5 ms·

> that's quite possibly an overstated opinion piece Understatement of the year (so far). > I'd bet that the barge was built to test them in a live-fire exerci

> that's quite possibly an overstated opinion piece Understatement of the year (so far). > I'd bet that the barge was built to test them in a live-fire exercise. Might as well just use a tanker hulk. Its about as useful as this thing. > Of course, the real question is how well the missile can get past a real carrier's defenses. Yes, and the defenses of the rest of the CVBG. And how well the ship's damage control will perform. And how well it will penetrate the actual armor of the ship. And how well the secondary protection systems work at suppressing secondary explosions and fires from fuel and ammunition stores. And the overall success rate of these missiles before factoring in everything else I just mentioned. Soviet Frontal Aviation's plan for dealing with a US CVBG in the event of a hot war was to hit it with a saturation raid of 100 - 150 Tu-22 Backfire bombers each armed with a pair of Kh-22 (AS-4 Kitchen)[1] anti-ship missiles. The Soviet Navy felt that this level of saturation was required to ensure that the battlegroup's defenses would be sufficiently overwhelmed after accounting for bomber losses, electro-mechanical failures, and missile defense attrition. The Aegis system and F-14/AIM-54 pairing were developed specifically to combat a Frontal Aviation saturation raid. Sea skimmers, which the Kitchen was not, add an extra variable but do not have the range. The Gulf transit scenario is ludicrous. The US Navy would not sail a CVBG into the Gulf in a war situation where the enemy has significant shore defenses without first suppressing those defenses. This activity would not be nearly as difficult as the badly misinformed author of the first piece seems to think, as finding the installations for launching these missiles is not difficult. If said installations want to have a snowball's chance in hell of finding a target to hit they will need to light it up, even if only briefly. At that point the fire control radar station is getting a HARM up the ass. The rest of the station is going to be fairly hard (though not impossible) to hide as well. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-22 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-22

jjoonathan 13y ago
Thanks for helping me sleep a bit better at night :) > finding the installations for launching these missiles is not difficult. If said installations want to have a snowball's chance in hell of finding a target to hit they will need to light it up, even if only briefly Really? I'd have guessed that a carrier group puts out enough radio to locate using a walkie-talkie with a retuned crystal, let alone a purpose-built passive array of any sensitivity. Of course, there's the NRO to contend with. Iran probably can't move a porta-potty without the NRO knowing, so it doesn't matter how well they hide their installations if they look suspicious putting them in place. But satellites have to put out signals too, and I know for a fact that certain publicly available astronomy-related datasets aren't censored well enough to stop interested parties from finding a large number of things they aren't allowed to know the locations of. How hard is it to dazzle satellites if you know the location?
gaius 13y ago
Modern thinking is to take out a carrier with a nuke: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21#DF-21D_.28CSS-5_Mod-4.29_Anti-ship_ballistic_missile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21#DF-21D_.28CSS-5_Mod-4.29_... "United States Naval Institute in 2009 stated that such a warhead would be large enough to destroy an aircraft carrier in one hit and that there was "currently ... no defense against it" if it worked as theorized."
- hga 13y ago
  You left out our response to this development further in the article: "The United States Navy has responded by switching its focus from a close blockade force of shallow water vessels to return to building deep water ballistic defense destroyers. The United States has also assigned most of its ballistic missile defense capable ships to the Pacific, extended the BMD program to all Aegis destroyers and increased procurement of SM-3 BMD missiles. The United States also has a large network optimized for tracking ballistic missile launches which may give carrier groups sufficient warning in order to move away from the target area while the missile is in flight." We've been playing the BMD (Ballistic Missile Defense) game longer than the PRC has been playing the ICBM game.... ADDED: we've got 62 Arleigh Burke class destroyers operating, 8 on order and another 6 planned.
- kjs3 13y ago
  Yes, but escalation from "attack a US aircraft carrier" to "nuke a US aircraft carrier" isn't linear. It represents a decision on the part of the attacker to absorb a nuclear response from the US.
  - gaius 13y ago
    You're using Cold War logic in a world of martyrdom.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      The concept of noble martyrdom has been a tool used by the powerful to motivate footsoldiers since the dawn of time -- its not something new, or something that didn't exist during the Cold War.

jjoonathan 13y ago

Thanks for helping me sleep a bit better at night :) > finding the installations for launching these missiles is not difficult. If said installations want to have a snowball's chance in hell of finding a target to hit they will need to light it up, even if only briefly Really? I'd have guessed that a carrier group puts out enough radio to locate using a walkie-talkie with a retuned crystal, let alone a purpose-built passive array of any sensitivity. Of course, there's the NRO to contend with. Iran probably can't move a porta-potty without the NRO knowing, so it doesn't matter how well they hide their installations if they look suspicious putting them in place. But satellites have to put out signals too, and I know for a fact that certain publicly available astronomy-related datasets aren't censored well enough to stop interested parties from finding a large number of things they aren't allowed to know the locations of. How hard is it to dazzle satellites if you know the location?

gaius 13y ago

Modern thinking is to take out a carrier with a nuke: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21#DF-21D_.28CSS-5_Mod-4.29_Anti-ship_ballistic_missile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21#DF-21D_.28CSS-5_Mod-4.29_... "United States Naval Institute in 2009 stated that such a warhead would be large enough to destroy an aircraft carrier in one hit and that there was "currently ... no defense against it" if it worked as theorized."

hga 13y ago
You left out our response to this development further in the article: "The United States Navy has responded by switching its focus from a close blockade force of shallow water vessels to return to building deep water ballistic defense destroyers. The United States has also assigned most of its ballistic missile defense capable ships to the Pacific, extended the BMD program to all Aegis destroyers and increased procurement of SM-3 BMD missiles. The United States also has a large network optimized for tracking ballistic missile launches which may give carrier groups sufficient warning in order to move away from the target area while the missile is in flight." We've been playing the BMD (Ballistic Missile Defense) game longer than the PRC has been playing the ICBM game.... ADDED: we've got 62 Arleigh Burke class destroyers operating, 8 on order and another 6 planned.
kjs3 13y ago
Yes, but escalation from "attack a US aircraft carrier" to "nuke a US aircraft carrier" isn't linear. It represents a decision on the part of the attacker to absorb a nuclear response from the US.
- gaius 13y ago
  You're using Cold War logic in a world of martyrdom.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    The concept of noble martyrdom has been a tool used by the powerful to motivate footsoldiers since the dawn of time -- its not something new, or something that didn't exist during the Cold War.