China, Iran and Russia can easily attack US aircraft carriers with new technology

[Desertfalcon]

That have been the pattern of 'debate' -- using the word generously -- when it comes to technology. That somehow non-American technologies are better than American technologies. As soon as the author of an article critical of the US military uses the words 'could', or 'maybe', or 'possible', or similar, magically the US military is rendered technologically impotent while Russian and Chinese technologies are equally magically immune.



None of the authors cited dared to be definitive, as in using the words 'will' or 'certainly'. As a group, these writers embarrassed themselves on Desert Storm so now no one want to put his dick -- reputation -- on the chopping block. But as long as they use enough words open to interpretation, their jobs are assured as their articles would attract enough attention from the likes of people on this forum desperate for anything to grasp to use against the US.

Exactly.

 

[Ewok6102]

I think what some really want to put forth is the silly idea that only American aircraft carriers are mysteriously, no longer worthwhile while Russian and Chinese carriers are just somehow....different.

I think it largely depends on the intended opponents and battle theaters.

China and Russia are nuclear armed nations with access and capabilities to produce advanced weapons at will. They are more than capable of watching over and securing their own backyards. Therefore, it makes sense not to put your prized carriers under their nostrils and within immediate firing range.

Likewise with Russian and Chinese carriers. They are not intended, nor are they ideal to be used against a nation as strong as the US.

Carriers are more effective against smaller nations, those with little to no abilities to fight back due to their lack of military options and resources.

Although carriers are still somewhat relevant today, but their effectiveness will always be questioned over the course of time. Same applies to other weapon systems, tactics and platforms. This is normal, especially since they have been around for nearly a century.

Advanced nations are fighting less ground battles, more air, sea and cyber battles for reasons. We are even capable of fighting limited battles in space if we wish to.

As one of the more intelligent specimens on earth, we are blessed with the ability to think, adapt, modernize and apply new tactics and platforms.

 

[Desertfalcon]

I think it largely depends on the intended opponents and battle theaters.

I agree which is why the thread title and OP are rather silly. It makes an assumption that American carriers are used in a different manner than say, China's new carriers will be used, in time of war. It would have had more credibility had it said something to the effect of "All countries' aircraft carriers are now more vulnerable to long range anti-ship missiles.", and then explain how no experienced and capable carrier captain is going to foolishly risk his vessel against weapons he is fully aware of. Carriers will still play a vital role even in an unlikely conventional blue water sea battle but it will not take place in anywhere the same manner as WW2 carrier battles did between the US Navy and the Imperial Japanese Navy, for example.

I do think however, that aircraft carriers will for the foreseeable future, continue to be tremendous power projection platforms in all kinds of scenarios, that no other system can match.....just like the Chinese and Russian navies ardently believe hence their aggressive aircraft carrier programs.

 

[jhungary]

Haha, why need training if you have this?

Because of this

 

[Arminkh]

I like how you side-step the major argument of "Range" instead keep talking about an abstract probability of the missile accuracy.

Another thing, weapon development is never about potency, but about effectiveness of any weapon. If it is like what you say, the US Air Force is a global force, it is potent enough to carry operation globally, then why the US need a navy??

Anyway, enough of talking to you. As I said, you can think what you want, I mean, it's your imagination.

Correction: there is another side to weapon development as well and that's deterrence. And I still believe missiles are as effective as you can get. Read about Falkland battle and see what 10-15 Exocets in Argentina's arsenal with 70s tech did to mighty British navy. Now imagine if they had 100 of them with extended range so they could launch them from their shores.

There are many clips of how accurate those missiles are today. Here is one:

I didn't side step the range issue. I didn't have time to write about it as I was heading into a meeting. Sorry about that.

But I tell you this. If these ASBMs with all their ineffectiveness that you are claiming only make the carriers stay outside their range, they have served their one of their many purposes (i.e. deterrence). With an F22 having a range below 3000km, there is not much for it to do if its carrier is sitting 2000 km away from enemy shore (in case of China even more as it can launch its ASBMs from it subs as well) or at least there will be tons of time for the country that is being attacked to prepare for the air raid. The whole point of having a carrier is to take the jet fighters as close to the action as possible, extend their range and decrease the response time. If they are forced to keep a distance of 2000 km, then they may as well operate from a local land base. In case of Iran for example, they can't even enter Persian Gulf. They need to sit deep in Oman Sea to keep that distance.

Carrying jet fighters is not the sole purpose of having a navy as I'm sure you know. But asking why US is still having aircraft carriers is a good question. The reason is 1st: only two countries in the world have the ASBMs. Others like Afghanistan, Libiya, Somaliya,...... which US shows more interest in attacking these days are still good targets for aircraft carrier operations. Some of these poor countries don't even have simple antiship cruise missiles. 2nd: Sometimes the country hosting US airbases won't let it use the base for specific operations, so a carrier would be the best choice unless it has to sit 2000 km away from the enemy shores. 3rd, carriers still serve their purpose in deep sea naval battles like those of WWII if it ever comes to that.

My personal opinion is Carriers will continue to lose their strategic importance as the precision and range of the missiles improve and as the multipurpose fighters become more efficient and thus will have longer range. They are already limited by ASBMs when it comes to land operations. Russians got to this point much earlier and decided they shouldn't waste their money on aircraft carriers anymore.

 

[jhungary]

Correction: there is another side to weapon development as well and that's deterrence. And I still believe missiles are as effective as you can get. Read about Falkland battle and see what 10-15 Exocets in Argentina's arsenal with 70s tech did to mighty British navy. Now imagine if they had 100 of them with extended range so they could launch them from their shores.

There are many clips of how accurate those missiles are today. Here is one:

I didn't side step the range issue. I didn't have time to write about it as I was heading into a meeting. Sorry about that.

But I tell you this. If these ASBMs with all their ineffectiveness that you are claiming only make the carriers stay outside their range, they have served their one of their many purposes (i.e. deterrence). With an F22 having a range below 3000km, there is not much for it to do if its carrier is sitting 2000 km away from enemy shore (in case of China even more as it can launch its ASBMs from it subs as well) or at least there will be tons of time for the country that is being attacked to prepare for the air raid. The whole point of having a carrier is to take the jet fighters as close to the action as possible, extend their range and decrease the response time. If they are forced to keep a distance of 2000 km, then they may as well operate from a local land base. In case of Iran for example, they can't even enter Persian Gulf. They need to sit deep in Oman Sea to keep that distance.

Carrying jet fighters is not the sole purpose of having a navy as I'm sure you know. But asking why US is still having aircraft carriers is a good question. The reason is 1st: only two countries in the world have the ASBMs. Others like Afghanistan, Libiya, Somaliya,...... which US shows more interest in attacking these days are still good targets for aircraft carrier operations. Some of these poor countries don't even have simple antiship cruise missiles. 2nd: Sometimes the country hosting US airbases won't let it use the base for specific operations, so a carrier would be the best choice unless it has to sit 2000 km away from the enemy shores. 3rd, carriers still serve their purpose in deep sea naval battles like those of WWII if it ever comes to that.

My personal opinion is Carriers will continue to lose their strategic importance as the precision and range of the missiles improve and as the multipurpose fighters become more efficient and thus will have longer range. They are already limited by ASBMs when it comes to land operations. Russians got to this point much earlier and decided they shouldn't waste their money on aircraft carriers anymore.

Let me tell you what I think.

You are wrong to have assume "Since the carrier don't get in our coast, the missile "Deterred" the Carrier". Because you do not know something is called "Push and Pull" effect when you are actually at war.

Imagine you are defending a Carrier battle group in the Persian Gulf. Now, for the maximum effective of your missile, you will have to deploy them near the coast, every Kilometer you deploy your missile AWAY from the coast, you will lost the same Km in range. The question is, your missile is at more risk with the near coastal deployment. (Fighter bomber or sub launch cruise missile have a 1000km standalone range). So. Basically, both subs, destroyer and fighter bomber only need to penetrate up to 1000 Km off your coast to engage your missile.

The solution, you put your AA/SAM on the coast to fend off against the incoming Fighter Bomber and Cruise missile. And then you position your ASBM further away from the coast behind your SAM/AA umbrella so it will not be touched by Aircraft that launched from the carrier, however Destoryer and Submarine launched ASBM still posted a threat to your ASBM launcher and Radar. So effectively, unless you can denied the whole coast within 1000km to US Destroyer and Sub, you are looking pushing back your ASBM 1000km (effective range of sea launch tomahawk) AWAY from the coast to get away of this threat.

Now, in a real war situation. The job of my navy is to provide support for any amphibious operation we are conducting your coast. Now, say I have a CBG and a AAG (Ambipihous Assault Group) I will march 12 destroyer, cruiser, my LHD/LHA and sub into your coast and do a coastal sweep just in range of my tomahawk (So about 1000-1300km away from your coast), ISTAR the threat in your coast and and launch curise missile at your coast. The rest of the ship stays to protect the carrier, sitting outside your ASBM range, launching aircraft to protect my destroyer 700-900km away, away from your ASBM range).

Now, if at this point, you deploy your ASBM along the coast, they will be targeted by the destroyer, and the destroyer are protected by the fighter aircraft doing CAP. If not, my destroyer will destroy coastal defence. Now, I will move my destroyer and sub gradually closer to your coast. Where my carrier can either move in or stay away from your coast. I will then launch a ground assault from my LHD/LHA at about 200km away (about 1700km from our carrier) and my land force would still be covered by our destroyer support as well as Air support and then I will move my ground troop inland and secure a corridor to have my carrier move closer to the coast.

In the end, if you position your ASBM along the coast, you risk of them being destroyed by sub/destroyer launched tomahawk, or you move inland, and negate your own range to avoid being targeted by the cruise missile. Or you simply don't turn on the guiding radar of your ASBM, which will negate the deployment, as ASBM does not work like SAM, you need to turn on the guidance system all the way in order to track your target. Once you turn on your radar, your signature will then be picked up by AWACS like E-2D and E-3. Apporiate action then can be implemented

So, bacially, it did nothing to deter my carrier, If my objective is to launch an ampibihious assault to your coast, my carrier would still be able to protect my other ship. which in turn protect my landing troop. But if you position your ASBM near your coast to enjoy maximum range effect, there is a good chance they will be destroyed by either my ship, aircraft or UCAV. So Either you move your ASBM further inland or you risk them being destroy. That is the push and pull effect.

 

[Arminkh]

Let me tell you what I think.

You are wrong to have assume "Since the carrier don't get in our coast, the missile "Deterred" the Carrier". Because you do not know something is called "Push and Pull" effect when you are actually at war.

Imagine you are defending a Carrier battle group in the Persian Gulf. Now, for the maximum effective of your missile, you will have to deploy them near the coast, every Kilometer you deploy your missile AWAY from the coast, you will lost the same Km in range. The question is, your missile is at more risk with the near coastal deployment. (Fighter bomber or sub launch cruise missile have a 1000km standalone range). So. Basically, both subs, destroyer and fighter bomber only need to penetrate up to 1000 Km off your coast to engage your missile.

The solution, you put your AA/SAM on the coast to fend off against the incoming Fighter Bomber and Cruise missile. And then you position your ASBM further away from the coast behind your SAM/AA umbrella so it will not be touched by Aircraft that launched from the carrier, however Destoryer and Submarine launched ASBM still posted a threat to your ASBM launcher and Radar. So effectively, unless you can denied the whole coast within 1000km to US Destroyer and Sub, you are looking pushing back your ASBM 1000km (effective range of sea launch tomahawk) AWAY from the coast to get away of this threat.

Now, in a real war situation. The job of my navy is to provide support for any amphibious operation we are conducting your coast. Now, say I have a CBG and a AAG (Ambipihous Assault Group) I will march 12 destroyer, cruiser, my LHD/LHA and sub into your coast and do a coastal sweep just in range of my tomahawk (So about 1000-1300km away from your coast), ISTAR the threat in your coast and and launch curise missile at your coast. The rest of the ship stays to protect the carrier, sitting outside your ASBM range, launching aircraft to protect my destroyer 700-900km away, away from your ASBM range).

Now, if at this point, you deploy your ASBM along the coast, they will be targeted by the destroyer, and the destroyer are protected by the fighter aircraft doing CAP. If not, my destroyer will destroy coastal defence. Now, I will move my destroyer and sub gradually closer to your coast. Where my carrier can either move in or stay away from your coast. I will then launch a ground assault from my LHD/LHA at about 200km away (about 1700km from our carrier) and my land force would still be covered by our destroyer support as well as Air support and then I will move my ground troop inland and secure a corridor to have my carrier move closer to the coast.

In the end, if you position your ASBM along the coast, you risk of them being destroyed by sub/destroyer launched tomahawk, or you move inland, and negate your own range to avoid being targeted by the cruise missile. Or you simply don't turn on the guiding radar of your ASBM, which will negate the deployment, as ASBM does not work like SAM, you need to turn on the guidance system all the way in order to track your target. Once you turn on your radar, your signature will then be picked up by AWACS like E-2D and E-3. Apporiate action then can be implemented

So, bacially, it did nothing to deter my carrier, If my objective is to launch an ampibihious assault to your coast, my carrier would still be able to protect my other ship. which in turn protect my landing troop. But if you position your ASBM near your coast to enjoy maximum range effect, there is a good chance they will be destroyed by either my ship, aircraft or UCAV. So Either you move your ASBM further inland or you risk them being destroy. That is the push and pull effect.

I think you have made some assumptions that may not happen in reality:

1- That I won't use my ASBMs against the destroyers or other floating units. Well the clip I posted shows a destroyer sized ship being destroyed by an ASBM. I also have anti radiation type that seeks your ships radars. It's a kind of fire and forget ballistic missile if you will. Your floating vessels won't last long if they enter the range.
2- That you can destroy ASBM launchers with Tomahawk missiles. Again they are mobile. You can't hit a truck with Tomahawk. You need to use your air force to destroy them. Meaning your carrier should be sitting only 1400 km off my shore as F22 combat radius is only 1400 km. So I can hit it with my 2000 km range ASBM unless you consider air fueling.
3- I'll be using traditional radars to find my targets. No, I'll be using OTH radars sitting far off my coast to track the naval units and no you can't destroy all of them as I have mobile ones too.
4- I'll be using only active radars. No I have passive radars that can detect when a F-22 starts its engine in their base in Emirates. I can detect your radars electromagnetic signature and by triangulation find the estimated location of every single ship. That's enough for my ASBMs.
5- Subs can enter the vicinity of my shores intact. No the subs that can launch Tomahawk are large ones and not stealthy at all in shallow waters. They can easily be tracked and destroyed by my midget subs or at least suffer great losses.
6- That I will let your Airforce freely fly off my shores. No I have AD systems with ranges up to 300 km that actually covers whole Persian Gulf.
7- That I'm defenseless against Tomahawk that are subsonic cruise missiles. No I have both Russian and Iranian made missile and point defense systems that can hit and destroy incoming missiles.

Now I know there are a lot of ways to counter everything I said but you can see that only because of these ASBMs the cost and risk of these operations has significantly increased. only 3 decades ago, US navy could easily march my coast and I was not able to do a damn thing about it. They could park their carrier 300 km away from my coast and do whatever they want. Now it is not that easy anymore.

We are not saying carrier are obsolete weapons. We say they are losing their effectiveness as they are extremely expensive. So even a slight chance of loosing them will make the owner think twice before deploying them and most of the times opt to not put them in danger.

 

[jhungary]

I think you have made some assumptions that may not happen in reality:

1- That I won't use my ASBMs against the destroyers or other floating units. Well the clip I posted shows a destroyer sized ship being destroyed by an ASBM. I also have anti radiation type that seeks your ships radars. It's a kind of fire and forget ballistic missile if you will. Your floating vessels won't last long if they enter the range.
2- That you can destroy ASBM launchers with Tomahawk missiles. Again they are mobile. You can't hit a truck with Tomahawk. You need to use your air force to destroy them. Meaning your carrier should be sitting only 1400 km off my shore as F22 combat radius is only 1400 km. So I can hit it with my 2000 km range ASBM unless you consider air fueling.
3- I'll be using traditional radars to find my targets. No, I'll be using OTH radars sitting far off my coast to track the naval units and no you can't destroy all of them as I have mobile ones too.
4- I'll be using only active radars. No I have passive radars that can detect when a F-22 starts its engine in their base in Emirates. I can detect your radars electromagnetic signature and by triangulation find the estimated location of every single ship. That's enough for my ASBMs.
5- Subs can enter the vicinity of my shores intact. No the subs that can launch Tomahawk are large ones and not stealthy at all in shallow waters. They can easily be tracked and destroyed by my midget subs or at least suffer great losses.
6- That I will let your Airforce freely fly off my shores. No I have AD systems with ranges up to 300 km that actually covers whole Persian Gulf.
7- That I'm defenseless against Tomahawk that are subsonic cruise missiles. No I have both Russian and Iranian made missile and point defense systems that can hit and destroy incoming missiles.

Now I know there are a lot of ways to counter everything I said but you can see that only because of these ASBMs the cost and risk of these operations has significantly increased. only 3 decades ago, US navy could easily march my coast and I was not able to do a damn thing about it. They could park their carrier 300 km away from my coast and do whatever they want. Now it is not that easy anymore.

We are not saying carrier are obsolete weapons. We say they are losing their effectiveness as they are extremely expensive. So even a slight chance of loosing them will make the owner think twice before deploying them and most of the times opt to not put them in danger.

1.) I never said I will not use my ASBM against a destroyer, you can use them on anything, even on aircraft. By the way, that ASBM that you show destroying a destroyer have less range than DF-21D, A LOT less range than DF-21D, like only 200-300 Km. That changes nothing. The longer the range you want, the larger the missile you need to have, and with the larger the missile, it will reduce manoeuvrability as they become more aerodynamically unstable. Meaning, larger missile cannot hit small ship. That's unless you can break the physical limit of current physics. This is ALWAYS true.

2.) Well, so does the said the same thing to Scud missile, then I guess aerial hunting of scud does not happens, right? And no, you cannot hit with your Khalije Fars missile that far, they have range about 200-300 km

3) The question is, do we need to destroy them all? As I pointed out, we don't we only need you to shut down the one that we need or we only need to destroy the one that overlap our AOR, Radar have their limit, there are no "One radar detect all"

4.) Umm, you probably don't even know what's Active and Passive Radar means........Passive radar would still picked up by SIGINT...The basics is, unless your radar does not transfer any data (ie shut down) they will be picked up by other radar signature.....And your rest of your point are..........LOL. You can have a dude standing outside the emirate and watch a F-22 fly away too. you want to add to that?

5.) LOL, may be true if you are talking about Russia, could be (but I doubted) about China, but what you said is definitely NOR TRUE when you are talking about Iran...But then I will use other way to attack China and Russia if we have to.

6.) AGAIN, LOL. Well, you can tried. But do you even know how advance US anti A2/AD technology are?? You know how Jammer such as EA-18G and EC-130 works? You can shot down the whole USAF with 4,763 SAM, this is how many aircraft have in the US Air Force.

7.) Maybe if we are talking about 1 to 1. But how about 1000 tomahawk flying into your airspace? Can you intercept them all? US launch 802 Tomahawk missile in the FIRST DAY of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Can you shoot down all 802 missile? A carrier battle group carry more than 1000 tomahawk between its destroyer, subs, and cruiser, as well as air launch tomahawk.

lol. again, I like your style. On one hand, you assume every missile in Iran procession have 80% hit, yet you assume none of the US missile can hit you or they could be intercepted. So you are saying Missile have 80% chance hitting the target? Or you are saying missile can be intercepted?? LOL. You don't even know you are slapping your own face....

 

[BoQ77]

While we could believe what a glide bomb could do.
we doubt about the chance a Mach 10 warhead could act as a glide vehicle or cruise missile to lock on a mobile target.

I guess it would be similar to twist your *** to release your fart aside as attempt to make a turn to a racing moto

 

[BoQ77]

 

[Arminkh]

1.) I never said I will not use my ASBM against a destroyer, you can use them on anything, even on aircraft. By the way, that ASBM that you show destroying a destroyer have less range than DF-21D, A LOT less range than DF-21D, like only 200-300 Km. That changes nothing. The longer the range you want, the larger the missile you need to have, and with the larger the missile, it will reduce manoeuvrability as they become more aerodynamically unstable. Meaning, larger missile cannot hit small ship. That's unless you can break the physical limit of current physics. This is ALWAYS true.

2.) Well, so does the said the same thing to Scud missile, then I guess aerial hunting of scud does not happens, right? And no, you cannot hit with your Khalije Fars missile that far, they have range about 200-300 km

3) The question is, do we need to destroy them all? As I pointed out, we don't we only need you to shut down the one that we need or we only need to destroy the one that overlap our AOR, Radar have their limit, there are no "One radar detect all"

4.) Umm, you probably don't even know what's Active and Passive Radar means........Passive radar would still picked up by SIGINT...The basics is, unless your radar does not transfer any data (ie shut down) they will be picked up by other radar signature.....And your rest of your point are..........LOL. You can have a dude standing outside the emirate and watch a F-22 fly away too. you want to add to that?

5.) LOL, may be true if you are talking about Russia, could be (but I doubted) about China, but what you said is definitely NOR TRUE when you are talking about Iran...But then I will use other way to attack China and Russia if we have to.

6.) AGAIN, LOL. Well, you can tried. But do you even know how advance US anti A2/AD technology are?? You know how Jammer such as EA-18G and EC-130 works? You can shot down the whole USAF with 4,763 SAM, this is how many aircraft have in the US Air Force.

7.) Maybe if we are talking about 1 to 1. But how about 1000 tomahawk flying into your airspace? Can you intercept them all? US launch 802 Tomahawk missile in the FIRST DAY of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Can you shoot down all 802 missile? A carrier battle group carry more than 1000 tomahawk between its destroyer, subs, and cruiser, as well as air launch tomahawk.

lol. again, I like your style. On one hand, you assume every missile in Iran procession have 80% hit, yet you assume none of the US missile can hit you or they could be intercepted. So you are saying Missile have 80% chance hitting the target? Or you are saying missile can be intercepted?? LOL. You don't even know you are slapping your own face....

You are missing my point. I'm talking about risks and my rational above is not based on the accuracy of my weapons or yours. I'm listing all the potential risks for an invader and that it has dramatically increased due to the presence of ASBMs. (This is really off topic but since you seem so proud of your Tomahawks, have you ever heard of GPS signal jamming? I don't need to shoot down any of them. That's the last line of defense. Iraq used it on limited number of incoming missiles back in the Persian Gulf War and all of them missed their targets. Some of them even landed in Iran.) And I already told you, there are ways to counter everything I said or everything you said so let's not go there at least in this thread.

This is the fundamental equation that every military leader should consider before sending a unit to the front line. A war is an economic endeavor with economic consequences:

Potential loss = Chance of loosing a unit x cost of that unit

You need to minimize the potential loss either by decreasing the chance of loosing a unit or decreasing the cost of that unit. In a deterrence defensive strategy your opponent tries to increase the chance of loosing a unit for you and aims at your most valuable unit to maximize your potential loss and achieve credible deterrence.

See these stages of history:

1-Until active use of antiship missiles and aircrafts, naval units could get so close to the shore to bombard the enemy coast with their canons. Coastal defenses had a tough time hitting them as they were tiny moving targets on the horizon. Cheap and simple.

2-Then aircrafts were used. They were so effective that made battleships obsolete. The reason was battleships could come under fire long before they could even attack any enemy vessel. So all of the naval powers decided to abandon the bulky expensive battleships and build more destroyers and corvets. (i.e. decreasing the cost of units in the equation above to decrease the overall potential loss). In order to counter enemy aircrafts in remote areas, carriers were introduced so its aircrafts could cover other naval units. The naval units could not attack enemy shores as easily as before aircraft era, however, as long as they could keep enemy's airplanes at check they could still get close enough to the shore to use their cannons or drop off their ground assault units. Not as cheap as it used to be. Now you had to keep your aircrafts flying over your naval units and cover them to decrease the chance of loosing them in above equation but to do so, now you had to pay for your aircraft and also add the potential loss of your aircraft to the overall cost of the war. More cost compared to stage 1.

3-Then cruise missiles were introduced. Now things were very different, enemy could hit naval units beyond horizon with acceptable accuracy (chance of loosing a unit increased). However, their range were around 75-100km max. So this time same strategy as above could be used but now your aircrafts should not only keep enemy aircrafts at check, they also need to sweep enemy lines off of any antiship missiles before you can get your ships close to the shore. Your carrier was safe as long as you had enough airplanes to counter enemy aircrafts. However, the cost and the risk of a costal assault increased dramatically. You could never be sure that you have taken out all of the cruise missiles. One could pop up every now and then and cripple one of your ships just like what happened to the Israeli frigate that was hit by an Iranian supplied cruise missile off the coast of Lebanon (accuracy: one shot one kill). More aircrafts, missiles and etc. needed to be deployed to bring the risk down to an acceptable range. Battle of Falkland proved the effectiveness of cruise missiles. Anti missile and point defense weapons were introduced to naval units to counter this issue (decrease the chance of loosing naval units in above equation). None of them would 100% guarantee protection (case of USS Stark hit by Iraq's missile in 80s or more recently, Israeli frigate above) However, your carrier was still in a comfortable range where it could easily support your assault. So your most valuable asset was still unchallenged. More cost compared to stage 2.

4- Now we have ASBMs with a range of 300-2000km i.e. I'm now checking your most valuable units. So now you need to add the potential loss of your carrier and destroyers to overall cost of the war even before they get to the range to attack their targets with their tomahawks (range 1000 - 1700km). Now not only you need to do all of the above, your seaborn aircrafts have to operate at their peak of combat radius. It means they can stay shorter in air thus more aircrafts should be used to achieve the same coverage as in case 3. ASBMs move at Mach 5 and above. They are much harder to intercept and much more destructive than a cruise missile (higher chance of loosing a unit). Now you can't stay outside enemy missile range to fire your tomahawks anymore. Your naval units need to get themselves within the range of the ASBMs to fire their missiles (higher chance of loosing a unit). You can't hit missile launchers with your Tomahawks anymore. They are mobile and could be stationed anywhere and move as soon as they fire their missile. So you need to use other weapons like Hellfire. Thus your aircraft carrier need to also get within the range of ASBMs to operate its aircrafts. A very big risk and potential cost that didn't exist before. Or it can stay out but you need to arrange for air tankers. Again more cost.

So as you can see, the cost of using your navy and carriers have dramatically increased from stage 1 to 4. That's how a weapon becomes obsolete. Battleships were great if they could get in the range to fire their cannons. But the problem was the possibility of them getting to that range before being sunk by aircrafts and later missilses decreased to the point that they became too much of a liability. The first Yamato class battleship was sunk before it could even fire one of its cannons. So Japanese parked the other one off the coast of one of their islands and used it as an artillery instead of sending it to the front line! Why? They wanted to minimize the chance of loosing their unit in above equation to the point they couldn't use it for its intended purpose. Same is happening to the carriers. In Iraq's war they were stationed in Persian Gulf just beyond the range of the cruise missiles that Iraq was known to have (75km) Now they need to be stationed 1500km to 2000km back. You see they are almost moving towards the same fate of Yamato class and rest of the battleships. Using them are becoming more costly and involves more risk and for the first time in history, using a land airbase for remote operation is becoming feasible. I mean if you want to use air tankers, why use carriers at all? In case of Iran you can use your airbase in Garcia Island or even KSA.

Just review your assault strategy that you explained and think how cheaper and easier it would be if your opponent didn't have any antiship missiles at all? That additional cost and risk caused by the missiles is called deterrence.

Iran followed the exact same strategy against US. That's what saved Iran from an invasion back in 2006 in Bush era. Iran had received credible info from Russians that an attack is imminent. But then, US army calculated the cost of attacking Iran in several scenarios and simulations, one of which was Millennium that became public. And then decided, what is gained by attacking Iran is hugely offset by the cost of doing so. This is called deterrence and it was achieved with same missiles and even cheaper and simpler weapons like fast attack boats. It doesn't mean that US can't win a war against Iran. It means the cost has increased to the point that something really awful should happen for that war to start. It never was the case in Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan.

So if you still don't agree that these missiles are a big deterrence to any naval land assault, and they are pushing aircraft carriers towards retirement as they become more accurate and far reaching, then there is not much more I can add.

Just so you know, Iran too has 2000km range ASBMs, it is the naval version of Sejjil missile and was tested last year. However, Iran doesn't talk about it much. It also has cruise missiles with range of 2500 km called Sumar that can launch from both land and sea against both land and sea targets.

View attachment 296299
View attachment 296300
View attachment 296301

True as long as it is deployed against nations that don't have long range ASBMs or cruise missiles.

While we could believe what a glide bomb could do.
we doubt about the chance a Mach 10 warhead could act as a glide vehicle or cruise missile to lock on a mobile target.

I guess it would be similar to twist your *** to release your fart aside as attempt to make a turn to a racing moto

It is not a fair comparison. An ASBM approaches its target from above, thus it has direct visual of its target even from 30km away while a low flying cruise missile visual is limited to 16km due to curvature of earth's surface.

The guidance system of ASBM has enough time to calculate the path of its target and hit it. Also remember carriers can't do evasive maneuvers even against torpedoes and their top speed is negligible considering the limited time involved from the instant the ASBM locks to the point it hits.

 

[jhungary]

You are missing my point. I'm talking about risks and my rational above is not based on the accuracy of my weapons or yours. I'm listing all the potential risks for an invader and that it has dramatically increased due to the presence of ASBMs. (This is really off topic but since you seem so proud of your Tomahawks, have you ever heard of GPS signal jamming? I don't need to shoot down any of them. That's the last line of defense. Iraq used it on limited number of incoming missiles back in the Persian Gulf War and all of them missed their targets. Some of them even landed in Iran.) And I already told you, there are ways to counter everything I said or everything you said so let's not go there at least in this thread.

This is the fundamental equation that every military leader should consider before sending a unit to the front line. A war is an economic endeavor with economic consequences:

Potential loss = Chance of loosing a unit x cost of that unit

You need to minimize the potential loss either by decreasing the chance of loosing a unit or decreasing the cost of that unit. In a deterrence defensive strategy your opponent tries to increase the chance of loosing a unit for you and aims at your most valuable unit to maximize your potential loss and achieve credible deterrence.

See these stages of history:

1-Until active use of antiship missiles and aircrafts, naval units could get so close to the shore to bombard the enemy coast with their canons. Coastal defenses had a tough time hitting them as they were tiny moving targets on the horizon. Cheap and simple.

2-Then aircrafts were used. They were so effective that made battleships obsolete. The reason was battleships could come under fire long before they could even attack any enemy vessel. So all of the naval powers decided to abandon the bulky expensive battleships and build more destroyers and corvets. (i.e. decreasing the cost of units in the equation above to decrease the overall potential loss). In order to counter enemy aircrafts in remote areas, carriers were introduced so its aircrafts could cover other naval units. The naval units could not attack enemy shores as easily as before aircraft era, however, as long as they could keep enemy's airplanes at check they could still get close enough to the shore to use their cannons or drop off their ground assault units. Not as cheap as it used to be. Now you had to keep your aircrafts flying over your naval units and cover them to decrease the chance of loosing them in above equation but to do so, now you had to pay for your aircraft and also add the potential loss of your aircraft to the overall cost of the war. More cost compared to stage 1.

3-Then cruise missiles were introduced. Now things were very different, enemy could hit naval units beyond horizon with acceptable accuracy (chance of loosing a unit increased). However, their range were around 75-100km max. So this time same strategy as above could be used but now your aircrafts should not only keep enemy aircrafts at check, they also need to sweep enemy lines off of any antiship missiles before you can get your ships close to the shore. Your carrier was safe as long as you had enough airplanes to counter enemy aircrafts. However, the cost and the risk of a costal assault increased dramatically. You could never be sure that you have taken out all of the cruise missiles. One could pop up every now and then and cripple one of your ships just like what happened to the Israeli frigate that was hit by an Iranian supplied cruise missile off the coast of Lebanon (accuracy: one shot one kill). More aircrafts, missiles and etc. needed to be deployed to bring the risk down to an acceptable range. Battle of Falkland proved the effectiveness of cruise missiles. Anti missile and point defense weapons were introduced to naval units to counter this issue (decrease the chance of loosing naval units in above equation). None of them would 100% guarantee protection (case of USS Stark hit by Iraq's missile in 80s or more recently, Israeli frigate above) However, your carrier was still in a comfortable range where it could easily support your assault. So your most valuable asset was still unchallenged. More cost compared to stage 2.

4- Now we have ASBMs with a range of 300-2000km i.e. I'm now checking your most valuable units. So now you need to add the potential loss of your carrier and destroyers to overall cost of the war even before they get to the range to attack their targets with their tomahawks (range 1000 - 1700km). Now not only you need to do all of the above, your seaborn aircrafts have to operate at their peak of combat radius. It means they can stay shorter in air thus more aircrafts should be used to achieve the same coverage as in case 3. ASBMs move at Mach 5 and above. They are much harder to intercept and much more destructive than a cruise missile (higher chance of loosing a unit). Now you can't stay outside enemy missile range to fire your tomahawks anymore. Your naval units need to get themselves within the range of the ASBMs to fire their missiles (higher chance of loosing a unit). You can't hit missile launchers with your Tomahawks anymore. They are mobile and could be stationed anywhere and move as soon as they fire their missile. So you need to use other weapons like Hellfire. Thus your aircraft carrier need to also get within the range of ASBMs to operate its aircrafts. A very big risk and potential cost that didn't exist before. Or it can stay out but you need to arrange for air tankers. Again more cost.

So as you can see, the cost of using your navy and carriers have dramatically increased from stage 1 to 4. That's how a weapon becomes obsolete. Battleships were great if they could get in the range to fire their cannons. But the problem was the possibility of them getting to that range before being sunk by aircrafts and later missilses decreased to the point that they became too much of a liability. The first Yamato class battleship was sunk before it could even fire one of its cannons. So Japanese parked the other one off the coast of one of their islands and used it as an artillery instead of sending it to the front line! Why? They wanted to minimize the chance of loosing their unit in above equation to the point they couldn't use it for its intended purpose. Same is happening to the carriers. In Iraq's war they were stationed in Persian Gulf just beyond the range of the cruise missiles that Iraq was known to have (75km) Now they need to be stationed 1500km to 2000km back. You see they are almost moving towards the same fate of Yamato class and rest of the battleships. Using them are becoming more costly and involves more risk and for the first time in history, using a land airbase for remote operation is becoming feasible. I mean if you want to use air tankers, why use carriers at all? In case of Iran you can use your airbase in Garcia Island or even KSA.

Just review your assault strategy that you explained and think how cheaper and easier it would be if your opponent didn't have any antiship missiles at all? That additional cost and risk caused by the missiles is called deterrence.

Iran followed the exact same strategy against US. That's what saved Iran from an invasion back in 2006 in Bush era. Iran had received credible info from Russians that an attack is imminent. But then, US army calculated the cost of attacking Iran in several scenarios and simulations, one of which was Millennium that became public. And then decided, what is gained by attacking Iran is hugely offset by the cost of doing so. This is called deterrence and it was achieved with same missiles and even cheaper and simpler weapons like fast attack boats. It doesn't mean that US can't win a war against Iran. It means the cost has increased to the point that something really awful should happen for that war to start. It never was the case in Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan.

So if you still don't agree that these missiles are a big deterrence to any naval land assault, and they are pushing aircraft carriers towards retirement as they become more accurate and far reaching, then there is not much more I can add.

Just so you know, Iran too has 2000km range ASBMs, it is the naval version of Sejjil missile and was tested last year. However, Iran doesn't talk about it much. It also has cruise missiles with range of 2500 km called Sumar that can launch from both land and sea against both land and sea targets.


True as long as it is deployed against nations that don't have long range ASBMs or cruise missiles.


It is not a fair comparison. An ASBM approaches its target from above, thus it has direct visual of its target even from 30km away while a low flying cruise missile visual is limited to 16km due to curvature of earth's surface.

The guidance system of ASBM has enough time to calculate the path of its target and hit it. Also remember carriers can't do evasive maneuvers even against torpedoes and their top speed is negligible considering the limited time involved from the instant the ASBM locks to the point it hits.

First of all, your argument is all over the place, both this post and the other.

I find it amaze on how you can use "Your Theory" on one hand to calculate a war scenario that will favour your ASBM, on the other, you totally discounted the capability of the US cruise missile hitting their target.

It would be like I said, a 3 flight of F-18E/F (12 planes) super hornet accompanied by a single flight of EA-18G Growler can effectively destroy every single SAM Radar on Iran Coast, due to the fact that in theory 3 EA-18G can jam any radar in any coverage in real time and allow the super hornet to home in an engage their target, and then I will give an "Abstract" %, say 80 of this Jamming will work. Now, try and counter my point?

While your "Scenario" put a lot of assumption of the parts that you can literally intercept any to all US naval shipping within your range of ASBM, while at the same time US counter strike is mostly ineffective due to GPS jamming and stuff like that.

lol.....I can indulge in this endless discussion of your :"dream" scenario, but since I literally have better thing to do, and I am only here for another 10 days, Then I am off to my classes in college. I am gonna step out of this argument. I will call some other poster that may be willing to indulge in your scenario, but will they take it from me is up to them.

@gambit @Penguin

Now, I am signing off.

 

[BoQ77]

It is not a fair comparison. An ASBM approaches its target from above, thus it has direct visual of its target even from 30km away while a low flying cruise missile visual is limited to 16km due to curvature of earth's surface.

The guidance system of ASBM has enough time to calculate the path of its target and hit it. Also remember carriers can't do evasive maneuvers even against torpedoes and their top speed is negligible considering the limited time involved from the instant the ASBM locks to the point it hits.

That's what a direct visual look like.
I doubt about the maneuverable ability of a warhead launched by ballistic arc, especially turn a corner, an easy job to cruise missiles.

Btw, this is imagination of Chinese

 

[gambit]

...Tomahawks, have you ever heard of GPS signal jamming? I don't need to shoot down any of them.

The Tomahawk does not require GPS.

GPS signals are for accuracy enhancements, but not for navigation. The Tomahawk cruise missile, as an active weapons platform, predate GPS, and was already lethal enough with just inertial navigation.

Please do not talk as if you know what you are talking about.

That's the last line of defense. Iraq used it on limited number of incoming missiles back in the Persian Gulf War and all of them missed their targets.

I want to see a credible source that says ALL Tomahawk cruise missiles missed their targets due to GPS jamming.

However, Iran doesn't talk about it much. It also has cruise missiles with range of 2500 km called Sumar that can launch from both land and sea against both land and sea targets.

Let me guess, Iranian cruise missiles are perfect.

It is not a fair comparison. An ASBM approaches its target from above, thus it has direct visual of its target even from 30km away while a low flying cruise missile visual is limited to 16km due to curvature of earth's surface.

The guidance system of ASBM has enough time to calculate the path of its target and hit it. Also remember carriers can't do evasive maneuvers even against torpedoes and their top speed is negligible considering the limited time involved from the instant the ASBM locks to the point it hits.

You are TECHNICALLY confused between 'guidance' and 'navigation'.

Regarding missiles, guidance is about staying on path. It has NOTHING to do with the target. Take the basic ballistic missile as example. Its projected path is predetermined by factors such as airspeed, ballistic arc, and duration of engine burn. There are more but the basic three will suffice. During flight, it will be affected by environmental factors that unless corrected will take the missile away from its intended destination. Its inertial navigation will sense attitude changes and will send compensation commands to the flight control system. The same INS will guess that the missile returned to its originally intended path and stop those compensating commands.

Navigation is about looking at one's current position, where one intends to be next, and taking actions such as steering to get from A to B. In navigation algorithms, there are only two points of A and B. A map can have A to Z, but as far as the navigation computer goes, when it reached B, point B becomes A and point C becomes B, and the process continues until the final location is reached, and that final location is not Z but B. There is a 'master' map that will keep track of all points A to Z, but for the steering algorithm, it cares only from A to B.

The inertial navigation system (INS) computer would have programmed waypoints such as the coordinate of a mountain so that if the INS guess that it reached that waypoint, that waypoint becomes A and the next waypoint becomes B. The steering algorithm does not care if the waypoint is that mountain. It just need to know that it as a new starting point A and a new destination B. It is up to the INS computer to keep track of waypoints completed, from A to Z.

Nothing about the target comes into play.

It is the SENSOR package that have information about the target.

Most do not know this bit is esoteric factoid of weapons targeting algorithm: a 'non-fixed' target is not the same as a 'mobile' or 'moving' target.

It all depends on if the weapon actually sees what the target is doing. A 'non-fixed' target is when the weapon did not see the target moved from one location to another. A 'mobile' target is when the weapon actually sees that displacement from one location to another. Each condition necessitate its own targeting algorithm to create that steering command that tells the missile here are waypoints A and B. It does not matter if the difference between A and B is one meter or one kilometer.

The greater the difference between A and B, the greater the steering command to change the missile's heading. If the weapon actually sees the target moving from A to B in smaller increments, such as a ten-meters or one-meter increment, the smaller the multiple steering commands. The greater the steering command, the greater the physical stresses on the weapon as it change to a new heading. Stress that could negatively affect its accuracy. This is why it is always good to have 'eyes on' target.

An anti-ship ballistic missile can be assumed to have a sensor package.

The guidance system of ASBM has enough time to calculate the path of its target and hit it.

The target can create an EM blanket that is electronically hundreds of km in square area. Same for infrared countermeasures.

In a ship vs missile scenario, if the missile failed by just one meter, the ship wins.

...I have passive radars that can detect when a F-22 starts its engine in their base in Emirates.

There is no such animal as a 'passive radar'.

Radar detection is a two-parts process: Transmission and Reception.

Transmission is active. Reception is passive.

If you chose to be passive, someone must be active. His transmissions would deflects off a target so you being passive could detect those reflections. But if no one actively transmits, then there will nothing to detect.

Technical ignorance results in flawed military tactical and even strategic errors.

 

[Arminkh]

The Tomahawk does not require GPS.

GPS signals are for accuracy enhancements, but not for navigation. The Tomahawk cruise missile, as an active weapons platform, predate GPS, and was already lethal enough with just inertial navigation.

Please do not talk as if you know what you are talking about.


I want to see a credible source that says ALL Tomahawk cruise missiles missed their targets due to GPS jamming.


Let me guess, Iranian cruise missiles are perfect.


You are TECHNICALLY confused between 'guidance' and 'navigation'.

Regarding missiles, guidance is about staying on path. It has NOTHING to do with the target. Take the basic ballistic missile as example. Its projected path is predetermined by factors such as airspeed, ballistic arc, and duration of engine burn. There are more but the basic three will suffice. During flight, it will be affected by environmental factors that unless corrected will take the missile away from its intended destination. Its inertial navigation will sense attitude changes and will send compensation commands to the flight control system. The same INS will guess that the missile returned to its originally intended path and stop those compensating commands.

Navigation is about looking at one's current position, where one intends to be next, and taking actions such as steering to get from A to B. In navigation algorithms, there are only two points of A and B. A map can have A to Z, but as far as the navigation computer goes, when it reached B, point B becomes A and point C becomes B, and the process continues until the final location is reached, and that final location is not Z but B. There is a 'master' map that will keep track of all points A to Z, but for the steering algorithm, it cares only from A to B.

The inertial navigation system (INS) computer would have programmed waypoints such as the coordinate of a mountain so that if the INS guess that it reached that waypoint, that waypoint becomes A and the next waypoint becomes B. The steering algorithm does not care if the waypoint is that mountain. It just need to know that it as a new starting point A and a new destination B. It is up to the INS computer to keep track of waypoints completed, from A to Z.

Nothing about the target comes into play.

It is the SENSOR package that have information about the target.

Most do not know this bit is esoteric factoid of weapons targeting algorithm: a 'non-fixed' target is not the same as a 'mobile' or 'moving' target.

It all depends on if the weapon actually sees what the target is doing. A 'non-fixed' target is when the weapon did not see the target moved from one location to another. A 'mobile' target is when the weapon actually sees that displacement from one location to another. Each condition necessitate its own targeting algorithm to create that steering command that tells the missile here are waypoints A and B. It does not matter if the difference between A and B is one meter or one kilometer.

The greater the difference between A and B, the greater the steering command to change the missile's heading. If the weapon actually sees the target moving from A to B in smaller increments, such as a ten-meters or one-meter increment, the smaller the multiple steering commands. The greater the steering command, the greater the physical stresses on the weapon as it change to a new heading. Stress that could negatively affect its accuracy. This is why it is always good to have 'eyes on' target.

An anti-ship ballistic missile can be assumed to have a sensor package.


The target can create an EM blanket that is electronically hundreds of km in square area. Same for infrared countermeasures.

In a ship vs missile scenario, if the missile failed by just one meter, the ship wins.


There is no such animal as a 'passive radar'.

Radar detection is a two-parts process: Transmission and Reception.

Transmission is active. Reception is passive.

If you chose to be passive, someone must be active. His transmissions would deflects off a target so you being passive could detect those reflections. But if no one actively transmits, then there will nothing to detect.

Technical ignorance results in flawed military tactical and even strategic errors.

look, before you write all this, read my post and get my point. My whole point is that ASBMs are pushing carriers further and further away from where the action is. That way land based air raids will become more and more competitive to the point no one would use a carrier anymore.

And we are talking about hitting a truck (assuming it will not move) with a Tomahawk. You need GPS for that kind of precision.

And there are passive radars and detection system that don't submit any electromagnetic signals. They simply measure the change in Earth electromagnetic field or even those of regular radio stations that is caused by a moving object, i.e. an airplane. They no longer need a transmitter. They use other electromagnetic sources that are so ubiquitous these days as the transmitter. They are not as accurate as active radars but are great for early warning system. Having a number of them, you can triangulate the location of the object. That's how Iran detected US SR-71 approaching its borders a few months back. They didn't know what it was. However they knew its speed, direction and estimated location. Based on that, they submitted a notice over radio frequency and made it turn around. Same type of sensors were used to detect US RQ170 before it was hijacked. There are other systems like infrared sensors that are becoming more and more accurate (90km range is nowadays peanuts) and again are passive detection system and can't be detected by enemy sensors:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_radar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alim_radar_system

You are right: "Technical ignorance results in flawed military tactical and even strategic errors". Hopefully your military leaders look at Wikipedia before they make a decision. Good that I warned you!

First of all, your argument is all over the place, both this post and the other.

I find it amaze on how you can use "Your Theory" on one hand to calculate a war scenario that will favour your ASBM, on the other, you totally discounted the capability of the US cruise missile hitting their target.

It would be like I said, a 3 flight of F-18E/F (12 planes) super hornet accompanied by a single flight of EA-18G Growler can effectively destroy every single SAM Radar on Iran Coast, due to the fact that in theory 3 EA-18G can jam any radar in any coverage in real time and allow the super hornet to home in an engage their target, and then I will give an "Abstract" %, say 80 of this Jamming will work. Now, try and counter my point?

While your "Scenario" put a lot of assumption of the parts that you can literally intercept any to all US naval shipping within your range of ASBM, while at the same time US counter strike is mostly ineffective due to GPS jamming and stuff like that.

lol.....I can indulge in this endless discussion of your :"dream" scenario, but since I literally have better thing to do, and I am only here for another 10 days, Then I am off to my classes in college. I am gonna step out of this argument. I will call some other poster that may be willing to indulge in your scenario, but will they take it from me is up to them.

@gambit @Penguin

Now, I am signing off.

Time will tell body. Good night!

That's what a direct visual look like.
I doubt about the maneuverable ability of a warhead launched by ballistic arc, especially turn a corner, an easy job to cruise missiles.

Btw, this is imagination of Chinese

By visual I mean direct line of sight. They use a variety of sensors like infrared and etc. Same systems that enables the spy satellites to do their job regardless of the weather or daylight.

They don't need sharp turns, a very small adjustment in that altitiude translates into kms of variation in where they land. Here is a simple calculation:

Suppose you have a carrier like USS Enterprise with a cruising speed of 62km/hr or 17 m/s.

It is 342m long so it takes 20s for it to clear its own length.

Now an ASBM at speed of Mach 5 can go as far as 34 km in 20s.

Meaning, if the ASBM aims at the front of the carrier from 34 km above, it can follow the same path without any alterations and still hit the backside of the deck. While in reality it corrects its path all the time with tiny adjustments.

For a cruise missile at speed of 850 km/hr, that distance is reduced to 4.7 km, meaning it need to correct its path at least up to 4.7 km before hitting the target to be able to score.

So ASBMs have a much easier job to do when it comes to hitting a moving carrier than a cruise missile. (I'm not talking about evasive maneuvers shown in the video you posted. I also doubt that can happen)