Implications for Good

If polywell fusion is developed, in what ways will the world change for better or worse? Discuss.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

pfrit
Posts: 256
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 5:04 pm

Postby pfrit » Tue Jul 14, 2009 2:59 pm

MSimon wrote:
pfrit wrote:
MSimon wrote:Say Iran fired off a few Sunburns? What do you think are the odds their refining capacity would last six hours past launch?

If you are suggesting that a nation fires a lethal attack at an US carrier force and has to wait 6 hours for a response (or even 15 minutes) I think you are nuts. The commander of a carrier force is authorized to use any and all means at his disposal to ensure the survival of his command. A serious attack on his command would mean an immediate, maximal response from his command. He would not need any political approval for it. I doubt he would use his nuclear options if he is not attacked with nuclear weapons, but they would be at his disposal. The rules of engagement when under enemy fire is more than a little frightening. There may be as many as five countries in the world with more firepower than a modern US carrier force. As far as I am concerned, that is the biggest defensive system of a carrier force.


It takes time to mount an attack. And the attack might need to be repeated for effect. I was figuring six hours was enough time.


Actually, you are probably correct on the lag for their oil equiptment as it would not be a military threat and would only be attacked after an order by a political entity. That could take 6 hours. The counter-attack against military targets would be remarkably fast. They would surely have the coordinates of hostile emplacements already in hand and would only need the order to fire against them. Enemy planes in the air away from the conflict might take as much as an hour to splash. This, of course, assumes that a large, lethal attack was made and not just a single missile fired. In Iran's position, I would launch a large attack on an independent ship, not a carrier group. That would provide a show of force and would reduced the danger of an all-out defensive retalliation. To be honest, in their position I wouldn't attack any US navy ships. Much better targets to be found elsewhere.
What is the difference between ignorance and apathy? I don't know and I don't care.

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Postby djolds1 » Tue Jul 14, 2009 5:06 pm

kunkmiester wrote:The Navy also has SM-3, which makes anything not sea-skimming irrelevant. And despite the Sunburn's long range, you still have to be able to see what you're aiming at. That means getting a ship or plane past the Aegis cruisers, which aren't obsolete yet, just Phalanx.
Tactical solid state lasers have been advancing nicely over the last decade, Polywell or no. A demonstrator was blowing away 105 howitzer shells a few years back, and the Israelis are very interested in them for securing their northern and southern borders from rockets. I anticipate that replacement of the various close-in guns on the ships of competitive navies will be underway by 2020 latest.

Edit: Roger may be right about carriers, but for the wrong reasons. The problem won't be Sunburn or BrahMos sending them to the bottom. The problem will be tactical lasers making their aircraft unable to engage. Age of the Slammerverse.
Vae Victis

kunkmiester
Posts: 875
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:51 pm
Contact:

Postby kunkmiester » Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:52 pm

You still need to see the target to shoot it though. ECM will keep some aircraft flying for a good while yet.
Evil is evil, no matter how small

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Tue Jul 14, 2009 8:19 pm

kunkmiester wrote:You still need to see the target to shoot it though. ECM will keep some aircraft flying for a good while yet.
If you need to SEE the target, ECM won't do much good. OCM (optical countermeasures) would be needed.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:27 am

The sword vs shield dance has been going on for a very long time.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

kunkmiester
Posts: 875
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:51 pm
Contact:

Postby kunkmiester » Wed Jul 15, 2009 2:01 am

If you need to SEE the target, ECM won't do much good.
I was speaking metaphorically. Machine vision doesn't work very well, so you have to use something like a radar return that a computer can work with.

ECM means you have to use a stronger or more complex system to get a solid "lock on" to shoot at a target. This means you have to get closer, or invest in a more expensive system. Eventually you get deminishing returns over the offensive system you're opposing. The opposite occurs too, of course, but there's a limit.

Basically, it doesn't matter if your laser or particle beam can shoot 100 miles, if you can't get a solid radar or visual/IR lock until 30 miles out. If an aircraft can engage you from more than 30 miles, your laser is worthless.
Evil is evil, no matter how small

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:00 am

kunkmiester wrote:
If you need to SEE the target, ECM won't do much good.
I was speaking metaphorically. Machine vision doesn't work very well, so you have to use something like a radar return that a computer can work with.

ECM means you have to use a stronger or more complex system to get a solid "lock on" to shoot at a target. This means you have to get closer, or invest in a more expensive system. Eventually you get deminishing returns over the offensive system you're opposing. The opposite occurs too, of course, but there's a limit.

Basically, it doesn't matter if your laser or particle beam can shoot 100 miles, if you can't get a solid radar or visual/IR lock until 30 miles out. If an aircraft can engage you from more than 30 miles, your laser is worthless.


There is also the fact that the "radar" beam at the target declines as the second power of the distance while at the receiver it declines at the fourth power of distance.

So the target knows well before the targeter that he is being interrogated.

This is true of all active interrogations.

So the target can take countermeasures well before the targeter knows there (or where) are targets.

Sword and shield.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Postby Roger » Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:33 am

MSimon wrote:
There is also the fact that the "radar" beam at the target declines as the second power of the distance while at the receiver it declines at the fourth power of distance.

So the target knows well before the targeter that he is being interrogated.



Sometimes folks need to be reminded of 65 yrs facts like this one, LOL.

MSimon wrote:
It takes time to mount an attack. And the attack might need to be repeated for effect. I was figuring six hours was enough time.


MSimon, I knew what you were trying to say, I think most of the board did too, except for pfrit who appears to want to pick a fight about it, and then continues on with dribble. Point being if the Carrier is sunk the exhalted CO will not be issuing any orders to do anything with his ship at the bottom. Everything else pfrit posted was run of the mill pundit stuff that I assume we all understand.

kunkmiester wrote: That means getting a ship or plane past the Aegis cruisers, which aren't obsolete yet, just Phalanx.


Finally someone points out the Phalanx gun point defense issues, but do you know how many have been replaced at this point? and with what? Yeah I know you could look it up, but do you know it?

The Old 1990's Sunburn looks like it had about a 100 mile range, MAX. But then lets throw in the S300/400 and then the SSn24. 3000km range, mach 5. Which means shooting "over" the Aegis cruisers.


AS far as the SM-3, it needs to be shown that it can hit a target that is not sending out RF "hello I'm over here" beacon. The Lunar eclipse hit does not qualify in my book. Its not at all clear the SM-3 does much maneuvering with the first stage, which it must , to play a short and med range carrier group defense roll, for which the SM-3 was never intended.

Oh yeah, 2 Ticonderoga's per carrier aint good enough, make it 4 and increase CAP past 200 miles. 2 cruisers, if they stray too far from the carrier reduce their effective coverage, 4 cruisers can provide tighter coverage at longer distances than 2. In fact heres another variation, Keep 2 cruisers in close with Phalanx point defense, keep 2 cruisers farther out with the box missiles they are now mounting on the Ticonderoga class, that gives the carrier 2 layers of defense, and increases the ability to deal with multiple targets, with 2 different weapons systems.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

pfrit
Posts: 256
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 5:04 pm

Postby pfrit » Wed Jul 15, 2009 1:43 pm

Roger wrote:MSimon, I knew what you were trying to say, I think most of the board did too, except for pfrit who appears to want to pick a fight about it, and then continues on with dribble. Point being if the Carrier is sunk the exhalted CO will not be issuing any orders to do anything with his ship at the bottom. Everything else pfrit posted was run of the mill pundit stuff that I assume we all understand.

Woah there, big fella! Not only did you miss my point, you missed MSimon's point that I was supporting! My suggestion was that a retalatory strike would happen during an attack, without a need to wait till later. Regardless of whether you sunk the carrier or any of the group, an attack would have immediate and dramatic response. This is the primary defense of a carrier force. It is not a question of whether or not you can sink a carrier, it is whether you will survive the response. I have never heard of a naval ship that relied upon its defense for survival since the Merrimac and Monitor days. Even with all of thier vaunted armor, the Yamoto and her sister's primary defense were the guns and engines. The primary defense of the navy is the cost of attack. BTW, you can be sure that as that "exhalted CO" goes down, he will be giving orders to attack.
What is the difference between ignorance and apathy? I don't know and I don't care.

kunkmiester
Posts: 875
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:51 pm
Contact:

Postby kunkmiester » Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:44 pm

Phalanx is being replaced by RIM. Not sure just how effective it is, but it can engage at something like 20 miles, versus the Phalanx's two or three.

I think a more poignant question with SM-3 is can it hit a target saying "I'm over here instead." Even something as small as a ballistic missile warhead can be seen by radar and targeted, ECM in the mix is more complicated. At least it's doing better than the land based system, which has an abysmal record. IMO we should be studying the Nth iteration of Nike/Zeus rather than starting from scratch.
Evil is evil, no matter how small

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Postby D Tibbets » Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:23 pm

Concerning Roger's last post.

The SM III comes in two flavers- MR (two stages) and ER (three stages) . The MR would be used for the closer intercepts, and presumably has more agility out of the tube as it is not carrying that long first stage booster.

Also, one Ticonderoga AGIS cruser per carrier, but also one Arlene Burk destroyer which is so capable that it is probably nearly as effective as the cruiser. Add to that the Carrier's own protection- RAM and/or Sea Sparrow. Add the countermeasures, decoys, and possibly microvave weapens (radar) that can not only blind the missle, but also damage it's sensitive antenna-electronic interfaces (or at least force thier temperary shutdown).
Add to that the Hawkeyes, possible AWACS, and air cap.

Of course the systems have to be turned on to work, so intellegence and a fair dose of paranoia helps.

I suspect submarines remain the dominate threat to a carrier, unless there is a swarming airplane/ship/missle attact, at which point it boils down to the electronic capabilities and who runs out of missles first.


Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:55 am

Personally, I kind of like either metal-storm or slingatron as a replacement for Phalanx.

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Postby D Tibbets » Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:26 am

KitemanSA wrote:Personally, I kind of like either metal-storm or slingatron as a replacement for Phalanx.


I'm guessing that the problem with the phalanx system is that the radars track the target and the stream of bullets and bring them together in an itegratting fashion. That's hard to do with a very short engagement time. Goalkeeper (30mm cannon) or other longer range quick responding cannon would help, but I suppose there is now enough confidence in the light weight missle systems (that were predicted to make guns obsolete since before the Vietnam war) that the guns can be removed.


Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

Professor Science
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:51 pm

Postby Professor Science » Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:12 pm

I love how this thread started out as someone wanting to talk about peace time domestic/industrial applications. Oh wait, love's not the right word. Terrified, yeah, that's the one.
The pursuit of knowledge is in the best of interest of all mankind.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Thu Jul 16, 2009 5:14 pm

Spite.

====

Some folks accept the need for police in the neighborhood. It escapes them why a superior force might be needed between nations.

When no one is protecting commerce the world gets poorer.

The importance to trade of the American "Imperial" system.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... -fall.html

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... n-row.html
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.


Return to “Implications”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests