The world's newest aircraft carriers

Yes, that is an ARM-HARM. And it is a US missile. Do you really see a US carrier being attacked by a US missile?

I did not say that they do not exist. What I am saying is the missiles you keep bringing up do not have that capability!

If you notice, I only brought up the missiles that might actually be used against one of our carriers. The P-500 and P-800, since they (and their clones) are used by China, Russia, and other nations. And the EXOCET, because that is a common off-the shelf system sold throughout the world.

I specifically did not mention the AGM-45, AGM-78, or AGM-88 because those are US missiles. I do not see us firing one of our missiles at our own ships.

I ignored the B611MR (China) because that is a ballistic missile, and not a surface skimming cruise missile. It is easily detected, and flies in a ballistic trajectory and only uses ARM for it's terminal phase.

I also did not mention the OTOMAT, because that is a Turkish missile, and they are our ally.

Stay on target. You can not mention missiles, then try to give them a kind of guidance system that they simply do not have.

 

And Gifted, let me give you a bit of advice here.

For over 5 years, my specific job in the military was missile defense. I have been studying these for over 10 years, and can list off the missiles of dozens of different countries, their capabilities, and a lot of other things.

This literally is my profession. And even though I am no longer in the Air Defense Artillery branch, I still keep contact with others still in the field, and devour public domain intelligence briefings and information because at any time the Army can throw me right back into that field if needed.

I would have thought by now that when it comes to this field in particular, I am speaking with a far greater than a layman's level of knowledge.

 

I brought up P-800 previously - what are you talking about saying I did not bring these up.

Further - what technology is the Zircon or the Kinzhal using ?

You were making the claim that that a ship can not be tracked. Of course a ship can be tracked.

You keep moving the goalposts.

 

The S-N-33 ZIRCON is still under development, and is an estimated 3-8 years from deployment. And the very technology that it is relying upon to prevent detection (a plasma cloud to hide it from RADAR) also prevents it from receiving any signals. Therefore, it could not detect anything from behind that cloud.

Oh, and like any stealth technology, this missile will be trackable even through this "cloud". Much as tracking our own stealth aircraft and submarines, you simply have to track the shadow where nothing can be seen behind it. Not as accurate for the purposes of targeting, but you will now something is there.

And the Kinzhal? That is only a concept at this time, and is a decade or more away from deployment at the soonest. And it's speculated navigation and target acquisition is INS-GPS, and DSMAC-TERCOM for terminal guidance. It will not even have a RADAR on board, it will do it's final tracking optically.

 

So all a ship has to do to avoid being tracked is to shut down its signal emissions.?

This sounds like a very solid anti missile strategy. Massive Russian or Chinese bomber force (say 80 bombers) successfully launches 160 anti ship missiles.

The entire carrier group goes dark emissions wise, except for a single destroyer or frigate deemed expendable (most of the crew might even have time to helicopter off) which continues to emit the maximum possible amount of signals.

U.S. loses a single minor surface combatant. The Chinese or Russians expend one hell of a lot of their best ordnance for no real gain.

 

Oh .. I thought GPS was not used for target aquisition ? Optical tracking would be in one way pick out a carrier from a battleship don't you think ?

Regardless - even if your claim "still in development and 3-8 years from deployment" were true (and it is not) ... that still makes these missiles a very near term threat.

India tested a Mach 7 version of the Brahmos in Nov of last year - (a collaboration with Russia) so the idea "still under development" is silly nonsense.

As far as deployment is concerned.

The Zircon being deployed in 2018. https://www.strategic-culture.org/n...2018-russia-leading-hypersonic-arms-race.html

 

GPS is used, only if the target is a fixed location and not a moving target. Say if the target is a building, or a ship in port. Otherwise the GPS location is simply a waypoint, essentially giving directions "Once you reach this point, turn on your RADAR and switch to track-acquire mode".

It is not as if a GPS can actually track anything.

And it still has to actually find it. Visually. And be close enough to actually be able to determine what kind of ship it is looking at. Not as easy as it sounds when you are going at MACH 3+ and a dozen or more miles away.

Yes, the US uses similar technology, but generally for missiles that go after fixed targets (like the TOMAHAWK), or where there is actually a controller of some kind actively guiding it.

Let me say this once again.

The BrahMos does not use ARM-HARM tracking!

Do I need to say this yet again?

The BrahMos does not use ARM-HARM tracking!

And the SS-N-33 Zircon is being deployed? Come on now, get serious.

The first successful flight of that missile was only in 2016! It's first hypersonic test was less than a year ago. The missile is going through it's testing deployment phase, which is expected to last until 2020-2022 at the soonest (that is assuming there are no problems). Only after that will it really be operational.

And you are using the claim that it is actively deployed not, based upon an article written in 2016. Did you not notice that? Heck, it even states "to be produced" in it's title. And no, it has not been deployed yet.

But that's OK, the defense for such a missile, the RIM-162 ESSM is already in place on the USS Gerald Ford, and is being placed on the other AEGIS class ships as they come in for their refits (it is a standard Mark 41 system so only a software patch is needed). And it is suspected that starting in 2020 when the other CVNs come in for major refit they will have the RIM-162 added as well.

 

Now you are just blubbering unintelligibly. Obviously a Carrier turning off its radar (in essence making it blind) would make it more difficult to detect Sherlock.

This does not mean that a sensor is the only way to detect a carrier. Is this disingenuous fallacy once again or just fallacy ?

Russian ships and subs carry a whole lot more than 2 missiles per ship and the planes carry more than 2 missiles per plane. Russian Subs carry 32 ... never mind those new torpedoes.

Your - time to helicopter off people made me chuckle as did your silly story based on a strawman.

Based on this analysis (thought I posted this to you before), the saturation limit for a Carrier Battle Group is 64 Brahmos and this is "best case" scenario.

https://defencyclopedia.com/2014/12...vy-can-shoot-down-the-deadly-brahmos-missile/

Now considering the Russian stuff is better- and we have not even factored in the new hypersonic missiles.. the carrier group is toast under real conditions.

 

That actually has been part of fleet operation plans for well over 4 decades now. Nothing new here really.

And in fleet operations, EMCON is a very serious topic. For those that do not know, EMCON (Emission Control) is essentially "Radio Silence". During an actual high alert situation during an active war, the Carrier or other protected ship in a fleet would be completely "emissions off". No RADAR, no radio, nothing. That is why in the last several decades we have not only committed a lot of money into alternative communication systems like LASER communications, but still use semaphore systems on ships like flags and heliographs.

Modern heliograph systems are even automated, sending data back and forth via light much like data on the Internet. With LASERS used to keep each side tracking the other and the light used to transmit the message typed in through a keyboard. But the old school types are still used, especially during UNREP operations where speed is required.

There is a reason why communications specialists in the Navy still learn Morse Code and flag semaphore. They actually still use such systems. And Aviation light signals allow carriers to conduct recovery operations in times of complete radio silence.

Several times when I was aboard ship we had EMCON drills, where we could not even operate a Walkman or portable radio. And during those drills Squids would move through the ship with a modified "bug detector" looking for signal leaks.

So unless there is some kind of new technology that can allow the missiles to home in on flags and blinking lights, I am not sure how it would find such a ship other than by blind luck.

 

You know you're right. It was possible for a Backfire bomber to carry THREE anti ship missiles if the target wasn't too far away from Soviet air bases. They could also be limited to ONE if operating at extreme range. So I went with TWO as that is a very typical operational load of the huge antiship missiles which you are talking about.

 

Did you even read the conclusions of your own linked to article?

The BrahMos is not an invincible missile. It is just a bigger headache for the ones at the receiving end of it. With a decent SAM system, you may be able to defend your ship against attacks by subsonic missiles. But to defend yourself from the BrahMos, you need an expensive, high-end, layered missile defense system. If you have powerful and networked Air Defense systems like the US Navy and the Royal Navy, you have a chance of survival.

Yet instead you babble about mythical Russian missiles. I prefer to live in the real world.

 

I did not say the Brahmos used ARM-HARM tracking so why you are going on and on a if I did (big Strawman) is a mystery known only to you .

According to Putin - the Kinzhal is already deployed - wakey wakey !

The idea that the sea sparrow would be able to take out a hypersonic missile with any reliability is ... humor

This article on the Zircon was written a year ago. Given you are talking out your backside - (not giving any support for your claims) ... we will go with this estimate.

continuing on.

Similar to the Sea Ceptor - the sparrow is designed for "super sonic" missiles - not hypersonic.

 

I quoted from the article so why are being so obtuse and disingenuous - like I did not.

Joy oh Joy that the carrier battle group has a "chance of survival" (Mr. Reading comprehension impaired) against the Indian anti ship missiles --- assuming of course saturation is not reached .. which is implied if you read in context ... Troublesome for a history Prof I know but do try.

Then you go on to claim that Russian hypersonic missiles are a myth - despite that they have been test fired and even India (thanks to Russia) test fired a hypersonic missile in November of last year.

Talk about denial. Whats next ...the earth is flat and the global flood story does not contradict scientific fact ?

 

anti missile lasers have been "test fired" but that doesn't mean that deployment is around the corner.

Or even foreseeable.

And for that matter, just how are the launch platforms for dozens of anti ship missiles going to get within effective range of a carrier battle group without being shot down or sunk?

 

I suppose the same way...
How to Hide a Task Force

The following discussion will be split into several parts and will remain at a somewhat top level. The reasons should be obvious. Specific references will be made to a particular operation, NORPAC 82, but details on tactics and modern systems will not be disclosed. These tactics are essentially the same as during WWII. The historical accounts of the German surface raiders, USN submarine actions, IJN surface and CV operations, and of course the USN surface and CV operations during that conflict include many examples of the following basic tactics.

The main question is: How do you hide a task force at sea? The answer in very general terms is; by not telling the other guy where you are.

This is not as dumb as it sounds.

To illustrate take the following generic situation and think of the naval environment. One actually could extend this to other environments as well.

Put two football teams in a stadium at night each on their defended goal line. Each team will provide the backfield players with rifles and the linemen all have a pistol. Each weapon is equipped with a flashlight fastened to the barrel. The quarterback is equipped with a flashing signal light.

Now turn out all the lights so it is absolutely dark.

Who wants to turn on their light first?

Now to more accurately replicate the naval environment we put half the fans in the stands more or less evenly distributed on the field. We also put two blimps overhead, one for each team, equipped with flashing light and binoculars.

Obviously the light will replicate both communications and radar systems. Everybody's eyes replicate ESM, ELINT, COMINT, and radar receivers.

Obviously if you want to hide the best way is run silent and blend into the general traffic.

There are several conditions of hiding a task force...

continue -> http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-031.php

 

I for one am not in the Royal Navy. They have a much smaller navy, with ships with nowhere near the capability of the ships of the US Navy.

So does not apply. For goodness sakes, they rely upon helicopters for AWAC capabilities.

And notice, "could be". It still is not. Unless you have us believe they have rushed it into service before it is even fully tested.

I could not care less what a politician says. Means nothing, they often claim things that are not true.

 

I get it. But the Chinese and Russians have far, far less operational experience and training at doing that than the United States and British do.

 

After blowing the hawkeye's out of the sky. The old F-18 hornets will be shot down by newer and superior Russian fighters.

In the meantime - Subs, which can not be detected at 300 miles will launch .. and ships which can fire the latest Zircon our 600 miles and the newest upgrade that has a range of 1200 miles.

Planes that might accidentally wander in to the path of the Russian missile ships will be shot down by anti aircraft missiles - some of the best in the world ... missiles that the F-18's are hardly a match for.

Then of course you have planes that can launch the missiles.

 

So rather than provide evidence that backs up your claim ... you run to the playground , stick head deep in the sandbox of denial and turn your brain off.

Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Thailand, all buy theses missiles from us.

If the Brits thought that these missiles would stop the Zircon, then they would just buy them.

Your claim - that the sparrows we currently produce are effective against a hypersonic missile - is unsupported nonsense.

 

I guess you didn't know that you won't have Russian fighters escorting the Russian bombers. They don't have the range to do so and air to air refueling is not practiced by Russian tactical fighters. Also claiming that F/A-18 Hornets are "inferior" to the more recent Russian fighters is a huge leap. I know the F/A-18 can out climb and I'm pretty sure out turn Mig-29 Fulcrums and they are a far, far smaller target than SU-27 Flankers.

Most of the more recent Russian fighters are as imaginary (engineers call it "vaporware") as your hypothetical hypersonic anti ship missiles.

Your posts in this thread (and probably elsewhere) are what we in another forum call pure "Russianwank". You can figure that one out.

 

Exactly.

The Russians for over 150 years wanting to be a super power knew they had to have a deep water navy but when it came to war time, their navies failed in combat.

Basically Russians don't make good sailors.

Russians have no naval successes at sea during war.

From the 1960's to today the Russians will come up with some new warship designs that have raised eyebrows. Some look like they might work while some just were failures.

Russia might have a good submarine fleet comparable to the U.,S, Navy. But the Russians have no real war time experience.

To be a real naval super power a navy must be able to project its power from the sea to land more than just naval shore bombardment but by putting boots on the on beach and occupying harbors, ports and territory, Basically securing a beach head allowing an army to coming ashore to conduct land warfare.

During WW l the British tried dong that at Gallipoli using Australian soldiers as mariners, a complete disaster.

After Gallipoli all of the worlds militaries said an amphibious landing on an contested beach was obsolete and would never be tried again.

Except for a handful of company and field grade U.S. Marines who during the 1920's and 30's developed amphibious landing craft and tactics to be used by Marine rifle fire teams and rifle squads and rifle platoons. Basically get off the beach ASAP and attack and kill the enemy occupy all land with in 25 miles of the beach head so the army can come ashore and win the battle.

That's the way it's suppose to be conducted.

All American WW ll combat operations during W ll were amphibious operations just not in the Pacific but North Africa, Sicily, Italy, and D-Day at Normandy,

There are only five countries in the world today who have any experience in conducting amphibious operations.
The USA ( U.S. Navy / U.S. Marine Corps ) the British, Canadians, Australia and Japan.

No matter how many amphibious ships and landing craft and marines the Chi-Coms and Russians produce, they have no experience in conducting an amphibious assault.

The most complex operation to pull off in war is an amphibious operation. It's more than naval gunfire or CAS and Marines with rifles but also engineers, mathematician, logistics, Navy beach masters, navy and Marine shore parties and a whole crap load of Navy corpsmen...

Side note:
Been there and done that.
Never on a contested beach head but participated in the last two amphibious assaults conducted during the Vietnam War.

I was part of a NGF spot team attached to a rile company of a Marine rifle battalion.

When we 1/26 were ordered to board CH-46 helicopters to take us out to sea an being put on an Essex class aircraft carrier (LPH) while other combat support companies and platoons were transferred from Red Beach just north of DaNang to LSD's and LST's.

We became a BLT ( Battalion Landing Team) 1/26 BLT


BLT 1/26 battle of order was:
1 X H&S Co.
3 X Rifle companies
1 X weapons Co.
1x 105 mm howitzer battery
1x Tank Plt. 5x M-48 tanks
1X ONTOS Plt. 5X ONTOS
Squad or platoon size support, combat engineers, shore party , MT, Sply and logistic.

We were bad ass and killed a whole load of gooks.

 

Is that the forum where you sit with a bunch of your pals doing a circle jerk ? Not surprising

You have not produced a single link that backs up what you say yet, when anything conflicts with your circle jerk perspective ... you whine and do some kind denial dance .... twirling around crying "NO NO NO . .. its all myth... its all myth" ... followed by demonization of the messenger because you can not handle the message.

Here is a Link from "Australia's independent Defense think tank" - Hardly a Russian Shill or "Pure Russiawank" as you call it and not a US Shill either. A comparison is done between the the F-18 Super Hornet and the Russian Sukhoi Flanker.

Now why you would think an Mig-35 carrying anti-ship missiles to a ship at a distance of 1000 miles away would need to refuel ? The range of the onyx anti ship missile is 400 miles which means the distance round trip for the plane is 1200 miles which is just under its range. Tight but not impossible.

Carrying Zircon's of course the range is shortened further so no problem. Or they could just fire the Kinzhals from land.

Since 1000 miles is out of range for our fighters (without refueling) and refueling 500 miles outside the Russian homeland is not an option ... this scenario poor at best. The Carrier would have to be much closer to perform a sustained attack on Mother Russia.

 

Actually most of the really active members there are Europeans.

 

Subs that can not be detected?

Oh nonsense, we have been tracking Soviet-Russian subs for decades. And a carrier fleet has some of the most advanced ASW capabilities in the world.

And aircraft blowing all of the AWAC out of the sky? Wow, you must assume we will get involved in a war with the entire military asleep and doing nothing. You really do live in a fantasy world.

And you keep bringing up nonsense references. Like the one from 2016 that states an item will be deployed in 2018.

Those nations are our allies. We do not go around worrying that our allies are going to attack us.

The Brits do not build ships with the idea of defending them against Russia. They build them to keep third world nations from attacking their possessions and other Commonwealth nations. You really do not pay attention to the balance of power and how things work in the world, do you?

And the RIM-162 is not the Sea Sparrow. That is the RIM-7. Yes, it is evolved from the RIM-7, and shares many of the characteristics. But the missiles are very different from each other. Not only does the RIM-162 have a significantly longer range, it also goes much faster, has an independent tracking system that does not rely upon the AEGIS array, and uses a kinetic kill for destruction of the threat.

Your calling it a "Sea Sparrow" is sheer ignorance. That is like trying to claim that a PATRIOT PAC-3+ from 2012 is the same as the original PATRIOT MIM-104 from 1980.

 

Wow. Talk about acting out!

Actually, most of your links are laughable at the extreme. A link from 2016 stating something will be deployed in 2018, and that is your proof that it is operational now. Give me a break. Might as well have a football team today sign on a new player, and their claiming that he will help them win the Superbowl because of it.

I only deal in facts, not speculation. Not in trying to imagine missiles that do not exist and in giving them characteristics that they do not have.

"Here is a link...". Well, there is no link. But it does not matter, because trying to compare a single piece of equipment by itself to another piece of equipment is stupid. Nobody but fanbois take that kind of thing seriously. It misses a lot of other things, like training, doctrine, weapon loadout, where the engagement is taking place, support forces, and a great many other things. Nowhere are you going to find just an aircraft going against another aircraft and nothing else matters.

And what is this pure nonsense about "500 miles outside the Russian homeland"? Do you really think we are going to be sitting our carriers up in the Baltic or something? Or up in the North Sea?

You obviously have absolutely no concept of where the carriers would be operating in the event of a conflict with Russia. And no, it will not be in the North Sea, or in the Baltic. It will be out in the Atlantic, well away from Russia.