Mysterre
Banned Idiot
Let's see an article on this particular Seersucker.
BTW, Seersuckers aren't Scuds. If you're looking for a Scud you are looking up into the sky. If you're looking for a Seersucker you are scanning the horizon.
PLAN Littoral Combat Ships II
- Thread starter AssassinsMace
- Start date
BTW, Seersuckers aren't Scuds. If you're looking for a Scud you are looking up into the sky. If you're looking for a Seersucker you are scanning the horizon.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Don't need any articles. Everyone knows what was identified as a Seersucker hit Kuwait City which was the first time anyone knew about it was after the fact. No one detected it and no sirens went off as was the procedure if any launch from inside Iraq was detected. Seersucker... Scud... both are missiles and should've been detected in flight. If clutter can be an excuse for not detecting, then a clutter of AShMs will be able to penetrate. I'll help you and point out that a Seersucker was designed for anti-ship missions. The one that hit Kuwait City hit a structure along the shore that wasn't a ship. But all that is irrelevant because what is relevant is it wasn't detected at all. If an outdated Seersucker can get past undetected, what else can? The anti-missile systems may work but you have to know the incoming missile threat is out there first or it's all moot.
What happened to all the airbourne sensors and everything else that was suppose to be ready for everything else? Again, this was at the height of the war. So what's the scenario where there will be full readiness?
Last edited:
Mysterre
Banned Idiot
Again, can you or can you not confirm that an Aegis missile defense system was anywhere near the area?
OMG seriously? So you've never heard of horizon search radars vs air search radars. As long as we're helping each other I'll help you and point out that frequently different radars are used to search different parts of the sky. Most SAM systems have two separate radars for these purposes. Also, searching the sky for a Scud is infinitely easier than searching the horizon for a Seersucker, so whether both "should" have been detected in flight is not as simplistic a question as you make it out to be.
Do you know which radar systems were in place around the area? Of course you don't. You used an example of a land-based penetration which probably had zilch to do with the Aegis missile defense system or with its intended theater of usage in order to cast disproportionate doubt on the original subject, your attempt to include details like 'flying over water for part of the way' to imply an Aegis was there or should have been there notwithstanding. No one, including me, said that missile defense systems are infallible, but you have done absolutely nothing at all to demonstrate that a Seersucker, or a hundred, or a thousand of them, could penetrate an Aegis screen, whether close to shore, or on the high seas.
Last edited:
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
I don't know nor need to answer those questions. It's irrelevant to the fact it was a real war situation and they failed to detect a Seersucker. It doesn't matter to me if Aegis was there or not. Whatever excuses means it can happen at anytime because it was a real war situation.
Last edited:
Kurt
Junior Member
An object with explosives can get through the ring of defences of a carrier group. That has been proven again and again in war and in friendly and not so friendly maneuvers. The problems are how much explosives get through the layers of defence and what are their targets? If we have learned a lesson since WWII, then it was about fooling sensors of "dead sure" targeting systems. Massive single wave missile attacks are the surest thing to get through a defense, but are they locked on the right target or on a decoy? All eggs in one basket can go terribly wrong.
For this reason the creates strikes with a number of missiles deemed sufficient for the anticipated effect on a with the ability to deploy follow on salvos according to the conditions afterwards. The necessary volume of fire is one of the reasons for the pepperbox missile tube configuration of modern Western warships with hot launching. I'm not sure if cold launch can compete in the high missile number saturation mode of major engagements. An increased number of platforms, including small ones, might compensate.
The problem with defending naval surface assets is emission control. If you turn emissions on the sky is bright and you see a lot, but like a torchlight at night, it makes you visible far beyond the range it helps you to illuminate for detection. Defence for this reason depends very much on the current emission and sensor status and can change rapidly.
Back to the Chinese LCS idea, these ships are a stepping stone towards a capable littoral force according to the . They are rather cheap and fast firepower and active emission platforms as originally envisioned for that role with high bang for the buck value. Their weakness will be targeting by enemy naval mines that can be deployed by air and subsurface with increased range per modern mine/self deployed torpedo(especially supercavitation will be a plus for these).
Last edited:
Jeff, we are talking of the US as the aggressor. The last time countries started a war against the US was halfway through WWII, when Japan attacked on December 7, 1941 and Germany declared war a few days later.
Actually in Korea the N. Koreans came across the line first. In Iraq War One, the Iraqis invaded Kuwait first...but that is immaterial to this discussion. In a scenario like you describe, which would probably be a US response to hostilities arleady underway around Tawian or someplace else in the SCS, the same principles will apply. The US Carrier will stand off until this type of threat is eliminated. They will not get into range...and particularly if they are initiating an attack where they will be on the war footing from the start and not in a position to be surprised by such a swarm of vessels.
Mysterre
Banned Idiot
Of course you do. But I understand if you are unable to answer the question which would establish the relevancy of your example to this thread.
Do you think the US will have enough time to intervene before China disable of gain advantage over Taiwan/SCS?
There is also a great deal of asymmetry in Chinese planning as I'm sure they're well aware of the overall superiority of US forces.