Comment by trashtester | Hacker News Reader

Comment by trashtester | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Ok, maybe you have information I don't have, but those planes have long range missiles of their own.

What would a US carrier group do to stop a large group of Tu-160, Tu-22, Mig31 and similar aircraft armed with anti-ship missiles with ranges that in many cases exceed 1000km, and some of which are supersonic or even hypersonic?

If the carrier is several 1000 kilometer from land, maybe F35's flying CAP + any additional scrambled fighters may provide enough protection.

But the closer the carrier gets to land, the more vulnerable they may be.

What kind of missile would you use against these bombers, and at what distance?

Now keep in mind that the enemy can stay in the air for a while far within their friendly airspace, and then suddenly start a dash towards you at a speed of Mach2.

In cases like this, I would believe that having a few F-22 around (possibly from land based air bases in the area) would be a good addition to the fighters on the carrier, simply because the F-22 could much more easily dance with the enemy bombers as they were repositioning.

Anti-ship missiles are dealt with by anti-ship missile defenses[1]. They have to deal with the problem from submarines and land based missiles anyway.

The F22 is an air-superiority fighter. To quote Wikipeda interceptor role is mostly dead:

> the strategic threat moved from bombers to intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). Dedicated interceptor designs became rare, with the only widely used examples designed after the 1960s being the Panavia Tornado ADV, Mikoyan MiG-25, Mikoyan MiG-31, and the Shenyang J-8.

I'd note the most recent of any of those is the Mig31 (operational since 1981, production finished in 1994). It's worth reading combat reports from Ukraine against the Mig31 - where it is being used in an air-superiority role. There the big advantage of the Mig31 is its R-37 missile (range 200+ miles).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Combat_System

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interceptor_aircraft

> anti-ship missiles with ranges that in many cases exceed 1000km,

What now? A Kinzhal will probably fly that far, but it won't hit a moving ship at that distance.

It's claimed to have an operational range of 3000km.

Kh-55 has a similar range, but lower speed (sea-skimming, though).

Then there is the Kh-32 with operational range stated as 600-1000km.

And then there are plenty of missiles of ranges from 300-1000km.

Also, China is actively developing similar systems.

I suppose it's classified at what ranges these systems would be able hit targets such as carriers. But if they're able to at all, it would be at rangers much beyond what you can defend against with aim120/aim160 missiles.

RIM 161/SM3 would provide some protection, but they are probably not very accurate at the extreme ranges, especially if targetting supersonic attackers.

Which means that interceptors may be the best option. Against large groups of enemies, the speed of the interceptor is still relevant, and there are certainly some in the Navy that worries about the loss of the F14, in particular in the Pacific.

For now, I suppose it makes sense to have some F22's and F15's in the general area where such conflicts could take place.

>It's claimed to have an operational range of 3000km.

Which may be true in a land attack role, but is obviously not the case in an anti-ship role (if that capability really exists at all!).

Realistically, you'll be very happy if you hit a target 300km away with current anti-ship missiles.

Well, according to Wikipedia, it's nicknamed "Carrier Killer". Also, if it's specified speed is correct, it would travel at several km per second, and reach the carrier in 2-3 minutes if fired from 1000km away.

If it has any kind of ability to home in on the ship based on radar, sattelite or similar, it shouldn't matter much if it's fired from 200km or 2000km. And even less if it carries a nuke. Even at 40kn, a ship doesn't go THAT far in 3 minutes.

Of course, if it's not performing per specification, it wouldn't be the first time for a Russian weapon system. So it makes sense to take the claims with a grain of salt.

The main point, though, is that in some places, it's hard to protect important assets from all angles against enemies that are a lot faster. This may not be all that important in Eastern Europe. It might be more important in the Arctic, Middle Eastern or Pacific theatres, though.

At the very least, speed allows each plane to patrol a larger area in relatively remote places.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com