Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: freedomwarrior998

Cruise missile capabilities are well-known, but can someone tell me how a (conventionally-armed) ballistic missile could possibly hit a rapidly moving aircraft carrier?


2 posted on 04/06/2009 8:00:42 AM PDT by Virginia Ridgerunner (Sarah Palin is a smart missile aimed at the heart of the left!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Virginia Ridgerunner

A fleet carrier can do what? 40 plus knots at flank speed?

But could a carrier group outrun or evade a missile traveling at ballistic speed?

Do not answer, please, if answer requires classified info.


5 posted on 04/06/2009 8:04:49 AM PDT by RexBeach ("Do your duty in all things." Robert E. Lee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner

“Supporting the missile is a network of satellites, radar and unmanned aerial vehicles that can locate U.S. ships and then guide the weapon, enabling it to hit moving targets.”

ASBM are bad news for the US Navy. The loss of even one carrier would be devestating. This is something we need to deal with.


8 posted on 04/06/2009 8:08:48 AM PDT by RC one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner

When you can control flight and direction at 10,000 MPH, hitting a 5 acre target traveling at 60 MPH is child’s play.

The days of the carrier group are rapidly coming to an end. They were predicated on complete air superiority (needed to protect the ships). As new ways to make air superiority irrelevant are developed, the carrier group becomes more and more vulnerable, and eventually becomes as useless as a battleship - vulnerable to attack by everyone, slow, and actually a hindrance to battle.


19 posted on 04/06/2009 8:40:36 AM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the sting of truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner
Theoretically this could be a devastating weapon. The big problem that I see in using Ballistic Missiles of this class for tactial strikes is that it makes nuclear escalation more likely. How is the US supposed to know that a particular DF-21 is carrying a non-nuclear payload? I suppose you could wait till the thing goes off, but that's not how nuclear deterrence is supposed to work.
21 posted on 04/06/2009 8:44:04 AM PDT by Tallguy ("The sh- t's chess, it ain't checkers!" -- Alonzo (Denzel Washington) in "Training Day")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner
Cruise missile capabilities are well-known, but can someone tell me how a (conventionally-armed) ballistic missile could possibly hit a rapidly moving aircraft carrier?

The carrier can only manuever a certain amount in a given period of time.

I suspect the intent is to fire the missles in salvos and bracket the ship.

23 posted on 04/06/2009 8:56:25 AM PDT by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner; Jeff Head

I have always thought ballistic missiles would be the Achilles heel of the supercarrier.

In a real war, they would be attacked with nukes delivered by suborbital projectiles.


29 posted on 04/06/2009 9:19:12 AM PDT by Jim Noble (They are willing to kill for socialism...but not to die for it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner
but can someone tell me how a (conventionally-armed) ballistic missile could possibly hit a rapidly moving aircraft carrier?

Machine vision.

60 posted on 04/06/2009 12:47:46 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (From Messiah to Massah in one swell foop.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson