What's new

China, Iran and Russia can easily attack US aircraft carriers with new technology

As American said, their aircraft carrier is an indicator.
When an aircraft carrier was attacked by a superpower, it's time for nuclear attack from US.
So after all we are coming back to the nuclear attack. OK let's see whose kids are better at throwing stones after the FALL.

Well, First of all "Popular Science" are not actually anything substantiated or in any way or form authority. I can write a long paragraph and post it somewhere or some online magazine, that does not means they are true. By the way, they (Popular Science people) is ripping off the famous "Popular Mechanic" people in the US.

Haha, I wouldn't go that far to "is ripping off the famous "Popular Mechanic" people in the US". It has won over 58 awards, been translated into over 30 languages and distributed to at least 45 countries.

Popular Science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Popular Science
(also known as PopSci) is an American bi-monthly magazine carrying popular science content, which refers to articles for the general reader on science and technology subjects. Popular Science has won over 58 awards, including the American Society of Magazine Editors awards for its journalistic excellence in both 2003 (for General Excellence) and 2004 (for Best Magazine Section). With roots beginning in 1872, PopSci has been translated into over 30 languages and is distributed to at least 45 countries
 
So after all we are coming back to the nuclear attack. OK let's see whose kids are better at throwing stones after the FALL.



Haha, I wouldn't go that far to "is ripping off the famous "Popular Mechanic" people in the US". It has won over 58 awards, been translated into over 30 languages and distributed to at least 45 countries.

Popular Science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Popular Science
(also known as PopSci) is an American bi-monthly magazine carrying popular science content, which refers to articles for the general reader on science and technology subjects. Popular Science has won over 58 awards, including the American Society of Magazine Editors awards for its journalistic excellence in both 2003 (for General Excellence) and 2004 (for Best Magazine Section). With roots beginning in 1872, PopSci has been translated into over 30 languages and is distributed to at least 45 countries

That's their words not mine, dear Tiqiu.
U.S.: we will use nuclear weapons if the aircraft carriers are attacked by Dongfeng missiles - China Military Report
Anyway, they said that doesnt' mean others could easily attack their A/C
 
Last edited:
That's their words not mine, dear Tiqiu.

Anyway, they said that doesnt' mean others could easily attack their A/C
haha, dear friend, mine is partly Albert Einstein's word too.:-)

I don't think it is easily either, but can be done if all resources are skewed to this purpose.
 
This is speculation and baseless at that. Similar arguments were made when the aircraft became a weapon -- that the aircraft will render navy fleets ineffective after General Billy Mitchell successfully bombed and sank a ship in a demonstration. In that event, the target ship was stationary and did not offer any resistance. Still, proponents of airpower had no problems being overly enthusiastic and predicted the end of the surface fleet as a viable offensive weapon of future wars.

We know what happened navies since then, do we ?


I explained to this forum the basics of radar detection that included the bi-static configuration which is the foundation of the so called 'passive radar' yrs ago, before you came on this forum. You are not telling me and the forum old timers anything new.

But you are still wrong about the phrase 'passive radar'. There is no such animal.

Passive radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The word radar came from an acronym of 'radio detection and ranging'. That is actually NOT as common knowledge as believed. The reason is because the acronym is so commonly used that it became ordinary and careless of its origin. Use the word 'radar' in lay conversation and everyone will understand that it is about detection of airborne things with electromagnetism. The fact that it is a two parts process is unknown. Your argument is evident of that ignorance.

When you said this...


...You are describing the bi-static radar configuration.

radar_multi-static_triangles.jpg


In the illustration above, each receiver is actually a 'passive receiver of reflections from opportunistic signals'. The word 'opportunistic' denotes transmission sources that are NOT under the ownership/control of a singular entity such as yourself. In a mono-static configuration, YOU are that owner/controller of transmission and reception. In a bi-static configuration, you take any reflections as available. If any transmission sources go offline -- too bad. Your reception is either gone or degraded in quality. If there are multiple receivers in a network, the set up could be called 'multi-static', but the foundation of the set up is still bi-static.

The phrasing 'passive radar' is one of convenience that have at best partial technical basis. But it is essentially wrong. If you are a radar engineer, use that phrase in the company of peers and you will be laughed out of the room. If you are a layman, you will be tolerated.


And I am certain that you do not have any credible source for that either. How convenient.


Iranian military leaders uses wiki. US military leaders have the real stuff and people like me to advise them how to use the real stuff best. :lol:


And you believe sensors cannot be seduced/deceived ? Let me guess, we are talking about 'Chinese physics' and 'Iranian physics' ?


Here is where you are wrong...

Which is easier to hit with a rock, a strip of surface area or a square of surface area, assuming both have the same real estate size ?

accu_prec.jpg


In the above illustration, the strip actually have a better chance of survival than a square.

More of your technical ignorance...The nose cone have limited internal volume.

If the sensor is radar, there is an inverse relationship between antenna size and beamwidth, meaning the smaller the antenna, the wider the beamwidth which results in poor target resolution.

RADAR BEAM CHARACTERISTICS - 14271_60

See the highlighted ?

What this mean is that given the limited internal volume of the nose cone which will result in a small radar antenna, most likely the best resolution the radar will see of the ship is a spot of light.

aim7_1981_seeker.jpg


The above is an AIM-7 air-air missile radar seeker antenna. The AIM-7 missile is an 8 in diameter body so that mean its radar antenna is smaller than the palm of your hand minus the fingers. Assuming the DF-21D have a radar, do YOU know its radar antenna size ?

Most weapons systems are untested in combat. But the reality is that of the world's major sophisticated weapons systems, ours have the highest quantity of weapons systems that actually took action in combat. I am not going to criticize the DF-21D as untested in combat, but unlike the aircraft that have no countermeasures when it came out, the ship already have a complement of combat tested countermeasures when the DF-21D came out.

You are not debating this subject who is a student like you.
Whatever body. If it makes you feel better that you won this round fine. If in your mind, calling the other side student, or just repeating the public knowledge which are totally irrelevant to the point of conversation, is winning the debate, then be my guest.

However, it is clear you still don't understand what a passive radar is and how it is used in today's asymmetric warfare.

You just invented this doubtful idea.
I think 99.99% wouldn't agree with you.

As general recognization, a good cruise missile would all the way hit a moving target at A/C size within its range, but Ballistic Missile always has a CEP even against stay still target.

As you know the ballistic arc could be computed since the launch to final course, If you agree that BM has very limited maneuverable ability,
spreading rain of bullet to it from CIWS likely could kill it. or interceptor would kill them easier than killing cruise missile.

This fact follow how hard to shoot flying bats, but it's easier to shoot a HSR train. The most challenge is the response time.

I want to share you the way Vietnam guerrilas use to shoot enemy air fighters.
Shoot them when facing them during a dive bombing.

Classical attacks to aircraft carrier ( as in WW2 )
bombtact.jpg


This samurai could cut a coming bullet by his sword because he know the bullet would make very little turn on the flight to him, mean, the coming angle is very small.
isao-machii-sword-bb-cut-aj.jpg
The ballistic missiles are changing and they are becoming more and more accurate. Up to a couple of decades ago, they were mostly used as tactical nuclear delivery vehicle. Pinpoint accuracy didn't matter given the high destructive power of the bomb itself.

But this whole trend is changing. Now ballistic missiles are being perfected by nations like Russia, China and Iran. This way they can hit their targets without putting their bombers at risk. Iskander missile is a good example. It has an accuracy of 5-7m and it is ballistic. It even does evasive maneuvers at terminal phase to make interception more difficutl. Hopefully you believe this:

9K720 Iskander - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interception is a different story. However, I have not heard of any reliable defense against them yet.

Those who are pretended of sleeping can never be woken up.
Is this a Chinese quote? Interesting, we have the exact same quote as well.

400,000m divide 50m = 8,000 x 8,000 equal 64,000,000 dot pixel.
You didn't count weather aspect, night aspect...
and as photography, electronic noise.

Why we must count on noise level, because we are talking about pixel level.
You know there're noises added to the image, they don't represent for any real thing.

The big problem isn't identifying an A/C from other oil tanker, but identifying which some pixels are ships, which are cloud and their shadows on Earth, which are LEO satellites, which are asteroids which some pixels are just noise. I must tell you even GF-4 can't capture pixels of an A/C because the contrast level is very low. It's not as high as an ongoing big fire in the forest at night.

One of the situation is you found thousands to millions suspected pixel arrays, and technically can't investigate all of them in more details during limited time.

Image noise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Highimgnoise.jpg
You don't need satellite imaging to find a carrier battle group. There are many other ways to detect a Naval unit. One of many is just listening for its radar and other electromagnetic signature.
 
Haha, I wouldn't go that far to "is ripping off the famous "Popular Mechanic" people in the US". It has won over 58 awards, been translated into over 30 languages and distributed to at least 45 countries.

Popular Science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Popular Science
(also known as PopSci) is an American bi-monthly magazine carrying popular science content, which refers to articles for the general reader on science and technology subjects. Popular Science has won over 58 awards, including the American Society of Magazine Editors awards for its journalistic excellence in both 2003 (for General Excellence) and 2004 (for Best Magazine Section). With roots beginning in 1872, PopSci has been translated into over 30 languages and is distributed to at least 45 countries
The man explained to you how satellite imagery interpretation works in ways that you will not find in Internet Chinese forums. How much awards a magazine have is irrelevant to what you just learned.

Whatever body. If it makes you feel better that you won this round fine. If in your mind, calling the other side student, or just repeating the public knowledge which are totally irrelevant to the point of conversation, is winning the debate, then be my guest.

However, it is clear you still don't understand what a passive radar is and how it is used in today's asymmetric warfare.
I am not interested in 'winning' anything over you. As a non-American, you have an emotional investment to cast US in a negative light in all things and if violating the laws of physics is necessary -- the end justifies the means.

But if you say something that is wrong, it is the silent readers that matters more than you. For them, I will post rebuttals.

You don't need satellite imaging to find a carrier battle group. There are many other ways to detect a Naval unit. One of many is just listening for its radar and other electromagnetic signature.
Here is another fact of combat tactics, thanks to the American veterans on this forum, that you do not know about...

The US Navy is the world's premier practitioner of emission controls (EMCON) methods in combat. With EMCON Alpha, a ship will not generate any EM signals at all and that ship could be as large as an aircraft carrier.

In 1984, the USS Ranger left San Diego and entered EMCON Alpha. For two weeks, her fighters 'attacked' Hawaii and no one found her. Air operations were conducted in complete radio silence and with visual cues. Anyone ever launch from and land on an aircraft carrier using only a stopwatch and hand signals from the deck ?

It is not that easy to find a ship in the middle of an ocean, no matter what Internet forum Chinese say.
 
The man explained to you how satellite imagery interpretation works in ways that you will not find in Internet Chinese forums. How much awards a magazine have is irrelevant to what you just learned.


I am not interested in 'winning' anything over you. As a non-American, you have an emotional investment to cast US in a negative light in all things and if violating the laws of physics is necessary -- the end justifies the means.

But if you say something that is wrong, it is the silent readers that matters more than you. For them, I will post rebuttals.


Here is another fact of combat tactics, thanks to the American veterans on this forum, that you do not know about...

The US Navy is the world's premier practitioner of emission controls (EMCON) methods in combat. With EMCON Alpha, a ship will not generate any EM signals at all and that ship could be as large as an aircraft carrier.

In 1984, the USS Ranger left San Diego and entered EMCON Alpha. For two weeks, her fighters 'attacked' Hawaii and no one found her. Air operations were conducted in complete radio silence and with visual cues. Anyone ever launch from and land on an aircraft carrier using only a stopwatch and hand signals from the deck ?

It is not that easy to find a ship in the middle of an ocean, no matter what Internet forum Chinese say.

Point 1: Yes the silent reader matters and that is exactly why I'm writing. However, I think I made my point in my previous posts and it is for the silent reader to decide.

Point 2: Comparing 80s tech with that of today is not correct. If you knew anything about physics, you'd know that a big mass of steel like that of a carrier moving in the magnetic field of Earth will leave a sign no matter how insignificant and can be picked up by sensors. And that's beside the rest of the signatures like radars and etc. No one said it is easy, but it is doable.

EMCON is mostly achieved by radio silence and cutting off all radar and electromagnetic transmissions. It doesn't mean that the radars of the carrier would be working and yet you can somehow prevent the enemy from detecting it. It may work for a surprise attack. But keeping the radars off for a long period of time will pose a much larger risk to the carrier group. So, it is a temporary measure.

Point 3: My main point, which you are still missing, has nothing to do with the laws of physics. It is a change in strategic significance of carriers.

Point 4: I have no interest in casting a negative light on Americans. I actually admire US as a nation for its achievements. However, most of Americans like yourself have become blind by past glories. And again this is irrelevant to my point.
 
Point 2: Comparing 80s tech with that of today is not correct. If you knew anything about physics, you'd know that a big mass of steel like that of a carrier moving in the magnetic field of Earth will leave a sign no matter how insignificant and can be picked up by sensors. And that's beside the rest of the signatures like radars and etc. No one said it is easy, but it is doable.
Yeah...Conceptually, it is 'doable'. But oddly enough, technological powerhouses from Asia to Europe have yet to field such a system that is good enough to replace or at least take eminence over other methods. Here we are debating on whether it is feasible to real time detect and track a ship via satellites while YOU insists that we are vulnerable because of a concept.

EMCON is mostly achieved by radio silence and cutting off all radar and electromagnetic transmissions. It doesn't mean that the radars of the carrier would be working and yet you can somehow prevent the enemy from detecting it. It may work for a surprise attack. But keeping the radars off for a long period of time will pose a much larger risk to the carrier group. So, it is a temporary measure.
I never even implied so. Emissions Control (EMCON) automatically indicate there are degrees of such control. The more severe the control, the less the EM sources that are active and the less the overall EM emanations. EMCON Alpha is the most restrictive where the ship do not transmit anything at all, not even personal radios, aka 'walkies talkies', are allowed. Such a tactic is used when the ship, or fleet, needs to transit with as low the EM detectability factor as possible. Temporary measure or not, it worked and we are the master at it.

Point 3: My main point, which you are still missing, has nothing to do with the laws of physics. It is a change in strategic significance of carriers.
Nonsense. The laws of physics rules. So far, you have yet to present a credible argument that somehow the DF-21D have altered the significance, strategic and tactical, of the aircraft carrier. The laws of physics favors no one. Those who win are those who know how to exploit the laws of physics to their best advantages.
 
Yeah...Conceptually, it is 'doable'. But oddly enough, technological powerhouses from Asia to Europe have yet to field such a system that is good enough to replace or at least take eminence over other methods. Here we are debating on whether it is feasible to real time detect and track a ship via satellites while YOU insists that we are vulnerable because of a concept.

It's not me insisting. There are a lot of articles in the internet about passive tracking. And as everybody knows, these "concepts" are employed long before they are publicized. The fact that no other country is talking about it doesn't mean they don't exist. Iran's military says it is doing it. You can choose to believe or not.

I never even implied so. Emissions Control (EMCON) automatically indicate there are degrees of such control. The more severe the control, the less the EM sources that are active and the less the overall EM emanations. EMCON Alpha is the most restrictive where the ship do not transmit anything at all, not even personal radios, aka 'walkies talkies', are allowed. Such a tactic is used when the ship, or fleet, needs to transit with as low the EM detectability factor as possible. Temporary measure or not, it worked and we are the master at it.
.

Yes and when they eventually break their radio silence, they can be detected. Like the old submarines that had to surface at some point. And then were hunted down.

Nonsense. The laws of physics rules. So far, you have yet to present a credible argument that somehow the DF-21D have altered the significance, strategic and tactical, of the aircraft carrier. The laws of physics favors no one. Those who win are those who know how to exploit the laws of physics to their best advantages.

You as the commander of US 5th fleet, let's say you know the war is imminent between US and Iran, are you going to keep your carrier in Persian Gulf or are you going to pull it out if Iran's missile reach? Are you going to think in terms of physics or are you going to consider the possibility of one of those ASBMs hitting your carrier?
 
Last edited:
You as the commander of US 5th fleet, let's say you know the war is imminent between US and Iran, are you going to keep your carrier in Persian Gulf or are you going to pull it out if Iran's missile reach? Are you going to think in terms of physics or are you going to consider the possibility of one of those ASBMs hitting your carrier?
In every weapons development program in any country, two complementary issues exists:

- Capabilities-based
- Threat-based

To be capabilities-based mean the assessment takes the current technology level as priority over threats and the program moves from there.

To threat-based mean the assessment takes a more predictive path, hence higher risk of being wrong, and the prediction takes priority over the current technology level.

No weapons system is completely one or the other. And I will give a few examples...

The machine gun was capabilities-based. Everyone knows that in war, soldiers always seeks to numerically overwhelm the other side in order to increase the odds of winning the war. So the threat is a given, meaning it is common to any army in any situation. The question becomes how can we leverage the current technology base to create a gun with a new capability -- rapid firing -- to mitigate the situation of one being numerically inferior. In other words, the machine gun is a 'force multiplier' to either equalize the disparity or to overwhelm the other side in terms of bullets delivery.

The gun-less F-4 was a threat-based program. Not every military have an air arm, and even if a military have an air force, its hardware may not be the equal to mine. That mean the threat is unique and usually immediate. The US assessed the threat as highest priority and used its current technology level to create an all-missiles air-air fighter. Unfortunately, the US overestimate its technological savvy and the result was a disaster. The cannon ended up being installed on the F-4 and later fighters.

Low radar observability is a program that has near ideal balance between capabilities and threat assessments. We assessed the current threat and found that our technology level was fully capable of meeting the threat, current and future.

Landlocked countries do not have navies, so this missile seems to be a threat-based program. The threat is real and immediate, but the weapon is not anti aircraft carrier ballistic missile but anti SHIP ballistic missile. The weapon program is specific at one level, against waterborne targets, and general at another level, ship but not aircraft carrier.

The DF-21D have yet to definitively prove itself to be any of the above three situations but in my opinion, China seems to be underestimating the US Navy on how we employ our carrier fleet and overestimate her current technology level to produce a weapon that can challenge the ship, not just the aircraft carrier. In other words, the DF-21D is in danger of being the equivalent of the gun-less F-4.

That does not mean we are careless with our carrier fleet. Of course we will take cautious measures but in order for you to render my carrier tactically and strategically ineffective, the DF-21D would have to turn the carrier the way of the battleship.

As a related topic, the battleship did not go away because of the aircraft carrier but because navies, even from wealthy countries, found that maintaining two types of fleet, one with the aircraft carrier as main weapon platform and one with the battleship as main weapon platform, was financially prohibitive. The US Naval Surface Fire Support Association have been for yrs calling for the return of the battleship.

United States naval gunfire support debate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unlike aircrafts that can abort a mission because of weather, once fired, the cannon round have no choice but to continue to its target. Back in the Vietnam War, the North Vietnamese refused to negotiate unless the USS New Jersey is removed from the theater. In Desert Storm, Iraqi Army POWs revealed that they were more afraid of the continuous cannon fire than from periodic strike aircrafts. They did not know of the USS Iowa but they can tell the difference between a descending cannon round vs a falling bomb.

The aircraft did not do away with the ship. The aircraft carrier did not do away with the battleship. The submarine did not do away with the surface fleet. So far, history have not been kind to anyone who claimed he can do this or that to the ship.

On the other hand, for its young life so far, the US have been far more successful than any other country, including Nazi Germany, at successfully meeting the challenges of the unpredictability of threat-based weapons platforms that continuously revolutionize warfare.
 
America's Newest Aircraft Carrier: A '$15 Billion Floating Graveyard'?
© Photo: Wikipedia/U.S. Navy
MILITARY & INTELLIGENCE
17:34 07.03.2016(updated 17:53 07.03.2016) Get short URL
206951570
If worst comes to worst, Russia's latest hypersonic missiles could make the America's newest aircraft carrier design, the Ford class, a 'floating graveyard', says journalist and military analyst Sergei Ischenko.
Later this year, the US Navy plans to accept the USS Gerald R. Ford, the most expensive and advanced warship ever put to sea, into service. Eventually, Ford-class carriers may replace all ten of the Navy's Nimitz-class carriers, starting with the USS Enterprise.

Analyzing the new vessel and its weak points, Sergei Ischenko, a military analyst and columnist for independent Russian newspaper Svobodnaya Pressa, suggests that unfortunately for the US Navy, in the event of a conflict with Russia, America's latest and greatest carrier would effectively be turned into a giant floating graveyard. And those aren't his words, but those of American analysts themselves.

1020095360.jpg

© AP PHOTO/ STEVE HELBER
US Navy Starts Working on Next Nuclear Super Aircraft Carrier
"The Navy's gigantic new aircraft carrier, capable of accommodating up to 90 aircraft and aerial vehicles (including drones and the F-35 fifth generation attack aircraft), has already received a series of enthusiastic epithets about its high level of automation, and its record $15 billion cost," Ischenko recalls.


At the same time however, "a series of respected American military experts have already suggested that it may be possible that what the aircraft carrier really is a super-expensive, 'super-graveyard' for its crew of thousands. The huge ship, aspiring to become a symbol of America's power on the oceans, may become obsolete before it is even completed."

Last month, Harry J. Kazianis, a military analyst and senior contributor for the Washington-based foreign affairs magazine The National Interest, said as much in an article.

"Countries with the technological means, specifically great powers like China and Russia –nations the Pentagon considers as the main big challenge for the US military – are developing cruise missile platforms that can strike from long-range and en masse from multiple domains," Kazianis noted. "Such weapons…if accurate, using highly trained crews combined with the means to find their target on the vast open oceans –could turn America's supercarriers into multi-billion dollar graveyards for thousands of US sailors."

"And Harry Kazianis is not alone in offering such an opinion," Ischenko recalled. Also last month, in an op-ed for Politico, retired US Navy Captain Jerry Hendrix, a defense analyst for the Washington-based Center for a New American Security, suggested that the golden age for US carriers ended the moment when China and Russia began introducing long-range coastal missile systems into the ranks of their militaries.

"Hendix," Ischenko writes, "is convinced that in case of war, the capabilities of Russian and Chinese anti-ship cruise, ballistic missile and air defense forces would force US Navy carrier strike groups (CSGs) to stay hundreds or even thousands of kilometers from the enemy's coast, which would make strikes from their carrier-based aircraft against ground targets ineffective. Additionally, any CSG movement is easily observable from space, enabling the US's opponents to position their countermeasures ahead of time."


"The arithmetic here is simple: the main strike capability of the contemporary US Navy consists of its air wing, consisting of 30-40 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets. The combat radius of these aircraft is about 800 km. For the Super Hornets to able to even threaten to conduct air strikes against targets on the shores of enemy territory, they would have to take off 400 nautical miles from their targets."

"However," the analyst continues, "if the US Navy CSG were to attempt to make it to say, the Russian shore, it's unlikely that it would reach its destination, because, far from its target, it would be attacked by the Tu-22M3, a supersonic long-range bomber equipped with the Kh-22 anti-ship missile, designed back in the Soviet period specifically for use against aircraft carriers."



1035912236.jpg

© SPUTNIK/ ALEXANDER VILF
Tupolev Tu-22M3 strategic bombers flying past the Kremlin during a rehearsal for the parade marking the 70th anniversary of victory in the Great Patriotic War, May 2015.
"Each Tu-22M3 is capable of carrying up to three such missiles. Moreover, the missiles can be fitted with a nuclear warhead." The Kh-22's latest modification, the Kh-22M/MA, has an operation range of 600 km (320 nautical miles), delivered at Mach 5, and carrying a payload of 1,000 kg of RDX. "The range of the aircraft itself is practically unlimited, since it is possible to refuel from the air," Ischenko notes.

1035912598.jpg

© WIKIPEDIA/
A Raduga Kh-22 anti-ship missile under the wing of a Tupolev Tu-22M supersonic long-range strategic and maritime strike bomber.
"And if by some miracle the US CSG were to evade the air-based missile strike, closer to our shore the ships would come up on the firing range of the K-300P Bastion-P mobile coastal defense missile system, equipped with the P-800 Oniks supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles [known in export markets as the Yakhont, with an operational range of 600 km [the export variant's range is 120-300 km, depending on altitude]."

"Right now, the Bastion-P is deployed near Sevastopol, Anapa, the Kola Peninsula, Novaya Zemlya and the Kurile Islands. There is reason to believe that in the near future these systems will deploy for combat duty near Kaliningrad and in Kamchatka. Additionally, plans exist to deploy the first 'Bastion-S', a silo-based system with up to 36 anti-ship cruise missiles, in Crimea by 2020."

Among the Oniks's key features is its low profile flight (sea-skimming) capability, which allows it to defeat electronic countermeasures and fly under enemy fire. Moreover, Ischenko recalls that the missiles' 'swarming pattern' of attack means that even if part of them were damaged or destroyed, "the remainder are guaranteed" to find their targets.

"Then there are the Russian multipurpose nuclear submarines, which can also find themselves in the CSG's way. For example, the K-560 Severodvinsk, the lead unit of the Project 885 'Yasen', is capable of carrying up to 32 Oniks missiles."

"Then of course, there are the small missile ships, which recently became famous all around the world, with their Kalibr cruise missile," which feature the 3M54K and 3M54T anti-ship variants. Finally, "there are the Varszawianka (Kilo-class) submarines, equipped with the same weapon, and 3K60 'Ball' coastal defense system, featuring the Kh-35U missile," whose maximum range has recently been upped to 300 km.

"But even all this," Ischenko suggests, "will seem like a baby's toy, if Russia will be able to start mass production of the 3M22 'Zircon' hypersonic missile. By all appearances, several such missiles have already been tested and put into service. A few days ago it was announced that the the Admiral Nakhimov heavy nuclear missile cruiser, presently undergoing modernization at the Severodvinsk port, would be equipped with such missiles by 2018."

"The range of the Zircon remains a secret, with some experts saying that it at least matches the Oniks. But the flight speed of the new weapon is several times faster, which dramatically reduces the time necessary to pass through any naval-based air defense systems and, consequently, effectively makes attempts to defend aircraft carriers and their support ships pointless."

"Moreover, because the Admiral Nakhimov's rearmament implies that the launchers onboard will be capable, depending on the mission, of launching the Oniks, the Zircon or the Kalibr, it's logical to assume that the weight and size characteristics of the missiles will be maximally universalized." If this is the case, the analyst notes, "it would mean that the latest Russian hypersonic cruise missile could also equip the 'Bastion' shore-based systems, thus precluding the possibility of carrier groups approaching [Russia's shore] even for a brief period."

Ultimately, Ischenko notes, "it is logical to assume that these facts are not a secret to American experts, whose writings have almost 'buried' the multi-billion dollar Gerald R Ford directly in its shipyard. What's their solution?"


Kazianis, in his piece for The National Interest, "is convinced that there is an urgent need to develop long-range unmanned drones, capable of launching from the deck of aircraft carriers. Apparently, their range should be sufficient to ensure that they can fire without entering the range of Russian coastal defense systems."

"I am afraid that if we don't give America's most expensive weapon of war the platforms it needs to strike from range, the aircraft carrier could join the battleships of yesteryear as floating museums sooner rather than later," Kazianis noted.

"However, as the author himself complains, the Pentagon, for now, has no intention to create such UAVs. Secondly, who was it that promised Kazianis that Russia would not simultaneously take up efforts to increase the flight range of its anti-ship missiles?" Ischenko bluntly concludes.

Read more: America's Newest Aircraft Carrier: A '$15 Billion Floating Graveyard'?
 

With this weapon in our arsenal. All Chinese, Russian and Iranian warships can be easily sunk.
 

With this weapon in our arsenal. All Chinese, Russian and Iranian warships can be easily sunk.

I am keen to know how smart these missiles.
There's no need for kamikaze anymore
 
Back
Top Bottom