Jeb in Richmond
May 11th 09, 07:04 PM
On May 11, 12:05*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> I'm afraid that looking ahead 1 decade, our CVN's
> could be vulnerable. One cheap IRBM can carry
> 10 (in the 3rd stage) cheap guided missiles inbound,
> steering subsonically even using only gravity for thrust.
A decade from now, the forward VLS cells on a Burke could also be
replaced by a solid-state directed-energy weapon (laser or MW) capable
of frying the missile bus before warhead deployment, and SM-3
performance won't stay unimproved for a decade either. Satellite (or
high-altitude UAV) coverage will detect the launch in real-time and
track the inbound on its climb, so the carrier group is going to know
what's on the way, and probably have it painted by the time it
apogees. I'll pit my theoretical laser+advanced SM-3s against your
theoretical IRBM.
> I'm afraid that looking ahead 1 decade, our CVN's
> could be vulnerable. One cheap IRBM can carry
> 10 (in the 3rd stage) cheap guided missiles inbound,
> steering subsonically even using only gravity for thrust.
A decade from now, the forward VLS cells on a Burke could also be
replaced by a solid-state directed-energy weapon (laser or MW) capable
of frying the missile bus before warhead deployment, and SM-3
performance won't stay unimproved for a decade either. Satellite (or
high-altitude UAV) coverage will detect the launch in real-time and
track the inbound on its climb, so the carrier group is going to know
what's on the way, and probably have it painted by the time it
apogees. I'll pit my theoretical laser+advanced SM-3s against your
theoretical IRBM.