Liberals would be mildly amusing, if they couldn't vote.
It would be a pity if anything should happen to it...
/johnny
That set of Yaogan satellites would have a very short life expectancy if things heated up over there.
A missile that takes out a US carrier would be better named “The Nuclear War Initiator”.
Any administration that did not counter-strike VERY powerfully after a carrier sinking would doom their party to at least 2 generations out of power.
I was predicting the onset of this missile more than 5 years ago. Other freepers told me I was naive.
Amazing. And since they’ve been working on it since the 70’s, there’s absolutely no chance that the US would have tried to develop counter measures, like jamming their radio/radar signals, high-speed defensive missiles, or other measures that we haven’t even thought of. Wow...we just have to sit back and take it in the shorts.
As of right now, a single Ohio class SSBN carries 96 nuclear warheads(W76 or W88).
That is more than enough to destroy the economic potential of China.
An attack on one of our CVNs would provoke a nuclear response.
If they ever do it I suspect life is going to change for a whole lot of us, regardless of who’s President.
The US has been experimenting with OTH since the 1980's, so they would know alot about that.
Also, since the 1980's, the US has been looking at Lasers to knock down missiles at distances.
What was the 1980's -- the Reagan Defense build up. Maybe we need to need to have a Manhattan type project for Lasers weapons that can take out incoming missiles of any kind.
Screw the treaties, full speed ahead...
“...the only device on Earth capable of sinking an aircraft carrier...”
Really? Nothing else? Not even a Trident?
No way.
Meanwhile in the U. S., we’re busy figuring out which three quarters of the military we’re going to gut.
We’re heading into WWIII shouting, “Paddle faster...”, and the guys in back are yelling back, “You guys eliminated the paddles in the sixth round of cutbacks.”
Seems to me a very small yield nuke should pluck this sort of device from the sky. It would need to be small enough to prevent IMP damage to our forces.
Seems to me a very small yield nuke should pluck this sort of device from the sky. It would need to be small enough to prevent IMP damage to our forces.
Excuse me. That should have read EMP.
Targeting: The process of targeting, authorizing and launching a ballistic missile takes time. It isn't just time-to-target but from the ID of the location of the carrier, programming in the targeting package, authorizing the launch and then travel time for the missile to get there. During this time the carrier group is moving along at a very fast clip (~30 knots) which means the area of uncertainty for where the carrier is going to be grows and grows. The Pentagon experimented with this idea for a while and found it was completely impractical because ballistic missiles are very dumb weapons (that whole ballistic trajectory part) and they aren't going to be able to reliably get within 100 miles of a carrier group, let alone close enough for a kill.
It's a ballistic missile: Do you know why the US has never mounted conventional warheads on ballistic missiles? Because there is no way to tell the difference between a ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead and one with a conventional one and we aren't stupid enough to risk a nuclear confrontation just to enable a delivery method which doesn't have many non-nuclear applications in the first place (there are much better ways to do rapid response conventional bombing).
SM-3: 'nuff said.
You don't attack Carrier groups with conventional munitions: This should be obvious but sinking of a US fleet carrier by anyone would immediately trigger an overwhelming response of the instant sunshine variety. This is not just hyperbole--sinking a US carrier is seen as the same thing as a nuclear attack in the first place so why develop a conventional capability that isn't even that great in order to try and do so?
200 to 500 kilotons in a fuel air bomb?... um no. Not even close. Maybe 2 to 5 at absolute max, and that’s a big fuel air bomb.
Bat guano.
The kind of fuel that packs kilotons into a warhead doesn't give a rat's ass about air. LOL!
Transmit fake images.
Sounds pretty far fetched to me. Based on my extensive experience of playing Harpoon on computer, the ONLY way I could take out a US carrier (as the Russians) was to launch absolutely EVERYTHING, and hope one of the nukes got through.
I doubt this system would be particularly effective.