The Chinese have a jet to match F-22

Excellent posts Mushroom. I think its important to note that the F117 that was shot down in Serbia was largely due to the exceptional skill of Col. Zoltan Dani. Dani recognized the likely infiltration routes of US strike aircraft, concentrated his radars, adjusted their operating frequencies and then basically caught the F117 with its "pants down" which he hit with a lucky snap shot. NATO hadn't really anticipated that they would be facing an air defense commander of Dani's skill and esprit de corps. Whats more the F117 is so far behind our current technologies it has been retired. Ultimately, conflicts are not one by the side who has the most capable systems. Conflicts are won by the side who has the most capable combatants who utilize the assets available to them in the most effective manner possible. Whats more, while the US has not faced a credible integrated air defense network built around the latest 'eastern' technologies the US has certainly designed, trained and procured the most capable airmen, support personnel and electronic/kinetic systems the world has ever known.

 

Over Croatia, to shoot down the F-117 they setup a bistatic radar (reported in Av Week). If you know the route the plane will use you can do that effectively. Stealth doesnt just reduce the signature, it also redirects energy so most of the reflected energy goes in specific directions. Thats bad for standard radar, good for bistatic. It was a nice setup in Croatia but I doubt it will work now. Fool me once......


Originally Posted by Giftedone
Our planes have yet to be tested from anything but archaeic technology.

That guys right. We have not faced a real modern air power. Bosnia/Kosovo was minimal although they did get a F-117 using old technology because they were smart - brains counts for a lot. Yeagers famous quote - its the pilot not the plane. Iraq had equipment but not that great doctrine or training. Libya was nothing. We haven't faced a real opponent with solid ground and air assets, good command and control, and well thought out doctrine. I'm sure the US does lots of training and exercises and games, but thats not the same as a real fight.

I wouldn't discount China or over-emphasize the technology edge. Numbers count. One F-35 is not invincible, with enough planes in the air, one will get lucky and catch the F-35. Throw in smart people thinking good strategy and more F-35s will go down.

 

*sighs*

When will you guys learn that trying to get into some kind of "one-upmanship pissing contest" over Air Defense with me is a loosing game?

Do you know what "Bistatic RADAR" is? Do you know what Monostatic RADAR is? Here we go, yet another lesson in how Air Defense works.

Air Defense (from now on shortened to ADA, Air Defense Artillery) generally works one of 4 ways. The oldest is plane dumb luck, you fire at the aircraft, and hope to hit it. A .50 cal machine gun that fires at aircraft works that way. This also covers things like non-homing proximity fuzes.

Next, you have an active homing seeker. The firing system tracks the target, lets the missile get a lock, then lets it go and it is all on the missile after that. There is absolutely no correction from the operator after it leaves the tube. The STINGER missile operates in this way, with a heat seeking warhead.

Then next you have the Active Tracking, where all commands come from the operator. Generally this is done through a powerfull RADAR, and is actually accomplished one of two ways. Almost never used is where the operator actually "steers" the missile. What is common is that the missile "sees" the RADAR reflection off of the target, and aims directly at that reflection. This is a passive system, and is also used in "smart bombs", where the missile or warhead targets the reflection, and nothing else.

Then finally, you have what is the most common homing system in the world, the Combination system. This is where a system uses 2 or more systems to track and engage the target. PATRIOT is one such system. It is fired by an operator at a reflected RADAR target. But it has it's own RADAR in the nose of the missile, and the missile actually uses both of them to identify and destroy the target.

And when you have 2 RADARS operating at the same time, that is "Bistatic RADAR".

This is nothing new. This is nothing historic. This has been around for decades. Claims are now made that "Bistatic" is the key. Well, PATRIOT has used "Bistatic RADAR" since the 1960's when it was first developed!

Once again, nothing new here. Somebody finds a new buzz-word, and thinks it is the Holy Grail, without understanding anything about it.

Oh, by the way, the older type of RADAR homing where there is nothing but a RADAR reciever in the nose of the misile is "Bistatic" as well. All Bistatic means is that the RADAR emitter and one or more recievers are seperated from each other. Nothing more then that. So every single ADA system that has a RADAR in the fire control area and another in the missile is "Bistatic". And we have used them for decades in other things as well. But like OTH RADAR, they have their own problems which keeps them consigned primarily for Air Warning, and not for actual Air Defense.

And as I have stated already, we have spotted and tracked stealth with conventional RADAR for decades as well. Not a single thing of real significance here, other then a new word that most people in here have probably never heard of before today.

 

Thanks Mushroom- always appreciate the information.

 

No problem. One thing I try very hard to do when things like this come up is to inform others. And when it comes to military technology, far to many people simply throw around "Buzz-words" without actually understanding what they are talking about. In this case, it is "Bistatic RADAR". Somebody goes on talking about "old" and "new" technology, thinking that this is something really amazing. Not realizing that this is exactly the "old technology" they say does not work.

By the way, the variation of "forward reflect biscatter RADAR" that the Serbians used is really not all that sophisticated. It did not generate much of an image at all, and worked by the detection of the RADAR reflection. Think of it as detecting an aircraft by catching the reflection on what is little more then the RADAR detector in your car. This is predicted by following the formulas first written by Petr Ugimtsev in his paper on the propogation of electromagnetic waves that made stealth possible in the first place. First Generation stealth worked on the principal of flat planes and reflecting the signals off into other directions. Hence, First Generation came out all blocky, like the "Hopeless DIamond".

Now Second and Third Generation (and some consider 5th generation) stealth works off of very different principals altogether. The B-2 is second generation, although they still use many of the Ugimtsev principals (mostly in things like wing edges and cockpit). Newer aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 attain stealth in very different ways, which is not only in the shape but also in components and things like engine placement.

But no matter how stealthy the aircraft, it is still not invisible.



And ironically, this actually shows the biggest problem in making stealth aircraft. We can build aircraft with the radar cross-section of a marble. We have done that with fighter sized UAVs for years. The problem is in concealing the cockpit ant the pilot inside. You can make a thin but strong frame, and cover it with radar absorbant material (RAM), so little reflects back. You can coat the skin with either another RAM, or a radar porous material which allows the waves to pass through and therefore do not reflect. But you can't do either one of these for the cockpit, so for that they rely on a combination of angled scatter and signal attenuation.

 

Our planes have yet to be tested against a "real" adversary.

If there was a threat of conflict the first thing such an adversary would do is take out our air bases and aircraft carriers in close proximity. Fighters could be quickly disabled by doing so.

Drones are likely the technology of the future.

The stuff we have now such as aircraft carriers and destroyers will soon be obsolete if not so already.

 

And if as you claim our Stealth aircraft are obsolete, then what does that say for the more conventional aircraft that our adversaries use?

You seem more then willing to run with one side, and refuse to consider the other side. Our stealth aircraft cen get fairly close before there is enough of a return to have a threat against them, but how far away would MiGs be before they are spotted and targeted?

Funny, you do not address that at all. Conventional fighters unless using a very low level approach are detected hundreds of miles away. Long before they are within range of releasing their ordinance.

And among the most protected plots of land on the planet are air bases and carriers. How do you expect fighters to be able to get through those multiple layers of defenses? Magic?

 

You guys remember back in the Clinton days when we "accidently" bombed the Chinese Embassy in Serbia? Turns out that was where the homing beacon from the downed F-17 was coming from. They seem to have some of our stealth "skin" technology but that's about it. Our ability to to go supersonic and still not burn too much fuel is revolutionary and uses materials they cannot even produce, and our armament is still light years ahead of theirs in accuracy and range, probably the most important. Also, our fighters don't have to turn on their radar to find and shoot at the enemy, we have AWACS and satellites that ship the target info to them if need be, all integrated into a sharing program that divides the targets to each platform for the most efficient dispersal. Can our system be defeated? Yes, but not by the Chinese and they know it, this release of their plane info is a ruse to have us spend more on defense.

 

As mercantile as the Chinese have become over the last few decades, I think it is more likely an attempt to get other nations interested in buying this aircraft.

Over the past 15 years or so, pretty much every one of the "top end" Chinese systems has also been listed as being for sale, no matter how little hard R&D has been done on it. And that they are willing to sell it to almost everybody puts me more in mind of a sales pitch then actual military equipment. And as India has already signed an agreement with Russia to purchase the T-50 when it is complete, it is only obvious that the main target for this sales pitch is Pakistan.

And now that South Korea is already developing their own stealth fighter project, North Korea is another obvious client.

 

it is if you're a ninja!

 

I do not expect that fighters would be able to get through those defenses and I do not claim that stealth aircraft are obsolete.

My argument is that missile technology has advanced to the point where a large target such as a carrier or a base do not stand much of a chance.

In the future, as missile and drone technology continues to advance, carrier's destroyers and bases close to the theatre will be easily destroyed unless some completely new technology is developed to deal with this threat.

This still leaves long range bombers as a threat but short range fighters are not much of a threat when they have no carrier or air base on which to land.

 

Oh well

 

Oh wow, and now we go full circle to the other "Super-Duper Neat-O" Chinese technology, the DF-21D.

"Missile Technology" has not progressed as much as you seem to think it has. The basics have not changed since World War II.

Either you fly in a high ballistic arc (V2), or you fly in a flat approach like an airplane (V1).









And no, there have been no major improvements in over 40 years. More accurate, more reliable, quicker to prepare to fire. But nothing to significantly alter how things work.

And missile defense has progressed even faster. And every year the odds of a missile "getting through" is reduced more and more. Real Missile Defense over the last 25 years has gone from a pipe dream to a real functioning system.

"Long Range Bombers" a threat? Oh please, they are more dead ducks then the conventional fighters are. This is not WWII, where waves of B1 and B2 bombers will go streaking in to smite the enemy. And there is no missile threat to our air bases or carriers (unless somebody throws a nuke at one, then it is no longer a war, but a global thermonuclear war).

 

I was not even referring to the Chinese stuff.

Carriers do not have much of a defense against stealth cruise missiles. Sure they might be able to knock out one or two but not a sustained missile attack.

Carriers are sitting ducks as are military bases.

In 87 .. the USS stark did not even detect the exocet's that ripped it apart.

The exocet is a joke compared to the stealth cruise missiles that Russia puts out today. The Sunburn was developed decades ago and advancements to that technology resulted in defense analysists claiming in 1999 that it was 10 years more advanced than anything the US had on the field. The exocet is a joke compared to the Sunburn.

Travelling at Mach 2.2 and 7-9 feet above the water a ship has 25 to 30 seconds to respond which makes jaming and countermeasures difficult and firing artillary and missiles even more so.

None of these missiles have ever been fired at a US ship. The Sunburn was upgraded in 2001 (P-270 Moskit)

Newer stuff (P-800 Oniks) came into service in 2001. (over 10 years ago)

These have been upgraded further and now employ stealth technology.

Your claim that missile technology has not improved in 40 years simply baffeling.

 

going to get popcorn while waiting for Mushrooms response....

 

Among the ships that protect a US carrier are from 4-6 Arleigh Burke class Destroyers. Each with normally between 80-96 RIM-66, RIM-161, and other missiles who's entire job is to attack and destroy incoming missiles and aircraft.

It is not like they are floating around out there all by themselves you know.

And once again, "Stealth Cruise Missiles", a product of the imagination since these do not exist. But even if they did, look back to what I said before about "stealth not being invisible".

It is monumentally harder to sneak up on a ship then it is a gound based air defense system because of many things. For one, there is no terrain features to mask the approaching aircraft. The surface is pretty flat and level, with almost none of the "background clutter".

Then you have the sheer power of the RADAR. A system like PATRIOT is small and of only moderate power because it must be portable. This places severe limits on the size and power of the RADAR itself. The entire RADAR and Fire Control system take their power from a single 150 KW generator. And the RADAR itself has to fit onto a truck that can navigate city streets.

On a ship, you are cut loose from many of those requirements. The AN-SPY 1 RADAR of the Arleigh Burke class destroyers alone require a staggering 6 megawatts. This is over 60 times the power of the entire PATRIOT fire control system combined. This allows these ships to clearly see targets that PATRIOT only sees as fuzzy images if at all.

You are making a giant mistake if you are trying to compare ground based and ship based Air Defense systems. The Naval versions are significantly more powerfull and more capable then the ones the Army uses. Why do you think there have been talks about making the "Missile Shield" in Europe of ships?

Several things you are totally missing here.

1. The USS Stark was not a modern Arleigh Burke class ship with an AEGIS class air defense system and designed to protect against airborne threats. It was a much older Oliver Perry class Frigate, designed for light surface protection as well as ASW work.

2. The aircraft was detected, and it was warned off by radio.

3. Back to the first, the RADAR in use by the USS Stark was not designed to detect missiles. In fleet actions, that would have been the job of the AEGIS destroyers and cruisers.

4. Because the US did not want to antagonize Iran and Iraq, the few defensive systems were left in a low-power mode. This included the single SM-1 Missile launcher and the Phalanx CIWS system.

However, even if the system had been fully powered up and operational, the only weapon that would have been of any use was the Phalanx CIWS. The RADAR aboard the Stark was simply not designed to detect and engage incoming missiles, it was designed to engage aircraft.

I left that all in place, and highlighted the last part because it is rather important.

Yes, the BrahMos has not been tested against a US ship. Even more amazing, it has never really been tested against any ship. Most of the test launches have been a complete failure.

The closest to a success was a single test in 2010 where the missile hit "a free floating hull". Pretty much every other test has been a complete failure, and that does not say anything about it's capability against an armed enemy.

I have said this so many times, it is hard to understand how you fail to grasp it. Here, let me try 1 more time.

Stealth is not invisible.

I am going to try and make this as easy to understand as I can. Now none of these figures or distances are anything like real life, I am simplifying it to make it easier to understand. With me so far?

Now let's assume that an approaching Stealth target is approaching your location, and it has the Radar cross-section of a Beach Ball. The PATRIOT system will use 100 kw, the BURKE will use 6 MW of power for it's RADAR.

Now let's just assume that the RADAR of both the PATRIOT and BURKE has a resolution small enough to see it. Now how close would the aircraft have to be to be detected?

Well, this all comes down to power and math. Let's assume that in order to detect that, you have to follow a power chart that is roughly 100 meters per 100 watts of power to the RADAR for detection, and 100 meters per 200 watts for a firing solution. That means that the PATRIOT RADAR will not even detect the object until it gets to less then 5,000 meters away (the signal has to be bi-directional, so you take the actual distance and then cut that in half). And the resolution will not be sharp enough to fire on until it gets to less then 2,500 meters.

OK, now let's scale this puppy up shall we? But because of the scale, I am going to leave off the meters and go straight to KM.

Now because of the more powerfull RADAR, the BURKE (and other AEGIS class ships) can detect the same target at a distance of 300 KM. That is Kilometers, not Meters. That is a gigantic difference. And it can fire at this result once the target reaches 150 KM.

So whenever you talk about building a missile that will penetrate to attack a modern Destroyer or Carrier, this is what you have to be able to defeat. The AEGIS system is simply staggering in it's power. And in fact, it can be a weapon in and of itself.

Almost everybody I know has been accidentially "radiated" by our RADARS. And even as light as the PATRIOT system is, you can feel one side of your body getting noticeably warmer and "tingling" at 100 meters away. Imagine the effect if that is multiplied by over 60 times. This is why the RADARS on these ships are placed the way they are, so they do not fry the crews on board the ship when in operation. Getting hit directly with that much EM radiation would leave an unprotected human pretty much like a microwave oven leaves a chicken.

 

You do not need "stealth". These cruise missiles fly so close the water that they are not detected by radar until they come over the horizon.

Traveling at 1 km per second the ships have very little time to react and even if they do react they still have to hit a missile that is doing manuvers to avoid being hit.

Shooting down a missile with a missile is a low percentage game and there has never been any missile system that has been any good at this.

 

Ok a made in China F22

how good can it be

 

Continued from previous:

It's not like an enemy will fire only one missile. 6 or 7 will come at the same time and something is going to get hit. The next 6 or 7 after that (assuming the ships have not used up all their missiles in the first sorte are going to do more damage. The next 6 or 7 after that are going to cripple a few ships. 6 or 7 more and ships are in trouble .. 6 or 7 more and we wont be sending any carrier groups into harms way anymore.

That's the thing about missiles .. you can build thousands of them.

 

Average number of Arleigh Burke class ships around a carrier: 4-5
Number of missiles on each ship: 85-90

Average number of Tigonderoga class ships around a carrier: 3-4
Number of missiles on each ship: 60-120

That is a butt load of missiles my friend. Trust me, the other side will run out long before the escort ships do.

Plus you have a CAP, also armed with missiles capable of shooting down cruise missiles.

And as soon as the launch is detected, there is going to be this little package sent in return, by Tomahawk or other delivery means. It takes on average 2-6 hours to reload, pack up, move, then redeploy the launchers. And I have discussed at length the issues involved here. For one, carriers tend to stay over the horizon, for many reasons not just their own safety. So the enemy is going to have to get their location precisely, and then load the guidence package and get it off before that information becomes invalid. And the Carrier and all other ships are constantly moving, changing course, and repositioning themselves within the fleet.

It is akin to getting information where a goose is going to be in 20 minutes. You have to extrapolate where the duck will be when the missile gets within range. And it has to be very precise, and the goose must not have deviated at all, or the missile will not find it's target. Oh, and that goose is surrounded by a flock of rabid ducks, in addition to trained attack sparrows.

And the very concept of the DF-21D is absolute lunacy. And I think I can predict the exact response that is likely if China or anybody else was crazy enough to even think of launching one of those.

There are good reasons why the US and Soviets never seriously considering the launch of Ballistic Missiles at each other after the mid 1960's. This is because it is impossible to tell if one has a conventional warhead or a nuclear payload until the thing goes boom. And while both sides kept the things in their inventory, their role was pretty much universally dedicated to nuclear payloads, since thankfully neither side wanted to try to use one as long-range artillery with Composition B and accidentially trigger WWIII.

And the DF-21D is just an upgrade to the venerable DF-21A, B and C. All of them Medium Range Ballistic Nuclear Missiles.

So if one was to be launched at a US carrier, expect the skies to open up and a nuclear response to be aimed at whoever launched it. Because the US is not going to wait for a mushroom cloud to appear before launching it's retaliation.

And this is all theoretical and academic anyways. Because none of these systems has ever been successfully tested. Ever. They are no more real then the America Bomber.

 

I'm with mushroom in this debate. Highly advanced AEGIS Air Defense technology has been designed with this situation in mind. Don't forget that it wouldn't be one way traffic. The Ticonderogas have Tomahawks of their own and would attempt to disable enemy missile launch sites. And also, if missiles do strike the US carrier fleet, do not underestimate the level of punishment a large US carrier is capable of taking.

 

Just like the Serbs had to fire multiple missiles (using your scenario- Shoot 99 and get lucky with one) to hit the F117.. same thing trying to shoot down a missile when you have a 30-60 second window and multiple targets. 500-800 missiles seems like a lot at first but when you need to fire (and all ships would be firing simultaneously in the panic) 10-15 missiles to take out each incomming missiles and the supply is used up pretty quick.

The things about missiles is that you can build thousands of them cheap. The sorte's of 5-6 missiles can be sustained. 150 missiles is not a big expenditure to take out a carrier group and the carrier group will run out of ammo and luck long before 150.

Exactly ..

Another excellent point. At the end of the day .. a "real" power always has the option of tactical nukes which makes much of our military buildup pointless.

The Soviets are no more a threat to us than we are to them so to bankrupt our country pretending that this is still the cold war is pointless.

We do not need to be spending near a Trillion dollars a year on some non existent threat. (when our real spendable income is 1.65 Trillion)

Do we not reach deterrence at 300 Billion (Spending prior to Bush taking over ?)

The threat is terrorism from small groups like Al Qaeda .. not some Soviet invasion via a conventional attack.

 

If the Soviets really wanted to take out a US carrier group they are not going to send one (1) missile. They would send hundreds and there is no defense against such senario.

Generals and military analysts were pissing in their pants a decade ago over the Sunburn (what is not now old technology). At that point our missile technology was 10 years behind so in essense what we will be firing at the Soviets is much less advanced than what they are firing at us.

The Soviets are working with China and India to develop even better systems. Do we think these people are stupid ?

Such collaboration not only spreads the cost around but increases the likelihood of success.

 

But it is just not that simple my friend.

Yes, the Serbs fired lots of missiles. A variant of the SA-3, 2 missiles per launcher, reload time of around 30 minutes. And the launchers for these are almost stupid-simple to make, really nothing more then some rails on a truck, and a connection to the Fire Control.

Now we move to the more massive and faster "Sunburn" missile. Oh goodness, what a beast! Active RADAR hoaming! MACH 3 speeds! Weighs over 4 tons!

Wait, 4 tons? That is a giant, and most reports are that non-naval versions take 2+ hours to reload. And there we have the homing system, RADAR. Now this thing has suddenly gotten a lot less frightening. Because all you have to do is fire any one of dozens of different HARMs (High-spees Anti-Radiation Missile) at them, and they will go charging straight to this thing like Children to free candy.

Heck, they will know this thing is coming long before it gets within range. And it EM signature will be screaming to everybody "Here I AM! Here I AM! I am coming to get YOU!"

And not only does it now have to run the gauntlet of defensive missiles and PHALANX units, but the high amounts of EM interference that is part of the defensive systems of the carrier group.

No, getting to the carrier is much harder then you seem to think.

And as for "flooding the fleet with missiles", just not gonna happen.

To give an idea, in total China has 60 DF-21 launchers. However, for the DF-21D they only have between 6-8 of them. Each with a 3-4 hour reload time (remember, the missile is a massive 16 tons). Of course, if they launched one of these at the fleet, I doubt there will be anything able to fire a second round, as everything will be highly radioactive.

Then you have Syria, with the dreaded P-800 missile. Syria, with an entire 6 launchers. That is not a "wave", that is throwing a rock then running away before the guy you through the rock at pounds you back.

And as to how effective they would be, look at PATRIOT. Slower and less capable missile, less powerfull and shorter range RADAR. Yet it destroyed every target engaged in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, with a 100% destruction rate and a 50% kill rate.

OK, this throws everybody off. Let me explain, every engagement with PATRIOT, a salvo of 2 missiles is fired. So the highest porrible hit percentage is only 50%. And the AEGIS is much more powerfull, able to track over 100 simultaneous incoming missiles, and believed that each ship can guide at least 20-40 outbound missiles at any time. And with ranges of 90-300 nautical miles, the targets will be engaged long before they become a danger to the ships they protect.

And I guess these are cheap, if you think $4 million each is "cheap". But cheap enough to have "thousands"? Well, only if you are a nation like the United States or Soviet Union. I can't see anybody else having "thousands" of them. Or even "hundreds". Most reports of missiles like this in the hands of other nations are measured in "dozens" or "scores" (Syria is believed to have 60, with 6 launchers, reload time of 1-2 hours. So your "massive wave" at most is 6 missiles, followed by 1-2 hours (assuming they do not move, if the move it increases by another 4-6 hours), then another wave of 6 missiles.

And as has been stated, they will have a large salvo of TOMAHAWK missiles screaming in at the launch location before the defensive systems even become operational (it takes 30 minutes at minimum to prepare the launcher for movement), and aircraft searching for them between the first launch and the attempt at a second one.

As for "ships launching in a panic", not gonna happen. The crews train for this type of event constantly. All of their CICs are interlinked, and they are each given their targets to engage. You do however seem to have a rather low opinion of the capabilities of the members of the US Navy.

They will not burn through "10-15 missiles each", as you claim, more then likely 4 for each invoming "Vampire". First will be a salvo of 1-2 SM3 missiles, with a range of 270 miles. If those do not hit, then they will switch to the use of SM2 when they hit 100 miles (and remember, we are talking nautical miles, not statute miles). And these it will "ripple fire", alternating launches at a different target until all are destroyed.

At the same time, aircraft in the CAP will be engaging them with their own missiles, specifically the AGM-88 HARM RADAR seeking missiles.

You see a dozen or more missiles used to take down 1 incoming missile. I see maybe 4 per incoming missile. You see launchers simply "reloading" and firing more (I guess you assume it takes 5 minutes), I see hours between waves. You see nothing to stop the incoming missiles, I see several of layers that must be penegrated. You see all missiles hitting and destroying their targets, I see missiles that have either never been tested, or have only had a handfull of tests, results of questionable value.

The AEGIS system has been operational for over 40 years, with numerous upgrades and improvements. It has been tested and refined repeatedly, and has even shot down satellites and incoming ballistic missiles. Yet one of the missiles you list has only been fired at a towed derelict ship once.

And this is suposed to frighten us?

 

And what is the range of that missile?

220 km. Do you really think that in the event of war, the US is going to be so nice as to park it's carriers that close to the shore?

Like so many amateurs do, you totally ignore things like tactics and strategy. You keep your Carrier well out of danger, and strike with it's aircraft from a safe distance. This is Naval Strategy 101 my friend. In your idea of strategy, I guess Japan would have sailed her carriers to just outside of Pearl Harbor before launching the attack.

And once again back to the circles of defense that surround a carrier. There is another one I forgot to mention, AWACS. TThe Navy uses the E-2 "Super Fudd", and these are among the most powerfull RADARS ever put into the air. They are going to see any incoming air threat long before it reaches firing range, and they are going to be engaged long before they get within firing range.

You really need to think of the entire picture, and not "missile" and "carrier". It is not that simple.