User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/15/2014 12:18:30 AM EDT
[#1]
If you are going to do it, do it right.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2014 12:25:56 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One interesting thing to note, is that Battleships are still popular tourist attractions, and that some like the NC operate on tourist funds, which are enough to things like construct dry docks around the ship for hull repairs, and general up-keep. I believe that the population would support bringing back battleships for no other purpose than just to have them. Hell, sell tours on them for deployments... I bet you could man half the crew with volunteers, while the other half pay to be there!  Special crew and everything else. Keep expanding the idea. Now you are up to something.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2014 12:27:24 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: From imaginary weapons? Technically, it depends on the reflectivity at the wave length used. Quote HistoryQuoted: snip From imaginary weapons? Technically, it depends on the reflectivity at the wave length used. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2014 12:42:53 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Special crew and everything else. Keep expanding the idea. Now you are up to something. http://images.businessweek.com/ss/08/11/1114_cruise/image/loveboat.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: One interesting thing to note, is that Battleships are still popular tourist attractions, and that some like the NC operate on tourist funds, which are enough to things like construct dry docks around the ship for hull repairs, and general up-keep. I believe that the population would support bringing back battleships for no other purpose than just to have them. Hell, sell tours on them for deployments... I bet you could man half the crew with volunteers, while the other half pay to be there! Special crew and everything else. Keep expanding the idea. Now you are up to something. http://images.businessweek.com/ss/08/11/1114_cruise/image/loveboat.jpg  All Carries do is transport more people to get VD more efficiently, the don't actually protect sea lanes, or project force at all. Might at well ride in style in a BB! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2014 12:58:27 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From imaginary weapons? Quote HistoryQuoted:
From imaginary weapons? So laser weapons are imaginary eh? Guess you still live in the year 2000? Destructive lasers are in use by several militaries, if you weren't aware. Not just testing, fielded use. Now it's just a question of scale. Power and cooling are the primary technical hurdles. These aren't difficult to solve on a nuclear ship designed with DEWs in mind. Technically, it depends on the reflectivity at the wave length used. And technically, it's quite difficult to get a surface reflective enough that a >MW class laser won't destroy it quite quickly. Even at 90% of energy reflected (good luck with that on the nose and leading edges of a missile), a huge amount of energy is absorbed. As the surface is heated, typically its reflective properties are progressively reduced, causing it to absorb even more energy, and so on in a feedback loop of melted metal. That's why ablatives are preferred. Current missiles start to have problems with lasers in the >100KW class. Once you get into the >MW class, even missiles designed with protection/armor from lasers and incredible speed simply don't work out on paper. Like snowflakes against a blowtorch. A MW of power is a shitload of energy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2014 2:03:39 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They had been fro a long time, but had a Congressional mandate that they needed to be kept in a state of readiness to where they could be ctivated quickly gin in cse they were needed, since there was no suitable replacement for their role as NGFS. Then when the whole DDGX21fukwutever came "online" they eventually rage quite the Battleships going all "look bro's we totally have this boat on paper that's going to kick ass and fill the NGFS role!" That was a decade and some change ago IIRC... Think about it this way... with all the money spent on the GWOT, new fighters, submarines*, and the DDX... we could have brought back a battleship or two JUST to shell parts of Iraq in 2003 and no one would have even noticed it in the budget. *look how much we've spent to build subs that get scrapped before even being finished." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Aren't they all stricken from the Navy roster?:( Then when the whole DDGX21fukwutever came "online" they eventually rage quite the Battleships going all "look bro's we totally have this boat on paper that's going to kick ass and fill the NGFS role!" That was a decade and some change ago IIRC... Think about it this way... with all the money spent on the GWOT, new fighters, submarines*, and the DDX... we could have brought back a battleship or two JUST to shell parts of Iraq in 2003 and no one would have even noticed it in the budget. *look how much we've spent to build subs that get scrapped before even being finished." What subs have we scrapped prior to being finished? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2014 2:31:57 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What subs have we scrapped prior to being finished? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: snipped What subs have we scrapped prior to being finished? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2014 8:20:11 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So laser weapons are imaginary eh? Guess you still live in the year 2000? Destructive lasers are in use by several militaries, if you weren't aware. Not just testing, fielded use. Now it's just a question of scale. Power and cooling are the primary technical hurdles. These aren't difficult to solve on a nuclear ship designed with DEWs in mind. And technically, it's quite difficult to get a surface reflective enough that a >MW class laser won't destroy it quite quickly. Even at 90% of energy reflected (good luck with that on the nose and leading edges of a missile), a huge amount of energy is absorbed. As the surface is heated, typically its reflective properties are progressively reduced, causing it to absorb even more energy, and so on in a feedback loop of melted metal. That's why ablatives are preferred. Current missiles start to have problems with lasers in the >100KW class. Once you get into the >MW class, even missiles designed with protection/armor from lasers and incredible speed simply don't work out on paper. Like snowflakes against a blowtorch. A MW of power is a shitload of energy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
From imaginary weapons? So laser weapons are imaginary eh? Guess you still live in the year 2000? Destructive lasers are in use by several militaries, if you weren't aware. Not just testing, fielded use. Now it's just a question of scale. Power and cooling are the primary technical hurdles. These aren't difficult to solve on a nuclear ship designed with DEWs in mind. Technically, it depends on the reflectivity at the wave length used. And technically, it's quite difficult to get a surface reflective enough that a >MW class laser won't destroy it quite quickly. Even at 90% of energy reflected (good luck with that on the nose and leading edges of a missile), a huge amount of energy is absorbed. As the surface is heated, typically its reflective properties are progressively reduced, causing it to absorb even more energy, and so on in a feedback loop of melted metal. That's why ablatives are preferred. Current missiles start to have problems with lasers in the >100KW class. Once you get into the >MW class, even missiles designed with protection/armor from lasers and incredible speed simply don't work out on paper. Like snowflakes against a blowtorch. A MW of power is a shitload of energy. What countries have lasers fielded that can knock an aircraft out of the sky? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2014 8:48:22 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What countries have lasers fielded that can knock an aircraft out of the sky? Quote HistoryQuoted: snip What countries have lasers fielded that can knock an aircraft out of the sky? The question is, what countries want them and why? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2014 9:08:09 PM EDT
[#10]
If this one is for real it will change (quite) a bit the need for huge tubs to generate enough energy for high-power weapons.
Lockheed says makes breakthrough on fusion energy project (Reuters) - Lockheed Martin Corp said on Wednesday it had made a technological breakthrough in developing a power source based on nuclear fusion, and the first reactors, small enough to fit on the back of a truck, could be ready for use in a decade. <snip> http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/15/us-lockheed-fusion-idUSKCN0I41EM20141015 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2014 9:48:25 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I like the way you think, but I would still be worried about losing some of the few remaining P47's etc. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
As a taxpayer, I can think of about five hundred things I hate that my money funds. Battleships, much like the USS Constitution are one of the coolest things this country has ever produced. There are others too, like the SR-71 and the B-17. We ought to have an entire branch of the military devoted to maintaining a fleet of obsolete war machines just to display and parade around to show how fucking great we are. And every now and then, just show the flag every once in a while...how fucking cool would it be (in an area of complete air superiority) to conduct strafing runs in a squadron of P-47s or have a wing of B-17s do a low-flying bombing run on a bunch of assholes who need killing in style? The Brits could kill shit with Vulcan bombers and destroy dams in Lancasters. Go hunt Somali pirates in the USS Constitution...it will be like old times. 
I would champion a politician that supported this idea. Even as a libertarian. Because 'Murica, FUCK YEAH.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I like the way you think, but I would still be worried about losing some of the few remaining P47's etc. Only those that we have sufficient numbers of... Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 3:10:54 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Goofed that one, meant to say before finished being repaired. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
snipped What subs have we scrapped prior to being finished? It was a good call to scrap the Miami. After the fire, that hull was toast. And they wouldn't have stayed within the $450 million budget to repair her. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 6:26:44 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If this one is for real it will change (quite) a bit the need for huge tubs to generate enough energy for high-power weapons. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/15/us-lockheed-fusion-idUSKCN0I41EM20141015 Quote HistoryQuoted:
If this one is for real it will change (quite) a bit the need for huge tubs to generate enough energy for high-power weapons. Lockheed says makes breakthrough on fusion energy project (Reuters) - Lockheed Martin Corp said on Wednesday it had made a technological breakthrough in developing a power source based on nuclear fusion, and the first reactors, small enough to fit on the back of a truck, could be ready for use in a decade. <snip> http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/15/us-lockheed-fusion-idUSKCN0I41EM20141015 Considering there isn't any fusion reactors that create more power than they consume at the moment, 10 years for a portable reactor seems optimistic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 6:32:16 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wrong question (unless you think backwards into the past). The question is, what countries want them and why? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
snip What countries have lasers fielded that can knock an aircraft out of the sky? The question is, what countries want them and why? So the weapons don't exist. ...from the guy who wants to bring back battleships? (or troll dport during his "vacation") |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 6:41:41 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So the weapons don't exist. ...from the guy who wants to bring back battleships? (or troll dport during his "vacation") Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
snip What countries have lasers fielded that can knock an aircraft out of the sky? The question is, what countries want them and why? So the weapons don't exist. ...from the guy who wants to bring back battleships? (or troll dport during his "vacation") You really think destructive lasers are fictitious? Guess you missed out on at least two different systems being deployed in Afghanistan? And that's just the publicly known ones. I guess the Israelis aren't jointly manufacturing such systems with the US? I bet you think destructive lasers have never been mounted on aircraft either... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 7:32:23 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So the weapons don't exist. ...from the guy who wants to bring back battleships? (or troll dport during his "vacation") Quote HistoryQuoted: snipWrong question (unless you think backwards into the past). The question is, what countries want them and why? So the weapons don't exist. ...from the guy who wants to bring back battleships? (or troll dport during his "vacation") Iran as well has been testing laser systems on US Satellites. So what do you think is going to happen? That these weapons won't get fully developed, implemented and follow the route of all technology and become smaller, cheaper and be sold to other nations that can't produce their own? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 10:24:19 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If we are modernizing then automation could eliminate a bunch of personnel. However it would require replacing every component on the ship so might as well build a new ship designed to be for the automation. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No. It is not the material costs, it is the personnel costs that would make it impossible. Each BB had approx. 2 LHA/LHDs worth of crews on them and the Navy has been getting rid of ships to save crews If we are modernizing then automation could eliminate a bunch of personnel. However it would require replacing every component on the ship so might as well build a new ship designed to be for the automation. I think we're all aboard with trolling Dport when he can't respond heavily automated new-build battleships. ETA - This is also why I proposed several pages back actually bringing back Heavy Cruisers, so we can re-use the automatic guns from the Des Moines class.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 10:42:28 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You really think destructive lasers are fictitious? Guess you missed out on at least two different systems being deployed in Afghanistan? And that's just the publicly known ones. I guess the Israelis aren't jointly manufacturing such systems with the US? I bet you think destructive lasers have never been mounted on aircraft either... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
snip What countries have lasers fielded that can knock an aircraft out of the sky? The question is, what countries want them and why? So the weapons don't exist. ...from the guy who wants to bring back battleships? (or troll dport during his "vacation") You really think destructive lasers are fictitious? Guess you missed out on at least two different systems being deployed in Afghanistan? And that's just the publicly known ones. I guess the Israelis aren't jointly manufacturing such systems with the US? I bet you think destructive lasers have never been mounted on aircraft either... So, name a system capable of shooting down an aircraft. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 11:39:38 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, name a system capable of shooting down an aircraft.
So, because we have fielded ones that destroy artillery shells in flight, bigger ones that can shoot down airplanes reliably aren't going to be made? And the Navy has a nifty little CIWS laser built to shoot down drones. This is a system that will be initially fielded this year on a ship. Drones, if you aren't aware, are baby airplanes. Laser weapons are real. They have been fielded. They get more powerful at an exponential rate. The latest systems in testing are over a thousand times more powerful than the first systems, and this train is just getting started. Guess who one of the most interested customers is? The United States Navy. Lasers are happening. 
The Battleship As Laser/Gun Platform concept may be a tad silly (mostly because of staggering cost, not lack of capability). But it is a reality that lasers are becoming real, warfare altering weapons. They are going to radically change things, because they bring abstractly new capabilities. Aviation/missiles are probably going to be the most directly impacted systems/tactics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 1:22:35 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So, because we have fielded ones that destroy artillery shells in flight, bigger ones that can shoot down airplanes reliably aren't going to be made? And the Navy has a nifty little CIWS laser built to shoot down drones. This is a system that will be initially fielded this year on a ship. Drones, if you aren't aware, are baby airplanes. Laser weapons are real. They have been fielded. They get more powerful at an exponential rate. The latest systems in testing are over a thousand times more powerful than the first systems, and this train is just getting started. Guess who one of the most interested customers is? The United States Navy. Lasers are happening. The Battleship As Laser/Gun Platform concept may be a tad silly (mostly because of staggering cost, not lack of capability). But it is a reality that lasers are becoming real, warfare altering weapons. They are going to radically change things, because they bring abstractly new capabilities. Aviation/missiles are probably going to be the most directly impacted systems/tactics. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So, name a system capable of shooting down an aircraft. So, because we have fielded ones that destroy artillery shells in flight, bigger ones that can shoot down airplanes reliably aren't going to be made? And the Navy has a nifty little CIWS laser built to shoot down drones. This is a system that will be initially fielded this year on a ship. Drones, if you aren't aware, are baby airplanes. Laser weapons are real. They have been fielded. They get more powerful at an exponential rate. The latest systems in testing are over a thousand times more powerful than the first systems, and this train is just getting started. Guess who one of the most interested customers is? The United States Navy. Lasers are happening. The Battleship As Laser/Gun Platform concept may be a tad silly (mostly because of staggering cost, not lack of capability). But it is a reality that lasers are becoming real, warfare altering weapons. They are going to radically change things, because they bring abstractly new capabilities. Aviation/missiles are probably going to be the most directly impacted systems/tactics.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 5:50:01 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, because we have fielded ones that destroy artillery shells in flight, bigger ones that can shoot down airplanes reliably aren't going to be made? And the Navy has a nifty little CIWS laser built to shoot down drones. This is a system that will be initially fielded this year on a ship. Drones, if you aren't aware, are baby airplanes. Laser weapons are real. They have been fielded. They get more powerful at an exponential rate. The latest systems in testing are over a thousand times more powerful than the first systems, and this train is just getting started. Guess who one of the most interested customers is? The United States Navy. Lasers are happening. http://i.imgur.com/aVOSkIC.gif The Battleship As Laser/Gun Platform concept may be a tad silly (mostly because of staggering cost, not lack of capability). But it is a reality that lasers are becoming real, warfare altering weapons. They are going to radically change things, because they bring abstractly new capabilities. Aviation/missiles are probably going to be the most directly impacted systems/tactics. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So, name a system capable of shooting down an aircraft.
So, because we have fielded ones that destroy artillery shells in flight, bigger ones that can shoot down airplanes reliably aren't going to be made? And the Navy has a nifty little CIWS laser built to shoot down drones. This is a system that will be initially fielded this year on a ship. Drones, if you aren't aware, are baby airplanes. Laser weapons are real. They have been fielded. They get more powerful at an exponential rate. The latest systems in testing are over a thousand times more powerful than the first systems, and this train is just getting started. Guess who one of the most interested customers is? The United States Navy. Lasers are happening. http://i.imgur.com/aVOSkIC.gif The Battleship As Laser/Gun Platform concept may be a tad silly (mostly because of staggering cost, not lack of capability). But it is a reality that lasers are becoming real, warfare altering weapons. They are going to radically change things, because they bring abstractly new capabilities. Aviation/missiles are probably going to be the most directly impacted systems/tactics. How well those super-duper Star Wars weapons work under water? 
Besides, if they are capable of shooting projectiles down don't they defeat the purpose of large cannons? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 2:31:54 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How well those super-duper Star Wars weapons work under water? http://www.markkarvon.com/images/Los%20Angeles%20Class%20Submarine%2016x24%20Print%20700.jpg Besides, if they are capable of shooting projectiles down don't they defeat the purpose of large cannons? Quote HistoryQuoted: snip How well those super-duper Star Wars weapons work under water? http://www.markkarvon.com/images/Los%20Angeles%20Class%20Submarine%2016x24%20Print%20700.jpg Besides, if they are capable of shooting projectiles down don't they defeat the purpose of large cannons? Also, super duper star wars weapons working underwater? Sure, here ya go...  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 2:56:26 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How well those super-duper Star Wars weapons work under water? http://www.markkarvon.com/images/Los%20Angeles%20Class%20Submarine%2016x24%20Print%20700.jpg Besides, if they are capable of shooting projectiles down don't they defeat the purpose of large cannons? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So, name a system capable of shooting down an aircraft.
So, because we have fielded ones that destroy artillery shells in flight, bigger ones that can shoot down airplanes reliably aren't going to be made? And the Navy has a nifty little CIWS laser built to shoot down drones. This is a system that will be initially fielded this year on a ship. Drones, if you aren't aware, are baby airplanes. Laser weapons are real. They have been fielded. They get more powerful at an exponential rate. The latest systems in testing are over a thousand times more powerful than the first systems, and this train is just getting started. Guess who one of the most interested customers is? The United States Navy. Lasers are happening. http://i.imgur.com/aVOSkIC.gif The Battleship As Laser/Gun Platform concept may be a tad silly (mostly because of staggering cost, not lack of capability). But it is a reality that lasers are becoming real, warfare altering weapons. They are going to radically change things, because they bring abstractly new capabilities. Aviation/missiles are probably going to be the most directly impacted systems/tactics. How well those super-duper Star Wars weapons work under water? http://www.markkarvon.com/images/Los%20Angeles%20Class%20Submarine%2016x24%20Print%20700.jpg Besides, if they are capable of shooting projectiles down don't they defeat the purpose of large cannons? The lasers currently used to destroy artillery shells in flight work by igniting (more firey, less boom) the explosives within the artillery shell. An artillery shell is basically a giant M&M, with a thin steel casing on the outside around a gooy explosive core. The laser heats up the casing, and because the casing is thin, it quickly transfers the heat to the explosives, or other important shit like the fuze. This quickly destroys the shell. A massive Depleted Uranium dart, with no explosive payload, does not have such a weakness. Assuming you harden the guidance packing inside the tail (which I can tell you how to do), then the laser must vaporize the dart in order to stop it. A 500lb DU dart has a massive amount of thermal capacity and it will take a long time to accomplish this. There is no replacement for displacement. As for subs... Subs are great, And their role may become more important due to many factors (lasers, better sensors, etc). But subs can already be dealt with, else we could not rely on our carriers. I would assume similar measures to protect a BBN against subs (escorts, various aircraft, other subs) is not an impossibility. A carrier would be just as vulnerable against a sub as a BBN were it not for the active efforts to protect them... They don't have magical "immune to torpedoes" carrier armor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 4:12:45 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you saying laser based defense weapons are imaginary? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
snip From imaginary weapons? Technically, it depends on the reflectivity at the wave length used. Are you saying that the single currently fielded US Navy laser weapon system is capable of defeating an anti-ship cruise missile? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 4:22:23 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: snip They don't have magical "immune to torpedoes" carrier armor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 4:26:11 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Are you saying that the single currently fielded US Navy laser weapon system is capable of defeating an anti-ship cruise missile? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: snip From imaginary weapons? Technically, it depends on the reflectivity at the wave length used. Are you saying that the single currently fielded US Navy laser weapon system is capable of defeating an anti-ship cruise missile?  I wonder if there was a version of people like you thousands of years ago saying things like "That catapult is worthless, there's only one and it can't toss rocks very high". |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 4:30:34 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you saying that the single currently fielded US Navy laser weapon system is capable of defeating an anti-ship cruise missile? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
snip From imaginary weapons? Technically, it depends on the reflectivity at the wave length used. Are you saying that the single currently fielded US Navy laser weapon system is capable of defeating an anti-ship cruise missile? Are you saying that more powerful systems will not be developed? The first airplanes couldn't sink ships either. Solid state lasers are improving at an exponential, not linear, rate. The ~30KW LaWSs isn't even fielded yet, and already a 110KW system has been tested and a 300KW system is being built... In just a few years >MW power levels should be possible. Can you do the rough math on what a >MW laser can do, or should I lay it out? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 5:01:45 PM EDT
[#28]
Not to mention the free electron laser research we're doing.
Which is great and all, but the point was that other countries have lasers and are doing laser defense research that will need to be defeated at some point. Much like B-52's are still around and used when our country needs a hammer, Battleships can fill that same role that they always have.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 5:46:59 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What countries have lasers fielded that can knock an aircraft out of the sky? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
From imaginary weapons? So laser weapons are imaginary eh? Guess you still live in the year 2000? Destructive lasers are in use by several militaries, if you weren't aware. Not just testing, fielded use. Now it's just a question of scale. Power and cooling are the primary technical hurdles. These aren't difficult to solve on a nuclear ship designed with DEWs in mind. Technically, it depends on the reflectivity at the wave length used. And technically, it's quite difficult to get a surface reflective enough that a >MW class laser won't destroy it quite quickly. Even at 90% of energy reflected (good luck with that on the nose and leading edges of a missile), a huge amount of energy is absorbed. As the surface is heated, typically its reflective properties are progressively reduced, causing it to absorb even more energy, and so on in a feedback loop of melted metal. That's why ablatives are preferred. Current missiles start to have problems with lasers in the >100KW class. Once you get into the >MW class, even missiles designed with protection/armor from lasers and incredible speed simply don't work out on paper. Like snowflakes against a blowtorch. A MW of power is a shitload of energy. What countries have lasers fielded that can knock an aircraft out of the sky? Rheinmetall is marketing one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 5:47:02 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You know what, you're right. Weapons always get less deadly and prevalent over time. Quote HistoryQuoted:
You know what, you're right. Weapons always get less deadly and prevalent over time. And new technology always comes in ahead of schedule, under budget, and delivers more capability than initially promised. That's why the Army has a fleet of RAH-66, every soldier has an OICW with an airburst-capable 20mm round, the USMC's MV-22s have a 90% FMC rate, Marines are riding to shore in AAAVS, and the F-35 is five years ahead of schedule and 10% under budget. Quoted:
I wonder if there was a version of people like you thousands of years ago saying things like "That catapult is worthless, there's only one and it can't toss rocks very high". Yeah, it worked for the Germans in WWII didn't it. ME-262s swept Mustangs from the sky. I'm sure there's a broke 70 year old somewhere who "invested" all his savings in a flying car startup after watching the Jetsons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 5:54:42 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you saying that more powerful systems will not be developed? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you saying that more powerful systems will not be developed? No, I hope that they are developed. There is great promise in DE weapons. Quoted:The first airplanes couldn't sink ships either. And planning to defend the US Fleet and merchant shipping against German ships and submarines with airplanes would have been pretty stupid in 1914. At some point laser technology may be sufficiently mature to do more than shoot down model airplanes, but it's not going to be in the next couple years. Quoted:
Solid state lasers are improving at an exponential, not linear, rate. The ~30KW LaWSs isn't even fielded yet, and already a 110KW system has been tested and a 300KW system is being built... In just a few years >MW power levels should be possible. Who has tested a 110KW system and what do you mean by "tested"? The Navy hasn't conducted operational test on the laser on Ponce yet. That alone should be a hint about its real capabilities. Quoted:
Can you do the rough math on what a >MW laser can do, or should I lay it out? How many years have we all been commuting to work in flying cars? Should I lay out how much faster a commute would be and the reduction in gridlock? Regardless of the capabilities of lasers, nobody has articulated why it would be such a great idea to concentrate capability in a limited number of very large ships instead of dispersing it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 6:37:57 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And new technology always comes in ahead of schedule, under budget, and delivers more capability than initially promised. That's why the Army has a fleet of RAH-66, every soldier has an OICW with an airburst-capable 20mm round, the USMC's MV-22s have a 90% FMC rate, Marines are riding to shore in AAAVS, and the F-35 is five years ahead of schedule and 10% under budget. Yeah, it worked for the Germans in WWII didn't it. ME-262s swept Mustangs from the sky. I'm sure there's a broke 70 year old somewhere who "invested" all his savings in a flying car startup after watching the Jetsons. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You know what, you're right. Weapons always get less deadly and prevalent over time. And new technology always comes in ahead of schedule, under budget, and delivers more capability than initially promised. That's why the Army has a fleet of RAH-66, every soldier has an OICW with an airburst-capable 20mm round, the USMC's MV-22s have a 90% FMC rate, Marines are riding to shore in AAAVS, and the F-35 is five years ahead of schedule and 10% under budget. Quoted: I wonder if there was a version of people like you thousands of years ago saying things like "That catapult is worthless, there's only one and it can't toss rocks very high". Yeah, it worked for the Germans in WWII didn't it. ME-262s swept Mustangs from the sky. I'm sure there's a broke 70 year old somewhere who "invested" all his savings in a flying car startup after watching the Jetsons. As to the second part.... That makes no sense... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 6:45:50 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Regardless of the capabilities of lasers, nobody has articulated why it would be such a great idea to concentrate capability in a limited number of very large ships instead of dispersing it. Yes, I have. 1: Power. For, let's say, a 20MW laser you are going to need roughly 100MW of electrical power. Smaller ships are going to have problems supplying those levels of power, especially if you want deep battery or continuous operation. The answer is nuclear. You probably don't want a bunch of nuclear DDGs I'm betting. 2: The laser itself. One 500KW laser on a dozen little ships do not provide the anything close to the same destructive capability as a single 6MW laser on one big ship. I can provide the math if you doubt that. There are multiple factors as to why a damn big laser on a damn big ship is far more capable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 6:57:44 PM EDT
[#34]
We still have battleships.
Except they're on land. They're called tanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 7:08:04 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We still have battleships. Except they're on land. They're called tanks. Which is exactly why I am applying advances in tank guns to battleships... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 7:32:33 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
http://blog.adw.org/wp-content/uploads/battleship_003.jpg http://www.g2mil.com/scramjet.jpg http://beforeitsnews.com/mediadrop/uploads/2013/52/6dc9aa15f6d21d3bdd562b5eb5bae6aae560ab79.jpg http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/05/ef/3c/05ef3c6bce18679db004735fe6702b52.jpg http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/f9/cd/6d/f9cd6dc041fa4e57883cd8d03e55385d.jpg Loved the movie.....mainly because 'a bunch of old timers got to shoot a BFG one more time........at the enemy..... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 7:42:23 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Loved the movie.....mainly because 'a bunch of old timers got to shoot a BFG one more time........at the enemy..... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: http://blog.adw.org/wp-content/uploads/battleship_003.jpg http://www.g2mil.com/scramjet.jpg http://beforeitsnews.com/mediadrop/uploads/2013/52/6dc9aa15f6d21d3bdd562b5eb5bae6aae560ab79.jpg http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/05/ef/3c/05ef3c6bce18679db004735fe6702b52.jpg http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/f9/cd/6d/f9cd6dc041fa4e57883cd8d03e55385d.jpg Loved the movie.....mainly because 'a bunch of old timers got to shoot a BFG one more time........at the enemy..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 8:05:40 PM EDT
[#38]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 8:07:26 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, I have. 1: Power. For, let's say, a 20MW laser you are going to need roughly 100MW of electrical power. Smaller ships are going to have problems supplying those levels of power, especially if you want deep battery or continuous operation. The answer is nuclear. You probably don't want a bunch of nuclear DDGs I'm betting. 2: The laser itself. One 500KW laser on a dozen little ships do not provide the anything close to the same destructive capability as a single 6MW laser on one big ship. I can provide the math if you doubt that. There are multiple factors as to why a damn big laser on a damn big ship is far more capable. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Regardless of the capabilities of lasers, nobody has articulated why it would be such a great idea to concentrate capability in a limited number of very large ships instead of dispersing it. Yes, I have. 1: Power. For, let's say, a 20MW laser you are going to need roughly 100MW of electrical power. Smaller ships are going to have problems supplying those levels of power, especially if you want deep battery or continuous operation. The answer is nuclear. You probably don't want a bunch of nuclear DDGs I'm betting. 2: The laser itself. One 500KW laser on a dozen little ships do not provide the anything close to the same destructive capability as a single 6MW laser on one big ship. I can provide the math if you doubt that. There are multiple factors as to why a damn big laser on a damn big ship is far more capable. Yeah, but with cold fusion and pocket reactors, you can do that on a rowboat. As long as we're indulging in the fantasy of a BBN, why not take it all the way? Miniature, robot, amphibious nuclear powered bumblebees with gigawatt lasers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 8:08:53 PM EDT
[#40]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 8:19:06 PM EDT
[#41]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 8:30:51 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We use multiple 'standard' reactor designs in ships depending on how much power is needed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
All of those reactors are enormous and have very low power densities for naval propulsion purposes. Modular?? No thanks. Don't fuck with what Rickover made right the first time. We use multiple 'standard' reactor designs in ships depending on how much power is needed. If we were going to seriously redo the Iowas, we'd be better off putting in gas turbines. Compared to boilers they're high reliability, need less manpower, are cheaper than nukes, and the fuel storage is already on board. I'm kind of sure that you could get the same SHP into the existing spaces but not an expert. May as well add CPPs to the ship also. But there are many reasons why it's not worth it. The retrofit of modern electronics would cost too much, for one. And it's been claimed that the armor wouldn't be very effective against modern missiles. I have just seen the claims and don't know how true this is. Plus, the main battery is only going to be useful in a few scenarios. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 8:34:01 PM EDT
[#43]
All this talk about these ultra powerful lasers makes me wonder if a simple mirror could be used to defend against them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 8:51:52 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All this talk about these ultra powerful lasers makes me wonder if a simple mirror could be used to defend against them. Already addressed, and no. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 8:58:53 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All this talk about these ultra powerful lasers makes me wonder if a simple mirror could be used to defend against them. Easiest way to defend against the laser is the same way you defend against a missile or a gun - disrupt the Detect/Track system. When you can't do that, outmaneuver the system that points the laser. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 9:59:10 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Easiest way to defend against the laser is the same way you defend against a missile or a gun - disrupt the Detect/Track system. When you can't do that, outmaneuver the system that points the laser. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
All this talk about these ultra powerful lasers makes me wonder if a simple mirror could be used to defend against them. Easiest way to defend against the laser is the same way you defend against a missile or a gun - disrupt the Detect/Track system. When you can't do that, outmaneuver the system that points the laser. You're going to need to explain how you plan to outmaneuver a weapon the requires no target lead, and can be piped to emitters on every side of a vessel... The systems built now have coverage limitations. But such limitations are not inherent to laser weapons. Rather, they are the product of extremely simple early designs, with limiting flaws. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 12:37:49 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're going to need to explain how you plan to outmaneuver a weapon the requires no target lead, and can be piped to emitters on every side of a vessel... The systems built now have coverage limitations. But such limitations are not inherent to laser weapons. Rather, they are the product of extremely simple early designs, with limiting flaws. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
All this talk about these ultra powerful lasers makes me wonder if a simple mirror could be used to defend against them. Easiest way to defend against the laser is the same way you defend against a missile or a gun - disrupt the Detect/Track system. When you can't do that, outmaneuver the system that points the laser. You're going to need to explain how you plan to outmaneuver a weapon the requires no target lead, and can be piped to emitters on every side of a vessel... The systems built now have coverage limitations. But such limitations are not inherent to laser weapons. Rather, they are the product of extremely simple early designs, with limiting flaws. Considering it doesn't exist, it should not be that hard. If we are going with imaginary hardware, I will make my "aircraft" faster than light. Your heat and power generation problems are only slightly less of a problem. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 12:48:45 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Considering it doesn't exist, it should not be that hard. If we are going with imaginary hardware, I will make my "aircraft" faster than light. Your heat and power generation problems are only slightly less of a problem. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
All this talk about these ultra powerful lasers makes me wonder if a simple mirror could be used to defend against them. Easiest way to defend against the laser is the same way you defend against a missile or a gun - disrupt the Detect/Track system. When you can't do that, outmaneuver the system that points the laser. You're going to need to explain how you plan to outmaneuver a weapon the requires no target lead, and can be piped to emitters on every side of a vessel... The systems built now have coverage limitations. But such limitations are not inherent to laser weapons. Rather, they are the product of extremely simple early designs, with limiting flaws. Considering it doesn't exist, it should not be that hard. If we are going with imaginary hardware, I will make my "aircraft" faster than light. Your heat and power generation problems are only slightly less of a problem. (1925) You're right, airpower will never be a threat to battleships. We shouldn't consider aircraft carriers as a significant asset or threat. (/1925) |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 5:12:20 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
(1925) You're right, airpower will never be a threat to battleships. We shouldn't consider aircraft carriers as a significant asset or threat. (/1925) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
All this talk about these ultra powerful lasers makes me wonder if a simple mirror could be used to defend against them. Easiest way to defend against the laser is the same way you defend against a missile or a gun - disrupt the Detect/Track system. When you can't do that, outmaneuver the system that points the laser. You're going to need to explain how you plan to outmaneuver a weapon the requires no target lead, and can be piped to emitters on every side of a vessel... The systems built now have coverage limitations. But such limitations are not inherent to laser weapons. Rather, they are the product of extremely simple early designs, with limiting flaws. Considering it doesn't exist, it should not be that hard. If we are going with imaginary hardware, I will make my "aircraft" faster than light. Your heat and power generation problems are only slightly less of a problem. (1925) You're right, airpower will never be a threat to battleships. We shouldn't consider aircraft carriers as a significant asset or threat. (/1925) Because saying that lasers won't be ready for prime time for the better part of a decade is the same as saying that lasers will never matter. Want to shoot down model airplanes or set stationary small boats on fire? LAWS will do that just fine today, ar least if he boat doesn't maneuver/move. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
