4 ms·

The first operational beam weapons and rail guns really bring out in stark contrast that all a modern weapon system is, is the ability to reasonably safely stor

by JackFr 13y ago

The first operational beam weapons and rail guns really bring out in stark contrast that all a modern weapon system is, is the ability to reasonably safely store potential energy 'here' and accurately release it 'there', with hopefully catastrophic consequences. What railguns and beam weapons do, is weaponize nuclear reactors and gas turbines, reducing the need for propellants and explosives. While it's unlikely that this will allow the aircraft carrier to regain the place it once held, it seems likely in the future that massive power generation capability will become more and more important.

jug6ernaut 13y ago
> While it's unlikely that this will allow the aircraft carrier to regain the place it once held... Care to elaborate on this? I was under the impression aircraft carriers were still our best general purpose military tool? (wartime/peacetime/force projection/ect)
- div 13y ago
  Wikipedia has a good writeup of the Millenium Challenge 2002 wargames, where a large fleet was basically destroyed by assymetrical guerilla tactics (small boats, low tech communication): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
  - maxerickson 13y ago
    Don't forget the cruise missiles. (both for the Millennium Challenge wargames and as a general equalizer of sea power)
- macavity23 13y ago
  They're great against a low-tech adversary, but against serious ballistic or (some) cruise missiles, they're just slowly-moving seaborne apartment blocks. Good writeup here: http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/ http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carrier...
  - csense 13y ago
    This is really informative. You should submit it.
    - macavity23 13y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=547596 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=547596 - should probably have searched before posting original link :)
- JackFr 13y ago
  Admittedly, I have no special expertise. My understanding is that while for certain kinds of force projection, they are the only game in town, they are such a rich, fat target, a larger and larger portion of their operation (in terms of manpower, arms and electronics) gets devoted to defending the carrier, and this squeezes out the force projection capability. I believe the cost of production of an aircraft carrier is around $12 billion, and I'm not sure if that includes the ~$1 billion worth of aircraft on board.
bunderbunder 13y ago
> while it's unlikely that this will allow the aircraft carrier to regain the place it once held The very first thing I thought after all that waxing poetic about destroying a $2M missile with a $20,000 slug was, "OK, now what happens if the enemy launches a couple missiles at the same time?" And heck, while we're at it you probably don't need such sophisticated guidance equipment if you aren't perching all your eggs on top of one rocket. . . so can this thing achieve a high enough rate of fire to put even a tiny little dent in a large salvo of cheap missiles?

by JackFr 13y ago

jug6ernaut 13y ago

> While it's unlikely that this will allow the aircraft carrier to regain the place it once held... Care to elaborate on this? I was under the impression aircraft carriers were still our best general purpose military tool? (wartime/peacetime/force projection/ect)

div 13y ago
Wikipedia has a good writeup of the Millenium Challenge 2002 wargames, where a large fleet was basically destroyed by assymetrical guerilla tactics (small boats, low tech communication): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
- maxerickson 13y ago
  Don't forget the cruise missiles. (both for the Millennium Challenge wargames and as a general equalizer of sea power)
macavity23 13y ago
They're great against a low-tech adversary, but against serious ballistic or (some) cruise missiles, they're just slowly-moving seaborne apartment blocks. Good writeup here: http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/ http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carrier...
- csense 13y ago
  This is really informative. You should submit it.
  - macavity23 13y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=547596 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=547596 - should probably have searched before posting original link :)
JackFr 13y ago
Admittedly, I have no special expertise. My understanding is that while for certain kinds of force projection, they are the only game in town, they are such a rich, fat target, a larger and larger portion of their operation (in terms of manpower, arms and electronics) gets devoted to defending the carrier, and this squeezes out the force projection capability. I believe the cost of production of an aircraft carrier is around $12 billion, and I'm not sure if that includes the ~$1 billion worth of aircraft on board.

bunderbunder 13y ago

> while it's unlikely that this will allow the aircraft carrier to regain the place it once held The very first thing I thought after all that waxing poetic about destroying a $2M missile with a $20,000 slug was, "OK, now what happens if the enemy launches a couple missiles at the same time?" And heck, while we're at it you probably don't need such sophisticated guidance equipment if you aren't perching all your eggs on top of one rocket. . . so can this thing achieve a high enough rate of fire to put even a tiny little dent in a large salvo of cheap missiles?