/k/ - Easy Weapons!!!!!!

wepon

SAVE THIS FILE: Anon.cafe Fallback File v1.1 (updated 2021-12-13)

Want your event posted here? Requests accepted in this /meta/ thread.

Max message length: 20000

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

Board Rules
More

(used to delete files and postings)


"The more you sweat in peace, the less you bleed in war." - Otamin


Naval Thread II Strelok 05/02/2022 (Mon) 16:31:42 ID: 48a0ec No.33554
Last thread fell off the board. Discuss and debate naval topics here.
>>34880 I think having the farthest and most accurate sensors (and spotters) is more important than having the biggest guns in most cases.
>>34891 Two reasons, one obvious the other less obvious. First: Because then the capital ship is only as strong as the escorts, once the escorts are dealt with the capital ship is vulnerable to boarding and seizure. Second: 988ms Ping.
>>34922 >988ms ping Even with line of sight laser comms? >once the escorts are dealt with the capital ship is vulnerable to boarding and seizure. All escorts being dead implies that WW3 has kicked off the capital ship itself has already been mission killed in some way, and for the ship to be vulnerable to boarding and seizure any would-be Somalians would have to get past its remaining armaments, crew and scuttling charges of which there should still be a reasonable number left unless the ship was disabled by nuke shells.
How effective are Aegis networks against aircraft without predictable courses? Are ships' anti-air somehow more effective against maneuverable targets than the questionably effective land-based batteries like Patriots and S-300s?
>>34941 >Even with line of sight laser comms? Laser Data Transmission is unreliable when both transmitter and receiver are both pitching and rolling at rates unpredictable in relation to each other. Unpredictable is not something you want in your self-defense grid when missing even a single packet can have devastating consequences. Also, the point of the ship in question is to be as near invulnerable as possible; there is no point in such a ship if sinking the comparatively extremely vulnerable escorts not only mission kills the ship, but causes the loss of tens of billions of dollars of (at this point) basically unscathed capital ship; the ship must be self-reliant enough that at the minimum it can stand and fight until replacement escorts arrive, but the ideal is that its escorts are smaller, highly defensible (if not almost as invulnerable) ships - which makes this sensor issue a moot point anyway, since you still have to protect sensors somewhere. >>35004 >How effective are Aegis networks against aircraft without predictable courses? This is a hard one to answer, because to a certain degree AEGIS and other similar systems exist specifically to make unpredictable threat trajectories (/courses) predictable. Even wildly maneuvering missiles (the most unpredictable of all aircraft) are to a certain degree predictable, because you can reach a conclusion on where the missile will be based on where it is, where it was, when it was there, and where it wants to go. In short, the missile-knows-where-it-is.mp4 but for AA targeting. While AEGIS is getting a bit long in the tooth, from my understanding it continues to do its job well as long as the entire system is well maintained, which is unfortunately becoming rarer and rarer. >Are ships' anti-air somehow more effective against maneuverable targets than the questionably effective land-based batteries Mainly due to the sheer number of advantages that sea-based platforms have, such as raw available bulk, sensor size, known friendly locations, the ability to just assume the threat already knows about said friendlies, and the generally wide open spaces that are the open ocean (even around landmasses, the water is generally far more open than where land-based systems have to act unless they are in a desert). Even the shortest detection time (short range, hyper-sonic sea skimming missiles) IIRC gives the ship between 9 and 12 seconds to react to the threat. 9 seconds is an eternity for a land based system, which usually has around 4 to 6 seconds. Land Based fixed installations (such as AEGIS Ashore) tend to have roughly the same capability as sea based platforms, however. Advantage of being a prepared defensive location that any given enemy is well aware about, no need for concealment and you can have those massive radar arrays blaring wildly. A Patriot/THAAD or S-300 battery would get SEAD'd in a heartbeat if they were to try the same. Obviously, all of that is just as to my limited understanding. Not a land guy.
The question of SEAD makes me wonder how effective spark gap transmitters are as a poor man's barrage jammer against modern day anti-radiation missiles.
>>35030 >>34891 >>34922 Do carrier fleet escorts provide any significant advantage over having all their sensors and firepower on a single ship other than not being a single target? I mean sensors' range, power and resolution, weapons load and crews' coordination would be more volume, energy and cost effective on a single ship of the same tonnage as the entire carrier fleet since it could have more room for weapons, a single massive power source like a nuclear reactor, larger sensors and an onboard supercomputer.
>>35055 Carriers require a lot of space to operate, and even Battleships prefer to have said space and forewarning. As the Sensors of Escorts are centered on the Escort themselves, and Escorts are usually positioned many miles away from the ship they are escorting, having escorts extends both the maximum and minimum range for Radar (since the radar horizon is different in different locations) and creates a much wider sonar net. Note, the Capital Ship being escorted is the last line of defense; the rest of the fleet is either support for that Capital Ship or are sacrificial pawns meant to take the blows for said Capital Ship; every escort ship adds to the layers of defense because they either expand or solidify the network of defense around the capital ship. As for Carriers specifically, Carriers are extremely hard to actually armor properly. Their flight decks actually can be well armored - most Supercarriers' decks actually are armored - but they can't armor most of the vital components that have to be exposed for them to do their jobs. Namely the arrestor wire systems, the catapults, and most importantly the aircraft themselves. Covered flight decks have been tried, they ''technically' can perform the absolute minimums required to call a ship a carrier, but saying they're bad for carrier operations is an understatement. So the Carrier's best line of protection is simply don't get hit in the first place. This can either be achieved with a massive network of escorts and a modestly defended Carrier (US Navy current concept) or a medium escort and a heavily armed Carrier (Late-WW2 US style shown best for the time by the original configuration Midway-class or in the cold-war by the Russian/Soviet concept seen in the earlier image). Either way, the escorts are vital to allow the Carrier enough time to react to the threat - the same would be true for a hypothetical well armed and armored Battleship, the Escorts are primarily there to extend and reinforce the engagement/sensor range verses hostiles, not to supplant the Capital Ship's own engagement/sensor profiles.
>>35066 Intuitively I know you are right but in peer vs peer scenario would not sending a PT boat with a rudimentary radar to expand the horizon be more cost effective than practically sacrificing a Ticonderoga just to expand SAM's range by a few tens of kilometers?
>>35117 A PT Boat would have such a low radar array/disk that there wouldn't really be any point in deploying the boat where the Capital ship could still 'see' it. The Capital Ship would likely have superior radar range than the PT Boat at that distance, and the ships being able to 'see' each other is important, especially when communications go down and each ship is trying to guess what is happening with their immediate neighbors (which informs them what they need to be doing if they don't have any significant emotional events occurring onboard their own ship). You need at minimum a heavy frigate to function as an Capital Escort. Also, due to the prevalence of Sea Skimming missiles, adding just ~20km to the effective detection/engagement range of the anti-missile grid is a 100% increase in the amount of time the Capital Ship has to react to said missile.
Is it possible to misdirect a radar-guided AShM into hitting a specific, extra well armored part of a ship's hull or at least make the missile fly in a vector that's slightly easier to hit by interceptors and CIWS?
>>35150 It is very possible, most ECM today is rigged to misdirect incoming missiles to give a predictable flight path if it cannot spoof it into missing the ship entirely. Doesn't always work, obviously, and some missiles are either too dumb or too smart to trick; but that's one of the reasons why AShMs aren't often ARMs - way too predictable of flight paths.
How powerful are the second and third tier navies of the world? I'm mostly thinking of the euro ones, although I'm not even sure which European navies amount to anything nowadays.
>>35358 Last I checked the French still maintained quite a navy and the Australians manage one of the most specialized if not small navies in the world. I think for the most part any country outside of Africa with access to warm water ports likely has a decent enough naval presence to making fighting them painful, even if doable. India's Navy is considered rather "small" compared to its neighbors, but they maintain almost 20 submarines and an aircraft carrier. Indonesia, one of the largest Muslim majority countries in the world (also not the richest outside the Christian cities), maintains 2 submarines, a few corvettes/frigates, and a repurposed Japanese pseudo-aircraft carrier in its bluewater fleet, however its coastguard, greenwater fleet and hybrid blue-green fleet (what matters for the territory) maintains a fairly expansive set of vessels whether it's mining boats, amphibious assault boats, missile boats, etc.
Point being, While conquerable it would not be palatable to the large navies to do so due to their own losses. Polite sage.
Is any anon ITT autistic enough to spoonfeed me a family tree of all modern warships above the size of corvette?
>>35632 My knowledge of ships starts and ends at "it floats and has big guns on it, that one carries planes." Sorry, anon.
>>35786 I'd wiki it myself but I am a tad too full on Academic obligations ATM and already amassed way more procrastinations than I can afford.
>>35632 My understanding is fairly limited, but from that understanding, you have several lineages for each ship type. Torpedo boats, being fast, small ships designed for attacking bigger ships, begat destroyers and fast attack craft. Cruisers, which were initially distinguished between being unprotected, protected (having an armored deck), and armored (having a belt of armor on their sides), evolved into light, heavy, and battle cruisers, respectively. Battleships evolved from the ironclad, which then evolved into the dreadnoughts. They were later limited by the Washington Treaty in both quantity made and displacement, forcing many nations to build smaller ships. Then there are the super-heavy battleships like the IJN Yamato and the USN Iowa. Carriers were initially converted into battleships or battlecruisers. Their roles diversified into escort carriers, light carriers, fleet, and supercarriers. There's probably some more to it, but like I said, I'm don't know all of it.
Could hypersonic missiles be the end of carriers? As it stands, while China still can't get 20km accuracy in a desert, Russia seems to be using them fairly efficiently when they've tested them out in Ukraine. Unanchored smaller ships are probably too small to use them accurately at the moment since the ship is jostled around too much by the waves (relative to a stationary target), but an aircraft carrier can be about 1-3 skyscrapers in length which seems plenty big enough if you can calculate its trajectory. >>35835 I don't know much but that seems fairly accurate for the bluewater vessels. >>35632 I wouldn't bother with greenwater vessels and hybrid bluewater/greenwater vessels since once you get into the smaller ship sizes
Is brass still the best material for propellers, or are there are weird and crazy proposals floating around for some alternative material?
Open file (360.16 KB 850x674 1636958332807.jpg)
>>35841 >Could hypersonic missiles be the end of carriers? As it stands, while China still can't get 20km accuracy in a desert, Russia seems to be using them fairly efficiently when they've tested them out in Ukraine. Unanchored smaller ships are probably too small to use them accurately at the moment since the ship is jostled around too much by the waves (relative to a stationary target), but an aircraft carrier can be about 1-3 skyscrapers in length which seems plenty big enough if you can calculate its trajectory. From what I understand, the real limiting factor is the killchain when going after something like a CBG. Even with hypersanec, your firing solution at launch is going to be out of date by the time the weapon gets wherever it's going, so you have to update it in real time, which not everybody can do (though if anyone else can, it'd be the Russians or the bugs). There's also that nagging little issue of killing a CBG being a pretty surefire way to kick off Round Three, which no one is really in a position to seriously consider at the moment. The only two powers with the strategic ass to do it have no reason to; the bugs can just sit back and watch the Jews destroy us from the inside while they (the bugs) play the long game, and the Russians are content merely to defend (and, as opportunity presents itself, expand) their regional hegemony. tl;dr it's theoretically possible, but I'm not seeing the carrier's swan song any time soon. Especially when there's really no substitute when it comes to force projection and gunboat diplomacy. >>37908 I see some vague mention of composite materials on Wikipedia, but nothing concrete. "If it ain't broke", I guess.
I know the question gets thrown around plenty about a US-Chinese engagement in the South China Sea, but does China actually have any proper deterrents to stop submarine strikes? That seems to be a glaring weakness that they are trying and failing to fix right now. >>37926 >tl;dr it's theoretically possible, but I'm not seeing the carrier's swan song any time soon. Especially when there's really no substitute when it comes to force projection and gunboat diplomacy. Sounds like the F35 may serve an actual niche in being launchable from smaller ships then, but that the technology probably still has a couple decades before it becomes a real threat to ships.
Royal Navy HMS Prince of Wales breaks down off south coast https://archive.ph/F8g2D >The Royal Navy aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales is limping back to shore after breaking down shortly after embarking for exercises in the US. The carrier left from Portsmouth Naval Base on Saturday before an "emerging mechanical issue" occurred. On Monday, the warship was moving slowly from the south east of the Isle of Wight towards Stokes Bay, Gosport. It is understood the sheltered area will make it easier for divers to examine the damage. The Royal Navy previously confirmed the 65,000-tonne vessel was in the South Coast Exercise Area. The warship's departure was planned for Friday, but had been delayed because of a technical issue. The Royal Navy was not able to offer any further details or confirm if the earlier technical issue was related to the mechanical problem. >Specialist website Navy Lookout has reported that the issue was caused by damage to the starboard propeller shaft, although the MoD has not confirmed or commented on this. The website says a photograph of the carrier leaving Portsmouth shows only a wake on the port side suggesting a problem with the other propeller shaft. It states that, unless the problem can be resolved at sea enabling the warship to continue its journey to the US, it might need to go into dry dock at Rosyth in Scotland early, ahead of a planned inspection in 2023. >The Nato flagship was sailing to undertake training exercises with the US Navy as well as the Royal Canadian Navy and United States Marine Corps. The warship, built at Rosyth at a cost of £3bn, had a colourful send-off on Saturday as it passed thousands of revellers at the Victorious Festival on Southsea Common. Old news by now, but it's a bit sad to see how low they have fallen. At this rate Argentina might as well restart this whole Falklands business.
>>37926 Why were eastern bloc anti-ship missiles , like the Kitchen, always high supersonic (mach 3+) while NATO ones like Harpoon and Exocet subsonic? What was so different in their doctrine?
>>40253 >it Fucking AP mafia trying to kill millennia old traditions.
>>40253 >broken propeller shaft At this point, I'm under the impression that the name Prince of Wales is just cursed. >>40348 Stealth and accuracy, more or less. High speed missiles are easier to detect and and harder to make sea skimming (that didn't stop the Russians from doing it, however); somewhat ironically, those slower missiles (earlier on) were also harder to hit for CIWS due to generally having more fuel during the terminal phase, being more able to afford terminal maneuvering, but this 'advantage' was minimal (and the US for one never took advantage of it). The math on making those missiles accurate is also a lot easier for slower missiles.
>>40348 NATO doctrine calls for everybody using a single ASM across all launch platforms, so everything has to be light enough to fit on a Harrier. For that weight, you can have any two of speed, range and payload. The Soviets didn't make this compromise, so the bombers carry a missile that's four times the weight of a Harpoon while the destroyers carry a missile that weighs as much as a Harrier.
>>40467 Sounds a bit paradoxical the reverse wasn't the case. The alliance of history's richest militaries opting for the low tech logistically sound solution while the history's poorest superpower spending trillions of rubbles to fancy wunderwaffen.
>>40641 It makes more sense if you mostly take out money from the equation: there is a force with lots units to be equipped, so they opt for a good enough solution; and the enemy has a limited number of units, so they might as well try to make up for quantity with quality (or just raw firepower), because they will still spend significantly less money even if they spurge a bit. It's roughly similar to small armies buying high quality guns for their soldiers.
I wonder how well the German pre-Dreadnoughts would have fared in ww2 if they decided to keep as many of them as possible, and converted them into monitors. I imagine something along these lines: >give them some really big bulged that make them virtually invulnerable against torpedoes >keep them 2x2 28cm main guns and the 14 pieces of 17cm guns that make up the secondary battery >get rid of the torpedo launchers and the old 8.8cm guns, and instead put as many dual-purpose 8.8cm (or 10.5cm) guns and AA autocannons on them as you can fit >replace the engines with turbines or diesel, just so that they can still have a reasonable speed for this line of work >also slap on extra armour if you can After the end of ww1 they still had all 5 Braunschweig-class ships and 5 Deutschland-class pre-Dreadnoughts, although 3 of the former and 1 of the latter were scrapped by 1933. Still, 4 of them converted into 1940s floating batteries could have been useful at the siege of Leningrad considering how much trouble the coastal artillery gave to the Heer.
>>43396 >After the end of ww1 they still had all 5 Braunschweig-class ships and 5 Deutschland-class pre-Dreadnoughts, Fucked that up, they only had 4 Deutschlands, because one of them was lost at Jutland. Still, the math checks out, they had a total of 4 ships between the two classes when the Nazis came into power.
>>43396 For the few engagements they would have been useful, I can't imagine them doing poorly; but I can't imagine them actually changing the outcome of anything either.
>>43405 To be fair, to change the outcome anything related to ww2 would require some fundamental changes to German strategy to the point that any tactical considerations are meaningless. These pre-Dreadnoughts just seem to be one of the many potentials they carelessly wasted, because they clearly had no idea what to do with them, and in the end they were just used as floating AA batteries.
I have a question regarding the Queen Elizabeth class carriers. Are there any benefits to having a carrier with two islands compared to a one island carrier? To me, having a second island would not be worth losing deck space that could be used by aircraft, even though you could use the second island as a backup in case of battle damage. Also, are the downsides of a ski jump deck (aircraft can't load as much fuel and munitions as normal, which impacts mission scope) worth it when looking at it from a budget perspective (you can design and operate a smaller carrier, which can have lower operating costs)? I see that a lot of smaller navies use ski jumps on their carriers while the USN dose not, which I assume is because the USN can afford to build massive super-carriers and is not worried too much with the size and cost of the carriers.
>>43721 >Islands Forward Islands are better for navigation. Aftward Islands are better for flight operations. The QE class was basically the UK trying to have their cake and eat it too. It was not a very practical decision. >STOBAR/STOVL vs CATOBAR People often claim that CATOBARs have to be large or expensive, but the Charles de Gaulle is smaller than every major STOBAR (Kuznetsov/Liaoning/Queen Elizabeth) except the Vikrant and quite possibly cheaper than most of them as well. Personally, given the ski-jumps actually cause considerably more damage to the aircraft than catapults do to properly designed (for catapults) aircraft, I don't consider Ski-Jump Carriers to be worth it if you're actually trying to be serious about the whole naval aviation thing. Economically, there comes a point that you start having to replace/repair aircraft at a rate that you effectively bought a new carrier if you actually commit to the flight hours required to keep a competent naval air force. Sure, CATOBARs generally require 'heavier' built aircraft to resist the stresses, but that generally results in sturdier, longer-lasting aircraft anyway. Even the heavy-built aircraft don't like ski-jumps, you stress parts of the frame that are not meant to be stressed.
>>43724 >Aftward Islands are better for flight operations while Forwards Islands are better for navigation. I did not know that and that would explain the changes in placement of the islands on USN carriers over time from the Midway-class to the Ford-class carriers. >The QE class was basically the UK trying to have their cake and eat it too. It was not a very practical decision. I guess they decided to try out the two island setup, see how it performs, and decided if it is worth incorporating into the class that will replace the QEs. Though I am surprised that they didn't try to design something like a modernized Forrestal-class carrier. That would seem to be something that would not be too expensive for a country like Britain to build and maintain. >Stress on aircraft frames I guess the Royal Navy is counting on keeping the flight hours on the carrier aircraft low enough that they don't accumulate enough stress damage to warrant early replacement. I guess they might change their tune if a major naval conflict breaks out, but for the time being I don't see that happening.
Open file (494.51 KB 773x599 ClipboardImage.png)
>>43721 Would the flat deck super carrier proposals from the late 1940s be viable with modern tech if one were to put the bridge below deck and fit all the radar, radio equipment etc. on a pole/islet that takes up less space than a regular island?
>>43734 Not really. If you were wanting good stability for the delicate equipment (very important considering the weight), you would still end up with a mast with a footprint the size of the Ford-class Island, so you may as well just build the Island if you can't use that deck space anyway. Somewhat surprisingly, the Ford-class Island is already tiny, relatively speaking. Compare it to the Nimitz, in pics related. Very little deck space is actually used in either, you wouldn't be saving much space at all by converting it to a pure mast and you would be losing the old Mark 1 Eyeball when things go wrong... and they go wrong quite often, even on USN Carriers.
Today I learned that beached whales are largely a result of submarine sonars being so fucking loud that the whale flees towards anywhere where the sound isn't as bad (since a sonar can be loud enough to rupture human organs a hundred miles away). Apparently this is an open secret.
>>43897 People seem to think noise pollution doesn't matter but underwater it's terrible. Even aside from sonar, ordinary shipping noise causes a lot of harm. Back early on in covid lockdowns, when the cruise industry collapsed and international shipping was way down too, cetologists suddenly started seeing behaviours they hadn't seen before, because whales could actually communicate without being drowned out by propellers. I remember seeing one report about humpbacks, where the generally accepted view was that mother whales were mostly prevented from effectively hunting by having to babysit the calf. But once the shipping vanished, they discovered that the natural behaviour was actually that the mother would leave the calf in a sheltered spot while joining group hunts with other whales, knowing that if anything happened she'd still be able to communicate with the calf. It was only when the ocean was too loud for that communication that they were forced to stick together, making motherhood an enormously more demanding process.
>>43897 It's not really a secret, even thought it effectually is one, they concluded that much would happen back when they originally made Active Sonar as a concept. They just quite simply didn't care because human needs were considered more important than the needs of aquatic life. Whether you agree with them or not, at least they were honest about it. Today, people just tend to either ignore the inconvenient truths or exaggerate them. The whales are actually one sad element of Sonar use, whales are good for the ocean, but ffs the eco-terrorists that forced the US to be unable to use Sonar in ASW training were going on about Dolphins. Fuck dolphins, the rapist bastards.
>>43901 Is there a modern alternative to active sonar? I recall the one where some extremely high quality pictures were used to determine where a sub was based on the changes it made on the surface of the water, but I imagine that's not a 100% solution. Maybe LIDARs? And could the US Navy nag congress for cash to develop these technologies if they claimed they just want to save the whales?
>>43917 >Is there a modern alternative to active sonar? LIDAR is the most promising, and it's technically already good enough. It's just extremely expensive if you want it to be more accurate than rough estimation. It also doubles as potential future Anti-Torpedo Defense. >I recall the one where some extremely high quality pictures were used to determine where a sub was based on the changes it made on the surface of the water, but I imagine that's not a 100% solution. Correct. The problem with that method is it relies on High Altitude Aircraft or Satellites, neither of which will be operational for long in any war where hunting submarines is an issue. Of course, if you have some method of actively defending your satellites, suddenly that is a very viable option. >could the US Navy nag congress for cash to develop these technologies if they claimed they just want to save the whales? Sadly, no. They have been trying that very line for decades and haven't gotten much more than chump change. At the end of the day for all their whining about climate change and being eco-friendly, none of the big shots actually give a damn about the environment.
>>43918 >It also doubles as potential future Anti-Torpedo Defense. As in cranking up the LIDAR until it becomes an energy weapon? Could the same work on the surface, even if only to track incoming missiles?
>>43899 I think the main issue is that sound travels 60x faster (further?) underwater than it does in air. Unfortunately I can't think of a way to fix that other than passive systems, and I'm not about to sacrifice the human experience for another creature even if I feel bad for them. >>43901 >It's not really a secret, even thought it effectually is one >Today, people just tend to either ignore the inconvenient truths or exaggerate them. Yes, an open secret. >whales are good for the ocean, but ffs the eco-terrorists that forced the US to be unable to use Sonar in ASW training were going on about Dolphins. Fuck dolphins, the rapist bastards. Dolphins don't rape people (though they do rape other dolphins). That's a meme from a handful of news sites that got duped by a parody site and rolled with the story. That aside, my main concern with whales is that they really a keystone species. Not in the "phytoplankton are a carbon sink hurr durr" way but in the "whales either eat phytoplankton, krill, or small fish to prevent population blooms and then shit out the nutrients to the sea floor to sustain a large percentage of deep ocean life including the majority of deep ocean coral reefs" kind of way. The four main animals in the ocean food chain are whales, krill, phytoplankton, and those stupid small fish outnumbering humanity 10:1 that swim back and forth between mid-ocean and upper-ocean areas that I can't remember the name of are a very fragile and unfortunately very global ecosystem that sustain the majority of sea life, and the effects are pretty obvious in the fishing industry if nothing else. >>43917 >Is there a modern alternative to active sonar? Passive sonar, but you can only do so much with it. If they could change it from a high-frequency noise to a low-frequency noise then the power output wouldn't matter nearly as much (the frequency is more important than the strength in determining the number of decibels a sonar produces), but it would be an overall weaker system that couldn't travel as far. Low-frequency sonar is great for mapping out the sea floor but it doesn't work so good for finding things. >LIDAR I imagine you'd run into refraction issues in the water, but you could probably use LIDAR. You still run into an issue with LIDAR where you're sending out a high-energy high-frequency laser (or set of lasers) so you have to strike a balance between "strong enough to see in the distance" and "weak enough to not boil water." The primary reason SONARs never got more powerful was because if you gave them any more juice than some of the old soviet submarines, then suddenly the water begins to boil around the sonar revealing your location and effectively blocking your vision. In general LIDAR is better for air and SONAR is better for water.
>>43919 That's effectively what the next-gen missile defense systems in production currently do. They just attach it to a missile for active interception.
>>43919 >As in cranking up the LIDAR until it becomes an energy weapon? Effectively, yes. It mainly only 'works' (in theory) because the very same frequency range of laser required for long-distance underwater scanning also just happens to be the only laser frequency range that works well enough underwater to get any appreciable effect on target. Yes, you boil the water when you 'shoot' the torpedo and give away your location, but if the enemy is firing torpedoes at you they already know where you are. >Could the same work on the surface, even if only to track incoming missiles? I mean, that's how LIDAR already works? The issue is getting a powerful enough laser in a compact, robust, and durable enough package to be used as a directed energy weapons system. But every major military power now has a variant of solid-state laser that qualifies for this.
Don't know if you faggots care, but the newest ship in the Canadian fleet is is scheduled to return to dryfock to repair critical propulsion faults. Her sister ships are reporting serious flaws in their power generation plants as well as thousands of other deficiencies across the board. Is Irving, the primary contractor for this project to blame? The policy makers and project planners for managing the entire program poorly? Or is the military at fault for not operating their new kit safely and effectively? And more importantly, how will this affect Canada's claims to the Arctic when the purpose-built ships she's invested so much money into have so many problems?
Would the Germans have been better off in ww2 if they built no destroyers, and used those resources to build more light cruisers, or this is just a plain retarded idea? Compared to the Pacific, it's as if destroyers didn't even exists in the Atlantic, except as convoy escorts for ASW.

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms
Delete
Report

no cookies?