[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by An ex-Squid [/i]
[B]That's why I really wish the Navy had developed a Phoenix follow-on for use with the Super Hornet; the easiest way to stop an anti-ship missile is to destroy the launch platform [I]before[/I] it can launch.[/B][/QUOTE]
They were developing successor for Phoenix but then bureaucrats decided it's much better to let enemy come close and give him change to shoot.
I'm wondering if there is much future in missiles at this point. With the advent of reasonable lasers, railguns, metal storm box guns, phalanx and goalkeeper systems I think it will get to the point where a missle just isnt going to be able to penetrate a ships defenses.
Heh... bring on the new breed of big guns, kinetic railguns which you use almost over iron sights..:D
Half the problem with the wars fought these days is they arent really human conflicts, they are conflicts between weapon systems. They are busy removing the human from the system. All the humans do is arm the weapon and approve the launch.
Nothing gives you a stronger impression of the pros and cons of war than being close enough to get sprayed with your enemies blood, or listen to him beg for his life and then for his mother.
Staring into a VDU and pressing the 'your fucking dead' button just doesn't foster any empathy. A war fought with pure logic is one which we will all lose.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Captain,Simmonds [/i]
[B]Now I have posted a WARING in my Signature!!:D [/B][/QUOTE] [size=1]psst, execpt != expect[/size]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by shadow boxer [/i]
[B]I'm wondering if there is much future in missiles at this point. With the advent of reasonable lasers, railguns, metal storm box guns, phalanx and goalkeeper systems I think it will get to the point where a missle just isnt going to be able to penetrate a ships defenses.[/B][/QUOTE]
Missiles can be used in saturation attacks or can be designed to travel at high enough of a speed for reaction times to be cut down to the point where we can't easily defend against them.
Lasers have recharge times and high power requirements, as do railguns. Metal storm box guns have limited ammo, no? CIWS gun systems like Vulcan Phalanx and Goalkeeper can only put up so much lead before running out of ammo. Plus, there's the matter of accuracy and that issue of reaction times.
Can you imagine if we really put our minds to it and the US designed a Mach 4 or 5 cruise missile? It wouldn't have the largest warhead or range, but how could a ship defend against that? It isn't exactly Star Trek category tech to design one.
Keep in mind that the above weapons systems are not an effective defense by themselves for the very reasons JohnD mentions; they are "last-ditch" defenses that would be (ideally) part of a layered defense screen which would include AAW capable escort ships and, in the case of a carrier battle group, fighters equipped with long range missiles and an AWACS aircraft to provide long-range "look-down" radar coverage. A Mach 3+ anti-ship missile could still get through such a defense screen quite easily though, which is why taking out the launch platform [I]before[/I] it can launch any missiles is still the best defense against anti-ship weapons.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by An ex-Squid [/i]
[B]A Mach 3+ anti-ship missile could still get through such a defense screen quite easily though, which is why taking out the launch platform [I]before[/I] it can launch any missiles is still the best defense against anti-ship weapons. [/B][/QUOTE]
Ayup. That's why the Navy needs a good long-range interceptor with a good, high-speed air-to-air missile. I am wondering why the hell the Navy thinks it can do away with RAM and CIWS and replace them with ESSM, which has a minimum range due to being vertical launched out of VLS cells.
Comments
[B]That's why I really wish the Navy had developed a Phoenix follow-on for use with the Super Hornet; the easiest way to stop an anti-ship missile is to destroy the launch platform [I]before[/I] it can launch.[/B][/QUOTE]
They were developing successor for Phoenix but then bureaucrats decided it's much better to let enemy come close and give him change to shoot.
[url]http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-152.html[/url]
Heh... bring on the new breed of big guns, kinetic railguns which you use almost over iron sights..:D
Half the problem with the wars fought these days is they arent really human conflicts, they are conflicts between weapon systems. They are busy removing the human from the system. All the humans do is arm the weapon and approve the launch.
Nothing gives you a stronger impression of the pros and cons of war than being close enough to get sprayed with your enemies blood, or listen to him beg for his life and then for his mother.
Staring into a VDU and pressing the 'your fucking dead' button just doesn't foster any empathy. A war fought with pure logic is one which we will all lose.
[B]Now I have posted a WARING in my Signature!!:D [/B][/QUOTE] [size=1]psst, execpt != expect[/size]
Whatever Blair, Hoon and co are smoking, I think I want some. :confused:
[B]I'm wondering if there is much future in missiles at this point. With the advent of reasonable lasers, railguns, metal storm box guns, phalanx and goalkeeper systems I think it will get to the point where a missle just isnt going to be able to penetrate a ships defenses.[/B][/QUOTE]
Missiles can be used in saturation attacks or can be designed to travel at high enough of a speed for reaction times to be cut down to the point where we can't easily defend against them.
Lasers have recharge times and high power requirements, as do railguns. Metal storm box guns have limited ammo, no? CIWS gun systems like Vulcan Phalanx and Goalkeeper can only put up so much lead before running out of ammo. Plus, there's the matter of accuracy and that issue of reaction times.
Can you imagine if we really put our minds to it and the US designed a Mach 4 or 5 cruise missile? It wouldn't have the largest warhead or range, but how could a ship defend against that? It isn't exactly Star Trek category tech to design one.
[B]A Mach 3+ anti-ship missile could still get through such a defense screen quite easily though, which is why taking out the launch platform [I]before[/I] it can launch any missiles is still the best defense against anti-ship weapons. [/B][/QUOTE]
Ayup. That's why the Navy needs a good long-range interceptor with a good, high-speed air-to-air missile. I am wondering why the hell the Navy thinks it can do away with RAM and CIWS and replace them with ESSM, which has a minimum range due to being vertical launched out of VLS cells.