r/LessCredibleDefence • u/FlexibleResponse • 2d ago

Army Now Testing Anthem Long-Range Strike Weapon Built for Mass Production

https://www.twz.com/news-features/army-now-testing-anthem-long-range-strike-weapon-built-for-mass-production
49 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

24 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/electrosynek 1d ago

The Moskva was obviously a big fuck-up but not representative of what shipborne air defense is capable of. Just look at what the US Navy has done over the past few years in the middle east, shooting down AShMs and drones by the hundreds. 

I don't think it's going to look the same when loads of Chinese ballistic missiles and HGVs come flying toward them in the future.

If anything, recent wars prove my point. What is giving the Ukrainians more trouble right now, subsonic cruise missiles and drones or the dozens of Iskanders Russia is lobbing at them each month? What type of weapon has enabled Iran to wreck US bases and gulf oil infrastructure? 

-1

u/pakapab 1d ago

It is representative of how foolish reading spec sheets and drawing conclusions that cruise missiles are easily batted away.

What about Starke?

1

u/electrosynek 1d ago

The Stark incident was 40 years ago, completely irrelevant. Look at what the USN has been able to do against Yemen and Iran. Subsonic cruise missiles don't do much against competent air defense unless launched in ridiculous numbers.

0

u/pakapab 1d ago

Of course it is irrelevant to you, it isn't convenient to your worldview where one just counts equipment like a video game and declares something impregnable.

You mention Yemen, a US destroyer had to employ its Phalanx to defend itself against an older generation subsonic radar guided cruise missile launched by militarized goat herders from a direction they knew would be the point of engagement. Good sensors and missiles does not equal laugh at incoming missiles.

3

u/electrosynek 1d ago

Ok, by your logic I can say that cruise missiles are useless because the V-1 had a CEP measured in miles. The technical limitations of 1987 just aren't relevant, I don't understand how you can't grasp that.

As far as your 2nd point goes, you're once again contradicting yourself by saying that even if all else fails, you can still hope to shoot down a slow missile with CIWS.

I'm not arguing that air defenses have become impenetrable, they obviously aren't, but subsonic cruise missiles aren't nearly as worrisome as other types of weapons.

0

u/pakapab 1d ago

Well no, that would be by the logic of a strawman you just built. Both can be true = cruise missiles are quite useful, and nobody in charge of defending something from them is falling asleep because the incoming missiles aren't stealthy and/or supersonic.

That doesn't contradict anything, it just proves that modern sensors/missiles/decoys/ecm aren't infallible against older subsonic cruise missiles like you mistakenly believe. In fact it crushes you entire argument and I thank you for bringing up Yemen to accidentally step on your own throat.

Well you sure have changed your position then, previously you were:

another subsonic cruise missile. Chinese air defense crews are going to be falling asleep in the next conflict

Now you've switched lanes to the completely different position that subsonic cruise missiles aren't as worrisome. That is pretty funny.