Started By
Message

re: China now claiming they have ability to demolish US aircraft carriers

Posted on 6/1/23 at 9:47 am to
Posted by brett408
Member since Jan 2005
2426 posts
Posted on 6/1/23 at 9:47 am to
quote:

The tech needed to shoot one is a couple of orders of magnitude simpler than the tech needed to stop one.




This is true. Generally, any defensive technology is more difficult, as a countermeasure, to prove effective than offensive capability. However, the Ukrainians did shoot down a few hypersonic missiles with the Patriot missile system, which is late 70s tech, and it was operated by Ukrainians.
Posted by 94LSU
Member since May 2023
315 posts
Posted on 6/1/23 at 9:50 am to
quote:

They have Phalanx weapon systems.


Yep, they've had them for almost 50 years. Unfortunately they can't shoot down 100 missiles at once. China knows that too and have built accordingly. This isn't a new development.
Posted by Tchefuncte Tiger
Bat'n Rudge
Member since Oct 2004
57508 posts
Posted on 6/1/23 at 9:51 am to
Posted by Indefatigable
Member since Jan 2019
26938 posts
Posted on 6/1/23 at 9:53 am to
quote:

They have Phalanx weapon systems.

IIRC, those things can fire for a minute or two at most before running out of ammo. They will not be particularly effective against any type of swarm.

And I don't know that they'd be effective against hypersonic missiles to begin with.
Posted by narddogg81
Vancouver
Member since Jan 2012
19726 posts
Posted on 6/1/23 at 9:54 am to
I totally believe everything that China says about their military
Posted by Indefatigable
Member since Jan 2019
26938 posts
Posted on 6/1/23 at 9:55 am to
quote:

I totally believe everything that China says about their military

The US Navy acknowledges that carrier groups are vulnerable to large anti-ship missile attacks, especially in confined spaces like the Taiwan Strait or SCS.

Nothing is far-fetched or hard to believe about it.
Posted by crazy4lsu
Member since May 2005
36425 posts
Posted on 6/1/23 at 9:58 am to
quote:

Nothing is far-fetched or hard to believe about it.



But generally when nations make these claims, they rarely seem to be proven true in battlefield conditions. The rhetoric itself might be a sign of their own insecurity, as Western nations with decades of proven technology are very rarely bombastic with the claims of their capabilities.

Posted by Flats
Member since Jul 2019
22022 posts
Posted on 6/1/23 at 9:59 am to
quote:

However, the Ukrainians did shoot down a few hypersonic missiles with the Patriot missile system,


Russia has fired a ton of missiles at Ukraine. I don't think the ones they shot down were Kinzals (sp?).

quote:

“The attack is really large-scale and for the first time using such different types of missiles. We see that this time as many as six Kinzhal were used. This is an attack like I don’t remember seeing before,” Yurii Ihnat, spokesman for the Air Force Command of Ukraine, said on Ukrainian television Thursday. “So far, we have no capabilities to counter these weapons,” he added, referring to the Kinzhals, plus six X-22 air-launched cruise missiles that were also launched by Russian forces.
Posted by Honest Tune
Louisiana
Member since Dec 2011
15906 posts
Posted on 6/1/23 at 10:01 am to
Then do it, wang.
Posted by 94LSU
Member since May 2023
315 posts
Posted on 6/1/23 at 10:03 am to
quote:

The US Navy acknowledges that carrier groups are vulnerable to large anti-ship missile attacks, especially in confined spaces like the Taiwan Strait or SCS.


They've been acknowledging it in briefings that I sat in more than 15 years ago. There's really nothing they can do about it though short of scrapping the entire surface fleet and going 100% submarine. Congress won't let them, building surface ships and their components for the Navy accounts for hundreds of thousands of jobs in almost every district. It's the source of a mountain of pork.
Posted by crazy4lsu
Member since May 2005
36425 posts
Posted on 6/1/23 at 10:04 am to
quote:

Russia has fired a ton of missiles at Ukraine. I don't think the ones they shot down were Kinzals (sp?).


This link says differently. LINK

quote:

The commander-in-chief of Ukraine's armed forces, Valeriy Zaluzhnyi, had said earlier that his forces had intercepted the six Kinzhals launched from aircraft, as well as nine Kalibr cruise missiles from ships in the Black Sea and three Iskanders fired from land.
Posted by Captain Rumbeard
Member since Jan 2014
4247 posts
Posted on 6/1/23 at 10:05 am to
Considering the Air Force is admitting to having an anti swarm weapon that actually works on drones en masse, It likely wouldn't be hard to adapt it to missiles.

LINK
Posted by jimmy the leg
Member since Aug 2007
34788 posts
Posted on 6/1/23 at 10:06 am to
quote:

The commander-in-chief of Ukraine's armed forces, Valeriy Zaluzhnyi, had said earlier that his forces had intercepted the six Kinzhals launched from aircraft, as well as nine Kalibr cruise missiles from ships in the Black Sea and three Iskanders fired from land.


Might I suggest that he is lying.
Posted by jimmy the leg
Member since Aug 2007
34788 posts
Posted on 6/1/23 at 10:08 am to
quote:

Considering the Air Force is admitting to having an anti swarm weapon that actually works on drones en masse, It likely wouldn't be hard to adapt it to missiles.


Swarms and hypersonic missiles aren’t remotely similar. If what you are suggesting were a reality, that would be great. I’m not too sure how plausible that scenario would be though.
Posted by narddogg81
Vancouver
Member since Jan 2012
19726 posts
Posted on 6/1/23 at 10:09 am to
quote:

hope aircraft carriers have something better than patriot type missle systems to protect themselves. but i doubt it.
have done pretty good against Russian hypersonic in Ukraine. Pac-3 is not your dad's patriot from the gulf war, they have over 90% shoot down rate. And here's the thing about hypersonic that they don't tell you. Ballistic missiles have been hypersonic since the vet beginning. ICBMs go mach 20 and we can shoot those down.The supposed difference and advantage for what people call hypersonic are they are supposed to be harder to engage because they can maneuver to a degree while in flight, and they move fast enough that it would be hard to get off a second round of you miss. Well that kind of doesn't matter for something like an aircraft carrier that is itself the target, because there is only so much maneuvering the thing can do and still hit you. At some point (a pretty far away point because of the speed) the missile simply has to head directly at you or it can't hit you, you are in motion and are the target. That removes one of the main technical challenges of intercepting them, you know exactly where they are going

Also, the Chinese weapons are glide phase weapons, they have all the kinetic energy they are ever going to have once they are boosted. Every turn or maneuver they make bleeds energy and thus range. If you make them turn enough along the way you can bleed energy so they can't reach their target


Also, let's take what China says with a boulder of salt. They are bigger liars than even Russia when it comes to capabilities. I remembering them claiming they had developed quantum radar that could see through any stealth, yet they had to steal secrets from us just to figure out how to make a crappier version of stealth aircraft we developed 30 years ago.

Also, yes the navy has different stuff than just patriots.
Posted by 94LSU
Member since May 2023
315 posts
Posted on 6/1/23 at 10:11 am to
quote:

This link says differently.


Damn that Ghost of Kiev sure is a bad mofo!!!
Posted by 94LSU
Member since May 2023
315 posts
Posted on 6/1/23 at 10:15 am to
quote:

Pac-3 is not your dad's patriot from the gulf war, they have over 90% shoot down rate


They also cost about $4-$6 million EACH and Lockheed can only make about 60 of them per year. They're meant to be used against missiles that cost about $50-100k each and can be mass-produced by the thousands. Good luck with all that.
Posted by crazy4lsu
Member since May 2005
36425 posts
Posted on 6/1/23 at 10:17 am to
quote:

Might I suggest that he is lying.



Based on what?
Posted by TBoy
Kalamazoo
Member since Dec 2007
23934 posts
Posted on 6/1/23 at 10:25 am to
The Japanese destroyed several vessels in a first strike. Didn't end well for them.
Posted by Indefatigable
Member since Jan 2019
26938 posts
Posted on 6/1/23 at 10:31 am to
quote:

The Japanese destroyed several vessels in a first strike. Didn't end well for them.

Our surface shipbuilding capacity is nothing like it was then, nor is it really capable of being ramped up quickly to replace losses.

We built more than two dozen fleet carriers, more than one hundred light/escort carriers, and thousands of escort/support vessels from 1940-1945.

We are currently completing basically one/two DDG's per year, along with a couple useless LCS's and the will add the new Constellation class frigates. We can barely get a CVN built and commissioned once a decade. We aren't even building any more CG's, which compromise most of the missile defense capability for the carrier groups.

If we lose a couple of carriers and their escorts, our capability will take serious time to recover. That's especially true because half our carriers are in refit or mid-life refueling at any given time.
This post was edited on 6/1/23 at 10:34 am
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 7Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram