How is their defense against hypersonic missiles, I wonder?

  • pooh [she/her, any]
    ·
    3 years ago

    http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/

    The Chinese military has developed a ballistic missile, Dong Feng 21, specifically designed to kill US aircraft carriers: “Because the missile employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased. It is estimated that the missile can travel at mach 10 and reach its maximum range of 2000km in less than 12 minutes.” That’s the US Naval Institute talking, remember. They’re understating the case when they say that, with speed, satellite guidance and maneuverability like that, “the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased.”

    You know why that’s an understatement? Because of a short little sentence I found farther on in the article—and before you read that sentence, I want all you trusting Pentagon groupies to promise me that you’ll think hard about what it implies. Here’s the sentence: “Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack.”

    That’s right: no defense at all. The truth is that they have very feeble defenses against any attack with anything more modern than cannon. I’ve argued before no carrier group would survive a saturation attack by huge numbers of low-value attackers, whether they’re Persians in Cessnas and cigar boats or mass-produced Chinese cruise missiles. But at least you could look at the missile tubes and Phalanx gatlings and pretend that you were safe. But there is no defense, none at all, against something as obvious as a ballistic missile.

    So it doesn’t matter one god damn whether the people in the operations room of a targeted carrier could track the Dong Feng 21 as it lobbed itself at them. They might do a real hall-of-fame job of tracking it as it goes up and comes down. But so what? Let me repeat the key sentence here: “Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack.

    • Oso_Rojo [he/him, they/them]
      ·
      3 years ago

      Even as a commie it’s hard for me to comprehend that so many Americans are so high on their own supply that they really think their 20th century military is capable of defeating a 21st century missile swarm

      • emizeko [they/them]
        ·
        3 years ago

        in their movies the US military always wins and movies are reality

        • RandyLahey [he/him]
          ·
          3 years ago

          my favourite bit of the kong vs godzilla movie was when godzilla casually tore an american carrier in half with his nuclear breath and absolutely nobody gave a single shit about all the navy chuds killed

    • discountsocialism [none/use name]
      ·
      3 years ago

      The military has been acting like we're defenseless to scare politicians into more funding and to justify a war with china, maybe even a preemptive strike. Like how we 'lost the ai race' a few weeks ago.

      • DontComeAlaHarris [he/him]
        ·
        3 years ago

        And that was a Pentagon guy saying that, too! Like yeah dude clearly you're still working for the same masters.

    • Mindfury [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      Xi, please give me the Dong Feng, I yearn for death

      • pooh [she/her, any]
        ·
        3 years ago

        https://www.npr.org/2021/10/20/1047384050/behind-murky-claim-of-a-new-hypersonic-missile-test-there-lies-a-very-real-arms-

        "One can target airfields and aircraft carriers, within 15 or 20 minutes of flight time, literally thousands of kilometers away from the Chinese mainland," he says. Griffin adds that the new intercontinental hypersonic missile could take that capability a step further. With or without a nuclear warhead, such weapons could potentially strike U.S. ships anywhere on Earth. "That is a really big deal," he says.

        • DontComeAlaHarris [he/him]
          ·
          3 years ago

          Michael Griffin, a former undersecretary of defense for research and engineering

          It's funny to take note of when people here are willing to take a DoD apparatchik's words at face value uncritically.

          • pooh [she/her, any]
            ·
            3 years ago

            Let’s take his words critically then. In your view, what specifically is wrong with this statement explaining the capabilities of hypersonic missiles/spacecraft?

            • DontComeAlaHarris [he/him]
              ·
              3 years ago

              What's right with it? We have no way of knowing either way. But that doesn't mean we should just accept it. Especially when China itself has denied the that the recent test was of weapons. And as anyone who has watched Dr. Strangelove knows, a deterrent is useless when it's kept a secret.

              • pooh [she/her, any]
                ·
                3 years ago

                What’s right with it?

                China doesn't deny that the test of a hypersonic vehicle took place. The official line is that it's for spacecraft, which isn't wrong, but it could also just as easily be used as a missile, and China would be foolish not to pursue that capability when the US and everyone else is doing so. Such a missile would be a valuable deterrent against US aggression for the reasons outlined in the quote, and it seems this test was a pretty effective announcement.