The Navy successfully tested a laser intended for anti-missile defense back in June. Assuming that's what you're referring to.loubot wrote:
Last year or earlier in the year, the U.S. Navy improved their phalanx or defense system not much fanfare about it, but I sure hope it is able to track and destroy a missle flying faster than MACH 10 before it can do any damage.
looks about right
unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Moot development with our sub-bound nuclear arsenal.
All i know is that there were at least 6 phalanx Guns protecting out base in Basra from mortars and rocket fire, they they didn't stop any lolSenorToenails wrote:
The Navy successfully tested a laser intended for anti-missile defense back in June. Assuming that's what you're referring to.loubot wrote:
Last year or earlier in the year, the U.S. Navy improved their phalanx or defense system not much fanfare about it, but I sure hope it is able to track and destroy a missle flying faster than MACH 10 before it can do any damage.
I'm guessing the US equivalent is somewhat more advanced though.
Was talking to some Navy guys last weekend (brother is joining the navy) that were up north and they said that the phalanxes up there worked brilliantly.LostFate wrote:
All i know is that there were at least 6 phalanx Guns protecting out base in Basra from mortars and rocket fire, they they didn't stop any lolSenorToenails wrote:
The Navy successfully tested a laser intended for anti-missile defense back in June. Assuming that's what you're referring to.loubot wrote:
Last year or earlier in the year, the U.S. Navy improved their phalanx or defense system not much fanfare about it, but I sure hope it is able to track and destroy a missle flying faster than MACH 10 before it can do any damage.
I'm guessing the US equivalent is somewhat more advanced though.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Yeah, but those rockets and such weren't going MACH 10.
I've got relatives in the Navy as well, and I have been on board one of the AEGIS ships. Met the captain and been on the main control room. Pretty cool. But damn, talk about cramped ships...
I've got relatives in the Navy as well, and I have been on board one of the AEGIS ships. Met the captain and been on the main control room. Pretty cool. But damn, talk about cramped ships...
Phalanx is not for stuff like that, its a last ditch, close in weapons system. Its actually not even tied in with the ships radar, it has its own. The weapon is good in its own right, but the true muscle behind the US Navy's air defense is Aegis, technically a computer system, coupled with the SM2 and SM3(this one is mainly designed for taking out ballistic missiles).
This is the US's answer, or actually, one of many answers, to this kind of threat:
And this is the replacement for the Phalanx CIWS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-116_Ro … me_Missile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ball … nse_System
The US Navy still owns the ocean, and will, if war happens within say 20 years, we're gonna take casualties, massive causalities, lose a lot of ships planes and people, but we wont be pushed out of the WESTPAC, least not yet.
This is the US's answer, or actually, one of many answers, to this kind of threat:
And this is the replacement for the Phalanx CIWS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-116_Ro … me_Missile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ball … nse_System
The US Navy still owns the ocean, and will, if war happens within say 20 years, we're gonna take casualties, massive causalities, lose a lot of ships planes and people, but we wont be pushed out of the WESTPAC, least not yet.
Twenty years? Might as well be talking about an alien invasion from Mars.
I hope when that happens Star Trek will come into playunnamednewbie13 wrote:
Twenty years? Might as well be talking about an alien invasion from Mars.
and then Gundams will show up
nerdgasm
After the US, the next military bloc with any significant number of carriers is the EU, which is an ally of the US. I think Thailand, India, Brazil and Russia may have, what, one each?
NATO motherfuckers.Pubic wrote:
After the US, the next military bloc with any significant number of carriers is the EU, which is an ally of the US. I think Thailand, India, Brazil and Russia may have, what, one each?
Ya, those tiny carriers will come in handy once our giant fortress carriers are gone.Pubic wrote:
After the US, the next military bloc with any significant number of carriers is the EU, which is an ally of the US. I think Thailand, India, Brazil and Russia may have, what, one each?
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
What exactly keeps the on-ship Phalanx CIWS from blasting it to oblivion before it ever reaches the ship?
I mean, 10x the speed of sound vs the CIWS systems
I mean, 10x the speed of sound vs the CIWS systems
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
Anything moving Mach 10 in the atmosphere is going to have a huge thermal signature, and stealth materials aren't compatible with those temperatures. Detection is not a problem.
Even if the missile can't be defended against, shoot the launch platform before it launches the mach 10 supermissile.
Personally, if the missile launch platform was within the launch range of that missile from a carrier, I'd call that a hostile act and waste 'em before they got the chance to launch.
If someone has a gun to your head, you don't wait for them to pull the trigger to determine their intent.
Even if the missile can't be defended against, shoot the launch platform before it launches the mach 10 supermissile.
Personally, if the missile launch platform was within the launch range of that missile from a carrier, I'd call that a hostile act and waste 'em before they got the chance to launch.
If someone has a gun to your head, you don't wait for them to pull the trigger to determine their intent.
Last edited by rdx-fx (2010-08-07 09:33:59)
I see what you're saying, but it's a dangerous grey area.rdx-fx wrote:
Anything moving Mach 10 in the atmosphere is going to have a huge thermal signature, and stealth materials aren't compatible with those temperatures. Detection is not a problem.
Even if the missile can't be defended against, shoot the launch platform before it launches the mach 10 supermissile.
Personally, if the missile launch platform was within the launch range of that missile from a carrier, I'd call that a hostile act and waste 'em before they got the chance to launch.
If someone has a gun to your head, you don't wait for them to pull the trigger to determine their intent.
Should other nations not be allowed to manufacture and use conventional arms for their own defence? Is having missles at strategic positions inside a nations own land considered a hostile act?
Someone holding a gun to another mans head seems like a decent anology, but compared to 2 nations with the largest militaries going to war it has to be handled entirely diffarently.
*missiles
Tu Stultus Es
Isn't the phalanx and other defense systems for cruise missiles, planes, scuds, exocet missiles etc.
The chinese missile is ballistic, so that means its coming straight down on your head from space.
isn't the space missile shield supposed to be the defense against ballistic missiles because once they start coming down they are basically impossible to knock out.
imo the real threat would come when the China sells the missiles to Iran or Hezbollah and they decide to take out a carrier.
The chinese missile is ballistic, so that means its coming straight down on your head from space.
isn't the space missile shield supposed to be the defense against ballistic missiles because once they start coming down they are basically impossible to knock out.
imo the real threat would come when the China sells the missiles to Iran or Hezbollah and they decide to take out a carrier.
They are a smaller target though Might just come in handy after allWar Man wrote:
Ya, those tiny carriers will come in handy once our giant fortress carriers are gone.Pubic wrote:
After the US, the next military bloc with any significant number of carriers is the EU, which is an ally of the US. I think Thailand, India, Brazil and Russia may have, what, one each?
Still don't think it matters much, isn't this the usual in arms races? One side builds a giant super carrier, the other builds something against that supercarrier and so forth. I sincerely do not believe the Chinese will start a war based on the fact that they can beat a super carrier.
Well shit, our president killed off our missile shield program.Diesel_dyk wrote:
Isn't the phalanx and other defense systems for cruise missiles, planes, scuds, exocet missiles etc.
The chinese missile is ballistic, so that means its coming straight down on your head from space.
isn't the space missile shield supposed to be the defense against ballistic missiles because once they start coming down they are basically impossible to knock out.
imo the real threat would come when the China sells the missiles to Iran or Hezbollah and they decide to take out a carrier.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Nations will develop weaponry to further their own goals. Just how it is, right wrong or indifferent.jord wrote:
I see what you're saying, but it's a dangerous grey area.
Should other nations not be allowed to manufacture and use conventional arms for their own defence? Is having missles at strategic positions inside a nations own land considered a hostile act?
Someone holding a gun to another mans head seems like a decent anology, but compared to 2 nations with the largest militaries going to war it has to be handled entirely diffarently.
Other nations will use threats, incentives, sanctions, politics, covert actions, or direct action to keep their potential enemies from developing weapons they cannot defend against. Also just how it is, right or wrong.
No immediate harm in China having such a weapon. Pretty simple to handle that, without going to war over it.
Just tell China, "You have a Carrier Killer Missile. Kindly do no float or fly anything that can deliver that weapon system within X miles of our carriers, or we will have to blow it up. Hate to have a $9 Billion carrier and 3000 people dead because one of your pilots had an 'oops' moment on the trigger. I'm sure you understand"
Meanwhile, the boys at Lockheed, Boeing, etc are burning the midnight oil to develop a counter to such a weapons system.
the weapon has a known trajectory and a known target, can't be impossible to develop a countermeasure.
Actually, it would wipe out the speed of which the USA can get to conflicts, but as long as forward airstrips and airtankers exist, the USA can still project force, though nowhere near as effectively. China's probably stockpiling missiles in the event of a war, not making them to start a war, because they'd probably come out the loser if they tried to invade the USA. Although, they could project a lot of force by wiping out US carriers to make room for their own...Dilbert_X wrote:
But 5 missiles could wipe out your 'force projection'.eleven bravo wrote:
china doesnt have the force projection that we do, even without a navy that has more aircraft than all of the worlds airforces combined
Spoiler (highlight to read):
If they could build a carrier that wasn't a copy of someone elses, and could actually float
Aren't these missles land based, with a range of 1500 km? Doesn't really seem like much of an impact to US naval movement to me. Unless these missles will be sold to rogue nations world wide.pace51 wrote:
Actually, it would wipe out the speed of which the USA can get to conflicts, but as long as forward airstrips and airtankers exist, the USA can still project force, though nowhere near as effectively. China's probably stockpiling missiles in the event of a war, not making them to start a war, because they'd probably come out the loser if they tried to invade the USA. Although, they could project a lot of force by wiping out US carriers to make room for their own...Dilbert_X wrote:
But 5 missiles could wipe out your 'force projection'.eleven bravo wrote:
china doesnt have the force projection that we do, even without a navy that has more aircraft than all of the worlds airforces combined
Spoiler (highlight to read):
If they could build a carrier that wasn't a copy of someone elses, and could actually float
If Carriers soon lose their place as safe platforms to launch attacks from, an emphasis could always be placed on longer ranged aircraft. Many american planes already have a good range, so if the US lost carriers, it would only temporarily cripple them, not seriously injure them. In ww2, they had a pyrite carrier that was unsinkable, though not sure if it could stay upright if one of those chinese missiles hit it.
I'm not sure more aggressive conservatives would be great in these situations though, either. In wartime, republicans would probably do better. But I'd rather have a liberal government that apologizes to China than a government that provokes china into starting ww3. So what if your US pride is wounded? No offense to you lowing, but war would suck, especially with todays weaponry. It could take 5 minutes to start a war, and hundreds of years to end it... in theory.lowing wrote:
Liberals have got to go, I fear Obama will do nothing except bow to China and apologize for...well........anything