Mk16G = 12" / 50 mark 8 naval gun or 8"/55 RF Mark 16

Relax wrote:
1) Situational awareness: You can see surface ships from satellites from space. No, the Zumwalt is not stealthy. It makes a 747 look like a stealth aircraft. Why carriers are giant ass jokes today. Anyone with satellites knows where they are already. A quick launch of a mini satellite is quite simple and were made in case the space satellites were eliminated(they will die first)

You obviously have no knowledge at all about naval matters. And space matters too. Nobody in right mind would use optical satellites to search for carriers, because data from them is NOT the real-time. It took several days to process optical or infrared data from any significant area.

The maritime survelliance satellites - Russian and USA both - used either passive radio listening, or (soviet series) active radar scans. The first is more reliable, but the problem is, that if ship emit nothing, its essentially invisible. The secondway have problems with narrow scan area and predictable orbiting pattern. The carrier could just avoid the scans.

2) Situational awareness: Yes, always need information. No reason you can't put a catapult/trap on a battleship for UAV's to obtain said situational awareness. Don't need 100 plane 5000 person aircraft carrier to do that.

One reason; the enemy carrier-based stealth fighter would kill your UAV, and without your own fighter you could do nothing to protect it.

4) Trajectory: Steerable shells. They have no idea where they are from. Can steer 30 degrees, so it gives a range.

Nah. Without active engines it would not be possible to steer shell on early trajectory phase without bleeding a hell of velocity and kinetic energy.

A segmented could launch these shells into the exo atmosphere. Besides, they have satellites so they know where your ship is already.

This is absolutely wrong.

The only question is their scan frequency. Why semi or fully submersed carriers were postulated as the next reality in the 80's after it became obvious our own satellites could track our own ships......

Sigh. In 1982, the USSR have arguably the best maritime reconnaisance system in the world, with active and passive sattelites, coastal radars and listening stations, scout ships, recon planes.

And when "Midway" operated near Kamchatka, our forces didnt even knew that it was here. All their attention was focused elthewere.

5) Defense: Short answer: Modern carriers have no defense.

Please stop this stupid nonsence.

Long answer: Currently carriers have no defense at range to begin with except against slow moving bumbling dufus giant bombers. Why? The air arms missiles are Mach 5 birds with piddly diddly range which MEANS you must be sitting ON TOP of the attacking aircraft to take them down. Attacking missiles are Mach 5 birds with 300km range being carried by Mach 2 incoming long ranged stealth/semi stealth aircraft and the air arms distance is a mere 700km with no loiter time and cruising at 400knots which means IF they patrolled in the perfect position(AS IF) they could theoretically intercept for exactly... one hour and their aircraft incoming are stealthy.... yea right, good luck... Which also means subs can launch Mach 5 Brahmos or equivalent missiles by the hundred as they get info from satellites and never be seen by ASW as 300km is an insane amount of real estate to hide in and they can HEAR your task group 1000 miles away.

Absolutely wrong. Learn something about carrier tactics, then talk. Like forward air patrols, reconnaisance prevention, missile traos, ect.

Relax, seriously, your knowledge is laughable.

Aeronautical engineers design weapons systems, naval engineers design targets.

You are unimpressed by the 390 nm range of the F18E? I don't understand why, as it such a superior beast compared to the previous generation of strike aircraft, which could only fly 878nm carrying twice the weapon load. But luckily there is no situation I can possibly imagine where the carrier might not want to get closer then 400 nm of the target....

kzt wrote:You are unimpressed by the 390 nm range of the F18E? I don't understand why, as it such a superior beast compared to the previous generation of strike aircraft, which could only fly 878nm carrying twice the weapon load. But luckily there is no situation I can possibly imagine where the carrier might not want to get closer then 400 nm of the target....

F-35C is supposed to have a 670 nm's combat radius. And it's just on internal fuel. With drop tanks, return aerial refueling and standoff weapon (like 370 nm's range LRASM) the total mission range could be brought up to 1500 nm's.

Dilandu wrote:

Relax wrote:
1) Situational awareness: You can see surface ships from satellites from space. No, the Zumwalt is not stealthy. It makes a 747 look like a stealth aircraft. Why carriers are giant ass jokes today. Anyone with satellites knows where they are already. A quick launch of a mini satellite is quite simple and were made in case the space satellites were eliminated(they will die first)

You obviously have no knowledge at all about naval matters. And space matters too. Nobody in right mind would use optical satellites to search for carriers, because data from them is NOT the real-time. It took several days to process optical or infrared data from any significant area.

The maritime survelliance satellites - Russian and USA both - used either passive radio listening, or (soviet series) active radar scans. The first is more reliable, but the problem is, that if ship emit nothing, its essentially invisible. The secondway have problems with narrow scan area and predictable orbiting pattern. The carrier could just avoid the scans.

Lets just say your uh, "knowledge" of how satellites work is as up to date as you claim my knowledge is... Optical, good grief..... RADAR? Scan a swath in LEO of several hundred miles wide with overflight time as simple as the number of satellites.... But I guess in your internet arguing reality, these micro satellites are uber expensive and you only have one..... Oh right, they now launch 10's of these per launch on small rockets... And... RADAR returns from steel ships is blatantly obvious, just as it was from 20 miles away in WWII for surfaced submarines from flying aircraft.

Last I checked a carrier was several magnitudes greater surface area of steel exposed making it able to be seen by ancient WWII POS RADAR at over 200miles away just as any fighter from any country today can likewise see ships from as far away as the curvature of the earth will allow. LEO is what again? Oh right... oopsies(On second thought, you probably have no idea: Look it up). But I guess in your reality RADAR is still in WWII reality. Hrmmm yea..... Oh yes, and "scanning" for them I suppose in your reality is done on a 1980's programmable hand calculator as well? Have you heard of JSTAR's aircraft and its REAL TIME scanning ability? Look it up. Not talking modern control E-8 large aircraft. Not even talking the modern ones with the exact same capability but put on a small 6 person gulfstream jet with exactly one operator and one control officer + pilots.

PS> You might someday in your life run a run of the mill civilian boat with dirt cheap off the shelf RADAR. Guess what? From a mile away you can pick up plastic, uh hem PLASTIC Kayak, and Steel cargo ships you can pick up at over 20miles away and the only limit is the curve of the earth with off the shelf dirt cheap civilian junk RADAR with its aperture the size of a volleyball..........

Next point:
Ever heard of Stealth? Appears you have, but you seem confused... What kind of sad argumentative troll on the internet only wanting to "win" an argument would propose stealth fighters but not stealth UAV aircraft...

Especially when they already exist...

On second thought


Two Thumbs up!

I suppose we can argue about the rest, but why bother? I would have to read it first and since your first two points were so trollishly absurd, I gave up.

Just read this:

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-031.php

And stop being a clown.

P.S. And yes, this article corellated with our Russian data.

. RADAR? Scan a swath in LEO of several hundred miles wide with overflight time as simple as the number of satellites.... But I guess in your internet arguing reality, these micro satellites are uber expensive and you only have one.....

Facepalm.

[img]http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/u/usa640.jpg
[/img]

Meet the US-A, the real active radar sattelite of "Legenda" maritime surveillance system.

Its a five-ton, low-orbit monster of stunning cost with freakin' "Topaz" nuclear REACTOR onboard, to feed its radar array.

I really doubt that even you would call it a MICROsatellite. To have a radar of any reasonable ability, you need a lot of power and significant antenna. Microsatellites could not carry either.

Learn something, qill ya?

Dilandu wrote:Just read this:

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-031.php

And stop being a clown.

P.S. And yes, this article corellated with our Russian data.

. RADAR? Scan a swath in LEO of several hundred miles wide with overflight time as simple as the number of satellites.... But I guess in your internet arguing reality, these micro satellites are uber expensive and you only have one.....

Facepalm.

[img]http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/u/usa640.jpg
[/img]

Meet the US-A, the real active radar sattelite of "Legenda" maritime surveillance system.

Its a five-ton, low-orbit monster of stunning cost with freakin' "Topaz" nuclear REACTOR onboard, to feed its radar array.

I really doubt that even you would call it a MICROsatellite. To have a radar of any reasonable ability, you need a lot of power and significant antenna. Microsatellites could not carry either.

Learn something, qill ya?

So, you post something specifically which makes my point. Ok...

Then you post something so Russian and so ancient it doesn't even have solar arrays where most of its mass is.... a nuclear reactor from the 1960s and RADAR from the 70's and yet it still did its job when it actually worked....

You seem to be the best advocate around for my postings. Heck, I should just type random junk and have you respond to debunk your own posts...

And then you do not for one second contemplate the hilarity of the simple ability to have weather RADAR's download to your computer in real time with a radial band of 150 miles...... Or have a 4k camera live from the ISS... Yea.

Relax wrote:Then you post something so Russian and so ancient it doesn't even have solar arrays where most of its mass is.... a nuclear reactor from the 1960s and RADAR from the 70's and yet it still did its job when it actually worked....

Facepalm. It was, and still is the most powerfull satellite radar array ever deployed. The reason why she used reactor, instead of solar panels, was because poqerful radars are enormous power hogs. Elementary inverse square law dictates that. Their reactors pumped out 3 kilowatt of electric power continiously, to maintain the radars. And the mass of reactor was less than 500 kg; it was used exactly because solar panels would be more than ten times as heavy for the saje ammount of power.

Seriously, your knowledge are laughable.

And then you do not for one second contemplate the hilarity of the simple ability to have weather RADAR's download to your computer in real time with a radial band of 150 miles...... Or have a 4k camera live from the ISS... Yea.

Maybe you first try to realize, that you need not to search for the weather, but for ships? Who are tiny in compairson to ocean size and weather patterns.

And it is not enough to find ship; you need to identify it. Of course you never thought about that - in computer games it always done automatically, yeah. But in real warfare, correct identification friend/foe/neutral is enormous problem. And you probably would be utterly shocked, but radar signature of aircraft carrier from a sattelite point of view is similar to such of tanker or large cargo ship. Moreover, nothing forbade enemy from increasing a radar signature of low-value unit - say, ocean tug - with corner reflector and automatic repeaters, to make it look like a carrier for quick radar scans.

Dilandu wrote:

Relax wrote:Then you post something so Russian and so ancient it doesn't even have solar arrays where most of its mass is.... a nuclear reactor from the 1960s and RADAR from the 70's and yet it still did its job when it actually worked....

Facepalm. It was, and still is the most powerfull satellite radar array ever deployed. The reason why she used reactor, instead of solar panels, was because poqerful radars are enormous power hogs. Elementary inverse square law dictates that. Their reactors pumped out 3 kilowatt of electric power continiously, to maintain the radars. And the mass of reactor was less than 500 kg; it was used exactly because solar panels would be more than ten times as heavy for the saje ammount of power.

Seriously, your knowledge are laughable.

And then you do not for one second contemplate the hilarity of the simple ability to have weather RADAR's download to your computer in real time with a radial band of 150 miles...... Or have a 4k camera live from the ISS... Yea.

Maybe you first try to realize, that you need not to search for the weather, but for ships? Who are tiny in compairson to ocean size and weather patterns.

And it is not enough to find ship; you need to identify it. Of course you never thought about that - in computer games it always done automatically, yeah. But in real warfare, correct identification friend/foe/neutral is enormous problem. And you probably would be utterly shocked, but radar signature of aircraft carrier from a sattelite point of view is similar to such of tanker or large cargo ship. Moreover, nothing forbade enemy from increasing a radar signature of low-value unit - say, ocean tug - with corner reflector and automatic repeaters, to make it look like a carrier for quick radar scans.

Not sure what is worse, someone who thinks 3kW is a lot of power or someone who doesn't know that average Solar energy(irradiance) on the face of the earth at ground level is around 1KW per square meter Currently efficiency of collected said solar energy into power is 15% at ground level, but in space its efficiency is 40% and the panels weigh a tiny fraction as there is no protective glass and no frame to speak of. Solar power per square meter in space is 1.4kW/m^2. So, for 3kW, continuous, you need roughly (3/1.4/0.4) = You need 5.5 square meters of panel... Oh the horrors, you need 4 small panels at roughly 5kg/panel + rotation equipment and a fold mech, call it 2kg more at most. So maybe a little over 25kg instead of 500kg. Who knew? 1960s tech sucks compared to the 21st century. Who knew?

Target sorting: Lets assume you can't(you can)... Since your rounds are dirt cheap compared to a carriers/bombers air wing flinging same tonnage of bombs/missiles around.... Who cares? Sink them all. You don't care. You will still have $$$ left over to blow up several more fleets and you will do it far quicker than some stupid airplane flying at sub Mach 1. Not to mention you are receiving data back from the Maneuvering Shells so you know better which ships are which. Or are you still playing this is 1960 in your mind and a radio C&C loop is breaking edge tech?

As for "reflection"... When you see a tiny object a "corner reflector" can indeed increase its signature by a large margin, but only to a point. On a large ship, it is useless. Its called Resolution AKA SN ratio(Signal to Noise). As soon as you see more than a blip, you are now in control to achieve shape. That is how a RADAR tracking missile for instance can track an airplane and hit at the wing root instead of the Rudder for instance. Wing root, the airplane blows up. Hit in the Rudder and it might be recoverable.

As for Identification Friend/Foe.... Its called C&C loop with IFF tags. Either you know where YOUR guys are or you do not. Its war. If you wish to claim you do not know where your guys are with today's satellite communications, normal radio communications, and other optical ways of signally to say a UAV via LASER or LASERS to satellites... Uh.... yea...., pull the other leg. Unless you are going to argue that all the satellites are blown up on day 1 of a real war(as I have done)

Anyways... Sorry, but the gun wins hands down. Since the USA does not want to invest a giant $$$$$ pot into obsoleting their entire navy force/logistics, the USN will NOT develop it. China might. But the USN certainly will not unless or until SOME other navy forces them to. Reason Britain kept innovating was because they were forced to do so. There were large periods when they did not because they had no need. After the Napoleonic wars for instance. It was only after the American Civil War and its implications for future naval warfare that Britain was forced to once again innovate to stay ahead of the rest of the world and maintain their empire.

EDIT: Last post on this topic. PS: Its an engineers world. Now weather or not the engineers are allowed to work is an entirely different topic.

I give up. It is impossible to teach this child anything.