Space Warfare, Directed Energy Weapons, and other future military technology

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

noname said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

noname said:

"The Pentagon also would spend $9.9 billion on ballistic missile defense programs, up from $9.2 billion. The funding includes $1.56 billion for Lockheed's Aegis missile defense system, $1.3 billion for the company's Terminal High Altitude Area Defense missile system and $1.3 billion on a ground-based midcourse defense program run by Boeing."

The Aegis are more and more deployable anti missile systems now days. There are land based systems going in Alaska and Calfornia that can take out 30 missiles which is more then a random shots from N Korea or Iran.

New GPS system which is essential to the military is just going into orbit. "GPS IIF satellites offer new and enhanced capabilities, including a jam-resistant military signal" I would expect it to be harden against EMP.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Heres ten billion alone, a billion here and a billion there add up as they say.

Click to expand...

And when I asked for a credible source, you proceeded to use data about land based systems to substantiate your claims?

And just so everyone who reads this understands, do you consider GPS IIF satellites as "space based weapons research"? And if so, why?

noname said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

noname said:

Wonder what a hundred lb Rods from God from a X37b would do if it would hit the nuclear reactor on a aircraft carrier or nuclear submarine. I would think the X37b would do well in a near stationary orbit over say a fleet of ships. Then other weapon systems could be brought to area. The main advantage a fleet of ships have is that the enemy does not know where they are.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

I am getting pretty tire of explaining things over and over to you... X-37 is not design to carry weapon... NOT DESIGN TO CARRY WEAPON! Get that into your head! It is an experimental project! GEEZ!

Plus... do you actually think that if US had this type of weapon, she will replace the carriers?

Come on! What are you thinking?

Of course the so call Rod of God will be a powerful weapon to use... by just suggesting dropping of 100 of these weaponry on ship is a suggestion that you are nothing but a fanboy as I have previously thought you are.

Look, the Rod of God when drop from any carrier (by this I don't mean aircraft carrier, but the satellites or outerspace special vehicle), will enter earth at an extremely fast speed. The pure kinetic energy developed will be the same as nuclear explosion.

So you need 100 nuclear explosions (minus the radiation fallout) to destroy a ship?!!! (please, read your own source properly and see if you can digest the bit of information it had shown and see if you can actually linked these information to the actual world... and stop fantasing.)

You don't come in here and throw in random stuff to showoff a bit of your knowledge!

Plus, this is purely an offensive weapon, but aircraft carriers are versatile plateforms... so it cannot be replaced by spaceships and weaponised satellites or orbital vehicles.

And one last time X-37 is not a weaponised vehicles!

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

rhino123 said:

I am getting pretty tire of explaining things over and over to you... X-37 is not design to carry weapon... NOT DESIGN TO CARRY WEAPON! Get that into your head! It is an experimental project! GEEZ!

Plus... do you actually think that if US had this type of weapon, she will replace the carriers?

Come on! What are you thinking?

Of course the so call Rod of God will be a powerful weapon to use... by just suggesting dropping of 100 of these weaponry on ship is a suggestion that you are nothing but a fanboy as I have previously thought you are.

Look, the Rod of God when drop from any carrier (by this I don't mean aircraft carrier, but the satellites or outerspace special vehicle), will enter earth at an extremely fast speed. The pure kinetic energy developed will be the same as nuclear explosion.

So you need 100 nuclear explosions (minus the radiation fallout) to destroy a ship?!!!

You don't come in here and throw in random stuff to showoff a bit of your knowledge!

Plus, this is purely an offensive weapon, but aircraft carriers are versatile plateforms... so it cannot be replaced by spaceships and weaponised satellites or orbital vehicles.

And one last time X-37 is not a weaponised vehicles!

Click to expand...

No use arguing with him anymore. The thread is already sufficiently derailed and perhaps we should get popeye/sumdud to move the posts to a thread called "space weapons" (if it doesn't exist yet).

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

noname said:

Wonder what a hundred lb Rods from God from a X37b would do if it would hit the nuclear reactor on a aircraft carrier or nuclear submarine. I would think the X37b would do well in a near stationary orbit over say a fleet of ships. Then other weapon systems could be brought to area. The main advantage a fleet of ships have is that the enemy does not know where they are.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Dude, previously you said:

noname said:

I still have my doubts about kinetic energy from ballistic missiles haveing any effect.

Click to expand...

And now, you just linked an article which said:

This type of weapon relies on kinetic energy, rather than high-explosives, to generate destructive force (as do smart spears, another weapon system which would rely on tungsten rods, though not space-based).

Click to expand...

This is clearly contradictory because a rod does not have a propulsion system and relies on gravity for acceleration. As compared to a ballistic missile which has a propulsion system accelerating it downwards towards the target.

Now, which object do you think has more kinetic energy?

Also, has this "Rods from God" even been tested yet? Do you have a link to show that?

You do realise that a "Rod from God" is an unguided weapon that does not have terminal guidance, is subjected to atmospheric effects (such as wind shear), and has no means in itself to correct for such effects right?

Are you saying that this unguided weapon is more accurate than a guided ballistic missile that is able to correct for atmospheric effects? If so, do show us a source of credible info to back it up.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

rhino123 said:

Look, the Rod of God when drop from any carrier (by this I don't mean aircraft carrier, but the satellites or outerspace special vehicle), will enter earth at an extremely fast speed. The pure kinetic energy developed will be the same as nuclear explosion.

Click to expand...

Please do not exaggerate with numbers. A piece of RoG will not destroy a city, but will likely destroy a big building or any strategic asset of the enemy.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

siegecrossbow said:

1) Energy consumption: To be able to physically harm the enemy assets within a reasonable ammount of time you need a laser that is at least in the two digit kilowatt range (preferably megawatt). Huge amounts of energy are needed and you probably need square miles of solar panels, which is most often used to generate electricity by spaceships and satellites, to provide enough power for the weapon to fire in rapid successions. I expect nuclear power to be used by such weapons in the future.

Click to expand...

No offense but you are unbelievably optimistic to think nuclear power can be deployed in space in the foreseeable future.
The collection of nuclear energy requires a constantly circulating liquid system that cannot possibly be sustained in space(I guess I'll mention that gravity is required).

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

xywdx said:

No offense but you are unbelievably optimistic to think nuclear power can be deployed in space in the foreseeable future.
The collection of nuclear energy requires a constantly circulating liquid system that cannot possibly be sustained in space(I guess I'll mention that gravity is required).

Click to expand...

Dude, read what I've wrote carefully! I used the energy consumption and cooling as examples for why orbiting space laser platforms ARE NOT viable in the near future (as a counter point to noname's arguments) but have potential. Also for your statement that it is impossible to generate nuclear power in space:

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

As I under stand it the Dong Feng 21 anti ship missile has a substantial ground support for targeting I would think those facilities would be taken out at the first sign of an attack, perhaps with the new Prompt Global Strike weapon.

It was carrying the prototype of a new weapon that can hit any target around the world in less than an hour.

The Prompt Global Strike is designed as the conventional weapon of the future. It could hit Osama bin Laden’s cave, an Iranian nuclear site or a North Korean missile with a huge conventional warhead.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

noname said:

As I under stand it the Dong Feng 21 anti ship missile has a substantial ground support for targeting I would think those facilities would be taken out at the first sign of an attack, perhaps with the new Prompt Global Strike weapon.

It was carrying the prototype of a new weapon that can hit any target around the world in less than an hour.

The Prompt Global Strike is designed as the conventional weapon of the future. It could hit Osama bin Laden’s cave, an Iranian nuclear site or a North Korean missile with a huge conventional warhead.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

how about the prompt global strike weapon itself, it takes weeks to prepare, before lauch, it sits on the lauch pad for a long time, make it easy target to be taken out.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

noname said:

As I under stand it the Dong Feng 21 anti ship missile has a substantial ground support for targeting I would think those facilities would be taken out at the first sign of an attack, perhaps with the new Prompt Global Strike weapon.

It was carrying the prototype of a new weapon that can hit any target around the world in less than an hour.

The Prompt Global Strike is designed as the conventional weapon of the future. It could hit Osama bin Laden’s cave, an Iranian nuclear site or a North Korean missile with a huge conventional warhead.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

"And China could send operatives to sabotage CPGS launch sites before any attack so the DF-21 support systems aren't taken out. But then the US could use B-2's -- but of course China could use the experimental J-XX to intercept them but then the US will use F-22's with powerful chemical lasers..."

>_>
<_<

Really dude your suggestion is very hypothetical and shifty. We barely know how CPGS or DF-21D works (support systems, guidance, launch time etc). Not to mention any launch of CPGS could be mistaken for a nuclear attack.
------

I think that an ICBM with conventional warheads attached will be very potent weapon systems, but will probably be used for surgical strikes against highly valued targets rather than launched en masse. Carriers with strike fighters will be a much cheaper option for the latter, and many members have said that carriers are non-replacable for projecting power.
There's also the need for protecting sea lanes, which I believe a carrier with a wing of fighters would do much better than a handful of super accurate long range missiles.

I think China should be pursuing an equivalent to the CPGS system -- they certainly have the technology, and will they will still be adhering to the non first use rule in any hypothetical war where they can launch conventaionl ICBM's against high value targets.

EDIT:

Lol scratch the above statement. Looks like the DF-21 will have a range of 20,000 kilometers, as said by this article on defencetalk.com

US military analysts have warned China is developing a new version of its Dongfeng 21 missile that could pierce the defences of even the most sturdy US naval vessels and has a range of 20,000 kilometres (12,400 miles) -- far beyond Chinese waters.

Click to expand...

Lol wth, someone needs to replace a reporter or two...