simonh said:
Except that, as I pointed out, apart from aircraft carriers we don't make large ships anymore, and aircraft carriers don't mount any weapon systems too big to mount on anything else. We Brits discovered to our cost back in the Falklands war that a single missile hit can easily kill an entire ship. Bigger ships are only marginally less prone to instant kills like this and can still be hopelessly crippled or killed by a just a few missile hits. With the new generations of continental range supersonic ship killer missiles like the DF-21D, the BrahMos or the
Yakhont this trend has ratcheted up to such a level that even carriers, against a technologically capable foe, are beginning to look like giant white elephants useful only in low level conflicts against medeocrely equipped opponents.
Simon Hibbs
This same discussion has been going on for decades. First it was the light attack craft armed with missiles that signaled the death-knell for larger surface combatants, and lately it's been terrorists with speedboats and suicide charges. There's still no substitute for the capability to project power that comes with a naval vessel. And lets not forget that having a full-fledged blue water navy means a great deal.
Today's vessels aren't even built to survive cruise missile attacks. The typical ship mounts a single CIWS, and a few mount both CIWS and a RAM launcher. Naval design seems to have taken a back seat since WW2. The small ships lack the space and tonnage necessary for heavy compartmentalization and additional anti-cruise missile weapon systems. The
Sheffield was sunk by an Exocet missile fired from 20nm. It had 2 CIWS weapons systems, and I don't think either of them engaged the missile. The ship was later scuttled due to damage and weather. Had say a Sunburn hit, I would imagine much more damage, possibly even a sinking. Had the Sheffield had more armor, more redundancies to take damage, the outcome might have been different.
The
Stark was also hit by an Exocet, fired ridiculously close. Two hit, but only one exploded. It survived, partially because of lessons learned and applied after the Falklands, and partially due to luck. But it, too, had design flaws in regards to some things.
A commonality shared by both attacks is that each time two missile were launched, but only 1 exploded.
Doctrinal changes such as the retirement of the F-14 and it's anti-missile Phoenix system have made carrier battlegroups more susceptible to air strikes. It's true that if you can get some of the larger carrier-killer ships through the defenses, you can sink a carrier. But the amount of effort that requires limits the number of enemies who can afford to do so. Today ships are expensive beyond belief. Today the US struggles to field a 300 ship navy and the accompanying air wings.
This will remain a subject that will never be settled, unless somebody wants to go out and design a moderately-sized surface combatant armed and armored to survive in today's environment.
