Guided artillery shells aren't really useful against ships. They're for hitting static targets. Ships move.

You're mistaken.

The limitations you're envisioning do not exist in a hypothetical battle of the Taiwan Straits. That's because there will be zero possibility of friendly fire.

If you simply want an artillery round to pick a target and kill it, indiscriminately, that's easy. You can do it with 80's technology, and that's basically what the Bofors Strix m/49 does.

The only reason the Copperhead needed target designators was because we didn't want it attacking OUR OWN SHIT.

Also, ships don't move fast enough to EVADE artillery. In WW2 naval battles they weren't evading the shells, they were evading the firing solution that was putting the shells on them. Today that can be calculated by computer in microseconds.

Guided artillery shells aren't really useful against ships. They're for hitting static targets. Ships move.

You're mistaken.

The limitations you're envisioning do not exist in a hypothetical battle of the Taiwan Straits. That's because there will be zero possibility of friendly fire.

If you simply want an artillery round to pick a target and kill it, indiscriminately, that's easy. You can do it with 80's technology, and that's basically what the Bofors Strix m/49 does.

The only reason the Copperhead needed target designators was because we didn't want it attacking OUR OWN SHIT.

Also, ships don't move fast enough to EVADE artillery. In WW2 naval battles they weren't evading the shells, they were evading the firing solution that was putting the shells on them. Today that can be calculated by computer in microseconds. With the massive infrared difference between a ship and the ocean surface, finding a target to steer towards isn't a hard engineering problem if you don't care at all what it picks.

Guided artillery shells aren't really useful against ships. They're for hitting static targets. Ships move.

You're mistaken.

The limitations you're envisioning do not exist in a hypothetical battle of the Taiwan Straits. That's because there will be zero possibility of friendly fire.

If you simply want an artillery round to pick a target and kill it, indiscriminately, that's easy. You can do it with 80's technology, and that's basically what the Bofors Strix m/49 does.

The only reason the Copperhead needed target designators was because we didn't want it attacking OUR OWN SHIT.

Also, ships don't move fast enough to EVADE artillery. In WW2 naval battles they weren't evading the shells, they were evading the firing solution that was putting the shells on them. Today that can be calculated by computer in microseconds with more than sufficient accuracy to get an M982 close enough to do its thing.

Guided artillery shells aren't really useful against ships. They're for hitting static targets. Ships move.

You're mistaken.

The limitations you're envisioning do not exist in a hypothetical battle of the Taiwan Straits. That's because there will be zero possibility of friendly fire.

If you simply want an artillery round to pick a target and kill it, indiscriminately, that's easy. You can do it with 80's technology, and that's basically what the Bofors Strix m/49 does.

The only reason the Copperhead needed target designators was because we didn't want it attacking OUR OWN SHIT.

Also, ships don't move fast enough to EVADE artillery. In WW2 naval battles they weren't evading the shells, they were evading the firing solution that was putting the shells on them (which today can be calculated by computer in microseconds). More than sufficient accuracy to get an M982 close enough to do its thing.

Guided artillery shells aren't really useful against ships. They're for hitting static targets. Ships move.

You're mistaken.

The limitations you're envisioning do not exist in a hypothetical battle of the Taiwan Straits. That's because there will be zero possibility of friendly fire.

If you simply want an artillery round to pick a target and kill it, indiscriminately, that's easy. You can do it with 80's technology, and that's basically what the Bofors Strix m/49 does.

The only reason the Copperhead needed target designators was because we didn't want it attacking OUR OWN SHIT.

Also, ships don't move fast enough to EVADE artillery. In WW2 naval battles they weren't evading the shells, they were evading the firing solution that was putting the shells on them (which today can be calculated by computer in microseconds).

Guided artillery shells aren't really useful against ships. They're for hitting static targets. Ships move.

You're mistaken.

The limitations you're envisioning do not exist in a hypothetical battle of the Taiwan Straits. That's because there will be zero possibility of friendly fire.

If you simply want an artillery round to pick a target and kill it, indiscriminately, that's easy. You can do it with 80's technology, and that's basically what the Bofors Strix m/49 does.

The only reason the Copperhead needed target designators was because we didn't want it attacking OUR OWN SHIT.

Also, ships don't move fast enough to EVADE artillery. In WW2 they weren't evading the shells, they were evading the firing solution (which today can be calculated by computer in microseconds).

Guided artillery shells aren't really useful against ships. They're for hitting static targets. Ships move.

You're mistaken.

The limitations you're envisioning do not exist in a hypothetical battle of the Taiwan Straits. That's because there will be zero possibility of friendly fire.

If you simply want an artillery round to pick a target and kill it, indiscriminately, that's easy. You can do it with 80's technology, and that's basically what the Bofors Strix m/49 does.

The only reason the Copperhead needed target designators was because we didn't want it attacking OUR OWN SHIT.