MARITIME SECURITY
Comments (10)
We need to get up to date with these new weapons. It sounds like we lost a hugh lead. This is not acceptable.
Fred at 12:56 AMI think certainly for cost and fleet requirements like what other ships they need to operate in certain conditions they are becoming obsolete for the price if you gave Russia they same value USA dollars they certainly sink one dollar for dollar. However Russia economy is similar to Canada and America's is so far ahead of anyone else when you consider their ability to borrow in a prolonged war America can take on whole continents it would Take Russia the UK Canada and Germany to fight a prolonged war against America Russia and China don't have a chance long term even in full scale first strike their chances are limited greatly. I love the rail guns their potential use in outer space is amazing and though bulky they are close to being an unstoppable weapons you can't shoot the projectiles down with missiles or bullets it's a ton of Hypersonic metal projectile it's connecting with you regardless.
George Hall at 3:50 AMJust just to clarify they're not obsolete but they're just not worth the money your money's better spent in round air surface missiles and nuclear submarines, brush is doing really good in the missile department but they have no chance in the nuclear submarine department they don't have the money to play that game comes to ground air missiles dollar for dollar which is doing really good the cost to shoot down an f35 is pretty reasonable cost to fairly close but the upkeep on F-35 is about a billion dollars when the ground air missile units are about 250 million each with no upkeep almost. But then again that's considering half the missiles work Russian missiles are known to be unreliable where America ones tend to be have a pretty good ratio at least when America is using them they do.
George Hall at 3:53 AMBig expensive carriers are sitting ducks. The group are entirely devoted to defending it. When they fail, all is lost. Future navies will have many smaller vessels. Covering thousands of miles. It's like the land troops have tanks and afv's, sitting ducks. What the troops need is big motorbikes. Our navies work well against third world countries. But that is all. The MIC sell sex. But it's time to stop sucking it. It's time to train individuals to make them think on thier feet, and act acordingly. P.S. the JSF is rubbish.
Ian R Jones at 5:29 AMMy opinion: No. The cwis systems and anti missile systems has his own capacity limits. BTW to annihilate 15 rockets per second. If someone launch against an Carrier Strike Group which part the aircraft carrier 50-60 slow rockets and 10 hypersonic rockets in "same time" the defense systems cant have enough time to destroy all of the rockets ... overloaded. And you should put atomic bomb some hypersonic and some "slow" rocket as well ... Nobody able to calculate which are the 10 rockets loaded with atomic bomb ... One atomic bomb could destroy the whole Carrier Strike Group except the submarine and the planes enough far ... the Carrier crew approx 5.000 ...
Joe at 10:04 AM
Carriers and surface fleet are
obsolete against Russia or China
and have been since the Exocet
took out out Frigate in the
Persian gulf in the 80s
In dealing with hypersonic and supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles, wouldn’t it not make sense to expand the CSG’s protective bubble outwards to 1000 to 1500KMs? Carrier aircraft can’t even patrol that far out.
Too bad the LCS has no VLS for SAMs. One can still achieve anti-missile defense using the FFG(X), but that capital ship is still costly at $850M to operate alone with 32-cell VLS. FFGX could form the far-perimeter air defense. However, with 20 Future Frigates slated, perhaps there won’t be enough for 12 CBG, not even two FFGXs per Carrier Battle Group.
Another option would be Unmanned Surface Vehicles (drones) that can sail thousands of miles autonomously. However, they’re currently so small and narrow that they can’t store any real armament besides maybe a light 25mm cannon, or a single lightweight torpedo.
So then what? Why not use Juliet Marine’s stealthy GHOST, the small boat the US Navy tried to torpedo and doesn’t want it to be sold to anyone? At $50M each with a speed of 30-50KTS and small VLS already in the design, it can carry some form of Stinger, SeaRAM, or small SAMs for far-perimeter air defense in multiple packs. With an endurance of three days, a Wolfpack of GHOSTS can sail aboard inside Amphibs and then deploy for CSG protection. Armed with cannons and missiles, they’re small and fast enough to evade most threats and I doubt the enemy would want to fire an expensive anti-ship missile at it. Working in pairs or quads, GHOSTS are shoot down missiles far away from the CSG and expand the protective bubble out to 1,500KM with minimal discomfort to the crew when operating at speed. GHOSTS could also mount UAVs and heavier missiles if the missile bay was properly configured for LRASM, NSM, ATACMs, or Harpoon, giving it an anti-ship or land attack capability. After all, it’s the US Navy that halted the construction of GHOST due to technical and legal wrangling. At $50M each, GHOST is cheap, could be effective, and could definitely increase the 355-ship count as a combatant.
The days of the aircraft carrier are over and the US are placing the lives of large numbers of sailors at risk !
The days are gone where you can park these monsters next a third world country and do your bidding ! might suggest the US go home and fix up their own house ; there is a lot of fixing to do!
Mini aircraft carriers with runways extending well beyond the carrier might prove more defensive than a single carrier.
patrick slattery at 5:59 PM
We need to get up to date on these new weapons. Sounds like we lost a hugh lead.
Fred Pilanski at 12:59 AM