[quote user=Cyril]it is funny,,,,the US has 11 aircraft carriers. the rest of the word....8[/quote]
First week of the war all 11 carriers go down. They only work as a mobile oppression platform in peace time, against 3rd world countries that hardly have any notable military technology.
In a real war the enemy shoots 20 anti-ship missles at a carrier at once and down it goes. They are very vulnerable.
Cyril wrote:
it is funny,,,,the US has 11 aircraft carriers. the rest of the word....8
First week of the war all 11 carriers go down. They only work as a mobile oppression platform in peace time, against 3rd world countries that hardly have any notable military technology.
In a real war the enemy shoots 20 anti-ship missles at a carrier at once and down it goes. They are very vulnerable.
[quote user=Immac1] First week of the war all 11 carriers go down. They only work as a mobile oppression platform in peace time, against 3rd world countries that hardly have any notable military technology.
In a real war the enemy shoots 20 anti-ship missles at a carrier at once and down it goes. They are very vulnerable.[/quote]
If only Carrier Strike Groups had defenses to prevent that from happening. /s
Immac1 wrote:
First week of the war all 11 carriers go down. They only work as a mobile oppression platform in peace time, against 3rd world countries that hardly have any notable military technology.
In a real war the enemy shoots 20 anti-ship missles at a carrier at once and down it goes. They are very vulnerable.
If only Carrier Strike Groups had defenses to prevent that from happening. /s
or maybe a gun that shot bullets so fast it would form a wall, that is auto controlled by radar so that missiles couldn't get though. it could be called a Phalanx /s
or maybe a gun that shot bullets so fast it would form a wall, that is auto controlled by radar so that missiles couldn't get though. it could be called a Phalanx /s
[quote user=InSOmnIaC][quote user=Immac1] First week of the war all 11 carriers go down. They only work as a mobile oppression platform in peace time, against 3rd world countries that hardly have any notable military technology.
In a real war the enemy shoots 20 anti-ship missles at a carrier at once and down it goes. They are very vulnerable.[/quote]
If only Carrier Strike Groups had defenses to prevent that from happening. /s[/quote]
I knew you we're gonna say that.
Of course they will shoot down a large number of the missiles. That's why you saturate their defences. Only 1 or 2 missiles out of 20 need to hit their target to put a ship out of commission. Anti-ship missiles are a lot cheaper than anti-missile ships.
Naval war in modern times is not the same as the scenes you're used to from WW2 movies. Back then you had to engage enemy ships with manned airplanes and other ships. Both vulnerable and, compared to projectiles, very slow moving. But now, everything is done with very fast missiles, remotely controlled or by their own on-board computers. Back then, you had to put lives on the line to attack a ship, now you only need to invest in technology. It is really not the same.
And, despite what weapon manufacturers claim, their anti-missile defences are not as great as they say. They have not been battle tested, and it is a lot easier to make a projectile hit a sitting duck than it is to make a projectile hit another lightning-fast projectile.
InSOmnIaC wrote:
Immac1 wrote:
First week of the war all 11 carriers go down. They only work as a mobile oppression platform in peace time, against 3rd world countries that hardly have any notable military technology.
In a real war the enemy shoots 20 anti-ship missles at a carrier at once and down it goes. They are very vulnerable.
If only Carrier Strike Groups had defenses to prevent that from happening. /s
I knew you we're gonna say that.
Of course they will shoot down a large number of the missiles. That's why you saturate their defences. Only 1 or 2 missiles out of 20 need to hit their target to put a ship out of commission. Anti-ship missiles are a lot cheaper than anti-missile ships.
Naval war in modern times is not the same as the scenes you're used to from WW2 movies. Back then you had to engage enemy ships with manned airplanes and other ships. Both vulnerable and, compared to projectiles, very slow moving. But now, everything is done with very fast missiles, remotely controlled or by their own on-board computers. Back then, you had to put lives on the line to attack a ship, now you only need to invest in technology. It is really not the same.
And, despite what weapon manufacturers claim, their anti-missile defences are not as great as they say. They have not been battle tested, and it is a lot easier to make a projectile hit a sitting duck than it is to make a projectile hit another lightning-fast projectile.
[quote user=Immac1][quote user=InSOmnIaC][quote user=Immac1] First week of the war all 11 carriers go down. They only work as a mobile oppression platform in peace time, against 3rd world countries that hardly have any notable military technology.
In a real war the enemy shoots 20 anti-ship missles at a carrier at once and down it goes. They are very vulnerable.[/quote]
If only Carrier Strike Groups had defenses to prevent that from happening. /s[/quote]
I knew you we're gonna say that.
Of course they will shoot down a large number of the missiles. That's why you saturate their defences. Only 1 or 2 missiles out of 20 need to hit their target to put a ship out of commission. Anti-ship missiles are a lot cheaper than anti-missile ships.
Naval war in modern times is not the same as the scenes you're used to from WW2 movies. Back then you had to engage enemy ships with manned airplanes and other ships. Both vulnerable and, compared to projectiles, very slow moving. But now, everything is done with very fast missiles, remotely controlled or by their own on-board computers. Back then, you had to put lives on the line to attack a ship, now you only need to invest in technology. It is really not the same.
And, despite what weapon manufacturers claim, their anti-missile defences are not as great as they say. They have not been battle tested, and it is a lot easier to make a projectile hit a sitting duck than it is to make a projectile hit another lightning-fast projectile.
[/quote]
LOL,,,price is no issue for us, we can lob million dollar missles at whoever we want every day for years and not bat an eye (and thats the cheap ones for us.)
i have never heard of an "anti-missile ships" but i am going to assume you mean "anti-missile system" again price is no object to us, every ship has multiple systems, so again it is no worry.
as for your "lightning fast projectile" the fastest missiles are ballistic missiles, and they have to go into low orbit to be able to obtain those speeds. they are not anti-ship missles.
but as it says, our systems have no problem taking out ANY type of ballistic threat.
you have no idea what you are talking about as usual
Immac1 wrote:
InSOmnIaC wrote:
Immac1 wrote:
First week of the war all 11 carriers go down. They only work as a mobile oppression platform in peace time, against 3rd world countries that hardly have any notable military technology.
In a real war the enemy shoots 20 anti-ship missles at a carrier at once and down it goes. They are very vulnerable.
If only Carrier Strike Groups had defenses to prevent that from happening. /s
I knew you we're gonna say that.
Of course they will shoot down a large number of the missiles. That's why you saturate their defences. Only 1 or 2 missiles out of 20 need to hit their target to put a ship out of commission. Anti-ship missiles are a lot cheaper than anti-missile ships.
Naval war in modern times is not the same as the scenes you're used to from WW2 movies. Back then you had to engage enemy ships with manned airplanes and other ships. Both vulnerable and, compared to projectiles, very slow moving. But now, everything is done with very fast missiles, remotely controlled or by their own on-board computers. Back then, you had to put lives on the line to attack a ship, now you only need to invest in technology. It is really not the same.
And, despite what weapon manufacturers claim, their anti-missile defences are not as great as they say. They have not been battle tested, and it is a lot easier to make a projectile hit a sitting duck than it is to make a projectile hit another lightning-fast projectile.
LOL,,,price is no issue for us, we can lob million dollar missles at whoever we want every day for years and not bat an eye (and thats the cheap ones for us.)
i have never heard of an "anti-missile ships" but i am going to assume you mean "anti-missile system" again price is no object to us, every ship has multiple systems, so again it is no worry.
as for your "lightning fast projectile" the fastest missiles are ballistic missiles, and they have to go into low orbit to be able to obtain those speeds. they are not anti-ship missles.
Price is no issue until you run out of money defending beached whales and not on pressing the enemy. You assume your country has unlimited war budget and even more unlimited cash reserves allocated to war. Murricah mindset always overlooking.
Price is no issue until you run out of money defending beached whales and not on pressing the enemy. You assume your country has unlimited war budget and even more unlimited cash reserves allocated to war. Murricah mindset always overlooking.
[quote user=Cyril] but as it says, our systems have no problem taking out ANY type of ballistic threat. you have no idea what you are talking about as usual[/quote]
No you can't - you can target and shoot down incoming anti-ship missiles, or low and medium range ballistic missiles.
And you can shoot them down because they have much lower speed and altitude. And idea is you target them mid-course at lowest speed.
But if someone actually targets the whole fleet with ICBM, the fleet is fucked. Good luck trying to target something coming at you from out of space at 6-7 km/second speed.
These are the modern AEGIS missiles. They won't get the ICBMs. You would probably need THAAD on a ship for a CHANCE to shoot down real proper armored 40 ton train of mass destruction that is ICBM.
And no, you don't have THAAD on a ship. Yet or whatever.
Cyril wrote:
but as it says, our systems have no problem taking out ANY type of ballistic threat. you have no idea what you are talking about as usual
No you can't - you can target and shoot down incoming anti-ship missiles, or low and medium range ballistic missiles.
And you can shoot them down because they have much lower speed and altitude. And idea is you target them mid-course at lowest speed.
But if someone actually targets the whole fleet with ICBM, the fleet is fucked. Good luck trying to target something coming at you from out of space at 6-7 km/second speed.
These are the modern AEGIS missiles. They won't get the ICBMs. You would probably need THAAD on a ship for a CHANCE to shoot down real proper armored 40 ton train of mass destruction that is ICBM.
And no, you don't have THAAD on a ship. Yet or whatever.
But if someone actually targets the whole fleet with ICBM, the fleet is fucked. Good luck trying to target something coming at you from out of space at 6-7 km/second speed.
RIM-161 Standard Missile 3
These are the modern AEGIS missiles. They won't get the ICBMs. You would probably need THAAD on a ship for a CHANCE to shoot it.
[/quote]
That's not true. The Aegis fired SM-3's have a much higher ceiling and ranger than the THAAD and are designed for ICBMs. And they can use SM-2's for the terminal phase.
[quote user=LithuanianLabourer]
Cyril wrote:
But if someone actually targets the whole fleet with ICBM, the fleet is fucked. Good luck trying to target something coming at you from out of space at 6-7 km/second speed.
RIM-161 Standard Missile 3
These are the modern AEGIS missiles. They won't get the ICBMs. You would probably need THAAD on a ship for a CHANCE to shoot it.
That's not true. The Aegis fired SM-3's have a much higher ceiling and ranger than the THAAD and are designed for ICBMs. And they can use SM-2's for the terminal phase.
Sure, sure, I'll just leave this here for you then:
The SM-3 Block IIB (currently in development for EPAA phase 4[55]) was considered for deployment to Romania as well (around 2022[26]), but a GAO report released Feb. 11, 2013 found that "SM-3 Block 2B interceptors launched from Romania would have difficulty engaging Iranian ICBMs launched at the United States because it lacks the range. Turkey is a better option, but only if the interceptors can be launched within 100 miles of the launch site and early enough to hit targets in their boost phase, an engagement scenario that presents a whole new set of challenges. The best basing option is in the North Sea, but making the SM-3 Block 2B ship compatible could add significantly to its cost".[58] The troubles of the Block IIB program however do not affect the planned Block IB deployments in Romania.[28][59]
So what they say there is they can probably shoot down iranian ballistic missile if they are located 100 miles away from the launch site.
Do you understand why they need to be 100 miles close to the launch site ?
Once you understand that, once you understand you can shoot down a crappy iranian ballistic missile only if you are within 100 miles radius, when it launches and you detect the launch, you will know where you are wrong and the altitudes and speeds we are talking about.
In case of russian - ICBM is launched from fucking Siberia and it's up there in higher orbit, 1000 km height, you can't touch it there.
When it is above the fleet it will stop orbiting and drop from out of space at 6-7 km per second like a fucking meteor.
And a rather similar effect too.
The speed of THAAD is 2.8 km/s. The speed of SM-3 is 3 - 4.5 km/s (ok, I am actually impressed by SM-3 speed, I'll give you that).
Sure, sure, I'll just leave this here for you then:
The SM-3 Block IIB (currently in development for EPAA phase 4[55]) was considered for deployment to Romania as well (around 2022[26]), but a GAO report released Feb. 11, 2013 found that "SM-3 Block 2B interceptors launched from Romania would have difficulty engaging Iranian ICBMs launched at the United States because it lacks the range. Turkey is a better option, but only if the interceptors can be launched within 100 miles of the launch site and early enough to hit targets in their boost phase, an engagement scenario that presents a whole new set of challenges. The best basing option is in the North Sea, but making the SM-3 Block 2B ship compatible could add significantly to its cost".[58] The troubles of the Block IIB program however do not affect the planned Block IB deployments in Romania.[28][59]
So what they say there is they can probably shoot down iranian ballistic missile if they are located 100 miles away from the launch site.
Do you understand why they need to be 100 miles close to the launch site ?
Once you understand that, once you understand you can shoot down a crappy iranian ballistic missile only if you are within 100 miles radius, when it launches and you detect the launch, you will know where you are wrong and the altitudes and speeds we are talking about.
In case of russian - ICBM is launched from fucking Siberia and it's up there in higher orbit, 1000 km height, you can't touch it there.
When it is above the fleet it will stop orbiting and drop from out of space at 6-7 km per second like a fucking meteor.
And a rather similar effect too.
The speed of THAAD is 2.8 km/s. The speed of SM-3 is 3 - 4.5 km/s (ok, I am actually impressed by SM-3 speed, I'll give you that).
You're not understanding how the shield works. They're layers of multiple interceptors which have different ranges and are meant to intercept missiles at different points of flight path.
So while an SM-2 won't be able to touch an ICBM during midcourse, it can hit it around launch, or terminal phase. That's why the location of the SM-2's launchers were so important in that example if Iran was targeting the US. If they had been targeting Romania, then they would have been perfectly valid to use.
So, if the fleet is the target of an ICBM, that means it will be able to first fire SM-3's, and then SM-2's as the missile enter's terminal phase on the fleet's location.
You're not understanding how the shield works. They're layers of multiple interceptors which have different ranges and are meant to intercept missiles at different points of flight path.
So while an SM-2 won't be able to touch an ICBM during midcourse, it can hit it around launch, or terminal phase. That's why the location of the SM-2's launchers were so important in that example if Iran was targeting the US. If they had been targeting Romania, then they would have been perfectly valid to use.
So, if the fleet is the target of an ICBM, that means it will be able to first fire SM-3's, and then SM-2's as the missile enter's terminal phase on the fleet's location.
No you won't. The launch site is in Siberia. Or middle of Russia.
You don't get a shot on the start or middle of trajectory. You get to try to catch it when it starts maneuvering and coming down.
That's why I said THAAD. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense.
It's right there on your pics trying to hit missile entering atmosphere. You don't have that on ships. Yet or whatever. If targeted by ICBM the fleet will be toast.
And if ICBM is doing evasive maneuvers at re-entry, even THAAD will miss. Cause, remember, something has to track the ICBM and steer penetrator towards it, at great distance and communication latency.
If trajectory and speed of ICBM are same, it's doable, if not - it simply won't be able to process and calculate new collision trajectory and then steer penetrator in REAL TIME to hit it as two missiles are closing and maneuvering at... what, 9 km/second ?
^
No you won't. The launch site is in Siberia. Or middle of Russia.
You don't get a shot on the start or middle of trajectory. You get to try to catch it when it starts maneuvering and coming down.
That's why I said THAAD. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense.
It's right there on your pics trying to hit missile entering atmosphere. You don't have that on ships. Yet or whatever. If targeted by ICBM the fleet will be toast.
And if ICBM is doing evasive maneuvers at re-entry, even THAAD will miss. Cause, remember, something has to track the ICBM and steer penetrator towards it, at great distance and communication latency.
If trajectory and speed of ICBM are same, it's doable, if not - it simply won't be able to process and calculate new collision trajectory and then steer penetrator in REAL TIME to hit it as two missiles are closing and maneuvering at... what, 9 km/second ?
Defeats short- to intermediate-range, unitary and separating, midcourse-phase, ballistic missile threats with the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3), as well as short-range ballistic missiles in the terminal phase with the SM-2.
[/quote]
Carrier fleets have Aegis ships with them. That means they have ICBM defense.
Medium-long range shipboard surface-to-air missile.
Background
Standard Missile 2 (SM-2) is the U.S Navy's primary surface-to-air air defense weapon. It is an integral part of the AEGIS Weapon System (AWS) aboard Ticonderoga-class cruisers and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers; and is launched from the Mark 41 vertical launcher system (VLS). Its primary missions are fleet area air defense and ship self-defense, but it also has demonstrated an extended area air defense projection capability. The SM-2 uses tail controls and a solid fuel rocket motor for propulsion and maneuverability. All variants are guided by inertial navigation and mid-course commands from AWS using semi-active radar or an infrared (IR) sensor for terminal homing. [/quote]
The SM-2 can be fired at ICBM's during launch phase or terminal phase...
Defeats short- to intermediate-range, unitary and separating, midcourse-phase, ballistic missile threats with the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3), as well as short-range ballistic missiles in the terminal phase with the SM-2.
Carrier fleets have Aegis ships with them. That means they have ICBM defense.
Medium-long range shipboard surface-to-air missile.
Background
Standard Missile 2 (SM-2) is the U.S Navy's primary surface-to-air air defense weapon. It is an integral part of the AEGIS Weapon System (AWS) aboard Ticonderoga-class cruisers and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers; and is launched from the Mark 41 vertical launcher system (VLS). Its primary missions are fleet area air defense and ship self-defense, but it also has demonstrated an extended area air defense projection capability. The SM-2 uses tail controls and a solid fuel rocket motor for propulsion and maneuverability. All variants are guided by inertial navigation and mid-course commands from AWS using semi-active radar or an infrared (IR) sensor for terminal homing.
You're claiming ships don't have the capability to take down ICBMs. That's demonstrably false, and despite all the primary sources provided, you still choose to:
So, no point continuing.
You're claiming ships don't have the capability to take down ICBMs. That's demonstrably false, and despite all the primary sources provided, you still choose to:
Hm, the Amerikanski's above don't seem to understand the effect of multiple projectiles. SATURATION. In their point of view an enemy shoots one missile at them and then they shoot one interceptor back. Because that's how they practised it in their weapon tests. Or just their computer simulations.
Unfortunately, that's not how it works at all in a real war.
Here's a scenario a Russian general once explained in some TV program. Interviewer asked the question why Russia never built aircraft carriers. The answer was that they didn't believe so much in aircraft carriers because they would be vulnerable to anti-ship missiles. If an American aircraft carrier group would come close to Russia in a real war scenario, the Russians would launch 2 squadrons of heavy bombers, 8 or 10 planes in total. Those bombers would each carry 12 to 24 anti-ship missiles and when the bombers would come in range, 400 or 500 km away from the carrier flottila, all 8 of them would launch all their missiles.
Good luck American ships, stopping about 120 missiles comming in at once.
Even if they would shoot down 80 of the missiles, which is a high estimate, 40 missiles would hit 20 ships, and sink almost all of them. A fleet with 10.000 sailors got wiped out by 50 or 60 people in 8 planes.
That's the reality of missiles.
And that's the reality of modern warfare, air power trumps everything else. Ground forces and naval forces can't do anything against things that come at you at a speed of 1000's of kilometers per hour.
Russia now claims to have made a anti-ship missile that can reach mach six. If Mr Higly Educated Cyril Who Looks Too Much At Trump Memes thinks that mach six isn't lightning fast, he never tried to catch one
Hm, the Amerikanski's above don't seem to understand the effect of multiple projectiles. SATURATION. In their point of view an enemy shoots one missile at them and then they shoot one interceptor back. Because that's how they practised it in their weapon tests. Or just their computer simulations.
Unfortunately, that's not how it works at all in a real war.
Here's a scenario a Russian general once explained in some TV program. Interviewer asked the question why Russia never built aircraft carriers. The answer was that they didn't believe so much in aircraft carriers because they would be vulnerable to anti-ship missiles. If an American aircraft carrier group would come close to Russia in a real war scenario, the Russians would launch 2 squadrons of heavy bombers, 8 or 10 planes in total. Those bombers would each carry 12 to 24 anti-ship missiles and when the bombers would come in range, 400 or 500 km away from the carrier flottila, all 8 of them would launch all their missiles.
Good luck American ships, stopping about 120 missiles comming in at once.
Even if they would shoot down 80 of the missiles, which is a high estimate, 40 missiles would hit 20 ships, and sink almost all of them. A fleet with 10.000 sailors got wiped out by 50 or 60 people in 8 planes.
That's the reality of missiles.
And that's the reality of modern warfare, air power trumps everything else. Ground forces and naval forces can't do anything against things that come at you at a speed of 1000's of kilometers per hour.
Russia now claims to have made a anti-ship missile that can reach mach six. If Mr Higly Educated Cyril Who Looks Too Much At Trump Memes thinks that mach six isn't lightning fast, he never tried to catch one
There are some points which some of you folks are outright ignoring. A carrier is first and foremost a stand-off platform—it's kept concentrically at arms-length from primary operational zones. It's not just bodyguarded by surface and subsurface platforms, it's also screened by a large air capability. Figures, eh?
If you're going to bring in a heavy use of tac. nukes then you should also reasonably ask: "what the frak is the outlook for human survivability if a conflict has escalated THAT far?"
And, no. US defense spending isn't a bottomless wallet. If it were, then the DoD wouldn't have struggled as badly as it did to keep the navy hovering under the legislative minimum requirement after Obama sliced $80 billion off the budget.
There are some points which some of you folks are outright ignoring. A carrier is first and foremost a stand-off platform—it's kept concentrically at arms-length from primary operational zones. It's not just bodyguarded by surface and subsurface platforms, it's also screened by a large air capability. Figures, eh?
If you're going to bring in a heavy use of tac. nukes then you should also reasonably ask: "what the frak is the outlook for human survivability if a conflict has escalated THAT far?"
And, no. US defense spending isn't a bottomless wallet. If it were, then the DoD wouldn't have struggled as badly as it did to keep the navy hovering under the legislative minimum requirement after Obama sliced $80 billion off the budget.
^ Yes, if americans don't pussy out of nuclear war.
But the question we were discussing was: would a carrier strike fleet of 20 ships, 2 carriers and 18 AEGIS cruisers would have any hope against ICBM MIRV launched at their location.
I think snowflake in hell.
I know it's an overkill, I know that ICBM costs slightly less than the fucking carrier. I know it is much more suitable to target command/population centers for many millions dead and many more wishing to BE dead.
But still, as a practical question, I think ICBM would wipe the whole fleet, because the missiles on the cruisers are not suited for shooting down armored MIRV warhead from out of space.
And that's why they started developing THAAD, maybe in 20 years they might have their nuclear shield.
Russians are betting on making warheads maneuverable, cause american targeting systems won't have the time to calculate trajectory corrections and steer the penetrator at these speeds and distances if the warhead starts evasive actions.
^ Yes, if americans don't pussy out of nuclear war.
But the question we were discussing was: would a carrier strike fleet of 20 ships, 2 carriers and 18 AEGIS cruisers would have any hope against ICBM MIRV launched at their location.
I think snowflake in hell.
I know it's an overkill, I know that ICBM costs slightly less than the fucking carrier. I know it is much more suitable to target command/population centers for many millions dead and many more wishing to BE dead.
But still, as a practical question, I think ICBM would wipe the whole fleet, because the missiles on the cruisers are not suited for shooting down armored MIRV warhead from out of space.
And that's why they started developing THAAD, maybe in 20 years they might have their nuclear shield.
Russians are betting on making warheads maneuverable, cause american targeting systems won't have the time to calculate trajectory corrections and steer the penetrator at these speeds and distances if the warhead starts evasive actions.
[quote user=LithuanianLabourer]^ Yes, if americans don't pussy out of nuclear war.
But the question we were discussing was: would a carrier strike fleet of 20 ships, 2 carriers and 18 AEGIS cruisers would have any hope against ICBM MIRV launched at their location.
I think snowflake in hell.
I know it's an overkill, I know that ICBM costs slightly less than the fucking carrier. I know it is much more suitable to target command/population centers for many millions dead and many more wishing to BE dead.
But still, as a practical question, I think ICBM would wipe the whole fleet, because the missiles on the cruisers are not suited for shooting down armored MIRV warhead from out of space.
And that's why they started developing THAAD, maybe in 20 years they might have their nuclear shield.
Russians are betting on making warheads maneuverable, cause american targeting systems won't have the time to calculate trajectory corrections and steer the penetrator at these speeds and distances if the warhead starts evasive actions.[/quote]
And if a single nuke fails then launch 20 more ICBMs!
In conclusion, gentlemen, the moral here is: to main screen turn on and launch all zig.
^ Yes, if americans don't pussy out of nuclear war.
But the question we were discussing was: would a carrier strike fleet of 20 ships, 2 carriers and 18 AEGIS cruisers would have any hope against ICBM MIRV launched at their location.
I think snowflake in hell.
I know it's an overkill, I know that ICBM costs slightly less than the fucking carrier. I know it is much more suitable to target command/population centers for many millions dead and many more wishing to BE dead.
But still, as a practical question, I think ICBM would wipe the whole fleet, because the missiles on the cruisers are not suited for shooting down armored MIRV warhead from out of space.
And that's why they started developing THAAD, maybe in 20 years they might have their nuclear shield.
Russians are betting on making warheads maneuverable, cause american targeting systems won't have the time to calculate trajectory corrections and steer the penetrator at these speeds and distances if the warhead starts evasive actions.
And if a single nuke fails then launch 20 more ICBMs!
In conclusion, gentlemen, the moral here is: to main screen turn on and launch all zig.
don't forget that in Russian there is the doctrine of "perimeter" or as the Americans call "dead hand". In the case of total destruction or destruction of all Russian ICBMs quick start on the machine and get not only pendostanu, but to all his allies, and prey bases (where there is no anti-missile shield). Even if pindostan "whacks" from the impact, it will remain "an island" among radioactive hell, but not for long, as the radiation will spread and nuclear winter no one cancels. PARITY only it keeps the balance - ie the world
and all this crap about missile defense - it's just someone namyvaet money
better catch a russkuyo song https://youtu.be/TELtdqux-Mc
don't forget that in Russian there is the doctrine of "perimeter" or as the Americans call "dead hand". In the case of total destruction or destruction of all Russian ICBMs quick start on the machine and get not only pendostanu, but to all his allies, and prey bases (where there is no anti-missile shield). Even if pindostan "whacks" from the impact, it will remain "an island" among radioactive hell, but not for long, as the radiation will spread and nuclear winter no one cancels. PARITY only it keeps the balance - ie the world
and all this crap about missile defense - it's just someone namyvaet money
27
| 87 views
| 4256x2832
| 1.38MB
First week of the war all 11 carriers go down. They only work as a mobile oppression platform in peace time, against 3rd world countries that hardly have any notable military technology.
In a real war the enemy shoots 20 anti-ship missles at a carrier at once and down it goes. They are very vulnerable.
First week of the war all 11 carriers go down. They only work as a mobile oppression platform in peace time, against 3rd world countries that hardly have any notable military technology.
In a real war the enemy shoots 20 anti-ship missles at a carrier at once and down it goes. They are very vulnerable.
First week of the war all 11 carriers go down. They only work as a mobile oppression platform in peace time, against 3rd world countries that hardly have any notable military technology.
In a real war the enemy shoots 20 anti-ship missles at a carrier at once and down it goes. They are very vulnerable.[/quote]
If only Carrier Strike Groups had defenses to prevent that from happening. /s
First week of the war all 11 carriers go down. They only work as a mobile oppression platform in peace time, against 3rd world countries that hardly have any notable military technology.
In a real war the enemy shoots 20 anti-ship missles at a carrier at once and down it goes. They are very vulnerable.
If only Carrier Strike Groups had defenses to prevent that from happening. /s
First week of the war all 11 carriers go down. They only work as a mobile oppression platform in peace time, against 3rd world countries that hardly have any notable military technology.
In a real war the enemy shoots 20 anti-ship missles at a carrier at once and down it goes. They are very vulnerable.[/quote]
If only Carrier Strike Groups had defenses to prevent that from happening. /s[/quote]
I knew you we're gonna say that.
Of course they will shoot down a large number of the missiles. That's why you saturate their defences. Only 1 or 2 missiles out of 20 need to hit their target to put a ship out of commission. Anti-ship missiles are a lot cheaper than anti-missile ships.
Naval war in modern times is not the same as the scenes you're used to from WW2 movies. Back then you had to engage enemy ships with manned airplanes and other ships. Both vulnerable and, compared to projectiles, very slow moving. But now, everything is done with very fast missiles, remotely controlled or by their own on-board computers. Back then, you had to put lives on the line to attack a ship, now you only need to invest in technology. It is really not the same.
And, despite what weapon manufacturers claim, their anti-missile defences are not as great as they say. They have not been battle tested, and it is a lot easier to make a projectile hit a sitting duck than it is to make a projectile hit another lightning-fast projectile.
First week of the war all 11 carriers go down. They only work as a mobile oppression platform in peace time, against 3rd world countries that hardly have any notable military technology.
In a real war the enemy shoots 20 anti-ship missles at a carrier at once and down it goes. They are very vulnerable.
If only Carrier Strike Groups had defenses to prevent that from happening. /s
I knew you we're gonna say that.
Of course they will shoot down a large number of the missiles. That's why you saturate their defences. Only 1 or 2 missiles out of 20 need to hit their target to put a ship out of commission. Anti-ship missiles are a lot cheaper than anti-missile ships.
Naval war in modern times is not the same as the scenes you're used to from WW2 movies. Back then you had to engage enemy ships with manned airplanes and other ships. Both vulnerable and, compared to projectiles, very slow moving. But now, everything is done with very fast missiles, remotely controlled or by their own on-board computers. Back then, you had to put lives on the line to attack a ship, now you only need to invest in technology. It is really not the same.
And, despite what weapon manufacturers claim, their anti-missile defences are not as great as they say. They have not been battle tested, and it is a lot easier to make a projectile hit a sitting duck than it is to make a projectile hit another lightning-fast projectile.
First week of the war all 11 carriers go down. They only work as a mobile oppression platform in peace time, against 3rd world countries that hardly have any notable military technology.
In a real war the enemy shoots 20 anti-ship missles at a carrier at once and down it goes. They are very vulnerable.[/quote]
If only Carrier Strike Groups had defenses to prevent that from happening. /s[/quote]
I knew you we're gonna say that.
Of course they will shoot down a large number of the missiles. That's why you saturate their defences. Only 1 or 2 missiles out of 20 need to hit their target to put a ship out of commission. Anti-ship missiles are a lot cheaper than anti-missile ships.
Naval war in modern times is not the same as the scenes you're used to from WW2 movies. Back then you had to engage enemy ships with manned airplanes and other ships. Both vulnerable and, compared to projectiles, very slow moving. But now, everything is done with very fast missiles, remotely controlled or by their own on-board computers. Back then, you had to put lives on the line to attack a ship, now you only need to invest in technology. It is really not the same.
And, despite what weapon manufacturers claim, their anti-missile defences are not as great as they say. They have not been battle tested, and it is a lot easier to make a projectile hit a sitting duck than it is to make a projectile hit another lightning-fast projectile.
[/quote]
LOL,,,price is no issue for us, we can lob million dollar missles at whoever we want every day for years and not bat an eye (and thats the cheap ones for us.)
i have never heard of an "anti-missile ships" but i am going to assume you mean "anti-missile system" again price is no object to us, every ship has multiple systems, so again it is no worry.
as for your "lightning fast projectile" the fastest missiles are ballistic missiles, and they have to go into low orbit to be able to obtain those speeds. they are not anti-ship missles.
"An anti-ballistic missile (ABM) is a surface-to-air missile designed to counter ballistic missiles (see missile defense). Ballistic missiles are used to deliver nuclear, chemical, biological or conventional warheads in a ballistic flight trajectory. The term "anti-ballistic missile" is a generic term conveying a system designed to intercept and destroy any type of ballistic threat, however it is commonly used for systems specifically designed to counter intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)."
but as it says, our systems have no problem taking out ANY type of ballistic threat.
you have no idea what you are talking about as usual
First week of the war all 11 carriers go down. They only work as a mobile oppression platform in peace time, against 3rd world countries that hardly have any notable military technology.
In a real war the enemy shoots 20 anti-ship missles at a carrier at once and down it goes. They are very vulnerable.
If only Carrier Strike Groups had defenses to prevent that from happening. /s
I knew you we're gonna say that.
Of course they will shoot down a large number of the missiles. That's why you saturate their defences. Only 1 or 2 missiles out of 20 need to hit their target to put a ship out of commission. Anti-ship missiles are a lot cheaper than anti-missile ships.
Naval war in modern times is not the same as the scenes you're used to from WW2 movies. Back then you had to engage enemy ships with manned airplanes and other ships. Both vulnerable and, compared to projectiles, very slow moving. But now, everything is done with very fast missiles, remotely controlled or by their own on-board computers. Back then, you had to put lives on the line to attack a ship, now you only need to invest in technology. It is really not the same.
And, despite what weapon manufacturers claim, their anti-missile defences are not as great as they say. They have not been battle tested, and it is a lot easier to make a projectile hit a sitting duck than it is to make a projectile hit another lightning-fast projectile.
LOL,,,price is no issue for us, we can lob million dollar missles at whoever we want every day for years and not bat an eye (and thats the cheap ones for us.)
i have never heard of an "anti-missile ships" but i am going to assume you mean "anti-missile system" again price is no object to us, every ship has multiple systems, so again it is no worry.
as for your "lightning fast projectile" the fastest missiles are ballistic missiles, and they have to go into low orbit to be able to obtain those speeds. they are not anti-ship missles.
"An anti-ballistic missile (ABM) is a surface-to-air missile designed to counter ballistic missiles (see missile defense). Ballistic missiles are used to deliver nuclear, chemical, biological or conventional warheads in a ballistic flight trajectory. The term "anti-ballistic missile" is a generic term conveying a system designed to intercept and destroy any type of ballistic threat, however it is commonly used for systems specifically designed to counter intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)."
but as it says, our systems have no problem taking out ANY type of ballistic threat.
you have no idea what you are talking about as usual
but as it says, our systems have no problem taking out ANY type of ballistic threat.
you have no idea what you are talking about as usual[/quote]
No you can't - you can target and shoot down incoming anti-ship missiles, or low and medium range ballistic missiles.
And you can shoot them down because they have much lower speed and altitude. And idea is you target them mid-course at lowest speed.
But if someone actually targets the whole fleet with ICBM, the fleet is fucked. Good luck trying to target something coming at you from out of space at 6-7 km/second speed.
RIM-161 Standard Missile 3
These are the modern AEGIS missiles. They won't get the ICBMs. You would probably need THAAD on a ship for a CHANCE to shoot down real proper armored 40 ton train of mass destruction that is ICBM.
And no, you don't have THAAD on a ship. Yet or whatever.
but as it says, our systems have no problem taking out ANY type of ballistic threat.
you have no idea what you are talking about as usual
No you can't - you can target and shoot down incoming anti-ship missiles, or low and medium range ballistic missiles.
And you can shoot them down because they have much lower speed and altitude. And idea is you target them mid-course at lowest speed.
But if someone actually targets the whole fleet with ICBM, the fleet is fucked. Good luck trying to target something coming at you from out of space at 6-7 km/second speed.
RIM-161 Standard Missile 3
These are the modern AEGIS missiles. They won't get the ICBMs. You would probably need THAAD on a ship for a CHANCE to shoot down real proper armored 40 ton train of mass destruction that is ICBM.
And no, you don't have THAAD on a ship. Yet or whatever.
But if someone actually targets the whole fleet with ICBM, the fleet is fucked. Good luck trying to target something coming at you from out of space at 6-7 km/second speed.
RIM-161 Standard Missile 3
These are the modern AEGIS missiles. They won't get the ICBMs. You would probably need THAAD on a ship for a CHANCE to shoot it.
[/quote]
That's not true. The Aegis fired SM-3's have a much higher ceiling and ranger than the THAAD and are designed for ICBMs. And they can use SM-2's for the terminal phase.
But if someone actually targets the whole fleet with ICBM, the fleet is fucked. Good luck trying to target something coming at you from out of space at 6-7 km/second speed.
RIM-161 Standard Missile 3
These are the modern AEGIS missiles. They won't get the ICBMs. You would probably need THAAD on a ship for a CHANCE to shoot it.
That's not true. The Aegis fired SM-3's have a much higher ceiling and ranger than the THAAD and are designed for ICBMs. And they can use SM-2's for the terminal phase.
Sure, sure, I'll just leave this here for you then:
The SM-3 Block IIB (currently in development for EPAA phase 4[55]) was considered for deployment to Romania as well (around 2022[26]), but a GAO report released Feb. 11, 2013 found that "SM-3 Block 2B interceptors launched from Romania would have difficulty engaging Iranian ICBMs launched at the United States because it lacks the range. Turkey is a better option, but only if the interceptors can be launched within 100 miles of the launch site and early enough to hit targets in their boost phase, an engagement scenario that presents a whole new set of challenges. The best basing option is in the North Sea, but making the SM-3 Block 2B ship compatible could add significantly to its cost".[58] The troubles of the Block IIB program however do not affect the planned Block IB deployments in Romania.[28][59]
So what they say there is they can probably shoot down iranian ballistic missile if they are located 100 miles away from the launch site.
Do you understand why they need to be 100 miles close to the launch site ?
Once you understand that, once you understand you can shoot down a crappy iranian ballistic missile only if you are within 100 miles radius, when it launches and you detect the launch, you will know where you are wrong and the altitudes and speeds we are talking about.
In case of russian - ICBM is launched from fucking Siberia and it's up there in higher orbit, 1000 km height, you can't touch it there.
When it is above the fleet it will stop orbiting and drop from out of space at 6-7 km per second like a fucking meteor.
And a rather similar effect too.
The speed of THAAD is 2.8 km/s. The speed of SM-3 is 3 - 4.5 km/s (ok, I am actually impressed by SM-3 speed, I'll give you that).
Sure, sure, I'll just leave this here for you then:
The SM-3 Block IIB (currently in development for EPAA phase 4[55]) was considered for deployment to Romania as well (around 2022[26]), but a GAO report released Feb. 11, 2013 found that "SM-3 Block 2B interceptors launched from Romania would have difficulty engaging Iranian ICBMs launched at the United States because it lacks the range. Turkey is a better option, but only if the interceptors can be launched within 100 miles of the launch site and early enough to hit targets in their boost phase, an engagement scenario that presents a whole new set of challenges. The best basing option is in the North Sea, but making the SM-3 Block 2B ship compatible could add significantly to its cost".[58] The troubles of the Block IIB program however do not affect the planned Block IB deployments in Romania.[28][59]
So what they say there is they can probably shoot down iranian ballistic missile if they are located 100 miles away from the launch site.
Do you understand why they need to be 100 miles close to the launch site ?
Once you understand that, once you understand you can shoot down a crappy iranian ballistic missile only if you are within 100 miles radius, when it launches and you detect the launch, you will know where you are wrong and the altitudes and speeds we are talking about.
In case of russian - ICBM is launched from fucking Siberia and it's up there in higher orbit, 1000 km height, you can't touch it there.
When it is above the fleet it will stop orbiting and drop from out of space at 6-7 km per second like a fucking meteor.
And a rather similar effect too.
The speed of THAAD is 2.8 km/s. The speed of SM-3 is 3 - 4.5 km/s (ok, I am actually impressed by SM-3 speed, I'll give you that).
You're not understanding how the shield works. They're layers of multiple interceptors which have different ranges and are meant to intercept missiles at different points of flight path.
So while an SM-2 won't be able to touch an ICBM during midcourse, it can hit it around launch, or terminal phase. That's why the location of the SM-2's launchers were so important in that example if Iran was targeting the US. If they had been targeting Romania, then they would have been perfectly valid to use.
So, if the fleet is the target of an ICBM, that means it will be able to first fire SM-3's, and then SM-2's as the missile enter's terminal phase on the fleet's location.
You're not understanding how the shield works. They're layers of multiple interceptors which have different ranges and are meant to intercept missiles at different points of flight path.
So while an SM-2 won't be able to touch an ICBM during midcourse, it can hit it around launch, or terminal phase. That's why the location of the SM-2's launchers were so important in that example if Iran was targeting the US. If they had been targeting Romania, then they would have been perfectly valid to use.
So, if the fleet is the target of an ICBM, that means it will be able to first fire SM-3's, and then SM-2's as the missile enter's terminal phase on the fleet's location.
^
No you won't. The launch site is in Siberia. Or middle of Russia.
You don't get a shot on the start or middle of trajectory. You get to try to catch it when it starts maneuvering and coming down.
That's why I said THAAD. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense.
It's right there on your pics trying to hit missile entering atmosphere. You don't have that on ships. Yet or whatever. If targeted by ICBM the fleet will be toast.
And if ICBM is doing evasive maneuvers at re-entry, even THAAD will miss. Cause, remember, something has to track the ICBM and steer penetrator towards it, at great distance and communication latency.
If trajectory and speed of ICBM are same, it's doable, if not - it simply won't be able to process and calculate new collision trajectory and then steer penetrator in REAL TIME to hit it as two missiles are closing and maneuvering at... what, 9 km/second ?
^
No you won't. The launch site is in Siberia. Or middle of Russia.
You don't get a shot on the start or middle of trajectory. You get to try to catch it when it starts maneuvering and coming down.
That's why I said THAAD. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense.
It's right there on your pics trying to hit missile entering atmosphere. You don't have that on ships. Yet or whatever. If targeted by ICBM the fleet will be toast.
And if ICBM is doing evasive maneuvers at re-entry, even THAAD will miss. Cause, remember, something has to track the ICBM and steer penetrator towards it, at great distance and communication latency.
If trajectory and speed of ICBM are same, it's doable, if not - it simply won't be able to process and calculate new collision trajectory and then steer penetrator in REAL TIME to hit it as two missiles are closing and maneuvering at... what, 9 km/second ?
[quote user=DOD]
[/quote]
Carrier fleets have Aegis ships with them. That means they have ICBM defense.
[quote user=DOD]
STANDARD MISSILE
Description
Medium-long range shipboard surface-to-air missile.
Background
Standard Missile 2 (SM-2) is the U.S Navy's primary surface-to-air air defense weapon. It is an integral part of the AEGIS Weapon System (AWS) aboard Ticonderoga-class cruisers and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers; and is launched from the Mark 41 vertical launcher system (VLS). Its primary missions are fleet area air defense and ship self-defense, but it also has demonstrated an extended area air defense projection capability. The SM-2 uses tail controls and a solid fuel rocket motor for propulsion and maneuverability. All variants are guided by inertial navigation and mid-course commands from AWS using semi-active radar or an infrared (IR) sensor for terminal homing. [/quote]
Carrier fleets have Aegis ships with them. That means they have ICBM defense.
STANDARD MISSILE
Description
Medium-long range shipboard surface-to-air missile.
Background
Standard Missile 2 (SM-2) is the U.S Navy's primary surface-to-air air defense weapon. It is an integral part of the AEGIS Weapon System (AWS) aboard Ticonderoga-class cruisers and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers; and is launched from the Mark 41 vertical launcher system (VLS). Its primary missions are fleet area air defense and ship self-defense, but it also has demonstrated an extended area air defense projection capability. The SM-2 uses tail controls and a solid fuel rocket motor for propulsion and maneuverability. All variants are guided by inertial navigation and mid-course commands from AWS using semi-active radar or an infrared (IR) sensor for terminal homing.
Sure and slingshot can be fired at the Moon. Or even musket !
I have done some experiment and shot at the Moon with my slingshot.
Never hit it, but the shots were pretty good. I am sure muskets can be fired at the Moon successfully enough.
[quote user=InSOmnIaC]
Carrier fleets have Aegis ships with them. That means they have ICBM defense.
lol no
And you won't find any mention of AEGIS as ICBM defense and I know you're struggling, but...
Sure and slingshot can be fired at the Moon. Or even musket !
I have done some experiment and shot at the Moon with my slingshot.
Never hit it, but the shots were pretty good. I am sure muskets can be fired at the Moon successfully enough.
Carrier fleets have Aegis ships with them. That means they have ICBM defense.
lol no
And you won't find any mention of AEGIS as ICBM defense and I know you're struggling, but...
So, no point continuing.
So, no point continuing.
^
No, I am saying that ICBM is different from "short- to intermediate-range, unitary and separating, midcourse-phase, ballistic missile threats".
And you obviously don't get HOW are they different.
And that pisses you off.
But the people who wrote the things you quote obviously did get the difference...
lol no.
P.S. ICBM can CARPET BOMB your stupid AEGIS fleet with 20 nuclear warheads.
How about that, huh ?
^
No, I am saying that ICBM is different from "short- to intermediate-range, unitary and separating, midcourse-phase, ballistic missile threats".
And you obviously don't get HOW are they different.
And that pisses you off.
But the people who wrote the things you quote obviously did get the difference...
lol no.
P.S. ICBM can CARPET BOMB your stupid AEGIS fleet with 20 nuclear warheads.
How about that, huh ?
Unfortunately, that's not how it works at all in a real war.
Here's a scenario a Russian general once explained in some TV program. Interviewer asked the question why Russia never built aircraft carriers. The answer was that they didn't believe so much in aircraft carriers because they would be vulnerable to anti-ship missiles. If an American aircraft carrier group would come close to Russia in a real war scenario, the Russians would launch 2 squadrons of heavy bombers, 8 or 10 planes in total. Those bombers would each carry 12 to 24 anti-ship missiles and when the bombers would come in range, 400 or 500 km away from the carrier flottila, all 8 of them would launch all their missiles.
Good luck American ships, stopping about 120 missiles comming in at once.
Even if they would shoot down 80 of the missiles, which is a high estimate, 40 missiles would hit 20 ships, and sink almost all of them. A fleet with 10.000 sailors got wiped out by 50 or 60 people in 8 planes.
That's the reality of missiles.
And that's the reality of modern warfare, air power trumps everything else. Ground forces and naval forces can't do anything against things that come at you at a speed of 1000's of kilometers per hour.
Russia now claims to have made a anti-ship missile that can reach mach six. If Mr Higly Educated Cyril Who Looks Too Much At Trump Memes thinks that mach six isn't lightning fast, he never tried to catch one
Unfortunately, that's not how it works at all in a real war.
Here's a scenario a Russian general once explained in some TV program. Interviewer asked the question why Russia never built aircraft carriers. The answer was that they didn't believe so much in aircraft carriers because they would be vulnerable to anti-ship missiles. If an American aircraft carrier group would come close to Russia in a real war scenario, the Russians would launch 2 squadrons of heavy bombers, 8 or 10 planes in total. Those bombers would each carry 12 to 24 anti-ship missiles and when the bombers would come in range, 400 or 500 km away from the carrier flottila, all 8 of them would launch all their missiles.
Good luck American ships, stopping about 120 missiles comming in at once.
Even if they would shoot down 80 of the missiles, which is a high estimate, 40 missiles would hit 20 ships, and sink almost all of them. A fleet with 10.000 sailors got wiped out by 50 or 60 people in 8 planes.
That's the reality of missiles.
And that's the reality of modern warfare, air power trumps everything else. Ground forces and naval forces can't do anything against things that come at you at a speed of 1000's of kilometers per hour.
Russia now claims to have made a anti-ship missile that can reach mach six. If Mr Higly Educated Cyril Who Looks Too Much At Trump Memes thinks that mach six isn't lightning fast, he never tried to catch one
If you're going to bring in a heavy use of tac. nukes then you should also reasonably ask: "what the frak is the outlook for human survivability if a conflict has escalated THAT far?"
And, no. US defense spending isn't a bottomless wallet. If it were, then the DoD wouldn't have struggled as badly as it did to keep the navy hovering under the legislative minimum requirement after Obama sliced $80 billion off the budget.
If you're going to bring in a heavy use of tac. nukes then you should also reasonably ask: "what the frak is the outlook for human survivability if a conflict has escalated THAT far?"
And, no. US defense spending isn't a bottomless wallet. If it were, then the DoD wouldn't have struggled as badly as it did to keep the navy hovering under the legislative minimum requirement after Obama sliced $80 billion off the budget.
Yes, if americans don't pussy out of nuclear war.
But the question we were discussing was: would a carrier strike fleet of 20 ships, 2 carriers and 18 AEGIS cruisers would have any hope against ICBM MIRV launched at their location.
I think snowflake in hell.
I know it's an overkill, I know that ICBM costs slightly less than the fucking carrier. I know it is much more suitable to target command/population centers for many millions dead and many more wishing to BE dead.
But still, as a practical question, I think ICBM would wipe the whole fleet, because the missiles on the cruisers are not suited for shooting down armored MIRV warhead from out of space.
And that's why they started developing THAAD, maybe in 20 years they might have their nuclear shield.
Russians are betting on making warheads maneuverable, cause american targeting systems won't have the time to calculate trajectory corrections and steer the penetrator at these speeds and distances if the warhead starts evasive actions.
Yes, if americans don't pussy out of nuclear war.
But the question we were discussing was: would a carrier strike fleet of 20 ships, 2 carriers and 18 AEGIS cruisers would have any hope against ICBM MIRV launched at their location.
I think snowflake in hell.
I know it's an overkill, I know that ICBM costs slightly less than the fucking carrier. I know it is much more suitable to target command/population centers for many millions dead and many more wishing to BE dead.
But still, as a practical question, I think ICBM would wipe the whole fleet, because the missiles on the cruisers are not suited for shooting down armored MIRV warhead from out of space.
And that's why they started developing THAAD, maybe in 20 years they might have their nuclear shield.
Russians are betting on making warheads maneuverable, cause american targeting systems won't have the time to calculate trajectory corrections and steer the penetrator at these speeds and distances if the warhead starts evasive actions.
Yes, if americans don't pussy out of nuclear war.
[/quote]
I really hope everybody pussies out of nuclear war.
[quote user=LithuanianLabourer]
I know that ICBM costs slightly less than the fucking carrier.[/quote]
An ICBM is not as expensive as you apparently think.
http://nationsdawnofanera.weebly.com/-ballistic-missiles.html
Yes, if americans don't pussy out of nuclear war.
I really hope everybody pussies out of nuclear war.
I know that ICBM costs slightly less than the fucking carrier.
An ICBM is not as expensive as you apparently think.
http://nationsdawnofanera.weebly.com/-ballistic-missiles.html
Yes, if americans don't pussy out of nuclear war.
But the question we were discussing was: would a carrier strike fleet of 20 ships, 2 carriers and 18 AEGIS cruisers would have any hope against ICBM MIRV launched at their location.
I think snowflake in hell.
I know it's an overkill, I know that ICBM costs slightly less than the fucking carrier. I know it is much more suitable to target command/population centers for many millions dead and many more wishing to BE dead.
But still, as a practical question, I think ICBM would wipe the whole fleet, because the missiles on the cruisers are not suited for shooting down armored MIRV warhead from out of space.
And that's why they started developing THAAD, maybe in 20 years they might have their nuclear shield.
Russians are betting on making warheads maneuverable, cause american targeting systems won't have the time to calculate trajectory corrections and steer the penetrator at these speeds and distances if the warhead starts evasive actions.[/quote]
And if a single nuke fails then launch 20 more ICBMs!
In conclusion, gentlemen, the moral here is: to main screen turn on and launch all zig.
*cough*
Yes, if americans don't pussy out of nuclear war.
But the question we were discussing was: would a carrier strike fleet of 20 ships, 2 carriers and 18 AEGIS cruisers would have any hope against ICBM MIRV launched at their location.
I think snowflake in hell.
I know it's an overkill, I know that ICBM costs slightly less than the fucking carrier. I know it is much more suitable to target command/population centers for many millions dead and many more wishing to BE dead.
But still, as a practical question, I think ICBM would wipe the whole fleet, because the missiles on the cruisers are not suited for shooting down armored MIRV warhead from out of space.
And that's why they started developing THAAD, maybe in 20 years they might have their nuclear shield.
Russians are betting on making warheads maneuverable, cause american targeting systems won't have the time to calculate trajectory corrections and steer the penetrator at these speeds and distances if the warhead starts evasive actions.
And if a single nuke fails then launch 20 more ICBMs!
In conclusion, gentlemen, the moral here is: to main screen turn on and launch all zig.
*cough*
How the fuck did you guys get from 20 anti ship missiles to fucking nukes. Seriously.
It's turned into a fucking "BUT...BUT...BUT" - athon.
How the fuck did you guys get from 20 anti ship missiles to fucking nukes. Seriously.
It's turned into a fucking "BUT...BUT...BUT" - athon.
and all this crap about missile defense - it's just someone namyvaet money
better catch a russkuyo song
https://youtu.be/TELtdqux-Mc
and all this crap about missile defense - it's just someone namyvaet money
better catch a russkuyo song