Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: kas2591

Actually, what's funny about that is that the Air Force is probably the branch with the MOST to fear from the advance of technology. The Army now has a laser-energy weapon capable of bringing down a missile in flight, and it's only a matter of time (a few decades at most) until the weapon is portable enough for battlefield deployment (it's currently only useable for protecting fixed assets). Once we have a portable high energy laser weapons system coupled with a high speed mirrored targeting system, we'll have a weapon capable of targeting and destroying any aircraft on the visible horizon in MICROSECONDS. With queued targeting, one of these things could conceivably down 10+ aircraft per second.

Given the history of warfare, it won't take more than a few more decades before the technology is in the hands of the worlds other nations. At that point, aircraft in warfare become obsolete. The ONLY things that will be flying will be very small and ultra stealthy ROV's, and stealth missiles, capable of evading the targeting sensors of these things.

This, of course, is just another nail in the carriers coffin.


66 posted on 03/24/2005 2:53:49 PM PST by Arthalion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]


To: Arthalion

Who in the Army has a laser energy weapon capable of bringing down an aircraft in flight. I hadn't heard that there was anything other than in the testing phase.

As for the capability, they said the same thing about the Sgt York as I recall.

Assuming the scenario of other nations gaining this technology is true(and there's certainly n o reason not to think so) then we will be in big trouble: I don't think a C-5 ot C-17 would fall into the "very small and ultra stealthy ROV" category.

What that means is we either get out of the force projection business entirely or find ways to protect our airlift and sealift capability (because they've been cutting into those programs to pay for lasers and stealth fighters and computer systems and operations that Congress won't appropriate for like Bosnia and Somalia).

Here is something I learned through experience in this field: You can gab about capabilities all you want (there's a whole boatload of people who do that, us enlisted folks call them officers) but unless you plan for your limitations you are going to get your butt handed to you most ricky tick. Counting solely on technology will get you killed.


67 posted on 03/24/2005 3:40:32 PM PST by kas2591 (Life's harder when you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]

To: Arthalion
Okay you guys with more Navy smarts than me... How about the IOWAs?

My father, who served on the IOWA in Korea, has always maintained that they are still very practical capital ships. Newer power plants would drastically reduce crew and maintenance costs and may make them faster as well.

The 16" guns could accommodate sabots of smaller caliber JDAM-style warheads, making any target within 60 miles of the coastline eligible for a precision strike. No carrier pilots to risk, no Tomahawks getting shot down. The kinetic energy of that weapon would be nicely applied to the target. Cheap and effective.

Lastly, the armor on the IOWAs may not be the latest tank armor, but is still very effective. The rules of physics still apply; it would take an awful lot of pepper to put down an IOWA.

I think it's reasonable to say that these four ships could be modernized and put back to sea for less than the construction and operational cost of one CVN.
82 posted on 03/25/2005 11:27:19 AM PST by GOP_Party_Animal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson