tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post4507289835415597849..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: Missile Boat Battles – Latakia and BaltimComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-78190652625290313422023-08-26T13:07:39.178-07:002023-08-26T13:07:39.178-07:00"Can I ask you something."
You may alth..."Can I ask you something."<br /><br />You may although I'd much prefer you conduct some basic research of your own, first.<br /><br />"How could the Syrians fire at 25 nm when their radar horizon vs a SA'AR is 11nm?"<br /><br />From the Wikipedia entry on the battle,<br /><br />"... three patrolling Syrian missile boats from off Bans were vectored northwest to attack the Israeli formation of seven radar contacts (three chaff clouds and four helicopters)."<br /><br />I'm sure you can answer any other questions you might have with a bit of basic research.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-73457860681890867132023-08-26T12:51:27.855-07:002023-08-26T12:51:27.855-07:00Can I ask you something. How could the Syrians fir...Can I ask you something. How could the Syrians fire at 25 nm when their radar horizon vs a SA'AR is 11nm? We do not have ducts on October nights in the Med, but even if there was a duct, the OSAs cannot pick up a LURSEN hull that is "bows on" to them at more than 15nm. How could they have fired at 25+ nm then?<br /><br />And another thing, how could the Israelis catch up with them? After firing the Arab craft got turned around and run away according to the narrative and as per their standard tactics. How could the Israelis close the 13 nm that separated the max ranges of the two sides? These boats are capable of short bursts of very high speed. Assuming the Israelis made use of it and the Arabs did not, the Israelis could have a 6 knot advantage and it could take them 2 hours to close to their firing range. By which time the OSA/KOMARs would have covered 60 or 70 nm. Which is impossible, since they were operating in the vicinity of the harbor.<br /><br />It may be that the Israelis were not outranged. It may be that the two sides fired nearly simultaneously. It may be that both sides saw their enemies' missiles been fired with the naked eye, whereupon the Israelis fired chaff in the DISTRACTION mode. It may be that the 40 mike-mikes also spoke up and got one of them STYX. It may be that the high speed chase did not occur because of the GABRIEL's max range limitation, but rather because of the NO-ESCAPE limitation (to prevent the OSA/KOMARs from walking out of range just as the T43 did). Give the OSA/KOMARs 3 minutes for an about turn at full speed, which is 2nm closure for the SA'ARs running at 40 knts. From 11nm to 9nm. And that would conclude the tail chase (it may be).<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-22614220826538040082021-05-28T07:13:52.848-07:002021-05-28T07:13:52.848-07:00Agreed. My thinking is that the target could be a...Agreed. My thinking is that the target could be alerted to the fact it had been detected. And if the target is under EMCOM and have peer capable ESM, they would be looking for the microburst and be able to classify it. <br /><br />And the signal, unless directional, would be as detectable by the target as by the host ship. They may not know what it says, who is listening or where the listener is located, but if they know what to look for, they would be able to detect it and know they have been observed.Jay Kayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07162380848814642382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-33600601877822775832021-05-28T06:34:32.573-07:002021-05-28T06:34:32.573-07:00I'm not a comms expert but I highly doubt that...I'm not a comms expert but I highly doubt that a single microsecond comm burst against the background of the entire EM sepctrum is going to be detected. Recall that our CONOPS for this application requires only a single microburst transmission.<br /><br />Absolute worst case, even if the comm was detected, it would be the UAV, not the host ship and UAVs, such as described here, are expendable.<br />ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-24412806744401102382021-05-28T06:16:12.607-07:002021-05-28T06:16:12.607-07:00Unless it's a noisy EM space, even a microburs...Unless it's a noisy EM space, even a microburst can be detected unless it's highly directional. It may not be targetable, but it can be detected.<br /><br />Of course the problem with one-way communication is ensuring that the signal is received correctly and needs to be resent. In this case, the UAV would either have to fly out to a predetermined point and send a signal, or send the signal when a specific set of conditions are met.<br /><br />Since the navy wants to push decision making up the chain of command, my suspicion is that the commander will not be satisfied with a brief glimpse of the target and will want more info or will ignore unexpected data as spurious, especially if it violates their pre-conceived notions of the battlespace. Clancy has a good example of this in Red Storm Rising where the TF commander ignores data indicating he's been suckered because it doesn't agree with his expectations.Jay Kayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07162380848814642382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-52262986544770322612021-05-27T05:48:53.658-07:002021-05-27T05:48:53.658-07:00There have been some moments of success but, by an...There have been some moments of success but, by and large, the Soviet weapon systems have failed when put against Western systems. <br /><br />Soviet aircraft were dominated in Korea. The Soviet SAM system failed miserably in Vietnam. The entire Soviet system and weapons failed utterly in Desert Storm. The Soviet systems have generally failed badly against the Israelis.<br /><br />Here's a good link to an analysis of the Vietnam air war results: https://www.historynet.com/great-kill-ratio-debate.htm<br /><br />The best Soviet weapons have been the AK-47 and the ZSU family which are simple, mechanical weapons (a lesson for Western militaries!).<br /><br />The evidence is clear. The Soviet systems generally failed. I stand by my statement.<br /><br />"it's about how you use it."<br /><br />Of course!<br />ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-66240294713880821402021-05-26T23:02:40.677-07:002021-05-26T23:02:40.677-07:00US Navy has gone "astray" largely from v...US Navy has gone "astray" largely from victory of the Cold War.<br /><br />After the 90-91 Gulf War followed by Soviet Union's collapse. Pentagon thought that US Navy will not fight another super power over sea any more. Their major role has become support land invasions. Under this, we saw heaps of now consider bazar ships and weapons. However, because many regional powers do have fast missile boats play important roles in their coastal defense, Pentagon does have means to knock out these missile boats before they cause any problem. At that time, a top naval general even mocked Chinese naval ships as ones in museum, after saw many guns in a then major Chinese naval ship. <br /><br />Arrogance doesn't bring security nor dignity. Suddenly, they find this used to "backward" "primitive" Chinese Navy becomes ... well, just google the web, you can find each year, with ~1/3 budgets, China launches more tonnage, actually, a lot more than US. Worse, they are modern high tech ones than these old full of guns ship.<br /><br />It is technology. US and China are competing on high tech R&D. <br /><br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-28063615301831555432021-05-26T19:25:21.501-07:002021-05-26T19:25:21.501-07:00ComNavOps, look at aerial combat in Vietnam where ...ComNavOps, look at aerial combat in Vietnam where US lost many jets to North Vietnamese air defence and fighters. Now note the NVAF was much smaller than the US and also at least a decade behind US technologically. <br /><br />Note this is also last time the US faced a capable and determined opponent in the peer spectrum. North Vietnam kept its airforce and air defences in the fight unlike say Serbia or Iraq. It managed to build its army up sufficiently to smash through South Vietnam and then invade Cambodia a mere 4 years later.<br /><br />Also note Iran-Iraq war where neither western nor eastern weapons really shone or current war in Yemen where many M1 Abrams have fallen easily to more tactically sound Houthis and where one of the world's most sophisticated AD systems is unable to stop Houthi drone and rocket attacks.<br /><br /><br />Soviet equipment actually has far more successes than you give them credit to including at times against western equipped forces.<br /><br />Indeed the humble AK-47, RPG (as well as some Japanese built Toyotas and cheap mobile phones) were used to defeat the US in Afghanistan and Iraq.<br /><br />Simple Soviet weapons like the AK, SKS, RPG, DShK and later T-55, PT-76, MiG-17 and MiG-21 defeated the French, the Americans and then the American equipped South Vietnamese.<br /><br />The Arabs managed to do a number on the Israelis in 1973. If it wasn't for US aerial resupply the story would have been far different (obviously Israelis were close to the nuclear option). And note both Syrian and Egyptian militaries have massive issues in terms of class differences between officers and enlisted men which create all manner of dysfunctions (and this is the case today).<br /><br /><br />And to be 100% honest, I suspect right now the USN would probably trounce PLAN in any combat outside the second island chain. The Chinese Navy lacks the power to push past the Philippine Sea. It gets more difficult in the China seas due to Chinese combined arms - large number of surface combatants and submarines, large littoral force all backed up by long range land based air power (H-6 but also J-11, J-16 and Su-30), land based missiles and a massive over the horizon radar network (Project 2319 Skywave) with a range of up to 4,000 km.<br /><br /> <br /><br />To use that tried and tested innuendo, "it's about how you use it."<br />Dead1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-50024743597296690822021-05-26T18:54:47.039-07:002021-05-26T18:54:47.039-07:00As I know, Pentagon does think that China has a wo...As I know, Pentagon does think that China has a working locating and tracking system for DF-21D and DF-26. They try hard to find out but China tries hard to conceal it. This is why China has conducted very limited numbers of test in open sea. Previously, China tested in desert and a large bay totally belong to China.<br /><br />According to media from Chinese statement, DF-26's tracking system is more advanced than DF-21D. This coincident with Pentagon report that China adds more DF-26 while stopped production of DF-21D.<br /><br />Before Soviet Union's collapse, it did this kind of development but planned to use nuclear warhead. It actually did a test in open sea and the ballistic missile hit the target ship. Sadly, Russia has no money to continue this development.<br /><br />Find, locate, and track a large ship far away is possible. For instance, E-2 can find and track it to guide LRASM to attack. Problem is that E-2 cannot fly freely close to another superpower's fleet. Satellites can only give approximate location while fly over. <br /><br />It is competition on technology, not people's wishful thinking, not even their patriotisms, nor their "value".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-46200085731799095682021-05-26T04:42:06.175-07:002021-05-26T04:42:06.175-07:00What about it? What about it? ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-13545653367174733022021-05-25T20:04:28.536-07:002021-05-25T20:04:28.536-07:00What about the Israeli destroyer sunk by Egyptian ...What about the Israeli destroyer sunk by Egyptian patrol boat missiles?<br />https://www.haaretz.com/1.4766420<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-44916885217863352842021-05-25T16:05:42.714-07:002021-05-25T16:05:42.714-07:00022's scaring Philippines away is more a polic...022's scaring Philippines away is more a police than military action. It is because the Philippines' navy is simply too weak. However, to use 022 as police boat, China needs first to remove its 8 YJ-83 missiles which slow down the boat(reduce load). Its AK630 gun fires too fast for police action (ammunition could be gone fast).<br /><br />China's original design of 022 was to carry missiles offshore. Once land based radar network finds an enemy ship, they guide YJ-83 fire from 022 to attack. AK630 provided basic air defense (not good enough today). There is no way that 022 can install a long range radar. Its fire control radar is only good for AK630's range. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-23927043971055187862021-05-25T15:58:54.853-07:002021-05-25T15:58:54.853-07:00My point is that small missile boats have fatal we...My point is that small missile boats have fatal weakness to a 7/24 offensive force. At best, they can be a costal defense force if the nation has extensive land and air (E-8) based radar network. However, nations can afford this kind of radar network has money to buy large ships.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-74337457621380000812021-05-25T13:10:12.348-07:002021-05-25T13:10:12.348-07:00That's a single example versus many thousands ...That's a single example versus many thousands of the failures.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-85277101464973803542021-05-25T12:51:21.231-07:002021-05-25T12:51:21.231-07:00Lastly, going back now to the topic of satellite t...Lastly, going back now to the topic of satellite targeting capabilities and their tactical usefulness. I think your conception of how naval tracking satellite technology works is rather outdated. Also your arguments as to why modern naval satellite tracking can't be near real-time (i.e. the disappearance of the Malaysian flight) are based on some rather bad speculation in my opinion. There is a vast difference between have the ability to provide real-time targeting satellite tracking in a small area on the planet (e.g. the place where I expect the carrier to be based on where it was last seen etc...), and being able to have 24/7 real-time coverage of most of the populated globe (as would be required to ensure a reliable capture of the Malaysian air flight).<br /><br />I don't have time to get into the whole history of the shift from the strategic to the tactical real-time role that satellites have undertaken, but this is a trend that has gradually taken place since the 1980's. Note that in the 1980's we had the capability to provide a real-time tactical picture for over the horizon long-range tomahawk ASM fires, although this ability was not exploited (see: https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/f/from-sea-stars.html#bookmark122 p.94). <br /><br />A great primer on the use of satellites in naval warfare, and the historical transition from strategic satellite capability to a more modern "net-centric" one capable of near-real time targeting can be found here:https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.php?id=4908<br />(Note: this was written in 2000). <br /><br />Modern day satellite tracking is a far more sophisticated process than what you described, involving neural network AI processing, and near real-time targeting. The US army for example has over 600 satellites in LEO with near real-time tactical targeting capability. Here is an article explaining how this process works: https://www.c4isrnet.com/digital-show-dailies/ausa/2020/10/12/us-army-uses-satellites-to-affect-the-state-of-the-battlefield/ <br /><br />The entire process is said to take seconds. Regarding China, the real limiting factor will be presence and not the length of the information chain. Meaning they simply don't have enough satellites to provide such constant real-time targeting capacity, but note that even a limited satellite presence can be dangerous. <br /><br />In any case, it is the opinion of the USCC (which quotes Chinese military authors) that china's naval ISR satellite system is capable of providing real time tracking and targeting: "These satellites would be tasked with collecting intelligence used by the <br />PLA to build and update lists of Taiwanese and U.S. targets, monitor and target U.S. ships and <br />planes within 3,000 kilometers" (p.17) https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/China_Space_and_Counterspace_Activities.pdf<br /><br />Make of that what you will. Like I said, we don't enough to determine whether China can actually provide real-time targeting for its ASBM force, but it is certainly capable of doing so if it wished (if not through satellite then through other means).Soritesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-76419450202547649272021-05-25T12:40:40.496-07:002021-05-25T12:40:40.496-07:00ComNavOps,
I am not going to get into the topic o...ComNavOps,<br /><br />I am not going to get into the topic of modern AEGIS SAM effectiveness since I don't have the time. Needless to say, I completely disagree with your assessment that modern naval SAM's will be almost completely ineffective in a future/modern naval war (the logical conclusion from your claim that the US is largely ignoring EW, and also that nevertheless EW will vastly supersede naval SAM's in kill efficacy). <br /><br />My post regarding the DF-21D was meant to highlight the fact that there are a great deal of uncertainties regarding the targeting abilities of these ASBM's. Since you were the one who made the claim that these missiles constitute no present threat (what I mistakenly termed "ignoring the threat"); it follows that I must simply show that the targeting uncertainties allow for the possibility of a threat in order to disprove this.<br /><br />No I did not claim that China has the satellite targeting capability to launch ASBM's over the horizon (as I said, we don't know enough); what I said is that this is very much a possibility. I will get into this later however.<br /><br />The important point is to realize that China could, if it wanted to, develop a reliable and sophisticated targeting systems for its DF-21D ASBM's. One prospect is a network fusion capable J-20 which could provide real-time targeting capability via low probability of intercept datalink (a Chinese version of the network-fused F-35). A J-20 has the capability to penetrate close enough to a carrier group, and could probably do so some 500-750 miles from shore depending on weapons load, EFT's etc..<br /><br />We also know that China has developed stealth tech as well as long range drones (e.g. EA-03). It's hardly a stretch to say that they have combined these two technologies and have developed/are developing a long range stealth ISR drone similar to our RQ-180, which can provide targeting out to thousands of miles. <br /><br />The point is that we don't know enough to say whether this is really the case. A prudent observer would observe that China has the capability to do so if they wished, and so it would be foolish to assume that their ASBM's are paper tigers. <br /><br />I notice you also completely ignored my point regarding the first strike use. The US navy can hardly shoot down a Chinese drone, or sink auxiliary ships prepping an ambush while in peacetime. In peacetime there is no need to penetrate the carrier task force defenses. <br /><br />This is enough to do away with the notion that Chinese ASBM's are mere paper tigers (at present); since you made this claim it is up to you to demonstrate that such possibilities are outside the bounds of reasonable speculation. <br /><br />Specifically, I showed:<br />A) China doesn't even need sophisticated wartime targeting capabilities for its ASBM force (see: first strike)<br />B) China has the capability, if it wished or has not done so already, to develop a long range penetrating ISR asset, as well as exploit current assets for targeting.<br />C) Given the fact that China has developed a sizeable ASBM force, it would be silly to assume that they didn't develop/aren't planning on developing some kind of reliable tracking capability for their force, given that they are capable of doing so (B).<br /><br />I will cover the topic of satellites in a separate post. Soritesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-16951335094600028252021-05-25T12:31:54.452-07:002021-05-25T12:31:54.452-07:00IMINT satellites designed to take high resolution ...IMINT satellites designed to take high resolution pictures of static ground sites are different from maritime IMINT satellites, which need to have enough resolution to distinguish a vessel but also have to have a wide enough field of view to have an effective search swath. There's a tradeoff. <br /><br />And these satellites can only see things when they're overhead. Given the number of maritime imaging satellites the Chinese have, this could be several times per day at any one location. The Malasian flight was only, presumably, a couple hours long. So there's a decent chance no IMINT satellites were even overhead at the time, let alone looking at the right spot.<br /><br />Maritime SAR satellites have low resolution, measured in meters, and SAR requires the passage of time to build up a picture, so a fast moving aircraft may not even register. <br /><br />Their ELINT satellites might've picked up the aircraft's beacon, assuming they were overhead at the time and were listening on the right beacon frequencies. But again, there may or may not have been one overhead.<br /><br />Lastly, the Chinese WEREN'T LOOKING for one commercial aircraft out of thousands in that region. These particular satellites aren't even looking for aircraft!<br /><br />They MOST CERTAINLY ARE looking for our naval vessels. Their 40+ maritime surveillance satellites are designed to do just that. As I said before, they can take their time to find our ships. Once they find them, it's much easier to keep track of them. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-55775204915462018232021-05-25T12:03:31.162-07:002021-05-25T12:03:31.162-07:00". . . the simple fact is that Soviet weapons...". . . the simple fact is that Soviet weapons have failed spectacularly throughout post-WWII history."<br /><br />The Russians were known to export less capable versions of military weapons they used themselves. In some cases, the training, maintainance, and tactics used by these export countries might explain the poor performance. But, let's also remember that an F-117 Nighthawk was shot down by a 1960's era SA-3 Goa SAM in 1999. Fighting Irishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03062665701910071556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-9963918924226437942021-05-25T11:26:45.004-07:002021-05-25T11:26:45.004-07:00Tracking an airplane should be no problem. We can...Tracking an airplane should be no problem. We can zoom in on a playing card so an airliner is gigantic by comparison. Plus, according to you, computers will flawlessly spot every object on or over the ocean in seconds. <br /><br />To make matters worse, the airliner was squawking and we still couldn't track it!<br /><br />Face it, your vision of satellites does not match reality.<br /><br />Have the last say, if you wish. I'm moving on!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-13975469092911353152021-05-25T11:22:50.132-07:002021-05-25T11:22:50.132-07:00"wouldnt both sides be, or planning to start ..."wouldnt both sides be, or planning to start placing more satellites"<br /><br />They likely are, however, both sides are also undoubtedly planning to destroy the other's satellites!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-50219400784566032762021-05-25T10:45:11.516-07:002021-05-25T10:45:11.516-07:00Tracking an airplane moving at 500kts from space i...Tracking an airplane moving at 500kts from space is vastly different from tracking a surface ship moving at 20-30kts. The Chinese system is designed to detect and track ships, not aircraft. <br /><br />Comparing RORSAT to the Chinese system is like comparing a rotary phone to an iPhone 12, literally. Soviet electronics and sensors in the 60s-80s were primitive even by the standards of that time, let alone today.<br /><br />In wartime, the kill chain will be short circuited. The order will be pre-approved fire on the carrier battle group, once they have accurate targeting. <br /><br />We could do this in the 60s in peacetime with nuclear missile launches. To assume the Chinese can't today during a war is ridiculous.<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-59677167541550550392021-05-25T10:34:55.672-07:002021-05-25T10:34:55.672-07:00CNO... Im not well versed in satellite surveillanc...CNO... Im not well versed in satellite surveillance and such, but with the now obvious "competition", and potential future conflict, wouldnt both sides be, or planning to start placing more satellites in order to have more intelligence capability in the SCS area?? Whatever the cost, it would be worth every penny to a BG commander sailing west to have very good coverage. If I was running NSA, Space Force, or whoever makes those decisions, Id be carpeting the region with satellites in preparation for the future...Jjabatiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15723421088164000364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-69796486422760524782021-05-25T10:26:24.502-07:002021-05-25T10:26:24.502-07:00I think this post makes valid points, despite the ...I think this post makes valid points, despite the examples age. While tech has advanced, the details of the successes, and failures, translate well to possible current, and future scenarios. One key thing noted in previous comments is the mindset and determination of the Israelis. They've always been surrounded and outnumbered by their enemies, and they clearly believe in "the best defense is a good offense". Even when encountering problems and force reductions, they pressed forward. I've been there, and seen women in business suits going to work, casually carrying weapons. That mindset of always being ready is ingrained in their culture. They've created many a warrior through necessity. Contrast that with our military, which is being forced to make social trends a priority, and back-burner its main purpose of warfighting. While weapons, ranges etc were the focus of the post, it also highlights the growing problem and question of whether, when the time comes, we will have warriors in control of those systems...(??)Jjabatiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15723421088164000364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-64612637726035348342021-05-25T09:53:12.804-07:002021-05-25T09:53:12.804-07:00"The IDF is, by most standards, pretty progre..."The IDF is, by most standards, pretty progressive in their own right. Women served in militias prior to their 1948 War of Independence. Today, they have several mixed gender infantry battalions and some all-female tank crews. And, women are part of their conscription pool." <br /><br />I'm curious as what standard of physical fitness the females are required to maintain compared to the US military.Purple Caliconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-66139030678803808992021-05-25T09:49:03.195-07:002021-05-25T09:49:03.195-07:00No country shares its satellite carrier tracking c...No country shares its satellite carrier tracking capabilities publicly so know one really knows. However, all the bits and pieces of evidence paint a radically different picture than what you suggest. <br /><br />For example, Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 which disappeared without a trace in 2014 provides evidence of the limitations of modern surveillance systems. Despite being one of the most intensely monitored bodies of water on Earth, the airline vanished without a trace and no satellite, radar, IR, optical, or other sensor was able to find/track it. That area is crisscrossed by satellites and despite knowing where to start looking, no satellite data could find and track it.<br /><br />The Soviets were never able to track US carrier groups with their RORSATs.<br /><br />And so on. <br /><br />It's not the easy task you believe it to be. Toss in the effects of war, deception, weather, higher priorities, and satellite destruction and it becomes even more difficult.<br /><br />Believing that anyone can create a targeting-firing link of minutes is pure fantasy. We can't even do that on a single ship. It's human nature. We're slow to react, slower to analyze, even slower to decide, and hesitant to act. Satellites aren't direct linked to missile launchers, especially not ballistic missiles whose flight paths mimic nuclear attacks. No country is going to direct link such a capability. If/when a targeting opportunity arises, the political leadership will have to think and debate long and hard about throwing what might be seen as nuclear missiles in the air.<br /><br />You're welcome to your belief but it's not reality.<br />ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.com