norton Posted May 23, 2019 Share Posted May 23, 2019 5 minutes ago, gwalchmai said: Maybe we should add apostrophe abuse to Moshe's list of capital offenses... Dead man walking. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moshe Posted May 23, 2019 Share Posted May 23, 2019 23 minutes ago, norton said: We're going to need more cemetery's! Would you prefer more prisons at tax payer's expense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moshe Posted May 23, 2019 Share Posted May 23, 2019 18 minutes ago, gwalchmai said: Maybe we should add apostrophe abuse to Moshe's list of capital offenses... I am not a Grammar Nazi or any other kind of Nazi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M&P15T Posted May 23, 2019 Share Posted May 23, 2019 18 hours ago, tous said: No other country is dumb enough to send up an expensive aircraft when Navy and Marine aviators are in the air. Better to just toss them in the ocean and save a pilot's life. I don't believe that the Taliban or ISIS has a large inventory of state-of-the-art fighter aircraft. Or any aircraft beyond drones that they can buy on Amazon. Yeah.....that's my point. We're so damn good, we can whoop ass with anything in our arsenal!!! And exactly why we should have BATTLESHIPS!!! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC Tiger Posted May 23, 2019 Share Posted May 23, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, norton said: We're going to need more cemetery's! 3 hours ago, M&P15T said: Yeah.....that's my point. We're so damn good, we can whoop ass with anything in our arsenal!!! And exactly why we should have BATTLESHIPS!!! But what are they gonna shoot at? Easier to sneak a sub under their ass and blow them sky high. Now - if you wanna build a new class of battleship that is ground-up new tech, with stealth characteristics, advanced radar and communications, and a big-ass rail gun, we can talk. Nowadays a guided missile cruiser can do everything a battleship can do. Edited May 23, 2019 by SC Tiger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janice6 Posted May 23, 2019 Share Posted May 23, 2019 Big ships aren't inherently bad. Just placing them on top of a relatively flat surface and then trying to hide them is. Big ships need to be able to hide under the water...…….. Oh, we already have them...…….. Never mind! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janice6 Posted May 23, 2019 Share Posted May 23, 2019 One of the more devious methods of looking for large targets that have a multitude of electronics protection and jamming, is to just shut up your platform and listen! Countermeasures create electronic noise that radiates from a point source. Another example. Everywhere in nature there is detectable radio noise being generated related to the temperature of that area. Thus, if you scan an area and look at the background noise being naturally generated, the presence of a truly stealthy platform blocks some of the background radiation from reaching you. The tactic is then to look at the background radiation and look for a decrease due to the stealthy platform blocking some of that radiation from reaching you. The vicinity of the decreased noise detected is the location of the stealthy target. The point is that when you are being bombarded with erroneous signals, stop and listen to the crap, not what the crap is saying or doing, but at the location of the crap being generated. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KWalrad Posted May 23, 2019 Share Posted May 23, 2019 2 hours ago, janice6 said: One of the more devious methods of looking for large targets that have a multitude of electronics protection and jamming, is to just shut up your platform and listen! Countermeasures create electronic noise that radiates from a point source. Another example. Everywhere in nature there is detectable radio noise being generated related to the temperature of that area. Thus, if you scan an area and look at the background noise being naturally generated, the presence of a truly stealthy platform blocks some of the background radiation from reaching you. The tactic is then to look at the background radiation and look for a decrease due to the stealthy platform blocking some of that radiation from reaching you. The vicinity of the decreased noise detected is the location of the stealthy target. The point is that when you are being bombarded with erroneous signals, stop and listen to the crap, not what the crap is saying or doing, but at the location of the crap being generated. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silentpoet Posted May 24, 2019 Share Posted May 24, 2019 9 hours ago, janice6 said: Big ships aren't inherently bad. Just placing them on top of a relatively flat surface and then trying to hide them is. Big ships need to be able to hide under the water...…….. Oh, we already have them...…….. Never mind! Giant battleships that also submerge, freaking brilliant. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norton Posted May 24, 2019 Share Posted May 24, 2019 23 hours ago, Moshe said: Would you prefer more prisons at tax payer's expense? I'm all for removing the worthless shreds of human debris from society. It would make for a much better world. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC Tiger Posted May 24, 2019 Share Posted May 24, 2019 (edited) 18 hours ago, janice6 said: Big ships aren't inherently bad. Just placing them on top of a relatively flat surface and then trying to hide them is. Big ships need to be able to hide under the water...…….. Oh, we already have them...…….. Never mind! Years ago I saw a concept for a submersible aircraft carrier on the cover of Popular Mechanics. The concept was pretty crazy and (IMO) over-complicated - it used cranes to "place" VTOL aircraft into the air, then when they returned they were plucked out of the air by the same crane. But it was an idea. The cranes may have been a way to get around the fact that most VTOL aircraft launch from carriers as STOL aircraft due to weight. But a stealthy surface vessel has some possibilities. Subs have a lot of design compromises that surface vessels don't. We have at least one (the Zumwalt) that we know of and while the development has been a bureaucratic mess, the idea is sound. Main issue is that the main gun is too darn expensive to shoot. A rail gun requires a ridiculous amount of power but would be cool as hell........fortunately it only requires the power for a brief instant so capacitors can be used to store up power and reduce the peal load. Would be pretty much the peak of surface gunnery. But if you wanna hunt other ships, submarines are the ticket. Edited May 24, 2019 by SC Tiger 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janice6 Posted May 24, 2019 Share Posted May 24, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, SC Tiger said: Years ago I saw a concept for a submersible aircraft carrier on the cover of Popular Mechanics. The concept was pretty crazy and (IMO) over-complicated - it used cranes to "place" VTOL aircraft into the air, then when they returned they were plucked out of the air by the same crane. But it was an idea. The cranes may have been a way to get around the fact that most VTOL aircraft launch from carriers as STOL aircraft due to weight. But a stealthy surface vessel has some possibilities. Subs have a lot of design compromises that surface vessels don't. We have at least one (the Zumwalt) that we know of and while the development has been a bureaucratic mess, the idea is sound. Main issue is that the main gun is too darn expensive to shoot. A rail gun requires a ridiculous amount of power but would be cool as hell........fortunately it only requires the power for a brief instant so capacitors can be used to store up power and reduce the peal load. Would be pretty much the peak of surface gunnery. But if you wanna hunt other ships, submarines are the ticket. Yes, rail guns are the future. But the problem isn't in the electrical power to support them, it's in the tremendous power required to recharge them quickly after the first shot. This peak power at very high repetition rates is the real issue. High peak power at very fast intervals is simply sustained, extremely high output capability. At high rates there is little difference between "Peak" power delivered and average power delivered. Recharging over time cannot be done with electrical energy sources available in a form factor that would fit on a ship right now. Recharging for rapid fire requires such a high sustained energy source that a source isn't available now. Eventually, but not now. Interestingly enough, this is exactly the same problem that platform borne high energy lasers are experiencing. Adequate compact very high output energy sources are holding unique weapons back. Recently an article cited the high cost of the projectile. This is only because it is a "one at a time" custom unique casting right now. When large buys begin with a viable system, the cost will decrease to a reasonable level. Loading conventional ammunition would be costly too if each round had to be custom made by "hand". Edited May 24, 2019 by janice6 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tous Posted May 24, 2019 Share Posted May 24, 2019 Just mount a Large Hadron Collider on a ship. All you need is a proton for ammunition. If you really need to kill it, use a neutron. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC Tiger Posted May 24, 2019 Share Posted May 24, 2019 2 hours ago, janice6 said: Yes, rail guns are the future. But the problem isn't in the electrical power to support them, it's in the tremendous power required to recharge them quickly after the first shot. This peak power at very high repetition rates is the real issue. High peak power at very fast intervals is simply sustained, extremely high output capability. At high rates there is little difference between "Peak" power delivered and average power delivered. Recharging over time cannot be done with electrical energy sources available in a form factor that would fit on a ship right now. Recharging for rapid fire requires such a high sustained energy source that a source isn't available now. Eventually, but not now. Interestingly enough, this is exactly the same problem that platform borne high energy lasers are experiencing. Adequate compact very high output energy sources are holding unique weapons back. Recently an article cited the high cost of the projectile. This is only because it is a "one at a time" custom unique casting right now. When large buys begin with a viable system, the cost will decrease to a reasonable level. Loading conventional ammunition would be costly too if each round had to be custom made by "hand". I failed to factor "rapid fire" into my thoughts for this. I was thinking more like a tank gun or a battleship gun - about the speed of fire, reload, fire again. Even then a lot of power is needed. There are people who have built home-made rail guns - small ones. Usually they have a bank of capacitors and cannot fire too quickly. Here is one: Obviously not ready for deployment but a cool experiment/science project. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now