AShMs and CIWS
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
Do ya'll think that mass AShMs pose a real threat to the USN or do you think CIWS can counter the AShM threat? What about the Chinese hypersonic missile that can travel at 12,000 km/h? What do ya'll think of laser based CIWS systems?
If AShM's were really a threat to naval ships, they would be building armored battleships designed to tank them.
>>28509093
>or do you think CIWS can counter the AShM threat?
Considering they're a last line of defence, no. CIWS alone cannot counter AShMs.
Hypersonic isn't happening anywhere near the surface, so it would be tracked a long way off and shot down.
>>28509308
CIWS also includes short and mid range SAMs
>>28509325
It could be stealthed and even if it was tracked, it might not necessarily be able to be shot down travelling at those high speeds.
>>28509366
CIWS may include SeaRAM, but it certainly doesn't include shit like RIM-162 ESSM. That isn't CIWS.
>>28509381
>hypersonic
>stealth
Nope.
>>28509387
Could these defeat large numbers of AShMs?
>>28509420
Ok so they could be easily shot down?
>>28509237
So no amount of AShMs could penetrate USN defenses?
>>28509387
Can RIM-162s be deployed against sea skimmers?
>>28509462
Yes
>>28509435
Not by CIWS, but yes, if they are spotted a long way off, there will be interceptors placed in its path, whether it's going Mach 3 or Mach 6.
>>28509497
Can a carrier groups worth of them defeat 50 sea skimmers? What about 100?
>>28509442
Depends on the circumstances. Aegis CAN be overwhelmed, but the question is whether you can get enough missiles in position to actually pull it off.
>>28509093
>relying on a ciws for protection
CIWS is never the primary missile defense of any vessel of actual tonnage of any nation.
>>28509542
Do you think that China or Russia could deploy that enough missiles to overwhelm a CG, under ideal circumstances for them?
>>28509442
The navy doesn't plan to move ships in closer than 100 miles from a hostile shore
Other than russia using bombers filled with AShM's, I don't think anyone has the capability to overwhelm anything.
>>28509520
Doubtful.
But who's able to fire that many? Whose able to have accurate positioning of a CBG from hundreds of miles away?
>>28509573
>Other than russia using bombers filled with AShM's,
Russia no longer has the forces or logistics to do such a thing as the infamous multiple backfire regiment strike that was feared so much in the 80s
>>28509573
Some AShMs have >100 mile range and could be shore launched. Like in the contested seas of China.
>>28509595
says they still had 150 of em in 2010
on wikipedia.
>>28509573
China can't use satellites to track CBGs?
>>28509641
Yeah, and in the 80s the Soviet Naval Aviation had over 200 of them and a readiness rate of around 90%, something that modern Russia most definitely does not have to say nothing of the sheer logistics needed to pull it off anywhere outside of immediate borders.
>>28509642
If China goes to war with the US, Satellites are going to be dropping like flies. So probably not.
>>28509641
A minimum size USN CSG set of escorts (3 Burkes and a Tico) carry over three times the number of various SAMs (SM-6, SM-2ER, ESSM) compared to the number of Kh-22s a Backfire regiment can put in the air (max three per aircraft). They'd still have enough VLS cells left over for about 150 tomahawks/SM-3s/ASROC/whatever.
>>28509693
Destroyers and guided missile cruisers could launch a lot of missiles
>>28509677
High altitude UAVs in large numbers?
>>28509568
China? Not without using ballistic missiles. That's a terrible idea, for a lot of reasons, and would come down to just how good the modified DF's guidance package is.
Russia? Sure. But it's the sort of trick where they'd need to throw away a huge amount of assets to do it. Either sacrificing most of their cruse missile subs, their (effectively entire) surface fleet or a solid chunk of their land based bombers.
>>28509093
Massed AShM aren't a huge problem, but not just because of CIWS.
The first layers of defense is detection. The USN has plenty of long-ranged sensor assets to detect fire comeing.
The second layer is electronic. From detection to interception, the electronic warfare systems of the ship or group make life suck for a missile. High speed sea skimming missiles are very vulnerable to this, as they have only a small window between breaking the horizon relative to the target and needing to find the target to adjust course. Fail to do so and the weapon is useless.
Next, there's AAM and SAM fire. Big air breathing AShM are fragile. A hit from a missile launched by a picket fighter or surface ship can easily destroy one.
At last we have the point defenses. RAM and gun systems intercept anything still coming in. They are effective, but a last resort.
As to lasers? They are hugely promising, and Raython is supposed to be delivering 100 kilowatt FEL to the navy this year. It's hard to say when the technology will get there, but it could change everything.
>>28509727
Against a carrier group? Sure. If they could ever get in range of it. Remember that a carrier group strike squadron would outrange any Soviet AShM by several hundred miles.
>>28509746
Would come down to whether the president/commanders allow them to knock out every chinese spy satellite desu
>>28509745
In theory, but even if they can localize them the carrier the CEP for China's MRBM is 400 meters, enough to make hitting a carrier impossible without terminal guidance that would have to survive aggressive jamming and countermeasures.
Beyond that?
It's an MRBM. Going apeshit and launching a bunch looks exactly the same as going apeshit and nukeing Taiwan or Tokyo. The US reply to a mass launch of MRBM might be to erase the middle kingdom.
>>28509844
>In theory, but even if they can localize them the carrier the CEP for China's MRBM is 400 meters, enough to make hitting a carrier impossible
a 400m CEP isn't so bad if you're aiming for a target 330m long and 80m wide.
>>28509878
You're still missing 3/4rds of your missiles
And they need some method of tracking a target moving at 35 knots
>>28509878
A mobile target 330m long and 80m wide. Between the launch alert and impact it can move more then a kilometer.
>>28509808
>Remember that a carrier group strike squadron would outrange any Soviet AShM
Do you have any idea how many SAMs are fitted on Russian CBG hunter group?
>by several hundred miles
Wet dreams.
>>28509746
>the electronic warfare systems of the ship or group make life suck for a missile
Lol. It's like saying you are going to jam HARM, only that in this case "HARM" also has EW capabilities on its own.
>>28509746
>Big air breathing AShM are fragile. A hit from a missile launched by a picket fighter or surface ship can easily destroy one.
Except it's vice versa. Even if you manage to hit a 7 tonne supersonic manoeuvring target, you'd require metric fuckton of power to knock it off its course.
>>28509442
Always assume they figured out something you didn't think of.
Military history is filled with losers who said "there's no way they could do that".
Even if our defenses were that good, it's only a matter of time before someone thinks of a poorfag way to overcome them.
>>28509746
>lasers
>promising
Lol.
>>28510028
If they shift target to what is radiating they are shooting a decoy. HARM isn't much use in this case.
>Russian ECCM
I wouldn't bet my life on it.
>>28510045
They explode violently when the ramjet is disrupted. This is enough to deflect it from course.
>>28509969
LRASM + F-36C is an 1,113nmi range.
F-18E + JASSM is a 620nmi range.
Even the F-18E + Harpoon gives 457nmi.
P-700, like on the Kirov? 388nmi.
Who's dreaming now?
>>28509568
Couldn't you just overwhelm them with junk.
Like chaff or flares? Fire off a bunch of smaller dud or dumb missles or even rockets.
How many targets can aegis track. Which ones does it prioritize?
>>28510057
There's no real cheap way to do this. It would take a lot of resources and a hell of a lot of sacrifice.
Military history is also filled with people hoping there was a cheap way to defeat a powerful force rather then investing in doing it right.
>>28510087
P-800, P-1000, Brahmos, none of them have that kind of range.
>>28510028
a sea skimming missile has only seconds to spot a target and maneuver to kill upon coming over the horizon
That's the time when the ship has turned to present it's front, has their ECM targetted at it, has decoys/flares out, etc
>>28510120
AN/SPY-1 A/B/D can track up to 800 targets.
The AN/SPY-6 on the Flight III Burkes will be able to track 30 times that, for 24,000 simultaneous targets.
>>28510120
The SSDS can sort incoming missiles from decoys. Anything that won't hit the ship or isn't going sanic fast is especially easy to sort out.
Could you spoof anti-missile SAM, AAM, point defense RAM and automated gunfire? Sure. Packing enough countermeasures on a missile would make it larger and more expensive then a fighter, and they would be of limited use in the face of the huge amount of sensors and processing power avalable to the SSDS.
>>28510084
Unless they can define decoy from a ship, which is exactly the case.
>This is enough to deflect it from course.
Not even close. There is not much left to explode at the final part of the trajectory on the first place and the missile that big has enough kinetic power to keep flying at the target's general direction for some time. There was a video from some recent Russian exercises when something like SS-N-9 was hit by a missile in a rather huge boom and barely gave a fuck.
>>28509844
>It's an MRBM. Going apeshit and launching a bunch looks exactly the same as going apeshit and nukeing Taiwan or Tokyo. The US reply to a mass launch of MRBM might be to erase the middle kingdom.
Oh boy, here come the pre-teen tough guy fantasies again. Do yourself a favor and never talk about what will or will not trigger nuclear retaliation until you are above 18 and have at least half a clue about nuclear deterrence.
>>28510205
The SS-N-9 is not a ramjet nor is it supersonic.
>>28510087
>Super Hornet combat radius: 722 km
>P-1000 operational range up to 1000 km
Wake up, you've shat yourself.
>>28510261
You forgot to add AShM range, dipshit. That's 930km for the LRASM, 370km and 1000km for JASSM and JASSM-ER respectively, and 124km for the Harpoon.
Also, your P-1000 isn't making it 1000km sea skimming. It'll have to be at high altitude for almost all of that, and the SM-6 can engage it from 240km all the way in, CAP even sooner.
Are Slavs really this dumb?
>>28510261
Except the P-1000's range is only 700km, and literally only one ship in the entire Russian Navy carries it.
>>28510302
It's 1000ish km if the missile flies at 30,000ft+ for the entire flight. Making it ridiculously easy to intercept.
>>28510261
So Vatniks are so retarded that they believe a plane must be directly over an enemy ship to launch an AShM? Good to know.
>>28509093
Massed AShMs are certainly a very real threat, but the US has been working on that problem for decades. In the current state of things, a CSG alone is an EXTREMELY difficult nut to crack, even assuming you could nail down their location.
CIWS a shit. Lasers should make a good impact, and will make CIWS actually worth a damn. The real deal is missiles.
>>28510329
That's because they don't have any decent naval attack planes anymore.
>>28510340
Neither does the US. Even F-18Es have tiny legs compared to where they used to be. Give me 800 nmi combat radius minimum.
>>28510368
That's what the F-35C is supposed to solve. B-1s also have naval attack capability and unlike Russia's bombers the B-1's are still in good condition.
>>28510290
>Subsonic petards
>ASMs
Lol.
>It'll have to be at high altitude for almost all of that
You are thinking of Kh-22.
>SM-6 can engage it from 240km
With targeting provided by what?
>>28510302
>Except the P-1000's range is only 700km
Except it's not.
>only one ship in the entire Russian Navy carries it
Three. Quite enough to send three CBGs to feed fish at the bottom of the ocean.
>>28510315
>It's 1000ish km if the missile flies at 30,000ft+ for the entire flight
It's not.
>>28510329
Are dumbfuckistanian clapburger amerilards so retarded that they believe subsonic petards are a threat?
Why not just fill cheap drones with cheap rocket pods and fire off rockets to trick the fire control into firing more expensive anti missile missile at the small relatively harmless rockets?
Or can they detect the type of rocket, size, and damage potential?
>>28510368
Only the A-6 had more than 800nmi combat radius, and only it and the A-4 had more combat radius than the F-35C (A-4 beats it by 25nmi), all with fewer pylons, less payload and no A2A.
>>28510392
The F-35C will certainly be a huge improvement in that regards, but at least initially it has only a 600 nmi combat radius. If they do get the variable cycle engine, the range is expected to get out to 800 nmi, but that isn't a sure thing just yet.
B-1Bs are certainly nice in that regard, but they aren't integral to the CSG and might have other duties. The LRS-B is in the same position. I just believe the 800 nmi range from the carrier as a minimum is a key capability, and the lack of it has severely hurt US Naval Aviation.
>>28510429
>You are thinking of Kh-22.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-700_Granit#P-1000_deployment.5B12.5D.5B13.5D.5B14.5D
>Long range rocket flight can achieve the goal only at low altitudes (up to 25 meters or lower) approximation (in which case the maximum range is less than 500 km).
Yes, it's wiki, but I'm too lazy to bring up all the other sources (which are plentiful) of what should be obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of flight mechanics.
>With targeting provided by what?
If it's at 30k ft, everything, including AEGIS. If sea skimming, AWACS, F-35C, any number of other datalinked platforms. I'm sorry, is this babby's first naval thread?
>Except it's not.
>It's not.
Nice sources. Keep saying it enough and it'll be true, amirite?
>Are dumbfuckistanian clapburger amerilards so retarded that they believe subsonic petards are a threat?
I love this Vatnik delusion. Considering the USN can put 2-3 times the number of "subsonic petards" in the air and on target compared to the same hullspace and resources for a P-700, P-800 or P-1000, I bet the phrase "saturation" never even crossed your alcohol addled mind.
>>28510457
Incorrect. The A-3, A-5, and A-7 all did as well. In fact, theirs were over 1,000 nmi. This with old engines.
>>28510483
What about the simple fact that LRASM's range is almost ten times that of previous AShM missiles like Harpoon? With standoff weaponry and exponentially better sensors, I'd say the USN is currently far more capable at long range than it was during the A-6's hayday. We just don't need as much range anymore. We have stand off PGMs and AShMs for that.
>>28510539
I would disagree. We only have so many standoff weapons. While they are certainly incredibly potent, the fact is that we don't have nearly as many of them as we need to fight a proper war. We haven't for decades. The long range is needed not only for the initial standoff weapons, but also the use of much shorter ranged and cheaper weaponry. Remember, there is a relationship between the size/weight, range, and cost of a given weapon.
And while we may be more capable of naval strike missions, that is to be expected. Time marches ever onward. I don't think you could make the counterclaim that the A-6 WITH these standoff weaponry (and likely new engines but that's besides the point) would NOT be superior strike platforms than the modern ones.
>>28510529
>A-3
Max range for the A-3 was 1,800nmi, with reduced payload. Actual combat radius was just over 1/3 of that, about 700nmi. Also, it was a fucking medium bomber, with no real non-permissive airspace capabilities.
>A-5
Considering the fact that the ferry range of the Vigilante was 1,571nmi, I find it extremely hard to believe that the combat radius was over 1,000nmi. Impossible, in fact. Furthermore, it was incredibly maintenance intensive, low payload and relegated to reconnaissance work for almost its entire service.
>A-7
Again, maximum ferry range was only 1,342nmi. With a normal fuel loadout one way range was only 1,070nmi, which would put it's combat radius right around 500nmi.
Where are you getting your numbers? For reference, the F-35C range is 1,200nmi on internal fuel alone.
>>28510587
>but also the use of much shorter ranged and cheaper weaponry. Remember, there is a relationship between the size/weight, range, and cost of a given weapon.
JSOW/JASSM/MALD are all pretty cheap, anon. half to a quarter of an AIM-120.
I don't think its really reasonable to think we're going to be able to drop JDAMs on air defences anymore.
>>28510587
>I would disagree. We only have so many standoff weapons. While they are certainly incredibly potent, the fact is that we don't have nearly as many of them as we need to fight a proper war.
Any kind of source beyond your feels would be nice here.
>The long range is needed not only for the initial standoff weapons, but also the use of much shorter ranged and cheaper weaponry.
Name a single instance when we'd be using dumb drop munitions in non-permissive airspace. Once the sea and air are permissive, we have more than enough gravity PGMs to finish the work further inland. We don't use standoff munitions to hit every single target, only to roll back IADS, opposing ships and other threats to air and sea assets. We have more than enough of them for that.
>Remember, there is a relationship between the size/weight, range, and cost of a given weapon.
Patently incorrect now. In the past, yes. Now? Sensoria and guidance are what make up the lion's share of munitions cost now. That's why an AIM-120D costs 20% more than a Tomahawk.
You're living in the past, anon. Time to catch up on what the modern threat environment and capability mix looks like.
>>28510587
>I don't think you could make the counterclaim that the A-6 WITH these standoff weaponry (and likely new engines but that's besides the point) would NOT be superior strike platforms than the modern ones.
No A2A defenses, no VLO features, no 360 degree 3d threat detection, no sensor fusion, LPI datalinking, EODAS, none of the things that make for survival in a 5th gen fight. An A-6 would be dogmeat in anything approaching non-permissive airspace today.
Give it all the stuff it needs, and VOILA! it's an F-35C.
>>28510587
>F-35 has 3/5 the combat radius of an A-6 but 10 times the weapons range
>Also has A2A capability and lightyears better sensor range, coverage (medium and wavelength), stealth, etc etc
and this nigga is still mad
i dont get it
>>28510774
>Unit cost: 43,000,000–43,000,000 USD (1998)
It wasn't even fucking cheaper either
>>28510604
I'm kind of annoyed now because I've had to rewrite this post about 5 times because pressing the backspace key sent me back a page. Oh well.
The A-3 could easily make a 1000 nmi strike with bags.
The A-5 could do it with four bags and a single nuclear weapon. Normally it was around 650 nmi.
The A-7's varied greatly based on the actual payload of the craft. If you carried three tanks and a few 500 pound bombs, you could make it out to 1000 nmi, barely. The numbers on wikipedia do not count drop tanks.
The numbers come mostly from CMANO, with the A-7's specifically coming from an A-7 pilot's memoirs.
>>28510871
That's 63 million in 2015 dollars. Holy shit.
Almost none of the capability, too.
>>28509746
>lasers
>useful or promising for the next decade
Doubtful.
>>28510619
We don't have the stocks of them to continue to fight with them. This is not only my opinion, but one shared by a number of professionals. Try reading them sometimes.
Here's a start.
http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNASReport-CarrierAirWing-151016.pdf
https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.hudson.org/files/publications/201510SharpeningtheSpearTheCarriertheJointForceandHighEndConflict.pdf
>>28510254
I doubt there would be a significant difference between the two considering basic physics.
Unless the mass of the ASHM is a lot less, the much faster missile would have more momentum than a subsonic 9.
>>28510891
So what you're saying is, the planes could do it with almost no payload whatsoever (or a nuclear package - clearly that's a capability being used constantly).
For reference, the F-35C can get 613nmi combat radius on internal fuel alone with a full internal payload. Throw three or four bags on it plus "a few 500lbs bombs" and it'll still far outrange an A-7.
As for the A-3, aside from the refueling variant, there were never any bomb bay bags developed for it and it didn't have pylons. Where the fuck are you putting bags on it and still having a combat payload?
You're just being ridiculous. With the same provisos for external stores, the F-35C has comparable or better than range to the A-4, A-5 and A-7. The only remotely modern plane which out ranged it was the A-6. And the F-35 STILL has 1.5 times the striking range of an A-6 with modern standoff munitions.
This bitch that the USN doesn't have enough strike range is utter crap.
>>28509237
>>28510688
>Any kind of source beyond your feels would be nice here.
Provided. Also, remember what we found by doing actual checks on this stuff. One CO of the CVW on the Enterprise ran a series of extremely realistic exercises, which haven't been done before or since. He discovered that we would run out of modern munitions far faster than anyone in the Pentagon had predicted. Mind you, this was quite a few years ago, but the situation hasn't changed overmuch. We would still run out of standoff missiles onboard a CV rather quickly.
>Name a single instance when we'd be using dumb drop munitions in non-permissive airspace. Once the sea and air are permissive, we have more than enough gravity PGMs to finish the work further inland. We don't use standoff munitions to hit every single target, only to roll back IADS, opposing ships and other threats to air and sea assets. We have more than enough of them for that.
Did I say anything about dumb munitions? And that's exactly what I'm saying. You use the high end to enable the low end. Even then, against a peer opponent, we simply don't have enough of the stuff to neutralize them in a sustained conflict.
>Patently incorrect now. In the past, yes. Now? Sensoria and guidance are what make up the lion's share of munitions cost now. That's why an AIM-120D costs 20% more than a Tomahawk.
Let me see if I can pull up a video which shows a handy little chart of modern and near future munitions. Long story short, it's definitely the case. It'll be a moment before I can get to it, if I find it at all, because I need to respond to others.
>>28510871
43mil to 43mil. Wot? Two different costs that are the same?
>>28510774
An A-6 with that weapon would have longer range.
>Do ya'll think that mass AShMs pose a real threat to the USN
Yes. Bullets post threats to soldiers, ATGM's pose threats to tanks.
Just because a weapon exists to help mitigate the threat doesn't make the vehicle invincible.
>>28510931
>http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNASReport-CarrierAirWing-151016.pdf
Once more for the short bus, he completely ignores standoff munitions range. He also doesn't mention the fact that the F-35C's legs are half again as long as an F-4, F-8 or F-18 all with bags in their standard loadout, but with only internal fuel for the F-35C. Only the F-14D comes close on combat radius (5/6 of the F-35C's range), and that's still with two bags to internal.
With the exception of the A-6, with its myriad of comparative capability deficiencies, only incredibly outdated and obsolete air frames for the strike role, like the A-3, out range it.
Now, I personally agree that the F-18, even the superbug, have shamefully short legs (in spite of the F-18E out ranging the F-4), but with the F-35C this problem is completely fixed.
>>28510722
Not important for the long ranged strike aircraft. Leave that to the fighter. While it would certainly be nice, the several hundred nautical miles extra range keeps the CV far safer. Using them both in tandem would be the superior option, of course.
And no, you're overly impressed with fancy gear. I love the F-35. I really do. But range is an incredibly important factor which the Navy has been unable to address for years following the abandonment of the replacement of the A-6 and the F-14, both of which WERE going to occur, but were cut for budgetary reasons.
>>28510774
And if an A-6 had those weapons it would have FAR more range than the F-35. Is this hard to understand? Hell, it doesn't even have to be the A-6. Just give me SOMETHING with the long range necessary.
>>28511011
Not him but, you mean the navy in 2019 may have a better capability, right?
We don't even know what the C will be cleared to use after IOC.
>>28511094
The C is preferably going to not use drop tanks because of the whole $125 million stealth thing.
>>28511067
>One CO of the CVW on the Enterprise ran a series of extremely realistic exercises, which haven't been done before or since. He discovered that we would run out of modern munitions far faster than anyone in the Pentagon had predicted. Mind you, this was quite a few years ago, but the situation hasn't changed overmuch.
Source
>We would still run out of standoff missiles onboard a CV rather quickly.
Does UNREP not exist in your world? You act as if logistics is not the primary and overwhelming expertise of the US armed forces and the USN in particular.
>Even then, against a peer opponent, we simply don't have enough of the stuff to neutralize them in a sustained conflict.
What conflict, even against the Russians/Chinese, would possibly be characterized as "sustained" in a modern fight? IADS/C4SIR/Air/strike assets would all be decimated within 8 weeks or it simply cannot be done. It took roughly three weeks to reduce all of Iraq's conventional IADS/C4SIR and air force assets to rubble or combat ineffective (later commenters note the damage after only 9 days of the air campaign was already catastrophic).
>>28511180
They didn't say the same about the Serbians though...
Or do you thibk China and Russia are post Gulf War, Iraqi-tier??
>>28511091
but no VLO, LPI comms and sensors, no A2A, no EODAS, almost none of the sensors, like none of the needed capability beyond being able to carry and release the weapons. might as well be a drone at that point.
if you put all that on an A-6, why not just buy an F-35C at that point?
>>28511176
Stealth is not binary, junior. Even with bags it would still have less than 1/100 the RCS of an A-6 or A-7. 1/10000th of an A-3.
>>28511199
Serbia was permissive airspace and no sea threat. Just like Russia and China would be within 8 weeks. Like I said, if it doesn't get done in that time frame, it isn't going to. There would still be popup threats, but standoff nor range can solve that problem. Once the cohesive defense system and command/comms are down, it's time for gravity PGM kits.
>>28511011
>For reference, the F-35C can get 613nmi combat radius on internal fuel alone with a full internal payload. Throw three or four bags on it plus "a few 500lbs bombs" and it'll still far outrange an A-7.
By your own admission, that 613 nmi range is almost no payload whatsoever. Add bags, and you'll have about 4000 lbs of munitions maximum at probably 850 nmi.
And I don't know what to tell you, the A-3 in CMANO does. Seeing as how CMANO does their research for a job, I'm going to assume they know what they're talking about.
The F-35 isn't in the modern USN. It's in the USN that will be in a few years. And even so, with the F-35, the range still isn't as great as previous years. IF they get their variable cycle engines, I will be content. But until then, a 600 nmi strike range simply isn't going to cut it.
>>28511094
Oh boohoo, someone didn't read the entire paper.
>>28511113
>Not important for the long ranged strike aircraft. Leave that to the fighter.
So your solution is to design and build a whole complete other air frame for a job which F-35Cs can do just fine and then train and man maintainers and pilots for it, create logistical head space for it and all other attendant costs?
Even though the F-35C with LRASM has a strike range over 100nmi further than a 1991 vintage A-6?
The solution is not all that bullshit. The solution is to build more standoff munitions if we need them. Infinitely cheaper and more survivable. Unless someone comes out with a magical 1,000nmi AShM tomorrow and starts putting them to sea in hulls in serious numbers, there's just no need for anything else in a USN which can barely figure out how to get the Ohio replacement paid for.
>>28511142
>We don't even know what the C will be cleared to use after IOC.
Uh... everything the F-35B and F-35A will have been cleared to use by that point? Are you suggesting there will be a long wait for it to deploy whichever air launched AShM the USN goes with, considering that's a centerpiece capability for the USN?
>>28511302
Thats radius he said
not range
F-35 is longer ranged than everything its replacing
>>28511180
>Source
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/96279/1/#18
I hope this will suffice. I learned this one from my barber who served on the Enterprise during that time as a SAR helicopter crew chief.
>Does UNREP not exist in your world? You act as if logistics is not the primary and overwhelming expertise of the US armed forces and the USN in particular.
UNREP is definitely a thing and we are glad to have it. If you'd kindly read the pdfs provided, it would show you the limitations. Simply put, once the initial ship is used up, it has to go across literally the entire ocean to get back to restock. And then make it back. All the while, it needs to be covered.
>What conflict, even against the Russians/Chinese, would possibly be characterized as "sustained" in a modern fight? IADS/C4SIR/Air/strike assets would all be decimated within 8 weeks or it simply cannot be done. It took roughly three weeks to reduce all of Iraq's conventional IADS/C4SIR and air force assets to rubble or combat ineffective (later commenters note the damage after only 9 days of the air campaign was already catastrophic).
China and Russia are only near peers for the moment, thankfully. Some might disagree with this, but given the state of their militaries that is the case. China is rapidly catching up, however. I give them 20 years to be counted as a peer.
And I will note that the Iraqis ran an absolutely shit IADS. While it was certainly an impressive showing the US gave in its destruction, the training, technology, scale, and doctrine of the IADS's use is far more refined in Russia and China. I use refined loosely, but still far better than that of the Iraqis.
>>28511396
I mispoke and meant radius. You can read it for confirmation.
And yes, the F-35 IS more long ranged than everything its replacing. I love that. I'm ecstatic about it. The Legacy Hornet was absolute shit from a range perspective. However, the platforms that did NOT get a replacement are where my concern lies.
>>28511302
>Add bags, and you'll have about 4000 lbs of munitions maximum at probably 850 nmi.
What are you even talking about? The F-35 has a payload of 18,000lbs. Two bags brings us down to still 6,000lbs munitions payload. The A-7 had a max payload of 15,000lbs, leaving only 3,000lbs for munitions. The F-35 is still better in every metric. Also, I'm not sure why you're claiming the A-7 gains double the combat radius (500nmi in addition at least) with two bags where the F-35C would only gain 200nmi. I think you're just asspulling this shit.
>And I don't know what to tell you, the A-3 in CMANO does. Seeing as how CMANO does their research for a job, I'm going to assume they know what they're talking about.
All of it is well documented, so you shouldn't have trouble producing a source. For shits and giggles, I looked at the A-3 range in CMANO. Sure enough, it's 1,800nmi ferry range. I have no idea where you're getting a 1,000nmi+ combat radius for it.
>And even so, with the F-35, the range still isn't as great as previous years. IF they get their variable cycle engines, I will be content. But until then, a 600 nmi strike range simply isn't going to cut it.
I've just proven that the only aircraft which out ranged it in with the strike role in the last 40 years was the A-6, which has widespread comparative deficiencies in apability. Why are you even still arguing this?
>>28511433
I believe they are already building stealth fuel tanks for the F-35
But how far do you really need to be from enemy shores
Is 500nm really less safe than 1000nm ?
>>28509093
Yes
Sometimes
What are they going to guide it with?
Ain't worth anything until they get reliable 1 Megawattish lasers.
/thread
>>28511323
Look, mate. I'm not advocating bringing back the A-6 as it is. I'm advocating creating a new, long ranged strike aircraft. Which, surprisingly enough, the Navy IS looking in to, precisely for the reasons I've stated. It's the UCAV. While some might disagree and say the UCAV is primarily for sustained long ranged ISR, I would point out the TERN, whose job that will be.
>>28511314
I read it when it came out. And just reskimmed it.
>>28511412
>http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/96279/1/#18
So... forum posts. About Crazy Bob. In 1983. Wow. That sure does have a lot to do with modern munitions levels and the current threat environment. Especially since he was primarily concerned with munitions for air/missile defence and CAP loadouts to defend his carrier group against multiple Backfire raids. Jesus, fuck, anon.
>If you'd kindly read the pdfs provided, it would show you the limitations
I did read them. The issue I have with them is they were written by a retired Captain now being paid by a group/think tank hired by several different contractors to lobby congress for more defense spending. There's a fair grain of salt you need to take there.
>Simply put, once the initial ship is used up, it has to go across literally the entire ocean to get back to restock. And then make it back. All the while, it needs to be covered.
This is not how USN UNREP works. The MSC is not a single ship following each CSG around. It's the largest and most complex military sealift command in the world.
>China and Russia are only near peers for the moment, thankfully. Some might disagree with this, but given the state of their militaries that is the case. China is rapidly catching up, however. I give them 20 years to be counted as a peer.
Neither of those is in the same ballpark in naval or air power. The only time the fight would become relatively even is if the US is for some reason invading/attacking them inside their own countries. Which would take a special kind of stupid to attempt and expect it to go smoothly. Fighting over any kind of external assets, like the Spratleys or on the Korean Peninsula or in Eastern Europe (say, Poland)? Not even close.
>And I will note that the Iraqis ran an absolutely shit IADS.
This is not what even the Soviets or Chinese believed.
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/rs-storm.htm
>>28511436
Excuse me, I was thinking of the F-35B's numbers. That's entirely my fault.
The A-7 could launch a 700 nmi attack with a decent load of ammunition. It could barely eke out 1000 nmi with full tanks and a light load. Now, perhaps the memoir left out refueling, but until I see otherwise...
>All of it is well documented, so you shouldn't have trouble producing a source. For shits and giggles, I looked at the A-3 range in CMANO. Sure enough, it's 1,800nmi ferry range. I have no idea where you're getting a 1,000nmi+ combat radius for it.
Obviously you didn't look hard enough.
>I've just proven that the only aircraft which out ranged it in with the strike role in the last 40 years was the A-6, which has widespread comparative deficiencies in apability. Why are you even still arguing this?
You didn't prove shit. The A-6 is a strike aircraft only. Saying that its fault is that it isn't as good a fighter as a multirole is absolutely retarded.
>>28511457
As a matter of fact, yes. Yes it is. It's in a completely different engagement envelope. Now, there is significant difficulty targeting a CV even at 500 nmi, and it would be difficult to pierce the CSGs defenses even when spotted, but I'd rather not play that game at all.
>>28511543
A-3 range:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-3_Skywarrior#Specifications_.28A3D-2.2FA-3B_Skywarrior.29
>Range: 1,826 nmi (2,100 mi, 3,380 km)
http://www.boeing.com/history/products/a3d-a-3-skywarrior.page
>Range 2,100 miles
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=373
>Maximum Range: 2,100 miles (3,380 km)
Furthermore, why the fuck are we even talking about a medium range nuclear bomber in a discussion about tactical strike missions? Seriously.
>>28511543
>A-3
>1200L drop tank
anon. what the fuck. it didn't even have pylons. how is it using drop tanks?
>>28511543
>You didn't prove shit. The A-6 is a strike aircraft only. Saying that its fault is that it isn't as good a fighter as a multirole is absolutely retarded.
Except that the systems replacing it actually expand the maximum strike range by over 100nmi, not reduce it. Why are you so salty?
>>28510125
In either case no body really knows before hand. American hubris strikes again
>>28509442
>So no amount of AShMs could penetrate USN defenses?
For it to have a good chance against a carrier group it would have to be a fleet engagement. IF the other side target the outer ships then they will get several hits. If they target the carrier then they may get a hit or two.
>>28510587
>Proper war
I assume a proper war would feature many Mark 48 ADCAPs, freeing up the carriers for other tasks.
>>28511533
>So... forum posts. About Crazy Bob. In 1983. Wow. That sure does have a lot to do with modern munitions levels and the current threat environment. Especially since he was primarily concerned with munitions for air/missile defence and CAP loadouts to defend his carrier group against multiple Backfire raids. Jesus, fuck, anon.
Seeing as how a Backfire raid is practically identical in threat to modern long ranged AShMs, yes, yes it is. And that just goes to show you that the Pentagon doesn't pay too much attention to munitions procurement and stores. Hell, we can't even fill our VLS tubes, for Christ's sake, let alone refill them at sea.
>I did read them. The issue I have with them is they were written by a retired Captain now being paid by a group/think tank hired by several different contractors to lobby congress for more defense spending. There's a fair grain of salt you need to take there.
That doesn't make the arguments any less true. Further, the USN is rather starved for resources compared to what it needs. There's a reason why the LCS is a thing, and that's because it's cheap as fuck comparatively.
>This is not how USN UNREP works. The MSC is not a single ship following each CSG around. It's the largest and most complex military sealift command in the world.
Yes, we know. It's a fascinating system, but not a sustainable one. We don't have enough ships. Yes, that's difficult to swallow, but for as large of a commitment as the USN has, those ships are spread across the seven seas- literally.
>Neither of those is in the same ballpark in naval or air power.
Did you miss what I said about near peer? And lets face it, your opinion about whether or not they classify as such doesn't matter. The people who do this shit for a living classify them as near peers.
>http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/rs-storm.htm
That's a great paper, BTW, glad someone else has read it. Anyways, NOBODY expected the Iraqis to be as shit as they were.
this weapob system makes me hard :) fuck all your AShM's.
>>28511638
Because the threat has expanded in scope and naval strike isn't the only strike I'm worried about. The 600 nmi of the F-35 is not going to cut it for strike missions. Lets assume you want to do a deep strike inside some country. You park at least 500 nmi off the coast, launch the raid, fly in Hi, drop Lo once you need to get under the radars. At this point, since you are low, the range of pretty much all weaponry you have is dropping dramatically, simply because you drop it from so close to the ground. For any sort of circuitous route, it's simply not possible to do it in the F-35 at the present time. Give me more range.
>>28511689
True enough. Praised be the silent service.
>>28511693
>Seeing as how a Backfire raid is practically identical in threat to modern long ranged AShMs, yes, yes it is. And that just goes to show you that the Pentagon doesn't pay too much attention to munitions procurement and stores. Hell, we can't even fill our VLS tubes, for Christ's sake, let alone refill them at sea.
Tu-22M + Kh-22 combat radius: 1620nmi
P-1000 max range: 540nmi
Yup. That looks the same to me.
Also, I'd love for you to point out who in the world has the capability currently to launch three backfire raids of a Kh-22 equivalent at a USN task force 1,000nmi away, as the Soviets did in 1983.
>>28511771
>Give me more range.
There's no one on the planet that would like LESS range from strike aircraft. The fact remains that the F-35C represents more striking range than any tactical aircraft the USN has fielded in a long, long time. Like pre-Vietnam long.
Also, if the missiles are having to have reduced range by flying low, so would the carrying aircraft. It's the same exact issue.
You still haven't addressed the enormous and decisive cost issue raised here: >>28511323.
>>28510205
>Not even close. There is not much left to explode at the final part of the trajectory on the first place and the missile that big has enough kinetic power to keep flying at the target's general direction for some time.
I've heard this mistake a few times and thought I should explain why it's wrong, because it is a bit counterinutiative.
A supersonic ramjet is very, very fragile because drag force is proportional to the velocity for a laminar flow and the squared velocity for a turbulent flow.
If anything disrupts the streamlining of a ramjet at supersonic speed it tears itself apart and explodes as the already tremendous drag forces are multiplied.
>>28511693
>Anyways, NOBODY expected the Iraqis to be as shit as they were.
There's a whole lot of monday morning quarterbacking going on there. Because the US did so well, and because they were so prepared, and because they made it look so easy, this must mean Iraq was really shit. But this does not necessarily follow. I think it's half and half: Iraq was less well prepared, trained and defended than expected, but the US was also really, really well prepared and technologically superior. Remember that Iraq at that point had just fought a not inconsequential foe for a decade. These were not untested paper tiger soldiers. These were battle hardened men straight off one of the most bitter conflicts since Vietnam.
>>28511771
You can park 500+ mi off coast, send up tankers/use land based tankers, refuel your strike package en route and the fighters can then fly much further. With increased use of low-observable aircraft and low-observable munitions, you may not have to fly hi-lo-hi.
With SSGN and SSN land attack missile contribution, strike flexibility increases even further.
Attacking air defense radars, air defense coordination sites and so on -- to orchestrate the overall strike according to a timeline -- may also increase flexibility.
>>28511470
>megawatt lasers
Not really. It's very dependent on the frequency of the laser. Higher frequency lasers can do more with less energy.
Raython's delivering x-ray FEL to the Navy this year that deliver between 100 and 200 kilowatts. More then enough to damage or destroy pretty much any missile.
>>28511827
The point of stealth is that they don't have to fly low..
And you are comparing the range of aircraft with fuel tanks, vs F-35s that aren't even built yet without fuel tanks.
>>28511302
>By your own admission, that 613 nmi range is almost no payload whatsoever
>the F-35C can get 613nmi combat radius on internal fuel alone with a full internal payload
>with a full internal payload
dat selective reading
>>28510057
>Military history is filled with losers who said "there's no way they could do that".
This man reads books
>>28511864
No arguments there. However, the Iraqis DID perform poorly with the equipment they had. It doesn't make what the US did any less amazing, but it's something to keep in mind when trying to size up a potential conflict with a peer competitor.
>>28511771
> drop Lo once you need to get under the radars
Anon, you're trapped in 1970.
>>28511776
I hesitate to say it, but the DF-21D. That's what I'm most worried about. The kill chain is the major issue facing it, but I'd rather be safe than sorry.
And yes, that's the issue. A massed long ranged AShM strike is the best way to take down a CSG. As such, precautions need to be taken.
>Also, I'd love for you to point out who in the world has the capability currently to launch three backfire raids of a Kh-22 equivalent at a USN task force 1,000nmi away, as the Soviets did in 1983.
Does NEAR PEER mean anything to you? Nobody has that ability- YET. However, China posses the potential to do so in the next 20 years. Is this difficult to understand?
>>28511639
That's the entire point of wargames. Plus the problem with cheap workarounds is that they're usually pretty easily countered as the workarounds themselves have massive deficiencies.
>>28511827
>There's no one on the planet that would like LESS range from strike aircraft. The fact remains that the F-35C represents more striking range than any tactical aircraft the USN has fielded in a long, long time. Like pre-Vietnam long.
Tactical is the wrong word for what you're looking for. The A-6 is a tactical aircraft. You're looking for Multirole.
>Also, if the missiles are having to have reduced range by flying low, so would the carrying aircraft. It's the same exact issue.
Not exactly. Missiles have their range reduced by being low down partially because they can glide farther if they start from higher up. And then there are, of course, glide bombs.
>You still haven't addressed the enormous and decisive cost issue raised here: >>28511323.
I did, actually. I pointed out that the USN is actually in the process of getting just such a craft made- the UCAV.
>>28512054
You mean UCLASS?
>>28511867
>You can park 500+ mi off coast, send up tankers/use land based tankers,
The real issue of A2/AD is not what happens to the tactical aircraft. They'd probably be able to survive so long as they had the legs to hit their target and return. No, the problem is protecting the support assets- tankers and AEW-C craft. And JSTAS.
As for stealth making Hi-Lo-Hi unneeded, I would point out that stealth merely reduces the ability to be seen. You get close enough to a radar, it WILL see you. And then there's the long wave issue. While still mitigated by stealth, long wave radars to act as an alarm that something might be out there. It is better if the strike is not seen at all, hence the Hi-Lo-Hi.
>>28511912
>F-35
>not built yet
>in spite of there being four times more F-35s currently built than four times the number of Su-35s plus all the PAK-FA prototypes
ok.
>>28511919
4,000 lbs is not a heavy payload, mate.
>>28511992
Stealth is merely an added layer of security, which further allows for it, not the only thing to be relied upon. Don't get me wrong, stealth is amazing. However, you're drastically overstating its capabilities. Remember, the F-117 went low to ingress on its targets.
>>28512017
Anon, the Chinese are even less well founded to achieve actionable target tracking on a CBG at 1000nmi than the Russians were in 1985. Also, the range on the DF-21D is only 810nmi. Well within tomahawk range, especially for the two Ohio class SSGN conversions which would be present during the build up of hostilities with China.
>>28512067
>You mean UCLASS?
That's what they're calling it these days, yeah.
>>28512054
>Tactical is the wrong word for what you're looking for. The A-6 is a tactical aircraft. You're looking for Multirole.
I said exactly what I meant. The F-35C + JASSM outranges the A-6 + Harpoon. This is fact.
>Not exactly. Missiles have their range reduced by being low down partially because they can glide farther if they start from higher up. And then there are, of course, glide bombs.
Anon, the laws of gaseous density at altitude and attendant drag/powered flight efficiency are the same for a missile and a manned jet. And no one said shit about glide bombs.
>I did, actually. I pointed out that the USN is actually in the process of getting just such a craft made- the UCAV.
Then what the holy fuck are you still bitching about? The X-47B has a 1,050nmi range. This being /k/, I thought we were were magically not counting drones for some reason.
>>28512131
>4,000 lbs is not a heavy payload, mate.
If we're talking a non-permissive environment to the level you have to be flying clean, its more than anything else is carrying.
If we're allowing LO drop tanks, it can carry more than 4000lb.
>>28512167
>Anon, the Chinese are even less well founded to achieve actionable target tracking on a CBG at 1000nmi than the Russians were in 1985.
I just said that.
>Also, the range on the DF-21D is only 810nmi.
I'm aware. It's more than USN CVs can reasonably stand-off.
>Well within tomahawk range
Don't trust the Tomahawk for the destruction of these targets. As with the DF-21D, the problem is the kill chain.
>especially for the two Ohio class SSGN conversions which would be present during the build up of hostilities with China.
You even accounted for their availability. I'm impressed. Most people would have mentioned the lot of them.
I love the SSGNs. I'm just hoping the VPM is created, and/or we get more SSGNs, be they other Ohio-class conversions or from the Ohio Replacement.
>>28512238
>I'm aware. It's more than USN CVs can reasonably stand-off.
Why would they even attack that threat? That's for Ohio SSGNs and VAs/Seawolves to pop before the CSG even stands into shore.
>>28512238
>Don't trust the Tomahawk
Why the fuck ever not? It's one of the most reliable guided munitions in the entire arsenal and the US has the best intelligence and kill chain capabilities in the world? Literally what the fuck are you even implying? That a tomahawk cannot splash a missile site given good intel?
>I'm just hoping the VPM is created
VPM is considered one of the highest priorities for the USN, as it is currently one of the tech development possibilities for the Ohio replacement. Enlarged VPM style VA hulls are one of the leading contenders.
>>28512220
>I said exactly what I meant. The F-35C + JASSM outranges the A-6 + Harpoon. This is fact.
Are you only thinking of Naval Strike and only allowing the A-6 to have old gear? What the fuck is wrong with you? Especially considering the scenario I just illustrated had nothing to do with naval strike.
>And no one said shit about glide bombs.
That is patently incorrect. Go back and read the thread, and then look at the scenario illustrated.
>Anon, the laws of gaseous density at altitude and attendant drag/powered flight efficiency are the same for a missile and a manned jet. And no one said shit about glide bombs.
Hence why I said partially. I ignored the part about the aircraft having lessened range because it flat out didn't matter. Both aircraft would have had their range lessened, so it doesn't really matter much, does it?
>Then what the holy fuck are you still bitching about? The X-47B has a 1,050nmi range. This being /k/, I thought we were were magically not counting drones for some reason.
Because I was saying how it was. The US currently does not have the capability, and the UCLASS is nowhere near hammered in quite yet. And it may not be for a long time.
Just an aside, the X-47B is substantially smaller than the final design requirements, IIRC.
>>28512260
The problem with those is the lack of solid targeting data available for them. And then the tides of war themselves. USN CVs might NEED to be able to conduct operations in areas which are currently within the DF-21D's range.
>>28512294
I'm saying straight up that the Tomahawk alone is probably not enough to solve the issue. First you have the issue of tracking down the DF-21Ds, which are probably located in the Chinese interior and thus in their IADS. Any reconnaissance of the area would be shoddy at best. You can't launch the strike without knowing where they are.
And then there's the fact that they're in the IADS. The Tomahawks quite possibly could be shot down.
>>28512344
>Are you only thinking of Naval Strike and only allowing the A-6 to have old gear? What the fuck is wrong with you? Especially considering the scenario I just illustrated had nothing to do with naval strike
That scenario of yours assumes an A-6 is going to survive in a modern high threat environment, which it will most likely not. Having a greater combat radius means jack squat if you can't penetrate enemy air defenses.
>>28512420
And the fact that China would need to place their launchers further inland to defend from possible alpha strikes further degrades their maximum engagement range.
>>28512344
>That is patently incorrect. Go back and read the thread, and then look at the scenario illustrated.
Don't be a retard. Glide bomb munitions for a dedicated strike aircraft in a non-permissive environment is suicide, unless it's a VLO bomber (even then, foolhardy, considering the other options). In which case, call a LRSB to do the strike instead of dropping all that much needed procurement money on a brand new platform. Literally why?
>Both aircraft would have had their range lessened, so it doesn't really matter much, does it?
It's kind of the heart of the matter. You're throwing out maximum almost complete bag loadouts with a handful of 500lbs gravity bombs out there like they did this shit constantly and it was an efficient use of the available tools (then or now).
>Just an aside, the X-47B is substantially smaller than the final design requirements, IIRC.
More deck space to carry more of them, then.
>>28512376
You act as if SM-3 and ABM defense does not exist for that express purpose. It's literally the same reason SM-2-ER/SM-6, ESSM and CIWS exist. There is no complete safety in combat, there will always be threats. Extremely excessive range is not the only, nor even the most effective counter to AShM threats.
>>28512420
>which are probably located in the Chinese interior and thus in their IADS
Far less range out to sea, then. Also, those are some of the most heavily surveilled and tracked assets in China as far as the US DoD.
>The Tomahawks quite possibly could be shot down.
So we send more. Jesus. A single Ohio conversion carries 154 of the fuckers. It alone could send three at every DF-21D launcher and still have some left over.
>>28512444
This.
How exactly is an A-6 analogue going to be anything close to effective or survivable when the USN has no escorts that can cover it on the last leg? This is totally moot without that, and yet another reason why multirole is a good idea.
>>28512444
Does it? It's merely a scenario to illustrate the advantages of greater range. You're too stuck on the old A-6 to understand the concept. Open your mind already.
>>28512452
Sure, but by how much? The smart man would say by however far inland it is. Which doesn't really have to be very far to be well inland. 50 nmi, for example, gives it plenty of protection AND range.
>>28512482
>Glide bomb munitions for a dedicated strike aircraft in a non-permissive environment is suicide
Incorrect. I'm sure our friend the SDB-II would have words for you. Or the JSOW.
You could do it in an F-16 or F-15E. You could do it in an F-35. It's just that the long range strike aircraft from farther away is better. And just a reminder, they're actually procuring one such craft. Your argument, quite simply, doesn't match reality.
>It's kind of the heart of the matter. You're throwing out maximum almost complete bag loadouts with a handful of 500lbs gravity bombs out there like they did this shit constantly and it was an efficient use of the available tools (then or now).
Look, mate. I'm advocating for long ranged strike aircraft. You can't seem to give a convincing argument as to why it isn't a good thing.
>You act as if SM-3 and ABM defense does not exist for that express purpose. It's literally the same reason SM-2-ER/SM-6, ESSM and CIWS exist. There is no complete safety in combat, there will always be threats. Extremely excessive range is not the only, nor even the most effective counter to AShM threats.
I'm not acting like it isn't. I'm saying that even having them fired at you in the first place is wrong. The missiles are only there in case you get shot at. By far the ideal solution is not getting shot at in the first place. The missile defense, while potent, is your last line. Having longer ranged strike craft is probably the best solution there is.
>Thinking the Chinese can't shoot down Tomahawks
>Expecting the low orbit satellites to last a week
>>28512702
>Having longer ranged strike craft is probably the best solution there is.
Different anon here. Long legs are great for a variety of reasons, however among those reasons is not being able to out-reach heavy bombers with long-range missiles. As long as we aren't fighting Russia or China that's not an issue. But if we do, then you are getting attacked if and when the opponent chooses to.
>>28512791
It's not the bombers, it's the land based AShM batteries. If you can stay out of range of most of them, you severely limit the amount of missiles that you possibly could be within the range of. And yes, that's a very real issue in today's environment. Ask anyone who does this shit for a living.
>>28512702
>And just a reminder, they're actually procuring one such craft. Your argument, quite simply, doesn't match reality.
So you're saying a drone like the X-47B costs just as much to procure, operate and supply as a manned aircraft? Are you ignorant or just asspulling things now?
>Look, mate. I'm advocating for long ranged strike aircraft. You can't seem to give a convincing argument as to why it isn't a good thing.
I'm arguing that the costs of producing, manning and supplying an entirely new manned airframe to do what the A-6 did is retarded in the current budgetary climate, and that the USN has way, way more pressing priorities. The benefits simply do not outweigh the prohibitive costs in the current resource crunch, especially when the only possible gain is maybe a couple hundred nmi of unescorted maximum range.
>Having longer ranged strike craft is probably the best solution there is.
You are completely ignoring the relative cost considerations, as well as the simple fact that the USN never operates carriers at maximum range like you imply. In the event of conflict brewing with China like you describe, the CSGs will NOT be sitting 500nmi beyond the Ryukyu islands. This is ridiculous.
>Expecting the low orbit satellites to last a week
If they drop our sats, we drop theirs. Then the DF-21D range is completely moot anyway. If they leave the sats, we can find and kill them. Stop thinking a CSG is going to be operating at maximum standoff range at all times. This is simply not true historically or doctrine wise.
All this bullshit is just a smoke screen for "I NEED TO BITCH ABOUT SOMETHING AND THIS SEEMS REASONABLE ENOUGH".
jesus harold christ
its like you guys have never used anything made in china before.
>>28512820
>It's not the bombers, it's the land based AShM batteries. If you can stay out of range of most of them, you severely limit the amount of missiles that you possibly could be within the range of. And yes, that's a very real issue in today's environment. Ask anyone who does this shit for a living.
I used to do this shit for a living. Does that fucking count? Not the other anon, but this shit is getting ridiculous. You pretending that in a warshot situation with China the CSGs would be twice as far away from the Chinese coast as JAPAN is pants on head retarded.
>>28512825
>>28512856
So much this. He's worried about DF-21D maximum range when Japan is only 500nmi from China and Korea is like 220nmi. US Navy carriers would be within 250-300mi range of the chinese coast if shit went hot.
>>28509573
They're going to have to get closer than 100 miles if they want to do any amphibious invasions.
>>28513022
There is no intention or capability of doing amphibious invasions in the US military.
>>28509424
Missile spam is hard to defend against. The best way to do it is to kill the launch platform.
>>28513022
>amphibious invasions of mainland China.
>>28513071
I'm absolutely sure that there is a binder in the puzzle palace that covers detailed plans for this and some poor bastard has to update it every few years.
There's no real reasonable plan to invade China, but I'm sure plenty of unreasonable ones exist.
>>28513071
The US absolutely could perform amphibious invasions. They have a hell of a lot more equipment, sea-lift and landing craft then they did at Inchon, but there are few reasons to use them. Landing craft get used more often for humanitarian aid then D-Day 2: D Harder.
>>28513185
>D-Day 2: D Harder.
Holy fucking kek. I'm stealing this.
>>28509878
That CEP means that a missile only has a 20% chance of hitting a stationary carrier. Factor in target motion and it's effectively impossible to hit a carrier with an MRBM.
>>28512913
There's also the fact that this is assuming the Chinese even know where the carriers are in the first place, since it actually REALLY hard to find a CSG when it doesn't want to be found. Like, in the late Cold War the USN used to troll Russia by driving CSGs into visual range of Russian coastlines without the Russians ever realizing they were there.
>>28509677
>If China goes to war with the US, Satellites are going to be dropping like flies. So probably not.
Nope, large scale satellite killing flips the MAD switch since satellites form the primary ICBM launch warning systems.
>>28513185
inchon landing was a whole corps, it wasn't even a major landing. Even the navy itself admits a critical lack of surface connectors.
>>28509878
>>28509896
>>28509904
If I mathed it right, a Chinese MRBM has around a 3% chance of hitting a maneuvering carrier. That's even before you take into account the MRBM CEP. So, figure the chances of a successful hit are in the neighborhood of 6/10 of 1%. Now factor in how many hits it would take to sink a carrier.
So, it looks like China would have to launch upward of 1K missiles to have a reasonable chance of sinking a carrier. That's probably getting close to the cost of a carrier.
>>28513632
The USMC/USN certain retains a better amphibious capability than most other nations. It's just that D-Day level landings just aren't feasible in this day and age due to cost.
>>28513643
>So, it looks like China would have to launch upward of 1K missiles to have a reasonable chance of sinking a carrier. That's probably getting close to the cost of a carrier.
This is also assuming the CSG doesn't actually do anything to try and intercept the missiles, either.
>>28513643
Depends if they have some ability to provide terminal guidance to the MRBM
If they actually can do that, then carriers are dead meat.
>>28510045
>Even if you manage to hit a 7 tonne supersonic manoeuvring target, you'd require metric fuckton of power to knock it off its course
You could do it with a single .30 caliber bullet. If it's hypersonic, any damage or change to the outer skin will cause it to self destruct. The space shuttle Columbia disaster is an example of this exact phenomenom
>>28512017
>Does NEAR PEER mean anything to you? Nobody has that ability- YET. However, China posses the potential to do so in the next 20 years. Is this difficult to understand?
So in 20 years, China might have comparable ability to what the Soviets had in the 1980s, almost 50 years before?
And this is ignoring our own progression over the same timespan.
>>28512131
4,000lbs is plenty of payload to destroy a target with PGM's, and it is also 4,000lbs more than what anything else would be able to deliver in the same situation.
>>28512535
>>28513667
China is far more capable than the US of amphibious invasion
>>28509093
4000 pounds is 2x LRASMs or 4x NSMs. It's no joke.
>>28514031
China barely has a blue water navy
>>28514076
who cares? when you can hit any relevant naval target with land based assets.
>>28514031
With what?
US has 8 Wasp, 8 Besson LSV, 1 America, 11 San Antonio class and a fuckton of landing craft able to make bluewater crossings on their own.
China has.. not much.
>>28514169
Very limited ability to land the only shit that matters
aka tanks and artillery.
No real capability to assault ports/harbors, no real capability to supply the fuel/ammunition needed
>>28514062
4,000 lbs is the maximum internal AtG payload of the F-35. Two 2,000 lb bombs. The F-35 could only carry 2 NSMs internally. It's the size of them.
>>28514240
Da bait
>>28514169
I always forget the Army has ships. Those Bessons seem cool, though, I've got to wonder why the Army owns them, and not the Navy... The entire DoD is kinda fucky right now. (Why does the Army need expeditionary forces and ships for example) I'm sure there's reasons though.
Also, he'll probably bring up China's large fleet of LST's and such, as well s their (I think) 4 Zubr-class LCAC's.
A lot of people still seem to think amphibious landings are supposed to be like Inchon and D-Day, by driving a mass of fuckhuge ships up to a beach to unload them.
It's the same when people talk about the PLAN's numbers. They'll say they have more ships than the USN, which is true, but most of them are either non-combat, in the sense of being for landing shit, or small ass corvettes and missile boats and shit.
The USN has like, 2x the amount of Destroyers and subs than the PLAN ffs. Obviously, it's unfair to count carriers.
What really burns my ass, so to say, is when people say (as they have above): In 20 years, the PLAN will be equal/better than the USN!!!
Nigga, by what metric? If the USN does NOTHING for 20 years, then yeah, MAYBE the PLAN will, but that's not the case at all. How many LCS' do we plan on building? How many more Arleigh Burkes do we plan on getting? How many Americas? Will China get any more than 3 carriers that are worth a damn? We'll have maybe 10 or so less corvettes than China, but a hell of a lot more of nearly everything else.
>>28514240
This must be bait.
>Anon doesn't even know what LCAC's and LCU's do, or what a Besson even is.
Other anon here, I would just like to clear up that the organic ability of the MEU/ARG to land armor and other heavy equipment is rather minimal.
I would also like to point out that there are plenty of ships whose job that is, which are not organic to the ARG.
>>28514466
Why do you consider it "minimal"?
>>28514366
Can't forget MSC ships either, if those count.
>>28514366
>Nigga, by what metric? If the USN does NOTHING for 20 years, then yeah, MAYBE the PLAN will, but that's not the case at all. How many LCS' do we plan on building? How many more Arleigh Burkes do we plan on getting? How many Americas? Will China get any more than 3 carriers that are worth a damn? We'll have maybe 10 or so less corvettes than China, but a hell of a lot more of nearly everything else.
I mean, historically speaking there's somewhat of a precedent for things like this. If we look at the German Navy in the leadup to WW1 we see pretty much the same thing. It resulted in a Navy that was able to contest its local region for a short while as well as a number of commerce raiders. However, it was unable to sustain the damage inevitable to war and so was destroyed as a useful asset.
>>28514505
With the nature of modern warfare, this will be even more pronounced I assume?
>>28514483
Because it is rather minimal. Not a lot of platforms to land lots of heavy equipment quickly. Note that that isn't the intent of the ARG.
Second pic coming along.
>>28514535
And this is the other half of it.
>>28514394
>>28514316
Its not bait, its the anon who genuinely thinks China's outdated landing ships are the way to go.
Along with a heavily armored destroyer to escort them in.
>>28510087
>>28514529
That's a difficult question. On one hand, the guy with the homefield advantage now has the advantage of strong land based aviation and shore based AShM batteries, as well as the ability to preposition submarines in hiding in choke points far ahead of time and keep them there.
On the other hand, the larger guy has a greater ability to concentrate his striking power from across a distributed area.
My answer would be that, even if the larger guy took heavy losses, he'd probably come out ahead in the end. That is, if they were going for submission.
>>28514505
The German navy was never able to contest anything.
All of its large ships spent their service before being sunk either hiding in port or running for their lives from the British fleet.
>>28514535
>>28514549
If it isn't the intent, yet still has the capability, I'd say they're pretty well off then, right?
Besides, with the LCAC's and LCU's, you can move a lot of the heavy equipment right up, and leave the rest for later. I don't really see the deficiency, though, I could be missing something...
(Only four Abrams? That seems strange, but whatever. That'll fit on two LCAC's, leaving the other free, as well as the LCU's, also keeping in mind that combat forces will be landed first, then supplies next, and that a lot of other equipment can be brought in by the Stallions.)
>>28514557
>outdated
And we'll helicopter in light infantry to reenact vietnam, ignoring that we LOST that war.
Instead of landing in overwhelming force using LST's & surprise.
>>28514557
inb4 "muh battleships!", calling it now. (Might as well throw in the VLS-equipped tank, the submarine LST, and the others while I'm at it.)
>>28514535
>>28514549
The LSV can land 15 M1 tanks each, handle any heavy equipment the US Army uses and in an hour it can be back at sea picking up more heavy sealift to do it again.
All of them together could land, in an hour, 120 tanks or more realistically several battalions equipment and personnel.
>>28514593
The US having so many allies so close to China probably also complicates things to no small degree for China as well...
>>28514605
Now this is shitposting.
>LST's
>Suprise
>Vietnam
>Goalposting this hard
Topkek m8
>>28514600
Nope. Only one Abrams per LCAC. They don't have the capability to bring any more. And it takes about two hours round trip for an LCAC.
The ARG does not have the capability to do better than that. That's stretching it as is. The LCACs are mostly for supplies and trucks.
>>28514635
Not a part of the ARG. It's a damn useful piece of equipment, but not part of the ARG.
>>28514366
The Bessons are cool. They aren't properly assault ships, but can land troops under combat conditions at need.
The army has them because they are mostly used by the engineers and logistics branches to support Army operations in fucked up areas. It would be very awkward to need to barrow Navy or Marine landing craft to do so.
They exist, partly, to keep the Army supplied until the engineers can build airstrips and docks to bring in supplies with bigger ships.
>>28514678
>Nope. Only one Abrams per LCAC. They don't have the capability to bring any more. And it takes about two hours round trip for an LCAC.
You got a source for that? (Not trying to be rude.) Also, what about the LCU's? I'm almost POSITIVE they can carry two, or even more.
LCAC's get loaded up with LAV-25's quite often, I know that much.
>>28514692
I hear you, but if there's an operational plan where they need a fuckton of heavy equipment RIGHT NOW for an invasion then the US doesn't need to build new ships to make it happen.
>>28514709
The fucked up part is that they are pretty small, as far as ships go.
>>28514709
Oh, it's one of those "nice to have organic capabilities" things?
There's been a lot of that going around I hear. For example, IIRC, some bigwig in the Army, or formerly Army, is trying to get some part of the Army restructured, somewhat similar to a MAGTF or something if I remember right.
Speaking of the Marines, they've got just about everything organic to their units, right? All I can think of that they're lacking is airborne forces, but I don't know if that's a big deal or not. The Americas are practically being built for the Marines as far as I hear it, so I don't see why training up a bunch of Marines to jump out the back of Ospreys is such a bad idea, can't hurt to have the capability, right?
>>28514766
That's the real joke
It's the Army that maintains real amphibious capabilities
The marines are a mostly light infantry/air assault force
They also have 35 runnymede class LSU's which can carry 5 M1's each.
>>28514804
They aren't meant to be primarily driven into hotspots, right? Is that why I don't see any CIWS or such? You'd think that'd be nice to have if you're driving up to an enemy beachead... (I suppose they might be carrying Stingers, but, well...)
>>28514755
Stated LCAC payload is 75 tons. 1 Abrams is almost all of that. I know that stated payload and actual max payload under wartime conditions can differ, but I seriously doubt they would low ball it by almost 50%.
>>28514866
The stated max LCAC payload is 60, but they can "overload" to 75
Dnno what sort of range and speed that results in, probably low as fuck.
I think the LCAC's will likely be useless in a real war.
>>28514840
It's just a difference in doctrine as far as I can tell. The way the Marines envision doing amphibious operations is different, necessitating different vehicles. It's not that they're "lacking" per se, just have different requirements/methods, catch my meaning?
Besides, why does the Army even have those things in the first place? Surely ships like that should fall under the Navy, just like how the America class shouldn't basically be USMC ships in all but name or whatnot.
>>28514755
Wait, I fucked up. It's even more.
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/lcac.htm
>Also, what about the LCU's?
Just checked, it's 2. But they have an even longer time to transit. In rougher seas they can only fit one on.
As for LAVs, yeah, they don't handle swimming too well.
>>28514766
Oh yeah, no doubt.
>>28514916
It's not really doctrine, its just the USMC being dumbasses
There are inconsistencies like AAV's/LAV's being unable to swim over a mile
And the navy refusing to come to closer than 25/50/100/200 miles from the shore
>>28514963
It's really more like the Marines are debating the usefulness of amphib ships when they have air assault options now.
>>28514866
Interesting...
Even so, they have all the necessary equipment in the ARG/MEU/whatever, organically, to move all that (the LCU's for example), so it's really a moot point if the LCAC's can't carry more than one Abrams. The LCU's might not be as fast, but using fast strike forces and slower forces isn't uncommon. (Or a mix of both etc.)
>>28514896
>I think the LCAC's will likely be useless in a real war.
How do you reckon?
>>28514105
>amphibious invasion
>somewhere within range of land based assets
lol ok great. The US could invade anywhere in the world.
>>28514819
Basically, what that argument is for is the "Battalion Tactical Group". It's to make the battalion a true combined arms organization, rather than relying on the brigade for it. The Russians have adopted it based on their Ukrainian experience.
Yes, LHAs and LHDs are built with the marines in mind.
The Marines don't need paratrooping, they can land their Ospreys just fine.
>>28514963
>There are inconsistencies like AAV's/LAV's being unable to swim over a mile
anon...
>>28509381
And it could be an invincible hypermissile that transforms in to a giant battle robot when it gets within striking distance of the target.
This is what you sound like.
>>28514950
>As for LAVs, yeah, they don't handle swimming too well.
I'm talking about them being deployed from the LCAC's, not swimming themselves.
>>28514963
LAV's MAYBE, AAV's, no way.
The Navy holding back their big, valuable ships is understandable, but we're talking about the smaller stuff. Besides, I vaguely recall the Navy saying that with updating/upgraded defenses, they can bring the ships into about 50km from shore, so make of that what you will.
Let's not turn this into an Army vs Marines debate either fellas.
>>28514840
The Marine MEU is a medium weight fast response force. They can be anywhere really quickly, with a bit of heavy equipment, but overall light enough to be able to bring enough supplies with them to last for a while.
>>28514977
Air assault is not an option against any real enemy tho
These new V-22's they bought are supremely incapable of it too
For the amount of money that they spent on helicopters & amphibious assault ships, they could have built large assault gliders able to land armored divisions on the ground.
Something that would be actually useful in combat vs a real foe.
>>28515008
>I'm talking about them being deployed from the LCAC's, not swimming themselves.
Exactly why I said what I did. They are often deployed by LCACs because the LAVs aren't the best swimmers.
>>28514994
Well, maybe they don't need large scale paratrooping, but based ANGLICO definitely needs paradropping.
>>28515019
Sparks pls leave.
>>28515019
>Air assault is not an option against any real enemy tho
Oh, would you fuck off? You've been yelled off the board every time you've made this argument.
>>28514916
Marines are the first responders, and they are likely to be the first ones to land and then initially expand the beachhead. After which point, the Army can land its heavier equipment and exploit.
>>28515026
And this is a problem, how, exactly?
(Again, not trying to be rude, but I think there's been a miscommunication/misunderstanding on one of our parts, and you probably know where that leads on /k/... So forgive me if I sound a little cross.)
>>28513630
Sorry, China is not a viable MAD threat. Not enough nukes and what they have isn't good enough to go full MAD. They could glass parts of Japan, SK, Hawaii and maybe get some lucky ones in on the lower 48. However, they can't threaten like the USSR threatened
>>28515061
>And this is a problem, how, exactly?
I'm not the guy who said that was a problem.
>>28515058
Seems reasonable.
Kind of off-topic:
Some people seem to think that the GWOT and whatnot have set back our conventional capabilities, which I can somewhat agree with in some parts at least, but if so, why were so many people against the EFV? What was wrong with it? It seemed like a great piece of equipment, especially considering you didn't need to waste space on an LCAC or LCU to take it to the beach...
>>28512913
>Assault glider
Oh god not you again.
>>28515072
I'm sure Japan, Korea, Taiwan, etc. feel real great knowing that anon...
>>28515110
Uh, okay...? So what are you saying then?
>>28515039
It's completely true.
Air assault is only suitable for COIN. Against anyone who has artillery, or anti-air assets, they would be suicide.
>>28515111
Personally, I'm a huge EFV lover. The Marines badly needed it. But even I can acknowledge there were severe problems with it.
Like the AAV, it was supposed to truly be self deployable from the ship. Unlike the AAV, it was supposed to do it FAST. REALLY FAST. In order to go that fast on water, it had to have a huge engine, that actually provided more horsepower than the Abram's did. The engine is where the problems were. It was expensive and unreliable. Because of it, the program was axed. Which is a damn shame, because it would have given the Marines an insane amount of capability.
>>28515111
Obligatory pic.
>>28515145
So, what you're saying is; Air assault is useless, so let's use airborne gliders?
How does this make sense?
I swear to god if you're that VLS tank/battleship/submarine LST/whateverfag...
>>28515124
>Uh, okay...? So what are you saying then?
I'm just saying that the LAV doesn't swim very well.
>>28515152
Surely they could have worked to improve the engine then, right? Instead of flat-out cancelling it?
Or was this some sort of budgetary/needs measure? Or just putting it on ice until they can fix it's problems and come out with an updated variant later down the road or something?
>>28515111
>why were so many people against the EFV? What was wrong with it?
It had a $20 mil unit price and broke down constantly because of the absurd engine requirements.
>>28513681
>>28513694
I'm guessing that the Aegis countermeasures would target those MRBMs that pose the greatest threat. A hypersonic missile that starts slowing down is probably preparing to maneuver, so it's going to get swatted.
>>28515215
Interesting. Thanks for your contribution...?
>>28515152
Literally all they need is to put a hull around an M1. Connect its prop to the M1's engine.
Build a couple hundred of them, put most of them in storage, problem solved.
Not spend billions on shitty EFV's.
It's far cheaper to just buy boats that can carry ground vehicles, rather than amphibious.
>>28515145
Amphibious assaults are suicide against defended coastlines as well.
>>28515220
>Or was this some sort of budgetary/needs measure?
What were we doing in the aughts that required lots of money.
>>2851524
That's a shit ton of water to displace to stay buoyant.
>>28515220
>Or was this some sort of budgetary/needs measure? Or just putting it on ice until they can fix it's problems and come out with an updated variant later down the road or something?
There were budgetary issues involved. It's dead, Jim.
>>28515234
One thing I've never understood about the whole ASBM thing is why is it such a big deal that it maneuvers? We have missiles that already deal with maneuvering missiles, so what makes this different?
Also, even if it flies at a strange altitude, and we can't wait until THAAD-ER or upgraded SM-6's and 3's come online, won't it get intercepted as it descends anyways? I understand that's less than ideal, but why are so many people treating these ASBM's as if they're the be-all end-all to CBG defense penetration?
>>28515247
By that logic all offensives are suicide
In reality, nothing could be further from the truth
>>28515244
>It's far cheaper to just buy boats that can carry ground vehicles, rather than amphibious.
Based on...?
