Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:42:13 -0400, hk wrote:

Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:53:05 -0400, hk wrote:

I was discussing the vulnerability of carriers. They are
sitting ducks for ballistic missiles.
Not really. A ballistic missile, by definition, can do little or
nothing to alter course after the launch phase. That's why they are
called "ballistic".

An aircraft carrier on the other hand is constantly on the move.
Where it is at launch time is not where it is going to be 15 or 20
minutes later when the missile arrives.



Your knowledge base it out of date. There are ballistic missiles capable
of "course corrections," and there are very very fast "cruise" missiles
being developed that achieve super high speeds that can be guided.

A cruise missile and a ballistic missile are two entirely different
things. Cruise missiles are defended by traditional radar and
interceprion technologies - not perfect but quite good. The ability
to make precision mid-course corrections by a ballistic missile is
very, very limited.

Claiming expertise in hi-tech weapons after reading a couple of
Wikipedia articles is a bit of a stretch don't you think?



I quoted Wiki because I noted your knowledge base was out of date, and I
didn't want to burden you with too much reality. I could have quoted
some other sources...The Chinese, for example, are developing a
high-speed, long-range, tactical anti-ship missile. The "other" Chinese,
our allies, have already developed a supersonic anti-ship missile, the
Hsiung Feng-III. My point was that missiles that travel at very high
speeds, capable of delivering very large payloads, *and guidable* and
conventional or nuclear, are under development, and that will spell the
end of the usefulness of aircraft carriers when trying to face down a
serious, modern enemy. Oh...and let's not forget the Russian's
Kh-101...a subsonic but stealth anti-ship missile.

As always, the effort I put into posting depends upon the audience.