That's why I asked you for something to validate. That the US was behind the Chinese and Russians in HGV. Since your link didn't have that. Bottomline you were looking to dump on the US Navy. Albeit I don't know a lot about the Navy being one that was on the ground behind enemy lines doing what I do best. But hey that's your belief that the US is behind. I will defer to those in the Navy to help with your adjustment.
The IJN Kongo was a battlecruiser not a battleship. The concept of the battlecruiser )aka pocket battleship) was to engage warships that it outgunned and any ship that outgunned the battlecruiser the battlecruiser had the speed to outrun the ship it was outgunned by. The U.S. Navy was never into battlecruisers but would build two battlecruisers during W ll, the USS Guam and the USS Alaska. The U.S. Navy's battleships during WW ll were used during amphibious operations for naval shore bombardment and naval shore fire support. During the Vietnam War the North Vietnam didn't demand that B-52's stopped bombing the North but demanded that the USS New Jersy be removed from the South China Sea just to begin the Paris peace talks. During the 1980's when Reagan reactivated the four Iowa's the Soviet Union got their red diapers all soiled. Nobody has figured out how to sink an Iowas class battleship. Today the U.S. Navy doesn't have any ships capable of providing the Marine Corps with the NSFS it requires. The Iowa's were the last warships able to accomplish that mission. The Iowas weren't obsolete, they were the most feared warship ever to put to sea.
Yes, you were corrected; You assumed that a hypersonic missile couldn't hit something as big and as slow moving as a ship from a bad reading. The bit you sniped said the contrary, and that's what I pointed out to you [/metadebate] Here it is again. If you can't concentrate, this is going to get real boring for me real fast: Note, just so we can understand ourselves better here: I did not wrote the following test - it is from the article I posted. However, bold emphasis is mine. Okay? "The United States has dabbled in hypersonic technology, but is moving at a deliberate pace. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Air Force conducted two tests in 2010 and 2011 of its Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle, a rocket-glider system similar to the WU-14. Neither flight lasted its intended duration. DARPA then declared that the program was finished. The X-51 Waverider, a hypersonic cruise missile launched from an aircraft that uses a scramjet engine to reach its Mach speeds, had four tests from 2010 to 2013, the last setting a record at more than four minutes of flight time. That program has also come to an end. The Army has conducted two Advanced Hypersonic Weapon tests as part of a prompt global strike initiative. The first test in 2011, also a rocket-glider configuration, was a success. The vehicle struck a target 2,300 miles away in less than 30 minutes. A second test in 2014 ended before it began when the booster rocket rather than the glide vehicle itself was destroyed shortly after liftoff. In this case, the hypersonic technology was never employed. This was a setback because even during short hypersonic flights that end prematurely, researchers are able to glean valuable data. " It's got nothing to do with it. I am just a naval enthusiast who denounces such costly death traps as the USS Ford. It isn't that it is a bad ship, just one whose type is obsolete.
This is my area of speciality. Battlecruisers are a type of battleship since the 1922 Washington treaty. Already, post that date, true Battlecruisers were a thing of the past: Those few who existed before the treaty were scrapped, converted into carriers of armored up to merit the handle of "fast battleships", like the Renowns. Other were battleships converted to fast battleships, not battlecruisers such as the Dorias and the Kongos. They were used in the very same way as bona fide battleships in WWII, being often in the very same column. In fact, there were always two types of battlecruiser: the Anglo/American ("Lexington") type, often heavier than its BB cousins, fast, with the same guns and very little armor, and then you have the Euro-type, with is more like a 2nd class, lighter battleship. The later had a longer future, it seems, as it was this type that were built in WWII as the Scharhorsts, the Dunkerques and the Alaskas (and Dutch Project 1047). But as the term "Battlecruiser" was in disgrace since Jutland, they classed them as "Large Cruisers". Shore bombing is no Battleship job: Cruisers and monitors can do it at a fraction of the cost, as no inland fortification is made to sustain 8" fire (which also have the advantage of a quicker RoF). The real job of a bona fide battleship is either battle line or fleet-in-being. NOT re-fueling. Of course everybody know how to sink an Iowa - same way you sink any other ship; by firing on it. Iowas are relatively not that tough: Their all-or-nothing armor scheme made them resilient to other battleships, as AP shell can pass right thought the un-protected areas of the ship without exploding, but it also makes them vulnerable to light, disabling fire from lesser units. They were also wet seaboats with questionnable stability. However, the quality of their armement is something to behold, I'll give you that. When I wrote they were useless, what I mean is that they were launched after the battleship was no more king of the sea. No Iowas would have changed absolutely nothing in all the conflicts they took part.
And do not forget. First there is the main problem of detecting the carrier fleet to begin with. Then they have to actually get the missile out to said fleet. Trust me, they are not going to be lingering close enough to shore to be within range, something will have to take it out to them. Then it is going to have to get through all of the defensive measures. Aircraft with antiaircraft missiles, ships with SM3 and other antiaircraft missiles. And finally the CIWS system. Of course, there is also the ECM and PCM that will be used to try and shake the missile. And finally, CIWS. Of course, first it has to actually find the fleet, then the location of the carrier inside of the fleet. You seem to forget that these are stupid fire and forget weapons. There is no human brain analyzing the situation and guiding these things. They fire them and hope they find their target. You are ignoring every single thing that has to go absolutely right for these things to work. What most people like me see is a ton of things that have to go 100% perfectly right, or the entire thing is just wasted effort. Oh that is complete nonsense. What, do you think that missile chase down other missiles? Like the coyote going after the roadrunner? No, they intercept them from the front. Like 2 aircraft approaching each other head-on. It does not matter worth a damn how fast the weapon is, knowing where it is going to be is the most basic physics, no matter how fast it is going. Every missile system we use from STINGER and PATRIOT to THAAD and SM3 work in the exact same manner. We fire as it approaches, intending to hit it before it gets to us. Anything else is simply idiotic. Funny, you say that. Then you do not even give us an example. Heck, you have not even mentioned how this new super weapon will get to it's target. Well, here we go. It will be launched to it's target area by an MRBM-ICBM. That's right, this weapon will get to it's target area via a nuclear capable ballistic missile. And this is something we already have experience shooting down, because of the SM-3. So add yet another level of complication, getting the missile to the target area in the first place. Let alone how anybody would be able to pinpoint said carrier good enough to launch a missile at it from 2,000-5,000 miles away. I still see far to many holes in this entire concept then I see solutions. Oh sweet baby Cthulu, I am ddone with this idiotic nonsense. Please, tell me when this happened in the US in the past year? The last decade? This century? Last century? I simply can not stand people that do nothing but make up a bunch of crap, and then expect others to believe it and think it is steak.
Then tell us, oh wise and wonderful sage. Exactly with what ship do you fire on said Iowa class Battleship? In case you had not noticed, naval gunfire is pretty much extinct on the planet. Everybody uses missiles now. Even the large shore batteries that might have given them troubles in WWII are now all obsolete. However, the Iowa class was protected against all anti-ship missiles around at the time she was last comissioned. And not one ship or naval battery existed on the planet capable of launching large enough AP shells to be of any serious threat. "Light disabling fire"? Yea, fire some 5" shells through exactly what unarmored point? The external starboard ladderwell? Questionable stability? Funny, but the more you say, the more funny I find it.
Just a warning; If you are to be rude, at least enter the debate knowing what exactly you are talking about. Give me google earth and I'll find your fleet in no more than a couple of days, here in my office, alone with very basic tech. Now imagine, what, a hundred people like me, with actual training and much more tech. They'll find your fleet. Because it is a fleet. It's big. It's not even stealthey as a non-stealthy plane. It is an intercontinental thing. MMC read that it might be used at short range at start but like you, he assumed that this was the thing's range limit; it isn't. They can shoot it from space. And anyway - if your carrier stay out of its range, then it is de facto useless, since its plane can't reach the ennemy neither (short missile range is still longer than an average carrier's plane). This is where you ignorence really shines. If you were informed, you'd know that these missiles can actually dodge in flight. Yes, go ahead - read it. As we speak, your countermeasures can't even hope to intercept one of these. You can barely even detect it. Well, that maybe because you don't know where to look. How about launching a mach-10 hypersonic nuclear missile at the whole fleet it's in? You guys are funny: you found a way to sink the Yamato, a ship that was much heavier and tougher than the Iowas, but you seriously question that any other force on Earth can do likewise? With whom I am discussing with here, kids? On that loooonng, unarmored bow. I have been gentle. Next time you show as much condescency, I might just demolish you.
The Yamato wasn't tougher than the Iowa's. What made the Iowa's different from all other battleships ? It's armor. Battleships are built to be able to take hits from the same guns it's armed with and keep on fighting. We already had a thread on the DP dealing with this topic. And for nukes,
She's beautiful below the waterline. Kinda reminds me of the frigate USS Constitution (Old Ironsides) of the War of 1812 fame.
It's much more complicated than that; there is the distance the ennemy shell is fired, its velocity (affects the armor penetration), its angle, its type... What you posted about Iowa's armor can be said of any battleship built after 1935 (apart for the Japanese leviathans, who were built too fast), but with an "all-or-nothing" armor scheme, like it was standard on vessels of the US and UK. I put some emphasis on that, because it's a tradeoff; It makes the ship less heavy and concentrate the armor around the vitals - the "citadel" - and leave the other parts of the ship, such as the bow, stern and upper belt, unarmored. The result is that AP shells pass right through an unarmored part of the ship without exploding, but a HE shell or a smaller caliber one will still detonate and cause structural damage. So, we can say that "all-or-nothing" battleships are excellent vs other BBs' main armement... but they would have problems with their secondary armement, as well as the primary armement of smaller ships. It is also of note that the 5" dual purpose on the Iowa excel against aircrafts, but is below average vs surface opponents. A better asset is Iowa's gun: made for long-distance, radar-directed fire, it features a super-heavy shell (the equivalent of a big 17") with moderate velocity, which means a deck penetrator (in opposition to a lighter, higher-velocity shell that would be better for short-range, optical firing). It was a destructive weapon, very reliable, maybe one of the best naval weapons ever made. As for the Yamato; that's a 70000t vessel we're talking about here. Size matter, even if the target isn't of warship design: Heavier ships requires more damage. It also had thicker armor than the Iowas, and a bigger shell (althought it was rather small for a 18"). It also was a better seaboat. Where Iowa was better was in the details: better fire control, better damage control, better AA defense and of course more speed, things that would maybe tilt a battle vs Yamato in her favor if she is lucky. But it's clear that between the two ships, Iowa's David, not Goliath. Yes, as a rule of thumb. They're supposed to be 34% armement, 33% armor and 33% machinery. Now that being said, there are variants; Battlecruisers, for exemple, are unable to sustain their own guns' equivalents, as do coastal defense ships such as the Sveriges. PS - I got some things wrong in the last few posts; The Hypersonic missiles have an intermediate range as of yet, and I wrote "Kongos" where I should have written "Cavours" somewhere in there, but by the time I realized it I couldn't edit anymore.
My expertise are NSFS and CAS. I served with Sub Unit One 1st ANGLICO in Vietnam. My MOS was 0849 Shore Fire Control Party Man . I'm very familiar with the 16" Iowa's guns and 8" and 6" gun cruisers and both the 5"/38 and the 5"/54 guns. I know what each type of gun can do and not do. The 5"/38 was an excellent NSFS gun for Vietnam. The problem with the 5"/54 guns (the same pop gun found on the Burkes and Ticonderoga's today) they are fed by a magazine. If you need to change a fuse or switch from HC to WP, etc. it takes 20 to 30 minutes to unload the magazine to switch to a different fuse or round and reload the magazine. The 5"/54's aren't capable of delivering four or six gun salvos which are needed when dealing with area targets like troops in the open. Unlike ground artillery (howitzers) or bombs dropped from the air, they have no kinetic energy. Only naval guns were capable of destroying bunkers. Only the Iowa's 16" guns were able to destroy trenches. The main mission of the American battleship since 1942 has been supporting U.S. Marines. You'll notice that there are more than a few on the PF who aren't armchair generals but actually been there and done that who each has his own qualifications, expertise, knowledge in a wide range on military subjects. Mushroom was a Marine grunt for ten years. After that he's in the A/A SAM business in the Army. Herkdriver, the name says it all, C-130's, MMC Army Ranger, Perotista spent more years in Southeast Asia than most and knows what really was going on that hasn't made it in the history books. There's even a PF member who was a 175 mm gun canon cocker, the largest ground gun to ever to be used in combat by American forces, basically a naval gun that was on tracks. You want to talk small arms, Turtledude and U.S. Conservative. Even AboveAlpha has some techie stuff to contribute to any discussion.
Flat tops used to be the fleet's ugliest ships for their super-tanker look... but beside modern warships, I admit they're kinda nice. Ships were more fierce-looking in WWII, IMO.
That's an interesting bit. The dual 5-inchers? No, they had too much velocity to be effective as a plunging weapon. The 6" and 8", however, should have been able to do more or less the same effect as the 16", if you factor in the rate of fire. That's a job where old battleships would have sufficed, if not cruisers or even destroyers. That's overkill. At the very least, the North Carolina and South Dakota classes should have been less on armor, and more on speed so they could have served as carrier group battleships without slowing the rest of the fleet down. The Iowas (and the Alaskas) were the only US capital ships able to accompany carriers, and they came in quite late for that. I am happy to converse with all people as long as they are respectful, be they knowledgeable or not. Being red-blooded, I may have my moments, but I assure you I come here for a gentlemanly, polite discussion and I am actually happy to learn bits like the 5/54 reloading thing. That being said, I tend to get carried away and long-winded on the subject. And thanks.
Ha! Yeah, I know what you mean. Kinda how the muscle cars of the 60s looked fiercer than today's cars. But you know, and I know ... That beautiful new ship is carrying one helluva lot of good ole American whoop-ass inside of her. Can you imagine the feeling of some tinpot dictator somewhere in the world who has been giving us trouble waking up one morning to find out that she has shown up off their coast?
Oh trust me, I was not being rude at all. I am actually being rather polite. However, mostly I was being factual. Yea, right. Remember that GE is static, and said fleet will be constantly moving. If you are going to search, you have to do it in real time. Now tell me how you are going to find said target, when it is constantly in motion? The carrier is not going to just sit quietly someplace waiting for you to find it you know. There is a fourth dimension, the dimension of time. Yea, they can shoot it from space. Now what exactly has given you the impression that China has weapons in space? In fact, more importantly, what has given you the impression that China has abandoned the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 (China signed in 1971), that forbids the placement of weapons in space? Because trust me, the moment they (or anybody else) tries to launch weapons into space, the entire world is going to know about it and be raising a gigantic International stink. And no, carrier groups have a lot of other weapons, like cruise missiles. And finally, what is the range of a carrier borne aircraft? Why, quite simply, that depends on it's fuel and pilot fatigue. And there is this really nifty technology called "mid-air refueling". It lets aircraft literally fly around the world without landing. No, this is where your ignorance really shines. Here, let me drop a bit here, since obviously you are not all that aware of myself. But feel free to ask around, my military experience is no secret here, quite a few in here even remember when I first joined, when I was on deployment about 6 years ago. You see, my military specialty at that time was part of a PATRIOT Air Defense Missile crew. So we are actually talking about my specialty here. I am pretty sure I can safely claim that I know more about missiles and shooting them down then you have a clue about. But here, let me tackle several of your "points". No, missiles do not "dodge". That implies that it has a form of long distance tracking RADAR, and has the computational capability to detect, analyze, and decide a course of action for unidentified objects in it's path. Oh, and the excess fuel to take such movements. And navigation able to compute it's new course and resume it's flight trajectory after taking those movements. In reality, they are like blindfolded retarded kamakazi pilots. Their flight paths are put into the memory before they are even launched, and they will then fly that flight path, dodges, altitude and direction changes, everything. They fly that path until they get to the terminal phase of their flight, where they will then turn on their RADAR and home in on what they believe to be their target. That is how homing missiles work. There is nobody controlling them, they really are quite stupid. And no, they do not have "long range RADAR" like an aircraft does, they have a short range RADAR, good for a dozen or so miles. This is only to find what it believes is the target from close range, they do not need anything else. Oh, and finally, they do not fly around with this RADAR on. "Why?" you may ask? Well, that is actually quite simple. Because RADAR sends out energy waves, which are detectable at much longer distances then the object itself is detectable from. Secondly, because through a class of weapons known as HARM, the adversary can actually send missiles of their own right back along that RADAR track, directly at the missile itself. And no, it is rather easy to detect and track. You are forgetting, something that fast fives a huge thermal signature, you simply can't miss it (oh, did you think our ships only used RADAR to detect things?). Plus the shock wave of anything moving at supersonic or hypersonic speeds also leaves a very detectable signature due to the shockwaves of it's passage through the atmosphere (especially the dense humid air near sea level). And finally, they know pretty well where it is because the flight of the Ballistic Missile was detected, all the way to where it drops it's payload. Once again, you are just assuming that everything for China would be going perfectly, and that the other side is completely asleep. Then why waste the "mach-10 hypersonic" missile at all, and just use the ICBM itself to launch the missile? What is this, some kind of Rube Goldberg war? You see, we are going to put a pilot in the missile, with a nuke. THen we are going to load the ICBM into this giant cargo plane. The cargo plane is then going to launch the ICBM, which will then take off. The ICBM is going to then fly close to the fleet, where the Hypersonic Missile with the pilot is going to disengage and fly at it's target. Right before we know the missile will strike the pilot is going to bail out in a midget submarine. Then while everybody is happy-happy dancing with joy for destroying the missile, the pilot is going to use his ninja skills to climb onto the ship and bonk the Captain on the head with Maxwell's Silver Hammer. Why go to all that trouble? Because I'm Batman. Uhhh, the beam is only 134 feet. Good luck hitting that at Mach 10. And no, I am not condescending. I admit that I am known to use sarcasm and satire, but it is not at your personally, but at your points. And I use them because they are rather amateurish and poorly thought out. And at the same time, you imply that you are some kind of expert in this field. Well, I do not know what kind of expert you are. But trust me, I am an expert in how missiles work, and how to detect and shoot them down. I should be, as that was my profession for over 6 years. If you look closely at my profile pic, that is me, on a mock-up of the Fat Man bomb, at the missile museum at the White Sands missile range. I have also posted in here somewhere before other pictures of me, in front of the first PATRIOT launcher, on deployment to the ME, and several others. And please feel free to ask around in this forum area, just as we go to some here for information about Naval Gunfire and Gunfire Observation, and others for information on how the Air Force generally operates, most tend to drag me into conversations about missiles or shooting them down because that is my specialty. But please, if you think I am "ignorant", then let's step this up a knotch. What about the flight characteristics about this ABT makes you think it can successfully transit from the BMOA to the terminal objective, given the CEP of the launching system?
You should check out some of the earlier posts in here about that subject. I think it was about a year or so back Apache, Myself, and some others had quite an interesting debate on a "Modern Battleship". And my concensus was that what the Navy really needs is a modern recreation of the Alaska class Cruiser, one to operate with each Amphibious group. http://www.politicalforum.com/warfare-military/390884-battleship-obsolete.html This is a topic that both Apache and I bring up fairly regularly. And we each have experiences in how these ships were to be used in support of those on the ground (especially Marines). Myself in praying that they would be on station, himself in actually calling the gunfire in. Quite often when somebody brings up the BBs, you will have the two of us giving our own information on them and how they would be used. One of the main reasons I love coming to PF is that there really are a lot in here who know and understand how the military works as a whole, not just taking one specific weapon platform and ignoring everything else involved. And I think that is the main difference between "armchair generals" and those that really know and understand what is involved. You want to plan an air strike on the capitol city of Myopia in the 1990's. Well, then of course you then bring up the F-117. But in reality, you also have to discuss a great many other things to be realistic. Like the AC aircraft that will be refueling said F-117s. And the AWACs that are going to be giving it up to the minit threat analysis. And the F-18s that will likely be giving it shielding and distraction (maybe even performing "wild weasel" missions to take out some of the AA assets of the enemy), and the probable staging of other assets like helicopters for SAR and other aircraft tasked with destroying an F-117 if it is shot down. Our very experience tends to make us look at the "big picture", and see that all of the parts have to work together. It is not as simple as just "sending der stealth to blow stuff up". And that is fine. Myself, I tend to prefer accuracy and research more important than anything else. I prefer to have somebody with accurate information who makes a wrong analysis, then somebody who simply "makes things up". One of my pet peeves actually are those that make things up and are unable to do even a little basic research prior to making a post. However, I am always respectful (if a bit of a satirist at times). Many times when I say things entirely off the wall, it is intended to be a response to what I see as absurdity with absurdity, not any attempt to be "mean". And if you notice, I also often even throw in cultural references, just to see if anybody is paying attention. One famous one I threw in for years was that something was as likely as somebody recovering the IJN Yamato and turning it into a space ship. Interestingly enough, I had used that many times over the years, and only recently did somebody realize I was making a reference to a famous Japanese anime series. So when I make such comments, the intent is not to be rude, just responding to sillyness with sillyness in my viewpoint. When I get really mad or agressive, I actually tend to get exceedingly polite and formal. And if you have taken offense at anything I had posted, I am sorry for that. But mostly, my goal here is to have people open their eyes, learn something new, and to do research. Some things I am well known for in here is encouraging people to do research, and to question anything that is posted and to do their own research into it (even if *I* myself make the post - I encourage people to question me and to do the research to see if I am right or wrong). Down here, you will generally find less politics, and more "shop talk". And as Apache said, we each have our own areas of specialty and frequently defer to others who know more about something then ourselves. And we may poke fun at each other (bus driver, dumb jarhead, etc), it is simply how the military is. As long as it is in fun, nobody takes offense.
I think I would be much more worried if I was that dictator, if the carrier showed up also escorting an Expeditionary Strike Group with a Marine Expeditionary Unit on board. One says "we are ready to whoop your butt", the other says "we are ready to take your butt out".
I just wanted to bring something up once again since we are returning to another old debate. Logically, what does anybody in here think the response of the US (or Russia for that matter) would be if a nation fired what is known to be a nuclear capable MRBM-ICBM at one of their naval fleets? Both the latest system we have been discussing, as well as the DF-21D are both essentially modifications on a ballistic missile that is intended to launch nuclear warheads. So of course the automatic reaction by any country they are fired at is to respond to it as if it was a nuclear weapon. This to me is the single thing that scares the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of me more then anything else. Yes, I laugh at the concept of either of these 2 ways of trying to sink a carrier. But there is absolutely nothing funny in my fear that some moron is gonna think it is a good idea to use it to try and sink a ship, and actually end up setting off a nuclear war. There is a reason why the US-USSR (Russia) made the decision over 25 years ago to throw away all conventionally armed ballistic missiles. That way neither one would panic and "push the button" by the delivery of a conventional warhead on what could also be a nuclear delivery system. Nobody worried much when Iraq was throwing their own Ballistic Missiles around, because they were not a nuclear power. Therefore they were all conventionally armed. If Argentina and Bolivia got into a war and started to throw around ballistic missiles, nobody would worry much because once again, neither of them is a nuclear nation. But what if it was India and Pakistan? To me, one of the most moronic decision any nuclear nation can make is to decide to make new classes of conventional weapons, launched with a known nuclear ballistic missile platform. I seriously question the sanity of any nation, military, or leadership that decides to try to do this. And I question it even more when they advertise it as much as China is doing now.
I like that better. Militaries of almost every nations - especially those who develop such technologies as hypersonic missiles - don't rely on GE; they rely on their own sats. And a fleet isn't just big - it is slow, even at 30knts. They are no submarines, neither. There are some ships that use stealth technologies, but not the USS Ford or any ship in the US arsebal apart from the USS Zumwalt. Now that is the future, The USS Ford is a past concept Big deal. China fears no one. China is its own superpower, with its own satellite nations. They're also putting big bucks into this: ... With a tired pilot. Come on, aircrafts can't intercept a mach-10 projectiles, furthermore one which can alter its course. And worse: If those airplanes in flight use radar (like the Hawkeyes), they shine like a beacons to the ennemy. Maybe that was true ten years ago, but the times they are a-changing: A full carrier fleet is no waste of missile. There are no civilians in there, the Chinese won't hesitate. Soon, all Chinese ICBM will be equipped that way. No offense, but I really do hope that the brass doesn't share your jovialistic optimism. A nuclear, mach-10 missile doesn't have to be this precise; No I was talking about small caliber, quick firing guns like 40mm and up. And about any HE shells, no matter their size. Did the Patriot missile ever intercepted something? You know, on other boards I discuss with naval writers and specialists like Nathan F. Okun, Peter Lienau and Richard Worth ("Tiornu"), summities in their domains without looking too stupid, so I'm sure you'll pardon me if I am not sufficiently impressed. You see, I have the advantage of having study my subject here. I am not shooting in the dark and then wait until morning comes to see which shot stuck. I don't think you are an idiot - I just think that you are not prepared to discuss this new technology. Once you do, with your personal experience, you might become a more serious interlocutor on that subject. And thanks for the civilised/less familiar tone. Please pardon me some heated words here and there in previous posts.
And do you really think they are watching them in real time? And do you know how hard it actually is to follow a ship from the air or space? Any cloud cover will make that observation 100% worthless. Fleets at sea are constantly changing their course. The first time it passes under a cloud bank, all that observation can be thrown right out the window. Then you have to acquire it all over again. And detecting it through clouds is an impossible task. And do you even know how hard it is to actually find a ship from the air? During WWII, when our sircraft were much faster the main way of detecting them was by finding their wake. Pilots saw the wake of the ships long before they saw the ship itself. And we now have 70 years of advances in hull and propeller design to make that even harder then it was during WWII. Aircraft do not intercept them, their missiles do. And once again, they fire as the missile is approaching them, so in essence the missile runs into the missile. The aircraft does not chase down the missile. And this missile alters course, but it is not piloted by an individual. It is flying a pre-set course. Do you think an object flying at mach 10 is jinxing and flying all over the sky? No, it operates like any other cruise missile. Flying to a pre-set checkpoint, changing course, then flying straight to the next checkpoint. This is not a piloted missile that can see and move to avoid anything else in the air. Not that much they are not. Actually, there are hundreds of civilians on a carrier. They are called "Tech Reps", and carriers are full of them. Well, now for the kernel of truth in what I just posted. We have already launched ICBMs from cargo planes. Believe it, or not. OK, now we are changing the goal posts. Are we talking about a conflict, or nuclear war? The two are not interchangeable, a nuke is a political weapon. It is not a military weapon. And if any nation was foolish enough to launch a nuke at any fleet at sea, of any country, then they are going to instantly be an International pariah, and should expect a rapid response form the nuclear forces of the nation attacked, and likely any other nations even if they are not involved. So in your case, if China was to nuke a US fleet, then the US would more then likely nuke the launching point of the nuke in response, as well as any tactical military targets it feels should be hit. And likely Russia would respond the same way. And maybe India, to try and regain lost territory. In other words, China would largely cease to exist. No, I do not take this cavilearly at all, I take it in deadly seriousness. And a nuke would not even have to go at Mach 10. Launching a conventional MIRV MRBM-ICBM would more then likely do the trick all by itself. Wow, let me say it now. Research, research, research. In the 2003 Gulf War II, the PATRIOT actually has a 100% success rate against any ballistic missle engaged. This translates into a 50% kill rate. Of 9 TBMs engaged, all 9 were destroyed. And that was first generation PAC-3, in 2003. We have had 13 years since then to improve the systems, and they have been improved. PAC-4 is already being rolled out, and we have 2 more generations of missiles since then. Then you need to do some more research I think. Trust me, most of these subjects I have been commenting on in here in depth for over 7 years. Yes, the PATRIOT system has indeed shot down ballistic missiles, even in the Gulf War (the failure there was not in the system, but primarily the use of a proximity fused anti-aircraft missile to try and destroy a ballistic missile). The rate of hits in GWI was actually quite high, the problem was the missile as not sufficient to destroy such a hardened target. By the time of GWII, we had advanced 2 generations of missile, and were now primarily using a "silver bullet" (kinetic kill) projectile, thanks to the research of President Reagan's Star Wars push. But if you want to put personal feelings against facts, feel free to do so. Myself, I do not take any such beliefs personally. But it seems to me that you do. As I said, I always try to be polite. And please, do not take my occasional descents into mocking ridicule personally, it is meant in jest much more then as an insult. But I do urge you, to do some research. As an FYI, I generally have 3-4 windows open at any one time when making these responses, checking and rechecking my facts to make sure I am giving accurate information. And please, feel free to read the PDF I linked above. Myself, I take things such as TBMs, ABTs, and the like deadly seriously. Spending a year in the ME watching for such launches tend to drive that into a person. And "new technology"? It is not even really at a prototype level yet, let alone "new technology". To be honest, I honestly take very little of the PRCs "new technology" claims very seriously at all. And that is simply because they have a long history of claiming that they have the "best new technology in the world", but in reality very little experience in actually delivering that technology. Heck, their main battle tank is still the same Korean War era equipment that they used against us in the 1950's, and drove down Tienamen Square against men with briefcases. For the past 20 years they have been claiming to be almost done making the "best tank in the world", but have yet to actually deliver anything of note (the last 3 were so bad the PLA did not even want them). ANd they are currently in the process of building what, 3 or 4 different "Stealth Fighters"? Meanwhile, they have an aircraft carrier with no aircraft, delays in making their copies of an old USSR era design that they stole. So no, I do not take the claims of China all that seriously at all when it comes to military equipment. And the history of said equipment actually backs me up there. Very little of what they have promised in the last 50 years has been anywhere near as good as they claimed. Most ends up quietly shelved after a couple of prototypes, never to be heard from again. Just look at the list of destroyers, submarines, tanks, and aircraft they have "designed" over the last 30 years. Very little is actually in service. The vast majority are a small handfull produced basically as prototypes, then scrapped as they moved on to the next new design. And also feel free to look at the components that is actually going into their equipment. Russia is still building quite a few of their ships. A lot of the heavy components (engines, transmissions, etc) are coming from other nations like the Ukraine. The US is still designing and making a lot of their RADARs and avionics. I respect Chinese equipment, but it leaves me vastly underwhelmed. The main reason they are a threat is because on land, they simply have so damned much of it. But if they were to invade a nation where we would get involved in a land war with them, how long do you think their 1950's era tanks will survive against M1A1s? Well, this should give an idea. The pride of the Iraqi Army were the hundreds of upgraded Type 69 tanks they had bought from China. These were a large improvement over the original Type 69, with much improved guns, layered armor, and fire control systems. And they were almost universally destroyed, with no allied losses. The same thing happened in 2003. Type 69 and newer T-72s were wiped out, with almost no effort. Even Vietnam era Marine Cobra gunships were taking the things out. Yes, there is a serious reason why I do not take Chinese equipment all that seriously.
In the case of a war or pre-e,ptive strike, you can be sure that a technology-able ennemy will follow your fleet. It isn't just a question of wake - detection means have advanced since WWII. Planes have longer ranges, and better electronics too. And come on; Submarines are stealthy. Aircrafts can be. But it's a nuclear surface fleet, one composed of a damn carrier for crying out loud. It's barely 30knts fast and it is itself using sensors. You really think it's that stealthy? Would you really bet all of your marbles on the possibility that a high-tech ennemy won't detect you? Ever? US surface fleets had no need for stealth (until recently), since they could intercept/annihilate pretty much anything that came their way. so it accounts for little in its design. Exactly: it is not bound by any human limitations, like the Gs it can't endure. It's also quite hard to detect, and once it is, it's target doesn't have much time. Once the intercept is in the air, it isn't piloted by a human neither: It's got to play against another program, one that is a couple of generations younger, and based precisely on the interceptor's capabilities. Under-estimating the ennemy, and feeling so secure atop one's tranquil domination is precisely the attitude that would really hurt you in the end. You offer this big, juicy target and have everything to lose if you make but one little mistake. The Chineses/Russians doesn't offer so juicy a target, and neither do you have the weapon that could have exploited it if they did. The writing is on the wall - ignore it at your own risks. They're "fair game", in any case. No - China is simply too big to cease to exist. It's an old, old nation. Same thing for Russia. This is no nuclear strike on NY - it is aimed at military assets outside of their nation's territory. Not the same. Furthermore, it depends on the alliances, where the chips are at the time. If people like GWB and Trump do make such a good job to alienate yourself that fast to the rest of the world, it is very possible that the rest of the world wouldn't give more than a few reprobatory remarks for good form if it happens, given that up to this day you were the only nation who ever used a nuke - on a civilian population - of a defeated nation, and do not seem to show too much regret for it. Anyway, this is politics. We're armchair admirals here, not armchair politicians. Our job, as armchairs admiral, is to insure that our fleet has developped at least some defenses against any possible threat. You know what makes a Scud looks hot? An Al-Samoud missile. That's what the Patriot shot down. Third world tech. There's little to gloat about. You know, prior to being booted out of Singapour, it was common knowledge in the English officers' messes that the Japaneses' bullets were not strong enough to kill a white man. A few years later, the Brits lost most of their empire. Tanks, manned aircrafts, aircraft carriers - all this is warfare of the past. China, as well as some other, emerging nations, knows that, an effectively, a new "Jeune Ecole" is in the making, As we speak.
