Shooting down a satellite or a free-falling ballistic missile is relatively easy - the trajectory is predictable.

The article talks about maneuvering ballistic missiles - this task is a lot harder, similar to shooting a static vs. erratically moving target on the target range. According to the Navy report the problem is not currently solved.

It's not just Chinese who figured it out either, two decades ago Russians started re-arming their strategic nuclear arsenal with Topol-M which in its latest versions is also a maneuvering ballistic missile.

And then of course there is the very old trick of multiple warheads per missile (some decoy) - these are impossible to shoot down as there are far too may of them at once. Chinese have demonstrated to world their ability to do this when they launched multiple satellites with one rocket - the same technology. This particular missile may not be using it though.

Due to both maneuvering and multiple warheads the entire missile-defense thinking has moved from intercepting missiles at target to intercepting missiles at launch or in flight.

Obviously at 2000km away the AC is not in a position to intercept the launch of the missile.

It is not a solved problem you make it out to be. And the article's meta-point is that in the arms race of armor vs bullet, the bullet seems to be winning in the historical perspective.

Just something to chew on...

The local active sensing capability required to out-maneuver one or more interceptors would negate any low-observable qualities of the kill vehicle.

The likelihood of the kill vehicle possessing a passive tracking capability sufficient to outmaneuver the active sensing and tracking system aboard an interceptor is clearly very low.

My point is that neither maneuverability nor low observability are guarantees of success due to compromising other aspects of the vehicle; which may ultimately make it more vulnerable to defensive measures than is apparent at first glance.

Why complicate things so much? Just maneuver randomly, keeping yor target in sight(s).

The idea is that you store anti-ship missiles on civilian craft, then swarm a carrier group and launch a sneak attack from tiny speed boats and fishing vessels. Air supremacy does not solve that, and there is currently no defense against such a swarm.

Everyone thought battleships were invincible until they turned out to be exactly USELESS with the advent of good carrier-based airplanes. Its quite possible that the anti-ship missile, in large deployments in a post-war declaration period, has done this to the carrier.

Even though the Japanese were smart enough to launch the attack on Pearl harbor, the US and Japanese navies were both certain their battleships would be important in the upcoming conflict, and the Japanese navy trained intensely for large scale night-battles among fleets of battleships. Everyone woke up overnight to the fact that battleships were exactly useless, and it was a rude awakening.

You are thinking about a different article - this one: http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=6779&...

The article being discussed here is the one about new Chinese ballastic missiles as the newest threat.

I read the article, but this one builds on his previous ones about the ballistic missile threat to carrier groups, and most of the confusion in these discussions would go away if people read the previous articles as well.

> Everyone thought battleships were invincible until they turned out to be exactly USELESS with the advent of good carrier-based airplanes.

Except that battleships didn't become useless with the advent of good carrier-based airplanes any more than bombers became useless with the advent of good fighters. Carrier-based planes just meant that battleships were vulnerable to a another threat. (They were already vulnerable to other battleships and submarines.)

Battleships are still incredibly useful for dropping lots of ordinance on a target that isn't too far from water. They can take damage that would sink other ships and still fight. They just can't launch planes to protect themselves, but they can be paired with ships that can.

History has shown that disruptive technologies have the potential to drastically alter warfare. The invention of the gatling gun, for example, single-handed turned the line-based warfare of the 19th century upside down.

The invention of the tank as a self-sufficient mobile force was also an incredible blow to known combat tactics at the time - the Nazis wielded this to incredible effect in Poland. The onslaught of fast-moving tanks made the cavalry-heavy Polish military look downright pathetic.

While I'm a bit skeptical of the article, I have to accept that it's entirely possible for a single technology, if disruptive and innovative enough, to complete obsolete the aircraft carrier in only a few short years.

China doesn't want to, but a bunch of pirates/guerillas/terrorists/etc. with speedboats, motorcycles, and Cessnas might. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/21/usa.julianborger

Pirates attacking an AC? Where's the profit in this? Seems like a bunch of red ink all around.

I'm sorry -- Republicans? How did Republicans get into a discussion of the missile capabilities of China and/or defensive mechanisms carrier battle groups might or might not have?

Come on, guys. Take the politics somewhere else. People of both parties have lots of differing opinions as to various threats posed by various entities. Until it gets to funding, it's a professional judgment thing, not a partisan thing. And we're not discussing funding.

I don't think we're in danger right now of unlimited war with anybody, but then again nobody is paying me to worry about it. I think the point of strategic surprise is to maneuver your country into such a position that it could launch a surprise attack and get away with it -- your opponent has no time to build a counter-measure.

Of course, believing that a dominant weapon system from the 1940s is still viable today might be completely crazy. History tells us that things change dramatically in warfare. On the other hand, if it is not total war, then who cares what systems exist that are not going to be used?

There's a very interesting discussion about military theory and history here. Let's take the politics out of it if we can please.

The article is a bid to get more funding for advanced missile programs. I went to the Naval Academy, home of the Naval Institute, where Proceedings is published. I have had my ship on the cover of Proceedings. It is an opinion rag for admirals and power brokers, with the occasional essay contest to lend an air of authenticity, nothing more. The average blog cites more sources than these guys.

In so far as it is a bid to get more money for advanced missile programs, it is entirely about getting Republicans back in power. Having been in the military under Democratic and Republican regimes, it's pretty clear which causes money to run freely.

I wasn't really trying to make a political point. I was trying to offer an object lesson in taking the wool off one's eyes. Obviously I failed.

That missile is for Aegis class destroyers and cruisers. I have yet to hear of the defense system on an aircraft carrier. So you need to have a destroyer paired up with an AC.

Now while the Aegis system is truly kickass, it has yet to be used in wartime, excluding shooting down an Iranian civilian aircraft (oops!).

The air superiority that aircraft carriers provide is pretty cool too. But go back and read the War Nerd's posts and he goes through how a how defensless AC's really are from non-traditional adversaries.

I was under the impression that carriers don't sail alone also. They're usually riding along with a fleet of ships equipped with Aegis system that would take care of ballistic missiles.

I had coworkers that worked on standard missile. When I asked them why we don't have missile plumes to take care of lots of low-value targets (as mentioned in the article), I was told that the back fire from one missile might destroy the other, and they would also travel at undetermined speeds, as they might hit each other.

Why do I feel like I'm the only one that RTFA? He quotes an article by the United States Naval Institute.

Do you know more than them?