are surface navys obsolete?

i just finnished reading tisos post on the anti ship missles which the russians have been so kind as to sell to the iranians...a fifteen hundred mph wave top approach ...some 60 or 90 seconds to react and deploy ?..then of course ,the 3 or 4 follow on cruise missles that are right behind number 1...this attack would make dealing wth ww2 era kamikazi attacks seem like childs play by comparison ..do not these modern wave top mach 2 attacks make us carrier groups impossble to defend?

 

Before you can effectively use your antiship missiles, you need to get some sort of lock on target. And to do that, you need to be close enough. And that is a major problem because of all those dozens of surface ships and aircrafts. Even submarines have hard time to get close and that would be suicide job anyways.
And if after all these obstacles you manage to launch a volley of AS missiles, they have to deal with jamming and atleast two layers of missile defences. Ofcourse that high speed makes defence harder but its not impossible.

 

They proowen dedly so far,atleast French-made Exocet missiles,in fokland war and one sinked US ship in gulf 1987.

Main advantage of weapon like that is that is cheap,when we consider what target it need to destroy.Modern Russian anty-ship missiles engadge target on mach 2.9,and got some advanced aiming system,so yes,it is great treath for any surface ship,and range of 160 miles is quite enought.
About locking the ship,it is not so hard,if u get in AS range.

 

I dont know much about Falkland war but something atleast.
British air support wasn't even nearly as good and extensive as USN CVN can provide. And apparently British ships didnt have any CIWS back then. And regarding to HMS Sheffield, Argies managed to surprise British forces. Had they been alerted, Sheffield might have survived. Another Exocet-sunk ship was MV Atlantic Conveyor, a ship with no countermeasures...

And USS Stark then: Unprovoked attack on unalerted ship hardly gives us any signs on how deadly AS missiles are.

I agree. They are a great threat, thats why during the wartime USN carrier group try to keep anything unidentified and identified enemies out of missile range...

Thats a big if...

 

As i sow report for USS stark,they sow Iraqis mirage,on 50 miles,then Mirage turned and get away.They newer sow that missile was launched,they sow it with eyes when it was too late.

About russian AS missiles latest generation,i really think that US dont hawe proper counter meshures yet.There is no doubt that they will develop,and again Russian will develop betther AS system and so on...

The best way,and i think only for now is to keep ships out of range,and problem is allso that many systems can be fired from plane,and when we consider range,that plane dont need to be that close.

 

Also, the phalanx(spelled something liek that) was turned off.

 

i think the phalanx system is only used in big ships,i.e. carriers, correct me if i'm wrong?

 

maybe back in 1987 but they must have put it in most ships now i think.

 

in 1939 the worlds battleship proponents were convinced that puny strike aircraft would be very hard pressed to sink a manuvering bb at sea...it seems to me that a ship is a very big and slow target while a cruise missle is a very fast and small target (and cheap too) ..i hpe you are right ,notmi ...i guess we have to wait for a sea battle to find out the answer

 

Whether or not antiship missiles are unstoppable, surface navies are still THE ONLY way to transport short range fighters like the F-18 around the world... And THE ONLY way to transport large numbers of armored vehicles across the ocean... So I don't think they are going to be obsolete for some time...

If they really are that effective, it will simply come down to making sure that they are never sold and never fired

 

IN my readers digest science book it mentions that they had a phalanx machine gun but it was turned off.

 

Not a very smart thing to do in the active war zone.

 

I'm not quite sure about what I'm writing next, so if someone knows better, feel obligated to correct...
Main strong point with phalanx system (and also main reason its usually switched off) is its autonomy; It does search, detection, threat evaluation, acquisition, track, firing, target destruction, kill assessment and cease fire by its own. Sure it has manual override but still you dont want it to try to shoot everything remotely suspicious, like your own helicopters and aircrafts...

Mildly offtopic: What is CIWS short of?
Either 'Christ, It Won't Shoot' or 'Captain, It Won't Shoot' :lol:

 

CIWS was Clsoe-in weapoms system but i know you already knew that

The Royal Navy purchased 28 Phalanx to provide a CIWS capability to the Type 42 destroyers in the late 1980's after the sinking of two (one by an AM 39 air launched Exocet and the other by conventional bombing) .

 

Karl Doenitz supposedly had a painting in his office in 1943, It was a queit seascape with gentle waves and a few seagulls in the air. The title was: "Fleet Picture 1944" (nothing was safe on the surface). I think the demise of surface fleets is as unlikely today as it was in 1943.

 

Yes, USS Stark had phalanx and it was either not activated or down for maintenance. There are conflicting reports on that issue.
In any case it was a big muck up and the Capt. was held responsible (correctly ) and forced into retirement.
There will always be difficulties and risks when naval warships are patrolling in waters congested with civilian traffic yet possibly subject to sudden hostile action and must sort out threats from non threats quickly. Mistakes will mean that people die. In this case US sailors, in the case of the Vincennes civilians aboard an airliner.
In a war footing situation where the fleet is deployed with screening ships, subs and planes and is alerted to every possible threat it is a different situation.

 

U realy need to read a bit more in Russian AS missiles,and capabilitys.Phalanx system will probably fail to stop good organized attack on ship,with multiple missiles,and that missiles got manuvres for avoiding the defences.

 

It should pointed out that any defence can be saturated, if you throw enough unpleasantness at it.

However if you perhaps have fire ten missiles to nail one ship, you might run out of missiles before the other guy runs out of ships.

 

Surface-to-air missiles didn't make military aircraft obsolete... I see no reason why ship-to-ship, or air-to-ship missiles would threaten to make surface navies obsolete.

I think that's the reason US Battle Groups tend to keep all potential threats 200-300 miles away from their nuclear aircraft carriers.

Tim

 

Assuming that a situation develops where the close in defense system can be overwhelmed it might not stop all threats. No defense system is foolproof. No offensive system is either.
You have a lot of faith in everything Russian. I tend to favor the US's capablities.
Unless these systems are put to the ultimate test at some time it will remain just our opinions.