4 ms·

"In some ways, new Navy computers fall short of the power of 1930s tech" [1] [1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/05/gears-of-war-when-mecha

"In some ways, new Navy computers fall short of the power of 1930s tech" [1] [1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/05/gears-of-war-when-mechanical-analog-computers-ruled-the-waves/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/05/gears...

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
I'm finding it very hard to believe that small machined metal parts have more accuracy than 64-bit floating point math, which has around 16 digits of precision. Of that you can't run fp fast enough on GHz hardware to model ship movements which run at a few tens of Hz at most. If you really want higher accuracy 128-bit and 256-bit fp formats are defined in IEEE-754.
- mannykannot 5y ago
  That subtitle is misleading: the actual claim being made is that the electromechanical fire control computers were more than precise and accurate enough for their purpose of firing long-range guns. The remaining inaccuracies were elsewhere in the process, and required guided munitions to improve upon. "...but take away the fancy GPS shells, and the AGS and its digital fire control system are no more accurate than mechanical analog technology that is nearly a century old."
- kayodelycaon 5y ago
  I think one of the big issues is there just isn't the need for accurate long-range fire from ship-board guns like there were in World War 2. The eletro-mechanical systems used on various warships during the war were accurate enough that other environment factors became more of a problem than the fire-control system. Improving on a system that was already the peak of performance is difficult. And this is made even more difficult when long-range gun accuracy is less of a concern because naval guns are no longer the only weapons available to a warship. Missiles have become so common and powerful that modern warships have little to no armor protection. Point-defense weapons like Phalanx are used instead. There is still a place for artillery, both naval and land-based. It's just a smaller role than it was a hundred years ago.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago

I'm finding it very hard to believe that small machined metal parts have more accuracy than 64-bit floating point math, which has around 16 digits of precision. Of that you can't run fp fast enough on GHz hardware to model ship movements which run at a few tens of Hz at most. If you really want higher accuracy 128-bit and 256-bit fp formats are defined in IEEE-754.

mannykannot 5y ago
That subtitle is misleading: the actual claim being made is that the electromechanical fire control computers were more than precise and accurate enough for their purpose of firing long-range guns. The remaining inaccuracies were elsewhere in the process, and required guided munitions to improve upon. "...but take away the fancy GPS shells, and the AGS and its digital fire control system are no more accurate than mechanical analog technology that is nearly a century old."
kayodelycaon 5y ago
I think one of the big issues is there just isn't the need for accurate long-range fire from ship-board guns like there were in World War 2. The eletro-mechanical systems used on various warships during the war were accurate enough that other environment factors became more of a problem than the fire-control system. Improving on a system that was already the peak of performance is difficult. And this is made even more difficult when long-range gun accuracy is less of a concern because naval guns are no longer the only weapons available to a warship. Missiles have become so common and powerful that modern warships have little to no armor protection. Point-defense weapons like Phalanx are used instead. There is still a place for artillery, both naval and land-based. It's just a smaller role than it was a hundred years ago.