Batteries and Sharks Not Included
July 19, 2010 3:48 AM Subscribe
Lasers 4, UAVs 0. It's easier to hit things at the speed of light. Raytheon tests a naval anti-aircraft laser, and you can watch it go at the link.
While the destroyer has its mighty lasers focused on the threat from the skies, an innocuous-looking skiff, riding low in the water, pulls up alongside ...
posted by Faze at 4:18 AM on July 19, 2010
posted by Faze at 4:18 AM on July 19, 2010
One of the Navy's problems is that they and their consultants don't seem to get that if all the bad guy's drones that go in a certain area suddenly cease to function then that's going to give away ship's positions. Once the drones get cheap enough you might as well just post your GPS data on the web in real time.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 4:25 AM on July 19, 2010
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 4:25 AM on July 19, 2010
Here's the Navy firing off a railgun to the dulcet tones of the 1812 Overture. The goal is to use railguns instead of cannons on battleships.
Full Disclosure: My Dad Made This.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 4:42 AM on July 19, 2010 [2 favorites]
Full Disclosure: My Dad Made This.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 4:42 AM on July 19, 2010 [2 favorites]
Carrier groups are a dead end, anyways - UAV fighter jets are here, now. They're small, lightweight, and intercontinental in range. I think these will probably obsolete some missile cruisers, too.
If you really need mobile aircraft deployment systems, refitting an old boomer or missile boat is cheaper, safer, more strategically and tactically sound and far more flexible.
These laser tests are fun and all, but until they can nail anti-ship missiles, they're not going to be of much practical use. (And then we get into a fun arms race, with reflective and then ablative anti-laser coatings.)
posted by Slap*Happy at 4:45 AM on July 19, 2010
If you really need mobile aircraft deployment systems, refitting an old boomer or missile boat is cheaper, safer, more strategically and tactically sound and far more flexible.
These laser tests are fun and all, but until they can nail anti-ship missiles, they're not going to be of much practical use. (And then we get into a fun arms race, with reflective and then ablative anti-laser coatings.)
posted by Slap*Happy at 4:45 AM on July 19, 2010
Full Disclosure: My Dad Made This.
And you really are RoboCop.
posted by pracowity at 4:52 AM on July 19, 2010
And you really are RoboCop.
posted by pracowity at 4:52 AM on July 19, 2010
The Air Force quit the Boeing YAL-1 airborne laser after pouring over $8 billion into the project, but other projects like this one are afoot. Laser weapons aren't exactly new technologies and a ton of work went into them during the 1980s SDI years, so I'm left wondering how much of all this R&D is designed specifically to keep pork barrel money flowing rather than deliver a product.
posted by crapmatic at 5:02 AM on July 19, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by crapmatic at 5:02 AM on July 19, 2010 [2 favorites]
The goal is to use railguns instead of cannons on battleships.
The distortion around this railgun projectile is interesting.
posted by Tenuki at 5:10 AM on July 19, 2010 [2 favorites]
The distortion around this railgun projectile is interesting.
posted by Tenuki at 5:10 AM on July 19, 2010 [2 favorites]
Lasers offer a few advantages over bullets: They travel faster, "about Mach 1 million," Booen jokes, and for an electronic solid-state laser, you never run out of ammunition as long as you have power.
Many of the high-end military lasers have an element that gets destroyed in the lasing process, so this is stretching the truth somewhat. Coming up with parts that dont burn out is one of the major challenges from what I understand.
posted by scalefree at 5:11 AM on July 19, 2010 [1 favorite]
Many of the high-end military lasers have an element that gets destroyed in the lasing process, so this is stretching the truth somewhat. Coming up with parts that dont burn out is one of the major challenges from what I understand.
posted by scalefree at 5:11 AM on July 19, 2010 [1 favorite]
Soon going out to buy a pint of milk in your flying car is going to be like taking a trip down to Shanghai electronic's market, all the lasers that you'll have to dodge.
posted by HELLOWORLD at 5:36 AM on July 19, 2010
posted by HELLOWORLD at 5:36 AM on July 19, 2010
Does anyone else in the world even have drones or whatever it is these things are supposed to shoot at?
posted by infini at 5:37 AM on July 19, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by infini at 5:37 AM on July 19, 2010 [1 favorite]
Uh, now I am not so sure I want that flying car they promised me in the 1960s.
posted by Drasher at 5:41 AM on July 19, 2010
posted by Drasher at 5:41 AM on July 19, 2010
Earlier this year: Lasers from above. (skipping obligatory Real Genius quotes)
posted by samsara at 5:49 AM on July 19, 2010
posted by samsara at 5:49 AM on July 19, 2010
The railgun. Or at least, he's the head of the project. Given the way his musical tastes have been trending over the years, if he made the video it would have been explosions set to Nora Jones or something.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 6:01 AM on July 19, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by robocop is bleeding at 6:01 AM on July 19, 2010 [1 favorite]
Does anyone else in the world even have drones or whatever it is these things are supposed to shoot at?
Well, we'll sell them some once we get these lasers perfected.
posted by TwelveTwo at 6:10 AM on July 19, 2010 [3 favorites]
Well, we'll sell them some once we get these lasers perfected.
posted by TwelveTwo at 6:10 AM on July 19, 2010 [3 favorites]
he didn't really just compare a coffee maker to a laser did he?
posted by fistynuts at 6:24 AM on July 19, 2010
posted by fistynuts at 6:24 AM on July 19, 2010
Does anyone else in the world even have drones or whatever it is these things are supposed to shoot at?
My son is at the stage that he loves RC planes. Since he's only 2.5, we haven't done anything but watch them on YouTube. I used to play around with them back in the day. Things have changed. From what I've seen on YouTube, pretty much anyone with an engineering degree (or less) can rig up a short range UAV with a small payload using a kit from the local hobby store. Scaling up using a small plane probably wouldn't be difficult. (Or maybe it would; I'm not an engineer...)
posted by MarshallPoe at 6:48 AM on July 19, 2010
My son is at the stage that he loves RC planes. Since he's only 2.5, we haven't done anything but watch them on YouTube. I used to play around with them back in the day. Things have changed. From what I've seen on YouTube, pretty much anyone with an engineering degree (or less) can rig up a short range UAV with a small payload using a kit from the local hobby store. Scaling up using a small plane probably wouldn't be difficult. (Or maybe it would; I'm not an engineer...)
posted by MarshallPoe at 6:48 AM on July 19, 2010
Does anyone else in the world even have drones or whatever it is these things are supposed to shoot at?
They do, though not yet in great numbers. But I suspect a major goal of this effort is point defense against missiles (e.g., the Exocet) which are widely available.
posted by Ella Fynoe at 6:49 AM on July 19, 2010 [1 favorite]
They do, though not yet in great numbers. But I suspect a major goal of this effort is point defense against missiles (e.g., the Exocet) which are widely available.
posted by Ella Fynoe at 6:49 AM on July 19, 2010 [1 favorite]
he didn't really just compare a coffee maker to a laser did he?
You've obviously never had my coffee.
posted by Splunge at 6:49 AM on July 19, 2010 [1 favorite]
You've obviously never had my coffee.
posted by Splunge at 6:49 AM on July 19, 2010 [1 favorite]
Or you could just make your coffee with lasers.
posted by loquacious at 7:11 AM on July 19, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by loquacious at 7:11 AM on July 19, 2010 [1 favorite]
Does anyone else in the world even have drones or whatever it is these things are supposed to shoot at?
They do, though not yet in great numbers. But I suspect a major goal of this effort is point defense against missiles (e.g., the Exocet) which are widely available.
Taken in conjunction with the new thread, one wonders if its all just spinning wheels and boogeymen ...
posted by infini at 7:16 AM on July 19, 2010
They do, though not yet in great numbers. But I suspect a major goal of this effort is point defense against missiles (e.g., the Exocet) which are widely available.
Taken in conjunction with the new thread, one wonders if its all just spinning wheels and boogeymen ...
posted by infini at 7:16 AM on July 19, 2010
A railguns and lasers thread?
/settles in. Makes cup of tea.
posted by Artw at 7:20 AM on July 19, 2010
/settles in. Makes cup of tea.
posted by Artw at 7:20 AM on July 19, 2010
Maybe we could have a railguns versus lasers thread?
posted by pracowity at 7:32 AM on July 19, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by pracowity at 7:32 AM on July 19, 2010 [2 favorites]
Taken in conjunction with the new thread, one wonders if its all just spinning wheels and boogeymen ...
Boogeymanmobile?
Like a library on wheels that scares children and senators.
posted by TwelveTwo at 7:32 AM on July 19, 2010
Boogeymanmobile?
Like a library on wheels that scares children and senators.
posted by TwelveTwo at 7:32 AM on July 19, 2010
Flying cars are actually a terrible idea. Cheap local air travel would be great, but if you actually had to drive it, well, you know how long the training is for a helicopter pilot's license?
posted by LogicalDash at 8:34 AM on July 19, 2010
posted by LogicalDash at 8:34 AM on July 19, 2010
you know how long the training is for a helicopter pilot's license?
I'm sure we would be able to make autopiloted aircraft that didn't bump into one another, even with bazillions of them in the air at once, as long as we didn't let humans touch the controls (beyond choosing a destination).
The dumb thing about flying cars is that they're cars. That fly. They would burn up huge amounts of energy. Flying cars would fuck up the environment so thoroughly and quickly that they would completely negate all efforts we are now making to not fuck up the environment quite so much. We don't need flying cars like we need air.
BUT.
If you want to talk about flying cars on the moon, well, there just is no atmosphere to fuck up on the moon, is there? And there's a lot less gravity. Maybe a little frozen water to pollute, but conserving that is your problem once you live there. If you can find a clean way to get you and your flying car to the moon (elevator?) while I stay here with the air and water, I say bon voyage, George Jetson.
posted by pracowity at 8:57 AM on July 19, 2010
I'm sure we would be able to make autopiloted aircraft that didn't bump into one another, even with bazillions of them in the air at once, as long as we didn't let humans touch the controls (beyond choosing a destination).
The dumb thing about flying cars is that they're cars. That fly. They would burn up huge amounts of energy. Flying cars would fuck up the environment so thoroughly and quickly that they would completely negate all efforts we are now making to not fuck up the environment quite so much. We don't need flying cars like we need air.
BUT.
If you want to talk about flying cars on the moon, well, there just is no atmosphere to fuck up on the moon, is there? And there's a lot less gravity. Maybe a little frozen water to pollute, but conserving that is your problem once you live there. If you can find a clean way to get you and your flying car to the moon (elevator?) while I stay here with the air and water, I say bon voyage, George Jetson.
posted by pracowity at 8:57 AM on July 19, 2010
If you want to talk about flying cars on the moon...
Oh, we would LOVE to talk about THAT.
posted by twidget at 9:19 AM on July 19, 2010
Oh, we would LOVE to talk about THAT.
posted by twidget at 9:19 AM on July 19, 2010
Raytheon's pain gun finally gets deployed in Afghanistan
posted by homunculus at 9:19 AM on July 19, 2010
posted by homunculus at 9:19 AM on July 19, 2010
if he made the video it would have been explosions set to Nora Jones or something
I waited for the charge to build,
I waited for the caps to fill.
Put the current through the rails,
Blew the target all to hell...
Alternately..
Come away with me *SLAM* tonight *SOMETHING ASPLODES*
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:35 AM on July 19, 2010 [2 favorites]
I waited for the charge to build,
I waited for the caps to fill.
Put the current through the rails,
Blew the target all to hell...
Alternately..
Come away with me *SLAM* tonight *SOMETHING ASPLODES*
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:35 AM on July 19, 2010 [2 favorites]
Carrier groups are a dead end, anyways - UAV fighter jets are here, now. They're small, lightweight, and intercontinental in range. I think these will probably obsolete some missile cruisers, too.
Maybe in a generation, but doubtful for the near to mid term. A carrier group parked off your shore is still a powerfully strong deterrent. Most people don't understand that carriers and their associated firepower aren't all about just firing off weapons... they act firstly as a show of force right on your doorstep, with the promise of the ability to THEN use that force if required.
The same message isn't conveyed by saying, "behave or we'll send the drones." (although it definitely sounds cool)
posted by matty at 9:37 AM on July 19, 2010 [1 favorite]
Maybe in a generation, but doubtful for the near to mid term. A carrier group parked off your shore is still a powerfully strong deterrent. Most people don't understand that carriers and their associated firepower aren't all about just firing off weapons... they act firstly as a show of force right on your doorstep, with the promise of the ability to THEN use that force if required.
The same message isn't conveyed by saying, "behave or we'll send the drones." (although it definitely sounds cool)
posted by matty at 9:37 AM on July 19, 2010 [1 favorite]
Lasers 4, UAVs 0. It's easier to hit things at the speed of light.
Esp. when the thing you're hitting has a speed-of-light delay between sensor input and operator output. Given that a number of these are controlled via sat links, that lag can be surprisingly long.
posted by eriko at 10:01 AM on July 19, 2010
Esp. when the thing you're hitting has a speed-of-light delay between sensor input and operator output. Given that a number of these are controlled via sat links, that lag can be surprisingly long.
posted by eriko at 10:01 AM on July 19, 2010
UAV fighter jets are here, now. They're small, lightweight, and intercontinental in range.
SAMs would make mincemeat of any current UAV design. Even a 20 year-old SA-10 (missile) can travel something like Mach 5. Not a big problem when dealing with small, poorly-funded groups of insurgents. But pretty ineffectual against, say, China.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:13 AM on July 19, 2010 [1 favorite]
SAMs would make mincemeat of any current UAV design. Even a 20 year-old SA-10 (missile) can travel something like Mach 5. Not a big problem when dealing with small, poorly-funded groups of insurgents. But pretty ineffectual against, say, China.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:13 AM on July 19, 2010 [1 favorite]
Maybe in a generation, but doubtful for the near to mid term.
The moment someone splatters a flattop with a UAV launched weapon, a hypersonic ASM, or a ballistic ASM, the era of the flattop will be over. The only reason it hasn't happened yet is that the last few wars we've fought/have been fighting have been against forces with basically no anti-ship capability already.
Brownwater ad-hoc assets -- the guys in the rubber boat with a bomb -- chased the carriers out of the near shore environment, but they really can't get out 30-40 miles. The rest of the tech isn't easy, but isn't impossible.
It's pretty clear that if we had gone into a full naval conflict with the USSR, the Bear/Bison/Blackjack force would have wiped out the CVN groups in short order -- Yes, the Aegis Cruisers are good anti-missle defenses, but they only carry so many rounds. Sucks when you fire 80 AAMs at 100 missiles -- at best, you now only have 20 heading for the CVN. x
We've already seen what things like the Exocet can do -- in limited numbers, against first-class navies -- and that's 20 year old technology.
posted by eriko at 10:16 AM on July 19, 2010
The moment someone splatters a flattop with a UAV launched weapon, a hypersonic ASM, or a ballistic ASM, the era of the flattop will be over. The only reason it hasn't happened yet is that the last few wars we've fought/have been fighting have been against forces with basically no anti-ship capability already.
Brownwater ad-hoc assets -- the guys in the rubber boat with a bomb -- chased the carriers out of the near shore environment, but they really can't get out 30-40 miles. The rest of the tech isn't easy, but isn't impossible.
It's pretty clear that if we had gone into a full naval conflict with the USSR, the Bear/Bison/Blackjack force would have wiped out the CVN groups in short order -- Yes, the Aegis Cruisers are good anti-missle defenses, but they only carry so many rounds. Sucks when you fire 80 AAMs at 100 missiles -- at best, you now only have 20 heading for the CVN. x
We've already seen what things like the Exocet can do -- in limited numbers, against first-class navies -- and that's 20 year old technology.
posted by eriko at 10:16 AM on July 19, 2010
Does anyone else in the world even have drones or whatever it is these things are supposed to shoot at?
Israel & China come to mind, off the top of my head. And it doesn't have to be drones, these lasers would work just as well against fighter jets or missiles assuming you can track them. Drones are just cheap targets compared to something with a pilot in them.
posted by scalefree at 10:20 AM on July 19, 2010
Israel & China come to mind, off the top of my head. And it doesn't have to be drones, these lasers would work just as well against fighter jets or missiles assuming you can track them. Drones are just cheap targets compared to something with a pilot in them.
posted by scalefree at 10:20 AM on July 19, 2010
Well, obviously the attack drones will need railguns and lasers of their own. I mean obviously. And they should be nuclear powered.
posted by Artw at 10:21 AM on July 19, 2010
posted by Artw at 10:21 AM on July 19, 2010
Maybe in a generation, but doubtful for the near to mid term. A carrier group parked off your shore is still a powerfully strong deterrent.
This sounds like the classic chess error, where threat is matched to threat in order to preserve the board, but the responding player neglects to note that the threat brought to bear is the piece under attack.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 10:52 AM on July 19, 2010 [2 favorites]
This sounds like the classic chess error, where threat is matched to threat in order to preserve the board, but the responding player neglects to note that the threat brought to bear is the piece under attack.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 10:52 AM on July 19, 2010 [2 favorites]
UAV fighter jets are here, now. They're small, lightweight, and intercontinental in range. I think these will probably obsolete some missile cruisers, too.
Things that drive me nuts: ourl shiny new local right-wing government want to spend a boat load on fighter planes. It's all about political symbolism - if they actually wanted to spend money on useful air force vehicles, they'd spend a fraction of the money on unmanned vehicles. But no, gotta piss away money we don't have on F-16s.
posted by rodgerd at 11:57 AM on July 19, 2010
Things that drive me nuts: ourl shiny new local right-wing government want to spend a boat load on fighter planes. It's all about political symbolism - if they actually wanted to spend money on useful air force vehicles, they'd spend a fraction of the money on unmanned vehicles. But no, gotta piss away money we don't have on F-16s.
posted by rodgerd at 11:57 AM on July 19, 2010
I still wanna know what that weird visual distortion effect around the head of the high-speed rail gun projectile is in that photo. Is that just some weird lens artifact from the high definition video camera used to capture the footage, or was that effect actually happening in reality?
posted by saulgoodman at 1:49 PM on July 19, 2010
posted by saulgoodman at 1:49 PM on July 19, 2010
I mean, it doesn't look like heat distortion anyway.
posted by saulgoodman at 1:57 PM on July 19, 2010
posted by saulgoodman at 1:57 PM on July 19, 2010
That might be a shock front. At 2,520 meters per second, you're looking at 5,637 miles per hour, or a little better than seven times the speed of sound. Since you're seeing the image partially from the back, it's hard to see, but if you viewed the projectile in profile, with your line of sight perpendicular to the direction of travel, you would see a nice cone-shape distortion as an eensy-beensy sonic boom is generated.
At 10,640,000 Joules, you're looking at a projectile weighing a bit over three kilograms. When it hits, it has the momentum of an average car, traveling a little over twelve miles per hour, concentrated into a fairly small area, because it's fun to use things like depleted uranium and tungsten for your projectiles.
And that's why we love railguns.
posted by adipocere at 2:01 PM on July 19, 2010
At 10,640,000 Joules, you're looking at a projectile weighing a bit over three kilograms. When it hits, it has the momentum of an average car, traveling a little over twelve miles per hour, concentrated into a fairly small area, because it's fun to use things like depleted uranium and tungsten for your projectiles.
And that's why we love railguns.
posted by adipocere at 2:01 PM on July 19, 2010
Awesome, adipocere! I was hoping the answer might be something cool that appeals to my inner-adolescent-self like that. So the medium for the shock wave is air, right? It's not like this is actually an image of the ether warping around the projectile, in other words; it's just that the surrounding air is reacting to the shock wave, creating the distortion.
posted by saulgoodman at 2:09 PM on July 19, 2010
posted by saulgoodman at 2:09 PM on July 19, 2010
Shit.
Flying cars: 1
Killer robots: 1
Lasers: 1
Is it the future yet?
posted by qvantamon at 2:24 PM on July 19, 2010
Flying cars: 1
Killer robots: 1
Lasers: 1
Is it the future yet?
posted by qvantamon at 2:24 PM on July 19, 2010
Yeah. There's some goofiness, probably with a brand new, incredibly brief index of refraction that is way different than ordinary, STP, "la la la, I bounce off of you, la la la" N2 / O2 mix. In that shock wave, that air is probably ridiculously dense along some moving boundary, so light does the bendy bit traversing it just like it would moving through water. You can see before the D in RECORD that there's a very sharp swoop! of distortion, which suggests a sharp, dense boundary.
If it were damp in there, you might even get a wave of "fog" as enough water vapor gets smacked together enough to stick in reasonably sized dropletletlets.
A sufficiently dense projectile at that velocity would move rather easily through many fortifications. Fortifications designed to slow down that projectile would have their own issues at trying to soak up that much kinetic energy in a very, very short period of time. When you think about it, imagine you have a meter-thick wall. Well, that projectile is doing its best to traverse that distance in about half a millisecond, so the wall material hardly has a chance to do anything about it. Steel might have enough time to react — speed of sound in steel is about twice as fast as that projectile — so it might very well have the time to spring back. I was never a materials guy, so I couldn't tell you how well it would deal in terms of sheer toughness.
The idea of needing a meter-thick steel shell to fortify your position, however, ought to give anyone pause.
posted by adipocere at 2:26 PM on July 19, 2010
If it were damp in there, you might even get a wave of "fog" as enough water vapor gets smacked together enough to stick in reasonably sized dropletletlets.
A sufficiently dense projectile at that velocity would move rather easily through many fortifications. Fortifications designed to slow down that projectile would have their own issues at trying to soak up that much kinetic energy in a very, very short period of time. When you think about it, imagine you have a meter-thick wall. Well, that projectile is doing its best to traverse that distance in about half a millisecond, so the wall material hardly has a chance to do anything about it. Steel might have enough time to react — speed of sound in steel is about twice as fast as that projectile — so it might very well have the time to spring back. I was never a materials guy, so I couldn't tell you how well it would deal in terms of sheer toughness.
The idea of needing a meter-thick steel shell to fortify your position, however, ought to give anyone pause.
posted by adipocere at 2:26 PM on July 19, 2010
Man, the police are going to be pissed when I hide one of these in my neighborhood.
posted by quin at 2:32 PM on July 19, 2010
posted by quin at 2:32 PM on July 19, 2010
Drones are just cheap targets compared to something with a pilot in them.
I would guess cheap PR-wise. I don't think it's unable to fire at manned jets, it's just that frying enemy pilots alive is bound to raise some red flags... It's better to announce a weapon that was made for shooting drones, and keep blank if it actually distinguishes drones from manned jets.
posted by qvantamon at 2:37 PM on July 19, 2010
I would guess cheap PR-wise. I don't think it's unable to fire at manned jets, it's just that frying enemy pilots alive is bound to raise some red flags... It's better to announce a weapon that was made for shooting drones, and keep blank if it actually distinguishes drones from manned jets.
posted by qvantamon at 2:37 PM on July 19, 2010
Does anyone else in the world even have drones or whatever it is these things are supposed to shoot at?
They specificly cited detection and location as their concern (which is why I pointed out that blowing up the detector pretty much gives that all away). Assuming that is their concern I submit to you DIYdrones.
No it's not the Predator. No they can't mount ordinance. But if you're worried about anyone with, say $50,000 in spare cash to build a disposable armada flying cameras with GPS getting a fix on your location, now is your time to freak the hell out.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 3:33 PM on July 19, 2010
They specificly cited detection and location as their concern (which is why I pointed out that blowing up the detector pretty much gives that all away). Assuming that is their concern I submit to you DIYdrones.
No it's not the Predator. No they can't mount ordinance. But if you're worried about anyone with, say $50,000 in spare cash to build a disposable armada flying cameras with GPS getting a fix on your location, now is your time to freak the hell out.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 3:33 PM on July 19, 2010
Is it the future yet?
'The future is already here – it's just not evenly distributed.'
posted by porpoise at 5:16 PM on July 19, 2010
'The future is already here – it's just not evenly distributed.'
posted by porpoise at 5:16 PM on July 19, 2010
It's pretty clear that if we had gone into a full naval conflict with the USSR, the Bear/Bison/Blackjack force would have wiped out the CVN groups in short order -- Yes, the Aegis Cruisers are good anti-missle defenses, but they only carry so many rounds. Sucks when you fire 80 AAMs at 100 missiles -- at best, you now only have 20 heading for the CVN. x
Meanwhile all the fighters the carrier is carrying are waiting on deck to be shot at? Carrier air wings are the real weaponry of the real weaponry of the carrier groups. Air power would certainly decide any future naval engagements and carrier groups have lots of air power. The Aegis cruisers are a last-ditch measure should the air battle be lost.
posted by Authorized User at 10:33 PM on July 19, 2010
Meanwhile all the fighters the carrier is carrying are waiting on deck to be shot at? Carrier air wings are the real weaponry of the real weaponry of the carrier groups. Air power would certainly decide any future naval engagements and carrier groups have lots of air power. The Aegis cruisers are a last-ditch measure should the air battle be lost.
posted by Authorized User at 10:33 PM on July 19, 2010
The idea of needing a meter-thick steel shell to fortify your position, however, ought to give anyone pause.
Looks remarkably like the modern version of cannons rendering castle walls obsolete.
posted by rodgerd at 12:55 AM on July 20, 2010 [1 favorite]
Looks remarkably like the modern version of cannons rendering castle walls obsolete.
posted by rodgerd at 12:55 AM on July 20, 2010 [1 favorite]
Bears and Blackjacks are stand-off missile platforms, they launch their payload from outside the operational range of carrier-based fighters, and in the case of the Blackjack, ain't nothing on a carrier could go high enough or fast enough to catch it.
They eat carriers for lunch. As do modern diesel subs - Brazil has a cute wargame trick where they surface in the middle of a carrier group, send a few torpedos the carrier's way, and then settle back down in the confusion. Even when the US knows what's coming, Brazil gets away with it more often than they're countered.
The carrier's time was done sometime in the '60s. They are extravagantly obsolete, and everyone knows it. The US has 11 carrier groups, the UK has three, the Russians one.
posted by Slap*Happy at 2:15 AM on July 20, 2010
They eat carriers for lunch. As do modern diesel subs - Brazil has a cute wargame trick where they surface in the middle of a carrier group, send a few torpedos the carrier's way, and then settle back down in the confusion. Even when the US knows what's coming, Brazil gets away with it more often than they're countered.
The carrier's time was done sometime in the '60s. They are extravagantly obsolete, and everyone knows it. The US has 11 carrier groups, the UK has three, the Russians one.
posted by Slap*Happy at 2:15 AM on July 20, 2010
No mention in the article of using these as anti-personell weapons. What kind of damage would this do to a person - second degree burns, or worse?
How far away are we from Real Genius?
posted by heathkit at 2:47 AM on July 20, 2010
How far away are we from Real Genius?
posted by heathkit at 2:47 AM on July 20, 2010
The Russian KH-22 air-to-surface missile carried by the anti-surface airplanes have a range of 220 nm. The F-18s on US carriers have a stated combat radius for interdiction of 390 nm. The primary platform for delivering these is the TU-22M bomber.
The TU-95 Bears and TU-160 Blackjacks carry cruise missiles with far longer range but according to Wikipedia these do not have terminal guidance, that is they're only going to hit pre-programmed targets, not moving ships.
posted by Authorized User at 2:50 AM on July 20, 2010
The TU-95 Bears and TU-160 Blackjacks carry cruise missiles with far longer range but according to Wikipedia these do not have terminal guidance, that is they're only going to hit pre-programmed targets, not moving ships.
posted by Authorized User at 2:50 AM on July 20, 2010
Maybe in a generation, but doubtful for the near to mid term. A carrier group parked off your shore is still a powerfully strong deterrent. Most people don't understand that carriers and their associated firepower aren't all about just firing off weapons... they act firstly as a show of force right on your doorstep, with the promise of the ability to THEN use that force if required.
The same message isn't conveyed by saying, "behave or we'll send the drones." (although it definitely sounds cool)
matty, don't be so sure. Maybe not today, but after major military targets have been leveled by drones, and press is made of the impunity of the attacker...
posted by IAmBroom at 10:04 AM on July 20, 2010
The same message isn't conveyed by saying, "behave or we'll send the drones." (although it definitely sounds cool)
matty, don't be so sure. Maybe not today, but after major military targets have been leveled by drones, and press is made of the impunity of the attacker...
posted by IAmBroom at 10:04 AM on July 20, 2010
The same message isn't conveyed by saying, "behave or we'll send the drones."
It is when the drone is Skaffen-Amtiskaw.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:30 AM on July 20, 2010 [2 favorites]
It is when the drone is Skaffen-Amtiskaw.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:30 AM on July 20, 2010 [2 favorites]
« Older It’s not a how-to, people! | Swimming between continents Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by knapah at 4:07 AM on July 19, 2010