|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Iskanders *have* been used. There was actually an "oopsie" a while back on Russia's part where they used one that still had its PENAIDS equipped, suggesting they were cannibalizing their allotment of nuclear-capable missiles to make their quota of war crimes. I wonder if that was in any way related to the reports that came in of KIAs and POWs from Russia's strategic missile forces. IIRC there were a few instances of that happening that were posted in one of the threads here that included photos of the patches from POW uniforms showing that it was a strategic rocket force infantry unit that was assigned to some remote base.
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 04:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 14:10 |
|
|
It seems to me that the usefulness of these new hypersonic wonder-missiles will come down to simple cost efficiency. Say you want to hit target X with a given bomb load. You can hit it with one hypersonic weapon, or for the same price you could hit it with (extremely conservative estimate incoming) ten conventional missiles, each with the same payload as the hypersonic. Even a very good missile defense system would do well to take out, let's say, six of the ten incoming old-school weapons. So you get four times more bang for the ruble with the missiles you've already had in inventory for the last fifty years. This is going to be true whether we're talking about shorter-range missiles such as have been used in Ukraine or full-on WW3-starting ICBMs, although the exact numbers will of course be way different.CommieGIR posted:They are largely propaganda weapons. I agree. They're impressive engineering accomplishments (assuming of course they actually work), but I don't really see what advantage they'd give in an actual shooting war.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 04:32
|
|
|
Cimber posted:I'm not so sure about that. Putin is very crafty and good at eliminating rivals. The people who are still around now are absolute yes men and anyone who was able enough to be a challenge to Putin has already been demoted or had an unfortunate window incident. These aren't people who are rivals to putin or in any way are a challenge to Putin, I'm talking about people who are themselves part of Putin's power structure whom he either trusts or already depends on. Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 05:03 on Apr 15, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 05:01
|
|
|
Powered Descent posted:It seems to me that the usefulness of these new hypersonic wonder-missiles will come down to simple cost efficiency. Say you want to hit target X with a given bomb load. You can hit it with one hypersonic weapon, or for the same price you could hit it with (extremely conservative estimate incoming) ten conventional missiles, each with the same payload as the hypersonic. Even a very good missile defense system would do well to take out, let's say, six of the ten incoming old-school weapons. So you get four times more bang for the ruble with the missiles you've already had in inventory for the last fifty years. This is going to be true whether we're talking about shorter-range missiles such as have been used in Ukraine or full-on WW3-starting ICBMs, although the exact numbers will of course be way different. There are some very scary scenarios as far as hypersonic missiles and carrier groups are concerned. Aegis nets don't do so hot against hypersonic missiles and if you launch enough of them you just aced a carrier. As far as land-based targets go, they would be used similarly to HIMARS if you've got enough of them to throw around to start with* - used for more important than average targets, or for things that specialize in shooting down missiles where you need to get in first with the mostest *Russia does not
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 05:05
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:There are some very scary scenarios as far as hypersonic missiles and carrier groups are concerned. Aegis nets don't do so hot against hypersonic missiles and if you launch enough of them you just aced a carrier. As far as land-based targets go, they would be used similarly to HIMARS if you've got enough of them to throw around to start with* - used for more important than average targets, or for things that specialize in shooting down missiles where you need to get in first with the mostest Killing carriers was a red line for Armageddon last I heard. So using them as an example target is silly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 05:09
|
|
|
Crab Dad posted:Killing carriers was a red line for Armageddon last I heard. So using them as an example target is silly. I didn't pick them for just funsies, it's one of the primary purposes of hypersonic missile design. They're meant to be faster than any kind of missile defense a reasonable peer would have and for Russia that includes aegis networks. I was replying to a poster asking about what scenarios in shooting war a hypersonic would give you an advantage in so I was providing examples. https://news.usni.org/2021/06/14/mda-u-s-aircraft-carriers-now-at-risk-from-hypersonic-missiles
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 05:16
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:I didn't pick them for just funsies, it's one of the primary purposes of hypersonic missile design. They're meant to be faster than any kind of missile defense a reasonable peer would have and for Russia that includes aegis networks. I was replying to a poster asking about what scenarios in shooting war a hypersonic would give you an advantage in so I was providing examples. Ok now your capital has every Ohio class raining hellfire in on you. Congrats.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 05:23
|
|
|
Crab Dad posted:Ok now your capital has every Ohio class raining hellfire in on you. Congrats. Yeah, pretty much. That carrier group would still absolutely get smoked first though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 05:25
|
|
|
You don't need hypersonics to kill a carrier. 1 attack sub will do it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 05:27
|
|
|
Didn't mean to start any arguments, and I do appreciate the example of a target class I hadn't considered. (But yeah, once the carriers are sinking... the details of these missile systems are likely to become irrelevant pretty quickly.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 05:27
|
|
|
Speaking of hypersonic missiles, welcome to the SS-18 page. Hail Satan, Slava Ukraini.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 05:29
|
|
|
ded posted:You don't need hypersonics to kill a carrier. 1 attack sub will do it. Yeah I considered those but I figured a missile would have a better chance than a sub because of destroyers and stuff. All leads to the same conclusion in the end though lol, you sink a carrier and its skydark
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 05:31
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:Yeah I considered those but I figured a missile would have a better chance than a sub because of destroyers and stuff. All leads to the same conclusion in the end though lol, you sink a carrier and its skydark Also, Hail Satan
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 05:37
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Speaking of hypersonic missiles, welcome to the SS-18 page. Hail Satan, Slava Ukraini.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 05:38
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Speaking of hypersonic missiles, welcome to the SS-18 page. Hail Satan, Slava Ukraini.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 05:52
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Speaking of hypersonic missiles, welcome to the SS-18 page. Hail Satan, Slava Ukraini.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 06:03
|
|
|
Nessus posted:This sounds like a great hook for a techno-thriller detective movie when someone uses some other ridiculous thing to sink a carrier but it's in a context where they end up just short of pushing the Button. Thirty years behind us: https://youtu.be/i02gyEu6uA4
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 06:10
|
|
|
ded posted:You don't need hypersonics to kill a carrier. 1 attack sub will do it. Just take out the fleet supply ships. Its not like they run around escorted or have any defensive capability and noones launching nukes over a few tankers and whatever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 06:15
|
|
|
ded posted:You don't need hypersonics to kill a carrier. 1 attack sub will do it. Yeah, but the missiles are specifically intended to increase the standoff distance between a carrier group and Taiwan. China's invasion plan relies upon keeping the US from getting close enough to assist
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 06:37
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Speaking of hypersonic missiles, welcome to the SS-18 page. Hail Satan, Slava Ukraini.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 07:01
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Speaking of hypersonic missiles, welcome to the SS-18 page. Hail Satan, Slava Ukraini.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 07:41
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Speaking of hypersonic missiles, welcome to the SS-18 page. Hail Satan, Slava Ukraini.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 08:20
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Speaking of hypersonic missiles, welcome to the SS-18 page. Hail Satan, Slava Ukraini.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 08:26
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Speaking of hypersonic missiles, welcome to the SS-18 page. Hail Satan, Slava Ukraini.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 08:58
|
|
|
Hail Ukrain, hail Satan https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1646725541209276417
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 09:06
|
|
|
Crab Dad posted:Killing carriers was a red line for Armageddon last I heard. So using them as an example target is silly. Crab Dad posted:Ok now your capital has every Ohio class raining hellfire in on you. Congrats. Would it though? It seems reasonable to presume any plausible carrier-killer scenario is going to have China or Russia as the culprit. Well they have nukes too. I feel like "Oh we lost a carrier. Welp! Guess it's time to end the world"  might just inspire second thoughts about your response being to automatically go nuclear.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 09:33
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Speaking of hypersonic missiles, welcome to the SS-18 page. Hail Satan, Slava Ukraini.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 09:41
|
|
|
Deptfordx posted:Would it though? Of course it wouldn't. MAD scenarios are based on the mutual part. If losing a carrier automatically triggers a nuclear exchange, then using them will too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 09:43
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Speaking of hypersonic missiles, welcome to the SS-18 page. Hail Satan, Slava Ukraini.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 10:02
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Speaking of hypersonic missiles, welcome to the SS-18 page. Hail Satan, Slava Ukraini.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 10:12
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Speaking of hypersonic missiles, welcome to the SS-18 page. Hail Satan, Slava Ukraini. Please don't lump the glory of Ukraine with the Dark Prince.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 10:25
|
|
|
Deptfordx posted:Would it though? Its actually fairly interesting question; US being the only country which has meaningful amount of carrier groups to mean jack poo poo on the global scale, how would they respond to losing one? Russia lost Moskva which basically meant pretty much the same thing for their Black Sea operations around Odessa, and didn't go all in with nukes, not even the smaller "tactical" ones. Also, 666 hail satan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 10:29
|
|
|
I would like to see citations that an attack on a carrier would result in a nuclear response. The Obama, Trump and Biden Nuclear Posture Reviews all pretty much explicitly rule that out, and even the Bush era policy can be interpreted that way if losing the carrier would be consummate with conventional defeat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 11:08
|
|
|
It would take an insane amount of firepower to sink an aircraft carrier unless you caught it at a material condition where it would have all its hatches open. Underway in a higher risk area you have everything below the waterline buttoned up tight and stuff hitting above the waterline isn't going to do poo poo as far as sinking you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 11:26
|
|
|
orange juche posted:It would take an insane amount of firepower to sink an aircraft carrier unless you caught it at a material condition where it would have all its hatches open. Underway in a higher risk area you have everything below the waterline buttoned up tight and stuff hitting above the waterline isn't going to do poo poo as far as sinking you. Yeah. Supercarriers with crews on them don't really sink from the kind of damage that non-nuclear weapons would do on them, they have too much compartmentalization and reserve buoyancy. Only slightly exaggerating, you could make a hole the size of Moskva in the middle of a Nimitz and it'd stay afloat. The most credible way to destroy one is to put a hole clean through a reactor. If the contents of a reactor are spread out all over half of the ship, I doubt they would try to save it instead of evacuating and scuttling.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 11:48
|
|
|
Happy page 666 Also, Slava Ukraini.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 12:08
|
|
|
Aren't modern heavyweight torpedos tuned to explode under the ship to break the keel rather than punch a hole in the side WW2 style. How vulnerable is a US supercarrier to that sort of attack?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 12:36
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Hail Satan, Slava Ukraini.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 12:38
|
|
|
Deptfordx posted:How vulnerable is a US supercarrier to that sort of attack? You'll need to go to Discord for that kind of intel, comrade Edit: Hail Ukraine, Slava Satana.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 12:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 14:10 |
|
|
Arc Light posted:You'll need to go to Discord for that kind of intel, comrade nah, there's footage of at least one SINKEX of that kind of thing. Nothing that floats can survive one of those.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 12:47
|
|