View Single Post
  #29  
Old 10-30-2019, 01:45 PM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Both China and Russia (and the US for that matter) are developing, and supposedly have working models of hyper-sonic missiles able to adjust their targeting in flight, fly non-ballistic courses and, again supposedly, could hit a maneuvering US carrier with either a conventional or nuclear warhead. Plus a lot of other magical features. I'm more than a bit , but they say they can, and neither Russia nor the CCP is ever known to lie or exaggerate. And we all know how reliable the US is (though, to be fair, the US isn't really saying much about it's own program)...
It proved devilishly difficult for aircraft to find, let alone hit BBs. The problem is not that a single HSV could kill a carrier, or even several launched en salvo, but that even hundreds HSV are many order cheaper than a carrier. And can hit at much longer range. And persistently. For a long time before the ship can retaliate. A BB usually needed multiple sqdrn of aircraft, attacking from multiple vectors to suffer damage or be sunk, and her air defences regularly accounted for many attackers.

Quote:
So, in theory, assuming you could actually make such a system work and actually be able to update your kill chain, then road launchers would be just as vulnerable as air craft carriers or anything else that moves. Or, to be more specific, as you point out, if large scale launches are confirmed, we could as easily flush the birds out of ground based launchers as we could with mobile launchers, if it comes to that.
A carrier should ideally survive until the war concludes. A TEL only until itís missile is away. Which takes minutes.