Discussing future and (im)possible carrier technology

One strong pulse or several smaller pulses multiplied by arriving on target simultaneously can have the effect of deflecting an incoming missile off course during its terminal run. Think about it: A missile homing on its target at supersonic speed will have little time to correct its course if unexpected deviations are introduced in the final moments. There is no physical reason why a system like this cannot work. Its like giving the missile a shove at a critical time. The key is the power of the pulse on the trajectory of the missile.

If you think this cannot be done then explain why a defensive idea like this is impossible.

The flight control system of a missile maintains the missile's attitude, heading and speed in the presence of aerodynamics disturbances. The control surfaces are sized to provide enough force to overcome these disturbances. The effects of light pressure would be no different from a gust of wind, which will be corrected by the flight control system.

Now with a strong enough laser anything would be possible, but you need to define to us how strong is "strong". However, if it is strong enough, it is going to burn through the thin skin of the missile.

Before we get into strong lasers you may like the the reference to this weapon seen in the recent Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate’s “Non-Lethal Weapons Reference Book,” leaked online last week by PublicIntelligence.org. Notice what they are trying to do. Interesting isn't it

"......a system of “pulsed laser” on the tip of an airplane, used to “externally control the steering forces” of a foe’s aircraft, in order to “divert [it] from restricted area.”

NikeX said:

The novelty item, a Crookes radiometer, demonstrates the principle of radiation pressure. Follow this link to see what I am talking about. Everyone has played with one at one time or another

"Crookes radiometer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The radiometer is made from a glass bulb from which much of the air has been removed to form a partial vacuum. Inside the bulb, on a low friction spindle, is a rotor with several (usually four) vertical lightweight metal vanes spaced equally around the axis. The vanes are polished or white on one side, black on the other. When exposed to sunlight, artificial light, or infrared radiation (even the heat of a hand nearby can be enough), the vanes turn with no apparent motive power, the dark sides retreating from the radiation source and the light sides advancing. Cooling the radiometer causes rotation in the opposite direction."

Click to expand...

That's the biggest nonsense I ever read about it.
It doesn't turn because of light or radiation pressure, but because of the pressure of heated air molecules in the so-called "vacuum" (really a low pressure atmosphere) that receive more thermal energy on the dark than on the shiny side. If radiation pressure was the reason for this object to turn, it would trun just the other way round under sunlight and cold wouldn't affect that.

And once again, this effect is NOT suitable to direct a missile of course because the energy efficiency is extremely low (that's why you observe it in the low pressure atmosphere).

Please get the discussion back to serious.

How can a laser kill a missile?

It can dazzle it, so old tech seekers are unable to function.
It can transfer energy to the missile that is then absorbed. Energy absorption within the missile (look at your microwave) of enough power J/s could trigger explosives on board as well as make propellants explode or fry the electronics.
It can destabilize the mechanical devices employed for in-flight stability. Modern lasers(and plasma) are used for cutting metal, I see no reason this can't be done on all objects as long as you have enough energy and focus.

Lasers are a possibility for integrating a new layer of defense to surface ships that has great capability to destroy enemy targets as closest-in-weapon (after the machine cannons) because laser works best at shortest distance and is very mobile. However, I guess that targeting attempts with laser can be made all the way an enemy missile is incoming. In this sense laser can also provide improved real time tracking capability for precise weapon directions of the many defensive layers.

Back on the topic of carriers, has anyone looked at the Panamax, Aframax and Suezmax? Especially the Aframax is in my opinion important for carrier design because a carrier that can take short routes and has lots of points to refuel and rearm can achieve higher mission capability than a carrier without that.
Some overviews on the maxes:


This perspective poses a problem for suggested catamaran, trimaran designs and my favoured M-shaped hull. The M-shaped hull can possibly be reduced to a narrow trimaran design, but even that would pose size limits of waterline beam.

This is a carrier discussion that points out costs of supersizing carriers, the author tries to point out that increased tonnage is rather cheap in comparison to creating a ship. I might add that the fuel debate is not relevant if you have nuclear breeder reactors, unlike for commercial crafts.

It's a reply to this article by a long-time carrier critique, Captain Henry J. Hendrix.

The debate is quite hot as these two show about future and current vulnerability of the most expensive weapon platform in the US arsenal:

and the last one considers game changers that might favour Chinese naval development:

Would say a catamaran carrier, assuming feasible, offer significant advantages over two smaller carriers that adds up to the same tonnage, assuming they are all nuclear powered?

One of the Advantages of a multi hull is it's not a calss but rather a type of proven sip configuration and scalable form small too massive One could imagine four weight classes a light helli carrier like the Japanese helicopter destroyers, A larger LHA type with LHD would not be unreasonable infact a Cat should offer a ready made well deck. A Super carrier sized craft and even dare i say it a Sea basin. In the Sea base size one could even imagine the the openings between hulls in good weather could act as sub docks.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

One of the Advantages of a multi hull is it's not a calss but rather a type of proven sip configuration and scalable form small too massive One could imagine four weight classes a light helli carrier like the Japanese helicopter destroyers, A larger LHA type with LHD would not be unreasonable infact a Cat should offer a ready made well deck. A Super carrier sized craft and even dare i say it a Sea basin. In the Sea base size one could even imagine the the openings between hulls in good weather could act as sub docks.

Click to expand...

What is the high cruise speed worth if you have to constantly take a detour because you fit through no channel and have few ports far away available where you can be served?
The point is that a multihull design of 40-100k twd carrier size simply means a logistical nightmare and will be hard to move to different theatres quickly (not allowing concentration of force in time). These are valid arguments against this class for large ships. None argues that you can have as many corvette sized catamarans as you want with the ability to operate aircrafts.
I know it's an armchair admirals favourite pet, but the real admirals all came to the opposite conclusion and here are some of the reasons.

Concerning the technical ideas you suggest, I had them myself, but waterline beam is a limit to all fantasies.

Photons have no mass, so how can they exert pressure on something? There is something called the solar wind which are tiny particles of the sun blown off into space which can exert pressure on things because they actually have mass. The solar wind has destroyed much of Mars' atmosphere because Mars' gravity is not strong enough to hold much of the gas close to the surface against the solar wind.

Edit: Nevermind, I looked it up on Wikipedia and learned something new.