The world's newest aircraft carriers

Well then explain (providing sources that back up your claims) how the THADD missile system targets missiles.
Regardless of how the Thadd system targets a moving target ... the fact that it does track a moving target proves your nonsense claim that an anti ship missile can not target a slow moving ship is abject nonsense.

Sorry but, you are wrong again .. notice that I post links that back up what I say ... contrary to your incessant talking out your backside with nothing to back up your claims.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/no-the-f-35-can-t-fight-at-long-range-either-5508913252dd

 

Of course you claimed that spending on wounded soldiers is not part of total military spending. You said that the VA budget is not part of total military spending.

Nice backtrack.

I gave you a link previously that supported the Trillion dollar annual military spend claim .. and Yes .. this current link does support my claim by listing a bunch of military spending that is not included in defense spending.

Regardless of whether or not I think pensions to those who serve in the military are ridiculous.. the fact remains that this is part of military spending.

 

It's called "radar". Perhaps you've heard of it.

And a stationary ground (or ship based) radar is far, far more powerful (and thus longer ranged) than any radar carried by an anti ship missile.

 

I've seen that website before. It spends most of its time criticizing the U.S. military with a bunch of very flagrant falsehoods and misrepresentations.

 

Great explanation backed up with links "not"

Well duh .. of course ground based radar is more powerful than on the missile.

https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-weapons/missile-defense/how-gmd-missile-defense-works#.WqQ7cOjwbIU

Notice that in the initial phase missile/target tracking is done via satellite. "Tracking via GPS" is then transferred to radar systems which help verify the missiles trajectory.

Once the missile gets close it uses its own sensors to adjust its direction and thrusters to adjust its direction.

So you are wrong on both accounts. 1) GPS is involved in initial tracking 2) once the missile gets close it guides itself to the target

 

Medium.com not the best source to use. It does have a leftist lean bias.

Left 29.4% (147 votes)


Extreme Left 28.2% (141 votes)


Left-Center 17.4% (87 votes)


Least Biased 11.4% (57 votes)


Right 4.8% (24 votes)


Extreme Right 4.6% (23 votes)


Right-Center 4.2% (21 votes)

Total Votes: 500

 

You're link says nothing about "tracking via GPS"

And I guess you didn't know that the Union of Concerned Scientists is mainly a left wing organization and you do not have to be a "scientist" to even be a member.

 

Here's a very credible source even though it has a liberal lean and even excepts money from George Soros, but they stick to the facts.



https://fas.org/

The best source when it comes to the military has to be "Janes." -> http://www.janes.com/
"Janes" is basically subscription and is very very very expensive to subscribe to to gain full access to it's data base.

After "Janes" it has to be "Global Security" -> https://www.globalsecurity.org/index.html

 

OMG what a pathetic joke of a response ... the best you can manage is some ad hom attack on the source without referencing any material that you think they got wrong.

How do you think Tracking by Satellite works .... if not by GPS .... nit.

Your initial claim inferring that missiles do not make adjustments mid flight to track targets has been completely destroyed.

Run now to the playground to stick head deep in the sandbox of denial and bother me no more.

 

If you would actually read what you've linked to you would find that "tracking by satellite" has nothing to do with GPS.

Early warning satellites detect the heat from the exhaust plume of the missile via infrared sensors.

From your own linked to article with key points bolded for your convenience.

The process begins with infrared sensors on satellites, which monitor known launch locations for the tell-tale heat signature produced by launching rockets

I do not wish to be offensive but I'm wondering where you obtained your knowledge of military hardware and systems?

Please forgive me for calling you a Russian bot earlier. Russian bots generally have access to and post material referring to somewhat accurate information from time to time.

 

Please forgive me for humoring your disingenuous nonsense for all this time ... might as well be talking to a Russian bot.

If you can not figure out that GPS is used to accurately pinpoint the location when the infrared sensor goes off ... that is fine.

This does not change the fact that your claim of missiles not being able to track to the target after launch has been completely debunked.

In light of this fact ... it is beyond pathetic to dwell on something that is completely irrelevant to the fact that your claim (which relates to the main topic under discussion - not some silly down the rabbit hole side claim) has been proven wrong.

How is the weather down that rabbit hole ? I bet sounds get quite muffled with your head stuck so deep into the sandbox of denial.

 

This is the Giftedone method:
1) Make a ridiculous claim.
2) Support it with a link to a website that is well known for obvious biases.
3) Claim the website says something that it does not.
4) Move the goalposts to "support" number one.
5) Refuse further debate.
6) Declare victory.

 

Would you like some cheese with that whine ? You are so scared of being wrong that you can not even manage to post the claim that you think is ridiculous.

Sorry that your nonsense claim - missiles do not track to the target - was proven false. Now for some reason you are trying to blame me for your ignorance.

Laughable how you demonize the link provided but, can not manage to say what that link got wrong (ad hom fallacy) and you present no source to back up your claims.

This stopped being a debate long ago. You have run out of material and all you can do is name call and make false accusations- which is not an argument for much.

 

Because I've never claimed that. I have claimed (which is true) that anti ship missiles cannot track (that is adjust their impact points) by as much as you seem to be claiming. For example you seem to (correct me if I'm wrong) be suggesting that a missile fired from say 400 miles away can arrive in the vicinity of the point in the ocean it was targeted on and then "hunt down" the ship even if the ship has moved within a 15 mile radius since then.

I've seen no evidence they can make that kind of adjustment. Can a missile track and adjust its flight path to impact a ship that has moved one mile? Most certainly. Five miles. Probably. Each mile after that though I would say the chance of a hit on the ship starts to go down greatly.

 

Dude, you were totally wrong. Just admit it. Missiles don’t “track using GPS”.

 

I don't see the issue the USA can project airpower globally and can be modified once drones are good enough to add into the air power on them, that is the nice thing we can refit them as needed and use them not just for war but mercy you know they are used for disaster relief efforts as well as the projection of our military firepower globally. Now do we need so many maybe not for much longer we could have twelve and maybe replace these with smaller drone and helicopter platforms later on. I'm for this as a citizen the best bang for the buck in our armed forces but carriers are important enough to still use them IMHO.

 

Indeed for those in love with drones (I'm not one of them but beyond that) seem to forget that most of the large ones, those that can do a job somewhat resembling a regular manned warplane still require some kind of long flat surface to take off. Maybe not as much as a regular warplane but they still require one.

It isn't hard to imagine a future carrier air wing with a handful of manned aircraft much like E-2 Hawkeyes that control scores of drones.

 

Until the enemy deploys full spectrum jamming and all of those drones suddenly become big useless model airplanes.

Drones have a use, but until we are willing to give AI the authority to act independently of human control, they will never dominate warfare.

 

I agree. And even if we do the first time that an independently operating drone blows apart a column of refugees after mistaking them for mechanized infantry on a road march is the last time they will fly.

 

GPS is used in missile tracking. You sitting in the peanut gallery crying "NO NO NO" does not refute much.

https://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/writing/Samples/policy/mccollum.html

Nice try at the "Gotcha" game but this does not change the unfortunate reality that you are the one who is totally wrong "Dude" in your claim that a Carrier is safe from anti ship missiles ... even at 1000 miles - after a strike on the Russian homeland.

Russia planes and subs could easily get within the 400 miles of the carrier and launch the Onyx class anti ship missiles.

Then of course you have the newer Zircon hypersonic (carrier killer) missiles which have a range of 600 miiles and travels at Mach 6-8. A missile for which a carrier has no defense.

Most recently you have the Kinzhal with a range of 1200 miles and travels at Mach 10. Goodbye Carrier as the Kinetic impact alone would cripple a carrier.

As stated in the beginning ... the slow moving floating city of metal known as an Aircraft Carrier is obsolete today and in the future missile technology is only going to continue to improve.

Perhaps we will come up with some kind of new technology for defense in the future but, at the moment, we are vulnerable.

This is perhaps the best thing that could happen as we are vulnerable anyway. Russia can annihilate the US in the blink of an eye with nukes and so there is no point of pretending we can win a war with Russia and continuing to ramp up the arms race.

We need to stop spending so much on the military (and other things) and focus on our infrastructure, technology and ramping up our economy to compete in the third millennium.

A carrier simply serves no purpose against a modern nuclear superpower. We do not need 11 carrier strike groups circling the globe to attack terrorist groups... North Korea or Iran.

 

GPS is NOT used for guiding missiles on moving targets. GPS can only be used for targetting stationary objects.

Hitting a moving target requires something like active laser guidance, radar guidance, thermal guidance, etc.

Curious, how many airstrikes have you called in? The answer for me is not “zero”.

 

The graph below was prior to the increase - passed in an utterly bipartisan fashion without even any debate at all, which is not being paid for even moreso with the latest tax cuts - since Don got in. This is why we trail other advanced post-industrial nations in things like healthcare, education, economic mobility, infrastructure, etc. But don't worry, the Wall Street/donor/"job creator" class has your back.

 

GPS is used for initial targeting ... pointing the missile in the general direction of the target. As it gets closer other methods can be used.
See pretty picture in link and note that I actually present links that support my claim rather your naked claims. https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-weapons/missile-defense/how-gmd-missile-defense-works#.WqbjC-jwbIV


Regardless the above has nothing to do with the main point of the discussion, the one which you are desperately trying to avoid and derail, which is that the carrier is obsolete in the face of modern missile technology.

 

Pointing it in the general direction is not going to be good enough when you are shooting from hundreds of miles away and the carrier group could be 20 to 30 miles from where you thought it was when you launched the missiles.

Anti-ship Missiles can maneuver in their terminal attack phase some but they can’t go targeted hunting miles in a random direction.

 

We don't have "11 carrier strike groups circling the globe". With 11 active duty carriers, the most that can be continually deployed overseas at once is four. With up to four more possibly available temporarily in an emergency.