<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The War Nerd: This Is How the Carriers Will Die (Updated Version)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/</link>
	<description>All the news not fit to print: Gary Brecher the War Nerd, Mark Ames, Yasha Levine, Eileen Jones and the rest of Team eXiled</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:18:46 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: MAD</title>
		<link>http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/comment-page-4/#comment-17106</link>
		<dc:creator>MAD</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 11:22:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://exiledonline.com/?p=6954#comment-17106</guid>
		<description>Some readers question whether the chinese  have the missile to attack a carrier.If the Chinese can send a guy into space ,there is no reason to doubt their missile carrier locating ability. I know it's like looking for  water in the desert.
I believe the PLA have the means to locate any carrier if not now  will be in the not too distant future.
The PLA are not looking for a fight with the US.This is China  2009 not Mao's China when the US could easily have destroyed with nw. Not any more.
The reason is the PLA have nw as a deterrent. That's why the US has not threatened the use of nw in the 1996 crisis.Yes the PLA is nuclear outgunned but any  use by the US will  trigger a Chinese response.Imagine a situation  where China has no nuclear deterrent. Then Taiwan could have become independent and China would be 
subject to US nuclera blackmail.
The US better get used that China can't be bullied or pushed around. They are no more the peasants' army.Those days are consigned to history.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Some readers question whether the chinese  have the missile to attack a carrier.If the Chinese can send a guy into space ,there is no reason to doubt their missile carrier locating ability. I know it&#8217;s like looking for  water in the desert.<br />
I believe the PLA have the means to locate any carrier if not now  will be in the not too distant future.<br />
The PLA are not looking for a fight with the US.This is China  2009 not Mao&#8217;s China when the US could easily have destroyed with nw. Not any more.<br />
The reason is the PLA have nw as a deterrent. That&#8217;s why the US has not threatened the use of nw in the 1996 crisis.Yes the PLA is nuclear outgunned but any  use by the US will  trigger a Chinese response.Imagine a situation  where China has no nuclear deterrent. Then Taiwan could have become independent and China would be<br />
subject to US nuclera blackmail.<br />
The US better get used that China can&#8217;t be bullied or pushed around. They are no more the peasants&#8217; army.Those days are consigned to history.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lysander</title>
		<link>http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/comment-page-4/#comment-16930</link>
		<dc:creator>Lysander</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:03:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://exiledonline.com/?p=6954#comment-16930</guid>
		<description>While Gery's point about carrier vulnerability is likely true, we should note that carriers have not been used in a major ship vs ship engagement in an awfully long time.

The purpose of carriers since WWII is not naval battle but to sail to small 3rd world countries and intimidate/bomb them. For that purpose, carriers are still useful.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While Gery&#8217;s point about carrier vulnerability is likely true, we should note that carriers have not been used in a major ship vs ship engagement in an awfully long time.</p>
<p>The purpose of carriers since WWII is not naval battle but to sail to small 3rd world countries and intimidate/bomb them. For that purpose, carriers are still useful.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James</title>
		<link>http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/comment-page-4/#comment-16320</link>
		<dc:creator>James</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Oct 2009 03:55:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://exiledonline.com/?p=6954#comment-16320</guid>
		<description>"This is a bunch of BS. There is no defence against anti-ship ballistic missiles because nobody has any.

The problem is terminal guidance. The warhead would have to have some kind of tracking ability and it would need to be able to distinguish the carrier from the escorts. This would require some kind of radar which requires a power source, etc. If the warhead is going MACH 10 it would need a serious radar with serious range which requires even more power. Any guidance/power package takes up space which in turn reduces the size of the warhead. All of this would require a larger than normal MIRV.

Russian Kingfisher missiles would fly at MACH 3.5 and drop down vertically. The Tico &amp; Arleigh Burke Aegis cruisers are designed to shoot down massed missile attacks for all profiles including sea skimmers and high MACH divers.

The AGM-84 Harpoon doesn’t pop up so it can avoid ship defenses, that’s nonsense. In fact popping up only makes them more vulnerable. The reason they pop up during terminal phase is to lock on to the target. When you’re skimming over the water at 10ft the on board radar can only see so far. It needs to pop up at a predetermined distance to search, acquire and lock on to the target, by popping up the radar can see farther. If the target isn’t where it is supposed to be the missile starts a search pattern, then if it finds the targets it will try to lock on to the largest ship if there are multiple targets.

If these anti-ship BMs were out there this technology would be an issue for all surface combatants. It would not be a problem only for CVs.

And your whole small ship argument is retarded. It doesn’t only come down to loss/cost. You have to think of the ability to project power. Super powers need ships that can travel very far. A fleet of tiny ships would require constant refueling. Because they have limited range the refuelers would have to be close to any hot zone, then that would be another vulnerability. Plus I don’t think the crews would be thrilled bobbing in the mid Atlantic with sea state 5 or higher. Small boats work in littoral warfare, not in the wide open ocean.

Overall this blog entry is a big fail."

I am 100% behind Juncho on this one. I can tell for reading warnerd for awhile technology isn't his forte. He's not a technology guy, he's more the type that has a good instinct for people and the way they think. However he's applying those feelings to the technology and that doesn't work. Technology is based on the laws of physics and not on emotional subjectivity. When it comes to why and how people fight Gary has great insights; but when it comes to technology - an engineer he is not. In fact that can be said of a lot of war nerds except that their egos can't take it.

I think this was covered on strategypage awhile ago and after I slogged through the debate about the dongfeng there it was clear to me it was a neat idea with limited usefulness.
From what I gather Brecher's concerns are not really an issue. He's evaluating the CV fleet as if they had no means to attack and neutralize targets before they become a threat, which they can do better than most air forces with their AWACS, planes and missiles. Let alone better than most navies that do not possess those! In short I think sometimes people on their internet think with their emotions and passions instead of with technical knowledge and that doesn't work when speaking of technical issues.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;This is a bunch of BS. There is no defence against anti-ship ballistic missiles because nobody has any.</p>
<p>The problem is terminal guidance. The warhead would have to have some kind of tracking ability and it would need to be able to distinguish the carrier from the escorts. This would require some kind of radar which requires a power source, etc. If the warhead is going MACH 10 it would need a serious radar with serious range which requires even more power. Any guidance/power package takes up space which in turn reduces the size of the warhead. All of this would require a larger than normal MIRV.</p>
<p>Russian Kingfisher missiles would fly at MACH 3.5 and drop down vertically. The Tico &amp; Arleigh Burke Aegis cruisers are designed to shoot down massed missile attacks for all profiles including sea skimmers and high MACH divers.</p>
<p>The AGM-84 Harpoon doesn’t pop up so it can avoid ship defenses, that’s nonsense. In fact popping up only makes them more vulnerable. The reason they pop up during terminal phase is to lock on to the target. When you’re skimming over the water at 10ft the on board radar can only see so far. It needs to pop up at a predetermined distance to search, acquire and lock on to the target, by popping up the radar can see farther. If the target isn’t where it is supposed to be the missile starts a search pattern, then if it finds the targets it will try to lock on to the largest ship if there are multiple targets.</p>
<p>If these anti-ship BMs were out there this technology would be an issue for all surface combatants. It would not be a problem only for CVs.</p>
<p>And your whole small ship argument is retarded. It doesn’t only come down to loss/cost. You have to think of the ability to project power. Super powers need ships that can travel very far. A fleet of tiny ships would require constant refueling. Because they have limited range the refuelers would have to be close to any hot zone, then that would be another vulnerability. Plus I don’t think the crews would be thrilled bobbing in the mid Atlantic with sea state 5 or higher. Small boats work in littoral warfare, not in the wide open ocean.</p>
<p>Overall this blog entry is a big fail.&#8221;</p>
<p>I am 100% behind Juncho on this one. I can tell for reading warnerd for awhile technology isn&#8217;t his forte. He&#8217;s not a technology guy, he&#8217;s more the type that has a good instinct for people and the way they think. However he&#8217;s applying those feelings to the technology and that doesn&#8217;t work. Technology is based on the laws of physics and not on emotional subjectivity. When it comes to why and how people fight Gary has great insights; but when it comes to technology - an engineer he is not. In fact that can be said of a lot of war nerds except that their egos can&#8217;t take it.</p>
<p>I think this was covered on strategypage awhile ago and after I slogged through the debate about the dongfeng there it was clear to me it was a neat idea with limited usefulness.<br />
From what I gather Brecher&#8217;s concerns are not really an issue. He&#8217;s evaluating the CV fleet as if they had no means to attack and neutralize targets before they become a threat, which they can do better than most air forces with their AWACS, planes and missiles. Let alone better than most navies that do not possess those! In short I think sometimes people on their internet think with their emotions and passions instead of with technical knowledge and that doesn&#8217;t work when speaking of technical issues.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Belyeu</title>
		<link>http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/comment-page-4/#comment-16075</link>
		<dc:creator>Belyeu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Oct 2009 21:49:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://exiledonline.com/?p=6954#comment-16075</guid>
		<description>Dufus, the Dongfeng 21 is nuclear tipped medium range ballistic missile.

BTW, Aircraft carriers are all being equipped with advanced anti missile technology.

You do not deserve to call yourself a war nerd.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dufus, the Dongfeng 21 is nuclear tipped medium range ballistic missile.</p>
<p>BTW, Aircraft carriers are all being equipped with advanced anti missile technology.</p>
<p>You do not deserve to call yourself a war nerd.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cloudsandskye</title>
		<link>http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/comment-page-4/#comment-13715</link>
		<dc:creator>cloudsandskye</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2009 02:47:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://exiledonline.com/?p=6954#comment-13715</guid>
		<description>"...or you go the U-boat route the Germans took when they realized the age of the battleship was over, sticking to subs. Because one way or another, if we get into it for real with China or even Iran, all our ships are going to subs, one way or the other." 

After the invention of sonar, along with the use of depth charges (a rather primitive weapon), 75% of the German U-boats were destroyed in WWII, and that was before the Allies started bombing their shipyards. Submarines are hardly the naval holy grail.

As for missiles, the U.S. Navy is not ignoring the issue. The Ageis system has tested successfully against ballistic missiles and is currently installed on 21 U.S. Navy ships. Against cruise missiles, the Mk 15 Phalanx Gatling gun system is being replaced by the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile, which is currently installed on seven U.S. Navy ships.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;&#8230;or you go the U-boat route the Germans took when they realized the age of the battleship was over, sticking to subs. Because one way or another, if we get into it for real with China or even Iran, all our ships are going to subs, one way or the other.&#8221; </p>
<p>After the invention of sonar, along with the use of depth charges (a rather primitive weapon), 75% of the German U-boats were destroyed in WWII, and that was before the Allies started bombing their shipyards. Submarines are hardly the naval holy grail.</p>
<p>As for missiles, the U.S. Navy is not ignoring the issue. The Ageis system has tested successfully against ballistic missiles and is currently installed on 21 U.S. Navy ships. Against cruise missiles, the Mk 15 Phalanx Gatling gun system is being replaced by the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile, which is currently installed on seven U.S. Navy ships.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Concerned Citizen</title>
		<link>http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/comment-page-4/#comment-13615</link>
		<dc:creator>Concerned Citizen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Aug 2009 19:36:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://exiledonline.com/?p=6954#comment-13615</guid>
		<description>Half the people on this message board are fucking clueless. Anyone who thinks that carriers don't have a use in the 21st century should be forcefully relocated to some third-world shithole where they will quickly learn why power projection matters. Specifically, when tons of explosive is dropped on their sorry heads from a US plane which took off from the coast of whatever savages we're currently bombing via our carrier group. 

We're a good-damned superpower whether you pussies like it or not. Act accordingly. We have certain obligations to the citizens of our democratic empire, and these include securing natural resources from brown people. When exploiting the resources of these primitives, it is always ideal to prop up a despotic regime friendly to our interests--but sometimes we have to get our hands dirty and do the work ourselves.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Half the people on this message board are fucking clueless. Anyone who thinks that carriers don&#8217;t have a use in the 21st century should be forcefully relocated to some third-world shithole where they will quickly learn why power projection matters. Specifically, when tons of explosive is dropped on their sorry heads from a US plane which took off from the coast of whatever savages we&#8217;re currently bombing via our carrier group. </p>
<p>We&#8217;re a good-damned superpower whether you pussies like it or not. Act accordingly. We have certain obligations to the citizens of our democratic empire, and these include securing natural resources from brown people. When exploiting the resources of these primitives, it is always ideal to prop up a despotic regime friendly to our interests&#8211;but sometimes we have to get our hands dirty and do the work ourselves.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stu</title>
		<link>http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/comment-page-4/#comment-13003</link>
		<dc:creator>Stu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:10:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://exiledonline.com/?p=6954#comment-13003</guid>
		<description>http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2009/080409_LM_USSBunkerHill_AegisOA.html

Modernized Guided Missile Cruiser USS Bunker Hill Runs Lockheed Martin’s Aegis Open Architecture in Combat Tests

MOORESTOWN, NJ, August 4th, 2009 -- The guided missile cruiser USS Bunker Hill (CG 52), recently modernized with Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT]’s open architecture Aegis Weapon System, completed an operational trial of its full combat system. 

The Combat System Ship Qualification Trials (CSSQT) evaluated the ship’s Aegis Combat Systems for combat readiness through comprehensive surface and anti-air warfare exercises, including manned raids and electronic attack scenarios, as well as thorough testing of the systems' tactical data link and air defense capabilities.  The air defense testing was the culmination of the CSSQT, when the Aegis Weapon Systems onboard USS Bunker Hill successfully engaged multiple missile targets.

“This qualification trial underscores the operational value the Aegis modernization program delivers to the fleet,” said Orlando Carvalho, vice president and general manager of Lockheed Martin’s Surface/Sea-Based Missile Defense line of business. “The same systems engineering excellence that developed the original Aegis Combat System for the USS Bunker Hill is now delivering an enhanced system that leverages the speed and affordability of commercial-off-the-shelf hardware and open architecture software, while continuing the Aegis warfighting imperative to pace the threat.”

The Aegis Weapon System is the world’s premier proven naval defense system. Its precision S-band SPY-1 radar and missile system seamlessly integrate with its own command and control. Its ability to detect, track and engage targets ranging from sea-skimming cruise missiles to ballistic missiles in space is unmatched.

The 91 Aegis-equipped ships currently in service around the globe have more than 1,000 years of at-sea operational experience and have launched more than 3,500 missiles in tests and real-world operations.  In addition to the U.S., Aegis is the maritime weapon system of choice for Australia, Japan, Norway, South Korea and Spain.

Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security company that employs about 146,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The corporation reported 2008 sales of $42.7 billion.

Media Contact: Kathy Baier, 856.722.3006; 609.472.7954 (cell)
Kathleen.m.baier@lmco.com

For additional information on Lockheed Martin Corporation, visit: http://www.lockheedmartin.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2009/080409_LM_USSBunkerHill_AegisOA.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2009/080409_LM_USSBunkerHill_AegisOA.html</a></p>
<p>Modernized Guided Missile Cruiser USS Bunker Hill Runs Lockheed Martin’s Aegis Open Architecture in Combat Tests</p>
<p>MOORESTOWN, NJ, August 4th, 2009 &#8212; The guided missile cruiser USS Bunker Hill (CG 52), recently modernized with Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT]’s open architecture Aegis Weapon System, completed an operational trial of its full combat system. </p>
<p>The Combat System Ship Qualification Trials (CSSQT) evaluated the ship’s Aegis Combat Systems for combat readiness through comprehensive surface and anti-air warfare exercises, including manned raids and electronic attack scenarios, as well as thorough testing of the systems&#8217; tactical data link and air defense capabilities.  The air defense testing was the culmination of the CSSQT, when the Aegis Weapon Systems onboard USS Bunker Hill successfully engaged multiple missile targets.</p>
<p>“This qualification trial underscores the operational value the Aegis modernization program delivers to the fleet,” said Orlando Carvalho, vice president and general manager of Lockheed Martin’s Surface/Sea-Based Missile Defense line of business. “The same systems engineering excellence that developed the original Aegis Combat System for the USS Bunker Hill is now delivering an enhanced system that leverages the speed and affordability of commercial-off-the-shelf hardware and open architecture software, while continuing the Aegis warfighting imperative to pace the threat.”</p>
<p>The Aegis Weapon System is the world’s premier proven naval defense system. Its precision S-band SPY-1 radar and missile system seamlessly integrate with its own command and control. Its ability to detect, track and engage targets ranging from sea-skimming cruise missiles to ballistic missiles in space is unmatched.</p>
<p>The 91 Aegis-equipped ships currently in service around the globe have more than 1,000 years of at-sea operational experience and have launched more than 3,500 missiles in tests and real-world operations.  In addition to the U.S., Aegis is the maritime weapon system of choice for Australia, Japan, Norway, South Korea and Spain.</p>
<p>Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security company that employs about 146,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The corporation reported 2008 sales of $42.7 billion.</p>
<p>Media Contact: Kathy Baier, 856.722.3006; 609.472.7954 (cell)<br />
<a href="mailto:Kathleen.m.baier@lmco.com">Kathleen.m.baier@lmco.com</a></p>
<p>For additional information on Lockheed Martin Corporation, visit: <a href="http://www.lockheedmartin.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.lockheedmartin.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy</title>
		<link>http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/comment-page-4/#comment-12452</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2009 22:34:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://exiledonline.com/?p=6954#comment-12452</guid>
		<description>On June 22, 2007, the USS Decatur, using the operationally-certified Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Weapon System (BMD 3.6) and the Standard Missile - 3 (SM-3) Block IA missile, successfully performed a "Hit To Kill" intercept of a separating, medium range, ballistic missile. The target missile was launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kauai, HI. The Aegis-class cruiser USS Port Royal, Spain's Álvaro de Bazán class frigate MÉNDEZ NÚÑEZ (F-104), and MDA's Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) mobile ground-based radar also participated in the flight test. FTM-12 (Codename: Stellar Athena) was the first to use an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer as the firing ship.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On June 22, 2007, the USS Decatur, using the operationally-certified Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Weapon System (BMD 3.6) and the Standard Missile - 3 (SM-3) Block IA missile, successfully performed a &#8220;Hit To Kill&#8221; intercept of a separating, medium range, ballistic missile. The target missile was launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kauai, HI. The Aegis-class cruiser USS Port Royal, Spain&#8217;s Álvaro de Bazán class frigate MÉNDEZ NÚÑEZ (F-104), and MDA&#8217;s Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) mobile ground-based radar also participated in the flight test. FTM-12 (Codename: Stellar Athena) was the first to use an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer as the firing ship.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: antiUSAF</title>
		<link>http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/comment-page-4/#comment-12431</link>
		<dc:creator>antiUSAF</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2009 00:21:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://exiledonline.com/?p=6954#comment-12431</guid>
		<description>Nah, Carriers still have a use, what is useless is the USAF, that needs to be merged back with the Army or integrated with the Navy</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nah, Carriers still have a use, what is useless is the USAF, that needs to be merged back with the Army or integrated with the Navy</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patrick Mecartea</title>
		<link>http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/comment-page-4/#comment-11880</link>
		<dc:creator>Patrick Mecartea</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:55:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://exiledonline.com/?p=6954#comment-11880</guid>
		<description>Actions have consequences. So the Chinese take out one or more of our carriers. One trident sub could easily answer that attack with 24 MIRVed missile in each of it's missle tubes.

Would the Chinese really be that stupid. There leaders can run but how many years will they have to live under ground.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actions have consequences. So the Chinese take out one or more of our carriers. One trident sub could easily answer that attack with 24 MIRVed missile in each of it&#8217;s missle tubes.</p>
<p>Would the Chinese really be that stupid. There leaders can run but how many years will they have to live under ground.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
