If he was this angry back then, i wonder what he said when Chinese published their war games results when the results was just 20 hypersonic missiles was needed to nearly entirely obliterate carrier group.
At least a few years later I kept flip flopping for a while between "eh, maybe they have some defense system at this point, I sure wouldn't give away that knowledge for the tactical advantage" but it's been like 15 years now and nothing so I'm pretty sure they're still at "expensive coral reef when facing anything but insurgents"-status
The article is incredibly reductive though, as every jeune ecole type always is. Note that PLAN is the navy who is pioneering the new methods but they still build the surface ships and even carriers. I would probably bet for PLAN staff to know a little bit more than some warnerd random guy.
Also his proof is bad too. One example he have is the very abnormal sinking of Israeli destroyer - the attack was basically surprise attack from minimal range using cutting edge weapon against old WW2 destroyer not having any antimissile system. Second is corvette of Nanuchka-II class not having any antimissile systems either. So he chosen examples of ships not having antimissile systems as examples of antimissile systems not working, how brilliant!
He also fail to mention yet again what all naval jeune ecoles in history did - the sea. Massed missile cutters are good on littoral waters, but completely lose it on a high seas. he's more correct about submarines, but that is not freeze in time either (i mean we are discussing under precisely such article).
What of course comes into play is the doctrine, note that US Navy needs different doctrine because for over 200 years it is purely offensive navy with power projection abilities in the entire Earth, while both Soviet Navy and PLAN were build clearly for defensive role. US literally cannot resign from the conventional navy, but neither can China since Pacific is so big. Russia due to geography can and as you can see, is doing that, they basically do not even to try to replace the big surface ships (last destroyer was comissioned in 1993), they go for frigates at most and submarines.
EDIT: I just went to check the list of ships sunk by missiles, and with possible exceptions of Russian cruiser Moskva which might or might not be sunk by missiles, none of the ships sunk in combat conditions by missile ever were equipped with antimissile systems.
This War Nerd Article from 2009 keeps popping up in my head
If he was this angry back then, i wonder what he said when Chinese published their war games results when the results was just 20 hypersonic missiles was needed to nearly entirely obliterate carrier group.
Minus for obnoxious jeune ecole vibes though.
At least a few years later I kept flip flopping for a while between "eh, maybe they have some defense system at this point, I sure wouldn't give away that knowledge for the tactical advantage" but it's been like 15 years now and nothing so I'm pretty sure they're still at "expensive coral reef when facing anything but insurgents"-status
The article is incredibly reductive though, as every jeune ecole type always is. Note that PLAN is the navy who is pioneering the new methods but they still build the surface ships and even carriers. I would probably bet for PLAN staff to know a little bit more than some warnerd random guy.
Also his proof is bad too. One example he have is the very abnormal sinking of Israeli destroyer - the attack was basically surprise attack from minimal range using cutting edge weapon against old WW2 destroyer not having any antimissile system. Second is corvette of Nanuchka-II class not having any antimissile systems either. So he chosen examples of ships not having antimissile systems as examples of antimissile systems not working, how brilliant!
He also fail to mention yet again what all naval jeune ecoles in history did - the sea. Massed missile cutters are good on littoral waters, but completely lose it on a high seas. he's more correct about submarines, but that is not freeze in time either (i mean we are discussing under precisely such article).
What of course comes into play is the doctrine, note that US Navy needs different doctrine because for over 200 years it is purely offensive navy with power projection abilities in the entire Earth, while both Soviet Navy and PLAN were build clearly for defensive role. US literally cannot resign from the conventional navy, but neither can China since Pacific is so big. Russia due to geography can and as you can see, is doing that, they basically do not even to try to replace the big surface ships (last destroyer was comissioned in 1993), they go for frigates at most and submarines.
EDIT: I just went to check the list of ships sunk by missiles, and with possible exceptions of Russian cruiser Moskva which might or might not be sunk by missiles, none of the ships sunk in combat conditions by missile ever were equipped with antimissile systems.