solarz
Brigadier
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
Err... directed energy weapons usually have a pretty limited range...
Err... directed energy weapons usually have a pretty limited range...
Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics
- Thread starter Kampfwagen
- Start date
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
What you projected is clearly feasible in many area and as defensive weapon. However, if I may point out, this system is clearly only defensive. As energy or particle travel in a straight line and was definitely not able to bend. Thus the tracking system must really be excellent for the energy beam to hit the target. Also energy weapon consume lots of energy thus unless we have abundance energy, it can be quite difficult to realise in massive amount.
Traditional missiles and shells still had a place in modern warfare, and the maintenance of these systems are still easier and much cheaper... also mass producing them is quicker too.
Energy weapon when used as offensive system was however not really as useful, because as notice, energy beam travelled in a straight line, thus the gun pod must be pointed at the target it intended to hit. This would limit the system's overall effectiveness...
What you projected is clearly feasible in many area and as defensive weapon. However, if I may point out, this system is clearly only defensive. As energy or particle travel in a straight line and was definitely not able to bend. Thus the tracking system must really be excellent for the energy beam to hit the target. Also energy weapon consume lots of energy thus unless we have abundance energy, it can be quite difficult to realise in massive amount.
Traditional missiles and shells still had a place in modern warfare, and the maintenance of these systems are still easier and much cheaper... also mass producing them is quicker too.
Energy weapon when used as offensive system was however not really as useful, because as notice, energy beam travelled in a straight line, thus the gun pod must be pointed at the target it intended to hit. This would limit the system's overall effectiveness...
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
DEW (Directed Energy Weapons) can be used defensively or offensively. The current tested "lethal" range is hundreds of kilometers. DEW systems are cheaper than missiles and artillery. Energy requirements of DEW weapons are easily met by either chemical or nuclear sources.
DEW (Directed Energy Weapons) can be used defensively or offensively. The current tested "lethal" range is hundreds of kilometers. DEW systems are cheaper than missiles and artillery. Energy requirements of DEW weapons are easily met by either chemical or nuclear sources.
Last edited:
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
Exactly. When targeting ballistic missiles, getting a straight line on the target generally isn't too much of a problem. But offensively, lasers aren't very feasible (although airplanes and satellites can solve the line of sight problem at least somewhat). All the other things you said are very true as well.
Exactly. When targeting ballistic missiles, getting a straight line on the target generally isn't too much of a problem. But offensively, lasers aren't very feasible (although airplanes and satellites can solve the line of sight problem at least somewhat). All the other things you said are very true as well.
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
I think that the replacement of CSGs with C-PGS was clearly rebutted on page 1 in Scratch's post. I didn't see much response so lets add some numbers:
"On July 20, 1997, as part of JTFEX 97-2, USS Nimitz with Commander, Carrier Group Seven (CCG-7) and Carrier Airwing Nine embarked began a high intensity strike campaign. When they completed flight operations four days later, they had generated 771 strike sorties and had put 1,336 bombs on target."
"Current doctrine and planning operates 2 CVNs together, each carrier supporting 120 sorties per 12 hour flight day, combining for 240 sorties over 24 hour days for extended periods of time."
C-PGS is a nice augment to our capabilities, especially given that CSGs can't be everywhere and they do take some time to steam to where you didn't expect to need them from where they are.
Replacement? Ah...I'm thinking not so much.
Well you don't have to recover Tomahawks...you might want to recover your rather expensive UCAVs. Launching UCAVs is clearly solvable. How do you get 'em back aboard, refueled and rearmed in any reasonable fashion while submerged? Or even not submerged...
I think that the replacement of CSGs with C-PGS was clearly rebutted on page 1 in Scratch's post. I didn't see much response so lets add some numbers:
"On July 20, 1997, as part of JTFEX 97-2, USS Nimitz with Commander, Carrier Group Seven (CCG-7) and Carrier Airwing Nine embarked began a high intensity strike campaign. When they completed flight operations four days later, they had generated 771 strike sorties and had put 1,336 bombs on target."
"Current doctrine and planning operates 2 CVNs together, each carrier supporting 120 sorties per 12 hour flight day, combining for 240 sorties over 24 hour days for extended periods of time."
C-PGS is a nice augment to our capabilities, especially given that CSGs can't be everywhere and they do take some time to steam to where you didn't expect to need them from where they are.
Replacement? Ah...I'm thinking not so much.
Well you don't have to recover Tomahawks...you might want to recover your rather expensive UCAVs. Launching UCAVs is clearly solvable. How do you get 'em back aboard, refueled and rearmed in any reasonable fashion while submerged? Or even not submerged...
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
For some reason missiles are belived to be an effective weapon, about the largest conventional war head a missile is going to carry is about the same as a 2000 lb bomb.
The effect of blast on personnel is confined to a relatively short distance (110 feet for a 2000 pound bomb), maybe 3000 feet if it is a fragmentation bomb. Missiles are expensive to build, not that dependable and perhaps not that accurate.
This analysis is based on numerous assumptions. For simplicity of analysis, I assume that the lethal radius of each missile is 60 meters, as would be the case with a high explosive warhead (the most logical for the destruction of buildings). Other warhead types (prefragmentation, incendiary, or cluster) would differ. Additionally, I assume that if the missile lands within the blast radius of the center of the building, the structure is destroyed. The totality of destruction will vary with the size and hardness of the building, but I find this to be a fair simplification.
Missiles have there uses, but as a weapon goes they are not all that effective with conventional war heads. Why people wish to belive otherwise is just not logical.
Missiles are like very expensive bullets, shoot it once and thats it, and how well missiles function that have been sitting in storage for years is any ones guess, how well trained missiles crews are going to be if it comes to launching several 1000 missiles is any ones guess.
If a country is going to project power its going to need Aircraft Carriers.
For some reason missiles are belived to be an effective weapon, about the largest conventional war head a missile is going to carry is about the same as a 2000 lb bomb.
The effect of blast on personnel is confined to a relatively short distance (110 feet for a 2000 pound bomb), maybe 3000 feet if it is a fragmentation bomb. Missiles are expensive to build, not that dependable and perhaps not that accurate.
This analysis is based on numerous assumptions. For simplicity of analysis, I assume that the lethal radius of each missile is 60 meters, as would be the case with a high explosive warhead (the most logical for the destruction of buildings). Other warhead types (prefragmentation, incendiary, or cluster) would differ. Additionally, I assume that if the missile lands within the blast radius of the center of the building, the structure is destroyed. The totality of destruction will vary with the size and hardness of the building, but I find this to be a fair simplification.
Missiles have there uses, but as a weapon goes they are not all that effective with conventional war heads. Why people wish to belive otherwise is just not logical.
Missiles are like very expensive bullets, shoot it once and thats it, and how well missiles function that have been sitting in storage for years is any ones guess, how well trained missiles crews are going to be if it comes to launching several 1000 missiles is any ones guess.
If a country is going to project power its going to need Aircraft Carriers.
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
For someone to even suggest that missiles is nothing but an expensive bullet is something that is beyond me...
Accuracy of the missiles system is well known... and recorded... it is a system that is needed and for once let nation achieved long range, surgerical precision strike without the need to risk their own men.
In the first Gulf war, the US had shown the world what her Tomahawk missile can do... how it can be utilise to strike targets that simple rockets and freefall bombs couldn't.
But right here... we have someone with a backward type of thinking... still fully believing in WWII style of saturated bombing. And how to achieve that? Although it was not stated... but to achieve that... perhaps you still need huge number for bombers and larger number of fighter escort.
It was like... when you try to sink an enemy's warship... use large number of bombers armed and equipped with rockets and bombs, and try your luck in dropping them on the ship... all the while hoping that enemy's AAA couldn't catch you.
(Edit)
1) The first link that noname posted is just a passage from FAS explaining various bombs and their defects. Do not know how that would suddenly give him the insight of how useless missiles would be.
2) The second link is pure bullshit. China's SRBM are improved Scud Missiles? That is the most hilarous thing I have ever read... haven't the author even heard of the different between solid propellant and liquid propellant? Plus the guidance system in the Chinese SRBM are not legacy of old Soviet's Scud.
3) The missiles that are prone to mechanical failure and stuff like that are Soviet missiles, although I think it is pure bullshits, but the author clearly had something against the ex-communist bloc, right from the beginning... and the missiles he stated are so old... 60s to 70s era type of missiles... now is 2010... going to 2011... missiles technology had improved and old ones shouldn't be looked at.
4) There are thousands of literature (just google a bit on net) stating the merits of missiles and our friend noname would rely on just one passage telling people that Chinese missile are no good and generalise the whole idea of missile system... something again elude me.
For someone to even suggest that missiles is nothing but an expensive bullet is something that is beyond me...
Accuracy of the missiles system is well known... and recorded... it is a system that is needed and for once let nation achieved long range, surgerical precision strike without the need to risk their own men.
In the first Gulf war, the US had shown the world what her Tomahawk missile can do... how it can be utilise to strike targets that simple rockets and freefall bombs couldn't.
But right here... we have someone with a backward type of thinking... still fully believing in WWII style of saturated bombing. And how to achieve that? Although it was not stated... but to achieve that... perhaps you still need huge number for bombers and larger number of fighter escort.
It was like... when you try to sink an enemy's warship... use large number of bombers armed and equipped with rockets and bombs, and try your luck in dropping them on the ship... all the while hoping that enemy's AAA couldn't catch you.
(Edit)
1) The first link that noname posted is just a passage from FAS explaining various bombs and their defects. Do not know how that would suddenly give him the insight of how useless missiles would be.
2) The second link is pure bullshit. China's SRBM are improved Scud Missiles? That is the most hilarous thing I have ever read... haven't the author even heard of the different between solid propellant and liquid propellant? Plus the guidance system in the Chinese SRBM are not legacy of old Soviet's Scud.
3) The missiles that are prone to mechanical failure and stuff like that are Soviet missiles, although I think it is pure bullshits, but the author clearly had something against the ex-communist bloc, right from the beginning... and the missiles he stated are so old... 60s to 70s era type of missiles... now is 2010... going to 2011... missiles technology had improved and old ones shouldn't be looked at.
4) There are thousands of literature (just google a bit on net) stating the merits of missiles and our friend noname would rely on just one passage telling people that Chinese missile are no good and generalise the whole idea of missile system... something again elude me.
Last edited:
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
These figures are pretty old but I doubt if the price has went down much.
"The Brazilians reportedly ex-pected to receive in excess of $10 million each for their Condor II, whose range of 1,000 km is much less than intercontinental, and the Chinese apparently received about $20 million for each of the 2,500-km range CSS-2s they sold to Saudi Arabia. Many studies within the United States indicate that the Peacekeeper, a highly capable and advanced missile, costs the military about $65 million per copy. "
Cruise missiles cost about $600,000 each, about 1.5 million cost if you consider every thing involved.
These are very expensive weapons and have a place in the inventory of military weapons. I dont claim missiles are useless, just very overrated as a weapon.
These figures are pretty old but I doubt if the price has went down much.
"The Brazilians reportedly ex-pected to receive in excess of $10 million each for their Condor II, whose range of 1,000 km is much less than intercontinental, and the Chinese apparently received about $20 million for each of the 2,500-km range CSS-2s they sold to Saudi Arabia. Many studies within the United States indicate that the Peacekeeper, a highly capable and advanced missile, costs the military about $65 million per copy. "
Cruise missiles cost about $600,000 each, about 1.5 million cost if you consider every thing involved.
These are very expensive weapons and have a place in the inventory of military weapons. I dont claim missiles are useless, just very overrated as a weapon.
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
And how much is your bombers that are going to carry your bombs going to cost? And what is the cost of your pilots that are going to be trained to fly these planes, their operating cost and their maintanence cost.
Oh... and I don't suppose your freefall bombs are free.
How much is the cost of your fighters escort and how much is the pilots in those escort? How much will it be if the plane is being shot down, because they are too close to their target (they need to get this close to drop freefall bombs).
So... you do the maths. Which is cheaper. Fire a $600 000 cruise missile that is very accurate at designated targets. Even when intercepted, all you lost is $600000. As compared to flying a bomber over with lots of escorts, to a range that most probably needed refuelling. Then the bomber or her escorts or both type were shot down, how much are you going to lose.
And lets look at your multi-million dollar ballistic missiles scenario (note, up till now, there is no extremely effective way of intercepting ballistic missiles although there are studies into alot of missiles shield... which only had limited success in intercepting a hypersonic ballistic missiles.) So lets say you use this missile and spent the multi million dollar on it, and destroy your designated target, you only lose the cost of that missile. What about your bombers and escorts... if they are shot down, how much will you lose?
You do the maths, it is not that difficult... just a few plus and minus and you will get your answer.
And I think the answer is plain and simple.
As I have said before, you only choose to look at figures that seemed to demerit something (in your mind) but choose to ignore the overall figures.
Of course there are more to this than I have stated...
And how much is your bombers that are going to carry your bombs going to cost? And what is the cost of your pilots that are going to be trained to fly these planes, their operating cost and their maintanence cost.
Oh... and I don't suppose your freefall bombs are free.
How much is the cost of your fighters escort and how much is the pilots in those escort? How much will it be if the plane is being shot down, because they are too close to their target (they need to get this close to drop freefall bombs).
So... you do the maths. Which is cheaper. Fire a $600 000 cruise missile that is very accurate at designated targets. Even when intercepted, all you lost is $600000. As compared to flying a bomber over with lots of escorts, to a range that most probably needed refuelling. Then the bomber or her escorts or both type were shot down, how much are you going to lose.
And lets look at your multi-million dollar ballistic missiles scenario (note, up till now, there is no extremely effective way of intercepting ballistic missiles although there are studies into alot of missiles shield... which only had limited success in intercepting a hypersonic ballistic missiles.) So lets say you use this missile and spent the multi million dollar on it, and destroy your designated target, you only lose the cost of that missile. What about your bombers and escorts... if they are shot down, how much will you lose?
You do the maths, it is not that difficult... just a few plus and minus and you will get your answer.
And I think the answer is plain and simple.
As I have said before, you only choose to look at figures that seemed to demerit something (in your mind) but choose to ignore the overall figures.
Of course there are more to this than I have stated...
Last edited:
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
Also keep in mind that ballistic missile warheads does a great deal of damage via sheer kinetic energy. I don't think the amount of damage caused by the blast is as much as the damage achieved through saturated fragment bombardment.
Also keep in mind that ballistic missile warheads does a great deal of damage via sheer kinetic energy. I don't think the amount of damage caused by the blast is as much as the damage achieved through saturated fragment bombardment.