An unspooken advantage on missiles is, not only they are cheaper and easy to mass produce, with their current range the can easily overcome the mean distance to the closest pacific island, so in the event of war, being land based they can easily cover themselves in a huge area denial zone across all micronesia and almost all south pacific. And Since China not only have the largest civilan and military fleet and now air cargo transports, providing logistics to achieve that is a real possibility. In a case of war we would, probably see a repeat from what japan did in WW2, with attacks over the multiples archipelagos, creating airports, naval ports, lots of transports, beach landings and contest over who outproduces the other in a long run.
Can you cover the issue about the Israel-Gaza rocket bombarding, since very modern military and anti-ballistic system of Israel manages to intercept only 1/4 of missiles fired from Gaza which I would expect that are far inferior to the modern standard. I would appreciate, and the community too. Also could Israel invade Gaza and how deadly that would be to them ?
Living at Okinawa right now. I use to work at a Cafe, and my boss was a US Marine, and retired to become a chef on island. He once told me, "this island is a high danger zone, if China desires they want to go to war"
@@birdsnature6421 the end goal of all rulers is global domination. Even the USA isn’t happy with their status in the world. Everyone wants to be the god of the human race.
We had PLGRs which were replaced by DAGRs, but we still learned how to do land navigation with a compass and protractor. The Navy has also restarted teaching its officers celestial navigation after taking a decade off doing that (was a stupid thing to stop doing). You always want redundancy when you are relying on technology.
@Max Honestly I don't see them invading Taiwan, as it would hurt them more then help them. Now they can use it as a case against western capitalism (I know, weird argument, but it is China we are talking about) but it is also possible that Pooh Bear gets a bit mad with power. Maybe setting up a defensive alliance with South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, India, and Vietnam for the defense of Taiwan could help, but it may also exagerate the problem.
@@zhongxina9420 I was just talking to a buddy about that. Honestly I think they’ll hit Taiwan, Vietnam and Philippines at once. Try to split any retaliation effort up. Hell could even see them getting NK involved (along with some forces of there own)to go to the South
Yeah but with the leadership we have now, its still possible. The scariest thing to me about the left is their fondness for crippling the DoD and leaving us vulnerable to modern threats by canceling this precise type of program: the important ones. They have already cost us a new main battle tank, multiple armored and amphibious vehicles, artillery weapons, new attack helicopter, and guided missile cruiser in just 8 years, not to mention all the canceled air force programs and missiles, munitions, etc.
@@cameronspence4977 …Very true and I do agree with you. My statement and assumption is that the PrSM is far into testing phase and precision fires is the number one modernization priority for the 🇺🇸 Army. They recently tested it using a HIMARS. I think this will be a valuable asset, too valuable to cancel at this point.
With the current administration under heavy influence from the far left wing of the Democrat party, I could see a scenario in which it is canceled. The good news is Biden sees the China threat, and is making a good move to pivot from the Middle East to the Western Pacific. But if certain Democratic Congresswomen had their way, we would have no military.
It knows where the fleet would be if the fleet hadn't changed course after being detected. Also the U.S. Navy has SA-6 anti ballistic missiles and laser weaponry.
Because the ship would have to cross an entire ocean to become a true threat to the American homeland. Have to prioritize certain hardware for basic strategy. The same reason we pretty much have the only blue water Navy on Earth. Most of our defense is our offense. Carrier strike groups forward operating half a world away means we have to focus more on stopping anti ship missles not creating them. We rely almost entirely on air assets for all Naval defenses and air assets can carry ANYTHING including nukes.
@@kaidanielson5956 I am glad someone mentioned those attack subs. Our subs alone could cripple any enemy naval force in the world. Anti-ship ballistic missiles are for people who don't think they have the ability to keep a navy away from their own shores. We can.
great video also the part where he's goofy as hell trying to shake the earbuds out of his head 2 seconds after talking about ballistic missiles is absolutely hilarious I want them now
just go check out some photos from aftermath of iranian R-17 Scud's knockoffs strikes on your superduper bases )) that is a good example of how junk from 60's equipped with chinese-made guidance electronics turn those missiles in to unstoppable power ) especially when you have to drop them on impotent yanks with their questionable capability ABM junk )
A carrier battle group is a MUCH harder target scenario than a single ship anchored. People who have never served on an aircraft carrier have zero clue of their true capabilities..... all of you arm chair military "experts" don't know jack of real world power...
AEGIS is Greek for DOME, the AEGIS system covers the top of the ship as well as a 360 degree coverage around the ship. AEGIS will see a Ballistic missile coming straight down on a Carrier or other ship. Further even if the Carrier is using the old 48C Air Search Radar back in the 1980's the Navy added a straight up looking antenna on the top of the 48C just in case a missile comes down from a high altitude onto a ship. This was a counter measure to the Russian/Soviet Kitchen Missile.
You still are going to be wasted....the chinese missile manuovre randomly...and termiated at mach 10 ! The aircraft carrier of today will be like the battleships of yesterday...sitting ducks..
I think the SM-2ER Blk IV could have around 60 - 70% ish interception rate on those DF-21Ds, but they only can intercept the ballistic missile in it's terminal phase which is nearly right above the ship.
@@ganboonmeng5370 do you have any proof that since ballistic missile something that’s been around for almost hundreds of years now is the end of super carriers
Wow i am totally impressed by your work!!! Loved it!!! You have cleared my soo many doubts!!! May god bless u and your channel for more and more growth!!! ❤️
One problem for homing hypersonic missiles is the plasma created from reentry can interfere with radio signals, including radars and data links needed for command guidance.
It was mentioned in the older video. Experts believed that the hypersonic missiles will slow down to supersonic speed during a terminal phase (and they'll slow down due to the atmospheric density at lower altitude anyway) in order to be able to use its own radar. This limitation means that lower-tier air defenses can potentially intercept them, although there'll still be less time for overall engagement, hypersonic weapons are not a silver bullet as the media believed.
It's theoretically possible to get a strong radio signal in/out, which could allow for remote guidance. It's just difficult. A sensor on the other hand would have little hope of operating in that portion of the trajectory, because a radar bounce-back is drastically weaker than the origin signal. And IR wouldn't work at all through plasma.
@@mickeyg7219 Case in point Pershing 2 does execute terminal deceleration maneuvers by bleeding energy through pitching up and down, probably to enable the condition for the seeker to operate. If you are the target itself carrying self defense it is true it might not require an otherwise more sophisticated BMD interceptor. But a boost glider or airbreathing scramjet is different and the focus is already shifting that direction. If you have little time you might have to enable more self defense at the point of target since the interception geometry is just easier than catching arrow mid flight.
Umm, the Russians had anti-ship ballistic missiles since the seventies. Current Chinese missiles are modified and/ or improved copies of old Russian designs.
@@gotanon8958 Yes, you're right I didn't watch the video all the way through. Now that I did though, I can tell you that the missiles didn't become operational because of an ABM treaty with the US. The USSR were limited in the amount of ballistic missiles they could field and chose to field ones with nuclear warheads.
@@slavap4963 actually, they were restricted to an ABM system for one ICBM silo and the capital city to prevent MAD from becoming irrelevant and allow both sides to retaliate in case of a nuclear strike
If most ports and international roads and airports in china were destroyed during a military conflict, the US will only need to focus on defense while witnessing the free fall of the chinese economy and therefore the fall of *China!*
Lol, business doesn't work like that. The ones making the most money from US products "made in China" are not Chinese factories, but dchebags like Ray J, the creator of Raycon
Don't blame China, Blame your damned businessmen and politicians who gave China the ability to make their shhhttt kuz "mUh gLobuL wArMiN" and Americans getting too full of themselves ergo making manpower costs and overall costs higher than if it were made in China
1:11 if it does what the PLA claims! They have to find and confirm a target before they can shoot at it, after that I would be surprised if they can actually hit a moving target besides a lucky hit once in a while.
I really like the "assault carrier" focused model the Navy is going with. This allows larger carriers to remain further away and distribute strike packages over a large, many branched network of mini-carriers. I wonder if it's possible to daisy chain aircraft from the West coast of the US across the pacific using carriers, Hawaii, the island chains and finally Japan and Taiwan.
With new stealth drones being developed to work with our new 6th gen fighters, i'm not sure the assault carrier thing will be nessicary, with the MQ-28, XQ-58 and the X-62 being able to project the force of a given fighter and suppliment it's payload. We're so far ahead in naval and air combat technologies, and now that we're done taking China lightly (I would mention Russia but.... we all see how that is going for them) the capabilities should be as jaw dropping as the F-22 was when it was revealed. We *HAD* a stealth cruise missile that probably would be smart to bring back, so that we could strike their TELs long before our assets get within the danger zone.
Meanwhile submarines and in-flight refueling kind of render some aspects of the "no-go zone" kind of a moot point. Let them find out how well that works, if the U.S. ever desires to reach out and touch them. Also we don't have a long range land based anti-ship ballistic system because the only adversary that we consider formidable enough to try and touch us is Russia, and we'd assume they'd use their sub fleet for that purpose too. No point in investing in a weapons system that doesn't work vs. the most likely threat.
Indeed. not only that, but we don't even actually need to enter the 1500 mile danger zone around China. All we need to do is blockade them by preventing trade ships from passing through the Indian ocean to China. China's green water navy couldn't do anything to realistically challenge this, and it'll be a LONG time before they can. India, which doesn't like China either, could also easily pull this off.
China built the ballistic anti-aircraft carrier because the US has them well protected and plentiful. But there are no foreign aircraft carrier plentiful enough for the US to built such ballistic weapon.
There is no need for the US to waste time on anti ship ballistic missiles. As we already have many way to eliminate ANY naval threat... surface, air, subsurface, or space. Ballistic anti ship missiles just are NOT proven in any real world combat.... US Naval weapons and tactics ARE PROVEN.
I am an Iranian myself, but I got to admit the US satellite move before our missile strike was pretty smart. With a simple idea they probably saved dozens of valuable aircraft.
Im just glad Irans slowly moving towards being normal again, and not on the same terrorism shit they were in the 80's. If you still live there, make sure your politicians ally with the rest of the middle east, and get off their war shit. Funding random terrorist states is only gonna make the situation worse.
The Primary Anti-Ship weapon of the USN is not the carrier air wings its the Submarine fleet which the reason why the US has a large attack submarine fleet.
Because we do not face the threat of a superpower like the US attacking our shores where these would come in handy. Our antiship capabilities do not depend on ballistic missiles--which have their own limitations.
@@mybad8805 It will but there are few of them. That said I do think they could do a huge amount of damage with low losses. Were it not for them being slow and the fact that the Chinese have a lot of long wave radars they could get away with most anything. The fact that the Chinese would be able to send fighters to the general area of the B1. The fighters using IRST systems makes this a hard one to judge. My guess would be that by using E warfare systems decoys and so on most of the B1 would complete the mission successfully. Geting out of there that done might be a little more of a problem but atleast 8 out of 10 should get home. The amount of damage caused from 10 B1 bombers is enormus.
Covert Cabal...you amaze me sometimes honestly. The U.S has bases in Japan, South Korea, Guam...why the heck does thE USN need a hypersonic anti-ship missile when it can hit China faster.
actually not only DF21D, the latest DF31 also have anti ship capability and that one can reach Guam apparently. it is a defensive weapon designed to offset American carriers influence in the south china sea, there is no need for the US to develop such things, unless, they want to develop it and deploy in Guam. but again, in a real full scale conflict the facilities in Guam and Okinawa would be destroyed quickly by Chinese ballistic missile strikes, so there really isn't much point to deploy anti ship ballistic missile in Asia. maybe one day when the Chinese navy expand pass the first and second Island chain and mobile in the pacific ocean on a regular basis then there is a need to put them in Hawaii as base protection.
Having such a large missile should mean that it has the space to have very large radars,sensors,communications systems,a powerful electrical supply and powerful electronic systems with multiple communications uplinks for in-flight up to the second guidance from Sat's/ground/ship/airborne and land radars and all sorts of huge and powerful systems for very accurate guidance I would imagine,
Everything said "aside" this is a defensive weapon system. Its made to shield your coastline from enemy ships. The US simply does not have need for that currently as no power really is looking at invading Guam, Hawaii, or the US.
@Kazakhstan factory worker Ok, an ICBM is a missile, it can be guided like any missile. This means its as accurate as the system guiding it. Now, even if its not 100% accurate, it actually doesn't really need to be. See, here is the truly scary concept. Lets say the ICBM launches a 3000 pound "Warhead". So the carrier is detected by any one of a dozen means... Airborne search radars, underwater listening systems, Sat... what ever. The position and course are tracked and the missile fired. The missile goes into low earth orbit, arcs over and recives constant updates from tracking systems on the target. The missile then begins its dive on the carrier group... traveling at mach 23 its booking it... using the earths gravity to keep its speed up as it plunges in to reentery, its ceramic heat cap protecting it. its "tail end" has the sensors... its what the russians call a beam rider. rather then looking for a return from the target, it instead tries to say "inside" the beam that a satalite is using to "highlight" the target area. at anywhere from 15 to 5 miles out from the carrier, a small "shattering charge" detinates inside the ICBM. This causes the warhead to fragmentate... so, instead of having a single 3000 pound warhead... now you have say 300 10 pound chunks, all traveling still at around mach 15ish. covering an area between 500 and 1000 meters in diamater. Buchshot from space. even if just a few chunks... hit the carrier... well at that speed, its going to rip right though the decks, givent he size of a carrier if the grouping is "tight" say a 5 mile out break up. you're going to see a carrier thats swiss cheese, with reactor damage, fires everywhere, and worse. Even if only 5-10 fragments hit, the chances are its still going to be enough to limit air operations and force the carrier to retreat. Which... is the point.
@Kazakhstan factory worker Ok stop and think about the cost again. an aircraft carrier is 13 billion, a single fighter is between 200 and 300 million. A single Anti-ship missile is 3 million BUT, it would take several hundred of them to saturate the air defenses of a carrier group. so thats 300 million + delivery platforms with any losses in platforms adding to the attack cost. A single 300 million balistic missile, to damage or destroy a 13 billion dollar carrier, is actually more cost effective then 24-32 bombers + 3-4 missile each. And ANY attack often requires multipul systems to coordinate. Thats one of the jokes to the beam rider missiles... they are 1960's tech.
@Kazakhstan factory worker Oh, think about this then. each patriot missile costs 5 million dollars. Each SM-2 ER missile costs 3 million. The US Will "ripple fire those at 500k drones and rockets. predicted losses against ANY US carrier group in a strike is upwards of 50% of aircraft sent out. So having a weapon that can force US carriers out of an area... meaning you don't really need to worry about it is a benifit. Sure, you might replace 20 bombers for 20 of these missiles. BUT if you are not looking at an offensive air arm, but defensive... it can make other countires in the area feel "safer"
For your own safety, please do not run with earphones/earbuds. Inattentive drivers are everywhere, and your own attention to sound could save your life. That's not even getting into deliberate threats like "polar bear hunting"
Not just inattentive drivers but willfully reckless and dangerous drivers who are so petty and pathetic that they will speed up when ur crossing just to be an asshole about it
@@sufimuslimlion4114 Or just random people who want to attack you. I would never wear such things. It's important to be aware of your surroundings when outside.
USA is also integrating NSM from Kongsberg teamed up with raytheon tech who is manufacturing them. 100nm range super sea skim with 5th gen. Passive system. But it is still not that of a long range missile 😅
I was thinking that too. I dont know why the range it so short it needs to be triple that at least. But maybe it is they just keep it classified or are going all in on Tomahawk and Lrasm
So basically we should just use our aircraft carriers aircraft instead of worrying about long range missiles when our airforce is the world's largest airforce and our navy is the world's second largest airforce.
...Our Minutemen-3 ICBMs are like 330kt+ per MIRV, carry 3 MIRVs per ICBM but up to 7-11+, can fly ~12k-15k+ miles and is precise enough to hit within dozens of yards or less, IIRC like from released data. The US researched hypersonic tech a long time ago but just never built them...I think we're good on nuclear tech. We prob could stand to audit the bureaucracy and fed-res and cut worthless programs like Pakistani gender studies so we can reallocate the funds and time to shit like better laser weapons, tbh.
Use the TR3B or put them on a space platform in perm station over the south pacific above china or a dumb with a kit with sensors and everything else needed and drop from 60k feet give it some type of wing so it can glide a few hundred miles and a small rocket engine. Just need a platform on the aircraft carriers that can go that high. Sure they can modify an f/a18 to reach that altitude.
Any ideas or new weapon systems can be reverse engineered, copied and improved. All you need is to have the resources and engineers to build your own version.
The USA doesn't need an anti-ship ballistic missile. But a super sonic strike missile in the anti-ship cruise missile role. The Norwegian company Konnesberg is working on such an application.
I think a cruise missile ohio class loaded with antiship tomahawks would work fine. Forget whether is it a seaskimmer, or maybe that's the harpoon (or none), but given we have at least 4 of them, and each can carry 154 tomahawks, that a lot of damage
@John Hero They will launch multiple missiles. CIWS will catch the rest. For a nearly 40 year old missile with a laughably small warhead, tomahawk missiles are ridiculously unsuited to fill a peer anti-ship role. The DF-21D has vastly more range, is substantially faster and carries a much more powerful warhead.
Iran actually hit the right buildings which the drones and equipment were stored. Also Iran told the US when and where they are attacking so they would save the soldiers. BTW Iran built antiship ballistic missiles.
? Iran was hoping for as many casualties as possible and got nothing except a bunch of concussions. We killed one of their most important and powerful people that still warrants revenge
Iran told Iraq, which later told the US. They were saying when the attack was gonna happen, with the intention of destroying equipment for propaganda, and not start a war. Thats why the US still scrambled the aircraft.
Russia has by far the best anti-ship missiles on the planet. Aside from India, with whom Russia jointly developed the P-800/Brahmos missile, Russia is the only country on earth capable of producing supersonic missiles.
Uh no. The sm3 is a mach 18 missile. All US ballistic missiles are hypersonic, the agm183 is hypersonic. The sm6 is supersonic. The us currently has the best anti-ship missile in the jassm. Supersonic missiles will be spotted earlier and will be shot down. Subsonic, stealthy missiles will be spotted later and are slower, but there will be more of them and they are less expensive.
it's doctrinal. our navy is a blue water force, and has to focus on force projection. ASBMs are large and primarily defensive in nature due to their deployment limitations. PrSM is a start, and I like the focus on rapid deployability, and I do see a possibility of it being used on ships _in the future,_ but if I had to choose between the PrSM and new ships for the navy, I'd go for the latter.
copium video. Iran also has anti-ship balletic missiles called Khalij Fars (Persian gulf) US cannot build this kind of weapon just like they can't build hypersonic missile while Iran China Russia developed their own hypersonic. all the tech US has been developed by immigrant from east (Persians or Chinese) and nazi scientist from paperclip. Project but they are no longer alive and US no longer desired by new generation of scientists to leave their own country to move there. you are in decline. BTW Iran has its own spy satellite so that made-up story was absurd. only reason you knew was because unlike you that have no respect for Iraq sovereignty, Iran told Iraq that if has anybody there should tell them to leave. but Iraq passed the information to you. coup harder
carriers actually have terrible range. placing aircraft on a carrier is a major compromise to its performance. this means less payload, less fuel or less speed, etc. in most cases, the designers choose to give up fuel, because they can refuel mid air. at the time this isn't a problem because aircraft out-range the missiles. but the table has turned. HCM's go beyond the maximum range of aircraft. there is question now whether carriers have a role in future wars. the answer currently is that it probably has some role but it will be quite different from what it once was.
@@wli2718 some missles have grater ranges yes But they are bulky and their launch is easyer to spot Planes have much greater versatility and outside of few specific situations are usualy more effective As you can see on the video, those rockest are most of the time coastal based And in terms of coastal defense, planes allso don't have those mentioned disadvatages
@@petrsukenik9266 planes are limited by available air bases. and there are fewer air fields than there are missile bases. you can easily spot air fields from space, as they take up a lot of space. and really, the point of an aircraft is to launch missiles anyway. current bombers will not survive modern air defenses.
A CSG can move anywhere within a 2900 nm circle within an hour, so getting a track on them is problematic to say the least. They’re also equipped with the SM-6 to counter ballistic missile threats, ergo, the so called ballistic ship killer isn’t the golden bullet
A CSG might move at around 30 knots at max? Although the trajectory of a ballistic missile is determined on its way up, these DF-21D missiles have its own radar guidance system, so hitting something as large as an aircraft carrier won’t be so difficult… Regarding the intercepting capabilities, expect a saturated attack where dozens of missiles come at once, overwhelming any defence system. Against such a valuable target, as much missiles as necessary will be used.
Ballistic missiles are ridiculously hard to intercept. The intercept window is just too small. Firing 5-8 missiles at any one naval target will definitely result in that target's destruction. Firing 8 USD$10 million missiles to sink a USD$13 billion carrier along with its USD$6 billion air wing seems like a good deal to me
@@hphp31416 >> you still need some kind of recon aircraft to penetrate fighter cover and detect the carrier >> Well, let's see: Eighty plus Yaogan IMINT/ELINT satellites in orbit which can be set up to pass over a given area of sea every twenty minutes or so. Several hundred (SOSUS) bottom lay sonar sensors which can relay data from up to 3,000m down _with no network cable_. About twenty Soar/Divine Dragon HALE UAV which the Chinese are working on setting up with a networked long-wave radar that can look OTH across 1,500-2,500km of sea space. Multiple SSN/SSK which have gotten unpleasantly close to our ships in exercises before being driven to the surface. The WZ-8 hypersonic UAV which has optical and radar capabilities and can fly 1,500km from an H-6 parent aircraft. And an absolutely enormous naval auxiliary fleet of fishing trawls and small freighters which criss-cross the SCS on a daily basis. Oh yeah, also the various VTS reporting networks which, while the carrier itself doesn't have to be a part off, all the hundreds of civilian hulls, which want to retain insurance, must be. If those ships start 'flowing around' a certain null reporting area in the sea which is the carrier exclusion zone in wartime, you have them. Starting back in the 1920s or so, the USN did a bunch of 'Fleet Problem' exercises which showed, by FP9/10 that any carrier, operating within range of shore bomber bases, would last approximately less than 1 day before being sunk. They don't have the legs or the tanker gas to get out beyond the combat radius of dedicated bombers and they cannot generate enough sorties, while crippled by the deck cycle of 1:45 to fend off attacks. 'The Bombers Always Get Thru'. As proven by several attacks on Royal Navy carriers in the Mediterranean, Midway, Guam and the Philippine Sea. Today, the bomber is a one way missile. And the carrier is a huge, acoustically and EM noisy, value concentration of up to 10,000 men and 20-30 billion dollars. Which can be tracked via it's unique 'formation' signature of clustered props and radars for hundreds of kilometers of convergence zones/deep sound channel distance or small RCS UAS ELINT (AEGIS doesn't work if you don't rotate and radiate...) tracking off the aforementioned small fishing hulls. And then attacked, either directly or via the fleet trains. A CSG can only sustain air ops for 3-5 days without needing to slink off and do an unrep and can only do serious, ongoing, air ops for roughly ten days before the crew have to be given serious rest. Given that it will also take anything up to a week to get to the AO in travel time and two weeks to 'surge' a six deck force from standing start on the West Coast; China, which will use DF-15 TBMs to destroy Taiwan's air defense grid and fighters to provide CAS and Escorts for the up to _40,000_ airborne troops available to seize Kaohsiung and Taipei in a 24hr combat pulse, will have fait d'accompli'd the Taiwan seizure mission before Go Navy can even arrive at their own funeral to play Sinkex. The big issue, which people ignore, is that you don't need hypersonics if you start out within 100-200nm of the target area. Supersonics are fine and much smaller/cheaper as concentrated warshot to penetrate defenses with. With ~150 such missiles on a dedicated SSGN, similar to what the USS Florida (with UGM-109) brought to Libya for Odyssey Dawn, the U.S. Navy could easily provide a staggered but not out Taiwan defense force some serious fire power with timely JTAC handoff via SOF. Stabilizing any surprise attack with massive, pinpoint, counters that were simply _not on the island_ to be hit themselves. The USN have an Oligarch problem in that their admiral's yachts have sucked up such huge amounts of resources, for so long, that they have literally created self-sustaining ecosystems which have no relevance to modern warfare as it is. The problem with such specialization (think: battleships) is that it creates equally specialized predators which feed on it. And a smart strategist simply operates within a faster tempo ops plan to bypass or render out-of-domain irrelevant the system. We will be operating at the wrong end of a 6,000nm logistics chain in any fight off the Chinese coast. We should not be doing so with a conop paradigm which is modeled on June 4, 1942. Because we will be the ones playing the role of Nagumo.
I think the US is wisely going for the sea skimming sub or supersonic stealthy option, the problems surrounding hypersonic on moving targets with conventional warheads are just to complex and expensive, rather hit the target...
Right, the expense of a hypersonic warhead limits it to only the most high value targets, and only if they can track it all the way to terminal phase. Physical saturation remains the most viable way to sink a ship... and with the recent JDAM moving-target upgrade, the US ironically now has hundreds of thousands of warheads to potentially drop on even the most sorry patrol boats.
copium video. Iran also has anti-ship balletic missiles called Khalij Fars (Persian gulf) US cannot build this kind of weapon just like they can't build hypersonic missile while Iran China Russia developed their own hypersonic. all the tech US has been developed by immigrant from east (Persians or Chinese) and nazi scientist from paperclip. Project but they are no longer alive and US no longer desired by new generation of scientists to leave their own country to move there. you are in decline. BTW Iran has its own spy satellite so that made-up story was absurd. only reason you knew was because unlike you that have no respect for Iraq sovereignty, Iran told Iraq that if has anybody there should tell them to leave. but Iraq passed the information to you. coup harder
![[柴犬ASMR]曼玉Manyu&小白Bai 毛发护理Spa asmr](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0TsXQ7z2Dh4/mqdefault.jpg)
Go to buyraycon.com/covertcabal to get 15% off your Raycon purchase!
Come to me please
The worst part of this channel is all the endless tacky sponsorship. Otherwise it's actually really good.
An unspooken advantage on missiles is, not only they are cheaper and easy to mass produce, with their current range the can easily overcome the mean distance to the closest pacific island, so in the event of war, being land based they can easily cover themselves in a huge area denial zone across all micronesia and almost all south pacific.
And Since China not only have the largest civilan and military fleet and now air cargo transports, providing logistics to achieve that is a real possibility.
In a case of war we would, probably see a repeat from what japan did in WW2, with attacks over the multiples archipelagos, creating airports, naval ports, lots of transports, beach landings and contest over who outproduces the other in a long run.
RAYCON GOOD, WIRES BAAAAAAD
Can you cover the issue about the Israel-Gaza rocket bombarding, since very modern military and anti-ballistic system of Israel manages to intercept only 1/4 of missiles fired from Gaza which I would expect that are far inferior to the modern standard. I would appreciate, and the community too. Also could Israel invade Gaza and how deadly that would be to them ?
Red Storm Rising is an incredibly good book.
Red storm rising is one of my favorite books ever, Tom Clancy really threw it out of the park with that one
The part where the NATO Carrier Strike Group was attacked was extremely butt clenching lol.
@@radicalxg8282 Remember Larry Bond was the co writer on that one, and you should check out his book Red Phoenix it’s red storm but North Korea.
@@RobinFowler1982 Oh awesome tip i'll check it out later
Also great:
The Cardinal of the Kremlin.
Living at Okinawa right now. I use to work at a Cafe, and my boss was a US Marine, and retired to become a chef on island. He once told me, "this island is a high danger zone, if China desires they want to go to war"
I lived in Henoco (Camp Schwab)
why would china wants to fight with us, its a suicide, we just want to protect our coast
@@birdsnature6421 Why do bully like to pick on what they perceive to be weak kids on the playground?
@@birdsnature6421 the end goal of all rulers is global domination. Even the USA isn’t happy with their status in the world. Everyone wants to be the god of the human race.
@@michael7324 You mean how US picked on all those smaller nations over the last 30 years? Yea what a shitty bully.
You explained the restrictions of relying on spy satellites very well. I always wondered why these militaries still need recon planes.
Because you never put all your eggs in 1 basket, better to have and not need than to need and not have.
We had PLGRs which were replaced by DAGRs, but we still learned how to do land navigation with a compass and protractor. The Navy has also restarted teaching its officers celestial navigation after taking a decade off doing that (was a stupid thing to stop doing).
You always want redundancy when you are relying on technology.
You cant get oblique photographs with satellites which is vital for identification of assets
@@remoquillojosemiguel1105 All the satellites go down first when WW3 starts. They are flying too high.
@@freedomfrogs4847 they also are too predicable, well known, expensive, and too vulnerable to EMP from a high altitude nuke.
mhm Cabal and Curious droid upload a military video at the same time #tinfoilhattime
Awesome content creators :)
Geopolitics channel Caspian Report dropped a show about China's navy too
Just finished watching CD's video.
Pretty good too.
Smarter Everyday is also sponsored by Raycon. Coincidence? I don't think so...
Thank for the channel name :)
Incoming Cold War 2: Electric Boogaloo
@Max thats a quick way to get the world to stop trading with them and Ultimately cripple them
@Max Honestly I don't see them invading Taiwan, as it would hurt them more then help them. Now they can use it as a case against western capitalism (I know, weird argument, but it is China we are talking about) but it is also possible that Pooh Bear gets a bit mad with power.
Maybe setting up a defensive alliance with South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, India, and Vietnam for the defense of Taiwan could help, but it may also exagerate the problem.
@@Azivegu idk they the ccp definitely be preppin for a war with how aggressive they are in the west philippine sea/south china sea border
@@zhongxina9420 I was just talking to a buddy about that. Honestly I think they’ll hit Taiwan, Vietnam and Philippines at once. Try to split any retaliation effort up. Hell could even see them getting NK involved (along with some forces of there own)to go to the South
@@cooliod45 not if they win
Great video! You explain the nuance and details of these situations remarkably well
Always a good day when Covert Cabal uploads a video.
wrggg
I misread your sponsor and thought you were being sponsored by Raytheon lol
He might as well
yes same lol 😂
Me too! 🤣🤣
Raytheon. If you need a knife wielding missile to murder a school bus full of children you know who to call. Raytheon
The precision strike missile is too important, I don’t see a scenario in which it gets canceled.
don't worry the politicians always find a way for whatever they want
except lokheed martin know how to fuck up things ) just go back to that hindi-owned informational shathole!
Yeah but with the leadership we have now, its still possible. The scariest thing to me about the left is their fondness for crippling the DoD and leaving us vulnerable to modern threats by canceling this precise type of program: the important ones. They have already cost us a new main battle tank, multiple armored and amphibious vehicles, artillery weapons, new attack helicopter, and guided missile cruiser in just 8 years, not to mention all the canceled air force programs and missiles, munitions, etc.
@@cameronspence4977 …Very true and I do agree with you. My statement and assumption is that the PrSM is far into testing phase and precision fires is the number one modernization priority for the 🇺🇸 Army. They recently tested it using a HIMARS. I think this will be a valuable asset, too valuable to cancel at this point.
With the current administration under heavy influence from the far left wing of the Democrat party, I could see a scenario in which it is canceled. The good news is Biden sees the China threat, and is making a good move to pivot from the Middle East to the Western Pacific. But if certain Democratic Congresswomen had their way, we would have no military.
Hey , greetings from Bahia Blanca Argentina, south of buenos aires
Saludos!
Baludo ! Greetings from LA, California -my families from argentina as well - how is it out there ?
Pics not me *
@@exploited181 The situation? is bad, economic and a lot of Covid19 but personally I am Fine xD
@@exploited181 Greetings! I only know the east coast of USA
The ballistic missiles knows where the fleet is because it knows where it isn’t.
It does not have complete knowledge of where the fleet isn't.
@@griffithf.k.4136 r/whoosh
But does it know where it isn’t?
Wut...?
It knows where the fleet would be if the fleet hadn't changed course after being detected. Also the U.S. Navy has SA-6 anti ballistic missiles and laser weaponry.
today is my birthday and nothing better than to enjoy it with a good video like this
Happy Birthday Steven
@@outatime626 thank you
Happy birthday 🎉!
Happy birthday
Happy birthday have a cake 🎂
Because the ship would have to cross an entire ocean to become a true threat to the American homeland. Have to prioritize certain hardware for basic strategy. The same reason we pretty much have the only blue water Navy on Earth. Most of our defense is our offense. Carrier strike groups forward operating half a world away means we have to focus more on stopping anti ship missles not creating them. We rely almost entirely on air assets for all Naval defenses and air assets can carry ANYTHING including nukes.
Attack subs are our other big naval offensive tool.
@@kaidanielson5956 I am glad someone mentioned those attack subs. Our subs alone could cripple any enemy naval force in the world. Anti-ship ballistic missiles are for people who don't think they have the ability to keep a navy away from their own shores. We can.
Not it wouldnt. Guam and Hawaii are examples.
Great video and greetings from Warsaw, Poland!
Always exciting to watch ur videos. Tonnes of new info everytime I watch. My favorite for military docs oflate. Keep it up.
Thanks for this video, I've always wondered this!
Last time I was this early the Germans were testing the V-1 off Peenmunde.
🤣
Cringe
This channel is underrated. It should have way more followers.
great video also the part where he's goofy as hell trying to shake the earbuds out of his head 2 seconds after talking about ballistic missiles is absolutely hilarious I want them now
Love these videos :) I've recommended ur channel to couple of my friends and now they love it content aswell :)
The precision you describe (able to hit a moving target) has yet to be proven.
just go check out some photos from aftermath of iranian R-17 Scud's knockoffs strikes on your superduper bases )) that is a good example of how junk from 60's equipped with chinese-made guidance electronics turn those missiles in to unstoppable power ) especially when you have to drop them on impotent yanks with their questionable capability ABM junk )
@@harb1911 let me get this straight imagine even if those misssiles hit imagine being a non nuclear power and us coming after you
@@harb1911 .. Last time I checked large airbases are NOT moving. And that was ages ago in the technology race.
A carrier battle group is a MUCH harder target scenario than a single ship anchored. People who have never served on an aircraft carrier have zero clue of their true capabilities..... all of you arm chair military "experts" don't know jack of real world power...
@@harb1911 .. You really live in a dream world. One lucky shot out of hundreds dies not make an effective weapon.
AEGIS is Greek for DOME, the AEGIS system covers the top of the ship as well as a 360 degree coverage around the ship. AEGIS will see a Ballistic missile coming straight down on a Carrier or other ship. Further even if the Carrier is using the old 48C Air Search Radar back in the 1980's the Navy added a straight up looking antenna on the top of the 48C just in case a missile comes down from a high altitude onto a ship. This was a counter measure to the Russian/Soviet Kitchen Missile.
You still are going to be wasted....the chinese missile manuovre randomly...and termiated at mach 10 ! The aircraft carrier of today will be like the battleships of yesterday...sitting ducks..
@@ganboonmeng5370 wandorful Englizh lmao
I think the SM-2ER Blk IV could have around 60 - 70% ish interception rate on those DF-21Ds, but they only can intercept the ballistic missile in it's terminal phase which is nearly right above the ship.
@@ganboonmeng5370 so so does the king y’all hypersonic missile boat supposedly we’ve been shooting those down left and right over Ukraine.
@@ganboonmeng5370 do you have any proof that since ballistic missile something that’s been around for almost hundreds of years now is the end of super carriers
Excellent high quality video, thanks!
Thanks for the...Update my friend...!
terrific content !
Great video!
Wow i am totally impressed by your work!!! Loved it!!! You have cleared my soo many doubts!!! May god bless u and your channel for more and more growth!!! ❤️
Great video. I had no idea about anti-ship ballistic missiles. Thanks a lot Covert Cabal.
Indeed a very informational video about Modern Technology
One problem for homing hypersonic missiles is the plasma created from reentry can interfere with radio signals, including radars and data links needed for command guidance.
It was mentioned in the older video. Experts believed that the hypersonic missiles will slow down to supersonic speed during a terminal phase (and they'll slow down due to the atmospheric density at lower altitude anyway) in order to be able to use its own radar. This limitation means that lower-tier air defenses can potentially intercept them, although there'll still be less time for overall engagement, hypersonic weapons are not a silver bullet as the media believed.
It's theoretically possible to get a strong radio signal in/out, which could allow for remote guidance. It's just difficult.
A sensor on the other hand would have little hope of operating in that portion of the trajectory, because a radar bounce-back is drastically weaker than the origin signal. And IR wouldn't work at all through plasma.
@@mickeyg7219 Case in point Pershing 2 does execute terminal deceleration maneuvers by bleeding energy through pitching up and down, probably to enable the condition for the seeker to operate. If you are the target itself carrying self defense it is true it might not require an otherwise more sophisticated BMD interceptor. But a boost glider or airbreathing scramjet is different and the focus is already shifting that direction. If you have little time you might have to enable more self defense at the point of target since the interception geometry is just easier than catching arrow mid flight.
Umm, the Russians had anti-ship ballistic missiles since the seventies. Current Chinese missiles are modified and/ or improved copies of old Russian designs.
Did you watch the video? Bcuz he already mentioned it.
@@gotanon8958 Yes, you're right I didn't watch the video all the way through. Now that I did though, I can tell you that the missiles didn't become operational because of an ABM treaty with the US. The USSR were limited in the amount of ballistic missiles they could field and chose to field ones with nuclear warheads.
@@slavap4963 lol caught
@@slavap4963 actually, they were restricted to an ABM system for one ICBM silo and the capital city to prevent MAD from becoming irrelevant and allow both sides to retaliate in case of a nuclear strike
@@hman8338 What? Hablo Ingles?
love your shit keep it going
2:20 skip ad
I'll buy Raycon ear buds when they are NOT made in China.
There wouldn't be any Chinese threat if people stopped spending money there
If most ports and international roads and airports in china were destroyed during a military conflict, the US will only need to focus on defense while witnessing the free fall of the chinese economy and therefore the fall of *China!*
Lol, business doesn't work like that. The ones making the most money from US products "made in China" are not Chinese factories, but dchebags like Ray J, the creator of Raycon
@@eyelessclowned
Not just China's economy though but basically everyone including the US
Don't blame China,
Blame your damned businessmen and politicians who gave China the ability to make their shhhttt kuz "mUh gLobuL wArMiN" and Americans getting too full of themselves ergo making manpower costs and overall costs higher than if it were made in China
@@dickmelsonlupot7697 customers are the ones. All they need do is stop buying citing the reason why. It'll sop change.
You don't feed a dragon
1:11 if it does what the PLA claims!
They have to find and confirm a target before they can shoot at it, after that I would be surprised if they can actually hit a moving target besides a lucky hit once in a while.
Sending love from Cairns QLD Australia
Yeah, the US hasn't had to worry about the naval power of any rival for t he last 60 years. Some strategic adjustments will probably be made.
Don't forget the Americans sent gaint rockets to the moon. Meaning they have the expertise and ability to produce a military rockets.
@@warpaulgundol7560 😂😂😂 india china russia they send the rockets to Mars also
@@warpaulgundol7560 That's why US is buying Russian racket engines.
@@momcilopucar8749 Now they don't. SpaceX uses their own engines. So does ULA and BO
We still don't I wouldn't believe half the shit the CCP says
I really like the "assault carrier" focused model the Navy is going with. This allows larger carriers to remain further away and distribute strike packages over a large, many branched network of mini-carriers.
I wonder if it's possible to daisy chain aircraft from the West coast of the US across the pacific using carriers, Hawaii, the island chains and finally Japan and Taiwan.
Air refueling exists.
@@horscategorie
Yeah but That has its own issues. Maybe a combination of the two?
This is actually a really cool idea!!!
@@Spicy_Italian_Sausage
Thanks! I think so. I think that the move towards assault carries means the 6th gen fighters might have a STOVL requirement.
With new stealth drones being developed to work with our new 6th gen fighters, i'm not sure the assault carrier thing will be nessicary, with the MQ-28, XQ-58 and the X-62 being able to project the force of a given fighter and suppliment it's payload.
We're so far ahead in naval and air combat technologies, and now that we're done taking China lightly (I would mention Russia but.... we all see how that is going for them) the capabilities should be as jaw dropping as the F-22 was when it was revealed. We *HAD* a stealth cruise missile that probably would be smart to bring back, so that we could strike their TELs long before our assets get within the danger zone.
Good job. As always. I love your videos. Thx for you job. 💪💪💪👍
Exactly we need!
Meanwhile submarines and in-flight refueling kind of render some aspects of the "no-go zone" kind of a moot point. Let them find out how well that works, if the U.S. ever desires to reach out and touch them.
Also we don't have a long range land based anti-ship ballistic system because the only adversary that we consider formidable enough to try and touch us is Russia, and we'd assume they'd use their sub fleet for that purpose too. No point in investing in a weapons system that doesn't work vs. the most likely threat.
Indeed. not only that, but we don't even actually need to enter the 1500 mile danger zone around China. All we need to do is blockade them by preventing trade ships from passing through the Indian ocean to China. China's green water navy couldn't do anything to realistically challenge this, and it'll be a LONG time before they can. India, which doesn't like China either, could also easily pull this off.
China built the ballistic anti-aircraft carrier because the US has them well protected and plentiful. But there are no foreign aircraft carrier plentiful enough for the US to built such ballistic weapon.
Bingo
There is no need for the US to waste time on anti ship ballistic missiles. As we already have many way to eliminate ANY naval threat... surface, air, subsurface, or space. Ballistic anti ship missiles just are NOT proven in any real world combat.... US Naval weapons and tactics ARE PROVEN.
Indeed. It would be like carrying a rifle to shoot a woolly mammoth that isn't there when you could carry a rifle made for deer that is there.
The same US have nukes that could destroy human 10 times
The cadence of "a version of SM-6 that can hit ships" at 8:42 sounds like some silly poem. Made me chuckle.
Great video! As usual. 👍
Lockheed Martin just released a vid on the precision strike missile
he already stated that in video near the end
I am an Iranian myself, but I got to admit the US satellite move before our missile strike was pretty smart.
With a simple idea they probably saved dozens of valuable aircraft.
Thanks
Im just glad Irans slowly moving towards being normal again, and not on the same terrorism shit they were in the 80's.
If you still live there, make sure your politicians ally with the rest of the middle east, and get off their war shit.
Funding random terrorist states is only gonna make the situation worse.
Greetings from Kelantan-Malaysia🇲🇾🇲🇾
Good video as always
No computer voice, thank you so much.
2:19
^^ To skip the ad
good afternoon from Anchorage, Alaska
The Primary Anti-Ship weapon of the USN is not the carrier air wings its the Submarine fleet which the reason why the US has a large attack submarine fleet.
carrier based fighters are there to defend submarines from asw aircrafts
Before watching:
Answer: Two Words. Naval fighter. Your missile ony goes boom once.
Greetings from Baltimore Maryland. Love the Channel!!!!
Because we do not face the threat of a superpower like the US attacking our shores where these would come in handy. Our antiship capabilities do not depend on ballistic missiles--which have their own limitations.
Lol... I love the fact that there is a huge ocean between us and the rest of the world. :)
It is extreamly hard to get in striking distance of the mainland China with the short planes like the F35.
Would a B-2 Spirit float your boat?
@@mybad8805 It will but there are few of them. That said I do think they could do a huge amount of damage with low losses. Were it not for them being slow and the fact that the Chinese have a lot of long wave radars they could get away with most anything. The fact that the Chinese would be able to send fighters to the general area of the B1. The fighters using IRST systems makes this a hard one to judge. My guess would be that by using E warfare systems decoys and so on most of the B1 would complete the mission successfully. Geting out of there that done might be a little more of a problem but atleast 8 out of 10 should get home. The amount of damage caused from 10 B1 bombers is enormus.
Covert Cabal...you amaze me sometimes honestly. The U.S has bases in Japan, South Korea, Guam...why the heck does thE USN need a hypersonic anti-ship missile when it can hit China faster.
0:51 that shockwave tho
Hello from Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA!
My favorite channel. Today is a good day.
actually not only DF21D, the latest DF31 also have anti ship capability and that one can reach Guam apparently. it is a defensive weapon designed to offset American carriers influence in the south china sea, there is no need for the US to develop such things, unless, they want to develop it and deploy in Guam. but again, in a real full scale conflict the facilities in Guam and Okinawa would be destroyed quickly by Chinese ballistic missile strikes, so there really isn't much point to deploy anti ship ballistic missile in Asia. maybe one day when the Chinese navy expand pass the first and second Island chain and mobile in the pacific ocean on a regular basis then there is a need to put them in Hawaii as base protection.
Us is stalling an assortment of missile defence system in Guam and Hawaii I think to counter ballistic missile threats
Love your channel
Tq it was interesting.
Having such a large missile should mean that it has the space to have very large radars,sensors,communications systems,a powerful electrical supply and powerful electronic systems with multiple communications uplinks for in-flight up to the second guidance from Sat's/ground/ship/airborne and land radars and all sorts of huge and powerful systems for very accurate guidance I would imagine,
Everything said "aside" this is a defensive weapon system. Its made to shield your coastline from enemy ships. The US simply does not have need for that currently as no power really is looking at invading Guam, Hawaii, or the US.
@Kazakhstan factory worker Ok, an ICBM is a missile, it can be guided like any missile. This means its as accurate as the system guiding it.
Now, even if its not 100% accurate, it actually doesn't really need to be. See, here is the truly scary concept. Lets say the ICBM launches a 3000 pound "Warhead". So the carrier is detected by any one of a dozen means... Airborne search radars, underwater listening systems, Sat... what ever. The position and course are tracked and the missile fired. The missile goes into low earth orbit, arcs over and recives constant updates from tracking systems on the target.
The missile then begins its dive on the carrier group... traveling at mach 23 its booking it... using the earths gravity to keep its speed up as it plunges in to reentery, its ceramic heat cap protecting it. its "tail end" has the sensors... its what the russians call a beam rider. rather then looking for a return from the target, it instead tries to say "inside" the beam that a satalite is using to "highlight" the target area. at anywhere from 15 to 5 miles out from the carrier, a small "shattering charge" detinates inside the ICBM.
This causes the warhead to fragmentate... so, instead of having a single 3000 pound warhead... now you have say 300 10 pound chunks, all traveling still at around mach 15ish. covering an area between 500 and 1000 meters in diamater. Buchshot from space. even if just a few chunks... hit the carrier... well at that speed, its going to rip right though the decks, givent he size of a carrier if the grouping is "tight" say a 5 mile out break up. you're going to see a carrier thats swiss cheese, with reactor damage, fires everywhere, and worse.
Even if only 5-10 fragments hit, the chances are its still going to be enough to limit air operations and force the carrier to retreat. Which... is the point.
@Kazakhstan factory worker Ok stop and think about the cost again. an aircraft carrier is 13 billion, a single fighter is between 200 and 300 million. A single Anti-ship missile is 3 million BUT, it would take several hundred of them to saturate the air defenses of a carrier group. so thats 300 million + delivery platforms with any losses in platforms adding to the attack cost.
A single 300 million balistic missile, to damage or destroy a 13 billion dollar carrier, is actually more cost effective then 24-32 bombers + 3-4 missile each.
And ANY attack often requires multipul systems to coordinate. Thats one of the jokes to the beam rider missiles... they are 1960's tech.
@Kazakhstan factory worker Oh, think about this then. each patriot missile costs 5 million dollars. Each SM-2 ER missile costs 3 million. The US Will "ripple fire those at 500k drones and rockets.
predicted losses against ANY US carrier group in a strike is upwards of 50% of aircraft sent out. So having a weapon that can force US carriers out of an area... meaning you don't really need to worry about it is a benifit. Sure, you might replace 20 bombers for 20 of these missiles. BUT if you are not looking at an offensive air arm, but defensive... it can make other countires in the area feel "safer"
Great stuff
I had no idea anto ship ballistic missiles were so complicated. It makes sense because ballistic missiles are made for hitting fixed targets.
Imagine a redux of the Cuban missile crisis except this time its Americans putting ballistic missiles in Taiwan.
For our 35+ billion every single year in black budget we better have multiple game changers the world knows nothing about.
If by game changers, you mean, yachts of politicians approving that budget - sure, I'm guessing there are a few :-P
Until they are hacked.
I love fixed targets. These missiles are sitting ducks. We are also adapting CIWS to cover 180 degrees.
ATACMS is getting an upgrade soon to a seeker head for targeting ships. It also has the 500 pound warhead from Harpoon. Should be very capable.
Just put a himars with atacms missiles on the back of a few ships/ carriers /lhds that would suprise them eh
@@inch6074 Hide them in the jungle where they can’t be found readily.
hmmmm tomahawk with anti ship capabilities seems the long way round to remaking the TASM
For your own safety, please do not run with earphones/earbuds. Inattentive drivers are everywhere, and your own attention to sound could save your life. That's not even getting into deliberate threats like "polar bear hunting"
Not just inattentive drivers but willfully reckless and dangerous drivers who are so petty and pathetic that they will speed up when ur crossing just to be an asshole about it
They might have a pass through option, my earbuds do.
@@sufimuslimlion4114 Or just random people who want to attack you. I would never wear such things. It's important to be aware of your surroundings when outside.
I just run with one in
@@baronvonslambert You tried so hard to sound intelligent. It's amazing that you have eyes on the back and sides of your head.
USA is also integrating NSM from Kongsberg teamed up with raytheon tech who is manufacturing them. 100nm range super sea skim with 5th gen. Passive system. But it is still not that of a long range missile 😅
I was thinking that too. I dont know why the range it so short it needs to be triple that at least. But maybe it is they just keep it classified or are going all in on Tomahawk and Lrasm
Considering the size of the area that USA patrols, and the element of surprise, putting them on SSBN seems the best idea.
Thank God for Trump's balls in pulling us out of that outdated treaty..
So basically we just need to stick a bigger warhead on our already working missles.
added weight and size would ruin the balance
No. They need way better range too
So basically we should just use our aircraft carriers aircraft instead of worrying about long range missiles when our airforce is the world's largest airforce and our navy is the world's second largest airforce.
...Our Minutemen-3 ICBMs are like 330kt+ per MIRV, carry 3 MIRVs per ICBM but up to 7-11+, can fly ~12k-15k+ miles and is precise enough to hit within dozens of yards or less, IIRC like from released data. The US researched hypersonic tech a long time ago but just never built them...I think we're good on nuclear tech. We prob could stand to audit the bureaucracy and fed-res and cut worthless programs like Pakistani gender studies so we can reallocate the funds and time to shit like better laser weapons, tbh.
Use the TR3B or put them on a space platform in perm station over the south pacific above china or a dumb with a kit with sensors and everything else needed and drop from 60k feet give it some type of wing so it can glide a few hundred miles and a small rocket engine. Just need a platform on the aircraft carriers that can go that high. Sure they can modify an f/a18 to reach that altitude.
A great counter to these missiles could just be a lasers it would make them completely ineffective
Hopefully our government (US) keeps on the PrSM.
I hope to GOD biden doesnt go the way the democrats usually do and go on a program cutting spree. We badly need new missiles and ships
you didn't ask but if you do the map again I'm from Boston
Any ideas or new weapon systems can be reverse engineered, copied and improved. All you need is to have the resources and engineers to build your own version.
The USA doesn't need an anti-ship ballistic missile. But a super sonic strike missile in the anti-ship cruise missile role. The Norwegian company Konnesberg is working on such an application.
I think a cruise missile ohio class loaded with antiship tomahawks would work fine. Forget whether is it a seaskimmer, or maybe that's the harpoon (or none), but given we have at least 4 of them, and each can carry 154 tomahawks, that a lot of damage
Tomahawks are slow and easy to intercept
@John Hero
They will launch multiple missiles. CIWS will catch the rest. For a nearly 40 year old missile with a laughably small warhead, tomahawk missiles are ridiculously unsuited to fill a peer anti-ship role. The DF-21D has vastly more range, is substantially faster and carries a much more powerful warhead.
Imagine Tickling enemy to death with SM6
Hey, if they are very lucky the chinese will laugh themselves to death
It's a V-2 with a guidance package. The terminal guidance is the "advancement" here. Otherwise the only practical warhead would be nuclear.
Babe wake up, covert cable uploaded
Iran actually hit the right buildings which the drones and equipment were stored.
Also Iran told the US when and where they are attacking so they would save the soldiers.
BTW Iran built antiship ballistic missiles.
?
Iran was hoping for as many casualties as possible and got nothing except a bunch of concussions. We killed one of their most important and powerful people that still warrants revenge
Iran told Iraq, which later told the US.
They were saying when the attack was gonna happen, with the intention of destroying equipment for propaganda, and not start a war.
Thats why the US still scrambled the aircraft.
Russia has by far the best anti-ship missiles on the planet. Aside from India, with whom Russia jointly developed the P-800/Brahmos missile, Russia is the only country on earth capable of producing supersonic missiles.
Uh no. The sm3 is a mach 18 missile. All US ballistic missiles are hypersonic, the agm183 is hypersonic. The sm6 is supersonic.
The us currently has the best anti-ship missile in the jassm. Supersonic missiles will be spotted earlier and will be shot down. Subsonic, stealthy missiles will be spotted later and are slower, but there will be more of them and they are less expensive.
@Viper 6 still they ran !!!
Antiship missiles could be the basis for a remake of "Deal of The Century."
it's doctrinal. our navy is a blue water force, and has to focus on force projection. ASBMs are large and primarily defensive in nature due to their deployment limitations. PrSM is a start, and I like the focus on rapid deployability, and I do see a possibility of it being used on ships _in the future,_ but if I had to choose between the PrSM and new ships for the navy, I'd go for the latter.
copium video. Iran also has anti-ship balletic missiles called Khalij Fars (Persian gulf)
US cannot build this kind of weapon just like they can't build hypersonic missile while Iran China Russia developed their own hypersonic. all the tech US has been developed by immigrant from east (Persians or Chinese) and nazi scientist from paperclip. Project but they are no longer alive and US no longer desired by new generation of scientists to leave their own country to move there.
you are in decline.
BTW Iran has its own spy satellite so that made-up story was absurd. only reason you knew was because unlike you that have no respect for Iraq sovereignty, Iran told Iraq that if has anybody there should tell them to leave. but Iraq passed the information to you.
coup harder
China's navy sails alone. Nato can field a larger fleet and the chinese need another 20 years for equality in tech.
so nato should attack now?
Is that a face reveal?
Edit: nevermind no its not
Lol the head shake guy?
@@Kahreeyo yea
@@Kahreeyo I am the head shake guy and will be using that title from now on :)
Can you do a video on land based missile artillery?
Kingsport, Tennessee
Because carriers allredy have everything they need to destroy any sort of enemy ship
carriers actually have terrible range. placing aircraft on a carrier is a major compromise to its performance. this means less payload, less fuel or less speed, etc. in most cases, the designers choose to give up fuel, because they can refuel mid air. at the time this isn't a problem because aircraft out-range the missiles. but the table has turned. HCM's go beyond the maximum range of aircraft.
there is question now whether carriers have a role in future wars. the answer currently is that it probably has some role but it will be quite different from what it once was.
@@wli2718 some missles have grater ranges yes
But they are bulky and their launch is easyer to spot
Planes have much greater versatility and outside of few specific situations are usualy more effective
As you can see on the video, those rockest are most of the time coastal based
And in terms of coastal defense, planes allso don't have those mentioned disadvatages
@@petrsukenik9266 planes are limited by available air bases. and there are fewer air fields than there are missile bases. you can easily spot air fields from space, as they take up a lot of space. and really, the point of an aircraft is to launch missiles anyway. current bombers will not survive modern air defenses.
@@wli2718 were not talking land based aircraft here but carrier based
A CSG can move anywhere within a 2900 nm circle within an hour, so getting a track on them is problematic to say the least. They’re also equipped with the SM-6 to counter ballistic missile threats, ergo, the so called ballistic ship killer isn’t the golden bullet
A CSG might move at around 30 knots at max? Although the trajectory of a ballistic missile is determined on its way up, these DF-21D missiles have its own radar guidance system, so hitting something as large as an aircraft carrier won’t be so difficult… Regarding the intercepting capabilities, expect a saturated attack where dozens of missiles come at once, overwhelming any defence system. Against such a valuable target, as much missiles as necessary will be used.
@@kerbodynamicx472 you still need some kind of recon aircraft to penetrate fighter cover and detect the carrier
Ballistic missiles are ridiculously hard to intercept. The intercept window is just too small. Firing 5-8 missiles at any one naval target will definitely result in that target's destruction. Firing 8 USD$10 million missiles to sink a USD$13 billion carrier along with its USD$6 billion air wing seems like a good deal to me
@@hphp31416 WZ-8 is already in service for months, if not years
@@hphp31416
>>
you still need some kind of recon aircraft to penetrate fighter cover and detect the carrier
>>
Well, let's see: Eighty plus Yaogan IMINT/ELINT satellites in orbit which can be set up to pass over a given area of sea every twenty minutes or so.
Several hundred (SOSUS) bottom lay sonar sensors which can relay data from up to 3,000m down _with no network cable_.
About twenty Soar/Divine Dragon HALE UAV which the Chinese are working on setting up with a networked long-wave radar that can look OTH across 1,500-2,500km of sea space. Multiple SSN/SSK which have gotten unpleasantly close to our ships in exercises before being driven to the surface.
The WZ-8 hypersonic UAV which has optical and radar capabilities and can fly 1,500km from an H-6 parent aircraft.
And an absolutely enormous naval auxiliary fleet of fishing trawls and small freighters which criss-cross the SCS on a daily basis.
Oh yeah, also the various VTS reporting networks which, while the carrier itself doesn't have to be a part off, all the hundreds of civilian hulls, which want to retain insurance, must be. If those ships start 'flowing around' a certain null reporting area in the sea which is the carrier exclusion zone in wartime, you have them.
Starting back in the 1920s or so, the USN did a bunch of 'Fleet Problem' exercises which showed, by FP9/10 that any carrier, operating within range of shore bomber bases, would last approximately less than 1 day before being sunk. They don't have the legs or the tanker gas to get out beyond the combat radius of dedicated bombers and they cannot generate enough sorties, while crippled by the deck cycle of 1:45 to fend off attacks. 'The Bombers Always Get Thru'. As proven by several attacks on Royal Navy carriers in the Mediterranean, Midway, Guam and the Philippine Sea.
Today, the bomber is a one way missile. And the carrier is a huge, acoustically and EM noisy, value concentration of up to 10,000 men and 20-30 billion dollars. Which can be tracked via it's unique 'formation' signature of clustered props and radars for hundreds of kilometers of convergence zones/deep sound channel distance or small RCS UAS ELINT (AEGIS doesn't work if you don't rotate and radiate...) tracking off the aforementioned small fishing hulls.
And then attacked, either directly or via the fleet trains. A CSG can only sustain air ops for 3-5 days without needing to slink off and do an unrep and can only do serious, ongoing, air ops for roughly ten days before the crew have to be given serious rest.
Given that it will also take anything up to a week to get to the AO in travel time and two weeks to 'surge' a six deck force from standing start on the West Coast; China, which will use DF-15 TBMs to destroy Taiwan's air defense grid and fighters to provide CAS and Escorts for the up to _40,000_ airborne troops available to seize Kaohsiung and Taipei in a 24hr combat pulse, will have fait d'accompli'd the Taiwan seizure mission before Go Navy can even arrive at their own funeral to play Sinkex.
The big issue, which people ignore, is that you don't need hypersonics if you start out within 100-200nm of the target area. Supersonics are fine and much smaller/cheaper as concentrated warshot to penetrate defenses with. With ~150 such missiles on a dedicated SSGN, similar to what the USS Florida (with UGM-109) brought to Libya for Odyssey Dawn, the U.S. Navy could easily provide a staggered but not out Taiwan defense force some serious fire power with timely JTAC handoff via SOF. Stabilizing any surprise attack with massive, pinpoint, counters that were simply _not on the island_ to be hit themselves.
The USN have an Oligarch problem in that their admiral's yachts have sucked up such huge amounts of resources, for so long, that they have literally created self-sustaining ecosystems which have no relevance to modern warfare as it is. The problem with such specialization (think: battleships) is that it creates equally specialized predators which feed on it. And a smart strategist simply operates within a faster tempo ops plan to bypass or render out-of-domain irrelevant the system.
We will be operating at the wrong end of a 6,000nm logistics chain in any fight off the Chinese coast. We should not be doing so with a conop paradigm which is modeled on June 4, 1942. Because we will be the ones playing the role of Nagumo.
It's funnier to torpedo an enemy ship. As a bonus, few vessels have defenses below the waterline.
I think the US is wisely going for the sea skimming sub or supersonic stealthy option, the problems surrounding hypersonic on moving targets with conventional warheads are just to complex and expensive, rather hit the target...
Right, the expense of a hypersonic warhead limits it to only the most high value targets, and only if they can track it all the way to terminal phase. Physical saturation remains the most viable way to sink a ship... and with the recent JDAM moving-target upgrade, the US ironically now has hundreds of thousands of warheads to potentially drop on even the most sorry patrol boats.
copium video. Iran also has anti-ship balletic missiles called Khalij Fars (Persian gulf)
US cannot build this kind of weapon just like they can't build hypersonic missile while Iran China Russia developed their own hypersonic. all the tech US has been developed by immigrant from east (Persians or Chinese) and nazi scientist from paperclip. Project but they are no longer alive and US no longer desired by new generation of scientists to leave their own country to move there.
you are in decline.
BTW Iran has its own spy satellite so that made-up story was absurd. only reason you knew was because unlike you that have no respect for Iraq sovereignty, Iran told Iraq that if has anybody there should tell them to leave. but Iraq passed the information to you.
coup harder