one reason why I haven't been tracking military tech recently

[drewkitty]

I hate getting bad news. From War Nerd:

"I’ve been saying for a long time that aircraft carriers are just history’s most expensive floating targets, and that they were doomed." [Not incidentally, so has Robert A. Heinlein, starting shortly after 1945 with occasional mutters periodically since until he died.]

"But now I can tell you exactly how they’re going to die.



"I’ve just read one of the most shocking stories in years. It comes from the US Naval Institute, not exactly an alarmist or anti-Navy source. And what it says is that the US carrier group is scrap metal."

"The Chinese military has developed a ballistic missile, Dong Feng 21, specifically designed to kill US aircraft carriers:"

The carrier strike group is one of the cornerstones of American power.

I've personally worked out four ways to neutralize a CVBG without nukes. (Underwater installations on seamounts, air-dropped mines, saboteurs on the carrier and naval special operations divers.) However, the high speed terminal ballistic missile was not among them.

On the other hand, it is budget time. Cheers. This is the military establishment which keeps us safe in our beds at night.

Comments

[elfs.livejournal.com]

Isn't that the paper that includes a low-profile sea-skimmer cruise missile with a pop-up terminal ballistic phase? I read that a couple of months ago. Yeah, I was trying to figure out how to work that idea into a space battle. Kinda pointless though; space battles are by definition MAD.

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

Virtually every modern anti-shipping missile uses this pop-up modality, including the Harpoon. (In fact, it has to pop up to get a final radar lock . . .) The wargamers say that you could sink a CVBG with enough missiles to overwhelm fleet defenses, say 160+, not counting any Aegis cruisers that happen to be present.

The weapon being discussed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ship_ballistic_missile) is a lot less stoppable by a surface combatant. The issue is terminal maneuvers -- if it can track on re-entry, it also has increased survivability against anti-missile fire and a carrier is an awfully noisy target.

Energy weapons if any have it all over missiles in space warfare, depending on how fast the combatants are and what they are doing. Consider that a sufficiently energetic kinetic object is effectively an energy weapon, however.

[edgreen86.livejournal.com]

Before people go running in circles and hide under the bed, I would suggest you remember that it *is* budget time. Best way to feather bed your nest is to point out that its out of date and in danger. Quick, give us new monies to fix the problem! Old military tactic - claim the enemy is a giant and money is the only fix. If we can't get more money, just don't cut anything.

The PLAN (People's Liberation Army Navy - Honest to God, their real name!) has been putting a serious amount of work into killing carrier groups. But, for all the work done on the Dong Feng, and improving their sub operations, they still haven't actually killed a carrier group. Not that they won't be able to, but if war was all about what happened before the shooting starts, history would be very different.

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

Cf. Pearl Harbor, where we nearly lost the war to known weapons systems used in innovative fashion and at a distance considered logistically infeasible at the time. The world is much smaller now.

Anti-shipping ballistic missiles promise the ability to keep carriers at arm's length and possibly up to 1000nm from the Chinese coast, itself a major handicap. For the record, I am in no way convinced that any 21st century naval engagement, except suppression of piracy, will stay conventional. If it's worth major powers going to war over, it's worth blowing holes in the water. "Fish don't vote."

The systems you actually go to war with are the result of pre-war thinking and technologies. For example, we clocked the Iraqis in two conventional wars because we had prepared so well for the Russian invasion of Europe.

It is also true however that "In war, no one is struck and killed by a piece of Gross National Product."

I am warming up for BayCon, and look forward to the various panels. Thanks for your valuable opinion and input.

[edgreen86.livejournal.com]

Ref Pearl Harbor, we also lost because we had bad intel, and knew that those "insert racial slur here" couldn't possibly beat us. That condition no longer rules in the halls of the Pentagon, nor in the Intel Community.

Remember, the Navy itself is beating the drum about the threat to the carriers. True, the PLAN and the Chinese can obtain surprise at many levels, but we aren't ignoring the threat.

ASBMs might be a new use of a ICBM platform, it is not the one shot 100% one kill system that some might think of.

Recall, please that the Sovs had squadrons of Backfire bombers with their Naval Aviation arm, whose whole purpose was to kill carriers. They too had a plan to swarm the carrier groups with missiles. They too had a potential to fire with little to no warning.

While I don't want to discount pre-war planning or tech development for our wins both times in Iraq, let us also not forget that we had overwhelming logistical support, air cover and intelligence both times (the WMD mess doesn't fall into war winning - it falls under peace keeping, which we are *bad* at). And training. Between Red Flag and NTC, we have one of the best trained armed forces in history.

Yes, our training for years had been the Red Threat. Doesn't mean that our continued use after the Soviets ended being the primary threat doesn't show a recognition by the higher commands the value of training.

ASBMs do pose a serious threat - one that we have tried to understand and deal with during the days of the Soviet mess. Among the ways to understand/deal: GPS, B2 (and to some degree the F117) and finally, the use of drone aircraft I think will find a much wider and more effective use against ASBMs. Are the PLA's ASMBs on mobile platforms yet? If not, then if something can be seen on the ground, it can be killed. Are they using solid fuel systems? If not, they have to tip their hand before using them.

Worse case is always a BOOB attack (bolt out of the blue). It also tends to be the least likely attack. Usually there is some run up, some crisis that's the start of the mess.

Finally, no weapons system lives up to its advertising during its first use in combat. Soldier Proof systems aren't, and the whole mess is either built by the lowest bidder, or the well paid and taken care of Party member working his long shift.

[ihuitl.livejournal.com]

I remember my Harpoon gaming days, where the NATO-Soviet battle would ultimately boil down to a legion of missiles being lobbed between fleets. This was what spurred the development of the AEGIS system and vertical launching platforms: to counter a swarm of SSMs with SAMs. Point defense systems and ECM would in theory deal with most of the remainder.

I recall playing 'Red' and being frustrated by how many SAMs the American fleets were able to put up - not just 2-4 at a time with old rail launchers but instead a dozen from each vessel. In my simulations, maybe ten missiles out of a hundred eventually got through to damage ships.

[ihuitl.livejournal.com]

The Navy currently has three of its Ticonderoga class cruisers fitted out with the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (ABMD) system, using the AEGIS radar system and the SM-3 Block IA missile. It has been in development since the mid-1990s and was shifted to the production phase in 2004. 15 Burke class destroyers are also in line for ABMD by the end of this year. The system has proven effective in killing ballistic missiles in the mid-boost phase prior to entry, and is currently being upgraded in light of continuing developments and tests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_System

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

The key point here is "boost phase." Not re-entry phase, which is like hitting a bullet with a bullet.

Heinlein's point was that fighting from the bottom of the gravity well is very much like being at the base of a cliff with someone above you throwing rocks. Even if there's just an annoying guy spotting for you (as in the Gulf War), having the high ground is an enormous advantage.

[ihuitl.livejournal.com]

The Army currently has a number of re-entry phase interceptors that the Navy would likely want to make use of and develop further.

The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system is built to destroy ballistic missiles during the re-entry phase, using kinetic energy projectiles. One unit at Ft. Bliss is already fielding the system (A Battery, 4th ADA Rgmt, 11th ADA Bde). This is likely the best bet for a Naval option in my view, and could be fitted like a CIWS system.

Patriot PAC-3 is another terminal phase ABM system; these aren't your daddy's Patriots: this block proved effective during OIF in shooting down Iraqi ballistic missiles. Patriot itself is scheduled to be replaced by the Medium Extended Air Defense System, which will enter testing phase in 2011.