We do, actually, have a defense against ballistic missiles, and it's the same defense we used to protect our carriers during WWII. That defense, of course, is secrecy. We won the battle of Midway because we knew where the Japanese carriers were and kept our fleet hidden. The viability of carriers in a "real war" with China will rest to an alarming degree on our ability to knock down Chinese reconnaissance satellites (which I believe we are quite capable of doing) and securing unquestioned air superiority to prevent any sort of more primitive reconnaissance (difficult, but doable). This still leaves the old standbys of spies and submarines, though, and I'm not sure exactly what our strategy is for preventing their use.
I'm not sure I'd want to depend on this in a real war (actually, I'm sure I wouldn't), but I don't think things are quite as hopeless as the War Nerd makes them seem.
It's significantly harder to nail down the exact position of a ship in real time with satellites than you seem to think. Without having eyes on, there's about a 0% chance of a non nuclear ballistic missile hitting a carrier that's engaged in evasive maneuvers. The only way you are going to realistically sink a carrier in war time is during a first strike.
Actually, it's trivially easy (although not quick, unless you have a lot of satellites) to locate a carrier battlegroup from low earth orbit. The challenge is keeping your target->satellite->missile communication chain operating for the duration of the missile flight. If you aren't really quick, the satellite will pass out of sight of the target before the missile arrives. There are a few ways around this, including being really quick with the target acquisition and image processing (technically difficult, but not impossible), firing before you acquire the target (risky), and handing off target monitoring duties to a different satellite mid-flight (some combination of technically difficult and risky). I do not know if China has any of these capabilities (actually, I very much doubt it), but there's no reason to believe they won't in the near future (i.e. next twenty years or so).
The procedure would be to hang out in the middle of the damn ocean going as fast as it can in random patterns, you cannot hit it with something unless you have eyes on. Satellites cannot be used to track a moving target in real time.
Sure they can—just not for very long, and not cheaply.
In any case, UAVs (or just ordinary airplanes) or submarines are bigger threats, as I mentioned.
The thing is, if you're going to fire a ballistic missile at a US fleet you might as well fire a fucking nuke, because you're going to get a nuclear response when one of your missiles starts heading into space. There's no way the US would allow a potential nuclear first strike against its forces. I'm certain China is aware of this.
This has been brought up. There's no way to tell what they've put in a given missile, which is why the US doesn't use this type of weapon (and neither does Russia, to the best of my knowledge). You'd trigger a nuclear exchange by firing one, even if it wasn't your intent.
China only frightens me insomuch as they have population to burn and don't give a fuck what kind of tactics are considered humane or fair. Given the crazy of chairman mao and their friend 'lil kim in korea... a short range "fuck it!" if they were about to lose a conflict wouldn't surprise me. I mean, they threatened taiwan with some serious shit, and they don't even have a standing army.
...what?
You can't assume that a state willing to use tanks on college students wouldn't rather blow everything up than lose land mass to an enemy. They already poison their rivers and shit, it wouldn't be a big step to make some rural land glow if they thought they needed to.
Mostly I was referring to you making statements based off of inaccurate or missing facts. Like the statement that the Republic of China (Taiwan) doesn't have a military, or the fact that you seem to think that Mao Tse-Tung is still in power in the People's Republic of China. And the assumption that things remain exactly the same in a country over a twenty year period. Also, no country, anywhere, is dumb enough to think that getting nuked is an acceptable trade off for any outcome.
We do, actually, have a defense against ballistic missiles, and it's the same defense we used to protect our carriers during WWII. That defense, of course, is secrecy. We won the battle of Midway because we knew where the Japanese carriers were and kept our fleet hidden. The viability of carriers in a "real war" with China will rest to an alarming degree on our ability to knock down Chinese reconnaissance satellites (which I believe we are quite capable of doing) and securing unquestioned air superiority to prevent any sort of more primitive reconnaissance (difficult, but doable). This still leaves the old standbys of spies and submarines, though, and I'm not sure exactly what our strategy is for preventing their use.
I'm not sure I'd want to depend on this in a real war (actually, I'm sure I wouldn't), but I don't think things are quite as hopeless as the War Nerd makes them seem.
It's significantly harder to nail down the exact position of a ship in real time with satellites than you seem to think. Without having eyes on, there's about a 0% chance of a non nuclear ballistic missile hitting a carrier that's engaged in evasive maneuvers. The only way you are going to realistically sink a carrier in war time is during a first strike.
Actually, it's trivially easy (although not quick, unless you have a lot of satellites) to locate a carrier battlegroup from low earth orbit. The challenge is keeping your target->satellite->missile communication chain operating for the duration of the missile flight. If you aren't really quick, the satellite will pass out of sight of the target before the missile arrives. There are a few ways around this, including being really quick with the target acquisition and image processing (technically difficult, but not impossible), firing before you acquire the target (risky), and handing off target monitoring duties to a different satellite mid-flight (some combination of technically difficult and risky). I do not know if China has any of these capabilities (actually, I very much doubt it), but there's no reason to believe they won't in the near future (i.e. next twenty years or so).
The procedure would be to hang out in the middle of the damn ocean going as fast as it can in random patterns, you cannot hit it with something unless you have eyes on. Satellites cannot be used to track a moving target in real time.
Sure they can—just not for very long, and not cheaply.
In any case, UAVs (or just ordinary airplanes) or submarines are bigger threats, as I mentioned.
The thing is, if you're going to fire a ballistic missile at a US fleet you might as well fire a fucking nuke, because you're going to get a nuclear response when one of your missiles starts heading into space. There's no way the US would allow a potential nuclear first strike against its forces. I'm certain China is aware of this.
This has been brought up. There's no way to tell what they've put in a given missile, which is why the US doesn't use this type of weapon (and neither does Russia, to the best of my knowledge). You'd trigger a nuclear exchange by firing one, even if it wasn't your intent.
China only frightens me insomuch as they have population to burn and don't give a fuck what kind of tactics are considered humane or fair. Given the crazy of chairman mao and their friend 'lil kim in korea... a short range "fuck it!" if they were about to lose a conflict wouldn't surprise me. I mean, they threatened taiwan with some serious shit, and they don't even have a standing army.
...what?
You can't assume that a state willing to use tanks on college students wouldn't rather blow everything up than lose land mass to an enemy. They already poison their rivers and shit, it wouldn't be a big step to make some rural land glow if they thought they needed to.
Mostly I was referring to you making statements based off of inaccurate or missing facts. Like the statement that the Republic of China (Taiwan) doesn't have a military, or the fact that you seem to think that Mao Tse-Tung is still in power in the People's Republic of China. And the assumption that things remain exactly the same in a country over a twenty year period. Also, no country, anywhere, is dumb enough to think that getting nuked is an acceptable trade off for any outcome.
Taiwan considered itself independent until hey guys you're ours!
So far as I know there are high ranking Maoists still in Chinas government?
And nothing says professional soldier like fucking velcro.
Don't get me started.
Which parts of velcro are we talking about? Coz I have a number of opinions on velcro, many summarized as "not exactly a stealthy sound".
Nothing especially important. Just their ranks and unit patches are held on with it. That part I'll admit is tacky as all Hell. On the plus side it certainly saves on sewing on new patches.
Taiwan considered itself independent until hey guys you're ours!
I think there are a few ways to interpret this statement, but I'd like to go on a limb and say: don't worry, America, we are totally prepared for this. Especially if it involves mass surrenders of enlisted men in battalions nationwide in the event of war. I'm pretty sure that covers every possible outcome.
And nothing says professional soldier like fucking velcro.
Don't get me started.
Which parts of velcro are we talking about? Coz I have a number of opinions on velcro, many summarized as "not exactly a stealthy sound".
Nothing especially important. Just their ranks and unit patches are held on with it. That part I'll admit is tacky as all Hell. On the plus side it certainly saves on sewing on new patches.
The biggest beef I have with the velcro are the pockets, especially the cargo pockets. After a few uses it becomes useless and no long does it's job.
There's a difference between "ballistic missile" and "ICBM". Plain ole BMs don't have to reach space.
Though what with the whole "maneuvers and tracks" thing this missile doesn't sound terribly ballistic. :P
Do you think that NORAD can tell the difference?
They can, but a ballistic missile of any kind is generally a nuclear. If the US thinks you're flinging a tactical nuclear weapon at a carrier group you can expect an SBM or ICBM to be fired off at the launch site.
And nothing says professional soldier like fucking velcro.
Don't get me started.
Which parts of velcro are we talking about? Coz I have a number of opinions on velcro, many summarized as "not exactly a stealthy sound".
The stealth part is less of an issue than you might think...it's a higher-frequency sound, probably doesn't carry far, and not too many soldiers are going to be in situations where it matters. At least I'd think.
It's certainly not my concern, as a support soldier. I just think it looks tacky as all hell, and eventually the velcro starts to come apart and stop working. Also, on the arm patches especially, the "base" velcro (on the sleeve) gets all worn and fuzzy looking and just generally looks like dogshit...mainly because most of it is exposed most of the time (the areas are large compared to the patches going there).
There was significant cost involved in getting crap sewn on BDUs, but it was a one-time cost per uniform (well, until you switch units or unless you wanted rank sewn on) and you were still talking on the order of $10 per uniform. No big deal. And then it was no muss, no fuss, looked good up until the day you ripped the crap out of it somehow (and most soldiers had separate garrison and field uniforms anyway...the former were unlikely to get ripped, the latter could be patched by the soldier easily).
EDIT: And yeah, none of the cargo pockets work all that well after a relatively short time.
And nothing says professional soldier like fucking velcro.
Don't get me started.
Which parts of velcro are we talking about? Coz I have a number of opinions on velcro, many summarized as "not exactly a stealthy sound".
The stealth part is less of an issue than you might think...it's a higher-frequency sound, probably doesn't carry far, and not too many soldiers are going to be in situations where it matters. At least I'd think.
It's certainly not my concern, as a support soldier. I just think it looks tacky as all hell, and eventually the velcro starts to come apart and stop working. Also, on the arm patches especially, the "base" velcro (on the sleeve) gets all worn and fuzzy looking and just generally looks like dogshit...mainly because most of it is exposed most of the time (the areas are large compared to the patches going there).
There was significant cost involved in getting crap sewn on BDUs, but it was a one-time cost per uniform (well, until you switch units or unless you wanted rank sewn on) and you were still talking on the order of $10 per uniform. No big deal. And then it was no muss, no fuss, looked good up until the day you ripped the crap out of it somehow (and most soldiers had separate garrison and field uniforms anyway...the former were unlikely to get ripped, the latter could be patched by the soldier easily).
EDIT: And yeah, none of the cargo pockets work all that well after a relatively short time.
I got out like 3 weeks before the uniform change over but from my experience with velcro on body armor I can say that once you get sand or mud on the velcro it's time to break out the duct tape because that shit just stops working. Possibly the least practical thing for someone who lives in dirt.
What is so wrong with buttons? Seriously, I'm baffled as to how they thought Velcro on a uniform would be a good idea (Mud, fraying, shittiness). Canadian Forces only has Velcro on the flag part, and it isn't like you change those everyday.
There's a difference between "ballistic missile" and "ICBM". Plain ole BMs don't have to reach space.
Though what with the whole "maneuvers and tracks" thing this missile doesn't sound terribly ballistic. :P
Do you think that NORAD can tell the difference?
NORAD can probably differentiate (based on trajectory) between a SRBM or MRBM and an ICBM (it's just a question of range), but they certainly cannot differentiate between a nuclear-tipped ASBM and a conventional-tipped ASBM. There's just no way to tell them apart. Consequently, we have to react to any launch as though it were a nuclear launch.
What is so wrong with buttons? Seriously, I'm baffled as to how they thought Velcro on a uniform would be a good idea (Mud, fraying, shittiness). Canadian Forces only has Velcro on the flag part, and it isn't like you change those everyday.
The only problem I ever had with buttons was empty mags falling out of my cargo pocket, but anyone who has been in for more than a few monts has already modded the shit out of their field uniforms and should have their cargo pockets working to their liking or what I did was just put an extra saw drum pouch for empty mags on the side of my belt.
What is so wrong with buttons? Seriously, I'm baffled as to how they thought Velcro on a uniform would be a good idea (Mud, fraying, shittiness). Canadian Forces only has Velcro on the flag part, and it isn't like you change those everyday.
Velcro for the nametapes/patches makes sense...those can change relatively often and it would also allow for basically mix-and-match uniforms (say, if you were doing laundry at the unit level, that kind of thing). Because at that point a top is a top. I've already seen this happen a bit out in the field, when...circumstances...came up. Dude A throws his velcro patches on Dude B's uniform, good to go.
Except, of course, that the velcro around the patch goes to shit. That could be fixed by placing the patch on a piece of backing that takes up the entire velcro section.
As for dirt and the like, it's not an issue for the patches/nametapes, since whenever the soldier is wearing it it's all 'covered.' You don't go putting patches on and taking them off in the dirt, unlike body armor and the like.
Cargo pockets? None of the above applies, and they're absolutely horrible. Buttons all the way.
What is so wrong with buttons? Seriously, I'm baffled as to how they thought Velcro on a uniform would be a good idea (Mud, fraying, shittiness). Canadian Forces only has Velcro on the flag part, and it isn't like you change those everyday.
Velcro for the nametapes/patches makes sense...those can change relatively often and it would also allow for basically mix-and-match uniforms (say, if you were doing laundry at the unit level, that kind of thing). Because at that point a top is a top. I've already seen this happen a bit out in the field, when...circumstances...came up. Dude A throws his velcro patches on Dude B's uniform, good to go.
Except, of course, that the velcro around the patch goes to shit. That could be fixed by placing the patch on a piece of backing that takes up the entire velcro section.
As for dirt and the like, it's not an issue for the patches/nametapes, since whenever the soldier is wearing it it's all 'covered.' You don't go putting patches on and taking them off in the dirt, unlike body armor and the like.
Cargo pockets? None of the above applies, and they're absolutely horrible. Buttons all the way.
Oh, I forgot the name tapes. Yeah, those aren't bad, I just ordered extra ones so I don't have to change them often. Zippers are very easy to break, and they can shake loose.
We do, actually, have a defense against ballistic missiles, and it's the same defense we used to protect our carriers during WWII. That defense, of course, is secrecy. We won the battle of Midway because we knew where the Japanese carriers were and kept our fleet hidden. The viability of carriers in a "real war" with China will rest to an alarming degree on our ability to knock down Chinese reconnaissance satellites (which I believe we are quite capable of doing) and securing unquestioned air superiority to prevent any sort of more primitive reconnaissance (difficult, but doable). This still leaves the old standbys of spies and submarines, though, and I'm not sure exactly what our strategy is for preventing their use.
I'm not sure I'd want to depend on this in a real war (actually, I'm sure I wouldn't), but I don't think things are quite as hopeless as the War Nerd makes them seem.
It's significantly harder to nail down the exact position of a ship in real time with satellites than you seem to think. There's only a really, really tiny chance of a non nuclear ballistic missile hitting a carrier that's engaged in evasive maneuvers. The only way you are going to realistically sink a carrier in war time is during a first strike.
The procedure would be to hang out in the middle of the damn ocean going as fast as it can in random patterns, you cannot hit it with something unless you have eyes on. Satellites cannot be used to track a moving target in real time.
The thing is, if you're going to fire a ballistic missile at a US fleet you might as well fire a fucking nuke, because you're going to get a nuclear response when one of your missiles starts heading into space. There's no way the US would allow a potential nuclear first strike against its forces. I'm certain China is aware of this.
What do you mean by evasive maneuvers? According to the wiki our carrier's top speed is 35mph and with a displacement of 80,000 tons. I mean we have aircraft that are faster and more maneuvable than a carrier that are in deep shit when a missile is locked on and incoming.
How is something that large and that slow going to dodge a missile that can correct it's course?
There's a difference between "ballistic missile" and "ICBM". Plain ole BMs don't have to reach space.
Though what with the whole "maneuvers and tracks" thing this missile doesn't sound terribly ballistic. :P
Do you think that NORAD can tell the difference?
A Harpoon missile just has a ballistic trajectory, meaning that it hits the target from above rather than the side. NORAD probably couldn't even track it.
There's a difference between "ballistic missile" and "ICBM". Plain ole BMs don't have to reach space.
Though what with the whole "maneuvers and tracks" thing this missile doesn't sound terribly ballistic. :P
Do you think that NORAD can tell the difference?
A Harpoon missile just has a ballistic trajectory, meaning that it hits the target from above rather than the side. NORAD probably couldn't even track it.
Are we talking conventional weapons or nuclear? Because all ships are equipped with CIWS, a last stage anti-ship missile defense system.
Of course, nuclear weapons would probably still cause moderate damage to the ships, though they probably wouldn't sink it. Direct hits from nuclear blasts, as documented in the bikini extol trials did not sink the WWII carriers/cruisers/destroyers and japanese battleship. The ships remained afloat though badly damaged and contaminated. It wasn't until the nuclear blast was detonated underwater that the ships sank and caused irreparable damage.
There's a difference between "ballistic missile" and "ICBM". Plain ole BMs don't have to reach space.
Though what with the whole "maneuvers and tracks" thing this missile doesn't sound terribly ballistic. :P
Do you think that NORAD can tell the difference?
A Harpoon missile just has a ballistic trajectory, meaning that it hits the target from above rather than the side. NORAD probably couldn't even track it.
Are we talking conventional weapons or nuclear? Because all ships are equipped with CIWS, a last stage anti-ship missile defense system.
Of course, nuclear weapons would probably still cause moderate damage to the ships, though they probably wouldn't sink it. Direct hits from nuclear blasts, as documented in the bikini extol trials did not sink the WWII carriers/cruisers/destroyers and japanese battleship. The ships remained afloat though badly damaged and contaminated. It wasn't until the nuclear blast was detonated underwater that the ships sank and caused irreparable damage.
The phalanx system can only protect against threats coming from the side not above and I haven't heard of the RIM-RAM system before. Though I would assume that you would defeat it the same way you would defeat the missile defense shield by throwing too many targets at it.
And it would be cost effective too. Figure $1million a missile, even if it takes 100, it would be more than worth it to take out a $4.5 billion carrier.
If it ever gets bound up or jumps the track, then you're screwed... and usually at a time where you absolutely don't want to be fucking with your zippers. They also shake lose easily as you move around. It's ok if you're just going to stand around all day, but planning on crawling through some brush or something... it's a no go.
There is no really good solution that won't foul up. Steel buttons make snapping and clicking sounds. Plastic buttons make snapping sounds and break. Buttons held by thread come off on anything you use often. Zippers jump the track. Nylon makes you look developmentally challenged and reacts poorly in desert, forest, or mountain environments with lots of dirt.
We do, actually, have a defense against ballistic missiles, and it's the same defense we used to protect our carriers during WWII. That defense, of course, is secrecy. We won the battle of Midway because we knew where the Japanese carriers were and kept our fleet hidden. The viability of carriers in a "real war" with China will rest to an alarming degree on our ability to knock down Chinese reconnaissance satellites (which I believe we are quite capable of doing) and securing unquestioned air superiority to prevent any sort of more primitive reconnaissance (difficult, but doable). This still leaves the old standbys of spies and submarines, though, and I'm not sure exactly what our strategy is for preventing their use.
I'm not sure I'd want to depend on this in a real war (actually, I'm sure I wouldn't), but I don't think things are quite as hopeless as the War Nerd makes them seem.
It's significantly harder to nail down the exact position of a ship in real time with satellites than you seem to think. There's only a really, really tiny chance of a non nuclear ballistic missile hitting a carrier that's engaged in evasive maneuvers. The only way you are going to realistically sink a carrier in war time is during a first strike.
The procedure would be to hang out in the middle of the damn ocean going as fast as it can in random patterns, you cannot hit it with something unless you have eyes on. Satellites cannot be used to track a moving target in real time.
The thing is, if you're going to fire a ballistic missile at a US fleet you might as well fire a fucking nuke, because you're going to get a nuclear response when one of your missiles starts heading into space. There's no way the US would allow a potential nuclear first strike against its forces. I'm certain China is aware of this.
What do you mean by evasive maneuvers? According to the wiki our carrier's top speed is 35mph and with a displacement of 80,000 tons. I mean we have aircraft that are faster and more maneuvable than a carrier that are in deep shit when a missile is locked on and incoming.
How is something that large and that slow going to dodge a missile that can correct it's course?
Having a fix on a carrier's position, and then giving the order to fire, and having a missile hit the spot where it was 12 minutes ago is alot different than having a radar or heat lock on a plane. If you have an aircraft feeding you real time coordinate data on the carrier, you can hit it. Otherwise it's going to be zigzagging, and presuming you even find it, you have no way of tracking it in real time effectively unless you have something close enough to see it.
You essentially need to have a UAV get close enough to provide a solid fix on it for long enough that the missile will get a direct hit. A sub managing to slip close enough to fire a wake homing torpedo is a far more realistic threat.
In naval warfare the single most difficult thing is getting a solid fix on an enemy fleet, and then tracking it. The ocean is really, really big.
Having a fix on a carrier's position, and then giving the order to fire, and having a missile hit the spot where it was 12 minutes ago is alot different than having a radar or heat lock on a plane. If you have an aircraft feeding you real time coordinate data on the carrier, you can hit it. Otherwise it's going to be zigzagging, and presuming you even find it, you have no way of tracking it in real time effectively unless you have something close enough to see it.
You essentially need to have a UAV get close enough to provide a solid fix on it for long enough that the missile will get a direct hit.
A sub managing to slip close enough to fire a torpedo is a far more realistic threat.
With the firepower of today's weapons, mobility and stealth are the only real defenses.
There is no really good solution that won't foul up. Steel buttons make snapping and clicking sounds. Plastic buttons make snapping sounds and break. Buttons held by thread come off on anything you use often. Zippers jump the track. Nylon makes you look developmentally challenged and reacts poorly in desert, forest, or mountain environments with lots of dirt.
Hmm...
Steel buttons, plastic-reinforced buttonholes. No snap fasteners.
Having a fix on a carrier's position, and then giving the order to fire, and having a missile hit the spot where it was 12 minutes ago is alot different than having a radar or heat lock on a plane. If you have an aircraft feeding you real time coordinate data on the carrier, you can hit it. Otherwise it's going to be zigzagging, and presuming you even find it, you have no way of tracking it in real time effectively unless you have something close enough to see it.
You essentially need to have a UAV get close enough to provide a solid fix on it for long enough that the missile will get a direct hit.
A sub managing to slip close enough to fire a torpedo is a far more realistic threat.
With the firepower of today's weapons, mobility and stealth are the only real defenses.
Well not really, RAM and Phalanx systems are more than capable of taking out a high number of incoming projectiles. Torpedoes and ballistic projectiles are the only threats where the defenses once they are fired are pretty much nonexistent. Of those two, torpedoes are about a thousand times more likely to actually score a direct hit, and a thousand times less likely to provoke a nuclear response.
Large numbers of drifting sea mines can pose a threat too.
There is no really good solution that won't foul up. Steel buttons make snapping and clicking sounds. Plastic buttons make snapping sounds and break. Buttons held by thread come off on anything you use often. Zippers jump the track. Nylon makes you look developmentally challenged and reacts poorly in desert, forest, or mountain environments with lots of dirt.
Hmm...
Steel buttons, plastic-reinforced buttonholes. No snap fasteners.
How's that
Ooh, how about padded magnets? Durable, little noise when they come into contact since there's soft layers between the metal. They'd have the disadvantage of being magnetic, though.
Having a fix on a carrier's position, and then giving the order to fire, and having a missile hit the spot where it was 12 minutes ago is alot different than having a radar or heat lock on a plane. If you have an aircraft feeding you real time coordinate data on the carrier, you can hit it. Otherwise it's going to be zigzagging, and presuming you even find it, you have no way of tracking it in real time effectively unless you have something close enough to see it.
You essentially need to have a UAV get close enough to provide a solid fix on it for long enough that the missile will get a direct hit.
A sub managing to slip close enough to fire a torpedo is a far more realistic threat.
With the firepower of today's weapons, mobility and stealth are the only real defenses.
Well not really, RAM and Phalanx systems are more than capable of taking out a high number of incoming projectiles. Torpedoes and ballistic projectiles are the only threats where the defenses once they are fired are pretty much nonexistent. Of those two, torpedoes are about a thousand times more likely to actually score a direct hit, and a thousand times less likely to provoke a nuclear response.
Large numbers of drifting sea mines can pose a threat too.
I don't know the details, but in an exercise, mass fire cruise missiles and small boats were apparently able to heavily damage a Navy fleet.
I saw a machine on Dirty Jobs (I swear it was Dirty Jobs, but it was at least either Discovery Channel or Modern Marvels) that basically eats the earth in front of it with giant chains in order to set mines off.
However, that thing would take a long time to clear an area.
Mine flails are not infalliable. They aren't designed to withstand larger mines, are prone to breaking down, and don't necessairly catch all the mines.
Having a fix on a carrier's position, and then giving the order to fire, and having a missile hit the spot where it was 12 minutes ago is alot different than having a radar or heat lock on a plane. If you have an aircraft feeding you real time coordinate data on the carrier, you can hit it. Otherwise it's going to be zigzagging, and presuming you even find it, you have no way of tracking it in real time effectively unless you have something close enough to see it.
You essentially need to have a UAV get close enough to provide a solid fix on it for long enough that the missile will get a direct hit.
A sub managing to slip close enough to fire a torpedo is a far more realistic threat.
With the firepower of today's weapons, mobility and stealth are the only real defenses.
Well not really, RAM and Phalanx systems are more than capable of taking out a high number of incoming projectiles. Torpedoes and ballistic projectiles are the only threats where the defenses once they are fired are pretty much nonexistent. Of those two, torpedoes are about a thousand times more likely to actually score a direct hit, and a thousand times less likely to provoke a nuclear response.
Large numbers of drifting sea mines can pose a threat too.
I don't know the details, but in an exercise, mass fire cruise missiles and small boats were apparently able to heavily damage a Navy fleet.
Right, if a naval fleet isn't in open ocean and constantly moving you'll easily be able to overwhelm it with coordinated fire. You do need a pretty large amount of conventional weapons to overwhelm the defenses though.
Having a fix on a carrier's position, and then giving the order to fire, and having a missile hit the spot where it was 12 minutes ago is alot different than having a radar or heat lock on a plane. If you have an aircraft feeding you real time coordinate data on the carrier, you can hit it. Otherwise it's going to be zigzagging, and presuming you even find it, you have no way of tracking it in real time effectively unless you have something close enough to see it.
You essentially need to have a UAV get close enough to provide a solid fix on it for long enough that the missile will get a direct hit. A sub managing to slip close enough to fire a wake homing torpedo is a far more realistic threat.
In naval warfare the single most difficult thing is getting a solid fix on an enemy fleet, and then tracking it. The ocean is really, really big.
Anti-ship missiles don't work the way your thinking. The harpoon missile uses active radar to "lock" on to a target and adjust course as necessary to hit the target. Again a carrier displaces 80,000 tons and has a max speed of 35mph where do you think it's going to go in 12 mins that is going to allow it get away from a missile traveling hundreds of mph and with much greater maneuverability?
Remember how you brought up the battle of Midway earlier. In that battle both the Japanese and Americans were able to find and carry out attacks on carriers they didn't have real time intel on and that was back in WWII.
Your right the ocean is really big, but for the carrier to attack anything it has to be within a certain range. Back to the Battle of Midway, we didn't have to search the entire ocean to find the Japanese fleet just areas within striking distance of Midway.
Having a fix on a carrier's position, and then giving the order to fire, and having a missile hit the spot where it was 12 minutes ago is alot different than having a radar or heat lock on a plane. If you have an aircraft feeding you real time coordinate data on the carrier, you can hit it. Otherwise it's going to be zigzagging, and presuming you even find it, you have no way of tracking it in real time effectively unless you have something close enough to see it.
You essentially need to have a UAV get close enough to provide a solid fix on it for long enough that the missile will get a direct hit. A sub managing to slip close enough to fire a wake homing torpedo is a far more realistic threat.
In naval warfare the single most difficult thing is getting a solid fix on an enemy fleet, and then tracking it. The ocean is really, really big.
Anti-ship missiles don't work the way your thinking. The harpoon missile uses active radar to "lock" on to a target and adjust course as necessary to hit the target. Again a carrier displaces 80,000 tons and has a max speed of 35mph where do you think it's going to go in 12 mins that is going to allow it get away from a missile traveling hundreds of mph and with much greater maneuverability?
What you are describing is a standard anti-shipping missile. A ballistic missile (which is what China has just built) does not have this capability, and must necessarily be fired from far beyond the range at which it could obtain a lock anyway—we're talking thousands of kilometers. There isn't much time to obtain a lock when the target is in view, either, and it's very difficult to maneuver a missile that's in that phase of flight.
Remember how you brought up the battle of Midway earlier. In that battle both the Japanese and Americans were able to find and carry out attacks on carriers they didn't have real time intel on and that was back in WWII.
Actually, I think I brought that battle up, and the attacking units at Midway really did have real-time intel on enemy positions—because the attacking units were manned aircraft. Had they been ballistic missiles, no one would have hit anything, because you can't look around, make decisions, change targets, or even steer very much with a ballistic missile.
Your right the ocean is really big, but for the carrier to attack anything it has to be within a certain range. Back to the Battle of Midway, we didn't have to search the entire ocean to find the Japanese fleet just areas within striking distance of Midway.
Yes, but "striking distance" is much greater now than it's ever been before. The linked .pdf from earlier in the thread mentions a strike range of at least 600 nm for our carriers, and that's without in-air refueling.
Also, does anyone else instinctively read "nm" as "nanometer" instead of "nautical mile" at first? That is damned annoying.
hurry up and trademark that word. You'll make millions.
This would actually be possible. Gecko's feet are basically nano-roughened so they stick to anything. The US military has a research project building a material from nanotubes that will allow a soldier to spider-man climb a vertical wall at about 5m/s (you peel off the material quite easily, but it won't slide/fall off).
So...I'm thinking you could have two pieces of this that mate in order to provide a good contact. No sound, and probably pretty good at staying closed.
Posts
Someone needs to figure out stealthcro.
Taiwan considered itself independent until hey guys you're ours!
So far as I know there are high ranking Maoists still in Chinas government?
It doesn't matter, I was mostly joking anyway.
Do you think that NORAD can tell the difference?
I think there are a few ways to interpret this statement, but I'd like to go on a limb and say: don't worry, America, we are totally prepared for this. Especially if it involves mass surrenders of enlisted men in battalions nationwide in the event of war. I'm pretty sure that covers every possible outcome.
The biggest beef I have with the velcro are the pockets, especially the cargo pockets. After a few uses it becomes useless and no long does it's job.
They can, but a ballistic missile of any kind is generally a nuclear. If the US thinks you're flinging a tactical nuclear weapon at a carrier group you can expect an SBM or ICBM to be fired off at the launch site.
Things generally go downhill from there.
The stealth part is less of an issue than you might think...it's a higher-frequency sound, probably doesn't carry far, and not too many soldiers are going to be in situations where it matters. At least I'd think.
It's certainly not my concern, as a support soldier. I just think it looks tacky as all hell, and eventually the velcro starts to come apart and stop working. Also, on the arm patches especially, the "base" velcro (on the sleeve) gets all worn and fuzzy looking and just generally looks like dogshit...mainly because most of it is exposed most of the time (the areas are large compared to the patches going there).
There was significant cost involved in getting crap sewn on BDUs, but it was a one-time cost per uniform (well, until you switch units or unless you wanted rank sewn on) and you were still talking on the order of $10 per uniform. No big deal. And then it was no muss, no fuss, looked good up until the day you ripped the crap out of it somehow (and most soldiers had separate garrison and field uniforms anyway...the former were unlikely to get ripped, the latter could be patched by the soldier easily).
EDIT: And yeah, none of the cargo pockets work all that well after a relatively short time.
I got out like 3 weeks before the uniform change over but from my experience with velcro on body armor I can say that once you get sand or mud on the velcro it's time to break out the duct tape because that shit just stops working. Possibly the least practical thing for someone who lives in dirt.
The only problem I ever had with buttons was empty mags falling out of my cargo pocket, but anyone who has been in for more than a few monts has already modded the shit out of their field uniforms and should have their cargo pockets working to their liking or what I did was just put an extra saw drum pouch for empty mags on the side of my belt.
Velcro for the nametapes/patches makes sense...those can change relatively often and it would also allow for basically mix-and-match uniforms (say, if you were doing laundry at the unit level, that kind of thing). Because at that point a top is a top. I've already seen this happen a bit out in the field, when...circumstances...came up. Dude A throws his velcro patches on Dude B's uniform, good to go.
Except, of course, that the velcro around the patch goes to shit. That could be fixed by placing the patch on a piece of backing that takes up the entire velcro section.
As for dirt and the like, it's not an issue for the patches/nametapes, since whenever the soldier is wearing it it's all 'covered.' You don't go putting patches on and taking them off in the dirt, unlike body armor and the like.
Cargo pockets? None of the above applies, and they're absolutely horrible. Buttons all the way.
Why not nylon zippers? They last forever.
What do you mean by evasive maneuvers? According to the wiki our carrier's top speed is 35mph and with a displacement of 80,000 tons. I mean we have aircraft that are faster and more maneuvable than a carrier that are in deep shit when a missile is locked on and incoming.
How is something that large and that slow going to dodge a missile that can correct it's course?
A Harpoon missile just has a ballistic trajectory, meaning that it hits the target from above rather than the side. NORAD probably couldn't even track it.
Are we talking conventional weapons or nuclear? Because all ships are equipped with CIWS, a last stage anti-ship missile defense system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS
As well as the RIM-RAM systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-116_Rolling_Airframe_Missile#SeaRAM
Of course, nuclear weapons would probably still cause moderate damage to the ships, though they probably wouldn't sink it. Direct hits from nuclear blasts, as documented in the bikini extol trials did not sink the WWII carriers/cruisers/destroyers and japanese battleship. The ships remained afloat though badly damaged and contaminated. It wasn't until the nuclear blast was detonated underwater that the ships sank and caused irreparable damage.
The phalanx system can only protect against threats coming from the side not above and I haven't heard of the RIM-RAM system before. Though I would assume that you would defeat it the same way you would defeat the missile defense shield by throwing too many targets at it.
And it would be cost effective too. Figure $1million a missile, even if it takes 100, it would be more than worth it to take out a $4.5 billion carrier.
hurry up and trademark that word. You'll make millions.
If it ever gets bound up or jumps the track, then you're screwed... and usually at a time where you absolutely don't want to be fucking with your zippers. They also shake lose easily as you move around. It's ok if you're just going to stand around all day, but planning on crawling through some brush or something... it's a no go.
There is no really good solution that won't foul up. Steel buttons make snapping and clicking sounds. Plastic buttons make snapping sounds and break. Buttons held by thread come off on anything you use often. Zippers jump the track. Nylon makes you look developmentally challenged and reacts poorly in desert, forest, or mountain environments with lots of dirt.
Having a fix on a carrier's position, and then giving the order to fire, and having a missile hit the spot where it was 12 minutes ago is alot different than having a radar or heat lock on a plane. If you have an aircraft feeding you real time coordinate data on the carrier, you can hit it. Otherwise it's going to be zigzagging, and presuming you even find it, you have no way of tracking it in real time effectively unless you have something close enough to see it.
You essentially need to have a UAV get close enough to provide a solid fix on it for long enough that the missile will get a direct hit. A sub managing to slip close enough to fire a wake homing torpedo is a far more realistic threat.
In naval warfare the single most difficult thing is getting a solid fix on an enemy fleet, and then tracking it. The ocean is really, really big.
With the firepower of today's weapons, mobility and stealth are the only real defenses.
Hmm...
Steel buttons, plastic-reinforced buttonholes. No snap fasteners.
How's that
Well not really, RAM and Phalanx systems are more than capable of taking out a high number of incoming projectiles. Torpedoes and ballistic projectiles are the only threats where the defenses once they are fired are pretty much nonexistent. Of those two, torpedoes are about a thousand times more likely to actually score a direct hit, and a thousand times less likely to provoke a nuclear response.
Large numbers of drifting sea mines can pose a threat too.
Ooh, how about padded magnets? Durable, little noise when they come into contact since there's soft layers between the metal. They'd have the disadvantage of being magnetic, though.
Although they might cause problems with other things (and would also latch to the dryer tumbler)
I don't know the details, but in an exercise, mass fire cruise missiles and small boats were apparently able to heavily damage a Navy fleet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
Please file your resignation in triplicate and destroy the original.
Right, if a naval fleet isn't in open ocean and constantly moving you'll easily be able to overwhelm it with coordinated fire. You do need a pretty large amount of conventional weapons to overwhelm the defenses though.
Anti-ship missiles don't work the way your thinking. The harpoon missile uses active radar to "lock" on to a target and adjust course as necessary to hit the target. Again a carrier displaces 80,000 tons and has a max speed of 35mph where do you think it's going to go in 12 mins that is going to allow it get away from a missile traveling hundreds of mph and with much greater maneuverability?
Remember how you brought up the battle of Midway earlier. In that battle both the Japanese and Americans were able to find and carry out attacks on carriers they didn't have real time intel on and that was back in WWII.
Your right the ocean is really big, but for the carrier to attack anything it has to be within a certain range. Back to the Battle of Midway, we didn't have to search the entire ocean to find the Japanese fleet just areas within striking distance of Midway.
Actually, I think I brought that battle up, and the attacking units at Midway really did have real-time intel on enemy positions—because the attacking units were manned aircraft. Had they been ballistic missiles, no one would have hit anything, because you can't look around, make decisions, change targets, or even steer very much with a ballistic missile.
Yes, but "striking distance" is much greater now than it's ever been before. The linked .pdf from earlier in the thread mentions a strike range of at least 600 nm for our carriers, and that's without in-air refueling.
Also, does anyone else instinctively read "nm" as "nanometer" instead of "nautical mile" at first? That is damned annoying.
So...I'm thinking you could have two pieces of this that mate in order to provide a good contact. No sound, and probably pretty good at staying closed.
Maybe electromagnetic latches, then? You could remove the battery when you wash them.