[Igor Antunov]

For some reason missiles fascinate me, I see them as the sole future of all offensive warfare, ground, sea, air and space.

Anyway, regarding this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21#DF-2 ... ic_missile

Suppose a volley of 100 such missiles is heading toward your carrier battlegroup, each carrying multiple MARVs. You're not in effective F/A-18 range yet because these are targetting you from 3000km's away, moving at mach 10, arrival time from launch to interception at 12 minutes, the accuracy is within lethal parameters because these are mature, mid-range ballistic missiles, your fleet is moving rather slowly as a fleet does, there is no cover, your heat signatures are like ducks in the cold water. These missiles are capable of rapid course correction, communicate with each other in a swarm designating and parceling out the most succulent targets in real time, aided by small stealthy UAV's and sattelites. etc.

Firstly, you would need to establish air superiority using your carriers just to take out their (mobile) launchers, but you can't, because getting close enough to do that means being even more vulnerable to this weapon. What is left in terms of options when faced with this comparitively cheap anti-carrier weapon? Keep in mind your carrier cost $5 billion+ and thats not considering the supporting fleet, a volley of these missiles range in the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. Even if you could intercept half of them (miraculous feat considering the speeds involved), you can't intercept all 100 mach 10 targets that are probably carrying decoys and are capable of rapid course changes.

Is this an effective area of denial weapon? Does even the possibility of this posing a credible risk make carriers obsolete in great power conflict because they cannot enter effective combat range? In short, is this the beginning of the end for the floating airport in terms of a great power conflict scenario, just as battleships were ended by aircraft carrying platforms?

Based on the above I say yes. I just do not see a credible, but more importantly cheap enough defence system on the horizon to negate this kind of weapon. It could always be overwhelmed by the cheaper and thus more numerous offensive force no matter how effective it was. Short of a star-trek-esque energy force-shield powered by anti-matter generators,

Smaller, more numerous carrier ships could still play an important part in future fleets, but supercarriers? I believe it's over. What say you?

[NYYS]

I say Iran could sink the entire US fleet in a matter of days.

Did I get the right answer?

[Igor Antunov]

No, Iran does not posses these missiles. Wrong answer.

[MB.]

but supercarriers? I believe it's over.

You're like at least 20 years too late with this conclusion. More like 50 years. In the early 1960s Defense Sec. McNamara planned to eliminate the super carriers as a pointless expense considering that the next war was going to be fought with ICBMs and megaton weapons. Ultimately the carriers went through because the supercarriers are power projection tools. What you don't understand is that the carriers are not only warfighting weapons. Carrier battlegroups are policy instruments in the american world empire for coercing littoral states eg gunboat diplomacy.

Does even the possibility of this posing a credible risk make carriers obsolete in great power conflict

By 'great power conflict' you must mean full-scale thermonuclear war. In an all out thermonuclear war the carriers are at best tertiary strike options and at the worst big floating liabilities. On the otherhand, there is no nation on this planet besides America that could possibly fight and win a thermonuclear war so I don't see your point at all.

just as battleships were ended by aircraft carrying platforms?

This is a common misconception. Battleships were made obsolete because of diplomatic and policy / budgeting changes in the US and British navies (ultimately hastened by some spectacular demonstrations of naval airpower it is true, ie the sinking of the Musashi and Yamato). The thing is, the carrier itself was basically instantly made obsolete as well by the nuclear bomb

[Godstud]

Your scenario is flawed from the outset. You assume a higher technological and more advanced foe( I assume it's the anti-American thing again).

Your scenario is also flawed in that you make an assumption that 100 missiles, with even a 10 minute window of warning, is a mortal threat to a carrier group where even a single defensive missile cruiser(Ticonderoga class is the most common in a Carrier group) carries around a 200+ defensive surface to air missiles designed precisely for that purpose. You can also launch planes to fire intercept missiles too(air to air missiles work well for this too).

Even if you could intercept half of them (miraculous feat considering the speeds involved), you can't intercept all 100 mach 10 targets that are probably carrying decoys and are capable of rapid course changes.

Yes, they can. This is pretty much the scenario that the US designed its carrier groups to defend themselves against if they were to have to face the former Soviet Union in war.

Yes, a lone carrier is indeed quite a target and easy to get to. That's why carriers MUST operate within a carrier battle group(CVBG) of a couple dozen ships, picket ships, subs and aircraft to provide protection to the carrier.

MB is right in that the carrier groups are power projection and more political than anything, but they are still dangerous weapon platforms that few other countries in that world can even afford to maintain. The US can put political pressure on a country merely by moving a CVBG into the region. He's wrong in that it was not made obsolete by nuclear weapons. A nuclear weapon is only a deterrent until your enemy has one.

Missiles are great on offensive, but for every offensive missile you make there is a defensive missile. As for being the sole future? No. Simply by taking out satellites, you can destroy GPS targeting capability of missiles. For every weapon there is a defense. Missile tech changes but so does the defenses(eg. laser tech, which is primarily aimed at missile defense).

[MB.]

Godstud, I think you give the AEGIS defense system too much credit against nuclear tipped anti-ship ICBM MIRVs traveling at mach 10. Certainly some will be hit but the probability of a single CVN battlegroup destroying all however many hundreds of MIRVs when only a single warhead has to actaully hit its target is highly unlikely.

[Godstud]

Do you think the AEGIS and other missile systems haven't evolved with missile attack technology? I'm assuming a non-nuclear attack, obviously.

You're assuming nuclear attack. Use of a nuclear tipped ICBM again a CVBG would signal the start of a nuclear war. Would a country really be that foolish, when nuclear missiles would be striking the nation only moments later after being launched from Los Angeles class subs in the CVBG(launched before the missiles arrived)?

[MB.]

Why would you launch an attack against a NATO battlegroup unless you were going all the way?

[Igor Antunov]

By 'great power conflict' you must mean full-scale thermonuclear war.

No I don't, I mean a limited war over Taiwan involving China and the US.

The US can put political pressure on a country merely by moving a CVBG into the region.

It can posture in times of peace. But in times of war it can't send them anywhere near the Chinese coast without risking their loss. And if war were to break out while the carriers were so close to the mainland...in short this only works until the country you're trying to pressure has the means to conventionally destroy your toy. Once again nukes not required. One conventional warhead is enough to damage/sink a carrier. These missiles can carry multiple conventional warheads.

Your scenario is also flawed in that you make an assumption that 100 missiles, with even a 10 minute window of warning, is a mortal threat to a carrier group where even a single defensive missile cruiser(Ticonderoga class is the most common in a Carrier group) carries around a 200+ defensive surface to air missiles designed precisely for that purpose.

Yes, they can.

You're not presenting any credible defensive system to this weapon, no, AEGIS was not designed to intercept large numbers of ballistic missiles carrying multiple kill vehicles travelling at mach 10 at such short notice. Even the US navy has admitted that they are impotent to this weapon, which is why I wanted a word from somebody like Typhoon on the implications of this. If China or Russia for example can simply deny the US carrier fleet access to a theatre of war close to their borders, this leaves the bulk of conventional US power projection against these nations non-existent.

[MB.]

No I don't, I mean a limited war over Taiwan involving China and the US.

Why would China do this? How could the war possibly stay limited?

[Igor Antunov]

Why would China do this? How could the war possibly stay limited?

1 )Taiwan declares independence.
2 )China blockades the island and begins amassing troops and materiel for an invasion. (http://the-diplomat.com/china-power/201 ... /#more-896)
3 )US sends 7th fleet to the rescue. (US is not obligated to help taiwain in such a scenario, but lets assume Sarah Palin is US president)
4 )China declares this is an internal territorial affair, US involvement would be a declaration of war.
5 )US battlegroup keeps steaming towards chinese mainland, china issues ultimatum.
6 )US ships start to get within range, aircraft start being launched, china launches missiles, sinks carrier, effectively crippling the entire battlegroup (plenty of ships, no aircraft),
7 )???
8 )US launches nuclear attack risking tens of millions of it's own people and a return to the bronze age?

...NO. That's how it would play out in a looney tunes cartoon.

By virtue of China even possessing this weapon, here is how it would play out:

1 )Taiwan declares independence.
2 )China blockades the island and begins amassing troops and materiel for an invasion.
3 )China declares this is an internal territorial affair.
4 )The end.

ACCESS DENIED

In short, it makes realistic US intervention impossible.

[MB.]

Your escalation scenario is absurd, and why did you ask for expertise if you already have a fantasy scenario constructed in your mind that you won't waver on?

Taiwan declares independence? Taiwan has been defacto independent for fifty years. China invades Taiwan? The communist government is totally destroyed by allied retaliation. What is much more likely is a crisis period followed by PRC backing down. What does the PRC have to gain from military action against Taiwan? Why would the alliance allow this kind of unabashed belligerence? I don't believe for a second that the PRC leadership is as belligerent or as stupid as you make them out to be.

[Igor Antunov]

I'd be happy to waiver if you could give me some technical specs of possible defensive systems that can realisticaly neutralize this threat, thereby making the carrier relevant again in such a scenario. I'm also seeking confirmation, Typhoon where are you.

[MB.]

What threat? Do you really believe that the PRC intends some day to occupy Taiwan?

[Igor Antunov]

No I don't but hypotheticals are fun. It has enshrined into law that it will attack taiwan should it declare independence, but Taiwan would not do that. China will wait it out as it did with hong kong and macau.

[MB.]

I'm glad we agree about the sensibility of the PRC regime's international policy with regard to Taiwan. Do you agree that the American missile and aerospace command hegemony is a deterrent? What are your thoughts regarding Chinese and American foreign policy? What about the incentive for economic cooperation?

hypotheticals are fun

Yes they are, but this hypothetical requires more technical elaboration. Under what diplomatic pressure would the PRC have to be to feel that it is required to expend what you have described here as a monstrously fictitious proportion of its defense capacity (over 100% by an enormous margin) to destroy one carrier group? The Americans would still have more than 10 carrier groups (+ their entire thermonuclear submarine deterrent).

[NYYS]

Your escalation scenario is absurd, and why did you ask for expertise if you already have a fantasy scenario constructed in your mind that you won't waver on?

Welcome to an Igor thread.

1) Post hypothetical scenario that involves some lesser power trampling all over the United States
2) Field responses
3) Suggest responses are invalid, because Country X has a system that can destroy any American weapon, easily, 100% of the time
4) Get called out on anti-Americanism
5) Faux-taunt that America is in its decline, soon Country X will rule the world!
6) Furiously rub one out

These are simply fantasies for Igor, just give him his desired response and move on

[Igor Antunov]

The fact that the US navy has no answer to this anti ship ballistic missile is no fantasy. The fact that this missile can engage targets before they themselves reach combat range is also no fantasy.

This thread is no fantasy.

[MB.]

Igor Antunov, I don't understand why you made this thread.

[Igor Antunov]

I was looking for Typhoons input, he is fairly technical with these things. Maybe he knows more. I made this thread to talk about this weapon in more detail.