January 2023, a hypersonic missile capable of destroying it is expected to cost the Pentagon $41 million each --- 0.3 percent of the cost of the ship --- aka target. These Long-Range Hypersonic Weapons (LRHW) are scheduled for delivery to the US military later this year. Russia and China supposedly have already deployed similar. Relatively speaking, these missiles are "low cost". https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/ford-class-aircraft-carrier-the-us-navys-13000000000-mistake/ar-AA1oklNE https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/ford-class-aircraf... https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11991 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11991