Yes, it is negligible with the current threat seen today. Aegis ships do have enough illuminators and channels to handle a saturation attack. Unclassified, it can handle alot more than 10 missiles. I'm not sure what bogus website you get your information from, or if you just make it up wholesale. The thing is, you obviously don't understand how the illuminators work, what they have to do to guide a missile onto a target, how they process/share the data, nor have you heard of time-sharing algorithms, or cooperative engagement. As Jeff said, the theoretical you speak of, does not tell the whole story. Arleigh Burkes typically do not travel alone. Seriously, the numbers that a CSG would face today are not what they used to be. And CSG's have more in terms of missiles and overall capability(SA). If the threat numbers increase, you simply add more illuminators and missiles, in other words beef up the BG with more ships and aircraft. That's a really easy solution. And certainly within the realm of possibilities.
Please read what both IDonT and Jeff said. China does not have any systems which break the paradigm in how anti-ship missiles work in profile. Missile intercepts still pretty much work the same. Tomahawks, SLAM-ER, and SS-N-27/Klub are the only missile systems I can see that currently field different profiles in actual operation. And those are American and Russian missiles. Klub however has shown some reliability issues. While some of the electronics have changed, Aegis electronics have been increasingly more sophisticated with each upgrade as well. There is nothing truly revolutionary in anti-ship missile warfare that has developed over the years. It pretty much goes the same way as the past. The interesting thing is now Aegis ships have developed the ability to saturate the offensive spectrum in missile numbers and processing power while the overall threat numbers have diminished. Seriously Roger, your dreams of 20 H-6's conquering the world is erroneous at best.
Last edited:
