China, Russia and perhaps others continue to develop long range weapons that pose
serious dangers to today’s carrriers


At the same time their respective air groups have less range, the F-18 not being able to go out as far as the older F14’s


So theoretically the ship has to go closer to shore where it’s more vulnerable


It doesn’t seem plausible for a CVN to pass through the Taiwan straits in a hostile environment anymore


In fact can a Carrier be expected to survive at all in a serious conflict these days?

Probably not in an all-out war today, but that’s not what they used for today. They’re still pretty toughly built, though. They’re mobile, pack most of the pinch of an AF .fighter wing and will survive conflicts outside of a head-on nuclear power.


GF

If they are useless China and India wouldn't be rushing to built as many carriers as they can possibly afford.
They are doing so because an air carrier group projects so much power and it actually increases your chances of achieving national strategic objectives without having to get into a nuclear conflict.

Max Q wrote:

It doesn’t seem plausible for a CVN to pass through the Taiwan straits in a hostile environment anymore?

Why would you sail thru the straight when the shooting start?

If you were to reinforce Taiwan, wouldn't it be better to come in from the East side and let the subs control the straight?

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Max Q wrote:

It doesn’t seem plausible for a CVN to pass through the Taiwan straits in a hostile environment anymore?

Why would you sail thru the straight when the shooting start?

you may already be there doing a freedom of navigation run when the Junta in Beijing decides they had enough of that.

Max Q wrote:

China, Russia and perhaps others continue to develop long range weapons that pose
serious dangers to today’s carrriers

The USSR did the same. Including shittons of bombers to take them to the Carriers, Bears and radar satellites. I don´t think there is any fundamental difference between a Regiment+ sized Tu-22M saturation attack and what Russia or China can do today. Ballistic and hypersonic ASM may be harder targets than a mere Mach 3 missile, but CIWS have gotten a lot better too. I don´t think there is a Commander that would trade RAM away for a dozen of Phalanx.
Lasers develop in leaps. If anyone wants to sink capital ships of an advanced navy, they better do it quick. The window may be closed in 10 to 20 years and projectile weapons against high value point targets, without much in the way of limits in terms of energy consumption and weight like ships, essentially be useless.

I also think it will be a really long time until the PRC could accomplish anything beyond converting its Army Navy into nice diving locations rather quickly. Sink a US carrier battle group and a lot of speech writers will try to find ways to say "When this war is over, the Chinese language will only be spoken in hell" without actually saying that.....

best regards
Thomas

This is such an internet / youtube "robo-voice" clickbait video / social media-driven conspiracy with the "hypersonic missile" propaganda program Russia has been pushing hardcore.

In war time, super carriers will be screened in all directions by multiple aegis-class destroyers and other warships that will either take the hit or be able to respond.

The entire notion is completely ridiculous, as (unlike rogue nations) any nation firing a "hypersonic" missile is a major country with serious political power and responsibilities. Retaliation would be imminent, and could include nuclear options. It's simply not an option on the table for these countries. MAD still prevails.

As far as other "lesser" missile platforms, Aegis-equipped destroyers should have no issue shooting down non-hypersonic weapons before they near the carrier group.

The major (MAJOR) factor worth noting here, is that US supercarrier groups are NOT going to operate within the range of such weapons systems. They should know exactly who has the capability of carrying and launching such weapons, and will simply stay outside of that zone and rely on fleet air defense to protect the carrier group. As F-35C's come online, there is simply ZERO launch platform for a "hypersonic" missile which would be able to get within range from offshore bases or carriers that could take a shot at a US carrier without first being engaged and blown out of the sky.
This is the true (invaluable) beauty of the F-35C!!

Max Q wrote:

At the same time their respective air groups have less range, the F-18 not being able to go out as far as the older F14’s

In-flight refueling....

People really think the US military doesn't know how to defend themselves.

Planes can be refueled and ships come with defense countermeasures that are both active and passive. I knew a guy in college that manned these systems on a USN destroyer and he said they do work. Besides, topedos are really how you sink a ship, anti-ship missiles are really meant to disable different parts of a ship, but they can sink a ship if you hit it right.

Navy ships come with CIWS guns and Sea Sparrow missiles that are there for ship defense, carriers are no exception. Plus carriers always travel as part of a battle group, not as a standalone vessel. And the carrier wouldn't be the only US asset in a war.

Look at the Forrestal fire off VN. It takes a lot of damage to sink a CVN. Conventional aerial bombing wouldn’t stand a chance, cruise missiles wouldn’t either with four CIWS shooting and don’t possess enough punch, save nuclear ones. They also move pretty quickly in the company of fast missile destroyers. They can be more hidden even from satellites than many would guess. Most ops are emissions controlled, so little to track, too.

GF

P1aneMad wrote:

If they are useless China and India wouldn't be rushing to built as many carriers as they can possibly afford.
They are doing so because an air carrier group projects so much power and it actually increases your chances of achieving national strategic objectives without having to get into a nuclear conflict.

India rushing to build IAC1 has been in build for years and is still years away from completion, IAC2 is a many years alway from first steel being cut. The Chinese in the other hand will probably have launched there second home build carrier but the time IAC1 is commissioned.

India is taking things slow for lack of know how and dock capacity not for lack of will or funds.

Can aircraft carriers survive anymore? I don't think this is the correct question. The question is whether countries with a carrier can afford to lose one with its crew. It is a huge expense, do they bring more to the table then other options: what is the most bang for the buck.

Kiwirob wrote:

P1aneMad wrote:

If they are useless China and India wouldn't be rushing to built as many carriers as they can possibly afford.
They are doing so because an air carrier group projects so much power and it actually increases your chances of achieving national strategic objectives without having to get into a nuclear conflict.

India rushing to build IAC1 has been in build for years and is still years away from completion, IAC2 is a many years alway from first steel being cut. The Chinese in the other hand will probably have launched there second home build carrier but the time IAC1 is commissioned.

China is currently building their third carrier.

Slug71 wrote:

China is currently building their third carrier.

They didn't build the first one IIRC. It was an old Russian one.

tommy1808 wrote:

The USSR did the same. Including shittons of bombers to take them to the Carriers, Bears and radar satellites. I don´t think there is any fundamental difference between a Regiment+ sized Tu-22M saturation attack and what Russia or China can do today. Ballistic and hypersonic ASM may be harder targets than a mere Mach 3 missile, but CIWS have gotten a lot better too. I don´t think there is a Commander that would trade RAM away for a dozen of Phalanx.
Lasers develop in leaps. If anyone wants to sink capital ships of an advanced navy, they better do it quick. The window may be closed in 10 to 20 years and projectile weapons against high value point targets, without much in the way of limits in terms of energy consumption and weight like ships, essentially be useless.

I also think it will be a really long time until the PRC could accomplish anything beyond converting its Army Navy into nice diving locations rather quickly. Sink a US carrier battle group and a lot of speech writers will try to find ways to say "When this war is over, the Chinese language will only be spoken in hell" without actually saying that.....

best regards
Thomas

Even the Soviet Union struggled at times to find and track USN carrier groups with all of their assets; see this article:

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

It's a bit dated now, but many points are still very relevant today.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Look at the Forrestal fire off VN. It takes a lot of damage to sink a CVN.

Really bad example. That was a mission kill with half the air wing destroyed or damaged by a dinky 50 pound warhead. Didn't sink it of course, but that usually wouldn't sink most river ferries.

Conventional aerial bombing wouldn’t stand a chance,

Actually that, or today LGB are how ships are sunk. After you take out their ability to fight, of course, but it is bombs that sink ships.

cruise missiles wouldn’t either with four CIWS shooting

There are reasons that many navies didn't adapt Phalanx, but something bigger for the CIWS role. Chiefly that it could only handle one mach 3 missile per well timed attack and that intercept distances may very well be too short to prevent a lot of shrapnel hits. ...
RAM and ESSM today are different animals.... but ESSM isn't really a CI weapon, or on carriers, and most carriers still just have Phalanx iirc.

and don’t possess enough punch, save nuclear ones.

Western ASM may be short of sink the boat payloads, a kitchen or kingfish may just have enough muscle. A ton of warhead in two tons of mach 3 metall coming in would certainly take it out of the fight.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

There are reasons that many navies didn't adapt Phalanx, but something bigger for the CIWS role. Chiefly that it could only handle one mach 3 missile per well timed attack and that intercept distances may very well be too short to prevent a lot of shrapnel hits. ...
RAM and ESSM today are different animals.... but ESSM isn't really a CI weapon, or on carriers, and most carriers still just have Phalanx iirc.

All the Nimitz class have ESSM and RAM and on some the Phalanx has been moved to the lower sponsons but for example the Bush, the last Nimitz, doesn't have any Phalanx.

You can see the RAM and Phalanx on this image, while the ESSM is in the Mk29 launcher on the forward starboard and rear port side.



ESSM from a carrier.

tommy1808 wrote:

Western ASM may be short of sink the boat payloads, a kitchen or kingfish may just have enough muscle. A ton of warhead in two tons of mach 3 metall coming in would certainly take it out of the fight.

I don't think that is the intent though. We have seen enough evidence from Exocet hits in the Falklands War as well as against the USS Stark that the missile strikes are enough to mission kill smaller vessels. The key to sinking the vessel is to hit at or below the waterline. What remains the most effective though is torpedoes which especially when detonated under the ship can very easily break its back.

An example of an Mk48 on an Australian River (Leander) class, far far more effective than any sub or supersonic missile hit.

tommy1808 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Look at the Forrestal fire off VN. It takes a lot of damage to sink a CVN.

Really bad example. That was a mission kill with half the air wing destroyed or damaged by a dinky 50 pound warhead. Didn't sink it of course, but that usually wouldn't sink most river ferries.

That dinky 50 pound warhead set off a chain reaction, causing a massive fuel fire and 10 1,000lbs bombs plus a 500lb bomb, a 750lb bomb and numerous other rockets and missiles to go off.

And those 1,000lb bombs were not the garden variety 1,000lb bombs; they were Korean War-era AN-M65's filled with degraded and unstable Composition-B, which was actually more powerful than a typical 1,000lb bomb.

Missing a big part of the story as to why the Forrestal was so badly damaged.

Ozair wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

There are reasons that many navies didn't adapt Phalanx, but something bigger for the CIWS role. Chiefly that it could only handle one mach 3 missile per well timed attack and that intercept distances may very well be too short to prevent a lot of shrapnel hits. ...
RAM and ESSM today are different animals.... but ESSM isn't really a CI weapon, or on carriers, and most carriers still just have Phalanx iirc.

All the Nimitz class have ESSM and RAM and on some the Phalanx has been moved to the lower sponsons but for example the Bush, the last Nimitz, doesn't have any Phalanx.

You can see the RAM and Phalanx on this image, while the ESSM is in the Mk29 launcher on the forward starboard and rear port side.



ESSM from a carrier.

tommy1808 wrote:

Western ASM may be short of sink the boat payloads, a kitchen or kingfish may just have enough muscle. A ton of warhead in two tons of mach 3 metall coming in would certainly take it out of the fight.

I don't think that is the intent though. We have seen enough evidence from Exocet hits in the Falklands War as well as against the USS Stark that the missile strikes are enough to mission kill smaller vessels. The key to sinking the vessel is to hit at or below the waterline. What remains the most effective though is torpedoes which especially when detonated under the ship can very easily break its back.

An example of an Mk48 on an Australian River (Leander) class, far far more effective than any sub or supersonic missile hit.

Ouch - haven't seen that before. Torpedoes have certainly come a long way... that's scary. Did the Leander class have any sort of torpedo belt or protection system? Doesn't look like it would have mattered much, I'm guessing the blast displacement and shockwave just snapped it structurally.

I tend to agree though. Again it's critical to remember that other ships (usually even better equipped for missile defense) would likely be closer to the weapon's approach than the target carrier anyways.

Not to sound like a star wars kid or anything, but this is really the one true scenario where a directed-energy or laser weapon simply has no equal. Just run a little 1-2 second spiral pivot aimed at the missile (similar to a CIWS approach) and it should blow apart in a second, not from the defensive weapons, but from its own velocity. Any deviation in trajectory or physical damage would likely destroy it (again, due to its speed).

And bam, then we're all at parity once again.

Still, like I said - any nation possessing the technology of a "hypersonic missile" wouldn't be able to launch one at a super carrier without facing all-out war IMHO. Now if Russia / China were to target an Indian carrier or something... not exactly sure how that would play out. There would obviously likely be a much larger global conflict taking place at the time anyways.

My take is that the key issue is how close the defensive missiles are to a 1 to 1 kill ratio. The Ticonderoga Cruisers are not being replaced, so the defensive missile count is lower with the Burks, what is on the carriers will be good for how many salvos?
ASM missiles launched at carriers will be in a swarm, the question is now many attacks will take place before the defensive missiles are gone.
The further out to sea the carriers are their combat power takes a hit, buddy refueling is done by F-18's and would be needed for launch and recovery so essentially those are out of the fight.

If a DEW could be deployed on a carrier as a defensive countermeasure against incoming missiles and aircraft, would that trigger a new type of arms race?

DigitalSea wrote:

If a DEW could be deployed on a carrier as a defensive countermeasure against incoming missiles and aircraft, would that trigger a new type of arms race?

I think we can say when and will instead of if and would. As far as I am concerned DEW is a certainty for naval deployment and a nuclear powered aircraft carrier becomes a viable platform given the ability to generate significant and essentially unlimited energy to power the systems. I could see a return to nuclear powered cruisers and maybe even destroyers to allow for energy generation and power of DEW and probably Rail guns etc.

With the development of DEW and rail guns coming from western powers and China you could probably argue we are already in an arms race again.

par13del wrote:

My take is that the key issue is how close the defensive missiles are to a 1 to 1 kill ratio. The Ticonderoga Cruisers are not being replaced, so the defensive missile count is lower with the Burks, what is on the carriers will be good for how many salvos?

Defensive missile numbers have actually risen because the Burks role out with ESSM quad packed in the Mk41 VLS. In a few years those 96 VLS cells could translate to 60 SM-6 and 36 quad packed for 144 ESSM or whatever other permutation makes tactical sense (including VL-ASROC and BMD and land strike etc).

par13del wrote:

ASM missiles launched at carriers will be in a swarm, the question is now many attacks will take place before the defensive missiles are gone.

Quad packing ESSM has changed this dynamic a bit, it should have sufficient missiles to defend itself, although I believe the USN doesn’t plan to replace VLS cells at sea anymore so once the ships magazines are exhausted it has to leave the AO.

par13del wrote:

The further out to sea the carriers are their combat power takes a hit, buddy refueling is done by F-18's and would be needed for launch and recovery so essentially those are out of the fight.

That is why the MQ-25 and F-35C become important capabilities for the USN for the future. Longer ranged platforms that can also slide into the network operations of the carrier and allow advanced detection and protection of fleet assets.

estorilm wrote:

Ouch - haven't seen that before. Torpedoes have certainly come a long way... that's scary. Did the Leander class have any sort of torpedo belt or protection system? Doesn't look like it would have mattered much, I'm guessing the blast displacement and shockwave just snapped it structurally.

The torpedo didn’t even impact the hull. It is designed to detonate under the hull intentionally to create that effect.

Ozair wrote:

I think we can say when and will instead of if and would. As far as I am concerned DEW is a certainty for naval deployment and a nuclear powered aircraft carrier becomes a viable platform given the ability to generate significant and essentially unlimited energy to power the systems. I could see a return to nuclear powered cruisers and maybe even destroyers to allow for energy generation and power of DEW and probably Rail guns etc.

With the development of DEW and rail guns coming from western powers and China you could probably argue we are already in an arms race again.

Really makes you think about how it could change the world if the US deployed a reliable network of ground based, nuclear powered, DEW around the US.

Just to remind everyone.

October 26, 2006, a Chinese Song class submarine surfaced within 5 nm of the carrier USS Kitty Hawk while she was operating in the East China Sea between Japan and Taiwan. It was spotted by an F/A-18C and confirmed by the crew of an EA-6B.

Modern diesel subs can make zero noise and so have the ability to lay in wait if they can guess where a carrier is likely to transit.

DigitalSea wrote:

Really makes you think about how it could change the world if the US deployed a reliable network of ground based, nuclear powered, DEW around the US.

Agree, a big system located in Alaska co-located with some of the radar sites there would provide a significant BMD deterrent to most of what NK, Iran etc could throw at the US. You could probably run them off hydro up there as well.

A carrier task force is built to take the fight to where it is Needed. No carrier steams alone. The modern carrier Battle Group is indeed formidable.

Personally i think aircraft carriers will slowly be made redundant when long range platforms like Penetrating Counter Air come online.

Carriers have always been used when there was no friendly land base nearby and to provide airstrikes near that coast. Once your land base fighters become long range you can then hit most places from a friendly airbase.

I think submarines will play a bigger role in the future with plenty of cruise missiles will. They can also provide pop up AEGIS SAM coverage due the peak of an air battle and then disappear again.

Japan, Guam and South Korea would allow PCA to project air dominance over most of East Asia. It allows inflight refueling tankers to keep a very safe distance from enemy territory.

If those hypersonic wonder weapons would be some real strategic asset and the invincible weapon of the future they would not make the sort of PR-campaigns they do but keep quiet about it. Last time I checked they all crashed after some very short flight. They are far from becoming operational.

-Double post-

With regard to the hypersonic missiles. Can anyone educate us on what kind of terminal guidance could be used on these type of missiles? Would a standard EM radar work at such velocities (and heat at the nose?). Without terminal guidance, it would be difficult to hit any moving vehicle (even a carrier).

An as Noshow pointed out. Have there been a successful attempt at maneuvering a hypersonic missile?

bt

bikerthai wrote:

With regard to the hypersonic missiles. Can anyone educate us on what kind of terminal guidance could be used on these type of missiles? Would a standard EM radar work at such velocities (and heat at the nose?). Without terminal guidance, it would be difficult to hit any moving vehicle (even a carrier).

An as Noshow pointed out. Have there been a successful attempt at maneuvering a hypersonic missile?

bt

Radar doesn't care about your velocity, nor does any method based on electromagnetic waves. But the intense heat would probably prevent the use of infrared guidance (not to mention that ships aren't particularly hot items), including infrared laser targeting.
There are ceramics that allow radar to pass and still tolerate high temperatures, so I guess you could probably equip radar. The main problem of ceramics is and has always been their fragility. You can reinforce them with fibers but carbon fibers would probably shield the radar.
Visible imagers and external guidance by lasers in the visible spectrum may work. We do have crewed hypersonic vehicles that feature windows. You probably wouldn't place those on the tip though.

Re maneuvering, there are crewed hypersonic vehicles and uncrewed reentry vehicles that can maneuver to some extent. They won't make any tight turns but hitting a slow, sluggish target like an aircraft carrier may just be possible.

There's also the question what "hypersonic" means in this context. Mach 5 isn't too different from Mach 2-3. Mach 27 is basically reentry velocity and the generated plasma in the shockwave will become opaque for many (most? all? not an expert here) electromagnetic waves.

bikerthai wrote:

With regard to the hypersonic missiles. Can anyone educate us on what kind of terminal guidance could be used on these type of missiles? Would a standard EM radar work at such velocities (and heat at the nose?). Without terminal guidance, it would be difficult to hit any moving vehicle (even a carrier).

Yes radar terminal guidance should function fine.

The DF-21D is anticipated to cover a range of 2,000 kilometers and operate at a speed of Mach 10. The threat is also capable of maneuvering both during the midcourse and terminal flight phases for the purposes of guidance, target acquisition, and countermeasures. A 2006 unclassified assessment by ONI stated that “China is equipping theater ballistic missiles with maneuvering reentry vehicles (MaRVs) with radar or IR [infrared] seekers to provide the accuracy necessary to attack a ship at sea.”

https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/worl ... df-21d.htm

bikerthai wrote:

An as Noshow pointed out. Have there been a successful attempt at maneuvering a hypersonic missile?

Depends on whether you believe Russian propaganda or not…

THE AGE OF HYPERSONIC WEAPONS HAS BEGUN

With a highly publicized test firing and pledge by President Vladimir Putin that it will soon be deployed to frontline units, Russia’s Avangard hypersonic weapon has officially gone from a secretive development program to an inevitability. The first weapon of its type to enter into active service, it’s capable of delivering a payload to any spot on the planet at speeds up to Mach 27 while remaining effectively unstoppable by conventional missile defense systems because of its incredible speed and enhanced maneuverability compared to traditional intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).

In a statement made after the successful test of Avangard, which saw it hit a target approximately 6,000 kilometers (3,700 miles) from the launch site, President Putin made it clear that the evasive nature of the weapon was not to be underestimated: “The Avangard is invulnerable to intercept by any existing and prospective missile defense means of the potential adversary.” The former Soviet KGB agent turned head of state has never been one to shy away from boastful claims, but in this case it’s not just an exaggeration. While the United States and China have been working on their own hypersonic weapons which should be able to meet the capabilities of Avangard when they eventually come online, there’s still no clear deterrent for this type of weapon.

https://hackaday.com/2019/01/07/the-age ... has-begun/

mxaxai wrote:

There's also the question what "hypersonic" means in this context.

I don't mind this definition from the economist in the context of weapons use.

Hypersonic weapons are those that can travel more than five times the speed of sound, or around one mile (1.6km) per second. They come in two flavours. Hypersonic cruise missiles are powered by rockets or jets throughout their flight. They are simply faster versions of existing cruise missiles, like the Tomahawk. Hypersonic boost-glide weapons are different. They are launched into the upper atmosphere in the normal fashion atop existing ballistic missiles, but then release hypersonic glide vehicles (HGVs) which fly lower, faster and—to an adversary—much more unpredictably than old-fashioned re-entry vehicles. Though some, like the Avangard, are intended to carry nuclear warheads, others can use their high speed and accuracy to destroy targets with the kinetic energy of impact alone. At ten times the speed of sound, a kilogram of anything has more kinetic energy than you get from exploding a kilogram of TNT. Current ballistic weapons are very fast, but not as manoeuvrable; current cruise missiles are very manoeuvrable, but not as fast. Hypersonic cruise missiles and HGVs are novel because they fuse these qualities of speed and agility.

https://www.economist.com/the-economist ... ic-weapons

bikerthai wrote:

With regard to the hypersonic missiles. Can anyone educate us on what kind of terminal guidance could be used on these type of missiles? Would a standard EM radar work at such velocities (and heat at the nose?). Without terminal guidance, it would be difficult to hit any moving vehicle (even a carrier).

An as Noshow pointed out. Have there been a successful attempt at maneuvering a hypersonic missile?

bt

All sorts of well hypersonic warheads maneuvering are on ballistic missiles, the Pershing II also has a radar for terminal guidance and a fairly elaborate trajectory.

best regards
Thomas

If we are talking about ballistic re-entry vehicle, will it be maneuverable enough even with radar guidance to hit a carrier in evasive mode? I mean we are not talking about a nuke war head here and 50 meters accuracy may or may not be enough.

And as with any sensor, whether IR or RADAR, there are always countermeasures . . .

bt

bikerthai wrote:

If we are talking about ballistic re-entry vehicle, will it be maneuverable enough even with radar guidance to hit a carrier in evasive mode? I mean we are not talking about a nuke war head here and 50 meters accuracy may or may not be enough.

And as with any sensor, whether IR or RADAR, there are always countermeasures . . .

bt

Let's assume that the missile has you exactly in its crosshair, so that you stay there assuming that neither of you is accelerating. Whether either of you is moving does not matter.
Like this:

Now there are three things that matter:
1) Acceleration.
2) Reaction time.
3) Precision.

Let's look at each of them seperately.
1) If both of you know exactly how the other is accelerating at any time, the one with the higher max acceleration wins. Missile wins, since a carrier won't pull more than 1 G, if that.
You can see this in the crosshair. You can apply an acceleration perpendicular to the axis along it and completely ignore your closing velocity. Imagine a little red dot trying to evade a little green dot that can always match its acceleration. The red dot cannot win.

2) The red dot can gain some distance for a limited time if it gets a head start. The gained distance x from the center can be calculated as x = 0.5 * a * t^2. If the red dot can accelerate at 1 G, it will need 3.2 seconds of a head start to gain 50 meters distance. If you can only achieve 0.25 G, you'll need 6.4 seconds during which the missile must not react. If you can achieve a continuous 1 G but start accelerating more than 3.2 seconds before impact, the missile will start maneuvering too and eventually catch you, so there's a limit on how far away you can get.

3) If the red dot has a headstart measured not in time but distance it will also get caught eventually but the time for the green dot to catch up is limited by the remaining flight time of the missile.
Let's assume that the missile is closing at 5 km/s, just under orbital velocity. It's terminal guidance system will turn on 30 km before impact. If it can pull 20 G - which would quickly bleed airspeed - it can move its impact point by about 3.5 km perpendicular to its flight direction. The actual distance on the surface is exactly that to the left and right and much more than that beyond or in front of the initial target, a circle projected onto an angled surface. Like this:

At 2 G it will only have some 350 m to work with (again perpendicular to its flight direction). So if the initial target during launch was off by more than that, or if you've moved far enough between launch and impact time, it can't hit you anymore. However, it's not a good idea to run away or towards an incoming missile as the image shows. At the same time, a ship won't deviate from its initial course by than 350 m within 5 seconds, so your detection and reaction systems must be better than the missile's. (Travelling 350 m is not enough, since the missile will likely anticipate your movement and lead the target accordingly.) Ideally, you'd already want to detect the launch and keep a few hundred kilometers distance to the launch site.

Noshow wrote:

If those hypersonic wonder weapons would be some real strategic asset and the invincible weapon of the future they would not make the sort of PR-campaigns they do but keep quiet about it. Last time I checked they all crashed after some very short flight. They are far from becoming operational.

People like to make a big deal about hypersonic weapons, but they don't change anything. We can't reliably stop ballistic missiles now, so the notion that this hypersonic missile is unstoppable is nothing new.

Of course, if someone wants to use a nuclear armed hypersonic weapon as a first strike measure, AMD is still in play, as always.

As long as the carriers adapt to the situations (they did a lot in the past, pretty sure they can still now), they're gonna be here for a while. It's the de facto ship of any navy ever.

Now the question is what kind of weaponry is going to challenge their existence. I won't exactly bank on the "hypersonic" missiles yet.

USNFalconCraft wrote:

As long as the carriers adapt to the situations (they did a lot in the past, pretty sure they can still now), they're gonna be here for a while. It's the de facto ship of any navy ever.
Now the question is what kind of weaponry is going to challenge their existence. I won't exactly bank on the "hypersonic" missiles yet.

Well there's Diesel subs for one.
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1412065&p=20996133#p20987481

There was a time not long ago that the thinking was common, whose gonna sink a battleship? I wouldn't count on one of those "aeroplanes" to do it.
Then there was the Maginot Line.

And so on.

Speaking of sinking carriers...

China mobilises DF-26 ballistic missiles capable of sinking US warships in the South China Sea

Beijing has announced it has deployed intermediate ballistic missiles to the country's north-west region, saying the weapons have the capacity to destroy US ships entering disputed waters in the South China Sea.

The DF-26 missiles — which have been previously dubbed the 'Guam Killer' or 'Guam Express' by Chinese media and defence experts — are capable of carrying conventional or nuclear warheads.

They have a range of 4,500 kilometres, making them capable of reaching as far as Guam in the east and Indonesia in the south, providing Beijing with a powerful weapon as tensions continue to rise in the South China Sea.

According to Chinese state media publication The Global Times, the DF-26 missiles are now stationed in north-west China's sparse plateau and desert areas, carried on the backs of trucks able to traverse the harsh terrain.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, a Beijing-based military expert told the Times that positioning the missiles deep in China's mainland made them more difficult to intercept as it allowed the missile to enter its final stages at a high speed.

Footage on CCTV showed trucks carrying the missiles driving through rough terrain and sand dunes.

The missiles were first paraded in 2015 and China confirmed they were now operational in April last year, but this is the first footage of the missiles outside of a parade.

It is unclear when the missiles were moved to the northwest region, the Times reported.

...

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-10/ ... s/10705594

Ozair wrote:

Speaking of sinking carriers...

China mobilises DF-26 ballistic missiles capable of sinking US warships in the South China Sea

Beijing has announced it has deployed intermediate ballistic missiles to the country's north-west region, saying the weapons have the capacity to destroy US ships entering disputed waters in the South China Sea.

The DF-26 missiles — which have been previously dubbed the 'Guam Killer' or 'Guam Express' by Chinese media and defence experts — are capable of carrying conventional or nuclear warheads.

They have a range of 4,500 kilometres, making them capable of reaching as far as Guam in the east and Indonesia in the south, providing Beijing with a powerful weapon as tensions continue to rise in the South China Sea.

According to Chinese state media publication The Global Times, the DF-26 missiles are now stationed in north-west China's sparse plateau and desert areas, carried on the backs of trucks able to traverse the harsh terrain.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, a Beijing-based military expert told the Times that positioning the missiles deep in China's mainland made them more difficult to intercept as it allowed the missile to enter its final stages at a high speed.

Footage on CCTV showed trucks carrying the missiles driving through rough terrain and sand dunes.

The missiles were first paraded in 2015 and China confirmed they were now operational in April last year, but this is the first footage of the missiles outside of a parade.

It is unclear when the missiles were moved to the northwest region, the Times reported.

...

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-10/ ... s/10705594

Is this in connection to Admiral Lou Yuan talking openly about singing a couple US super carriers last week?
"This would kill 10,000 American sailors. “What the United States fears the most is taking casualties,” said Lou. “We’ll see how frightened America is.”

The article finishes with a wise quote and critical lesson learned by many after WWII;

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve,” Japan’s Admiral Yamamoto said after Pearl Harbor. Admiral Lou would do well to heed the advice.

Quotes from a National Interest article here.. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/meet-chinese-admiral-who-talked-about-sinking-two-us-navy-aircraft-carriers-40922

johns624 wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

China is currently building their third carrier.

They didn't build the first one IIRC. It was an old Russian one.

the Russian Carrier "'Admiral Sverdlov" That thing was being floated before I got out of the Navy in 1977. If the USSR couldn't deploy that beast? Then it might be better as JUNK!

strfyr51 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

China is currently building their third carrier.

They didn't build the first one IIRC. It was an old Russian one.

the Russian Carrier "'Admiral S,ame Exact carrier Design with the Jump Jet departure. Trouble was? It kind of limited the amount and weight of armaments the plane could take off with. On a US Flattop? they can dial up the Catapult Steam Pressure to take into account the GWT. Ans? During Nam? They loaded everything they could Load on some of those A-6's, A-7's, and A-4's. I doubt a ski jump would have resulted in much more than an accident back then.

strfyr51 wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

They didn't build the first one IIRC. It was an old Russian one.

the Russian Carrier "'Admiral S,ame Exact carrier Design with the Jump Jet departure. Trouble was? It kind of limited the amount and weight of armaments the plane could take off with. On a US Flattop? they can dial up the Catapult Steam Pressure to take into account the GWT. Ans? During Nam? They loaded everything they could Load on some of those A-6's, A-7's, and A-4's. I doubt a ski jump would have resulted in much more than an accident back then.

I messed up the spelling: Admiral Kuznetsov

P1aneMad wrote:

If they are useless China and India wouldn't be rushing to built as many carriers as they can possibly afford.
They are doing so because an air carrier group projects so much power and it actually increases your chances of achieving national strategic objectives without having to get into a nuclear conflict.

They are useless in superpower vs superpower conflicts. They stopped being relevant in that arena decades ago. Aircraft carriers are tools that are used to bash the heads in of weaker 3rd world nations, something the US has marveled at since Vietnam. That's why China, India and others are joining the club. They all have major interests in the Middle East, Africa, South America and Asia.

salttee wrote:

Just to remind everyone.

October 26, 2006, a Chinese Song class submarine surfaced within 5 nm of the carrier USS Kitty Hawk while she was operating in the East China Sea between Japan and Taiwan. It was spotted by an F/A-18C and confirmed by the crew of an EA-6B.

Modern diesel subs can make zero noise and so have the ability to lay in wait if they can guess where a carrier is likely to transit.

Diesel submarines have a misleading name. When you think of a diesel, you think of a rattly old engine that makes a ton of noise. In reality it's a battery powered submarine that can recharge with a diesel generator when not in combat. Batteries don't make any noise.

bikerthai wrote:

If you were to reinforce Taiwan, wouldn't it be better to come in from the East side and let the subs control the straight?

The US will never control the straights of Taiwan with submarines. Those waters are simply too shallow to effectively operate the massive US nuclear submarines in. Parts of the Taiwan strait are no more than 30-40 meters at the deepest. They would be sitting ducks against the flotillas of Chinese diesel-electric submarines, submarine chasers, coast guard cutters, corvettes, frigates, anti-submarine aircraft and the millions of "civilian" fishing vessels that would undoubtedly be called upon.

VSMUT wrote:

Diesel submarines have a misleading name. When you think of a diesel, you think of a rattly old engine that makes a ton of noise. In reality it's a battery powered submarine that can recharge with a diesel generator when not in combat. Batteries don't make any noise.

Diesel subs have no hope of catching a USN carrier under way unless said carrier happened to run right over the sub in the first place. They don't have the raw speed or endurance to chase and keep up, while trying to be quiet.

When people keep publicizing the fact that foreign diesel submarines defeat USN forces in exercises they ignore the fact that USN submarines do that as well, and have been for many decades. In these exercises, the surface force has to travel from point A to point B and the submarine is automatically positioned somewhere along the path as part of the exercise. They don't worry about how the submarine would get there in a real war situation.

Diesel subs work best when enemy movements can be restricted and are predictable, thus they can be placed along the expected path based upon likely movements.

Since the S3 retirements, the anti-sub force threat ring has been refocused as the helo's do not have the speed or endurance to maintain the separation of the prior rings.
The subs are the far end of the ring, with the retirement of the Perry's do they still deploy surface ships far away from the carrier or are all now close in AAW assets?

ThePointblank wrote:

Diesel subs have no hope of catching a USN carrier under way unless said carrier happened to run right over the sub in the first place. They don't have the raw speed or endurance to chase and keep up, while trying to be quiet.

Neither do nuclear submarines, unless they are to make enough noise as to be discovered from several thousand kilometers away. And absolutely not in shallow waters.

ThePointblank wrote:

In these exercises, the surface force has to travel from point A to point B and the submarine is automatically positioned somewhere along the path as part of the exercise. They don't worry about how the submarine would get there in a real war situation.

Diesel subs work best when enemy movements can be restricted and are predictable, thus they can be placed along the expected path based upon likely movements.

The South China Sea, and the strait of Taiwan are exactly that. Easy to predict enemy movements in, and easy to block. That's the entire point of the Chinese island-chain strategy. Why did you think they invested so heavily in electric submarines and stealthy FAC? For fun and giggles?
It's also pretty hard to hide your movements if the seas are full of the before-mentioned "civilian" fishing boats that are constantly giving your position away.

VSMUT wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

Diesel subs have no hope of catching a USN carrier under way unless said carrier happened to run right over the sub in the first place. They don't have the raw speed or endurance to chase and keep up, while trying to be quiet.

Neither do nuclear submarines, unless they are to make enough noise as to be discovered from several thousand kilometers away. And absolutely not in shallow waters.

A diesel sub can only run at top speed for at most a few hours to either chase or reposition, quickly, before the batteries are depleted and the diesel engine needs to be ran. And when charging, top speed is limited.

A nuclear sub can run as fast it wants, for as long as it wants. There is no limit on how long a nuke boat can operate at top speed for, and a nuke boat can do it whenever it wants.

Also, today's nuclear submarines (especially the Western subs) are extremely quiet; they are very competitive to a conventional submarine while underway, with the only advantage for the conventional submarine is if the sub is stationary and running silent.

VSMUT wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

In these exercises, the surface force has to travel from point A to point B and the submarine is automatically positioned somewhere along the path as part of the exercise. They don't worry about how the submarine would get there in a real war situation.

Diesel subs work best when enemy movements can be restricted and are predictable, thus they can be placed along the expected path based upon likely movements.

The South China Sea, and the strait of Taiwan are exactly that. Easy to predict enemy movements in, and easy to block. That's the entire point of the Chinese island-chain strategy. Why did you think they invested so heavily in electric submarines and stealthy FAC? For fun and giggles?
It's also pretty hard to hide your movements if the seas are full of the before-mentioned "civilian" fishing boats that are constantly giving your position away.

Again, read this:

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

The USN was able to hide the exact location of a second carrier group from the Soviets in 1982, despite the Soviets being aware that a second carrier was operating off their coast, and throwing everything they had to find the second carrier.

ThePointblank wrote:

A diesel sub can only run at top speed for at most a few hours to either chase or reposition, quickly, before the batteries are depleted and the diesel engine needs to be ran. And when charging, top speed is limited.

A nuclear sub can run as fast it wants, for as long as it wants. There is no limit on how long a nuke boat can operate at top speed for, and a nuke boat can do it whenever it wants.

Also, today's nuclear submarines (especially the Western subs) are extremely quiet; they are very competitive to a conventional submarine while underway, with the only advantage for the conventional submarine is if the sub is stationary and running silent.

You still don't get it, do you? A submarine moving through water displaces water. Move it fast enough, and the bow of the boat will create cavitation, no different from cavitation caused by the screw. That's why even nuclear submarines can't move fast if they are to remain undetected.
Further, that "kettle" in the nuclear reactor, that's a pretty noisy apparatus, much more so than a modern diesel engine.

ThePointblank wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

Diesel subs have no hope of catching a USN carrier under way unless said carrier happened to run right over the sub in the first place. They don't have the raw speed or endurance to chase and keep up, while trying to be quiet.

Neither do nuclear submarines, unless they are to make enough noise as to be discovered from several thousand kilometers away. And absolutely not in shallow waters.

A diesel sub can only run at top speed for at most a few hours to either chase or reposition, quickly, before the batteries are depleted and the diesel engine needs to be ran. And when charging, top speed is limited.

A nuclear sub can run as fast it wants, for as long as it wants. There is no limit on how long a nuke boat can operate at top speed for, and a nuke boat can do it whenever it wants.

Also, today's nuclear submarines (especially the Western subs) are extremely quiet; they are very competitive to a conventional submarine while underway, with the only advantage for the conventional submarine is if the sub is stationary and running silent.

ThePointblank wrote:

The USN was able to hide the exact location of a second carrier group from the Soviets in 1982, despite the Soviets being aware that a second carrier was operating off their coast, and throwing everything they had to find the second carrier.

Yeah, no. The Soviet coastline is nowhere near as congested as the seas around China. Not in any way comparable.