My thoughts exactly. You could add other platforms like the F-35 or glider UUVs to the detection chain as well.Well, maritime patrol aircraft are small vessels with a very good radar/sensor, which detects and tracks targets and can feed that to a ship for the shoot. Or they can take a shot themselves. Hawkeye aircraft is another good example. Aircraft are much better at this sort of this than a surface vessel and we've been doing this for as long as aircraft have existed.
How about unattended? "The SLOWPOKE-2 nuclear reactor is the only type of nuclear reactor licensed in Canada for unattended operation in automatic mode."There is no such thing as an unmonitored nuclear reactor.
Curious from a practical perspective from someone who is quite experienced in naval operations -An excellent analysis of hypersonic weapons. Very good quality video, with a particular focus on naval vulnerabilities to such weapons.
Of particular interest to me was the targeting and terminal phase issues that hypersonics have. Navies already have the ability to shoot down these missiles based on the current science. The strategic impact of hypersonic speeds to push naval combat away from shorelines is very interesting (see his nice math example comparing subsonic, supersonic and hypersonic missiles targeting a task group).
Curious from a practical perspective from someone who is quite experienced in naval operations -
How likely or practical is it that friendly ships, even if equipped with updated tech, could intercept hypersonic missiles in a combat scenario? (Multiple ships vs multiple ships)
I know ICBMs have been intercepted in various tests in their terminal phase. I couldn’t find any examples of hypersonic naval missiles being intercepted.
As for the topic of this thread, I think we all that hypersonic weapons will be an absolute game changer. Unless energy weapons start packing a lot more punch AND sensor systems improve... yikes
It will be interesting to see what happens with DEW. I saw somewhere that the USN plans to tie HELIOS into AEGIS. I wonder if eventually we'll see some form of optical phased array capable of engaging multiple targets simultaneously, at varying power output levels? I suppose if you could supplement conventional defences, you may be able to free up some extra VLS cells for other mission sets. It would also ease resupply burdens, and I'm sure lower the cost per engagement. In addition to HELs, High power microwave technologies are also interesting.Unless energy weapons start packing a lot more punch AND sensor systems improve... yikes
Also something I've been wondering - will we see more nuclear powered surface combatants in the future?
That's not a bad idea of a defensive posture or limited area for fighting.
However, if small dispersed ships were the way to go why is China, Japan, UK, France, US etc... all building larger ships with more capability in them. They are all introducing new carriers or carrier programs into their fleets as well. They are building bigger better submarines.
Because these vessels do the job and project the power. Small dispersed ships are a nice idea but don't pull the weight when the chips are down. There are massive disadvantages to them. They are not good in the high seas, they have limited sensor capabilities, they have limited ranges and time on station. This is why you see small ships in places like the Baltic (Sweeden and their Visby class) or the Black Sea ( the ever-growing number of over gunned Russian Corvettes and missile boats).
It's also why the LCS program failed at its heart and is being replaced with frigates. It was designed with the idea that quantity has its own quality. Well apparently quality is important as well, and the LCS actually showed that they were less flexible than blue water destroyers in most circumstances.
USV's can mitigate some of these disadvantages but in the process create their own sets of negatives. Complete lack of flexibility, limited sensors, no kinetic effects etc...