Apparently People Whine that SC's are OP'd in RL

[illectro]

US Navy demos a wimpy 15kW laser setting fire to a target at sea
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/11/onr_mld_boat_burn/

The article contains a quote that could almost fit into any Eve balance thread, with some strategic substitutions.


Such technologies might one day see the aircraft carrier dethroned as queen of the seas, and the big-gun dreadnought - now armed with railguns rather than massive 15-inch rifles, and armoured by lasers rather than feet-thick steel plates - restored once more to its lost dominion over the waves.

It's almost like eve is Real or something

[Virtuozzo]

US Navy demos a wimpy 15kW laser setting fire to a target at sea
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/11/onr_mld_boat_burn/

The article contains a quote that could almost fit into any Eve balance thread, with some strategic substitutions.


Such technologies might one day see the aircraft carrier dethroned as queen of the seas, and the big-gun dreadnought - now armed with railguns rather than massive 15-inch rifles, and armoured by lasers rather than feet-thick steel plates - restored once more to its lost dominion over the waves.

It's almost like eve is Real or something

Send to CCP's marketing 8-)

[V]

Finally, after years of research, the US Navy has found a weapon against the mightiest of all ships, the king of the seas!

YEH TAKE THAT MIGHTY ZODIAC! YOU ARE NOT GOING ANYWHERE YEHA!

[Vando]

nerf revs

[Bartholomeus Crane]

What a joke, by the time that "lazor" has done more than meld some plastic some guy from the crew has thrown a bucket of water over it. Lasers are in practice practically useless as an offensive weapon, one simple smokescreen and there you are, perfectly safe. This is just a waste of money ...

[Lorkin Desal]

Depends on the laser, surely. If it was such a high intensity would it not just burn away the smoke that got in its way?

[teds]

What a joke, by the time that "lazor" has done more than meld some plastic some guy from the crew has thrown a bucket of water over it. Lasers are in practice practically useless as an offensive weapon, one simple smokescreen and there you are, perfectly safe. This is just a waste of money ...

maybe you missed the bit where this was a test? and also maybe the bit in the article (most of the article) where it went into its uses in ship defence?

obligatory US is Amarr post.

[Rake Mizar]

Finally, after years of research, the US Navy has found a weapon against the mightiest of all ships, the king of the seas!

YEH TAKE THAT MIGHTY ZODIAC! YOU ARE NOT GOING ANYWHERE YEHA!

In before mirror plated Somalian zodiacs take over the world.

[Sigvald]

What a joke, by the time that "lazor" has done more than meld some plastic some guy from the crew has thrown a bucket of water over it. Lasers are in practice practically useless as an offensive weapon, one simple smokescreen and there you are, perfectly safe. This is just a waste of money ...
As a noted internet spaceship player, I think I'm more qualified than actual scientists, as such I

[TimMc]

Was watching the video think "erm couldn't they just fire an artillery shell and blow the thing up a million times quicker?", then read this:


Future 100kW+ raygun turrets might zap incoming shells or missiles out of the air, hitting with lightspeed precision as soon as the target rose above the horizon.
Far more practical (and cool) application, point defense turrets.

[RoemySchneider]

surely, defender missiles still work?

[walrus]

sounds expensive :\

[Loire]

surely, defender missiles still work?

I would assume lasers are more cost effective.

[Loire]

surely, defender missiles still work?

I would assume lasers are more cost effective.

e.: In the long run.

[Rudolf Miller]

nerf lasers buff missiles

[teds]

lasers being fitted instead of bonused AC's rabblerabble

[Mashie Saldana]

CCP, please replace defender missiles with laser point defences.

[teds]

awww i can imagine a strobe-drake now

i want one.

[Pattern]

Awaits the law suit from a blinded pirate.

[BuRniZZ]

Is it cap stable though?

[teds]

cap stability is overrated

[EntroX]

now we need colors.

[Devec]

cap stability is overrated

Every laser fitted seaship should have a heavy capacitor injector as it has enough cargo-hold due to not needing ammo.

[Evelgrivion]

What a joke, by the time that "lazor" has done more than meld some plastic some guy from the crew has thrown a bucket of water over it. Lasers are in practice practically useless as an offensive weapon, one simple smokescreen and there you are, perfectly safe. This is just a waste of money ...

You do know this is a project that is building up to a 1 megawatt Free Electron Laser that is expected to be operational and in service within a decade, right?

A FEL at that power level is calculated to be able to slice through steel at a mind boggling 2,000 feet per second. A weaponized free electron laser could literally be swept across the hull of an enemy ship to slice it two.

[Shiroi Okami]

What a joke, by the time that "lazor" has done more than meld some plastic some guy from the crew has thrown a bucket of water over it. Lasers are in practice practically useless as an offensive weapon, one simple smokescreen and there you are, perfectly safe. This is just a waste of money ...

You obviously haven't seen the video where a 747 with a nose mounted swivel laser destroys an ICBM with a 3 second laser pulse. It's an excellent defensive weapon, it's not designed to wipe out armadas of ships

[Bartholomeus Crane]

[quote="Bartholomeus Crane":3eqkk797]What a joke, by the time that "lazor" has done more than meld some plastic some guy from the crew has thrown a bucket of water over it. Lasers are in practice practically useless as an offensive weapon, one simple smokescreen and there you are, perfectly safe. This is just a waste of money ...

You obviously haven't seen the video where a 747 with a nose mounted swivel laser destroys an ICBM with a 3 second laser pulse. It's an excellent defensive weapon, it's not designed to wipe out armadas of ships[/quote:3eqkk797]

A lazer is not an 'over the horizon' weapon, and that 747 that so much hubbub is made about? It can't shoot what it can't see, it doesn't work in cloud cover, it doesn't work when it's raining, is doesn't work actually in many circumstances when other weapon systems already available work just fine and for much less operating money and resources. It's a very expensive boondoggle that's only being developed because the US military budget is hideously bloated from the pork barrel buffet. And those magic lazers that can do everything? They have been in development since the Star Wars programs under Regan and none have worked anywhere close to what was promised and yet the US military just won't give it up. A lazer on a ship, at sea, which is a very unstable platform in any case, even though a lazer needs near infinite accuracy, and where there are massive amounts of water, mist, low clouds around almost all the time, and where the enemy can create even more obstacles with trivial expenses? It's a billion dollar boondoggle that will never live up to its expectations. How many decades of wasted research funding is needed for the US military industrial complex to finally admit it?

[phpBB:CriticalError]

[quote="Shiroi Okami":381acjci][quote="Bartholomeus Crane":381acjci]What a joke, by the time that "lazor" has done more than meld some plastic some guy from the crew has thrown a bucket of water over it. Lasers are in practice practically useless as an offensive weapon, one simple smokescreen and there you are, perfectly safe. This is just a waste of money ...

You obviously haven't seen the video where a 747 with a nose mounted swivel laser destroys an ICBM with a 3 second laser pulse. It's an excellent defensive weapon, it's not designed to wipe out armadas of ships[/quote:381acjci]

A lazer is not an 'over the horizon' weapon, and that 747 that so much hubbub is made about? It can't shoot what it can't see, it doesn't work in cloud cover, it doesn't work when it's raining, is doesn't work actually in many circumstances when other weapon systems already available work just fine and for much less operating money and resources. It's a very expensive boondoggle that's only being developed because the US military budget is hideously bloated from the pork barrel buffet. And those magic lazers that can do everything? They have been in development since the Star Wars programs under Regan and none have worked anywhere close to what was promised and yet the US military just won't give it up. A lazer on a ship, at sea, which is a very unstable platform in any case, even though a lazer needs near infinite accuracy, and where there are massive amounts of water, mist, low clouds around almost all the time, and where the enemy can create even more obstacles with trivial expenses? It's a billion dollar boondoggle that will never live up to its expectations. How many decades of wasted research funding is needed for the US military industrial complex to finally admit it?[/quote:381acjci]

but it looks cool

[Bartholomeus Crane]

[quote="Bartholomeus Crane":1xcz2m8q][quote="Shiroi Okami":1xcz2m8q][quote="Bartholomeus Crane":1xcz2m8q]What a joke, by the time that "lazor" has done more than meld some plastic some guy from the crew has thrown a bucket of water over it. Lasers are in practice practically useless as an offensive weapon, one simple smokescreen and there you are, perfectly safe. This is just a waste of money ...

You obviously haven't seen the video where a 747 with a nose mounted swivel laser destroys an ICBM with a 3 second laser pulse. It's an excellent defensive weapon, it's not designed to wipe out armadas of ships[/quote:1xcz2m8q]

A lazer is not an 'over the horizon' weapon, and that 747 that so much hubbub is made about? It can't shoot what it can't see, it doesn't work in cloud cover, it doesn't work when it's raining, is doesn't work actually in many circumstances when other weapon systems already available work just fine and for much less operating money and resources. It's a very expensive boondoggle that's only being developed because the US military budget is hideously bloated from the pork barrel buffet. And those magic lazers that can do everything? They have been in development since the Star Wars programs under Regan and none have worked anywhere close to what was promised and yet the US military just won't give it up. A lazer on a ship, at sea, which is a very unstable platform in any case, even though a lazer needs near infinite accuracy, and where there are massive amounts of water, mist, low clouds around almost all the time, and where the enemy can create even more obstacles with trivial expenses? It's a billion dollar boondoggle that will never live up to its expectations. How many decades of wasted research funding is needed for the US military industrial complex to finally admit it?[/quote:1xcz2m8q]

but it looks cool[/quote:1xcz2m8q]

I thought it looked rather silly really, a bit of lens-glare and a minor fire after an age of waiting. If you want to see something that's cool, check out the railgun video.

[TimMc]

only being developed because the US military budget is hideously bloated from the pork barrel buffet.

The truth lol.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7a/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png

[Bartholomeus Crane]

The 2009 U.S. military budget accounts for approximately 40% of global arms spending and is over six times larger than the military budget of China (compared at the nominal US dollar / Renminbi rate, not the PPP rate). The United States and its close allies are responsible for two-thirds to three-quarters of the world's military spending (of which, in turn, the U.S. is responsible for the majority).


Pork barrel buffet I says ...

[equak]

What a joke, by the time that "lazor" has done more than meld some plastic some guy from the crew has thrown a bucket of water over it. Lasers are in practice practically useless as an offensive weapon, one simple smokescreen and there you are, perfectly safe. This is just a waste of money ...

You do know this is a project that is building up to a 1 megawatt Free Electron Laser that is expected to be operational and in service within a decade, right?

A FEL at that power level is calculated to be able to slice through steel at a mind boggling 2,000 feet per second. A weaponized free electron laser could literally be swept across the hull of an enemy ship to slice it two.

They're gonna put a FEL on a ship? lol, what the hell, you need a really big electron accelerator for that. To fire continuously they'd need a damn synchrotron.

That's both funny and sad. Over here we're begging for funds to build things like that for research purposes, and then the military gets way more funding for the same thing just to try to kill people. Great.

[Joshua Foiritain]

What a joke, by the time that "lazor" has done more than meld some plastic some guy from the crew has thrown a bucket of water over it. Lasers are in practice practically useless as an offensive weapon, one simple smokescreen and there you are, perfectly safe. This is just a waste of money ...

You do know this is a project that is building up to a 1 megawatt Free Electron Laser that is expected to be operational and in service within a decade, right?

A FEL at that power level is calculated to be able to slice through steel at a mind boggling 2,000 feet per second. A weaponized free electron laser could literally be swept across the hull of an enemy ship to slice it two.

They're gonna put a FEL on a ship? lol, what the hell, you need a really big electron accelerator for that. To fire continuously they'd need a damn synchrotron.

That's both funny and sad. Over here we're begging for funds to build things like that for research purposes, and then the military gets way more funding for the same thing just to try to kill people. Great.
Killing people is more important than science as you can just steal the science of the people you killed.

[Al Simmons]

http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die

[evil edna]

surely its cheaper to just strap some semtex to an impressionable kid?

muslims know all about value for money

[Pattern]

It can't shoot what it can't see, it doesn't work in cloud cover, it doesn't work when it's raining
Don't planes fly above clouds and stuff?
:nostradamus:

[Shiroi Okami]

[quote="Shiroi Okami":3b1zj1jc][quote="Bartholomeus Crane":3b1zj1jc]What a joke, by the time that "lazor" has done more than meld some plastic some guy from the crew has thrown a bucket of water over it. Lasers are in practice practically useless as an offensive weapon, one simple smokescreen and there you are, perfectly safe. This is just a waste of money ...

You obviously haven't seen the video where a 747 with a nose mounted swivel laser destroys an ICBM with a 3 second laser pulse. It's an excellent defensive weapon, it's not designed to wipe out armadas of ships[/quote:3b1zj1jc]

A lazer is not an 'over the horizon' weapon, and that 747 that so much hubbub is made about? It can't shoot what it can't see, it doesn't work in cloud cover, it doesn't work when it's raining, is doesn't work actually in many circumstances when other weapon systems already available work just fine and for much less operating money and resources. It's a very expensive boondoggle that's only being developed because the US military budget is hideously bloated from the pork barrel buffet. And those magic lazers that can do everything? They have been in development since the Star Wars programs under Regan and none have worked anywhere close to what was promised and yet the US military just won't give it up. A lazer on a ship, at sea, which is a very unstable platform in any case, even though a lazer needs near infinite accuracy, and where there are massive amounts of water, mist, low clouds around almost all the time, and where the enemy can create even more obstacles with trivial expenses? It's a billion dollar boondoggle that will never live up to its expectations. How many decades of wasted research funding is needed for the US military industrial complex to finally admit it?[/quote:3b1zj1jc]

I heard theres a lot of rain and cloud cover at 40000ft.

And it's effective range is about 200km. When you can track an imcoming missile hours before it gets near its target and intercept it, I'd say its a damn sight better solution than the current anti-nukes which are just miniature nukes themselves, and cause horrendous damage with the subsequent EMP

[spm1138]

Carriers are all about over the horizon force projection (which you don't have in space, hence space aircraft carriers and fighters are a vaguelly redundant idea but whatever they look cool) which pew pew lasers do not do. Lasers are as direct fire as they come. If anything this idea actually helps carriers by being a really effective antimissile weapon system.

That fancy new railgun artillery stuff might be useful for force projection (but so were battleship guns which they retired). Carrierborne drones are probably even more relevant.

Sort of unrelated but knocking down a missile in the boost phase (big hot thing full of burning fuel) is relatively simple.

Doesn't really work for mid-course or after the missile breaks up into MIRVs/MARVs. Those are much more difficult things to achieve. I think the current US midcourse interceptor project is supposed to possibly be able to knock down one or two ICBMs from a third world nation.

[Pelias]

What a joke, by the time that "lazor" has done more than meld some plastic some guy from the crew has thrown a bucket of water over it. Lasers are in practice practically useless as an offensive weapon, one simple smokescreen and there you are, perfectly safe. This is just a waste of money ...

WTB: Reading comprehension.

Lazorzz is defense (anti-missile) weapon and it makes perfect sense as such.

Call me when your Harpoons will be able to deploy smokescreens in forward direction:P

[Jester]

You guys are missing the big picture here.

Somewhere, walking in Somalia right now, is the first man in history who's going to have his nuts set on fire from four miles away.

That thought alone makes me smile.

"We tried shooting you bastards in the head... but you still wouldn't learn..."

[Bartholomeus Crane]

Not to be rude or anything, but the BrahMos II has been lab tested to fly at 5.3 Mach, at low level. Before you can warm up, aim, and fire your lazor, you ship is dead in the water. The same if that lazor is fitted in a aircraft BTW. Tracking a flying object with pin-point accuracy at 5.3 Mach, hell, even at 2.8 to 3.0 Mach for the BrahMos I, it's just not possible. Certainly not if you take into account that at those speeds you have to hit that target a long range or you're already done for. At that point, any, and I do mean, any atmospheric disturbance, will disperse the beam with no possibility to estimate the divergence. And that's not even considering that the horizon at sea-level is far shorter than what is required to catch these missiles before they hit you. In fact, there are very few weapon system that can catch this missile. Standard missile defence missiles don't really work (they were designed to catch subsonic missiles like the harpoon, or faster missiles on an easy to predict path high up in the air (parabolics)), short range radar guided point defence doesn't do the trick, the only thing that may be effective is area of effect weaponry, but even that is dodgy.

So basically, there are already weapons out there for which this boondoggle won't be a counter for at least the next 10 years, probably forever. It's a waste of money.

[Keorythe]

What a joke, by the time that "lazor" has done more than meld some plastic some guy from the crew has thrown a bucket of water over it. Lasers are in practice practically useless as an offensive weapon, one simple smokescreen and there you are, perfectly safe. This is just a waste of money ...

WTB: Reading comprehension.

Lazorzz is defense (anti-missile) weapon and it makes perfect sense as such.

Call me when your Harpoons will be able to deploy smokescreens in forward direction:P

Pretty much this. Israeli's are already using them to knock mortars and unguided missiles out of the skies. An extended range laser would be able to engage anti-ship missiles are far greater distances than current Phalanx or RAM anti-missile missiles. It could also possibly act as a secondary weapon which would be of use to smaller ships like Frigates or Destroyers which currently run CIWS but engage surface contacts within at above horizon ranges regularly.


Tracking a flying object with pin-point accuracy at 5.3 Mach, hell, even at 2.8 to 3.0 Mach for the BrahMos I, it's just not possible.

BrahMos series doesn't incorporate any zigzag maneuvers like it lighter cousins due to it's weight. Once acquired, it's coming at you in a straight line with minor course corrections. Lasers don't need to compute for ballistic trajectory tungsten rounds like a CIWS. Currently a RAM can already engage a BrahMos.

[teds]

Not to be rude or anything, but the BrahMos II has been lab tested to fly at 5.3 Mach, at low level. Before you can warm up, aim, and fire your lazor, you ship is dead in the water. The same if that lazor is fitted in a aircraft BTW. Tracking a flying object with pin-point accuracy at 5.3 Mach, hell, even at 2.8 to 3.0 Mach for the BrahMos I, it's just not possible. Certainly not if you take into account that at those speeds you have to hit that target a long range or you're already done for. At that point, any, and I do mean, any atmospheric disturbance, will disperse the beam with no possibility to estimate the divergence. And that's not even considering that the horizon at sea-level is far shorter than what is required to catch these missiles before they hit you. In fact, there are very few weapon system that can catch this missile. Standard missile defence missiles don't really work (they were designed to catch subsonic missiles like the harpoon, or faster missiles on an easy to predict path high up in the air (parabolics)), short range radar guided point defence doesn't do the trick, the only thing that may be effective is area of effect weaponry, but even that is dodgy.

So basically, there are already weapons out there for which this boondoggle won't be a counter for at least the next 10 years, probably forever. It's a waste of money.

[ ] care
[x] don't care

its a fucking lazer, on a ship. that shoots stuff. chillax and put the massive posts away

[Reed Tiburon]

Not to be rude or anything, but the BrahMos II has been lab tested to fly at 5.3 Mach, at low level. Before you can warm up, aim, and fire your lazor, you ship is dead in the water. The same if that lazor is fitted in a aircraft BTW. Tracking a flying object with pin-point accuracy at 5.3 Mach, hell, even at 2.8 to 3.0 Mach for the BrahMos I, it's just not possible. Certainly not if you take into account that at those speeds you have to hit that target a long range or you're already done for. At that point, any, and I do mean, any atmospheric disturbance, will disperse the beam with no possibility to estimate the divergence. And that's not even considering that the horizon at sea-level is far shorter than what is required to catch these missiles before they hit you. In fact, there are very few weapon system that can catch this missile. Standard missile defence missiles don't really work (they were designed to catch subsonic missiles like the harpoon, or faster missiles on an easy to predict path high up in the air (parabolics)), short range radar guided point defence doesn't do the trick, the only thing that may be effective is area of effect weaponry, but even that is dodgy.

So basically, there are already weapons out there for which this boondoggle won't be a counter for at least the next 10 years, probably forever. It's a waste of money.

Ding ding ding.

http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/

/thread

[teds]

dude, your sig

[Reed Tiburon]

dude, your sig

8-)

(is a placeholder, but i lol'd)

[EntroX]

dude, your sig

8-)

(is a placeholder, but i lol'd)

dude, your sig - seriously.

[Jester]

Ding ding ding.

http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/
Heh. Spend more time in defense appropriations. That USNI report is nothing more than a negotiating tactic for continued upgrades and funding to AEGIS ballistic missile tracking and interception systems.

A few decades ago, it was Backfire bombers that were going to turn carriers into scrap metal and against which carriers had absolutely no defense. There were similar USNI reports that proved it. That in turn led to funding and research for Phoenix missiles, and a whole lot of defense-related jobs, industries, and monies. This is no different.

[Reed Tiburon]

Ding ding ding.

http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/
Heh. Spend more time in defense appropriations. That USNI report is nothing more than a negotiating tactic for continued upgrades and funding to AEGIS ballistic missile tracking and interception systems.

A few decades ago, it was Backfire bombers that were going to turn carriers into scrap metal and against which carriers had absolutely no defense. There were similar USNI reports that proved it. That in turn led to funding and research for Phoenix missiles, and a whole lot of defense-related jobs, industries, and monies. This is no different.

and how bout these then..

http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php ... LOCK_ID=35 (http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=6779&IBLOCK_ID=35)
http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php ... LOCK_ID=35 (http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=15976&IBLOCK_ID=35)

(brb changing sig)

[Keorythe]

[quote="Reed Tiburon":22syz7t8]Ding ding ding.

http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/
Heh. Spend more time in defense appropriations. That USNI report is nothing more than a negotiating tactic for continued upgrades and funding to AEGIS ballistic missile tracking and interception systems.

A few decades ago, it was Backfire bombers that were going to turn carriers into scrap metal and against which carriers had absolutely no defense. There were similar USNI reports that proved it. That in turn led to funding and research for Phoenix missiles, and a whole lot of defense-related jobs, industries, and monies. This is no different.

and how bout these then..

http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php ... LOCK_ID=35 (http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=6779&IBLOCK_ID=35)
http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php ... LOCK_ID=35 (http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=15976&IBLOCK_ID=35)

(brb changing sig)[/quote:22syz7t8]

Quiet literally, it was like a D&D board game and the carrier commander failed his rolls (attacks based on probability no joke). OpFor had instant comms despite using runners, had speedboats and planes that walked through the iron ring of destroyers and cruisers that carrier fleets move through (due to ROE's), while having pinpoint accuracy on where the carrier group was at all times. It brought up a lot of vulnerabilities but ultimately the game was kind of a fluke.

Try to take War Nerd's analysis with a grain of salt. He's quick to point out if he's close to being right but will never admit he was far off and tends to embellish. Maybe he's not old enough to remember that the Persian Gulf was mined at one time or the ass kicking that Iranians took for doing it.

His poor twist on things failed to mention that the Iranians never passed the CAS/CSS interdiction zone. He didn't mention that 17 were detected, 1 found the group, 4 others were able to join while the rest headed home, then left shortly afterwards presumably due to fuel. He also didn't mention that every single one of those cigar boats was bracketed and poised to be obliterated if they got too close. The whole incident has been played over in other scenarios since and has been a reoccurring theme. Hence why every frigate and destroyer had fitted their M2 .50 sideboard mounts and spun up their 25mm's. Had any of the cigar boats passed the zone or turned towards the ships they would have been matchsticks.

Once again it came down to ROE's, not so much capability. It's pretty much a one time thing though as afterwards any unidentified aircraft or ship would be shoot on sight.

[Jester]

Yeah, Keorythe is right. That said... that scenario is a lot more likely than the ballistic missile scenario, yeah.

That's the USS COLE nightmare scenario, in fact. U.S. military ROE doesn't allow a "shoot first" strategy that would make this tactic worthless. During MC02, Riper used that to his advantage by buzzing the CBG with large numbers of small civilian aircraft before launching virtually every surface-to-surface missile he had (most of them intended for use against land targets, not sea targets) under their cover. From what I understand, the issue was exacerbated by a previously-unknown bug in the AEGIS tracking systems of the screen ships: when overwhelmed with large numbers of targets, the package management software used during the exercise had itself a little sulk and refused to engage any of them. The exercise judges ruled the tactic successful and scored full damage for every missile. Would that bug have actually happened IRL? Would the missiles all have scored full damage IRL? Who knows.

But even if you say "yes" to both, the "Rifter swarm" ( ;) ) is only going to work on one carrier, not all of them.

[Al Simmons]

[quote="Bartholomeus Crane":1zlpjgn0]Not to be rude or anything, but the BrahMos II has been lab tested to fly at 5.3 Mach, at low level. Before you can warm up, aim, and fire your lazor, you ship is dead in the water. The same if that lazor is fitted in a aircraft BTW. Tracking a flying object with pin-point accuracy at 5.3 Mach, hell, even at 2.8 to 3.0 Mach for the BrahMos I, it's just not possible. Certainly not if you take into account that at those speeds you have to hit that target a long range or you're already done for. At that point, any, and I do mean, any atmospheric disturbance, will disperse the beam with no possibility to estimate the divergence. And that's not even considering that the horizon at sea-level is far shorter than what is required to catch these missiles before they hit you. In fact, there are very few weapon system that can catch this missile. Standard missile defence missiles don't really work (they were designed to catch subsonic missiles like the harpoon, or faster missiles on an easy to predict path high up in the air (parabolics)), short range radar guided point defence doesn't do the trick, the only thing that may be effective is area of effect weaponry, but even that is dodgy.

So basically, there are already weapons out there for which this boondoggle won't be a counter for at least the next 10 years, probably forever. It's a waste of money.

Ding ding ding.

http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/

/thread[/quote:1zlpjgn0]

I linked that on the previous page. :evil:

[Bartholomeus Crane]

[quote="Reed Tiburon":f700lic0]Ding ding ding.

http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/
Heh. Spend more time in defense appropriations. That USNI report is nothing more than a negotiating tactic for continued upgrades and funding to AEGIS ballistic missile tracking and interception systems.

A few decades ago, it was Backfire bombers that were going to turn carriers into scrap metal and against which carriers had absolutely no defense. There were similar USNI reports that proved it. That in turn led to funding and research for Phoenix missiles, and a whole lot of defense-related jobs, industries, and monies. This is no different.

and how bout these then..

http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php ... LOCK_ID=35 (http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=6779&IBLOCK_ID=35)
http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php ... LOCK_ID=35 (http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=15976&IBLOCK_ID=35)

(brb changing sig)

Quiet literally, it was like a D&D board game and the carrier commander failed his rolls (attacks based on probability no joke). OpFor had instant comms despite using runners, had speedboats and planes that walked through the iron ring of destroyers and cruisers that carrier fleets move through (due to ROE's), while having pinpoint accuracy on where the carrier group was at all times. It brought up a lot of vulnerabilities but ultimately the game was kind of a fluke.

Try to take War Nerd's analysis with a grain of salt. He's quick to point out if he's close to being right but will never admit he was far off and tends to embellish. Maybe he's not old enough to remember that the Persian Gulf was mined at one time or the ass kicking that Iranians took for doing it.

His poor twist on things failed to mention that the Iranians never passed the CAS/CSS interdiction zone. He didn't mention that 17 were detected, 1 found the group, 4 others were able to join while the rest headed home, then left shortly afterwards presumably due to fuel. He also didn't mention that every single one of those cigar boats was bracketed and poised to be obliterated if they got too close. The whole incident has been played over in other scenarios since and has been a reoccurring theme. Hence why every frigate and destroyer had fitted their M2 .50 sideboard mounts and spun up their 25mm's. Had any of the cigar boats passed the zone or turned towards the ships they would have been matchsticks.

Once again it came down to ROE's, not so much capability. It's pretty much a one time thing though as afterwards any unidentified aircraft or ship would be shoot on sight.[/quote:f700lic0]

Yes, War Nerd, as he is won't to do, overstates his case, again. But there is a kernel of truth behind all the hubbub. The Aegis system, do add a level of protection against ballistic missile attack. But with the new supersonic missiles like the BrahMos, and certainly the BrahMos II, that level of protection is patchy at best. And in a massed attack, the system can't cope. You call it a D&D game with dice rolling, and that's an apt comparison because the chances of any of the earlier missiles getting through was so very low. We'll never know the exact percentages of that happening with these new missiles, but where the chance was non-zero before, they are much higher now. This isn't some rip-off Douchet analogy, but with much less missiles now, one is going to get through, and then it's 'scratch one flattop'.

This isn't about cigar boats or things like that, this is about the US, and basically every navy on the globe, having insufficient counters against this new generation of missiles. This is the same armsrace as it always was and that is just the way it is. But this was about 'lazzors', and whether they would ever be a better counter. I don't think ever will, and thus a waste of money. It may look good, sound exciting, but that's not enough in this case. In this case, it's just a waste of money.

All the talk about whether China, Russia, or India for that matter, would never try to launch an assault like that is immaterial. The Russians had the Backfire bomber with the Kent/Raduga Kh-55 for years, but never used them. But as far as I know, even after Aegis, war games showed that a massed attack by Backfire bombers with the Kent, on an aircraft carrier group in the North Atlantic, at that time, would have meant the loss of that flattop, with little losses (except for expenses) to the Russians. The only counter was a preemptive strike, or keeping a 3000km safety zone around the carrier group, which were non-options. The Exocets in the Falklands were not the only reason things like the goalkeeper system was developed and introduced. The option was on the table, and that is what weapons development is about: giving options.

The problem is that goalkeeper, Aegis, you name it, are no, or poor counters against the new generation of supersonic or hypersonic standoff missiles, and Russia and India are leading the charge there, not the US. And in missile defence, the US is wasting money on 'lazzors' that will probably never work or come far too late to make a difference (you think the Russians and Indians will stop developing missiles? The Russians alone have had a very effective and efficient anti-ship missile program since at least the 70ies! They are doing away with their flattops because they are concentrating on missile ships (in a haphazard way, but still)). Flattops still have their place in the US arsenal of weapons, but even the ones currently developed have become increasingly vulnerable to this type of attack, and the US is wasting money on stuff that doesn't do anything against it. The US needs flattops to project it's naval power because it is surrounded by sea, but adding a dozen or so picket ships against standoff missile attack around it makes it a pretty inefficient way of doing so. At one point, if the US wants to keep having flattops around (instead of concentrating on a landbased alternative) it needs to stop wasting money on Star Wars pipe-dreams and get back into the missile or missile defence race. Otherwise those flattops are basically liabilities more than anything else.

[teds]

its a lazer

on a fucking boat

why does this awesome need to be diluted with 'wont work wall of text'?

[Mike deVoid]

Srs bsns

[Bollox Reader]

Frankly, I don't care whether these things are effective at keeping the Navy safe. What I'm more interested in is, here's something that might be practical in space.

2,000 feet per second? I'm imagining space rocks being carved up or vaporized bit by bit.

Developing this is GOOD, whether it's good or not at shooting down crap that won't be fired at us in my lifetime.

[Soarer]

When was the last time someone even took a shot at a carrier?

[Rupert]

Bart is literally the most negative person on the entire interwebs..... dudes on death row are more positive than you.

You seem like the kind of guy that would critique the technique of a girl giving you a blowjob.

[Herschel Yamamoto]

The 2009 U.S. military budget accounts for approximately 40% of global arms spending and is over six times larger than the military budget of China (compared at the nominal US dollar / Renminbi rate, not the PPP rate). The United States and its close allies are responsible for two-thirds to three-quarters of the world's military spending (of which, in turn, the U.S. is responsible for the majority).


Pork barrel buffet I says ...

It's almost like the US is the world's policeman or something.

[Bartholomeus Crane]

Bart is literally the most negative person on the entire interwebs..... dudes on death row are more positive than you.

You seem like the kind of guy that would critique the technique of a girl giving you a blowjob.

Don't forget bitter, I'm also very bitter apparently ...

[Lusulpher]

its a lazer

on a fucking boat

why does this awesome need to be diluted with 'wont work wall of text'?

Because RLships are srs bns.




I'm super-cereal. VERY Expensive boats are being targeted by Rifter blobs and Mach3 DD arrows. This laser is proposed as a super-anti DD shield...
And rational people say, we are 20 years ahead of everyone else, we spend far too much maintaining a Cold War, when we can't repair our roads and bridges. And they want money to build another weapon?? A weapon that never repays for it's investment?[no one attacks the country with a fucking lazoronaplane, so you "can't" invade them for oil/Walmart slaves].

It's all so stupid.

Lusulpher's plan for Great Success:
Give every country nukes and a video on what happens if you use them. [Spoiler: Nobody wins ANYTHING.]
Everyone makes sure they never go to war.
People build spaceships.
Realize it as next arms race.
Some asteroid colonies survive Humanity's stupidity when they finally nuke Earth, Moon and Mars.
Build colony ships and move to other planets, finally engineering their children to never forget what weapons development is really hiding.
Fear dies alonely death.
Space Socialists Forever. \:twisted: /

An ubermensch can dream... :nostradamus:

tl;dr: Nerf Supercap stockpiling with stack penalizing Sov taxes

[noobcake]

alot of self-proclaimed nuclear and laser physicists ITT :psyduck:

edit: i rather enjoy watching Barth play the role of "i know so much more about the world and everything in it than you"...it smacks of ignorance

[Lusulpher]

alot of self-proclaimed nuclear and laser physicists ITT :psyduck:

edit: i rather enjoy watching Barth play the role of "i know so much more about the world and everything in it than you"...it smacks of ignorance

And here you contribute nothing, yet again...you keep being noobcake, noobcake. o7

nice comment from that link:
"I think that is why the Chinese, despite all their financial muscle haven’t bought up a carrier or three with spare change from anyone willing to sell (aka Russians). Also why the Soviets were probably not great fans of the carrier battle group strategy during the Cold War and are now selling their carriers on the cheap to gullible idiots in the Indian Navy (who are burning up money building a carrier instead of half a dozen nuke subs and 50 conventional ones)."

The superpowers know that it's an obsolete status symbol. Like a knight in a shiny suit of armour, in a world with crossbows.[Catholic Church excommunicated you if you used a crossbow lolconservativehideinashellfaggots]

[noobcake]

i wont offer anything to a conversation on a topic i know nothing about...

You guys can continue on with your "i read articles about it on the internet so i know everything about this topic" rants though. It's keeping most of us entertained

[Tekedo]

Do I believe it is a giant waste of money? Hell yeah!

Is it cool? Fuck yes!


e: Still, I would like to have it known that I consider myself a loyal subject of our Indorussian missile overlords from China for the time being.

[thebomby]

A few things about war nerd, that I'm not too sure about.
It's hosted on exile.ru, probably not the best place to look for unbiased information on American military things (it's like asking hollywood to make a Cold War movie where the Rooshans win in the end).
Dramatic bullshit is always more exiting to read than boring facts.
Those who read his article on lazororz vs rubber boats where it says that portable lasers will never be reality forget that the smallest firearms in the 14th century were clumsy, noisy and mostly useless devices.

[Narmio]

Of course carriers aren't useful in an all-out war between modern powers. Everything but ICBMs are useless in an all out war, because right now nothing can stop one and nothing short of Cheyenne Mountain Complex can take one on the chin, and even that might be iffy. This is not news, everybody has known this for almost sixty years. And I mean everyone, not just war nerds. And when that one particular War Nerd talks about how the whole navy is living a lie because a carrier group couldn't intercept a missile strike, well... durr.

Carriers aren't for beating superpowers, they're for fucking up places like Libya. And they're great at that.

[XenosisReaper]

I'm fairly sure that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment would render all of this and current surface warfare redundant? Considering that for the cost of a carrier fleet you could have 20 of them built in half the time, with a faster reaction time and 10% of the manpower needed to operate?

http://screenshots.filesnetwork.com/51/others/review5.jpg

[indeterminacy]

Hey about that ChiCom anti-ship ballistic missile:

http://www.informationdissemination.net ... itial.html (http://www.informationdissemination.net/2010/12/adm-willard-df-21d-reaches-initial.html)

Much hurf blurf. Key facts:

Q: But they have not conducted the actual flight test or the test to attack moving ships yet, have they?

A: We have not seen an over-water test of the entire system.

Q: Is it a bigger threat to the United States than submarines in terms of their anti-access area denial?

A: No, I don’t think so. Anti-access area denial, which is a term that was relatively recently coined, is attempting to represent an entire range of capabilities that China has developed and that other countries have developed.

the latest version of AEGIS BMD was not designed to defeat this weapon. Tomorrows version will be capable of doing so

Just another arms race with communists, nothing to see here.

[Reed Tiburon]

A few things about war nerd, that I'm not too sure about.
It's hosted on exile.ru, probably not the best place to look for unbiased information on American military things (it's like asking hollywood to make a Cold War movie where the Rooshans win in the end).

the exile is a paper written by american expats who were SHUT DOWN IN RUSSIA :psyduck:

[Quarantine]

The superpowers know that it's an obsolete status symbol. Like a knight in a shiny suit of armour, in a world with crossbows.[Catholic Church excommunicated you if you used a crossbow lolconservativehideinashellfaggots]

There is only one superpower, and that's the U.S. Nobody else has anywhere the military capacity and nobody else is contesting it's status anytime soon. What carriers are good for is the projection of hard diplomatic power and non-nuclear military intervention, and that they're doing rather effectively. Submarines might be more effective in naval warfare, but it's in the nature of that weapon system to not be particularly well suited for gunboat diplomacy.

[Lusulpher]

The superpowers know that it's an obsolete status symbol. Like a knight in a shiny suit of armour, in a world with crossbows.[Catholic Church excommunicated you if you used a crossbow lolconservativehideinashellfaggots]

There is only one superpower, and that's the U.S. Nobody else has anywhere the military capacity and nobody else is contesting it's status anytime soon. What carriers are good for is the projection of hard diplomatic power and non-nuclear military intervention, and that they're doing rather effectively. Submarines might be more effective in naval warfare, but it's in the nature of that weapon system to not be particularly well suited for gunboat diplomacy.

If you're gunboating, diplomacy has failed or not been attempted. Even Art of War says on the first page, war is always the failure scenario.

Before Russia folded their hand to their economy/internal politics[they only nuked up because they were afraid Americans were racist assholes with nukes, diplomacyfail], their carriers would not have helped in any war. Nukes hulksmashing all over does not stop anything.
They are mobile refueling/retrooping stations. If they were doing hydroponics or ocean research for colonization of the seafloor, sure, I'd defend them to the end. But if anyone wanted them gone. They'd find a way. And I'd be fine with that tax relief.

Like hacking the core cooling[the Achilles heel of all future wars will be automation/networking, GitS is no longer hyperbole :| ] and sending it into meltdown. Or EMPing the atmosphere above the battle groups. Or letting those planes bomb shit until the owners are out of money[a mil per missile :psyduck: Budget issues?? We can buy missiles at a mil a piece, that's a FERRARI per crater!]

Btw, Metalstorm project would use electronically controlled bullet firings from tubes to create a wall of bullets to intercept larger objects.
So you can defend carriers from the bolt of a crossbow...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXECU3YKMfI
Unless, they hack your point defense with the Beijing MAGI cluster.[damn you anime visionaries! Evangelion]

edit: Rewatching that actually made my blood cold. They never tell the implications of when their tech gets into the wrong hands and slices the other way. But since it is an Ultimate Shield and Ultimate Spear[Fullmetal Alchemist :psyduck: ] tech, it should lead to the utopian dream of global peace.[until one side hacks the otherside's AI, Battlestar Galactica :psyduck: ]

[Keorythe]

"I think that is why the Chinese, despite all their financial muscle haven’t bought up a carrier or three with spare change from anyone willing to sell (aka Russians). Also why the Soviets were probably not great fans of the carrier battle group strategy during the Cold War and are now selling their carriers on the cheap to gullible idiots in the Indian Navy (who are burning up money building a carrier instead of half a dozen nuke subs and 50 conventional ones)."

The superpowers know that it's an obsolete status symbol. Like a knight in a shiny suit of armour, in a world with crossbows.[Catholic Church excommunicated you if you used a crossbow lolconservativehideinashellfaggots]

Wow, you really just make this stuff up don't you? China bought both the Minsk and the Varyag and were hoping to repair and refit the things. Only like many other limitations with their reverse engineering culture, they discovered it would be too costly and they didn't have the experience to do so. Minsk became a really expensive theme park and Varyag is being worked as a prototype testbed. The the Chinese leadership have since gone back and forth about whether they should build their smaller versions but so far are not willing to put up the cash. And as much as they export, they're still hurting in the economy department.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/china ... rs/450000/ (http://www.indianexpress.com/news/china-may-build-up-to-six-aircraft-carriers/450000/)
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/12 ... t-carrier/ (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/12/is-china-finally-building-an-aircraft-carrier/)

The Russian carrier fleet wasn't mothballed due to being obsolete but fell to the same thing that is killing off the UK's carrier fleet. Russia just doesn't have the cash to maintain the Cold War era fleets anymore. But then with their break up and loss of satellite states plus surrounding assets, it ceased to be a priority doctrine. If they had the cash they would revitalize their entire fleet. They're already attempting to do it with their land forces and go professional.

If carriers were just status symbols, neither India nor China would be dumping crap tons of cash into anti-ship ballistic missile and area denial programs.



Metal storm is a fragile gimmick. It's an oversized roman candle with sensitive electronics, fps per shot issues, range issues, capacity issue, and accuracy issues. They tried to make a 40mm area denial version and no one wanted that one either since it underperformed a handheld M32.

[Qui Shon]

Bart is literally the most negative person on the entire interwebs..... dudes on death row are more positive than you.

You seem like the kind of guy that would critique the technique of a girl giving you a blowjob.


But he's got a great avatar pic.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~bcraenen/resources/avatar.gifhttp://www.xs4all.nl/~bcraenen/resources/avatar.gifhttp://www.xs4all.nl/~bcraenen/resources/avatar.gif

[Louis]

wouldnt this be rather effective at focus firing on key parts of a ship, communication and radar etc?

[Irion]

The superpowers know that it's an obsolete status symbol. Like a knight in a shiny suit of armour, in a world with crossbows.[Catholic Church excommunicated you if you used a crossbow lolconservativehideinashellfaggots]

There is only one superpower, and that's the U.S. Nobody else has anywhere the military capacity and nobody else is contesting it's status anytime soon. What carriers are good for is the projection of hard diplomatic power and non-nuclear military intervention, and that they're doing rather effectively. Submarines might be more effective in naval warfare, but it's in the nature of that weapon system to not be particularly well suited for gunboat diplomacy.

If you're gunboating, diplomacy has failed or not been attempted. Even Art of War says on the first page, war is always the failure scenario.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunboat_diplomacy :psyduck:

[Lusulpher]

The superpowers know that it's an obsolete status symbol. Like a knight in a shiny suit of armour, in a world with crossbows.[Catholic Church excommunicated you if you used a crossbow lolconservativehideinashellfaggots]

There is only one superpower, and that's the U.S. Nobody else has anywhere the military capacity and nobody else is contesting it's status anytime soon. What carriers are good for is the projection of hard diplomatic power and non-nuclear military intervention, and that they're doing rather effectively. Submarines might be more effective in naval warfare, but it's in the nature of that weapon system to not be particularly well suited for gunboat diplomacy.

If you're gunboating, diplomacy has failed or not been attempted. Even Art of War says on the first page, war is always the failure scenario.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunboat_diplomacy :psyduck:

Oh, so it's adults who bully other adults...cool. I always said civilization was topped out at the same social structure as an American highschool. :emo:

Also that's diplomacy, as much as a bank robber puts a gun to the bank owners head and says to sign the deed over. :psyduck:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cryMVK1PwuQ

[Lusulpher]

"I think that is why the Chinese, despite all their financial muscle haven’t bought up a carrier or three with spare change from anyone willing to sell (aka Russians). Also why the Soviets were probably not great fans of the carrier battle group strategy during the Cold War and are now selling their carriers on the cheap to gullible idiots in the Indian Navy (who are burning up money building a carrier instead of half a dozen nuke subs and 50 conventional ones)."

The superpowers know that it's an obsolete status symbol. Like a knight in a shiny suit of armour, in a world with crossbows.[Catholic Church excommunicated you if you used a crossbow lolconservativehideinashellfaggots]

Wow, you really just make this stuff up don't you? China bought both the Minsk and the Varyag and were hoping to repair and refit the things. Only like many other limitations with their reverse engineering culture, they discovered it would be too costly and they didn't have the experience to do so. Minsk became a really expensive theme park and Varyag is being worked as a prototype testbed. The the Chinese leadership have since gone back and forth about whether they should build their smaller versions but so far are not willing to put up the cash. And as much as they export, they're still hurting in the economy department.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/china ... rs/450000/ (http://www.indianexpress.com/news/china-may-build-up-to-six-aircraft-carriers/450000/)
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/12 ... t-carrier/ (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/12/is-china-finally-building-an-aircraft-carrier/)

The Russian carrier fleet wasn't mothballed due to being obsolete but fell to the same thing that is killing off the UK's carrier fleet. Russia just doesn't have the cash to maintain the Cold War era fleets anymore. But then with their break up and loss of satellite states plus surrounding assets, it ceased to be a priority doctrine. If they had the cash they would revitalize their entire fleet. They're already attempting to do it with their land forces and go professional.

If carriers were just status symbols, neither India nor China would be dumping crap tons of cash into anti-ship ballistic missile and area denial programs.

Metal storm is a fragile gimmick. It's an oversized roman candle with sensitive electronics, fps per shot issues, range issues, capacity issue, and accuracy issues. They tried to make a 40mm area denial version and no one wanted that one either since it underperformed a handheld M32.

If a piece of tech is vital for your nation's survival/competition with superpowers, they would have them. The fact that they are not imitating us by force is a hint at their adaptations...
Either they have become perfectly defensive to focus on rebuilding eonomies[yay Domestic spenders], realized the error/futility of Human conflict, or know how to smash your ignorant carrier groups for cheap.
Assume the worse[military policy?].


Gunpowder was also a fragile gimmick, it's not effectivity that stops wars/attacks, it understanding/fear of one-sided/mutual annihilation. Cannon smoke is good at that. Helps that inaccurate steel orbs also smashed castle walls and punctured suits of armour. It was not excommunicated due to flintlocks meaning close combat was still mandatory[fairness for the Knight class/elite, who also had flints :roll: Adapt or die. ]

[Zumwalt]

Just paint really glossy paint on the hull and reflect the laser back!

[Zumwalt]

Of course carriers aren't useful in an all-out war between modern powers. Everything but ICBMs are useless in an all out war, because right now nothing can stop one and nothing short of Cheyenne Mountain Complex can take one on the chin, and even that might be iffy. This is not news, everybody has known this for almost sixty years. And I mean everyone, not just war nerds. And when that one particular War Nerd talks about how the whole navy is living a lie because a carrier group couldn't intercept a missile strike, well... durr.

Carriers aren't for beating superpowers, they're for fucking up places like Libya. And they're great at that.

Our carrier fleet was designed to fuck up Russia. :razor:

[Irion]

The superpowers know that it's an obsolete status symbol. Like a knight in a shiny suit of armour, in a world with crossbows.[Catholic Church excommunicated you if you used a crossbow lolconservativehideinashellfaggots]

There is only one superpower, and that's the U.S. Nobody else has anywhere the military capacity and nobody else is contesting it's status anytime soon. What carriers are good for is the projection of hard diplomatic power and non-nuclear military intervention, and that they're doing rather effectively. Submarines might be more effective in naval warfare, but it's in the nature of that weapon system to not be particularly well suited for gunboat diplomacy.

If you're gunboating, diplomacy has failed or not been attempted. Even Art of War says on the first page, war is always the failure scenario.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunboat_diplomacy :psyduck:

Oh, so it's adults who bully other adults...cool. I always said civilization was topped out at the same social structure as an American highschool. :emo:

Also that's diplomacy, as much as a bank robber puts a gun to the bank owners head and says to sign the deed over. :psyduck:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cryMVK1PwuQ

Fuck me are you in for a shock when you finaly crash into reality. Just humour me briefly what did you think international diplomacy involved?

[Reed Tiburon]

Just paint really glossy paint on the hull and reflect the laser back!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazzle_camouflage
8-)

[Narmio]

Of course carriers aren't useful in an all-out war between modern powers. Everything but ICBMs are useless in an all out war, because right now nothing can stop one and nothing short of Cheyenne Mountain Complex can take one on the chin, and even that might be iffy. This is not news, everybody has known this for almost sixty years. And I mean everyone, not just war nerds. And when that one particular War Nerd talks about how the whole navy is living a lie because a carrier group couldn't intercept a missile strike, well... durr.

Carriers aren't for beating superpowers, they're for fucking up places like Libya. And they're great at that.

Our strategic bomber fleet was designed to fuck up Russia. :razor:
ftfy.

[Aramendel]

Gunboat Diplomacy is a relic of the past. Doesn't matter nowadays really, economic might >>> military might.

Carriers are obsolete. Even for stuff like "pacifying" countries like Lybia. The new weapon of coice are drone there - which do not need carriers. Carriers are status symbols nowdays, nothing more.

[Fara]

Gunboat Diplomacy is a relic of the past. Doesn't matter nowadays really, economic might >>> military might.

And when in history has this ever been different? Do you think the romans won because they were very skilled with their swords or because they could afford to run a professional well supplied army?

As to drones... afaik most airstrikes are still carried out by regular aircrafts UNLESS you want to hit a target without being seen (e.g. why they bomb pakistani terrorists with drones).

But then again isn't it easier to be an armchair general and call for robots and drones to do everything.

[Lusulpher]

"The superpowers know that it's an obsolete status symbol. Like a knight in a shiny suit of armour, in a world with crossbows.[Catholic Church excommunicated you if you used a crossbow lolconservativehideinashellfaggots]"

There is only one superpower, and that's the U.S. Nobody else has anywhere the military capacity and nobody else is contesting it's status anytime soon. What carriers are good for is the projection of hard diplomatic power and non-nuclear military intervention, and that they're doing rather effectively. Submarines might be more effective in naval warfare, but it's in the nature of that weapon system to not be particularly well suited for gunboat diplomacy.

If you're gunboating, diplomacy has failed or not been attempted. Even Art of War says on the first page, war is always the failure scenario.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunboat_diplomacy :psyduck:

Oh, so it's adults who bully other adults...cool. I always said civilization was topped out at the same social structure as an American highschool. :emo:

Also that's diplomacy, as much as a bank robber puts a gun to the bank owners head and says to sign the deed over. :psyduck:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cryMVK1PwuQ

Fuck me are you in for a shock when you finally crash into reality. Just humour me briefly what did you think international diplomacy involved?

If you notice where I call warfare the failure, and gunboat bullying the failure process, I'm sure you'll see I'm not in denial about the obsolescence of carriers...and "arms races" in general.
It's all 1984...

This guy, and many others, think that all the chumps in China/Russia are not being talked into sinking all our sea-limos, he's in for a rude awakening. And the best part is tech/money will be wasted trying to survive a war that the arms race built up tension for. As usual.
IF we survive the next clearance sale, we begin buying the next on the product line to go fuck our collective asses with.
Nobody needs hundreds of billions for solar plants or cultivating farmland, or space programs. Lazors on outdated boats, please. :x

tl;dr: Nerf SCs, redistribute moongoo wealth.

[Aramendel]

And when in history has this ever been different? Do you think the romans won because they were very skilled with their swords or because they could afford to run a professional well supplied army?

Neither really. It was because of their tactics. Romans got their empire not because they could throw away more money at the military than everyone else or because the roman Ubermensch, but because their army setup and combat tactics was superior against equally "expensive" armies of their opponents.

The fall of the roman empire was caused by economic stress though. Their middle class crashed, most property owned by a small minority which evaded most taxes.
Not too dissimilar to the situation in america currently. They just do not have barbarians at their borders waiting for them to get weak. Well, actually, they have. It's just that they won't get attacked military then, but economically. The "barbaric invaders" of today do not conquer your home, they buy it.


As to drones... afaik most airstrikes are still carried out by regular aircrafts UNLESS you want to hit a target without being seen (e.g. why they bomb pakistani terrorists with drones).

Uh, Drones are far more visible than normal aircraft. If you want to hit a target without it getting any warning regular aircraft are king, faster and higher weapon range.
The advantage of drones is that they are more accurate. Regular aircraft are more of a sledgehammer while rones are a stiletto. If your targets are careful and often use human shields or keep near civil building (like they do in Afghanistan and start to do in Lybia) you cannot use normal airstrikes without causing massive collateral damage.
Either way, the reason drones will eventually replace regular aircraft is something far simpler - they are more cost effective.
Oh, and do not confuse drones with robots. They have a human pilot, just like normal aircraft. They just do not sit in the cockpit, but control them remotely.

[Quarantine]

Gunboat Diplomacy is a relic of the past. Doesn't matter nowadays really, economic might >>> military might.

Carriers are obsolete. Even for stuff like "pacifying" countries like Lybia. The new weapon of coice are drone there - which do not need carriers. Carriers are status symbols nowdays, nothing more.

Carriers are a mean of power projection and the US use them accordingly. There are other ways to project power, both military and economically, no doubt, and sometimes "send a carrier group there" isn't the most effective approach. The current superpower's doctrine however states that the US can fight a conventional war at any point in the world they'd choose to, and for that they need them. This has nothing to do with military effectiveness, asymmetric warfare or the NATO's failing attempt to influence the civil war in Libya.

[Quarantine]

The fall was of the roman empire was caused by economic stress though. Their middle class crashed, most property owned by a small minority which evaded most taxes.


From a historians point of view, this is wrong. It would need an overly long explanation as to why, but it's basically an oversimplification to support a modern day parallel you're trying to draw (or whoever tried to make a point first, using the Roman Empire as an example). There's 200 theories as to why the Roman Empire fell and none of them has ever achieved enough support to be considered a historical truth and I doubt there will ever be any definite answer to this. It's a very complex thematic and if you're interested in this, read A. Demandt, Der Fall Roms (1984).
Most of the ill-fated attempts to compare the United States and the Roman Empire assume that they share many similarities in design, but they really don't so I wish people would stop trying to compare them all the time.

[Aramendel]

sometimes "send a carrier group there" isn't the most effective approach

The point is that "sometimes" quickly becomes "in 99% of all cases".

Against countries like Lybia a carrier group is a classic example of cannons against sparrows. It is not cost effective nor is it really effective military once your opponent adapts.

And against big players like china it quickly becomes ineffective too. It worked in the taiwan crisis in the mid 90s which was afaik the last time a carrier group was used in a "gunboat diplomacy" way. But nowadays...?
The real deterrent isn't the "power projection" because said projection can be cheaply and permanently removed with anti-carrier missiles, but the economic cost of the war. And the biggest part of this cost won't be military equipment, but the international economic penalities which will follow.


From a historians point of view, this is wrong. It would need an overly long explanation as to why, but it's basically an oversimplification to support a modern day parallel you're trying to draw...

That the (western) Roman Empire fell due to economic stress is without question really. You can argue how exactly that stress was caused, but that economic stress was the downfall of it is generally thought of the prime reason. And there were problems with senators getting extremly rich and evading taxes and so on. Those were of cource not the only reasons for the problems, but they were one of the reasons, that is not wrong.

And I never claimed that the US is like the roman empire, that would be silly, but there are definately parallels there. Not in the design, but as in both have economic problems which have partly similar reasons. But in either way, you confuse here a simple sidenote and the main argument.

Which is:
Rise of the roman empire: NOT caused primary by economic superiority, but by superior army setup/tactics.
Fall of the roman empire: Primarily caused by economic stress.

[Quarantine]

Against countries like Lybia a carrier group is a classic example of cannons against sparrows. It is not cost effective nor is it really effective military once your opponent adapts.

And against big players like china it quickly becomes ineffective too. It worked in the taiwan crisis in the mid 90s which was afaik the last time a carrier group was used in a "gunboat diplomacy" way. But nowadays...?
The real deterrent isn't the "power projection" because said projection can be cheaply and permanently removed with anti-carrier missiles, but the economic cost of the war. And the biggest part of this cost won't be military equipment, but the international economic penalities which will follow.

I've failed to properly explain the point I was trying to make, as we're clearly going in circles. I'm not arguing for the effectiveness of this approach and certainly not for cost-effectiveness. If you want the ability to wage a non-nuclear war at any one point of the planet, you need carriers. The US have made this a part of their foreign policy doctrine, so they're holding on to the carrier concept for good reasons. If all you're saying that in modern naval combat the carrier is growing redundant, you are probably right.

[Lusulpher]

The fall was of the roman empire was caused by economic stress though. Their middle class crashed, most property owned by a small minority which evaded most taxes.


From a historians point of view, this is wrong. It would need an overly long explanation as to why, but it's basically an oversimplification to support a modern day parallel you're trying to draw (or whoever tried to make a point first, using the Roman Empire as an example). There's 200 theories as to why the Roman Empire fell and none of them has ever achieved enough support to be considered a historical truth and I doubt there will ever be any definite answer to this. It's a very complex thematic and if you're interested in this, read A. Demandt, Der Fall Roms (1984).
Most of the ill-fated attempts to compare the United States and the Roman Empire assume that they share many similarities in design, but they really don't so I wish people would stop trying to compare them all the time.

The last history from Roman records listed all their problems, which were the ones listed earlier[corrupt representatives/immigration pressure/trade deficit/porked budgets]. Then nothing...all those problems might have added up to a collapse.
Or none of them, still doesn't mean you should marginalize problems Rome couldn't handle 'at their peak'...

The comparison must be made to remind of the obvious folly, no matter how obvious/horrific.[see abuse of Godwin's law for censorship]

[Quarantine]

That the (western) Roman Empire fell due to economic stress is without question really. You can argue how exactly that stress was caused, but that economic stress was the downfall of it is generally thought of the prime reason. And there were problems with senators getting extremly rich and evading taxes and so on. Those were of cource not the only reasons for the problems, but they were one of the reasons, that is not wrong.

It is wrong to say it like that, and it's certainly not thought to be one of the prime reasons. At this day if you ask any three professors of Ancient History about this, they'll give you five different answers and all of them will tell their story like they're in possession of the sole truth. It is however not possible to determine cause and effect of things happening that far back. We can't determine causality between different phenomena like a barbarian invasion, military defeats, rising taxes, economic downfall and social tensions, we can at best describe the effects.

Now what you've been citing is coming out of an extremely biased source for various reasons: it's coming out of legal texts, and those are per definition negative (it's in their nature to describe conflicts). Late antique legal codices are a summary of legal rulings, mostly by previous Emperors (or rather their lawyers), and they are biased in their composition as they are for obvious reasons always citing more recent rulings over older ones. As is the nature of this codices, they mostly contain rulings concerning the honsteriores, the upper classes of the Roman Empire, because anyone else wouldn't even bother the Imperial administration. We do know however, that tax evasion has always been a huge problem for the Roman Empire for various reasons and people, not only senators, went great lengths to avoid paying their taxes (coming from papyrii sources). We also know that starting in the early Roman Empire, the honestiores were getting more and more legal rights and privileges compared to the humiliores. From this historians extrapolated the fact that a rising taxation crippled the Roman economy, and with a little leftist leaning, added the fact that the rich folks could better cope with this. This is all true, but we can't quantify the effect to which this was happening, we can't measure the impact of tax evasion on the economy (was it worse, as there were more conflicts, or was it better, because the Roman legal system worked harder against it?). Here we're going on to the hen-egg problem.

In the 4th and 5th century, the Roman Empire was in constant need of money and it didn't receive enough taxes to maintain an army capable of defending it's borders. Did it need more money than before, because they lost battles and land to the Barbarians? Did they receive fewer taxes because the population declined (through war and famine)? Did they overtax their peasants and crippled their own economy? We can play this game for eternity, listing causes and effects and turning them around and we'll never reach an conclusion, and this is the really important point: historians will always, consciously or not, prefer an explanation that matches best with their contemporary life experience and thus, every generation will write it's own interpretation of history.
All we can safely say that the structures of the Roman Empire (in the west) couldn't hold back the barbarian migration and preserve their ruling system, but were absorbed by the Germanic tribes and transformed into something else. We can try to follow their way and point out the issues they faced, but we can never, ever pinpoint "the" reason for this happening.

Edit: I could do something similar like this for "reasons why the Roman Empire was so successful", but I hope to get my point across anyway.

[Aramendel]

If you want the ability to wage a non-nuclear war at any one point of the planet, you need carriers.

My point is that precisely this is not the case anymore.

Not because carriers are not neccessary anymore, but because they can be taken out before you can use them to wage war. The DF 21 has an operational range of 2000 km. An F14 has an operational range of 1000 km. Do the math.

The only way to use them nowadays without turning them into steel reefs in the first hour of the conflict would be to use them as glorified freight ships well outside the combat zone and well outside the range of their own airplanes.


...This is all true, but we can't quantify the effect to which this was happening, we can't measure the impact of tax evasion on the economy (was it worse, as there were more conflicts, or was it better, because the Roman legal system worked harder against it?).

And we need to quantify it because....? Oh, wait, we don't. Because I never claimed it was the major reason. I simply stated it being a problem. Which it was. No more, no less.


In the 4th and 5th century, the Roman Empire was in constant need of money and it didn't receive enough taxes to maintain an army capable of defending it's borders. Did it need more money than before, because they lost battles and land to the Barbarians? Did they receive fewer taxes because the population declined (through war and famine)?

To repeat what I said in my previous post - the reason for the economic problems does not really matter here. All I said was that their downfall was caused by economic problems. How they were caused is utterly meaningless here.

[XenosisReaper]

Armchair bullshitting generals best generals?

Seriously, none of you will do anything to effect or prevent it. So stop waving your military epeens around and get drunk.

[Lusulpher]

Armchair bullshitting generals best generals?

Seriously, none of you will do anything to effect or prevent it. So stop waving your military epeens around and get drunk.

My first step toward solving problems: ingesting nothing stronger than cough syrup.

When[IF] you get sober again, you will still be eating the same turd sandwich. Jagermeister only makes it temporarily taste like a subway melt. :roll:

And now you know why I'm so hilariously bitter. Ignorance is drunken bliss. You represent aimless, shiftless drunkards.

[walrus]

hey Luls, whats the deal with your bracket spamming?

[Narmio]

Everybody except Quarantine, cease with the posting. We'd almost successfully segued from stomping on a bag of sick into some actual knowledge! Don't ruin it!

[Dirk Magnum]

One time I heard there was this guy named Dieter Laser who played a guy in a movie who stapled some people together like a human centipede or something. In any event I find this equally distressing if true. :geek:

[Lusulpher]

hey Luls, whats the deal with your bracket spamming?

Brackets are used for containing diversionary thoughts/detail fragments. I try to reduce the amount of thoughts that relate to the sentence I'm typing. It's fucking hard, too.

Bolding is for skimmers[people who actually retain that ability post-schooling], my tl;dr is too sentence-heavy, so I discarded it.


@ Narmio
Quarantine is using Godwin's Law for Censorship, that is unacceptable. Especially because he is doing it to marginalize a host of problems serious enough that other historians each cite it as Roman collapse factor, numero uno.
He wants to be comfortable, by not thinking or thinking, less.
UNACCEPTABLE.

So we say nothing can be proven to cause the Roman collapse decisively...and then what, we don't figure how to avoid those problems or the blend of them leading to an America Empire cascade? What use is an anally accurate historian then?!
No imagination, no implications, no avoidance of similarity, history repeats.

That stance would piss off so many intellectuals, especially Einstein. “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand."
And clearly the Romans would have studied collapse of empires before them, but they probably had nitpicking historians. :roll:

[Quarantine]

@Aramendel: As a serious question, with the air superiority of the carriers planes and its support cruisers and subs, is it that easy to approach and destroy it? I get it, the carrier is a huge and expensive target, but what military means are there to guarantee air superiority for your military operations?



Quarantine is using Godwin's Law for Censorship, that is unacceptable. Especially because he is doing it to marginalize a host of problems serious enough that other historians each cite it as Roman collapse factor, numero uno.
He wants to be comfortable, by not thinking or thinking, less.
UNACCEPTABLE.

So we say nothing can be proven to cause the Roman collapse decisively...and then what, we don't figure how to avoid those problems or the blend of them leading to an America Empire cascade? What use is an anally accurate historian then?!
No imagination, no implications, no avoidance of similarity, history repeats.

It is really arguable that the prime use of history is helping the American Empire prevent their collapse, but I'll bite anyway. Nothing prevents you from trying to learn from the past, but there are severe limitations to the way you can draw your comparisons. That is because on a very basic level, a pre-modern society works differently and thus even if there are phenomena superficially similar to contemporary occurrences, they can still vary in cause and effect.

So for example, you could say that one of the problems of the Roman Empire was its inability to bind the German tribes who settled on their territory, and from time to time fought for the Romans, to their state. Even though they were often defeated, Rome quickly lost control of them again because unlike in earlier times, they didn't fully integrate into Roman society. This was undoubtedly one of the many reasons for the downfall of the Western Roman Empire, and you could probably make a case of this against how immigration can be dangerous for a society. Now while the basic premise about having a large body of people on your territory who care shit all about your state being undesirable is probably true, this doesn't relate in many ways to how modern day immigration works. 20,000 angry and hungry Germans ravaging through your territory is comparable on only so many levels to people in development countries trying to make for a better life, and however much you analyze this and the Roman reaction to it, you'll hit some wall due to this differences.

Exactly opposite to what you're claiming, by relying on history to solve a contemporary problem, your encasing yourself in a very small box resting on a base you don't even see in it's entirety while happily ignoring what's actually going on around you. Obviously, history can be very helpful and there is a lot to learn by studying it, but it's even easier to simplify it and twist it into an answer to whatever way you like. It seems to me most of the time people come with an already predefined opinion and then start looking for a historical parallel which supports their argument, and not the other way around. Especially political commentary in newspapers make that evident and I don't like it all, because it promotes a superficial understanding of historical processes and cheap abuse of the historians work.

[jks]

Current CIWS systems employ chain guns and cannons whose tracking systems have to take into account hitting a ballistic object with another ballistic object at oblique angles. This is not the case with a laser system. Turret just has to track that ballistic object with a relative degree of accuracy no matter if its subsonic or hypersonic. Astronomy telescopes have it much worse with their need to track an object across the galaxy with enough precision to get visual images while compensating for atmospheric interference.

Even a hypersonic missile is not going to mean much to a megawatt FEL with adaptive optics based tracking systems.

[Aramendel]

@Aramendel: As a serious question, with the air superiority of the carriers planes and its support cruisers and subs, is it that easy to approach and destroy it?

....YES. That is the whole point.

See here (http://www.usni.org/news-and-features/chinese-kill-weapon). As mentioned before it ourranges the range of a carrier aircraft, so they cannot use air superiority to take out (known) missile launchers before the carrier is in range.

Other relevant quotes:

Because the missile employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased. It is estimated that the missile can travel at mach 10 and reach its maximum range of 2000km in less than 12 minutes....

Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack.

In other words, chances to destroy the missile after it is launched are not very high. Lasers (which are currently only in the prototype phase) *might* be an option (if they can detect it in time), but even those can likely be overloaded with a synchronized attack of multiple missiles.

I am not disputing the power projection role of carriers and that there is no alternative to it currently, but something being important does not make it invulnerable.

[Chakrai]

I thought a forum full of eve nerds would at least remember that lasers have fairly low tracking and a missile that maneuvers properly and has a low sig can speed tank it.

[Lusulpher]

@Aramendel: As a serious question, with the air superiority of the carriers planes and its support cruisers and subs, is it that easy to approach and destroy it? I get it, the carrier is a huge and expensive target, but what military means are there to guarantee air superiority for your military operations?



Quarantine is using Godwin's Law for Censorship, that is unacceptable. Especially because he is doing it to marginalize a host of problems serious enough that other historians each cite it as Roman collapse factor, numero uno.
He wants to be comfortable, by not thinking or thinking, less.
UNACCEPTABLE.

So we say nothing can be proven to cause the Roman collapse decisively...and then what, we don't figure how to avoid those problems or the blend of them leading to an America Empire cascade? What use is an anally accurate historian then?!
No imagination, no implications, no avoidance of similarity, history repeats.

It is really arguable that the prime use of history is helping the American Empire prevent their collapse, but I'll bite anyway. Nothing prevents you from trying to learn from the past, but there are severe limitations to the way you can draw your comparisons. That is because on a very basic level, a pre-modern society works differently and thus even if there are phenomena superficially similar to contemporary occurrences, they can still vary in cause and effect.

So for example, you could say that one of the problems of the Roman Empire was its inability to bind the German tribes who settled on their territory, and from time to time fought for the Romans, to their state. Even though they were often defeated, Rome quickly lost control of them again because unlike in earlier times, they didn't fully integrate into Roman society. This was undoubtedly one of the many reasons for the downfall of the Western Roman Empire, and you could probably make a case of this against how immigration can be dangerous for a society. Now while the basic premise about having a large body of people on your territory who care shit all about your state being undesirable is probably true, this doesn't relate in many ways to how modern day immigration works. 20,000 angry and hungry Germans ravaging through your territory is comparable on only so many levels to people in development countries trying to make for a better life, and however much you analyze this and the Roman reaction to it, you'll hit some wall due to this differences.

Exactly opposite to what you're claiming, by relying on history to solve a contemporary problem, your encasing yourself in a very small box resting on a base you don't even see in it's entirety while happily ignoring what's actually going on around you. Obviously, history can be very helpful and there is a lot to learn by studying it, but it's even easier to simplify it and twist it into an answer to whatever way you like. It seems to me most of the time people come with an already predefined opinion and then start looking for a historical parallel which supports their argument, and not the other way around. Especially political commentary in newspapers make that evident and I don't like it all, because it promotes a superficial understanding of historical processes and cheap abuse of the historians work.

tl;dr: History repeats. Some correlations are causations. Educated people should be the first to compare errors, not wait for spin to affect data.

History should be about avoiding mistakes, no argument necessary. What? Is each generation supposed to reset and retread the same crap over and over? That's pretty useless, extinction might be evolutionarily-preferable.

Their are statistics that behaviours go through consistent 20-yr cycles that correlate in Finance and Politics.
The step no generation seems to take, is to stabilize/maximize the benefit from these clearly recorded cycles.
The Romans would have slaughtered for data like that![they were diligent record-keepers and analysts]
And even worse, I have yet to meet a professor or scientists who actually makes a decision when they see a pattern of behaviour or consequence appear.
Immigration is becoming a corruption factor on your borders. Data complete...
Instead of the next step, How do we remove that factor? Slaughter? Banishment? More integration procedures? Loosen citizenship requirements?
These educated people always fall back behind their cowardly shield: "Correlation is not causation." Hence, we don't have to solve any issues, or even try. Because NOTHING can be predictably altered. :psyduck:

And when someone steps up and says, "But all your shit will collapse like it did before and the time before that!" I get a long-worded response like yours that says the same thing 3 different ways.
How do German hungry people differ from Mexican hungry? People going for opportunity are exactly comparable through time[more so due to statistical averaging]. They want better than they were born into. If a neighbour has everything[mostly taken from you], they move there by osmosis.
If they place obstacles[walls,fences, immigration departments, race-based laws of the 1900s], pressure builds[Prohibition and rise of smuggler barons/police corruption], and something has to break[internal order/global prestige/cooperation with said nation].
It's a bloody science. The empire has to adapt or die.


So if the American Empire repeats the same proven pattern, they are correlated with entering a collapse/reduction phase. If they chose MULTIPLE negative patterns, it doesn't take a genius or a gambler to realize they end up like the last morons who ignored their messes.

The educated step up to the plate by dissecting past scenarios, seeing what worked, what didn't, then addign or removing modern factors. That's their job. If it doesn't happen, everyone else suffers.

Now excuse me while they extend the Bush tax cuts for the upper 2% after we went through the Clinton years that produced more jobs than the Reagan ERA! Those tax cuts will generate enough taxes from jobs[in CHina that are tax-exempt] so we can pay for these absolutely useless lasers[no civilized nation with missile tech wants this country anymore, they just want our currency in their Stock market games :facepalm: ].

@thread
These things are seriously a massive waste of money. The boats they are on are a waste of money.
The people who sail all over the world visiting other countries coasts and just generally convincing foreigners that Americans are douches. Are A WASTE OF MY TAX DOLLARS. When they let the high quality metal in the wrecks rust off some 3rd world coast. I get belligerent.
Anything that does not pay back to the taxes used to fund it, AND encourages the jealousy and plots of your competitors, is a waste of money. Eisenhower would be recycling most of these moneysinks.

Show me what Marine/Ship engineering projects these ships are all engaged in and I'll be the nicest person.
Mobile floating cities for urban sprawl?
Undersea colonization?
Oceanic food production research?
Climate monitoring?
Are these craft entirely self-sufficient after decades at sea? If they aren't, why???

Other than that, get your fucking priorities straight. "A fool and his money..."

[Sacul]

Nura can you shut up allready and just finish your degree kthnx