The Chinese navy
WILL lose 50-60% of its fleet in
TRYING to sink a single US aircraft carrier.
How old a country is irrelevant. Available forces are.
Since this inevitably dragged in the DF-21D...Did anyone here done any research on the historical successes of anti-ship missiles? Looks like a big
NOT, as usual.
What constitutes a 'modern' warship? A generous context would have the range starting from post WW II to present. A more restrictive context would start from post Korean War. But no matter the starting point, anti-ship missiles are nothing new...
Anti-ship missile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That is correct -- Nazi Germany.
But if we move forward to post WW II anti-ship missiles, the historical evidence and therefore combat record for the weapon against modern warships is poor -- three ships with only one sunk. The one that sunk was the Iranian frigate
Sahand...
Iranian frigate Sahand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Read how much munitions it took, including anti-ship missiles, the Harpoon, to sink this frigate, very much a modern warship.
The
HMS Sheffield, another modern warship, was struck by an Exocet, an anti-ship missile, and did not sink from that hit. The ship finally sunk days later from attempted salvage operations.
The
USS Stark, another modern warship, was also struck by an Exocet and also did not sink. The
Stark made port on her own power.
Not one of these modern warships had any defense methods developed specifically against anti-ship weapons. But look at the American warships today, specifically the capital ones. Supersonic speed does not guarantee success and only gullible fools believe that such a mythical guarantee exists. The Chinese made Silkworm failed against countermeasures in Desert Storm and US countermeasures technologies and tactics at employing them have grown since then. Any attacker coming at Mach will have even less time and therefore decreased odds at dealing with these new sophisticated countermeasures.
That does not mean anti-ship missiles of any method are no good. They do have their uses and they are threats. The US have never abandoned them. Pauses in development, may be, but never fully abandoned. What this mean is that ASM simply cannot be fired and forget about it. They must be used in concert with other methods of attacks, not necessarily to sink a ship but at least to severely degrade the ship's ability to prosecute a war.
But here is the uncomfortable truth known by weapons makers worldwide: If the US is interested in a weapon concept and began development, odds are very good that the Americans will outpace competitors in terms of sophistication and lethality. Countermeasures will not be far behind.
The PLAN will lose and will lose badly with no guarantees that a single US aircraft carrier will go down.
