5 ms·

Cruise missiles and military robots is where it's at. The fact the military is still spending hundreds of billions every year on outdated technology such manned

Cruise missiles and military robots is where it's at. The fact the military is still spending hundreds of billions every year on outdated technology such manned aircraft and warships is a farce greater than the financial bailout committed on the people's of america and the world. It'll take poor countries like india developing cheap military tech to slap america into the reality of the 21st century.

bilbo0s 17y ago
I logged in just to say that, but you beat me to it. India and China are developing missile systems that can take out an American carrier in a single strike. Which, as a former marine who likes to blow stuff up, I think is really cool by the way. The problem is our response. We attempt to develop a laser that will kill these missiles inbound. All fine and dandy, IF it works, which I wouldn't stake my guys lives on. But that's not even the point. The point is . . . why not engage in a sober and deliberate SWOT evaluation of the carrier group itself. Is it still useful? I don't know, I am not an Admiral. But I really do get the feeling that General Officers in our military are addicted to big, complicated, and expensive systems. Do we really need these? Especially given that we are going bankrupt right now. It's almost as if the Social Security - Medicare people and the Military Industrial Complex really don't CARE that they are sinking us.
- metamemetics 17y ago
  They probably see the carrier\super-carrier group central to making America a military power, we have 20+ and only a few countries have 1. Since the new reactor in the Gerald Ford class generates over 3X the electricity as the current Nimitz, it seems destined to be an advanced weapons platform for expensive lasers\railguns\robots.
  - Perceval 17y ago
    The U.S. only has 11 carrier groups: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/where.htm http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/where.htm One new one, the Gerald Ford, is in construction. You are right that other countries at best only have one carrier. And, as far as I know, no other country has a super-carrier. A normal aircraft carrier has a 40-50,000 ton displacement, whereas super-carriers have 90-100,000 ton displacement. All U.S. carrier are super-carriers, whereas other countries have only regular carriers.
    - metamemetics 17y ago
      I was including our light-carrier amphibious assault ships, as their deckspace is still larger than the largest carrier of most other countries. Great visual aide: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers.htm http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers.htm
    - rdtsc 17y ago
      How many torpedoes or cruise missiles would take to drown super-carrier?
      - rdtsc 17y ago
        Why is this downvoted? It is a valid question. If we spend hundreds of millions of dollars on something that can be taken down by one torpedo, we are doing something wrong. In a full blown WWIII, it would be worth wasting a couple of nuclear torpedoes to drawn some super carriers loaded with very expensive and vulnerable equipment. One such torpedo was almost lunched during the Cuban missile crisis. We should probably be grateful for this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasiliy_Arkhipov http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasiliy_Arkhipov) for stopping WWIII.
InclinedPlane 17y ago
I think you're mistaken. Cruise missiles, robots, and even nuclear weapons are a way to defend your home territory from other violent nation-states, perhaps at the cost of significant "enemy" civilian casualties. However, the nature of warfare is changing, if you look at the major conflicts in the last 20 years you see a lot more need for not just precision guided munitions hitting targets from afar but also smart, well-trained, well-equipped ground forces with the flexibility to respond to different situations. The entire Russian army was fought to a stand-still in Afghanistan and later also in Chechnya by much smaller, less well equipment forces using modern insurgent techniques. The "press a button to win a war" methodology only works in the modern age if you're willing to carpet bomb the enemy and any civilians who happen to get in the way (see the horrible civil war in Sri Lanka as an example). If you're not willing to do that then you'll need more than just CPU guided munitions.
- marshallp 17y ago
  I always thought this "urban warfare" stuff BS. At what point is it actually just law enforcement ? The problem with the russians in afghanistan and americans in iraq/afghanistan today is what exacty is the objective ? Technically the russians and americans won easily in the first few days. The rest of the time was just pretend warfare that should have been just called law enforcement. When you send soldiers to fight civilians you've already failed. There's nothing you can achieve except slaughter.
  - derefr 17y ago
    "Soldier" vs "civilian" is a false dichotomy. In the middle, there's "militia", which you're a part of as soon as you pick up a weapon and start pushing back on the "law enforcement"'s encroachment upon your city.
    - marshallp 17y ago
      You could call that "militia" the local police department and pay them money to police that local population. If the hearts of a population are not with you, sending a military in is just barbaric. That battle can never be won.
rdtsc 17y ago
I think nuclear ICBM and MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is where it's at when it comes to large nation vs. nation conflicts. That is the reason Iran and North Korea want to desperately and at all cost join the nuclear club. Then they force a whole new approach to external politics on the world. India is in the nuclear club. Now they are just working on better (more reliable) delivery mechanisms of those warheads. Now when it comes to asymmetrical warfare, reliable ground human intelligence + drones with rockets are probably most effective.
plinkplonk 17y ago
"Cruise missiles and military robots is where it's at. " I work on robotics for the Indian defence research folks and while most of it is classified, I can say that military robotics is a hell of a lot more advanced in India than people might think.
- rdtsc 17y ago
  But you would say the same thing if you worked for the Indian dis-information service ;-)
  - plinkplonk 17y ago
    "But you would say the same thing if you worked for the Indian dis-information service ;-)" How did you guess?? HN is high on the list of websites for the local intelligence services to spread disinformation ;-). All those hackers making policy decisions :-) Damn but you found me out now I need another id :-D
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]

bilbo0s 17y ago

I logged in just to say that, but you beat me to it. India and China are developing missile systems that can take out an American carrier in a single strike. Which, as a former marine who likes to blow stuff up, I think is really cool by the way. The problem is our response. We attempt to develop a laser that will kill these missiles inbound. All fine and dandy, IF it works, which I wouldn't stake my guys lives on. But that's not even the point. The point is . . . why not engage in a sober and deliberate SWOT evaluation of the carrier group itself. Is it still useful? I don't know, I am not an Admiral. But I really do get the feeling that General Officers in our military are addicted to big, complicated, and expensive systems. Do we really need these? Especially given that we are going bankrupt right now. It's almost as if the Social Security - Medicare people and the Military Industrial Complex really don't CARE that they are sinking us.

metamemetics 17y ago
They probably see the carrier\super-carrier group central to making America a military power, we have 20+ and only a few countries have 1. Since the new reactor in the Gerald Ford class generates over 3X the electricity as the current Nimitz, it seems destined to be an advanced weapons platform for expensive lasers\railguns\robots.
- Perceval 17y ago
  The U.S. only has 11 carrier groups: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/where.htm http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/where.htm One new one, the Gerald Ford, is in construction. You are right that other countries at best only have one carrier. And, as far as I know, no other country has a super-carrier. A normal aircraft carrier has a 40-50,000 ton displacement, whereas super-carriers have 90-100,000 ton displacement. All U.S. carrier are super-carriers, whereas other countries have only regular carriers.
  - metamemetics 17y ago
    I was including our light-carrier amphibious assault ships, as their deckspace is still larger than the largest carrier of most other countries. Great visual aide: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers.htm http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers.htm
  - rdtsc 17y ago
    How many torpedoes or cruise missiles would take to drown super-carrier?
    - rdtsc 17y ago
      Why is this downvoted? It is a valid question. If we spend hundreds of millions of dollars on something that can be taken down by one torpedo, we are doing something wrong. In a full blown WWIII, it would be worth wasting a couple of nuclear torpedoes to drawn some super carriers loaded with very expensive and vulnerable equipment. One such torpedo was almost lunched during the Cuban missile crisis. We should probably be grateful for this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasiliy_Arkhipov http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasiliy_Arkhipov) for stopping WWIII.

InclinedPlane 17y ago

I think you're mistaken. Cruise missiles, robots, and even nuclear weapons are a way to defend your home territory from other violent nation-states, perhaps at the cost of significant "enemy" civilian casualties. However, the nature of warfare is changing, if you look at the major conflicts in the last 20 years you see a lot more need for not just precision guided munitions hitting targets from afar but also smart, well-trained, well-equipped ground forces with the flexibility to respond to different situations. The entire Russian army was fought to a stand-still in Afghanistan and later also in Chechnya by much smaller, less well equipment forces using modern insurgent techniques. The "press a button to win a war" methodology only works in the modern age if you're willing to carpet bomb the enemy and any civilians who happen to get in the way (see the horrible civil war in Sri Lanka as an example). If you're not willing to do that then you'll need more than just CPU guided munitions.

marshallp 17y ago
I always thought this "urban warfare" stuff BS. At what point is it actually just law enforcement ? The problem with the russians in afghanistan and americans in iraq/afghanistan today is what exacty is the objective ? Technically the russians and americans won easily in the first few days. The rest of the time was just pretend warfare that should have been just called law enforcement. When you send soldiers to fight civilians you've already failed. There's nothing you can achieve except slaughter.
- derefr 17y ago
  "Soldier" vs "civilian" is a false dichotomy. In the middle, there's "militia", which you're a part of as soon as you pick up a weapon and start pushing back on the "law enforcement"'s encroachment upon your city.
  - marshallp 17y ago
    You could call that "militia" the local police department and pay them money to police that local population. If the hearts of a population are not with you, sending a military in is just barbaric. That battle can never be won.

rdtsc 17y ago

I think nuclear ICBM and MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is where it's at when it comes to large nation vs. nation conflicts. That is the reason Iran and North Korea want to desperately and at all cost join the nuclear club. Then they force a whole new approach to external politics on the world. India is in the nuclear club. Now they are just working on better (more reliable) delivery mechanisms of those warheads. Now when it comes to asymmetrical warfare, reliable ground human intelligence + drones with rockets are probably most effective.

plinkplonk 17y ago

"Cruise missiles and military robots is where it's at. " I work on robotics for the Indian defence research folks and while most of it is classified, I can say that military robotics is a hell of a lot more advanced in India than people might think.

rdtsc 17y ago
But you would say the same thing if you worked for the Indian dis-information service ;-)
- plinkplonk 17y ago
  "But you would say the same thing if you worked for the Indian dis-information service ;-)" How did you guess?? HN is high on the list of websites for the local intelligence services to spread disinformation ;-). All those hackers making policy decisions :-) Damn but you found me out now I need another id :-D
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]