5 ms·

I’ve been watching a lot of these war game simulations https://youtu.be/vSnbbifpiLw?si=d-ymKHwfnwdKoGOL https://youtu.be/vSnbbifpiLw?si=d-ymKHwfnwdKoGOL. They h

I’ve been watching a lot of these war game simulations https://youtu.be/vSnbbifpiLw?si=d-ymKHwfnwdKoGOL https://youtu.be/vSnbbifpiLw?si=d-ymKHwfnwdKoGOL. They have a lot of limitations to them, and they’re engineered to be entertaining first and foremost (it is YouTube), but they can be very informative too about the state of naval warfare. Some things I’ve learned from watching these: 1) Shooting down anti-ship missiles is very doable, even hypersonic and stealth missiles. A naval carrier group is pretty much invulnerable to any single weapon that exists today. However, they do have a limit to how many defensive SAMs they can carry. So firing hundreds of anti-ship missiles will overwhelm their defenses and eventually sink that $15 billion carrier with 4,000 people on board. 2) The British Navy’s upcoming strategy seems to be using large numbers of small anti-ship missiles that use AI to target critical systems of the ships they target (rather than just trying to sink the ship). This actually looks like it should be really effective since they can disable enemy ships or at least exhaust the defenders’ defenses before firing ship-killers at them. Another thing I want to note: we really really really don’t want to go to war with China, and China doesn’t want that either. I think China would only try to take Taiwan if they knew two things: 1) they could take and hold Taiwan 2) they could exact such a heavy toll on American forces trying to defend Taiwan that the US would not want to get involved. Taking Taiwan is probably not worth it if the US fights. China needs to convince the US it’s not worth defending Taiwan. It is a form of Prisoner’s Dilemma.

dmix 2y ago
That plus spamming small sea based submarine kamikaze drones will eventually penetrate. I wonder if there will be some large scale autonomous mini torpedo or mine systems that works against small highly mobile drone ships. Similar to how the old WW2 systems shot out mines from the ship but not putting the wider carrier group at risk of blue on blue. Edit: also +1 grim reapers YT channel. It really demonstrates the capability of Chinese anti air (on paper) and advanced long range missiles. Would be a very very scary conflict for pilots and navy sailors.
- baron816 2y ago
  I’ve been thinking: drone subs that could sit at the bottom of the ocean and then surface to fire anti-ship missiles. Essentially this https://youtu.be/hMBICD5rgY0?si=IXalKjfvs0pSL5B6 https://youtu.be/hMBICD5rgY0?si=IXalKjfvs0pSL5B6 Imagine launching hundreds of these from the US or Japan and then they just camp at the bottom of the East China Sea. If tensions escalate, they can migrate towards the Taiwan Strait. And then, emerge potentially just hundreds of meters away from corvettes and landing vessels, fire off their missiles and then submerge.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    I've always felt like I was missing something obvious for why there weren't submarine-launched SAMs or ASMs. Seems like a really good way to target AWACS/tankers and valuable softer shipping, provided you have missiles with active guidance and can deploy launch pods under the sea, scoot, and then they launch when you've left the area. Granted, much harder to do before networked unified sensors, but not nowadays.
    - RandomThoughts3 2y ago
      ASMs would not be very useful. First submarines have piss poor detection capability outside of their sonar which severely limits the range at which they could launch them. Then they already have torpedoes which are effective against ships and can be guided from the range at which a submarine would be likely to want to fire. SAMs have been considered mostly to fight against their natural enemy: the helicopters but I don’t think it has ever been actually fielded. The issue remains the same in both case. Submarines are slow and firing is loud and basically broadcast your position to everyone.
    - maxglute 2y ago
      There's exploration of integrating hypersonics with antiship strike capability on subs. But the TLDR is until PLA's massive A2D2 expansion to 1IC and beyond (1500km+), there aren't any adversaries that can prevent carrier groups from operating permissively - USN CSG airwing had standoff advantage against everyone. Hence (IMO) little reason (without consider technical stuff like extending kill chain to underwater - subs would need to get target queuing from above water sensors) to integrate SAMs/ASMs into subs, because as expensive as carriers are, subs are even more expensive per unit of fire/tube/vls. Extrapolate from Zumwalt hypersonic retrofit projections current 80 cells for TLAM (tomahawks) whittles down to ~12 CGHBs (common hypersonic glide bodies) to a SSN (~20 shots) and all of a sudden it costs 100-200m+ per shot on a 2-4B Ohio class. Extrapolate to SSNX @6-8B and cost ratio per shot gets even more ridiculous.
natmaka 2y ago
> firing hundreds of anti-ship missiles The War Nerd stated it clearly: https://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/ https://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carrie...
- jychang 2y ago
  Don’t think that article from 2009 is still true. The USA and Israel easily shot down over a thousand missiles from Iran. https://open.substack.com/pub/noahpinion/p/why-so-many-of-us-were-wrong-about https://open.substack.com/pub/noahpinion/p/why-so-many-of-us...
  - tubs 2y ago
    About 300.
    - impossiblefork 2y ago
      and over a long distance. After all, Iran isn't actually all that close to Israel.
  - boffinAudio 2y ago
    It was 'easy' because Iran designed the attack to deplete the expensive iron dome stocks with ultra-cheap drones, not actually demolish any Israeli infrastructure. The supersonic missiles that Iran intended to get through, got through. All else was theatre. The point was very clearly made: iron dome can be defeated with cheap drones, leaving the path clear for the supersonic missiles to land on target. Which is precisely what happened. It was precisely the same message delivered in Irans' response to the assassination of Soleimani.
    - LorenPechtel 2y ago
      What got through? My understanding is there were no meaningful hits--some of the ballistic stuff wasn't intercepted but came down where it didn't matter. And you don't know if that means a miss or means they didn't fire--Israel has gotten quite good at plotting where a ballistic weapon is going to come down and deciding whether it's worth expending an interceptor on it. The only casualties I'm aware of were from the debris of a successful intercept. It's not like a war game, when you kill something it doesn't just turn into a boom and disappear.
RandomThoughts3 2y ago
> A naval carrier group is pretty much invulnerable to any single weapon that exists today. I’m unconvinced. When I worked in the field, they were persistent rumours that modern submarines did sink aircraft carriers in actual exercises which I’m ready to believe. A diesel submarine with its motor shut-off resting on the bottom is near impossible to detect. Not entirely comparable but see how Ukraine seemingly easily neutralised the Russian Black Sea fleet. Modern Navy are not really built for symmetrical conflicts. My personal belief is that progress in space tracking, missiles, subsea warfare and autonomous weapons have made surface ships mostly obsolete. They have their use but open war is a modern enemy is not one of them anymore.
- markovs_gun 2y ago
  Yeah the Russia-Ukraine war is basically the Russo-Japanese war in terms of being a grim preview of what happens when industrial nations fight an all out war. I worry that whatever happens next will make WWI and WWII look like child's play even without the use of nuclear weapons.
- nradov 2y ago
  The diesel submarine threat is exactly why carrier strike group tactics have evolved to remain further offshore in deep water while relying on long-range stand-off weapons. SSKs are relatively slow and short ranged so it's easier to avoid them than to detect them.
- htrp 2y ago
  >When I worked in the field, they were persistent rumours that modern submarines did sink aircraft carriers in actual exercises which I’m ready to believe. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/navy-freaked-out-how-small-sub-sweden-sunk-aircraft-carrier-208338 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/navy-freaked-out-how-... This one was pretty widely reported (from 2005)
- LorenPechtel 2y ago
  A diesel on the bottom in rough terrain is an extreme threat but generally easily avoided by not going into areas shallow enough for a diesel to be on the bottom.
otabdeveloper4 2y ago
> A naval carrier group is pretty much invulnerable to any single weapon that exists today. I like your patriotic spirit, but the U.S. Navy doesn't seem to agree. The Eisenhower retreated at the slightest hint of Houthi missiles.
- tptacek 2y ago
  What do you mean? I saw the videos online. The mighty Houthi missiles ravaged the Eisenhower, leaving it barely more than a series of smoking craters born aloft for PR purposes by support crafted AI-edited out of any of the video footage US-ians are allowed to see.
tomatotomato37 2y ago
The state where naval carrier group is invulnerable to surface attacks is also when it's at it's weakest, since at that point is when it's CIWS's IFF is short-circuited to maximize response time. At that point your defenses are shooting down everything in close proximity to the ships, including any of your own planes/missiles you are attempting to launch. Your only option at that point is to wait out the missile wave, while your opponent is still free to maneuver around and do things like attempt to engage with cannons/torpedos.
- nradov 2y ago
  CIWS is already being phased out.

dmix 2y ago

That plus spamming small sea based submarine kamikaze drones will eventually penetrate. I wonder if there will be some large scale autonomous mini torpedo or mine systems that works against small highly mobile drone ships. Similar to how the old WW2 systems shot out mines from the ship but not putting the wider carrier group at risk of blue on blue. Edit: also +1 grim reapers YT channel. It really demonstrates the capability of Chinese anti air (on paper) and advanced long range missiles. Would be a very very scary conflict for pilots and navy sailors.

baron816 2y ago
I’ve been thinking: drone subs that could sit at the bottom of the ocean and then surface to fire anti-ship missiles. Essentially this https://youtu.be/hMBICD5rgY0?si=IXalKjfvs0pSL5B6 https://youtu.be/hMBICD5rgY0?si=IXalKjfvs0pSL5B6 Imagine launching hundreds of these from the US or Japan and then they just camp at the bottom of the East China Sea. If tensions escalate, they can migrate towards the Taiwan Strait. And then, emerge potentially just hundreds of meters away from corvettes and landing vessels, fire off their missiles and then submerge.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  I've always felt like I was missing something obvious for why there weren't submarine-launched SAMs or ASMs. Seems like a really good way to target AWACS/tankers and valuable softer shipping, provided you have missiles with active guidance and can deploy launch pods under the sea, scoot, and then they launch when you've left the area. Granted, much harder to do before networked unified sensors, but not nowadays.
  - RandomThoughts3 2y ago
    ASMs would not be very useful. First submarines have piss poor detection capability outside of their sonar which severely limits the range at which they could launch them. Then they already have torpedoes which are effective against ships and can be guided from the range at which a submarine would be likely to want to fire. SAMs have been considered mostly to fight against their natural enemy: the helicopters but I don’t think it has ever been actually fielded. The issue remains the same in both case. Submarines are slow and firing is loud and basically broadcast your position to everyone.
  - maxglute 2y ago
    There's exploration of integrating hypersonics with antiship strike capability on subs. But the TLDR is until PLA's massive A2D2 expansion to 1IC and beyond (1500km+), there aren't any adversaries that can prevent carrier groups from operating permissively - USN CSG airwing had standoff advantage against everyone. Hence (IMO) little reason (without consider technical stuff like extending kill chain to underwater - subs would need to get target queuing from above water sensors) to integrate SAMs/ASMs into subs, because as expensive as carriers are, subs are even more expensive per unit of fire/tube/vls. Extrapolate from Zumwalt hypersonic retrofit projections current 80 cells for TLAM (tomahawks) whittles down to ~12 CGHBs (common hypersonic glide bodies) to a SSN (~20 shots) and all of a sudden it costs 100-200m+ per shot on a 2-4B Ohio class. Extrapolate to SSNX @6-8B and cost ratio per shot gets even more ridiculous.

natmaka 2y ago

> firing hundreds of anti-ship missiles The War Nerd stated it clearly: https://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/ https://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carrie...

jychang 2y ago
Don’t think that article from 2009 is still true. The USA and Israel easily shot down over a thousand missiles from Iran. https://open.substack.com/pub/noahpinion/p/why-so-many-of-us-were-wrong-about https://open.substack.com/pub/noahpinion/p/why-so-many-of-us...
- tubs 2y ago
  About 300.
  - impossiblefork 2y ago
    and over a long distance. After all, Iran isn't actually all that close to Israel.
- boffinAudio 2y ago
  It was 'easy' because Iran designed the attack to deplete the expensive iron dome stocks with ultra-cheap drones, not actually demolish any Israeli infrastructure. The supersonic missiles that Iran intended to get through, got through. All else was theatre. The point was very clearly made: iron dome can be defeated with cheap drones, leaving the path clear for the supersonic missiles to land on target. Which is precisely what happened. It was precisely the same message delivered in Irans' response to the assassination of Soleimani.
  - LorenPechtel 2y ago
    What got through? My understanding is there were no meaningful hits--some of the ballistic stuff wasn't intercepted but came down where it didn't matter. And you don't know if that means a miss or means they didn't fire--Israel has gotten quite good at plotting where a ballistic weapon is going to come down and deciding whether it's worth expending an interceptor on it. The only casualties I'm aware of were from the debris of a successful intercept. It's not like a war game, when you kill something it doesn't just turn into a boom and disappear.

RandomThoughts3 2y ago

> A naval carrier group is pretty much invulnerable to any single weapon that exists today. I’m unconvinced. When I worked in the field, they were persistent rumours that modern submarines did sink aircraft carriers in actual exercises which I’m ready to believe. A diesel submarine with its motor shut-off resting on the bottom is near impossible to detect. Not entirely comparable but see how Ukraine seemingly easily neutralised the Russian Black Sea fleet. Modern Navy are not really built for symmetrical conflicts. My personal belief is that progress in space tracking, missiles, subsea warfare and autonomous weapons have made surface ships mostly obsolete. They have their use but open war is a modern enemy is not one of them anymore.

markovs_gun 2y ago
Yeah the Russia-Ukraine war is basically the Russo-Japanese war in terms of being a grim preview of what happens when industrial nations fight an all out war. I worry that whatever happens next will make WWI and WWII look like child's play even without the use of nuclear weapons.
nradov 2y ago
The diesel submarine threat is exactly why carrier strike group tactics have evolved to remain further offshore in deep water while relying on long-range stand-off weapons. SSKs are relatively slow and short ranged so it's easier to avoid them than to detect them.
htrp 2y ago
>When I worked in the field, they were persistent rumours that modern submarines did sink aircraft carriers in actual exercises which I’m ready to believe. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/navy-freaked-out-how-small-sub-sweden-sunk-aircraft-carrier-208338 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/navy-freaked-out-how-... This one was pretty widely reported (from 2005)
LorenPechtel 2y ago
A diesel on the bottom in rough terrain is an extreme threat but generally easily avoided by not going into areas shallow enough for a diesel to be on the bottom.

otabdeveloper4 2y ago

> A naval carrier group is pretty much invulnerable to any single weapon that exists today. I like your patriotic spirit, but the U.S. Navy doesn't seem to agree. The Eisenhower retreated at the slightest hint of Houthi missiles.

tptacek 2y ago
What do you mean? I saw the videos online. The mighty Houthi missiles ravaged the Eisenhower, leaving it barely more than a series of smoking craters born aloft for PR purposes by support crafted AI-edited out of any of the video footage US-ians are allowed to see.

tomatotomato37 2y ago

The state where naval carrier group is invulnerable to surface attacks is also when it's at it's weakest, since at that point is when it's CIWS's IFF is short-circuited to maximize response time. At that point your defenses are shooting down everything in close proximity to the ships, including any of your own planes/missiles you are attempting to launch. Your only option at that point is to wait out the missile wave, while your opponent is still free to maneuver around and do things like attempt to engage with cannons/torpedos.

nradov 2y ago
CIWS is already being phased out.