"After today's test, India has become the first and only country in the world to have a manoeuvrable supersonic cruise missile in its inventory," Pillai said.
Like this one, it's a solid-rocket launched ramjet anti-ship cruise missile. It's a Mach 3 to 2.2 (high to low altitude) with a warhead (from a ship) a bit more than 50% bigger ... or it can carry a nuke. 120 km range vs. the 290 for this one. We (e.g. the USNavy) are supposed to be somewhat concerned about it.
Next year we should be seeing production of the Standard Missile 6 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-174_Standard_ERAM), which would seem to be designed for these sorts of threats. E.g. it has a active seeker instead of the "semi-active" of it's previous breathen (the target must be illuminated by a ship's RADAR a bit before impact). Although I wouldn't be surprised if some of the earlier ones could do the job.
Cruise missiles and military robots is where it's at. The fact the military is still spending hundreds of billions every year on outdated technology such manned aircraft and warships is a farce greater than the financial bailout committed on the people's of america and the world.
It'll take poor countries like india developing cheap military tech to slap america into the reality of the 21st century.
I logged in just to say that, but you beat me to it.
India and China are developing missile systems that can take out an American carrier in a single strike. Which, as a former marine who likes to blow stuff up, I think is really cool by the way. The problem is our response. We attempt to develop a laser that will kill these missiles inbound.
All fine and dandy, IF it works, which I wouldn't stake my guys lives on. But that's not even the point. The point is . . . why not engage in a sober and deliberate SWOT evaluation of the carrier group itself. Is it still useful?
I don't know, I am not an Admiral. But I really do get the feeling that General Officers in our military are addicted to big, complicated, and expensive systems. Do we really need these? Especially given that we are going bankrupt right now.
It's almost as if the Social Security - Medicare people and the Military Industrial Complex really don't CARE that they are sinking us.
They probably see the carrier\super-carrier group central to making America a military power, we have 20+ and only a few countries have 1.
Since the new reactor in the Gerald Ford class generates over 3X the electricity as the current Nimitz, it seems destined to be an advanced weapons platform for expensive lasers\railguns\robots.
You are right that other countries at best only have one carrier. And, as far as I know, no other country has a super-carrier. A normal aircraft carrier has a 40-50,000 ton displacement, whereas super-carriers have 90-100,000 ton displacement. All U.S. carrier are super-carriers, whereas other countries have only regular carriers.
Why is this downvoted? It is a valid question. If we spend hundreds of millions of dollars on something that can be taken down by one torpedo, we are doing something wrong.
In a full blown WWIII, it would be worth wasting a couple of nuclear torpedoes to drawn some super carriers loaded with very expensive and vulnerable equipment.
One such torpedo was almost lunched during the Cuban missile crisis. We should probably be grateful for this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasiliy_Arkhipov) for stopping WWIII.
I think you're mistaken. Cruise missiles, robots, and even nuclear weapons are a way to defend your home territory from other violent nation-states, perhaps at the cost of significant "enemy" civilian casualties. However, the nature of warfare is changing, if you look at the major conflicts in the last 20 years you see a lot more need for not just precision guided munitions hitting targets from afar but also smart, well-trained, well-equipped ground forces with the flexibility to respond to different situations.
The entire Russian army was fought to a stand-still in Afghanistan and later also in Chechnya by much smaller, less well equipment forces using modern insurgent techniques. The "press a button to win a war" methodology only works in the modern age if you're willing to carpet bomb the enemy and any civilians who happen to get in the way (see the horrible civil war in Sri Lanka as an example). If you're not willing to do that then you'll need more than just CPU guided munitions.
I always thought this "urban warfare" stuff BS. At what point is it actually just law enforcement ?
The problem with the russians in afghanistan and americans in iraq/afghanistan today is what exacty is the objective ? Technically the russians and americans won easily in the first few days. The rest of the time was just pretend warfare that should have been just called law enforcement.
When you send soldiers to fight civilians you've already failed. There's nothing you can achieve except slaughter.
"Soldier" vs "civilian" is a false dichotomy. In the middle, there's "militia", which you're a part of as soon as you pick up a weapon and start pushing back on the "law enforcement"'s encroachment upon your city.
> If the hearts of a population are not with you, sending a military in is just barbaric.
Most countries that have been conquered were not conquered by love or friendship but by barbaric brutality. Not saying I approve, I don't. It is just what usually happens. One would just take over the hospitals, water treatment plants, power plants and news stations. Then see how long people are going to stay on their roofs with their rifles. I am guessing not too long. "Live free or die" is a good slogan. But most people would buckle and sell their country for a hot egg McMuffin if they haven't eaten in a week.
"One would just take over the hospitals, water treatment plants, power plants and news stations. Then see how long people are going to stay on their roofs with their rifles."
Large parts of Afghanistan don't have any hospitals, water treatment plants, power plants and news stations. As far as I can see the US "liberation" forces are still getting shot at or blown up. You underestimate how people dislike invaders in their streets and disrupting their lives. I suspect even Americans who live in relative luxury and have all the above would fight to the death against (say) Chinese soldiers patrolling their cities.
Interesting. Why did you assume Afghanistan? I had America in mind...
It is much harder to take over a country where everyone is already self-sufficient. It would be hard to take over Africa, as many villages are more or less self sufficient. They are not doing great but they can survive without a Starbucks. The same in Afghanistan. If someone has a herd of goats, a well, and the ability to grow some edible plants, they might be alright and will keep fighting.
Now try shutting down power, water, hospitals and grocery stores in US and see what happens. The most advanced a society is, the more dependent the people are dependent on multiple layers of private and governmental services. And I guess, that makes them in a certain way more vulnerable.
(How did I even think of this? I witnessed what happened when there was a large power outage in Ohio last year).
> I suspect even Americans who live in relative luxury and have all the above would fight to the death aginst (say) Chinese soldiers patrolling their cities.
I think you have a very optimistic view of our fellow Americans. I saw them get desperate when they couldn't take a shower for 2 weeks. Another 2-3 month and many would have pledged allegiance to the first country providing hot showers and hot egg mcmuffins.
"I think you have a very optimistic view of our fellow Americans. I saw them get desperate when they couldn't take a shower for 2 weeks. Another 2-3 month and many would have pledged allegiance to the first country providing hot showers and hot egg mcmuffins."
Well I am not an American but I have lived in the USA. I think underestimating Americans as weak hedonists who don't have the iron in their souls for battle would be to make the same mistake the Japanese did in WW2. The Japanese high command (except famously Yamomoto) actually believed that Americans were soft and decadent and couldn't stand up to the tough Japanese soldiers. That didn't turn out so well even before the atom bomb.
As to getting desperate about no showers, sure if in peacetime your infrastructure broke down for whatever reason you'd get desperate. But when you are at war, and when you are under invasion (an invasion of the United States is well nigh unimaginable today, but just as a thought experiment), the mindset is probably very different.
Yes, the Japanese knew they were totally fscked when we kept slugging it out in The Slot, culminating in a battle where in one night action we lost 2 admirals. The southern end of The Slot gained the name Iron Bottom Sound....
The entire Russian army was fought to a stand-still in Afghanistan and later also in Chechnya by much smaller, less well equipment forces using modern insurgent techniques.
(In my admittedly limited knowledge,) I don't know if Afghanistan is the best example of the United States (I'll assume this is the state being discussed from marshallp's "the military") not being able to adapt; the Afghan mujahideen received a lot of training and weapons from the CIA, through Pakistan's IFI.
OTOH, (again, in my admittedly limited knowledge,) Chechnya is a very good example of a more "modern" style of war; Russia only really gained the upper hand and managed to force a ceasefire after the Chechen rebels lost popularity (which was after they took something like 1,500 people hostage, including mothers with newborns).
There were actually two Chechen wars and they were fought differently. The First Chechen War was fought with the regular Russian Army being used indiscriminately against Chechens. Instead of intelligently targeting the separatist forces, Russian tank columns simply shelled Chechen cities. Despite the heavy death toll (into the 100s of thousands), the Chechens won a semi-autonomous republic in the terms of the ceasefire.
The Second Chechen War began when Putin was installed following Yeltsin. The Chechen republic was predictably corrupt and poor following the devastation of the first war. Stupidly, the top military commander of the Chechens, Shamil Basayev, launched an incursion into the neighboring republic of Dagestan. Putin was then able to 'finish the job' in Chechnya. The Russian strategy in the second war was different—they used the intelligence services and local proxies to fight the war rather than depending primarily on army conscripts. They installed a Chechen named Ramzan Kadyrov in as the head of Chechnya, and he fought the separatist Chechens working hand-in-hand with the Russian FSB (successor to the KGB). The second war was a success for the Russians—they had a reliable client in Kadyrov, the Chechen strategies got more desperate (e.g. the seige in Beslan), and the top commanders of the separatists were betrayed and killed (Aslan Maskhadov and Shamil Basayev principally).
The Chechen separatists are still out there, but the fighting is very low level. Their current commander, Doku Umarov, hasn't led a major assault on Kadyrov or Russia yet. I don't think the Chechen cause rose or fell with their popularity. I think it had more to do with the anti-insurgent strategy pursued by Russia.
I think nuclear ICBM and MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is where it's at when it comes to large nation vs. nation conflicts. That is the reason Iran and North Korea want to desperately and at all cost join the nuclear club. Then they force a whole new approach to external politics on the world. India is in the nuclear club. Now they are just working on better (more reliable) delivery mechanisms of those warheads.
Now when it comes to asymmetrical warfare, reliable ground human intelligence + drones with rockets are probably most effective.
"Cruise missiles and military robots is where it's at. "
I work on robotics for the Indian defence research folks and while most of it is classified, I can say that military robotics is a hell of a lot more advanced in India than people might think.
"But you would say the same thing if you worked for the Indian dis-information service ;-)"
How did you guess?? HN is high on the list of websites for the local intelligence services to spread disinformation ;-).
All those hackers making policy decisions :-)
Damn but you found me out now I need another id :-D
India soundly defeated the U.S. in air-to-air combat in the Cope India 2005 wargames, their latest plane is also Russian equipment with modified Indian avionics\computers.
Yeah. Maybe. Or maybe the Air Force just wants to convince Congress to replace the F-16, which got its clock cleaned (so they claim) by the Sukhoi in those exercises.
I worked on the AGM-69_SRAM nearly 30 years ago in the USAF. India is certainly not the first to build a maneuverable supersonic missile. We quit making them because there wasn't enough benefit to supersonic. Subsonic gives a far greater range, and is about as hard to stop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-69_SRAM
A late 1950's Mach 2.1 cruise missile with a range of 785 miles or 400 in its Low Altitude Attack profile. Not so accurate, but with a warhead yield of up to 1.45 MT it probably would have sufficed.
31 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 82.1 ms ] threadThat seems wrong.
Like this one, it's a solid-rocket launched ramjet anti-ship cruise missile. It's a Mach 3 to 2.2 (high to low altitude) with a warhead (from a ship) a bit more than 50% bigger ... or it can carry a nuke. 120 km range vs. the 290 for this one. We (e.g. the USNavy) are supposed to be somewhat concerned about it.
Next year we should be seeing production of the Standard Missile 6 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-174_Standard_ERAM), which would seem to be designed for these sorts of threats. E.g. it has a active seeker instead of the "semi-active" of it's previous breathen (the target must be illuminated by a ship's RADAR a bit before impact). Although I wouldn't be surprised if some of the earlier ones could do the job.
It'll take poor countries like india developing cheap military tech to slap america into the reality of the 21st century.
India and China are developing missile systems that can take out an American carrier in a single strike. Which, as a former marine who likes to blow stuff up, I think is really cool by the way. The problem is our response. We attempt to develop a laser that will kill these missiles inbound.
All fine and dandy, IF it works, which I wouldn't stake my guys lives on. But that's not even the point. The point is . . . why not engage in a sober and deliberate SWOT evaluation of the carrier group itself. Is it still useful?
I don't know, I am not an Admiral. But I really do get the feeling that General Officers in our military are addicted to big, complicated, and expensive systems. Do we really need these? Especially given that we are going bankrupt right now.
It's almost as if the Social Security - Medicare people and the Military Industrial Complex really don't CARE that they are sinking us.
One new one, the Gerald Ford, is in construction.
You are right that other countries at best only have one carrier. And, as far as I know, no other country has a super-carrier. A normal aircraft carrier has a 40-50,000 ton displacement, whereas super-carriers have 90-100,000 ton displacement. All U.S. carrier are super-carriers, whereas other countries have only regular carriers.
Great visual aide: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers.htm
In a full blown WWIII, it would be worth wasting a couple of nuclear torpedoes to drawn some super carriers loaded with very expensive and vulnerable equipment.
One such torpedo was almost lunched during the Cuban missile crisis. We should probably be grateful for this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasiliy_Arkhipov) for stopping WWIII.
The entire Russian army was fought to a stand-still in Afghanistan and later also in Chechnya by much smaller, less well equipment forces using modern insurgent techniques. The "press a button to win a war" methodology only works in the modern age if you're willing to carpet bomb the enemy and any civilians who happen to get in the way (see the horrible civil war in Sri Lanka as an example). If you're not willing to do that then you'll need more than just CPU guided munitions.
The problem with the russians in afghanistan and americans in iraq/afghanistan today is what exacty is the objective ? Technically the russians and americans won easily in the first few days. The rest of the time was just pretend warfare that should have been just called law enforcement.
When you send soldiers to fight civilians you've already failed. There's nothing you can achieve except slaughter.
If the hearts of a population are not with you, sending a military in is just barbaric. That battle can never be won.
Most countries that have been conquered were not conquered by love or friendship but by barbaric brutality. Not saying I approve, I don't. It is just what usually happens. One would just take over the hospitals, water treatment plants, power plants and news stations. Then see how long people are going to stay on their roofs with their rifles. I am guessing not too long. "Live free or die" is a good slogan. But most people would buckle and sell their country for a hot egg McMuffin if they haven't eaten in a week.
Large parts of Afghanistan don't have any hospitals, water treatment plants, power plants and news stations. As far as I can see the US "liberation" forces are still getting shot at or blown up. You underestimate how people dislike invaders in their streets and disrupting their lives. I suspect even Americans who live in relative luxury and have all the above would fight to the death against (say) Chinese soldiers patrolling their cities.
It is much harder to take over a country where everyone is already self-sufficient. It would be hard to take over Africa, as many villages are more or less self sufficient. They are not doing great but they can survive without a Starbucks. The same in Afghanistan. If someone has a herd of goats, a well, and the ability to grow some edible plants, they might be alright and will keep fighting.
Now try shutting down power, water, hospitals and grocery stores in US and see what happens. The most advanced a society is, the more dependent the people are dependent on multiple layers of private and governmental services. And I guess, that makes them in a certain way more vulnerable.
(How did I even think of this? I witnessed what happened when there was a large power outage in Ohio last year).
> I suspect even Americans who live in relative luxury and have all the above would fight to the death aginst (say) Chinese soldiers patrolling their cities.
I think you have a very optimistic view of our fellow Americans. I saw them get desperate when they couldn't take a shower for 2 weeks. Another 2-3 month and many would have pledged allegiance to the first country providing hot showers and hot egg mcmuffins.
Well I am not an American but I have lived in the USA. I think underestimating Americans as weak hedonists who don't have the iron in their souls for battle would be to make the same mistake the Japanese did in WW2. The Japanese high command (except famously Yamomoto) actually believed that Americans were soft and decadent and couldn't stand up to the tough Japanese soldiers. That didn't turn out so well even before the atom bomb.
As to getting desperate about no showers, sure if in peacetime your infrastructure broke down for whatever reason you'd get desperate. But when you are at war, and when you are under invasion (an invasion of the United States is well nigh unimaginable today, but just as a thought experiment), the mindset is probably very different.
(In my admittedly limited knowledge,) I don't know if Afghanistan is the best example of the United States (I'll assume this is the state being discussed from marshallp's "the military") not being able to adapt; the Afghan mujahideen received a lot of training and weapons from the CIA, through Pakistan's IFI.
OTOH, (again, in my admittedly limited knowledge,) Chechnya is a very good example of a more "modern" style of war; Russia only really gained the upper hand and managed to force a ceasefire after the Chechen rebels lost popularity (which was after they took something like 1,500 people hostage, including mothers with newborns).
The Second Chechen War began when Putin was installed following Yeltsin. The Chechen republic was predictably corrupt and poor following the devastation of the first war. Stupidly, the top military commander of the Chechens, Shamil Basayev, launched an incursion into the neighboring republic of Dagestan. Putin was then able to 'finish the job' in Chechnya. The Russian strategy in the second war was different—they used the intelligence services and local proxies to fight the war rather than depending primarily on army conscripts. They installed a Chechen named Ramzan Kadyrov in as the head of Chechnya, and he fought the separatist Chechens working hand-in-hand with the Russian FSB (successor to the KGB). The second war was a success for the Russians—they had a reliable client in Kadyrov, the Chechen strategies got more desperate (e.g. the seige in Beslan), and the top commanders of the separatists were betrayed and killed (Aslan Maskhadov and Shamil Basayev principally).
The Chechen separatists are still out there, but the fighting is very low level. Their current commander, Doku Umarov, hasn't led a major assault on Kadyrov or Russia yet. I don't think the Chechen cause rose or fell with their popularity. I think it had more to do with the anti-insurgent strategy pursued by Russia.
Now when it comes to asymmetrical warfare, reliable ground human intelligence + drones with rockets are probably most effective.
I work on robotics for the Indian defence research folks and while most of it is classified, I can say that military robotics is a hell of a lot more advanced in India than people might think.
How did you guess?? HN is high on the list of websites for the local intelligence services to spread disinformation ;-). All those hackers making policy decisions :-)
Damn but you found me out now I need another id :-D
A late 1950's Mach 2.1 cruise missile with a range of 785 miles or 400 in its Low Altitude Attack profile. Not so accurate, but with a warhead yield of up to 1.45 MT it probably would have sufficed.
We had as many as 359 in service (1969).