A message from our CEO about the future of Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange. Read now.
2 clarify
source | link

Aircraft already have to deal with deadly weapons nearby capital ships, they already cannot enter the visual range of battlegroups. Its not like you bomb destroyers using dumb bombs a la ww2. A major factor on the development of anti-ship aircraft was the area denial weapons aboard combatant ships. We usually talk about standoff weapons while talking about antiship missiles. This laser wont change much. A SM-2 missile fired from a destroyer reaches much longer ranges than such laser and denies the air space around the carrier battle group since the nineties (or before).

Those lasers will be used against anti-ship missiles, the aforementioned standoff weapons. Russians developed a plethora of supersonic antiship missiles and deliver means (subs, ships, aircraft, shore etc). Theres no real qualitative change from a phallanx/aegis combination or a laser/aegis, but a quantitative one, the laser is more effective than a chaingun at destroying incomming missiles.

Russians dealt with this problem by using saturation strikes, and so, this laser, in the end of the day will make any future attacker need to allocate more missiles per battlegroup in order to ensure a high probability of killing the carrier. Besides that, this laser might be used against chinese ballistic anti-ship missiles, wich are, currently, almost impossible to deter. So far so good, this laser does not change a lot in the possible naval battles of the future.

Russian missiles like sunburn/moskit fly at 3 times the speed of sound and can autonomously detect/track/engage ships in a battlegroup without human intervention. You might very well consider a sunburn missile as a kind of drone (all elements of a drone are there).

In other words, all this discussion was done under the wrong assumptions.

Aircraft already have to deal with deadly weapons nearby capital ships. Its not like you bomb destroyers using dumb bombs a la ww2. A major factor on the development of anti-ship aircraft was the area denial weapons aboard combatant ships. We usually talk about standoff weapons while talking about antiship missiles. This laser wont change much. A SM-2 missile fired from a destroyer reaches much longer ranges than such laser and denies the air space around the carrier battle group since the nineties (or before).

Those lasers will be used against anti-ship missiles, the aforementioned standoff weapons. Russians developed a plethora of supersonic antiship missiles and deliver means (subs, ships, aircraft, shore etc). Theres no real qualitative change from a phallanx/aegis combination or a laser/aegis, but a quantitative one, the laser is more effective than a chaingun at destroying incomming missiles.

Russians dealt with this problem by using saturation strikes, and so, this laser, in the end of the day will make any future attacker need to allocate more missiles per battlegroup in order to ensure a high probability of killing the carrier. Besides that, this laser might be used against chinese ballistic anti-ship missiles, wich are, currently, almost impossible to deter. So far so good, this laser does not change a lot in the possible naval battles of the future.

Aircraft already have to deal with deadly weapons nearby capital ships, they already cannot enter the visual range of battlegroups. Its not like you bomb destroyers using dumb bombs a la ww2. A major factor on the development of anti-ship aircraft was the area denial weapons aboard combatant ships. We usually talk about standoff weapons while talking about antiship missiles. This laser wont change much. A SM-2 missile fired from a destroyer reaches much longer ranges than such laser and denies the air space around the carrier battle group since the nineties (or before).

Those lasers will be used against anti-ship missiles, the aforementioned standoff weapons. Russians developed a plethora of supersonic antiship missiles and deliver means (subs, ships, aircraft, shore etc). Theres no real qualitative change from a phallanx/aegis combination or a laser/aegis, but a quantitative one, the laser is more effective than a chaingun at destroying incomming missiles.

Russians dealt with this problem by using saturation strikes, and so, this laser, in the end of the day will make any future attacker need to allocate more missiles per battlegroup in order to ensure a high probability of killing the carrier. Besides that, this laser might be used against chinese ballistic anti-ship missiles, wich are, currently, almost impossible to deter. So far so good, this laser does not change a lot in the possible naval battles of the future.

Russian missiles like sunburn/moskit fly at 3 times the speed of sound and can autonomously detect/track/engage ships in a battlegroup without human intervention. You might very well consider a sunburn missile as a kind of drone (all elements of a drone are there).

In other words, all this discussion was done under the wrong assumptions.

1
source | link

Aircraft already have to deal with deadly weapons nearby capital ships. Its not like you bomb destroyers using dumb bombs a la ww2. A major factor on the development of anti-ship aircraft was the area denial weapons aboard combatant ships. We usually talk about standoff weapons while talking about antiship missiles. This laser wont change much. A SM-2 missile fired from a destroyer reaches much longer ranges than such laser and denies the air space around the carrier battle group since the nineties (or before).

Those lasers will be used against anti-ship missiles, the aforementioned standoff weapons. Russians developed a plethora of supersonic antiship missiles and deliver means (subs, ships, aircraft, shore etc). Theres no real qualitative change from a phallanx/aegis combination or a laser/aegis, but a quantitative one, the laser is more effective than a chaingun at destroying incomming missiles.

Russians dealt with this problem by using saturation strikes, and so, this laser, in the end of the day will make any future attacker need to allocate more missiles per battlegroup in order to ensure a high probability of killing the carrier. Besides that, this laser might be used against chinese ballistic anti-ship missiles, wich are, currently, almost impossible to deter. So far so good, this laser does not change a lot in the possible naval battles of the future.