The Navy Thread

So how could the US defend against these systems right now?

IRBM's on the first and second island chains with similar capability and more extensive cruise missile capabilities also in the islands and steady improvements in our sub-launch cruise missiles. All of which are in one way or another ongoing.

Which is why the US has had sudden interest in HGV's in the first place. Russia is in on the game to. US, Russia, and China are all rushing to develop systems to intercept HGV's. Which is why the Patriot system is pushing past PAC-4 David's Sling already and the future system involves a system and weapon for targets like an HGV. THAAD is also a push in that direction but its job is to serve as more dedicated ABM and standard ballistic interceptor where as Patriot has to do triple duty as AA, ABM, and anti-cruise missile.

All three can intercept standard Hypersonic Ballistic threats but that is the problem. Systems like the Pershing II's MARV was built in response to Russia's road mobile TEL launchers and largely aimed at that system with nuclear capability. It was specifically built to be a hard to hit non-standard ballistic projectile in the first place. The Pershing II MARV tech is a few decades old by this point and not around in the US arsenal anymore however the US is pushing to fix that. China will likely beat everyone to a conventional hypersonic weapon based on an IRBM system but Russia and the US will likely catch up very quickly.

Some believe the idea is to do to China what we did to Russia with the Pershing II. Parallel track strategy. Basically it boils down to this. The US goes either you join the treaties and scrap this capability or we build something to meet it and possibly beat it and return the favour. That is what got Russia to the table for certain with the IRBM treaty. Which since China went fuck your stability and rapidly developed a variety of IRBM's that fly in the face of the treaty both Russia and the US went well shit.

Both the US and Russia are no longer participants in it one way or another. So basically we are back to square one with IRBM's with an arms race with three powers in it again.

Before you get excited Taira with THAAD no it isn't designed for HGV interception in fact there was a desire to develop that capability however that little project had limited self funding and official US funding dried up leaving it in limbo. That funding is instead being poured into lasers and the rail guns for that same mission. Patriot might get it in the future programs and updates.

edited 5th Sep '15 8:16:12 AM by TuefelHundenIV

Best effort basis with what already exists, if not directing a theoretical first strike towards seeking and destroying Dong Feng launchers (unlikely to be successful considering how SCUD hunts went during the First Gulf War). Because a Macross Missile Massacre is practically inevitable if things go that bad. See Red Storm Rising:

Alternatively, we can accept the fact that the Chinese "ideal situation" for this is pretty much the inverse of the American far right's fantasies - "the 'Muricans/Chinese are tilting the balance of power in a way we don't like! The Middle Kingdom/Home of Democracy must Do Something about it!"

edited 5th Sep '15 8:18:12 AM by Krieger22

So in other words treat China like a threat?

Already doing that. Both overt, in funding, and weapons dev are aimed in that direction.

I forgot to include India in the HGV and HGV intercept race. However they are kind of tied into this with Russia.

I never said THAAD would go after a HGV. It can if it hits the boost phase, but that's more AEGIS BMD's area.

The Army has it's concept HGV and the Air Force is working on one. The problem is that the HGV pushes science even more than the SR-71 did. And that was years of frustrating work because everything from hydraulics to the construction of the plane had to be made from scratch.

Harder then it really sounds. And the USAF is hogging the funding on it outside of DARPA Falcon Project. At least the DARPA project is still kicking around and has moved past the data collection from the flights.

Doesn't THAAD go on an HGV?

* Raises Eyebrow *

It is a hypersonic projectile but it isn't built to go after HGV's just ballistic missiles and ballistic warheads in general. They didn't build it for HGV threat which is kind of odd. There is an option that could possibly give it the capability in 4 years but the funding for it has been diverted to lasers and rail gun projects which the military in general has pushed for. It was already partially funded by the parent company to prove it could be a feasible upgrade.

Somewhere down the line as part of expanding on Patriot is upgrades to give Patriot HGV terminal intercept like it has for standard ballistic intercept now.

Probaly in the lasers case because it does not run out of ammo.

Possibly a mix of both. General atomics already started work on a land based platform to serve as a type of mobile artillery and hypersonic gun based AA system. Lasers are supposedly part of the big future vision type scheme as well.

I wanna see the Blitzer functional.

I want to see what they have up their sleeves for AA ability especially what they pair it with for SHORAD possiblities. It seems they really want to make the rail gun fire guided hypervelocity rounds. Here is the fancy company ad for the land based system

Lawmaker says block buying carriers would save money

The US to deliver 4 new patrol boats to the Philippines

Battlecruisers: Eggshells armed with hammers "There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today," said Admiral Beatty as he watched his battlecruisers blow up one by one at the Battle of Jutland.

The words were classic British understatement, but 3,000 dead sailors were ample evidence that something was indeed wrong with the vessels that were neither battleships nor cruisers.

edited 13th Sep '15 1:39:01 PM by JackOLantern1337

The battlecruiser is what I think of when I see rail-gun development articles, as much as I want them to exist. They'd make every ship they were mounted on one hell of a target, and coupled with the reactor they'd need... If they get put into service, it should be on a new class of nuclear subs.

Well, they did work as advertised when used for their proper role, chasing down raiding cruisers, especially in the destruction of Admiral Spee's squadron off the Falklands. But they weren't protected enough in the line of battle, and they were so expensive and carried such big guns that temptation was strong to put them there nonetheless, for which they suffered.

Okay, ever since the missile came into naval warfare, the gun's been obsolete. The big advantage of railguns is not just in the occasional ship to ship gun shot, it's in the naval gunfire support.

A rail gun (in theory) could deliver the firepower of an F-18 squadron in a few minutes. And without the defenders shooting back.

A large ASM would put paid to even the Iowa or Yamato. Most ships now have point defense system and travel in battlegroups. Those that travel alone don't pick fights with things they can't handle by themselves.

Not necessarily true. Yeah maybe the big 16 inch brown powder fired AP shell guns are obsolete in ship to ship but say a 155-203mm railgun fired at many times the speed of sound?

That is exactly what he said.

"What she said"...heheh..

Beat

Anyways, a railgun would be best on a cruiser like a Zumwalt class. And no, it's not defenseless, since large ships travel in battlegroups.

I'm still somewhat skeptical about railguns for air defense: they might be able to do it, but their capability is marginal compared to traditional missile systems. With proper guidance railguns pack a tremendous wallop and a ship can carry a lot of rounds, but for modern air defence total magazine capacity is much less important than rate of fire, and that's one category where railguns are unlikely to ever match missiles. A VLS-equipped ship capable of spitting dozens of missiles all over the sky in a few seconds would be a lot better for the air defence role than a railgun firing once every six seconds.

(Right now the limitation on rate of fire is the guidance system, and that's improving by leaps and bounds. Modern fleet-defence SAMs are datalinked; the ship takes a look over the sky using its own sensors and offboard ones too, tells each SAM "go here and turn on your own sensor", and repeats the process at an incredible rate. This way, a ship can launch and guide dozens of missiles at a time.)

Ops didn't know what.

The Railgun was never meant to replace the VLS on those ships, it is meant to supplement them.

You can use both missiles and now the raigun cannon to shoot down threats and if Zumwalt class vessels deliver what they promise, soon enough well see point defense lasers able to shoot down high velocity objects like super sonic missiles and even the infamous anti-ship ballistic missile warheads.

Missiles, lasers and railguns on seaborne vessels hopefully will become a reality.

Potentially. I don't see lasers being all that helpful against ASBMs, which are heat-shielded by default, unless the lasers get some serious increases to their energy output.

For the future, I think we'll see missiles for air defence, lasers for point defence, and railguns playing an auxiliary role, a lot like the 5-in guns on ships today.

The heat shielding doesn't stop lasers from drilling wholes and screwing them enough to either blow them to bits or making them miss by a wide margin.

The main appeal to railguns is the shore and mainland bombardment and counter battery fire, for other things it a less costly way to deal with threats.

Maybe so on the lasers (it'd depend on their power), exactly so with the railguns. For that reason I think that the talk of railguns in an AA role is overstating what they can do.