In the same category, half a century later: aircraft carriers.
Although I'm not sure this qualifies as "hacker", let alone "news".
Although I'm not sure this qualifies as "hacker", let alone "news".
Ever see Independence Day or, more recently, Battle LA? Didn't you find it stupid that once the command ship are destroyed, the enemy essentially dies? This is what aircraft carriers represent.
Take the $23 billion dollars it takes to build the first Gerald R. Ford Carrier and invest that into various decentralized, independent, small technologies, and your army is considerably better for it when it comes to any serious threat.
It's like our military planners never read Ender's Game.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_ship
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212_submarine
A fleet of Sea Shadow type vessels and Air Independent Propulsion submarines combined with a good land-based air force would make life very difficult for carrier battle groups.
11 US aircraft carriers? 11 missiles. $100+Billion vs $15 Million. 30000 soldiers vs 0.
During the cold war this is the strategy that Russia took - let the US build expensive ships, they build [relatively] cheap missiles. The Chinese are doing the same with the Dong Feng missiles.
However, missiles do scale well. Even 1000 missiles will cost much less than the carrier and will almost certainly take it down.
There are 190-odd countries in the world. The US Navy's aircraft carriers are extremely effective against at least 185 of 'em.
All the countries with a "remotely comparable force" also have nuclear weapons, so if the US ever winds up in a full-on shooting war with one of them then it's all over for both sides anyway.
No aircraft carrier has actually been sunk since World War 2. So they can't be that vulnerable.
Bear in mind that anything capable of launching a thouand anti-ship missiles will be one of the things the USAF will destroy within the first few hours of the war.
With a hundred small boats
> And how would you get that launch platform within range of a US aircraft carrier?
With civilians on board
> Bear in mind that anything capable of launching a thouand anti-ship missiles will be one of the things the USAF will destroy within the first few hours of the war.
Yep, nothing better to start a war on the right foot than civilian massacre.
Isn't that like saying Hoover Dam has never been destroyed, so it can't be that vulnerable?
I'm not sure that there have been serious attempts to destroy either (is my point).
In comparison, most of the cruise missiles we hear about (Tomahawk for example) are subsonic (though the US does have a few old supersonic ones).
The effectiveness of missile defense systems isn't 100%. It's hard to shoot something travelling at 3600mph. It takes a lot of power, a lot of accuracy, generates a ton of heat, and a requires dash (or two) of lady luck. The defensive system can be overwhelmed for a fraction of the price.