"One ping only, Captain"?
Posted on 06/21/2007 7:37:25 AM PDT by SShultz460
We don't. Flying supersonic takes a good sized engine and a whole lot of fuel. That means the missile has to be larger. The Tomahawk and the Harpoon, the current anti-ship missile, are designed to be small, hard to detect, hard to hit, and carry a sizeable warhead. Depending on which version and block, Harpoons have a range of around 150 miles and Tomahawks even further than that.
When a carrier group sites off shore, out of the range of shore batteries, they are very, very difficult to hit effectively. While some subs can sneak close to surface combatants, they still have to get through the sub escorts in the carrier group.
Another item the author neglects is that a carrier group can TAKE OUT an enemys ability to do anything from a great range.
Only in a total "surprise" scenario could any force do substantial damage to the US fleet...and then there'd be hell to pay.
The benefits of overwhelming the defenses with cheap missiles so far outweighs the costs that someone, somewhere, someday will find it in their interests to try.
The Russian weapons are designed primarily to defeat AEGIS. The AEGIS system employed by the US Navy is built around the SPY-1 (or SPY series) of phased array radar. The system can detect and track a huge number of targets, simultaneously.
Russian weapons like SS-N-22(sunburn) are designed to overwhelm AEGIS using high speed (mach 3+) and erratic terminal maneuvering. Testing showed AEGIS was somewhat vulnerable to such weapons.
The Navy has improved tactics and systems to defend against the threat. Very successful ASMD systems like RAM have been developed, Standard Missiles have improved maneuverability to go head to head, TAS (SPS-23) is especially tailored to detecting low flyers, SLQ-32 systems are aboard carriers to provide quicker detection and ECM, and all those systems are better integrated in CIC or CDC.
Your right on the money in your understanding..
We do need aircraft carriers for less than Nation State War. The problem is the egos of our Admirals and their fetish for ever more expensive platforms. I have written several times there is a need to increase the numbers of ships while reducing the size and costs. Someone recently wrote about producing the Jeep Carrier again.. And they are right.. But we must get the costs down. We have got to get decision makers to understand we can lose a war by breaking ourselves economically more easily that we would lose an actual fight.
What this fellow wrote about the surviving ships not being able to leave their harbors is absolutely correct..Further it meshes with what I just said about the economics. Finally it is history that proves this point. In WWI the Capital Ships of Germany and England represented such tremendous costs their respective Admiralties and Governments did not deploy them only holding them back until the war was over..
W
Tom Clancy portrayed that scenario in his second book, “Red Storm Rising.” A carrier in that book was overwhelmed, if I recall correctly, by lots and lots of long range missiles fired from Soviet long range bombers.
On the other hand, that was just a book.
And don’t forget Eric Portman as the former u boat commander visiting the bedford to help teach tactics - Hollywood was rehabiliating West Germany’s image at that time.
He might be a nazi, but he was our nazi
I am hoping! But am weary of the loose lips thing. T -30 seconds from Tehran....
“Yes, my captain.”
"One ping only, Captain"?
Maybe we will EMP them to kill the electronics. Cant you see the MSM shrieking over that.
Subs are expensive as well, but we all know that subs are necessary.
I believe the Germans tried (to some extent) the “all sub navy” idea in WW2, and while they sank a lot of enemy ships, it didn’t work out ultimately.
I've never understood the carrier battle group threat to a USSR invasion of Western Europe.
If surging carriers could have threatened Soviet land forces, I'm certain the Soviets would have nuked 'em.
I don't believe for a minute that we would incinerate millions in response to a successful attack on a warship on the high seas.
We wouldn't have done it to Moscow or Leningrad, and we won't do it to Teheran or Beijing, either.
But you can bet all you own that the Chinese are working feverishly on antiship technology, and it's a good bet that Iran is the farm team that will try it out.
Theoretically, I think the carrier groups were there to keep the sea lanes open for the transport of troops from the US to ports in western Europe. Once there, they link up with and relieve NATO forces trying to slow down Warsaw Pact forces.
I strongly agree with your last point. Good one.
See post #51...
;^P
As long as there's a man in the White House..
As long as our enemies have either uncertainty of our willingness to fully respond, or they care that we would incinerate millions, our ships are relatively safe.
SubRoc? They’re obsoleted as far as I know and have been for years.
ASROC, not SubRoc. SubRocs were fired from submarines but have been obsolete for decades.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.