I though 57 rma was the flt III Burke. Im confused now. But there will always be some advantage to seeing further with more resolution.
Agree. Or the enemy can attempt to drain your defensive stocks by sending regular low cost attacks and decoys, waiting for the right time to fire more dangerous things. And then try for overmatch again.
I do not have a philosophical reason 57 RMA is more than adequate. It sounds like the backend on a 69 RMA would take a decade to sort out whereas they have 57 RMA already being tackled. If there is the need for 69 RMA after Flight I then look to add it to Flight II. Throwing too many whole new technologies at a solution is a recipe for sure failure. Get something built and then integrate new stuff as it is available. If things like a rail gun aren't ready, don't hold up production.
You mean besides being pulled from hacked files of a Chinese defense data center? It’s also a YJ-21 not DF21, typo earlier. I have some evidence, you have none.
Why do we think 69 RMA would take a decade to sort out?
That’s why lasers and maybe gun guided launched air defense rounds exist.
BBG(X) happened because Phelan, knowing that Trump liked the battleships of old, pitched Trump on a Golden Fleet with a Trump-class battleship, in an effort to stay in Trump's good graces.
.You mean from a simulation files from a super computer with the ability to be used by any university student within the defense fields of study? It's literal what if generic bullcrap.
Neat. Show me the YJ-21 has a tungsten penetrating warhead with impact velocities of mach 5.9, then. Also, show me the model used to represent a US super carrier is dimensionally and structurally accurate as well as accurate in materials make up and properties.
You have what amounts to a university level defence generic simulation and your head cannon fanfic filling in the rest. Keep that bullshit on X where it belongs with the rest of the low IQ troglodytes. We don't need this place turning into another X shitfest.
Maybe from general program history? Radars do not build themselves and slapping more modules together does not magically create a working product. They take time to perfect. The 69 RMA is a theoretical proposal, not yet a working plan.
I would expect it to take 2-4 years not a decade as the constituent parts are designed to be modular and all exist
Not to derail this onto the FF(X)/FFG debacle, but at some point, trying to defend everything means you defend nothing. Frederick the Great wasn't a sailor, but his maxim sure applies...
I always thought why not a line literally head to tail with the one or two linear rows of modules, but it probably gives you too little resolution in the vertical plane.
Because the USN literally wants CPS on as many ships as can carry it?
Because it's the target that is side on to the radar, which means the target has a much larger RCS in that aspect.
Not necessarily.
Personally, I encourage a mix of Mk57 and Mk41. Put the Mk57s around the helo deck (there's ~40 tubes around the outside of the Zumwalt class helo deck) and you get to have some bonus missiles on top of the sets of Mk41s.
Even assuming each CPS missile replaces a TLAM, does it really increase the number of SAM for MK41?
Then you lose control of the Sea Lines of Communications.
Let's see here. For sake of argument, you can stuff ~32x Mk41 into the same hole as 4x CPS big tubes. That's 12x CPS birds. With Mk41, you would be at +20 tubes for SAMs.
Because a ballistic missile coming out of an empty patch of ocean is the start of global thermonuclear war.
5" is not only a shore bombardment gun. It is also AA, anti-surface, anti-drone, etc.
Mk57 sure, but do we need bigger VLS than that? For what? What capability is necessary that can’t be fit into mk57 already?
Many proposals for 27" SM3/SM6, CPS/LRHW is ~34" diameter.
Ok, and what exactly is the point of that?
TBF anyone who has nukes to retaliate is also someone who you don't want finding it where your battleship is. So to them it still will be a ballistic missile coming out of an empty patch of ocean...
Because China is BIG. More than 4000 km from East to West, to be exact. To hit targets in Inner China with 3500-km range "Dark Eagle" missile, you need launch platform relatively close to coast.
Because you are no longer stuck with whatever weapon can be stuffed into a 21" tube, first of all.
CPS/LRHW must be in a ~35" tube, so there's already some oversized weapons that are intended to be installed in much of the USN's new ships.
CPS was designed to be launched from VIrginia payload modules. I think it's 3 to a tube. If you need to get close, you use a sub.
And what exactly your sub would do, after it fires its missiles - and got all patrol planes, drones, sattelites, warships and hunter-killers zeroed on its location? Because launch of CPS anywhere near China coastline would allow Chinese to immediately pinpoint the submarine position. CPS is NOT a Tomahawk; the CPS launch would be detected immediately, and starting point would be calculated in mere seconds. After which - sattelites would start to scan for water disturbances, patrol planes would rush into area to begin search, and hunter-killer groups would be deployed.
Sigh. It was just an example, you know...
Well, if you think a tungsten penetrator would make a mess of a CVN then PLA would be very keen on putting one in their "carrier killer" DF-21. If you think its impossible, then you have already list a carrier once you find out.
If they eventually make it into the fleet. MAD-FIRES appears to be still born, ALAMO isnt optimised for air defence, 3P is more for shorter range, and 5" works but more expensive and slow rate of fire. RAM are really expensive against drones & decoys in an attrition scenario. Pulsed lasers may oneday get there, on some ships...
So CPS is the missile, not the launcher. I thought (based on publicity renders) they would use the 12 cell GVLS from LM. Not 12×3, just 12 missiles, but if not used for CPS they supposedly quadpack the standard Mk-41 cells.
They might be useful as a last ditch gun against MIRVs? Probably not enough elevation against a ballistic missile.
Tbf with the range available to CPS a sub would be long gone from firing position by the time an aircraft could arrive
They plan a pair of 300W lasers on each side of the ship. There will also be VLS missiles that can target them. I think relying on a plan that ships will be vulnerable to top attack is probably short-sided.
Probably can fire them from waters outside Korea. After the Soviets removed missiles from Cuba they began parking missile subs there which were just as much a threat.
A 300kW laser would have to vapourise most of a ballistic missile to have much effect on its trajectory, not realistic. Anyway a 300W continous wave laser was cancelled, think it was the army one, in favour of a competing pulsed laser. Lasers will probably get updated every year or so, move the old lasers onto amphibs and oilers.
Lasers create ultra-high oscillations long before the power levels to vaporize. The vibrations generally cause irreversible catastrophic failure of materials. And you can create multiple oscillation patterns from the same laser which is counter-intuitive, but that is because lasers can spike power levels in several complimentary ways besides their natural wavelength. It is much more complicated than running a light source threw a crystaline filter. There are theories about hardening the noses of ballistic missiles but that hasn't been as successful in practice as it was in theory. Add in the HPM/DEW and main radar array radiation that can be dumped at a target, too. I am willing to bet they have many non-public tricks up their sleaves.
That sort of stuff will ruin any manoeuvring ability, but it probably wont stop the mass of the missile continuing its trajectory. Especially if theres a lump of tungsten penetrator in it. Theoretically a kinetic hit could damage the aerodynamics enough to throw it off course.
