|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Blacksquirrel
|
Posted - 2011.08.10 16:12:00 -
[1]
Originally by: Akita T I'm still waiting for (nearly) unmanned, remote-controlled and partially autonomous, self-maintaining and massively redundant seafaring supercarriers with oversized nuclear reactors and a huge fleet of drones, preferably with drone fabrication lines right there on the ship.
...yes, I have probably been playing too much Total Annihilation // Supreme Commander
Funny I was researching drone tech for a paper I had to write for naval/history of warfare class. And one the ideas is have "Swarming" drones launched from subs either aircraft or mini subs/ long range torpedoes.
|
Blacksquirrel
|
Posted - 2011.08.10 19:42:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Bane Necran
Originally by: Caleidascope I think your version of reality is a bit different from mine.
Maybe because it's a subject i've spent a good amount of time researching.
I can be a theologian doesnt mean god or unicorns are real.
|
Blacksquirrel
|
Posted - 2011.08.13 15:57:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Grimpak tbh with the recent developments on railguns, I wonder if we'll start to see a resurgence on battleship-class ships in deteriment of carriers, however.
Russians have super sonic anti ship to ship ballistic missiles than can range around 1000km. (Current railguns estimated max range is around 200 miles to be mounted on the next destroyer) At which speeds they theoretically can make it past Phalanx systems. They were designed to be launched in smaller fleets to draw less attention and kill Carriers.
|
Blacksquirrel
|
Posted - 2011.08.13 23:20:00 -
[4]
People seem to forget that carriers aren't primarily for striking on their own rather support for expeditionary forces. If youre another nation thats not the US or has bases all around the world and wish to invade far off or extend current lines of communication over water. You're not going to use subs.
And while there are various systems in place that have striking capability globally they also lack ability to provide CAS or sustainability over the battlefield in support of such operations. Drones currently aren't as fast nor carry as much fire power. They further need an airfield near the AO. Carriers have the ability to station in the AO for months at a time as well (If they dont have a navy or its been destroyed there's little someone else can do... Navies are expensive after all.
Ballistic weapons also have difficulty hitting multiple mobile targets and assessment of impact is difficult.(Cruise missiles are designed to use against stationary targets)
So while yes there are cheaper ways to simply strike a target the carrier wasnt primarily designed for that. Rather to be used with "en masse" tactics. As far as naval combat is concerned aircraft can simply cover a greater area with refueling capabilities. And there are plenty of anti sub capable aircraft that just need to create a buoy net to pin point a sub and drop a few homing torpedoes, or now launch drone torpedoes.
Are carriers the end all in Naval warfare? IN WW2 they nearly were, but not so much now. However still quite effective, and have a role or else no one would want/use them.
|
Blacksquirrel
|
Posted - 2011.08.16 17:43:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Akita T I have this idea about swarms of football-sized drones with a grenade-sized shaped explosive charge attached
Read wired for war someones already thought of that. Also darpa projects that research robotic swarm theory control. Or hell even MIT and CAL TECH i believe are messing with it.
|
|
|
|