They've been saying that for years. Back at the time of the Falklands War, people were suggesting the tiny Exocet cruise missiles could disable a carrier.
Are you aware of these? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-270_Moskit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-700_Granit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-800_Oniks As far as I know, no one ever thoroughly tested a supersonic shipkiller versus a modern AA complex. I presume that both sides are too scared to see the results .
A single missile won't destroy or permanently disable an aircraft carriers. This has been proven through the accidental crashes and accidental detonations of literally tons of high explosives aboard modern carriers. Soviet (Russian) built missiles always work much better in theory than in practice. And you ignore the simply physics fact that the faster a missile (or an aircraft) flies, the less maneuverable it is. Also ignore the fact that while very long range is impressive in a missile it omits the fact that the longer the range, the more a targeted ship will hae moved while the missile is en route.
I watched some video in pre-mob that talked about a hardened target being a bunker. Now when I hear that, I always think of a bunker.
Well, I was PATRIOT before I moved to IT. And trust me, if they are at all prepared Tomahawks or a similar missile would be an exercise in futility. Since the 1990s, Air Defense has migrated to "Air and Missile Defense" and specialize in taking out missiles. Especially cruise missiles, which have been shot down for over 70 years now. Interesting that you mention the SLAM however. Since it is generally launched from a fighter. Exactly what I said would be used against such a site. Fighters and not bombers. The same with the JSOW. "Hardened target" is a generic term, depending on the type of target a unit will face. For ground forces, it is mostly bunkers (or any defended target). But if you are talking about air forces then it is generally sites that have significant air defenses in place. After all, bunkers are of no real threat to air forces. They can ignore them with impunity unless they are the target.
Newly Commissioned Carrier Ford’s Leap-Ahead Technology Approach May Be a Thing of the Past excerpt: ABOARD USS GERALD R. FORD – Saturday’s commissioning of aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-7 was a celebration of the end of a long and at-times hard road to bring the warship and its many new technologies to the fleet – a path the Navy may not choose to take again. Ford was designed under President George W. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, as the Pentagon sought transformational new technologies. The carrier, then, was packed with major cutting-edge technologies: a steam-free Electromagnetic Aircraft Launching System, an Advanced Arresting Gear, a powerful Dual-Band Radar, a new nuclear propulsion and power distribution system, and advanced weapons elevators. In all, the ship class has 23 distinct changes and upgrades from the Nimitz-class carriers. “This is a herculean task, I don’t think people understand the monumental quantum leaps in technology, whether it’s the electromagnetic launch system, the advanced arresting gear, the new systems onboard,” House Armed Services seapower and projection forces subcommittee chairman Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.) told USNI News before the commissioning ceremony. “It’s really an amazing testament to the Navy, to the shipbuilders in being able to put that together, to test it, to get it to work. If you look at the progress in technology like EMALS originally that hiccupped a little bit and how it is today with it being onboard, it’s really a testament to the Navy and to the shipbuilders as to how they did that. We don’t always expect that new technology, but if we don’t push the envelope on what we can do then we never learn and we never get to deploy those technologies.”... continue -> https://news.usni.org/2017/07/24/ne...230369141&mc_cid=cc00911899&mc_eid=2aedd16e3c
A battery of Patriots only has X number of missiles and can only reload Y quickly. It you send X+1 missiles and time them to arrive Y-1 quickly, you will kill that battery. And that's assuming every missile hits. The same applies for any other SAM system.
My god, you found one of the only weapons still used by the military from WW2. Fun fact, the M-2 of WW2 fame is going to be replaced by the M-2A1 which wasn't even invented until 2010.
Why would Chinese or Russians launch only one missile to sink a carrier? Check out Granit, this was the primary weapon of Oscar class, it had 24 missiles. We are not discussing single missile hits. Thats true for any modern weapon technology . Basically you will not sell it if you tell the true from the start, all manufacturers exaggerate, sometimes to a very stupid level. What is also true, that in 1970, in ship killers, Russians wear at modern US level if not above. That’s a surprise to me . So the missile that is standing still has the ultimate maneuverability and the one flying backwards is God level? Missile maneuverability is defined by the total G it can survive without breaking in half (Provided that it has sufficient energy). G limit for Granit is not known (to me ). Moskit can maneuver with up to 15G. These missiles are of the same time and breed, Granit is heavier, should be even more maneuverable, but lets stick to 10-15G for a very rough estimation. For comparison, Sidewinder should do around 40G Python – around 70G (rumored) Modern fighter – should be around 12G 15G is extremely decent figure for a heavy missile. Many believe that Phalanx will not be able to track, but I do not know how they are coming to such a conclusion. It should track at least at some angles of the envelope. I urge you not to believe in 550km of Granit. I remember when 400km was indicated (that was long ago), now some sources indicate 600km. But I do not recall Granit modernization, these missiles are from 1970 era. But I could be wrong. In case of Granit. Even when they are fired in sea skimming mode (that is 200km range, at 1.6 mach). One of the missiles can jump up to do radar observation and target designation for the entire pack of 8 missiles (data link). The radar is nothing special, but it is sufficient to find a modern frigate at 70km. Sea skimming is the primary mode for Sub launch. Oscar class, will hear the carrier group from 200km, and the sea skimming range is around 200-250km. At 500m per second, that’s 400seconds flight time. If the carrier group cant cover 71km in 6.6 minutes, than they will be detected and engaged. In case of ballistic launch, Granits rise up to 14000m (300km) and dive to 15m for the terminal 100km attack run. In Ballistic their speed is 2.5 mach, that’s 400 seconds. Above water 1.6mach, so add 200seconds. Total flight time is 600 secs. How far do we expect a carrier group to go in 10 minutes? If below 70kms, than they will be loked On. Identified, compared to stored radar images, selected and distributed among the pack, e.t.c.... If something funny does not happen
You do know the advantage of sea skimming missiles is lost when the carrier has airborne radar aloft, yes? Even the radar on a Hornet would detect sea skimming missiles more than a hundred miles away. Then the AEGIS escorts start ripple firing SM-2's.
Actually the "G's" a missile (or aircraft) can endure is a vastly overrated way to gauge maneuverability. An airborne device that can turn at 40g's but is traveling at Mach 3 will have a much, much larger turning radius than an a device traveling at 800 kph and turning at 3g's which is how the huge, nobodies idea of maneuverable B-52s routinely outmaneuvered SAMs over Vietnam traveling three times faster able to pull much, much higher G loads. (all numbers are approximations, actual figures will vary) If g level and speed were the defining factors, then every manned combat aircraft would've been shot down by SAMs years ago. The Phalanx CIWS is a nearly half century old weapon. And it doesn't truly "track" an incoming missile. It projects the flight path and lays down a wall of bullets ahead of it. It doesn't actually aim at the missile (except against extremely slow devices).
They would try to launch dozens. If less than 20 were launched chances are none would get through the battle group defenses.
Quite out of question even now. Hawkeye – another question, but back in 70s-80s-90s, highly unlikely. They have a good chance to detect the Granit that jumps up for radar observation. But this Granit can jump up like 20km from target. The RIMs of SM2era are semi active. Aegis radar needs to have a line of sight to the target, to illuminate it for RIM to engage. RIMS will be active only at the last stages of attack, when the Aegis will see the missiles above horizon, and that’s the last 20km-30km or so. Not much time… RIMs have the minimal attack altitude, a target below 15m (like at 5m) is a target below minimal attack altitude, the seeker performance will seriously degrade in look down, how seriously – is a question. Do not forget minimal engagement distance. Rims are launched vertically, they will need time to point their noses down and lock. And lock will be a problem because the target is way below radio horizon. Do not forget that every Granit carries its own ECM suit. And in evasion mode on terminal run it will be jumping sideways at 10-15Gs to hamper interception. At 1.6 mach this is a very difficult target. But altogether you are correct, an airborne radar might seriously hamper the attack. If the Hawkeye is up, if it will give the Carrier Group at least a couple of minutes to prepare, than we can only speculate who will win, and hope we will never know
Except that modern radars are designed to network. The AEGIS ships can fire based on the radar picture from the airborne platforms.
No, no, this is perfect “simple” approach to see if you will be able to evade. If our speed is X (equal), and I can turn at 5G, and you can turn at 4G, than I hit you. If my speed is greater, and my G, is higher, than I hit you 100%, search for other reasons why I did not. In your case, why I want to do stupid and random high G maneuvering when you have launched a missile at me, is because the missile is travelling not towards me, but towards our intercept point, where we are to meet in a minutes time. The more often you alter course the more often the intercept point changes its place, the more maneuvering the missile does to point itself at intercept point, the faster it losses energy and bleeds speed and fails to reach you. Does not work with B-52 though in Vietnam. In that case the state of the art ECM suite was the reason why the losses wear relatively small . In the terminal run Granit goes evasive, he will jump sideways to hamper your aim. The Phalanx will be tracking not the missile, but the intercept point, and that point will not be stationary, it will be jumping at high angle speed. Don’t know, nobody does, newer tested, hope it will stay that way. From what I see, if all technologies will work as advertised, the CV is a sitting duck. But technologies newer work as advertised, from both sides, this is the only thing we can be sure in.
At present time only a datalink. The Hawk cannot direct missiles, not enough channels in the radar (1 for each missile in terminal run is needed) and not enough time. And do not forget, this is all old story, modern technology have vastly changed from both sides. But its classified and covered with myths, difficult to evaluate. Modern Russian missiles will attack at march3 or 4. That’s faster than old RIMs. New Standards have active homing, you just need to launch them in general direction, and they should be able to lock by themselves. Theoretically...
This I do not know actually. I guess that if the enemy body is not maneuvering, you can intercept him with a slower object that you place in his path. But when the enemy is maneuvering , the intercept point is jumping sideways, theoretically you’ll need much more energy to catch the intercept point. This means that you need a lot more speed. I think. Not quite sure.
Russian anti-ship missiles aren't designed to actively maneuver. They are designed to maneuver to require targets not dodge interception.
Every other missile actually. SOP in every SAM system is to launch 2 missiles at each target. And to use PATRIOT as an example, a battery has 36 missiles to go at any time. That is enough to target 18 inbound threats, and it is not alone. MANPAD and other systems for aircraft close in, fighters to intercept other fighters out of range, and depending on where naval assets (Destroyers, carriers, etc) to handle other things. And remember, you rarely see a single Battery everywhere. An air base will typically have a Battalion protecting it. That is 144 missiles ready to go. Enough to target 72 threats with 2 missiles each. At this time, only Russia and China have the capability to launch that many threats at a US defended target. Even on the outside and assuming that Iran launched everything they had at say a US airbase in the region, they do not have a prayer of getting through. And yea, reloads. 30-45 minutes to reload 4-16 missiles under combat conditions per battery (16-64 per Battalion). We take that into consideration as well. Remember, the other side has the exact same problem. Your average Warsaw Pact style TEL takes about 2 hours to reload a single attack missile. At any time, Iran only has on average of around 10-15 missile launchers in place that can target US ground bases in the region. So the math is still in the favor of the defender. The defenders can reload faster, and reload many more missiles than the attacker can. And the attacker is going to have inbound fighters and missiles itself to contend with.
Attack missiles only move when either actively tracking a target (and then only to follow the target for intercept in a direct route manner), or to follow landmarks to find their target. They do not do it in a "smart" manner to avoid threats as they come up.
