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...
Are you kidding me? the Turkish military has a standing 430000+ regular force with a further 400000 in reserve troops. 3200 MBTs, 1200 Artillery, and 4000+ APCs. Since 2014 they have been improving their mobility. If Turkey can't mount a sizeable or reliable force then nobody can.They are also a mess internally as well, and I think it would be quite probably that an adversary / potential adversary could stir things up internally. Mass protests, labour strikes, the violence that comes from protests and riots, etc.
As capable as they are on paper, and as decent as some of their kit is - I'm not sure they could manifest that investment into a sizeable or reliable force if they had to truly mobilize.
Are you kidding me? the Turkish military has a standing 430000+ regular force with a further 400000 in reserve troops. 3200 MBTs, 1200 Artillery, and 4000+ APCs. Since 2014 they have been improving their mobility. If Turkey can't mount a sizeable or reliable force then nobody can.
Haha okay he is right, but that meme just made it so much better
You aren’t wrong. BUT, I’m not so sure I’m wrong either.Are you kidding me? the Turkish military has a standing 430000+ regular force with a further 400000 in reserve troops. 3200 MBTs, 1200 Artillery, and 4000+ APCs. Since 2014 they have been improving their mobility. If Turkey can't mount a sizeable or reliable force then nobody can.
I have to go back in time and look at what the Brits and the French thought back in 1915/16 and I'm sure there are alot of parallels to today. In the end you never know with Turkey if you'll be facing their 'A' team or a bunch of 3rd stringers.Haha okay he is right, but that meme just made it so much better
You aren’t wrong. BUT, I’m not so sure I’m wrong either.
Looking at Turkey, it is absolutely a regional military powerhouse. Largest fleet of F-16’s outside of USAF, and like you listed - a large military with ample kit & equipment.
If the gloves came off & things got serious, I’m sure Turkey could mount a sizeable & formidable force. But how reliable is it really?
Let’s not forget, even now, Turkey has resorted to hiring ‘local freedom fighters & militia groups’ to conduct operations along the Iraqi side of the border, supported by artillery inside Turkey.
How many of those MBT’s are modern, serviceable, and effective? And how many of them are relics?
Turkey is currently sanctioned by the US for it’s adoption of the S-300 system, and part of those sanctions is a restriction on spare parts for it’s F-16 fleet. (Along with closed doors on manufacturing parts for the F-35, among others.)
Turkey has senior military commanders & police commanders, as well as large groups of soldiers, police officers, judges, even teachers, detained on suspicion of being loyal/supportive to someone Ergodan doesn’t like.
How much of their force doesn’t show up, abandon their posts, or disappear into Europe if they gloves do come off? How much of that force would be loyal to their leadership, if their former commanders are imprisoned on suspicions?
How much support does Ergodan have in eastern Turkey, where he has (not too long ago relatively speaking) ordered airstrikes on his own villages?
Perhaps I should have worded my post differently. Turkey may be a regional powerhouse, absolutely. I don’t know how much of that force would mount up & be reliable for prolonged operations, depending on the circumstances.
The MBTs are a combination of Leopard 2A4 (~400) and the remainder are Sabra M60s (light weight but very modern, reactive armour, 120 smooth bore, and advanced EO/IR, etc made in 2007). So as far as tanks go they aren't to be messed with. They also have a large airforce but mostly older F16s.