Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Forget Sunburn - enter the new carrier killer

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 10:48 AM
link   
www.defensetech.org...



China is developing an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) based on a variant of the CSS-5 medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) as a component of its anti-access strategy. The missile has a range in excess of 1,500 km and, when incorporated into a sophisticated command and control system, is a key component of China’s anti-access strategy to provide the PLA the capability to attack ships at sea, including aircraft carriers, from great distances.


and


Now, here's what it means: carriers must stay at least 1000 miles off this enemy's coast. Think how that affects strike planning, surveillance, rescue...any number of factors that go into naval aviation planning. And how do you defend against such a strike? I'm not sure about all the details, but it seems to me there's a pretty short flight time in which to generate a solution for an anti-ballistic missile interceptor. Maybe ABL could handle this one, but how many can it shoot down at any one time? A salvo of even five or 10 of these could be devistating.



bang on the money for an IRBM - and with a `pershing 2` type CEP of better than 30m if they ever use these things its gonna hurt;

now its rumoured that this is very similar to the PAK SHAHEEN missiles (1 and 2) - which are also flown by NK and Iran




posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 11:03 AM
link   
More definitive information is needed to asses the probability of how such a system will perform. The concept is simple to understand, putting into practice however will require proven capabilities that China does not yet posses.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Aircraft carriers are obsolete in real wars, but then real wars are also supposed to be obsolete. For the Navy's sake, I hope this is true.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by gottago
 


How are aircraft carriers obsolete?

Aircraft carriers provide the US with some of the greatest force multiplication and force projection capabilities.

If they were obsolete, why are we building updated ones?

Shattered OUT...



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Interesting concept and will alter things a bit if they can carry it off. However, the Aegis system thus far has proven itself quite adept in the ABM role.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
reply to post by gottago
 


How are aircraft carriers obsolete?

Aircraft carriers provide the US with some of the greatest force multiplication and force projection capabilities.

If they were obsolete, why are we building updated ones?

Shattered OUT...


Gottago in:

Well, if you have the USN in congressional testimony admitting at least five years ago that they could not protect carrier task forces from Sunburns, and now you have China creating their own version with a 1500 km range, that pretty much makes carriers obsolete in a war. They have to stay out of range of these missiles and are sitting ducks in potential flashpoints like the Persian Gulf and Taiwan.

Granted they are still viable for projecting force in crisis situations, but in a real war, yes, they are obsolete.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 02:44 PM
link   
I don't quite follow...

You make the assumption that for every one of these weapons (are they even in production?), a carrier will be destroyed.

What about all the other factors, such as the carrier battle GROUP? I can't recall the last time I saw a carrier sailing by itself.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Aegis, Sams 3000 rounds a minute close in guns, all obsolete, the real carrier killers are without a Doubt:


VA-111 Shkval
The VA-111 Shkval (from Russian: шквал - squall ) torpedo and its descendants are supercavitating torpedoes developed by the Russian Navy. They are capable of speeds in excess of 200 knots (370 km/h).

Wiki on it

There is currently NO DEFENSIVE SYSTEM against this, none.

So it truly is the only real Carrier Killer and very frightening, as I have said before 4 of these or probably 8-10 would if hitting their targets pretty simualtaniously totally destroy American Projectionable Military Power.

I don't like weapons, or war games, or get much into this, I only like the technology and knowing the world I live in, But these are still in my limited knowledge the only real Carrier Killers as explained, there is nothing to stop them when they are shot.

Kind Regards,

Elf



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ShatteredSkies
 


Really, this is well-known. It's not my opinion: as I said, the Navy admitted years ago before congress that carrier task forces were highly vulnerable to Russian Sunburns--under questioning they admitted that they had nothing that could be guaranteed to stop these missiles.

I'd suggest you google "sunburn" to learn about just what these missiles are capable of; they are quite impressive, and have doubtless since been improved upon, and have been seeded to client states.

Now you have China making known it is developing its own version.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   
I'm pretty sure China has made known several things to be better than anything anyone has ever seen before. And yet I'm pretty sure many of those things never came to fruition.

I have seen a lot of debate about the Sunburn. There may have been a time when the Sunburn was a real threat to CBG's, but that was years ago and since then we have had defense upgrades. Systems change as different weapons are developed. It'd be foolish to think that something that was true 5 years ago remains true today.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Folks, this is pure crap.

Unless they can get some kind of terminal homing device on it, there is no way for them to get hit on a carrier. Carriers move, that is what makes them so hard to get.

In the event that they could get some kind of targetting device that could alter the flight path, then I might start worrying.

The only chance they could possibly have with this is to lob dozens of them at an area and hope that they get a hit. Does anyone here seriously think that they have the capability to pull this off?



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 09:25 PM
link   
They will never sink a US carrier. The response would be the total destruction of China. NAVY subs lurking off the coast would launch within minutes of that strike on a carrier. It would be wiser to come up with better AA stuff. IMHO



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by COOL HAND
 


The only thing that worries me is the scenario you stated, salvo launch, in the dozens, to first get through the AEGIS ABM shield and then perhaps to get a hit on the carrier. One possible way in which they can go about this could be submunitions. We currently have the capability to launch submunitions that can pick out individuals vehicles on the move, track, lock and detonate all autonomously. They wont sink a carrier that way but they can stop mission ops. The resulting fallout would essentially limit carrier operation until an assessment of the situation can be made. It is possible, but as I said before, they have to walk first before attempting to run.

Fortunately for us we a system in place that will only get better at defeating this kind of threat. The Navy might seriously want to think about installing terminal laser defenses for such a scenario. They are precise enough to hit small mortar shells so they should be able to take care of small submunitions. At such a close range future AEGIS in combination with IR sensors should have no problem illuminating any warheads.

The problems facing the Chinese in this case are great. First there is an issue of intelligence, finding the carrier in wartime is easier said then done. Continuously tracking the carrier with the live stream required is even more difficult. China simply does not yet posses the capability to do this. A CVN can haul if need be, considering a bare minimum of 15 minutes notice a carrier can be anywhere within a 315 mile square area. A unitary warhead would have too large a CEP, even if terminally guided, against a maneuvering target to be an effective and reliable system. Submunitions can help in this case but again just like the warhead they must first overcome the technical challenges let alone the defenses and countermeasures that will be present. It's safe to say that for the near term such a system will not be fielded by the Chinese.



[edit on 6-10-2008 by WestPoint23]



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by gottago
reply to post by ShatteredSkies
 


Really, this is well-known. It's not my opinion: as I said, the Navy admitted years ago before congress that carrier task forces were highly vulnerable to Russian Sunburns--under questioning they admitted that they had nothing that could be guaranteed to stop these missiles.

I'd suggest you google "sunburn" to learn about just what these missiles are capable of; they are quite impressive, and have doubtless since been improved upon, and have been seeded to client states.

Now you have China making known it is developing its own version.


Do you think the us navy was standing still while other countries developed weopons? The sunburn is already obsolete they now have the searam it replaced the phalanx system and is even more effective.




"In 10 scenarios, real Anti-Ship Missiles and supersonic Vandal target missiles (Mach 2.5) were intercepted and destroyed under realistic conditions. RAM Block 1 achieved first-shot kills on every target in its presented scenarios, including sea-skimming, diving and highly maneuvering profiles in both single and stream attacks."


heres an article Russian "Sunburn" anti-ship missle threat neutralized...

good photo of launch with this link
SeaRAM missle defense system

The us navy identified a threat then took action we are not stupid.



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by COOL HAND
 


it does have terminal guidance - which is the whole `thing` about it

and ciws is obselete and searam isn`t as good as they want you to believe



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Strange that somebody would quote a story from 2003 to say that current generations of
Russian/ Chinese/Indian anti ship missiles are uesless.

The RIM-8 Talos can't perform terminal phase S-maneuver so the tests are pretty much redundant, even if they can be believed

Anyway, the Brahmos2 is a Mach 5 missile coming soon and...

The SS-N-19 Shipwreck experimental version fitted with a ramjet 4D 04 engine can accelerate up to a top speed of Mach 4.

Problem is American armchair generals can't accept the fact that their Fifth Fleet is a sitting duck.
a Salvo of 10 Brahmos missiles total cost $20 million dollars to sink a $5 billion american supercarrier not to mention loss of american lives... it's very unpalletable and hurts the ego.

Truckload of these delivered to Iran renders the worlds supposed only Superpower impotent...
hence why Iran hasn't been attacked or the US allowing Israel to do so.

Not to mention air defense.... B2 Spirits and Raptors versus the S-400s... I think it's safe to say given recent events in Georgia and the Polish missile shield row that Russia has fast tracked the latest and greatest to Terhan.



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
it does have terminal guidance - which is the whole `thing` about it


It does not matter. Even the great Pershing II only had a CEP of 30 meters, and that was against stationary target using terminal guidance. Even without considering all the hurdles I previously mentioned I'm supposed to believe that China has the capability to reduce that CEP, against a moving target? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof; proof which has to be demonstrated.


Originally posted by Harlequin
and ciws is obselete and searam isn`t as good as they want you to believe


CWIS latest versions still have a role, albeit much more limited. As for SeaRAM, may I ask what you're basing your statement on? The SeaRAM has been tested against a likely threat much more thoroughly than any Russian super missile. A missile threat is easier to reproduce, trying to reproduce the capabilities of an entire CBG on the other hand is next to impossible for anyone but the USN. So who should we believe? Russian salesman desperate for funding? When was the last time Russia held a major live fire exercise involving such a scenario? Where are the published test and evaluation results for these Russian super missiles? How often does Russia test its equipment, personnel and systems compared to the US military? What has been the track record of Russian systems when they have faced their Western counterparts in actual combat? Believe what you want. I'll stick with more concrete facts instead of seeing a max speed and range figure and getting an orgasm.



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unknown Perpetrator
The RIM-8 Talos can't perform terminal phase S-maneuver so the tests are pretty much redundant, even if they can be believed


Oh really? And when was the last time any such super missile was tested against a target identically mimicking the capabilities of a CBG? In any case, the GQM-163 Coyote and soon the GQM-173 will be more than adequate.


Originally posted by Unknown Perpetrator
Anyway, the Brahmos2 is a Mach 5 missile coming soon and...


...and it can't maneuver better then our interceptors, not to mention using the AEGIS to essentially fry the systems electronics. But never mind, that's not as sexy as a missile traveling at Mach 5.


Originally posted by Unknown Perpetrator
Problem is American armchair generals can't accept the fact that their Fifth Fleet is a sitting duck.


Problem is with people not really loading their head with information before they shoot off their mouth.


Originally posted by Unknown Perpetrator
...a Salvo of 10 Brahmos missiles total cost $20 million dollars to sink a $5 billion american supercarrier not to mention loss of american lives... it's very unpalletable and hurts the ego.


Don't forget to mention that it's absolutely utter nonsense. First off, you're not going to sink a modern CVN even if 10 such missiles strike it. I wont even bother with the ridicules scenario.


Originally posted by Unknown Perpetrator
I think it's safe to say...


The only thing that's safe to say is that you, while full of hubris, lack essential information.



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 09:54 AM
link   
After reading thru hear I see how it works Russian and Chinese weapons are just far superior to the united states, we hate the united states. ANYTHING DESIGNED BY ANY BODY BUT THE US IS BETTER. This isn't even a real discussion and therefore a waist of time. you guys are right they could sink a us carrier with these super weapons. And the us navy has nothing to counter it. Does that make you feel better now?Your really delusional. Hypersonic missiles were a threat but not any more. And a ballistic missile has no chance of hitting a carrier the real threat is subs and always has been.


[edit on 10/7/08 by dragonridr]



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by WestPoint23
 


in controlled `tests` CIWS hit everything thrown at it - in reality , in 1991 it missed in the only wartime use of an ASCM against a US ship (HMS Gloucester incident) , also there was a very good breakdown on here about the real world tracking limitations of using a stinger seaker ontop of a sidewinder missile.

i do agree it is a much better option than a gun - but its not the be all and end of of ship defence - if a carrier has to shoot itself then the layered defence has gone wrong.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join