×

Notice

The forum is in read only mode.
× Feel free to discuss any typical forums accepted topic here, Whateley or otherwise. Let's avoid the usual suspects: politics, religion, and so forth that tend to result in flame wars and angered forums readers. Other topics will be considered fair game unless they prove to be too volatile, at which point we'll use Devisor created anti-flame chemicals on the subject.

Question Pew Pew

7 years 9 months ago #1 by Kristin Darken
  • Kristin Darken
  • Kristin Darken's Avatar Topic Author


  • Posts: 3898

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
    • www.cnn.com/2017/07/17/politics/us-navy-...er-weapon/index.html
    Fate guard you and grant you a Light to brighten your Way.
    7 years 9 months ago #2 by E!
    • E!
    • E!'s Avatar


  • Posts: 262

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
    • I like how they said "special materials", just tell us whats inside the damn thing. I totally won't build one in my backyard and use it to shoot down the amazon delivery drones. :evil:
    7 years 9 months ago #3 by Valentine
    • Valentine
    • Valentine's Avatar


  • Posts: 3121

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: 17 Aug 1966
    • OK, who authorized the naming of US ship the USS Ponce?
    Don't Drick and Drive.
    7 years 9 months ago #4 by Sir Lee
    • Sir Lee
    • Sir Lee's Avatar


  • Posts: 3113

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: 08 Nov 1966
    • Uh, Richard Nixon, apparently? The ship was commissioned in 1971...
    Don't call me "Shirley." You will surely make me surly.
    7 years 9 months ago - 7 years 9 months ago #5 by mhalpern
    • mhalpern
    • mhalpern's Avatar


  • Posts: 2026

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
    • More for active defense then anything, probably more for missile defense at that
    Any Bad Ideas I have and microscene OC character stories are freely adoptable.
    Last Edit: 7 years 9 months ago by mhalpern.
    7 years 9 months ago #6 by Polk Kitsune
    • Polk Kitsune
    • Polk Kitsune's Avatar


  • Posts: 431

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
    • True, but then again, a lot of weapons could be called 'defensive' in purpose. And as much as they showed performance, how effective is it in damage, usage, and how hard is it to repair and maintain?

    But I'm not a specialist in the matter either, and there may be more factors I can't speculate for.

    It is the beginning though, and things like that will get more fancy as we move to the future.
    My story: Evershade: Reforming
    7 years 9 months ago #7 by Domoviye
    • Domoviye
    • Domoviye's Avatar


  • Posts: 2428

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown

    • Polk Kitsune wrote: True, but then again, a lot of weapons could be called 'defensive' in purpose. And as much as they showed performance, how effective is it in damage, usage, and how hard is it to repair and maintain?

    But I'm not a specialist in the matter either, and there may be more factors I can't speculate for.

    It is the beginning though, and things like that will get more fancy as we move to the future.


    It's almost entirely defensive for now.
    The navy has more than enough offensive weapons that will do more than burn a small hole through a ship. What they need is an effective defence against the newer supersonic anti-ship weapons that can fly in at low altitudes and blow a large hole in the ship. With the newest missiles there's a decent to good chance radar won't pick them up,until the last few miles giving the ship very little time to react. A laser is fast enough to take these out.
    7 years 9 months ago #8 by Sir Lee
    • Sir Lee
    • Sir Lee's Avatar


  • Posts: 3113

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: 08 Nov 1966
    • Also, for all the hype, a laser weapon has one obvious limitation: it's strictly line-of-sight. Great for defense, not so much for offense. After all, you want to have the center of the exploding and maiming and dying as far from your ships as possible. It also might be less effective under some weather conditions, depending on the particular wavelength used.

    Shooting military targets beyond the horizon, behind a hill or hampered by bad weather is century-old technology. You don't need a laser for that.

    Not saying that it won't find an attack role eventually, however. But I doubt that it will be ship-based.
    Don't call me "Shirley." You will surely make me surly.
    7 years 9 months ago #9 by Phoenix Spiritus
    • Phoenix Spiritus
    • Phoenix Spiritus's Avatar


  • Posts: 2595

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: 20 Jan 1976

    • Sir Lee wrote: Not saying that it won't find an attack role eventually, however. But I doubt that it will be ship-based.


    You're just being insufficiently ambitious with your choice of ships ... this is the perfect offensive weapon for a spaceship!
    7 years 9 months ago - 7 years 9 months ago #10 by Yolandria
    • Yolandria
    • Yolandria's Avatar


  • Posts: 595

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
    • The Army is also working on a laser defense system for ground use.

    Pew-Pew

    More Pew-pew
    Mistress of the shelter for lost and redeemable Woobies!
    Last Edit: 7 years 9 months ago by Yolandria. Reason: Added more Dakka-Dakka!
    7 years 9 months ago #11 by null0trooper
    • null0trooper
    • null0trooper's Avatar


  • Posts: 3032

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: 19 Oct 1964

    • Valentine wrote: OK, who authorized the naming of US ship the USS Ponce?


    The name isn't quite so odd in Puerto Rico .
    Forum-posted ideas are freely adoptable.

    WhatIF Stories: Buy the Book

    Discussion Thread
    7 years 9 months ago - 7 years 9 months ago #12 by Katssun
    • Katssun
    • Katssun's Avatar


  • Posts: 1333

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
    • It's just too bad that they decommissioned the USCGC Winnebago .

    Truly, it must have been the best way to visit the US coasts and Hawaii...

    Or maybe its sister ship in the class, the USCGC Androscoggin.

    Coast Guard ones are definitely the weirdest, since they're named for lakes and bays and stuff.
    Last Edit: 7 years 9 months ago by Katssun.
    7 years 9 months ago #13 by Domoviye
    • Domoviye
    • Domoviye's Avatar


  • Posts: 2428

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown

    • Katssun wrote: It's just too bad that they decommissioned the USCGC Winnebago .

    Truly, it must have been the best way to visit the US coasts and Hawaii...

    Or maybe its sister ship in the class, the USCGC Androscoggin.

    Coast Guard ones are definitely the weirdest, since they're named for lakes and bays and stuff.

    During WW2 the Canadian anti-sub corvettes were named after flowers.
    No one is quite sure who gave that order, but according to the sailers it was to embarrass the Germans. Who would want to admit they were damaged and run off by the RCNS Tulip?
    And since about three hundred went into service, they had to get some pretty strange flowers to name them all.
    7 years 9 months ago #14 by Polk Kitsune
    • Polk Kitsune
    • Polk Kitsune's Avatar


  • Posts: 431

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown

    • Domoviye wrote: During WW2 the Canadian anti-sub corvettes were named after flowers.
    No one is quite sure who gave that order, but according to the sailers it was to embarrass the Germans. Who would want to admit they were damaged and run off by the RCNS Tulip?
    And since about three hundred went into service, they had to get some pretty strange flowers to name them all.


    ... I can only imagine how those conversations went.

    "... Your unit was taken down by what?"

    "The Rosebud, sir."

    "The Sled?"

    "No, sir. The-"

    "The flower?"

    "THE SHIP, SIR!"

    Whatever little chaos you can spread, you know? :3
    My story: Evershade: Reforming
    7 years 9 months ago - 7 years 9 months ago #15 by Rose Bunny
    • Rose Bunny
    • Rose Bunny's Avatar


  • Posts: 1956

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
    • I have heard of worse names for ships...

    "It's a good ship"
    High-Priestess of the Order of Spirit-Chan
    Last Edit: 7 years 9 months ago by Rose Bunny.
    7 years 9 months ago #16 by Valentine
    • Valentine
    • Valentine's Avatar


  • Posts: 3121

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: 17 Aug 1966
    • en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ponce

    ponce
    NOUN

    British
    informal
    1 derogatory An effeminate man.

    2 A man who lives off a prostitute's earnings.

    (And yes I know the Navy and Puerto Rico pronounce it differently)

    Depending upon the effective range and overall power, it could make a very effective Anti-Aircraft gun for the military.
    Don't Drick and Drive.
    7 years 9 months ago #17 by mhalpern
    • mhalpern
    • mhalpern's Avatar


  • Posts: 2026

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
    • Its not very powerful, its meant to detonate rocket fuel, range = Line of Sight, hard to effectivey scale up the power of the tech, I think that the power and size requirements scale logarithmicly for electrical weapons that would be good for AA (or Anti anything really) look at the Rail Gun, general relativity is DEADLY
    Any Bad Ideas I have and microscene OC character stories are freely adoptable.
    7 years 9 months ago #18 by Kristin Darken
    • Kristin Darken
    • Kristin Darken's Avatar Topic Author


  • Posts: 3898

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown

    • mhalpern wrote: Its not very powerful, its meant to detonate rocket fuel


    This is a completely logical statement that completely misses the tactical advantages... name ONE thing that the Navy might worry about approaching its ships that isn't going to be affected by it? Drones? Check. Missiles? Check. Planes? Check. Other ships? Check. ALL the things approaching a ship in the water tend to have either rocket or jet fuel, if not other explosive materials on them. Would this be a useful tank mounted weapon? Maybe not so much... but for the purpose its designed? I'm not sure what "it's not very powerful" means to you exactly... but its more than powerful enough to accomplish its function. And it does so without spraying a stream of depleted uranium ammo at the target... which is the primary defense system mounted on ships atm.
    Fate guard you and grant you a Light to brighten your Way.
    7 years 9 months ago #19 by Polk Kitsune
    • Polk Kitsune
    • Polk Kitsune's Avatar


  • Posts: 431

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
    • It would be mounted on the best location it can be used onto, true. The fact that it's a ship makes the accessibility rather limited, so the targets it has does fit its parameters.

    Although I also have to question if weather wouldn't affect it's usability. Like heavy fog, to block the laser light. Then again, other weapons might also be affected in various weather.

    At the same time, if it was a serious defense, I doubt the laser would be the only weapon in function at the time. There's probably more ballistic backups available along with it, systems that are known to work more traditionally.
    My story: Evershade: Reforming
    7 years 9 months ago #20 by mhalpern
    • mhalpern
    • mhalpern's Avatar


  • Posts: 2026

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown

    • Kristin Darken wrote:

    mhalpern wrote: Its not very powerful, its meant to detonate rocket fuel


    This is a completely logical statement that completely misses the tactical advantages... name ONE thing that the Navy might worry about approaching its ships that isn't going to be affected by it? Drones? Check. Missiles? Check. Planes? Check. Other ships? Check. ALL the things approaching a ship in the water tend to have either rocket or jet fuel, if not other explosive materials on them. Would this be a useful tank mounted weapon? Maybe not so much... but for the purpose its designed? I'm not sure what "it's not very powerful" means to you exactly... but its more than powerful enough to accomplish its function. And it does so without spraying a stream of depleted uranium ammo at the target... which is the primary defense system mounted on ships atm.

    larger aircraft (including armed drones) and ships would have the fuel more heavily protected, other explosive matterials, assuming the heat doesn't dissipate through the armor, well look at the M1 Abrams tank, you can blow up the ammo and the crew will usually be fine and the tank just in need of minor repairs, it is powerful, in defense, but it doesn't have the stopping power of most weapons on most targets, missiles aren't well protected because they need to be fast, and relatively cheap, which is why this works,
    Any Bad Ideas I have and microscene OC character stories are freely adoptable.
    7 years 9 months ago - 7 years 9 months ago #21 by Schol-R-LEA
    • Schol-R-LEA
    • Schol-R-LEA's Avatar


  • Posts: 1766

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: 24 Oct 1968

    • Rose Bunny wrote: I have heard of worse names for ships...
    [snip]

    "It's a good ship"


    She seemed to think so. Admittedly, she also thought being Ambassador to the UN was a good idea (after she grew up, I mean).

    Annnnnnd.... now I am imagining Alyss filking it as "The Good Ship Loli-Goth". And that's terrible (because Lex was stealing pies, not cake).

    Also? Still better than either Post-Dated Check Loan or Serial Peacemaker . and don't even bring up the Poupance Duungsmeer ...
    Out, damnéd Spot! Bad Doggy!
    Last Edit: 7 years 9 months ago by Schol-R-LEA.
    7 years 9 months ago #22 by Phoenix Spiritus
    • Phoenix Spiritus
    • Phoenix Spiritus's Avatar


  • Posts: 2595

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: 20 Jan 1976

    • mhalpern wrote:

    Kristin Darken wrote:

    mhalpern wrote: Its not very powerful, its meant to detonate rocket fuel


    This is a completely logical statement that completely misses the tactical advantages... name ONE thing that the Navy might worry about approaching its ships that isn't going to be affected by it? Drones? Check. Missiles? Check. Planes? Check. Other ships? Check. ALL the things approaching a ship in the water tend to have either rocket or jet fuel, if not other explosive materials on them. Would this be a useful tank mounted weapon? Maybe not so much... but for the purpose its designed? I'm not sure what "it's not very powerful" means to you exactly... but its more than powerful enough to accomplish its function. And it does so without spraying a stream of depleted uranium ammo at the target... which is the primary defense system mounted on ships atm.

    larger aircraft (including armed drones) and ships would have the fuel more heavily protected, other explosive matterials, assuming the heat doesn't dissipate through the armor, well look at the M1 Abrams tank, you can blow up the ammo and the crew will usually be fine and the tank just in need of minor repairs, it is powerful, in defense, but it doesn't have the stopping power of most weapons on most targets, missiles aren't well protected because they need to be fast, and relatively cheap, which is why this works,


    I haven't looked into it for a while (I was only interested because the original US Navy Litorial warfare ships where all Australian designed and built), but wasn't this laser originally part of that doctrine, and its purpose to protect the ship from swarms of USS Cole style attacks?

    Littoral Warfare ships after all are designed to be used close to the coast, perfect waters for surprise attacks by small and fast commercial boats-as-bombs, a laser attack that explodes the bombs would seem effective in that scenario.
    7 years 9 months ago - 7 years 9 months ago #23 by Sir Lee
    • Sir Lee
    • Sir Lee's Avatar


  • Posts: 3113

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: 08 Nov 1966
    • Correct me if I'm missing something, but... when was the last time that a ship was attacked by a M1 Abrams?

    Snark aside, this laser gun is designed for attackers too fast for other defensive weapons -- my point above being, heavy armor is not a feature of supersonic missiles and such. Even if the fuel is somewhat well protected, such as in some planes, bombs large enough to cause damage to a ship probably won't.
    Don't call me "Shirley." You will surely make me surly.
    Last Edit: 7 years 9 months ago by Sir Lee.
    7 years 9 months ago - 7 years 9 months ago #24 by Kettlekorn
    • Kettlekorn
    • Kettlekorn's Avatar


  • Posts: 1383

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown

    • Capt. Christopher Wells wrote: "It reduces collateral damage -- I no longer have to worry about rounds that may go beyond the target and potentially hurt or damage things that I don't want to hurt or damage."

    I hope he didn't mean that to be taken literally. He won't need to worry about his rounds arcing back to the surface when shooting things out of the sky, but he does need to remain aware of anything behind his target in the sky, such as planes. That's still a big improvement, though. The sky is mostly a pretty empty place, and the beam would hopefully be too attenuated by the time it makes it out of the atmosphere to endanger satellites.
    I am the kernel that pops in the night. I am the pain that keeps your dentist employed.
    Last Edit: 7 years 9 months ago by Kettlekorn.
    7 years 9 months ago #25 by Kristin Darken
    • Kristin Darken
    • Kristin Darken's Avatar Topic Author


  • Posts: 3898

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown

    • Sir Lee wrote: Correct me if I'm missing something, but... when was the last time that a ship was attacked by a M1 Abrams?

    At this point halpern is just arguing because he can't admit that his point made no sense. It doesn't matter that its not a Tie Fighter turbo laser. It was designed for a purpose that doesn't take more power. And if it didn't do the job it was meant to do, the Navy (which is not known for adopting cutting edge technology when there's perfectly reliable two or three decade old stuff available instead) wouldn't be taking it seriously.

    larger aircraft (including armed drones) and ships would have the fuel more heavily protected

    Have you ever seen a fighter/bomber deployed for a strike? Fuel tanks, bombs, missiles... all that stuff just hangs off the bottom of the plane. It's not protected by armor. Just stop.
    Fate guard you and grant you a Light to brighten your Way.
    7 years 9 months ago - 7 years 9 months ago #26 by mhalpern
    • mhalpern
    • mhalpern's Avatar


  • Posts: 2026

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown

    • Kristin Darken wrote:

    Sir Lee wrote: Correct me if I'm missing something, but... when was the last time that a ship was attacked by a M1 Abrams?

    At this point halpern is just arguing because he can't admit that his point made no sense. It doesn't matter that its not a Tie Fighter turbo laser. It was designed for a purpose that doesn't take more power. And if it didn't do the job it was meant to do, the Navy (which is not known for adopting cutting edge technology when there's perfectly reliable two or three decade old stuff available instead) wouldn't be taking it seriously.

    larger aircraft (including armed drones) and ships would have the fuel more heavily protected

    Have you ever seen a fighter/bomber deployed for a strike? Fuel tanks, bombs, missiles... all that stuff just hangs off the bottom of the plane. It's not protected by armor. Just stop.

    I was using the Abrams as an example of a weapon system with a safe way to handle prematurely detonated munitions, not just to argue

    Main problem as an offensive weapon is that it "just" heats up its target, virtually ALL weapons do that to some extent, but they also apply kinetic force, a laser doesn't, or at least not an easily measurable kinetic force
    Any Bad Ideas I have and microscene OC character stories are freely adoptable.
    Last Edit: 7 years 9 months ago by mhalpern.
    7 years 9 months ago - 7 years 9 months ago #27 by Phoenix Spiritus
    • Phoenix Spiritus
    • Phoenix Spiritus's Avatar


  • Posts: 2595

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: 20 Jan 1976

    • mhalpern wrote: Main problem as an offensive weapon is that it "just" heats up its target, virtually ALL weapons do that to some extent, but they also apply kinetic force, a laser doesn't, or at least not an easily measurable kinetic force


    Yeah, but for the attack vector it was designed to protect against (swarms of commercially purchased small boats with IEDs) "just heating them up" will do the trick. These things have no armament, are really fast, and are expected to try "swarming" the larger, better armed navy ships like a swarm of bees. In that scenario, the fast firing, fast targeting laser will be a God sent. In the mean time, they're finding it very effective for other "precision" target missions too and, more importantly, liking their new toy. Always a good thing when the person in charge of saving your ship knows and likes his hardware.

    I think there is some videos on YouTube for the original acceptance trails of the Littoral Warfare ships where they used the RIBs to simulate a swarm attach on the ships, and the conventional weapons systems always lost, I think even some of the specially designed fast engaging systems still failed to protect against the attacks, with the RIBs still getting confirmed 'kills' on the Littoral Warfare ships.
    Last Edit: 7 years 9 months ago by Phoenix Spiritus.
    7 years 9 months ago #28 by Domoviye
    • Domoviye
    • Domoviye's Avatar


  • Posts: 2428

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
    • I think what we have here is a slight miscommunication.
    The lasers are very effective in line of sight against swarming, fast moving opponents. This is what I consider primarily defensive. The attackers have gotten past all long range defensive measures and offensive weapons and must be destroyed asap.
    With offensive weapons on ships I personally think about long range weapons that can be used against ships or targets on land.
    I was never in the navy so I'm willing to bow to experience if I'm limiting defensive and offensive weapons too much.
    7 years 9 months ago #29 by null0trooper
    • null0trooper
    • null0trooper's Avatar


  • Posts: 3032

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: 19 Oct 1964

    • Domoviye wrote: I think what we have here is a slight miscommunication.
    The lasers are very effective in line of sight against swarming, fast moving opponents. This is what I consider primarily defensive. The attackers have gotten past all long range defensive measures and offensive weapons and must be destroyed asap.


    Most armchair warriors forget that the first steps in countering an opponent require detecting and classifying the force with the sensors at hand. A rubber boat on choppy water is not going to show up on radar, which is used for acquiring missiles. It doesn't show up well visually either at much, no matter how well night-vision scopes work on dry land. Sonar? Keep on dreaming.

    Domoviye wrote: With offensive weapons on ships I personally think about long range weapons that can be used against ships or targets on land.


    That depends on the ship, although AAW capabilities tend to be important for everyone. Sure, the lasers could be pointed at an aircraft (and the pilot's eyes and some of the plane's other sensors may have a Very Bad Day after that, at one hell of a longer range than the aircraft can be damaged) but the closer a pilot can risk approaching a ship, the less time the ship has to identify, classify, and respond to a missile being fired at it.

    As I understand it, anti-submarine warfare remains an up-close-and-personal game.

    Domoviye wrote: I was never in the navy so I'm willing to bow to experience if I'm limiting defensive and offensive weapons too much.


    'Salright. Most people can't tell one long, gray, pointy thing that goes out to see from another, even with those that aren't long, gray (Let's annoy the 'Puddle Pirates' too), or pointy (Gator freighters tend to be boxy. Also, I would not put it past a Marine to fire an Abrams from the deck of a ship if they thought it would work. 'If it sounds stupid but works - it ain't stupid.')
    Forum-posted ideas are freely adoptable.

    WhatIF Stories: Buy the Book

    Discussion Thread
    7 years 9 months ago - 7 years 9 months ago #30 by Katssun
    • Katssun
    • Katssun's Avatar


  • Posts: 1333

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
    • The main reason the US Navy (and China to a lesser extent) are looking at laser weapons and railguns is because it removes the explosives off a ship.

    Many ships going back to the US Civil War were sunk because their magazines were hit. It's a big reason why the US's battleships were converted to museum ships.
    Last Edit: 7 years 9 months ago by Katssun.
    7 years 9 months ago #31 by JG
    • JG
    • JG's Avatar


  • Posts: 1454

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
    • large planes and combat drone fuel isn't "More protected." In fact, it's far more vulnerable to being flashed by a laser than any ship on the water.

    Large aircraft tend to carry their fuel supply internally in the wings and around the fuselage, in packets, and helicopters are painted with magnesium-derived paint that burns like you would never believe.

    If anything, the larger the bird, the more vulnerable to attack by a focused laser weapon they are. You cannot armor aircraft and still have the airframes capable of carrying out the missions required of them. Even air to air missiles are proximity detonated near the planes so the shrapnel and concussive force can rip giant chunks off the birds, because a .22 rim-fire rifle can punch right through the paneling on any airframe. They are not capable of sustaining any sort of sustained weapons havoc at all.

    Exception is the A-10 Warthog. Because it is a freak amongst aviation.
    7 years 9 months ago #32 by Phoenix Spiritus
    • Phoenix Spiritus
    • Phoenix Spiritus's Avatar


  • Posts: 2595

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: 20 Jan 1976

    • JG wrote: Exception is the A-10 Warthog. Because it is a freak amongst aviation.


    The A-10 Warthog was designed to take damage, all other times someone sat down to design a warbird, they started with the premise "its an airplane, you shouldn't be there if there's a chance the enemy could hit you!"
    7 years 9 months ago #33 by Astrodragon
    • Astrodragon
    • Astrodragon's Avatar


  • Posts: 1998

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
    • The fuel isn't the real target in a missile.
    The primary one is the guidance system, which cant really be armoured as it has to be looking for the ship.
    Without it, its a piece of metal coming fast aimed at something, probably not you.
    The warhead is the next likely target - its at the front, and enough energy pumped into it will light it off.
    There is also the guidance - fins and stabilisers again cant be armoured, and if you damage a control surface the usuall result is a big splash.
    Hitting the fuel is most likely in a crossing target.
    I love watching their innocent little faces smiling happily as they trip gaily down the garden path, before finding the pit with the rusty spikes.
    7 years 9 months ago #34 by JG
    • JG
    • JG's Avatar


  • Posts: 1454

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown

    • Phoenix Spiritus wrote:

    JG wrote: Exception is the A-10 Warthog. Because it is a freak amongst aviation.


    The A-10 Warthog was designed to take damage, all other times someone sat down to design a warbird, they started with the premise "its an airplane, you shouldn't be there if there's a chance the enemy could hit you!"


    And to this day, the Marine corps is staring at the air force, licking their collective chops for the day the Air Force declares them "Decommissioned."

    "Hello, we'd like to place an order for new airframes..."
    7 years 9 months ago #35 by elrodw
    • elrodw
    • elrodw's Avatar


  • Posts: 3263

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
    • The A-10 Warthog was designed based on "lessons learned" from Hans Ulrich Rudel, who in WW2 was personally responsible for over 500 kills of Soviet tanks - and that while flying the very obsolete Ju-87 Stuka outfitted with anti-tank cannons. The entire airplane was designed around the gun, then armored to protect the pilot, and then the design was completed to prevent single points of failure and to increase survivability because it was known that the A-10 was going to take ground fire. If you look at some of the damage sustained by Warthogs in the sandbox that flew their pilots home, you'll be amazed at how rugged the plane is.

    Years ago, the Air Force wanted to retire them and create a version of the F-16 to take the ground attack role (to be called the A-16) so they'd have common airframes. Shades of McNamara's "one size fits all" airplane design during the Vietnam years that proved so remarkably successful - NOT (note -extreme sarcasm here!) Like I suspect the F-35 will turn out to be. The A-10 was designed around a mission, and it does that mission very, very well.
    Never give up, Never surrender! Captain Peter Quincy Taggert
    7 years 9 months ago #36 by Katssun
    • Katssun
    • Katssun's Avatar


  • Posts: 1333

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown

    • JG wrote:

    Phoenix Spiritus wrote:

    JG wrote: Exception is the A-10 Warthog. Because it is a freak amongst aviation.


    The A-10 Warthog was designed to take damage, all other times someone sat down to design a warbird, they started with the premise "its an airplane, you shouldn't be there if there's a chance the enemy could hit you!"


    And to this day, the Marine corps is staring at the air force, licking their collective chops for the day the Air Force declares them "Decommissioned."

    "Hello, we'd like to place an order for new airframes..."

    I thought there were very specific definitions of what types of planes fall under the US Air Force and the US Navy?

    Does the A-10 qualify?
    7 years 9 months ago #37 by JG
    • JG
    • JG's Avatar


  • Posts: 1454

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
    • if there were, then the Navy wouldn't be able to use the F/A-18.

    Fixed-Wing strike craft have to have folding wings to operate on a carrier.

    Guess what the A-10 has?
    7 years 9 months ago - 7 years 9 months ago #38 by E!
    • E!
    • E!'s Avatar


  • Posts: 262

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown

    • Phoenix Spiritus wrote:

    JG wrote: Exception is the A-10 Warthog. Because it is a freak amongst aviation.


    The A-10 Warthog was designed to take damage, all other times someone sat down to design a warbird, they started with the premise "its an airplane, you shouldn't be there if there's a chance the enemy could hit you!"


    When they designed the A-10 all they did was look at a really big gun and say "This needs to fly."
    Last Edit: 7 years 9 months ago by E!.
    7 years 9 months ago - 7 years 9 months ago #39 by Schol-R-LEA
    • Schol-R-LEA
    • Schol-R-LEA's Avatar


  • Posts: 1766

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: 24 Oct 1968
    • Armor is a consideration with warplanes, least it was in the past. One of the problems both Germany and Japan had was that they were frequently sacrificing armor for speed (by the former), or maneuverability (by the latter). For example, lack of adequate armor - and self-sealing tanks - was the Achilles' Heel of the Zero, once the US had planes which could match its agility and pilots who were up to the job (my understanding is that before the war, the US had a dearth of both Naval pilots and then-modern carrier aircraft, and the training was sub-par compared to most, due mostly to the budget cuts of the late 1920s and early 1930s; this was being reversed from 1940 on, but they were still getting things up to snuff when the war started. Even capable pilots were often hampered by a simple lack of flying hours).

    However, it is far less important than it used to be - you really can't put enough armor on a fighter or fighter-bomber to protect against missiles. The role of armor on aircraft has always been, first and foremost, to buy the aircrew time to get away, either from the aircraft by bailing out, or from the fighting by going back home and (hopefully) landing. While some aircraft are famously survivable - for example, the Strike Eagle has a proven ability to keep flying even with most of a wing missing - this is less due to armoring than to the ruggedness required for combat maneuvering (and in that particular case, the engine performance that allowed it to stay airborne).

    Ground attack aircraft were already becoming a thing by the end of WWI, and by the time WWII came around, most nations had either an armored ground-attack craft (e.g., the Sturmovik), an armored heavy fighter (e.g., the Thunderbolt and the Lightning, though not all Lightnings were armored - IIRC, the majority were models with less armor but an additional hardpoint for adding another drop tank, to gain greater range, which was more crucial need in the Pacific Theater) or a modified light or medium bomber (e.g., the Mosquito, though that relied on speed rather than armor) which could pull off such attacks.


    Ebola wrote: When they designed the A-10 all they did was look at a really big gun and say "This needs to fly."


    While there's some truth to this, there was a lot more to it. As I said, modern aircraft cannons and AA missiles will go through pretty much any amount of armor you could feasibly put on a plane and allow it to fly its missions. The A-10 generally isn't going to be engaging other aircraft, however, and on combat runs it flies low enough that neither fighters nor SAMs can easily engage (though it isn't impossible). The armor is enough to stop some AA guns, most ground fire, and even most man-portable guided missiles - not always, and often not without significant damage, but as a rule it can survive long enough to at least let the pilot get out of the plane or fly out of the combat zone.
    Out, damnéd Spot! Bad Doggy!
    Last Edit: 7 years 9 months ago by Schol-R-LEA.
    7 years 8 months ago #40 by Erisian
    • Erisian
    • Erisian's Avatar


  • Posts: 144

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
    • Another couple things to consider for a Laser system is they are extremely cheap to fire ($1 / shot according to one article I read, it's just a matter of having batteries to store the electricity needed), and have no need to 'lead' a target. The operator / computer points, and where it's pointed it hits. Unlike Star Wars and other sci-fi 'blasters', a Laser works at the speed of light.

    Compare that to the cost of a interceptor missile, which has a chance of missing.
    Author of Into the Light, Light's Promise, and Call of the Light
    (starts with Into The Light )
    7 years 8 months ago #41 by Katssun
    • Katssun
    • Katssun's Avatar


  • Posts: 1333

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown

    • Erisian wrote: Unlike Star Wars and other sci-fi 'blasters', a Laser works at the speed of light.

    Star Wars weapons are plasma-based, even if they're called "lasers"!
    7 years 8 months ago #42 by Phoenix Spiritus
    • Phoenix Spiritus
    • Phoenix Spiritus's Avatar


  • Posts: 2595

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: 20 Jan 1976
    • Aren't they usually called 'blasters'?
    7 years 8 months ago #43 by Valentine
    • Valentine
    • Valentine's Avatar


  • Posts: 3121

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: 17 Aug 1966

    • Phoenix Spiritus wrote: Aren't they usually called 'blasters'?


    And apparently designed by Tintertrain and Flashbang.

    Warning: Spoiler! [ Click to expand ]
    Don't Drick and Drive.
    7 years 8 months ago #44 by peter
    • peter
    • peter's Avatar


  • Posts: 293

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown

    • Erisian wrote: Another couple things to consider for a Laser system is they are extremely cheap to fire ($1 / shot according to one article I read, it's just a matter of having batteries to store the electricity needed), and have no need to 'lead' a target. The operator / computer points, and where it's pointed it hits. Unlike Star Wars and other sci-fi 'blasters', a Laser works at the speed of light.

    Compare that to the cost of a interceptor missile, which has a chance of missing.


    Did they mention rate of fire? I know they can sustain a shot long enough to burn through, but how quickly can they re-orient. Say if a dozen missiles are coming in.
    7 years 8 months ago #45 by Erisian
    • Erisian
    • Erisian's Avatar


  • Posts: 144

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
    • Rate of fire wasn't mentioned. I think they want to keep details under wraps for now in any case.

    Pewpew
    Author of Into the Light, Light's Promise, and Call of the Light
    (starts with Into The Light )
    7 years 8 months ago #46 by E M Pisek
    • E M Pisek
    • E M Pisek's Avatar


  • Posts: 1299

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: 24 Apr 1960
    • We all talk about the laser and it really is nifty, but I think nothing can still beat this as the Navy still Updated rail gun seems interested in it. Hey, why not have good backup.
    What is - was. What was - is.
    7 years 8 months ago #47 by Kristin Darken
    • Kristin Darken
    • Kristin Darken's Avatar Topic Author


  • Posts: 3898

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
    • What makes the laser important here is exactly the reason I was giving mhalpern a hard time. Yes, the railgun trials are showing good results, especially as they make refinements to the system that reduce wear and replacement demands.

    But it takes at least a Zumwalt class destroyer... those are the newest ones, with the angled hulls... to generate enough electrical power to fire one. Or, more specifically, the only ships in the fleet currently able to mount one and power it would be cruisers and carriers. On the other hand, the defensive laser system I posted about is able to run off the power generated by the three dedicated generators that are part of its systems. And that system as a whole, can be (and is) mounted on something as small as the Ponce. An Amphibious Transport.

    Which is an important distinction... because Amphibious Transports are the ones that approach the beaches for troop deployment and are susceptible to short range drone and small boat attacks in large numbers. And cannot easily be supported by air cover on final approach because of potential friendly fire. Destroyers, which are typically used as screening units as part of a battle group and as medium range strike forces, are generally at a distance large enough that air cover and ship to surface strikes can still take out enormous numbers of attackers before they approach.

    Putting enough power on Amphibious Transports to power rail guns might give them more defense and a medium range strike capability... but at a sacrifice of fuel and equipment space. It would be a bit like adding high powered cannon on a carrier. Sure, it would give it more direct fire attack capabilities... but at a cost of space used for maintaining and launching aircraft. The purpose of a carrier is to put as many planes into the air in the first minutes of a battle as is possible.

    Some people believe in general purpose versatile equipment being better than specialized single purpose equipment... but those people generally don't run the Navy. The Navy gets versatility by using battlegroups. The combination of units selected to form the battlegroup is how the force covers all possible scenario... and no single ship is deployed where it needs to be all things for all scenarios. The same is true for weapon selection. Yes, a railgun is a potentially effective weapon for ship deployment... but a relatively low powered but properly designed defensive laser is also highly effective, in the conditions it was designed for.

    The tough part will be determining which will get deployed on the larger ships... as an offensive weapon, the railgun has clear advantages. But the ability to use multiple defensive lasers for the same power demand as a railgun, is going to be a very appealing consideration unless someone solves the available power issue for railguns... like small fusion generators or high charge capacitors.
    Fate guard you and grant you a Light to brighten your Way.
    7 years 8 months ago #48 by Sir Lee
    • Sir Lee
    • Sir Lee's Avatar


  • Posts: 3113

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: 08 Nov 1966
    • There's one thing that intrigues me in that railgun test video... namely, where that smoke comes from? Obviously not gunpowder/propellant, ad it does not look like water vapour. Lubricant, maybe?
    Don't call me "Shirley." You will surely make me surly.
    7 years 8 months ago #49 by Valentine
    • Valentine
    • Valentine's Avatar


  • Posts: 3121

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: 17 Aug 1966
    • I wonder how many railgun turrets you could fit on the deck of the Enterprise?
    Don't Drick and Drive.
    7 years 8 months ago #50 by Kristin Darken
    • Kristin Darken
    • Kristin Darken's Avatar Topic Author


  • Posts: 3898

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown

    • Sir Lee wrote: There's one thing that intrigues me in that railgun test video... namely, where that smoke comes from? Obviously not gunpowder/propellant, ad it does not look like water vapour. Lubricant, maybe?

    Barrel fragments... nothing travels through a constrained space at mach 6 without a little heat and wear. Thus spark shower and smoke as the metal burns...a more powerful/better railgun would probably keep the shot floating in a magnetic field and 'never' touch the inside of the barrel (if it even 'has' a barrel). But I don't think this is there yet. If it was, they wouldn't be replacing the barrel.
    Fate guard you and grant you a Light to brighten your Way.
    7 years 8 months ago #51 by Kristin Darken
    • Kristin Darken
    • Kristin Darken's Avatar Topic Author


  • Posts: 3898

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown

    • Valentine wrote: I wonder how many railgun turrets you could fit on the deck of the Enterprise?

    Many... more than a hundred... though most would have limited (overhead only) firing arcs.
    Fate guard you and grant you a Light to brighten your Way.
    7 years 8 months ago #52 by Katssun
    • Katssun
    • Katssun's Avatar


  • Posts: 1333

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown

    • Kristin Darken wrote:

    Sir Lee wrote: There's one thing that intrigues me in that railgun test video... namely, where that smoke comes from? Obviously not gunpowder/propellant, ad it does not look like water vapour. Lubricant, maybe?

    Barrel fragments... nothing travels through a constrained space at mach 6 without a little heat and wear. Thus spark shower and smoke as the metal burns...a more powerful/better railgun would probably keep the shot floating in a magnetic field and 'never' touch the inside of the barrel (if it even 'has' a barrel). But I don't think this is there yet. If it was, they wouldn't be replacing the barrel.

    It's the steel sabot ripping itself to shreds, auto-igniting itself and the air around it.
    7 years 8 months ago #53 by Mister D
    • Mister D
    • Mister D's Avatar


  • Posts: 832

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: Unknown

    • Katssun wrote:

    Kristin Darken wrote:

    Sir Lee wrote: There's one thing that intrigues me in that railgun test video... namely, where that smoke comes from? Obviously not gunpowder/propellant, ad it does not look like water vapour. Lubricant, maybe?

    Barrel fragments... nothing travels through a constrained space at mach 6 without a little heat and wear. Thus spark shower and smoke as the metal burns...a more powerful/better railgun would probably keep the shot floating in a magnetic field and 'never' touch the inside of the barrel (if it even 'has' a barrel). But I don't think this is there yet. If it was, they wouldn't be replacing the barrel.

    It's the steel sabot ripping itself to shreds, auto-igniting itself and the air around it.


    It can be both.

    I have a couple of friends who tried building rail-guns just to see if they could.

    One of the hassles that they had was the barrel gradually disintegrating, one of the other hassles was the bullets falling apart.

    One method that they used sort-of was to seal the barrel with a sacrificial cap, and then pump all of the air out, which really reduced the fire rate, but it meant that the barrel and the bullet didn't suffer so much damage.

    However this meant that when the bullet left the barrel by going through the cap, that was the point in the process where all of the heating of the oxygen took place. Add in the inductive heating generated internally in the bullet, and you had some wonderful fireworks...
    Measure Twice
    Moderators: WhateleyAdmin, Kristin Darken, E. E. Nalley, elrodw, Nagrij, MageOhki, Astrodragon, NeoMagus, Warren, Morpheus, Wasamon, sleethr, OtherEric, Bek D Corbin, MaLAguA, Souffle Girl, Phoenix Spiritus, Starwolf, DanZilla, Katie_Lyn, Maggie Finson, DrBender, JG, Bladedancer, Renae_Whateley
    Powered by Kunena Forum