tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post8308022875162725678..comments2024-03-29T06:11:25.339-05:00Comments on Bayou Renaissance Man: Sobering thoughts about the US Navy's carrier strategyPeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10595089829300831372noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-84812752786314689342015-10-25T03:52:35.549-05:002015-10-25T03:52:35.549-05:00Strange during the Gulf War we couldn't hit Ir...Strange during the Gulf War we couldn't hit Iraqi mobile missile launchers yet we are told the PRC can hit a carrier from 1,300 miles away. Wanna bet?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-79272969368037254472015-10-24T01:12:23.790-05:002015-10-24T01:12:23.790-05:00Larry:
I suspect that the Navy is using a sub for...Larry:<br /><br />I suspect that the Navy is using a sub for ASW coverage for each of the carrier groups. The question is how well can they cover 360*, and at what distance can they detect/counter such a threat. It makes one hell of an expensive tin can, though.<br /><br />I would think the focus on DEW's would be a pulse beam type. Use a CIW laser for target acquisition/alignment, and when you get a return, the pulse beam triggers. This eliminates the problems of the target maneuvering out of beam contact, or having to hold on one spot to achieve burn-through. <br /><br />When Lexan type cockpit canopies/windows start looking very different, or disappear entirely from military aircraft, you will have confirmation that these sorts of weapons have come on line. The cockpit should be the most vulnerable spot to DEW's, currently.Willhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00722792638246578812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-16873544762350980812015-10-23T15:20:59.771-05:002015-10-23T15:20:59.771-05:00Hard kills by DEW are not instantaneous. Dwell tim...Hard kills by DEW are not instantaneous. Dwell time is necessary, requiring incredible technologies, including stabilization, atmospherical compensation/correction, and great power. Not at all the same as a kill by bullet or frag. Point-of<br />-aim, of course, is an advantage. <br /><br />TCLeatherneckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00737350717312065042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-63204100989436399982015-10-23T14:45:39.384-05:002015-10-23T14:45:39.384-05:00Larry is absolutely right.
After the USSR imploded...Larry is absolutely right.<br />After the USSR imploded, it seemed that the US decided that meant that all that hardware and knowledge disappeared. No need to "waste" money on unglamorous ASW and Anti-mine warfare. We rule the seas!<br /><br />Idiots.<br /><br />ZERO strategic thinking. All of the powers that be direct development according to short term thinking.<br /><br />I mean, really.... The LCS?Cargosquidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15109858929179841075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-37322122705351216042015-10-23T08:27:35.459-05:002015-10-23T08:27:35.459-05:00Old NFO said:
".... and Lasers are still in ...Old NFO said:<br /><br />".... and Lasers are still in their infancy..."<br /><br />Lasers were "in their infancy" when I worked at WSMR back in the 60's and even then we could punch a 12" hole into a old obsolete Patton tank turret almost instantly. Only problem then was the laser was not portable or slewable, it took three tractor trailer vans to house it and several hours to set up and point.<br /><br />If you think we are still in that sort of primitive condition with lasers you are not paying attention. What is - and has been - publicly released about lasers and their true capabilities is laughable.<br /><br />Don't for a second think the general public been told what our capabilities really are.Bobhttp://thegundeck.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-27230271838330503332015-10-23T01:32:06.047-05:002015-10-23T01:32:06.047-05:00One thing that directed energy weapons will not ad...One thing that directed energy weapons will not address is the the submarine threat. I still find it mind-boggling that our carrier battle groups have NO long-range ASW capability. There is simply no way for short-ranged helicopters to adequately search ahead of the task force. Land-based ASW has been left to decline, though the P-8s are <i>finally</i> coming on line. A salvo of 65-cm wake homing torpedoes, and/or supersonic SS-N-19 Shipwreck missiles will totally ruin any carrier battle group's day. And it's not like we've got a dozen more in construction. If we lose 2-3, we're in deep kim-shi because it will be <b>years</b> before they're replaced. Do we even have the capability to build more than 1 or 2 at a time anymore?<br /><br />And where's our surface ASW assets anymore? We've been turning ASW destroyers and frigates into artificial reefs or razor blades at an alarming rate. I think they are close to gone, if they aren't already. I have strong whiffs of, if not outright treason, then 1939-1940 French-like levels of sheer idiocy, and apparently driven as much by personal greed of those in charge as anything else. Which is not the Constitutional definition of treason, but really is some sort of treason.<br /><br />We're going to pay in blood, I fear, and maybe a lot more than that. It's been centuries since English-speaking peoples have lost a naval war, but I think we're close to throwing that legacy away. Britain is closer, but then you have to actually have a Navy to lose a naval war, don't you?Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13296988746956477216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-90685247615308380392015-10-22T19:38:05.395-05:002015-10-22T19:38:05.395-05:00Kell is right... Just sayin... and Lasers are stil...Kell is right... Just sayin... and Lasers are still in their infancy... AB raises the bigger questions, and those are the ones that, combined with the sequestration and limitations on the military are having the bigger impacts.Old NFOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16404197287935017147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-59508014494310800852015-10-22T16:54:39.967-05:002015-10-22T16:54:39.967-05:00The Chinese are amazingly good at making laser di...The Chinese are amazingly good at making laser diodes and from and have lasers that can reach orbit . Its perfectly plausible that other powers will have equal or superior technology and a big 'ol carrier is easy to keep a laser beam on compared to a hypersonic evasive missile swarm. <br /><br />Heck I suspect China which sells (not for us in the "free" US though) multi-watt lasers that are near weapons grade and probably has even better ones at the military level. <br /><br />Blue-green lasers can be made to propagate underwater and small plastic automated submersibles with hyperbaric torpedoes and maybe said lasers are a deadly threat and more importantly much cheaper than manned submersibles. <br /><br />No life support, no crew and you can deploy hundreds to kill a carrier. <br /><br />Also re: coastal strikes. If ballistic missiles propagate as I seem to see them doing and cruise missiles get as good as the Russian ones, we are vulnerable here in CONUS to retaliatory strikes and as brittle as the US is, a minor power with well targeted attacks could cripple our shipbuilding and aircraft capacity. Back in WW2 we had hundreds of small shops that could be refitted, now we have a few concentrated ones<br /><br />That's assuming they don't just hit food distribution or use an EMP warhead and let the inevitable race war and famine do their work for them <br /><br />If we get stuck on the old paradigm and think the ocean makes us invincible we are going to lose and if we are going to fight we will need pretty massive perpetration for civil defense, air defense , space and coastal defense. <br /><br />We can't do the basics very well and real defense would basically require so much effort and money that we are far better off with non intervention.<br /><br />A.B. Prospernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-46066675922167612382015-10-22T16:49:48.534-05:002015-10-22T16:49:48.534-05:00Rheinmetall's laser point defense operates by ...Rheinmetall's laser point defense operates by superimposing multiple beams on the same target, allowing for power power delivered. Then you've got two tactics, either ablate away the structure, or, in the case of optical guidance, dazzle the sensors. One can use standard revolver cannons as backup for the things which 'leak' through the defense. So a mixed system for defense is certainly capable of handling a number of cruise missiles.<br /><br />As far as ship to ship weapons, lasers fire in a straight line, projectiles arc. It would therefore be possible, provided one has a powerful enough cannon (railgun comes to mind), to use the curvature of the Earth to protect your ship from lasers, and still sling projectiles at the enemy.Praetorioushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11356043690020742147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-88029046219653500632015-10-22T16:33:24.203-05:002015-10-22T16:33:24.203-05:00The beam may require as close to zero time as make...The beam may require as close to zero time as makes no odds to travel to its target, but how long must it hold on the target to destroy it, assuming reflective or ablative materials in the missile body? How long to detect the next target, classify it as a threat, and mechanically slew to engage? Rinse and repeat for every missile...and missiles may be pricy, but nothing compared to a carrier.<br /><br />Of course, preparing the coastline for a strike by knocking out missile launchers with SSGN-launched Tomahawks can reduce the risk.RustyGunnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07607539523531544524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-15296361529872331912015-10-22T15:13:57.405-05:002015-10-22T15:13:57.405-05:00The problem with any anti- something is the abilit...The problem with any anti- something is the ability to over come a mass attack. Dog and pony shows may demonstrate the ability to hit six target flying on designated routes. The real attack will be something quite different.<br /><br />Hitting 20 or 30 threats surrounded by jamming or decoys is another thing all together. <br /><br />How quickly the threat is recognized and systems spool up is another factor.<br /><br />GerryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-80785424493515707052015-10-22T15:11:21.696-05:002015-10-22T15:11:21.696-05:00Directed energy weapons in a point defense role pr...Directed energy weapons in a point defense role probably won't be anything to write home about for a long, long time. I'll be the first to admit the technology is in it's infancy, and I think there's great potential there, but a lot of what you're saying was said about the SM-1 and SM-2 and a variety of slug-throwing point defense systems. I know the prototypes have been good at shooting down missiles, but anyone with half a brain is going to shoot more than one or two at an American carrier battlegroup. The real question is going to be whether or not the lasers can cycle fast enough to engage 20 or 30 wildly evading targets before they go into terminal attack mode.<br /><br />My own concern for years has been the nature of military and civilian leadership to budget and plan for the last war. I'm no longer certain that the capabilities of first tier military powers factor into threat assessments, and the incredible red tape in the R&D and procurement process means that getting and staying ahead is harder and harder, even without the cyberwar.<br /><br />The next time the US has to fight a war against a major world power we're probably going to get bloodied pretty badly at the start. Hubris has a price.Kellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-83965884994598979342015-10-22T15:05:08.574-05:002015-10-22T15:05:08.574-05:00Regarding the potential for directed-energy weapon...Regarding the potential for directed-energy weapons to be a game-changer, keep in mind that the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford-class_aircraft_carrier" rel="nofollow"><i>Ford</i>-class</a> carriers use a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A1B_reactor" rel="nofollow">new reactor design</a> that will, according to The Font of All Knowledge, produce "approximately three times the electrical power of the <i>Nimitz</i>-class A4W reactor plant."AuricTechhttp://aurictech.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-56665708974526030182015-10-22T14:15:16.933-05:002015-10-22T14:15:16.933-05:00Are you aware of a site called "Information D...Are you aware of a site called "Information Dissemination"? It tends to touch naval matters and the future of the US Navy. LCS, CVN...<br /><br />Capt. Hendrix has been explaining his side for a while, and that site's covered it from time to time.<br /><br />Take care.<br /><br />Ferran, BCNshugyoshahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04437800091500543886noreply@blogger.com