Discussing future and (im)possible carrier technology
- Thread starter Kurt
- Start date
okay i guess i need to stop here, before mentioning the laser CIWS
The idea may not be as far fetched as it seems right now. Once FEL technology is mature lasers will make for cheap and effective point defense on destroyers and carriers against anti-ship missiles and drones.
maybe i'd put it within the same category of stuffs i mentioned in that post
there are still many hindrances for a true operational laser CIWS, say weather/air condition, power output, power generation, hardened targets
but surely it's one of the best the way to go for future CIWS, with hypersonic missiles, radar ranging and calculating logics will get more complicated than ever
there are still many hindrances for a true operational laser CIWS, say weather/air condition, power output, power generation, hardened targets
but surely it's one of the best the way to go for future CIWS, with hypersonic missiles, radar ranging and calculating logics will get more complicated than ever
Kurt
Junior Member
I doubt very much that lasers alone will be of much use other than blinding unprepared enemy eyes (but that might be a good add on for all ground combat, it has been tested and proven in sport stadions and on airfields). It's simply too easy to create armour in the form of a laser (= ordered light ray) reflecting surface (simple mirror, or shiny metal surface).
But lasers can be quite an add on for particle beams that will be hard to defeat with armour. Such particles could be bullets powered by absorbed laser energy directed heat emission (black body radiation) on their way to achieve less energy loss during flight and possibly even slight dirigibility during flight. Other particle beams could be protons (hydrogen plasma) that can flow through small vacuum channels burned by air absorbing laser energy at very high speeds over great distances without significant gravity effects.
The current success by lasers on the battlefield is due to novelity and not yet made adaptions, but I predict that it will be a short lived effect. Better off will be so called "lasers" that are in reality high energy electron beams = particle beams (mentioned above).
But lasers can be quite an add on for particle beams that will be hard to defeat with armour. Such particles could be bullets powered by absorbed laser energy directed heat emission (black body radiation) on their way to achieve less energy loss during flight and possibly even slight dirigibility during flight. Other particle beams could be protons (hydrogen plasma) that can flow through small vacuum channels burned by air absorbing laser energy at very high speeds over great distances without significant gravity effects.
The current success by lasers on the battlefield is due to novelity and not yet made adaptions, but I predict that it will be a short lived effect. Better off will be so called "lasers" that are in reality high energy electron beams = particle beams (mentioned above).
The US Navy is already testing Laser CIWS with enough power to defeat cruise mssiles and TBMs with enough power to work against reflective...just depends on the wave length and the power. . Adding armour and what not is not so easy because every bit of extra weight counts, and the amount they can add can be defeated.
Particle beams are next but are quite a ways away yet...but the lasers will make their advent and will be able to down incoming missiles for the most part.
If the lasers might not be strong enough to actually explode an incoming missile, they should still be capable of blinding, or maybe damaging, the IR / EO seeker of an AShM, or even it's radar if so eqiuped. That would still be enough for a defeat.
Talking about the Lasers, here's just a small outlook I created.
Talking about the Lasers, here's just a small outlook I created.
Exactly...a "soft" kill is a kill in terms of defeating its ability to damage or destroy its target.
There will be both soft and hard kills with laser CIWS. They will add a potent new layer to the entire defense in depth strategy for incoming missiles.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Technologies I find of interest for the Future of Carrier operations.
Cat and Trimarian hulls
Reasons. For a true flattop carrier they would add additional stability, increased space under the deck and hanger, shallow draft.
Azipods
The Conventional Drive system is still good no doubt but these would increase maneuverability.
Integrated Computer operations
Paperless, Already Pilots are caring Ipads in place of leg boards The next step is of course farther use of such in the maintenance and operations areas.
Carrier aircraft wise
V22 AEW, Tanker, CSAR and ASW variants ( replacing E2, C3, S3)
Fifth generation multi role fighter
Fifth gen or better Air superiority fighter ( replacement for F14/ FA-18)
UCAV's
Cat and Trimarian hulls
Reasons. For a true flattop carrier they would add additional stability, increased space under the deck and hanger, shallow draft.
Azipods
The Conventional Drive system is still good no doubt but these would increase maneuverability.
Integrated Computer operations
Paperless, Already Pilots are caring Ipads in place of leg boards The next step is of course farther use of such in the maintenance and operations areas.
Carrier aircraft wise
V22 AEW, Tanker, CSAR and ASW variants ( replacing E2, C3, S3)
Fifth generation multi role fighter
Fifth gen or better Air superiority fighter ( replacement for F14/ FA-18)
UCAV's
E-22 would be GREAT for AEW, particularly for LHD, LHA and CVH or CVL carriers.
UH-22 also for ASW work...take up the old S-3 duties.
The US is moving rapidly towards UCAVs for its carriers. See
The pods may be good if they are durable enough for working the types of manuevers a 100,000 ton carrier undertakes. Look at some of the very hard turns the carriers currently undergo in trials for the US Navy...they would have to be able to perform in that manner.
The F-35C is going to provide a 5th generation capability to US carrier air wings.
EMALS is coming in the USS Ford class, they are already being installed.
I do not know about the trimaren hulls for large US carriers. The US has fairly well optimized its hull design for the super carrier...but thesae may work for other nations and lead the way towards it for peven more, including the US should they be proven to be more effective.
Jeff, I certainly support the idea of having organic long range ASW capability on a CSG.
I do, however, wonder if a SH-22 might have a negative influence on aviation operations on a carrier.
The old S-3, as a conventional fixed wing airplane, would fit into launch & recovery operations fairly nice. The Osprey is different, though. It would need maybe even the space of both bow cats for launch and might take longer at that than a normal shot. Landing is also different. And most importantly, that Osprey can't really just fold up her wings and move around like all the other planes on the deck, therefore requireing significantly more space on deck, I'd imagine. So maybe there's actually some carrier folks arguing against an Osprey cluttering up their precious flight deck.
But then again there's no alternative on the horizon for this important task. And since I just picked up again a previous hobby of 3D modeling, here's another one.