/pol/ - Politically Incorrect★

>An india-russia joint venture

What could possibly go wrong?

>"unstoppable"

>outruns missiles

>still eats a burst of CWIS

>>10004573

Don't forget the new laser defense systems.

>Zircon could render Navy's new £6.2billion ($7.9billion) aircraft carriers useless

uh … they're already useless. Unless you want to bomb people who are still in the stone age and have no way of fighting back

>>10004567

>poo warhead

This is good news!

I cant wait for a strong US/Russia alliance with no schlomos allowed.

Sage for OP linking fake news website

>>10004647

Nope. Tiny autonomous drone carriers. But those will probably be subs too. Just be deployed and embedded in the bottom of the sea awaiting orders.

>>10004573

>>10004640

guize, the CIWS guns fire hot metal at Mach 3

it will have a hell of a lot of trouble to hit the missile hard enough to prevent it from hitting the ship it's mounted on

>>10004647

but who will preform maintenance? high g maneuvers pack a lot of punch on aircraft

>>10004683

meant for >>10004668

Yeah let's stay on their good side.

>>10004693

we're talking about a sea-skimming missile flying at mach6, not a satellite in freefall orbit that doesn't deviate from its obvious trajectory and that is intercepted by a rocket with all the time it needs to accelerate at the speed of the satellite and the (impressive, I agree) ability to correct its course well enough to hit the satellite

>>10004711

You can fire SM-6 at ships. It works against sea surface targets just fine. You just need sensors ahead of you over the horizon to see the missile far enough out.

>>10004543 (OP)

predicting trajectories and shooting at them is not a thing? Is this only for videogames?

People have 9999999999*10^12 frames per second cameras but the army can't make one to be able to shot down literally anything?

In theory it should be so simple, why it does not actually work?

>>10004543 (OP)

>analogov net

Just weeks ago China tested their own anti-carrier ballistic missile. Either way, US better step up the fleet antu-missile game lest they get shot up.

>>10004676

we've gotten an infusion of stupid lately. god damned summerfaggots. Intercepting a missile, or satellite is done from a head on trajectory..

>>10004711

> freefall orbit

There is no other kind of orbit….

>>10004683

>>10004686

They'll be effectively disposable.

I love how these things always assume they'll be used on Western armies. No reasoning as to qhy they'd attack, only estimations of how successful.

>>10004543 (OP)

The burgers did this years ago, scramjet missiles aren't new.

>>10004731

the SM6 interceptor needs to be precise, but not agile when it hits a satellite on a purely ballistic trajectory

same when it hits a ship that moves at naval speed, because at the speed of the missile, an evasive maneuver from the ship means he would deviate by a mere few meters from the missile impact point, less than the size of the ship

the russian missiles, this new one and the moskit, are supposed to be agile, making high-G turns, and the SM6 may fly faster, but will probably miss

imagine you're a sniper firing at a bird 1 mile away

if the bird sits still, you can hit it, maybe even if it's on a steadily moving train

if the bird decides to fly around doing flips and barrel rolls, even if your bullet just takes 1 second to reach it, the bird's position 1 second later is imprecise by way longer than the size of your bullet

>>10004767

>There is no other kind of orbit….

there can be orbital objects that actively change course during their flight, and these are not free-falling

they are much harder to hit

>>10004761

>Intercepting a missile, or satellite is done from a head on trajectory..

and this changes what to the fact that if the target makes evasive maneuvers, hitting it with a slower projectile becomes impossible because your bullets will always arrive where the missile is not anymore?

>or satellite

wrong actually, there is no privileged orientation of arrival for hitting a satellite, you just need to accelerate your own missile fast enough to reach the satellite's position in 3+1 dimensions

Huh, looks like one of ours. Wonder if Snowden stole more than he let on.

Or is Ivan pissing into the wind again?

>>10004820

>looks like one of ours

no

don't get fooled by the "USA! USA! USA! WE'RE NUMBAH WOANE!" propaganda, the ruskies are world leaders in missiles and in supercavitating torpedoes

>>10004840

This is old tech. That concept art is literally from the 90's.

We probably have light weapons or faster missiles today which can take out these new Russian missiles.

What I'm worried about is how many the Russians would launch if they were to attack us. War games have shown that our military is vulnerable to flood attacks.

So the fuck what, we're going live with DEW soon. Nice GDP, nice krokodil epidemic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARAUDER

psssst we're up to all kinds up fucked up crazy shit on blackwerks

>>10004859

Also not like many of chips are made in China with no one in the US overseeing the manufacturing, it'd be terrible if the Chinese implanted secondary processors as a backdoor, they'd never do that. Also don't mind that Intel chips actually have confirmed "hardware backdoors" but they can only be used by special proprietary Intel programs in Israel and its only to help out IT management professionals.

I'm sure the American military would never put their boys in harm's way by giving them tech that could be compromised with a flip of a switch during an actual all out conflict. The Jews would never set us up like that, they're our greatest Ally.

We're at mach 8 now? I'm getting too old for this crap

>>10004738

if you are talking about ICBM it's because :

1) counter-intuitively their weird parabola path is the fastest path and it never stops accelerating except in the last few seconds (impact speed is about 5-10 km/s). Hence any missile launched after it will be too late to intercept it. Except if the anti missile system is very close to the point of impact, but even then,

2) a very small deviation of the ICBM trajectory (read tilting a fraction of a degree) result in hundreds of km differences, and this small tilting is unmeasurable, therefore you can only predict the ICBM position to the scale necessary for interception a second or two before impact.

>>10004908

Yeah, the electronic jew has always been an issue.

I remember hearing stories of counterfeit electronics ending up in service on military aircraft.

That kind of thing would open up major vulnerabilities like you said.

>>10004939

Mach 8 is nothing.

Here's a test craft we made that flew at 9.6

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_X-43

The space shuttle comes in at Mach 23 but slows down in the atmosphere.

>>10004955

Also

>you just need to accelerate your own missile fast enough to reach the satellite's position in 3+1 dimensions

Sure but theres easier and harder ways to achieve dimensional synchronicity. Moving into the path of your target and letting it hit you is typically easier than chasing after it.

>>10004738

my guess would be the lack of precisely predictable motion, if it were uniform motion either constant predictable acceleration or constant velocity on a uniformly straight course or uniformly shaped course they could hit 100% of targets, however, real life is not quite so perfect and fluctuations in air resistance, pressure, heat, fuel purity, wind speed and direction, all of those things would make a difference in the course, the missile might adjust to try to cancel as much of that deviation as possible but it will never be 100%

>>10004996

One would also presume the use of a cluster type warhead would help increase the effective coverage of the missile by casting a "net" rather than trying to hit a thrown baseball with a BB.

it aint the speed its versatility, you can use this for multiple purposes, thats the problem with conventional ballistic missiles, there are faster ones already but probably very few that are so versatile as well

>>10004996

agreed, but for that you need either to be positioned so that your missile will arrive on the path of the target when it is fired, or to have enough time to reach it from the other side of its orbit, if it is actually a satellite that stays in orbit long enough for you to reach it

if you need these circumstances to have a chance to hit, there are many situations where you won't be able to intercept it

going fast enough to catch up on it is the only way to be sure

>>10004962

WE COMBAT EVOLVED NOW

>>10005207

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARAUDER

>>10004573

CWIS is slingshot to a .50cal

This rocket travels at 3km/s

You know how fast this is?

Read this.

Now you are dead.

When it gets in CWIS range (2km) it is already over. And it took less than a second.

Also, let me just politely remind you, that this rocket, even without warhead, has enough kinetic energy to equal 100kg of TNT.

>>10004738

>predicting trajectories and shooting at them is not a thing? Is this only for videogames?

People have 9999999999*10^12 frames per second cameras but the army can't make one to be able to shot down literally anything? In theory it should be so simple, why it does not actually work?

Fog and cameras don't work at night.

As well as this being too fast for anything.

>>10004891

>1) This is not new technology we've had scramjets for several years, the technology itself was conceived in the 60's. 2) We have point defense lasers which obviously move at the speed of light so this idea that we wont have anything that can stop it for 20 years is simply laughable. 3) A missile moves toward a target not away from it so you don't actually need faster point defense to intercept it you just need good spotting and tracking.

>What is beam focusing

>What is defense laser

So now you are trying to convince me that lasers, that destroy by heating the target up to the point of explosion of propellant/warhead will now be effective at ram-jet projectile that has 0 moving parts, that is traveling at 3km/s in all weather conditions and that is actually heat resistant because it needs to be to survive such speed.

Lasers are toys for chlidren and mortar/mach2 rocket defense.

Beyond that, they are useless.

Can I remind you that russian ram-jet rocket has active ship identifying AI ?

>>10004955

>Theres serious limits to the kinds of evasive maneuvers a missile with limited control surfaces moving at mach 6+ can do, not to mention I'm 99% sure it will literally rip itself apart if it banks too hard.

>What are flight control surfaces.

You do realise that even slight banking will result in 1km deviation from course ?

You do get it that it is moving at 3km/s. At such speeds, avoiding anything is pie easy, even with small deviations you make massive course changes. And i bet she can pull 10G's, as anti-air rockets can pull 20.

>>10004971

Let me add

3) ICBM's burn no propellant on last stage of flight and are impossible to detect optically.

>>10005197

>>weve had manned aircraft that fast back in the 1960's

>WEW russia finally has 60's aeronautics tech

>The North American X-15 was a hypersonic rocket-powered aircraft

*cough*

It's almost as if Ivan has forgotten friction creates heat and we have thermal imaging.

There is a reason they are still playing catch-up and getting ass-blaster when we point out we already did this shit decades ago.

>>10005228

>yeah but it's fast

So you start shooting before it gets in range. You don't wait until the missile is in range to aim; you put the ocean of shrapnel in the air to meet it. All those fancy evasive maneuvers get a lot less possible once you're on terminal guidance if you want to keep your top speed. It'll have to charge straight through a cloud of flak, and on a fairly stable trajectory.

Also, our CWIS systems are plug and play. If these turn out to be a real threat, the only limitation on how many guns we can put on the side of our ships is how much ammo we can feed them.

>>10005228

Good point on lasers. The amount of energy required because of the low time on target makes it virtually impossible.

Didn't the US just test their first antiICBM missile shield?

>>10005249

This worked out so well for every flak cluster ever.

Face it, Ziomutts. Your ZOG army is coming to an end.

>>10005248

>Ivan

who is "ivan" it's sounds so 1950'ish. how old are you pops?

>>10005249

> you start shooting before it gets in range. You don't wait until the missile is in range to aim; you put the ocean of shrapnel in the air to meet it. All those fancy evasive maneuvers get a lot less possible once you're on terminal guidance if you want to keep your top speed. It'll have to charge straight through a cloud of flak, and on a fairly stable trajectory.

If it is going Mach 8, even a column of water could be enough to destroy the vehicle.

>>10005248

Yeah, you see a blop of heat in like what, maximum 10 second? What are you going to do against that in 10 second, and 30 miles away, assuming you can find that 30 miles away?

>>10005276

Good luck creating a shield of water all the time to surround your entire ship.

>>10005287

You only need to create it in front of the feasible path of the missile. Missiles don't have an infinitely tight turn radius.

This idea doesn't work if the missile is coming from above the ship.

>>10004859

>This is old tech. That concept art is literally from the 90's.

Do you know what else was a concept in the 1990s? The F-35.

>>10004573

>>10004573

Pretty sure 20mm flies slower than 3000 m/s.

>>10005292

Are you going to shield the ship all the time? No to mention this will fuck any non thermal imaging system in the meantime. And this is still assuming you can detect the missle from 30 miles away to ensure a reasonable reaction time.

>>10005297

Just pack more powder in, 2x powder = 2x speed. ;^)

>>10005293

Yeah, I totally agree.

Keep in mind a typical development cycle for an airplane is 10-15 years, and that the US always likes to have new toys.

Do the math.

The brass at the top tends to disagree with the laser assessment believing them capable of taking care of hypersonic threats.

They don't have to destroy the thing, just make sure it can't find target. Cook the fucker's electronics and shit hits the fan. Firing a missile straight is difficult enough, trying to steer it even moreso. Fuck with critical parts and it's a nuclear mortar. Very few people are going to risk throwing a nuke without a guarantee unless it's the end. In that scenario nothing matters as they could nuke themseleves enough to fuck over the rest of the world.

>>10005218

the video is a railgun, not the MARAUDER plasma canon

in fact, a plasma canon would only work well in space

because if the energy of the projectile only comes from the launcher and not from onboard fuel as in a missile, effectiveness will decrease with distance in the atmosphere

and your plasma canon will be devastating at ranges where you can hit anything with a catapult, scary at gun range, problematic at very long gun range, and will make nice fireworks before it hits anything at ranges a missile could reach

and a plasma canon would be extremely complex, and require huge amounts of energy

it could work on a ship, but probably not aboard a plane, because of a lack of nuclear reactor to power it

with the scant descriptions of marauder, shooting probably requires a powering-up time to form and compress the plasma torus, so reactions to an incoming threat are not instantaneous

and with what I know of physics, it very probably needs cooldown time too, so rapid-fire seems difficult

so it's a nice concept, for a defense system aboard an orbital city

that's probably why it hasn't been talked about since 1995, it was shelved

>>10005307

You know how fast your bullets go, you know how fast the projectile is coming.

Some HE rounds that penetrate the surface of the water could shoot up plumes of water to bring down a projectile skimming the waterline.

It doesn't have to be up all the time, or all around you. only in the path of the missile.

Again, ti doesn't work if the missile came in at the ship at a higher angle.

>>10005197

That's a rocket, not a scramjet.

>>10004891

Good luck finding the missile from 30km away to put all that laser on it.

Because 5 second isn't even long enough to burn a missile with no moving part.

>>10005322

what the fuck do you do about cooling?

or do they just plan on only firing a billion dollar gun 4 times

>>10005330

Pretty sure a computer can acquire and process the data at the speed of light.

>>10005322

I realize that. Technology has a way of changing shape and evolving. We went from marauder to the rail because the rail was/is doable with the current tech.

>>10005332

Re-read his comment brainlet.

>>10005329

>>10005228

>implying this is an argument against capability

>>10005324

You don't seem to get it. That thing is flying as fast as a bullet. And you have to see and react to it in less than 10 second (from 30km away in best case scenario). This is like saying that the best defense against snipers is to just duck down. Jolly gee, only if we know where the damn thing is coming from first.

>>10005330

Pretty sure if it has guidance it has moving parts fucktard. How is it steering? Hopes and dreams?

>>10005333

>speed of light

>Computer

Yeah, like adding 1 and 0 together. Wasted trips on the most ignorant "opinion" ever. You might as well tell us how you are going to constantly scan 30km radius of your ship to find a flying bullet.

>>10005343

that sounds like laziness

>>10005343

Do radars, satellites, and thermal imaging not exist in your world? Do you know how hard it's going to be to sneak up anywhere going at that speed? Every AWACS and Aegis in a thousand miles is going to know about it.

>>10005343

You're thinking about this the wrong way.

How is the launcher getting targeting solutions? Does russia have anything stealthy enough to hang around our carriers and feed a targeting fix to the death missile launchers?

I don't think they do.

What is the doppler effect?

>>10005351

>>10005356

What a shitty mind to have.

>>10005342

Are you trying to be dense? The difference between a rocket and a scramjet is a rocket carries fuel and oxidizer while a scramjet only carries fuel and burns it with air. This manifests as a dramatic difference in range. The point of a scramjet missile is that it can go as fast as a rocket but has a range more comporable to a turbofan powered cruise missile. So yes, it's a difference in capability.

>>10005381

*comparable

>>10005343

10 seconds is plenty of time for these electro-optical systems coupled with laser systems to take out missiles. Just watch >>10005311

If the missile has an IR signature (which it would be pretty damn bright going at Mach 8) it would be spotted a long ways out.

Not to mention satellites would have spotted the missile a long ways out when it when it was launched, and would have been tracking its heat signature the whole way. The ship crew would know where the missile was and how fast it was going. They would have way more than 10 seconds warning.

>>10005350

Oh, is your laser going to detonate the charge from 30km and in 10 second then? Do the math and tell us what is your laser going to do at that distance? Tell us about the Wattage going to be needed too.

>>10005359

The only reasonable, educated anon here. I don't know. But 30km is a long distance, and the launcher itself might not need to be on the surface all the time.

Im not going muh Russia strong here, they are commies and full of ship, but the fact that a non US force is possessing this means the hegemony is coming to an end.

>>10005352

You know how short 10 second is, retard? Let's say your entire defense network takes only 1-2 seconds to find and detect the target. That leaves you with 8 seconds or so to react and destroy a coming bullet. ALL assuming you find it from like 30km away, which is a long fucking way to expect a bullet to fly at you.

>>10005365

I'm not the subhuman retard that literally said computers can process information at the speed of light. Nothing can. Computers use electricity and cables, and no electron traveling in a cable is faster than photon flying through the air.

Eat shit, retarded subhuman. Go die for ZOG.

>>10005396

But anon, barring CPU speed, electricity moves at the speed of light. Fuck off.

>>10005383

And the tech is only improving.

>>10005381

so it can do what the 60s tuna can does, but its more economical

got it

>>10005413

Yeah it wasn't intended for you.

>>10005403

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_factor#Typical_velocity_factors

Enjoy being called a subhuman yet? And a computer is as fast as it's CPU, so your "opinion" stay retarded, retard.

>>10005413

>Anyone not buying western zog propaganda is RIDF!!!

>Oh shit. RIDF just told the fuck out of me. I guess traveling at mach 8 also makes missiles physically invulnerable, rather than allowing a single inert lead BB fired from a Wal-Mart-purchased airgun to completely shred the entire thing on impact.

Yeah, just spray that shit everywhere all the time even to false signals. Because missles aren't cheap shit and ivans don't have a history of rocket spam.

>>10005429

>just do nothink komrade

>>10005429

Enjoy being old and angry, and confirming exactly what I said, filtered, tits.

>>10005359

>>10005403

>electricity moves at the speed of light

Not even remotely true. Not in any sense. Electrons themselves flow very slowly through conductors, and the signals themselves travel at various speeds depending on the particular conductor in question, anywhere from 50% to 99% of C.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_factor#Typical_velocity_factors

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drift_velocity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_electricity

>>10005383

That rocket wasn't flying anywhere near Mach 8, and it is only 1,5 km away. And what do you mean by "long way"? How long exactly, and has laser been improved enough to start burning the thing at that distance?

>>10005396

you seem to be shilling this glorified tomahawk pretty hard anon…

>>10005438

Fair, a nd I would argue the black projects would have refined this to a degree, it's not negligible to someone sitting there affixing their target manually. Which is what was seemingly being suggested.

>>10005429

>don't shoot down my multimillion ruble hypersonic missile full of aeronautics, jet fuel, maneuvering equipment, and GPS targeting with a burst of easily replaced HE and tungsten pellets you already have stocked in the hundreds of thousands, comrade! You just can't absorb the costs!

Jesus fuck.

>>10005410

> 60s tuna can

The what?

No rocket will have the velocity and range of a scramjet without being absolutely massive in comparison. The rocket equation doesn't allow it.

>>10005452

Sounds like their rationale for letting illegals and snackbars in. Stopping them would be too costly for all the "false" signals.

>>10004913

I'll take one with a saddle bolted onto it, so i can ride around the earth in 3 hours.

New job as world's fastest courier.

Deliver organs to Hong Kong businessmen, make trillions.

>>10005470

High speed submarine dogfights when??

>>10005485

The points were already made Ivan, you choose to stick your head in the sand.

>>10005461

>W-we m-made it smaller too

>stop trying to minimize our cool gadgets we're never going to use baka!

>>10005485

GPS isn't used for tracking opposition missiles and planes. GPS gives the receiver it's position. Opposition missiles and planes are tracked using radar.

>>10005496

You have no idea what you're talking about.

>>10005505

please enlighten us with the specs of your poo in loo missile anon

>>10005470

those pics are a bit bullshit btw

the gas-ejection mechanism is here only to allow it to accelerate to cavitation speed, so as to reduce drag when there would still be water in contact with the torpedo/missile skin

when it goes fast enough, the flat part of the nose is enough to eject water and make a void/water vapor bubble around the whole torp

>>10004811

>hypersonic manoeuver

You are officially the biggest fucking moron in this thread. Manoeuvers cannot be done at these speeds in atmosphere with any existing materials without exploding the fucking plane/missile.

>>10005511

And it takes time for that energy to heat it up.

Also, all that mass isn't going away.

It's still going to hit even if it's a cloud of dust with enough force to kill a ship.

>>10005485

>Amerishits

>West ZOG

>"You subhumans"

It's an assblasted Eurabian.

>>10005514

I've already explained to you the difference between a rocket and a scramjet. Scroll up if you still don't get it.

>>10005522

>mass isn't going away

You clearly don't know how high energy lasers work. Yes, yes that mass is going away as the particles fucking vaporize it.

>>10005502

Yeah I fucked up, sorry. And this is even worse. You now need to have 30km+ thermal and IR coverage of your ships. For everyone of them.

>>10005511

You dumb mother fucker. Your laser can't destroy a flying scram jet instantly, and certainly not from 10km away. In the video you posted it took almost 10 seconds to fry some shitty rocket at 1,5 km not flying anywhere near what will be used by ivans, much less this new mach 8 scramjet.

>>10005523

Ass blasted? I'm not 60% over here.

>>10005543

I still can't get over the drone program they had for these. Shitty and haphazard as it was, cool concept.

>>10005535

>You now need to have 30km+ thermal and IR coverage of your ships. For everyone of them.

Carrier groups have much more radar coverage than that. And Russia/China would be wasting their time using such a missile on any other USN target.

>>10005534

>Metal vaporizing laser

>On a ship

This isn't COD, kid. Go back to school. Where are you going to find the power for that?

Remember that the adults are talking about already existing tech here, and the US laser took 10 seconds to take out a shitty rocket at 1,5 km.

>>10005535

So angry over old tech demos. You'll never see the new stuff, just wonder why your shit keeps dropping like it hit a bug zapper. Idi nahui.

>>10005470

Maybe now?

I've always suspected that there might have been skirmishes in space and underwater that we never heard about.

Technologies like this would certainly make those more interesting.

At any given time, the technology we know of in the public sphere is 20-30 years behind the state of the art.

You can see this by looking to the past and seeing when things that were secret were made public, and when people got the idea to start working on things like that.

This gap between the public sphere and state of the art seems to grow as time goes on.

>>10005554

>where are you going to find power on a naval vessel powered by 8 nuclear reactors

>>10005372

>Electricity moves t the speed of light

No it doesn't, you fucking retard. An electron has mass, it cannot travel at the speed of light, and a relativistic electron cannot stay connected to your conductor because it's a beta particle soaring off.

And even then, what the fuck are you talking about?

>kompter can calc at da sped of lite

The speed of light is a distance divided by an amount of time, how the fuck can a computer calculate something in a distance divided by time?

>>10005521

>You are officially the biggest fucking moron in this thread

you didn't understand anything of what most anons posted itt, did you?

do you understand texts that are written at higher than common-core textbook complexity level?

>Manoeuvers cannot be done at these speeds in atmosphere with any existing materials without exploding the fucking plane/missile

if it were true, missiles/rockets would not work

>>10005535

If you melt the leading edge of a Mach 8 aircraft the Mach 8 air hitting it will do the rest. It will literally break into a thousand pieces.

If they put the laser over the warhead, it would just explode.

>>10005552

Say if ivans decide to fire 15 of these things from all direction at say 50km away, do you think current tech can stop them all?

>>10005565

>>10005569

Do the math and show us how you are not shutting down all other system to power your yet to exist laser?

>>10005342

>>implying this is an argument against capability

You do know that muh evil NAZZZES had rocket powered planes in WW2 ?

I apologise for yewtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnwQcr8tnAw

So, americans are like … waaay behind dudeeee

>>10005356

>Do radars, satellites, and thermal imaging not exist in your world? Do you know how hard it's going to be to sneak up anywhere going at that speed? Every AWACS and Aegis in a thousand miles is going to know about it.

You are dead before you've had a chance to react.

If such missile launces from 100km away you have about 35.7s to react.

Satelites are passive devices, radars are active devices.

Radars need warming up time.

Which means.

Either you have it on all the time - and you are signalling to the whole world where exactly you are.

Or you have it off and you are blind.

Thermal imaging needs warm up time as well. As well as it has focus issues and $ issues, as well as it is completely useless in fog or rain.

Guess when the enemy attacks if he knows you are blind in fog or rain.

>>10005359

>How is the launcher getting targeting solutions? Does russia have anything stealthy enough to hang around our carriers and feed a targeting fix to the death missile launchers?

>I don't think they do.

They actually do. These rockets have optically identifying AI - as well as radar identifying AI.

If you can spare one rocket, you can shoot one in the air and it will find it's own target.

It is more like fire and forget system - just for ship.

>>10005383

>10 seconds is plenty of time for these electro-optical systems coupled with laser systems to take out missiles.

It really is not.

That is low speed rocket traveling away from the laser.

Basically easiest to kill.

Russian's ram-jet travels at 1% speed of light ! Think of that. It is insane.

>>10005383

>If the missile has an IR signature (which it would be pretty damn bright going at Mach 8) it would be spotted a long ways out.

At mach 8 it can coast for final 5km flight. It is very easy to turn off the engines.

>Not to mention satellites would have spotted the missile a long ways out when it when it was launched, and would have been tracking its heat signature the whole way. The ship crew would know where the missile was and how fast it was going. They would have way more than 10 seconds warning.

That is very much true. (If you know where the launch sites are)

>>10005396

>You know how short 10 second is, retard? Let's say your entire defense network takes only 1-2 seconds to find and detect the target. That leaves you with 8 seconds or so to react and destroy a coming bullet. ALL assuming you find it from like 30km away, which is a long fucking way to expect a bullet to fly at you.

It takes 1s for CIWS to actually put bullets ~1km away. 2s for 2km.

Subtract that from remaining 8s.

You get 5-6 seconds - and you would need to have all your systems active 24/7, which is simply impossible.

>>10005413

>I've been predicting a move to subsurface fleets for years. The value of a permanent water barrier is just too good.

It appears that that will happen.

>You don't need to destroy the thing's kinetic energy. You just need to poke a hole in it, and aerodynamics take care of the rest. The HE charge on the CWIS is only needed to disperse the cloud of pellets, so as long as you can paint a wall of metal pebbles for a few seconds, the missile will destroy itself using its own inertia.

I really doubt you would do much to it.

Today's aircraft are resistant to 20mm AA guns.

Smaller rocket, with radar absorbing material - and with very low profile. It is absolutely doable.

You seem to forget you can fill this thing with sawdust and it would still make a huge hole in a ship.

>>10005461

>No rocket will have the velocity and range of a scramjet without being absolutely massive in comparison. The rocket equation doesn't allow it.

W-what is ICBM.

Limiting factors for most things is air drag.

I agree tho, ram-jets are insanely fuel efficient.

I wonder if they will make part of their travel in upper atmosphere as air density is greately reduced there.

>>10005452

>>don't shoot down my multimillion ruble hypersonic missile full of aeronautics, jet fuel, maneuvering equipment, and GPS targeting with a burst of easily replaced HE and tungsten pellets you already have stocked in the hundreds of thousands, comrade! You just can't absorb the costs!

It has no moving parts comrade.

Ram-jet is "a flying stove pipe"

>>10005521

>You are officially the biggest fucking moron in this thread. Manoeuvers cannot be done at these speeds in atmosphere with any existing materials without exploding the fucking plane/missile.

Then explain to me how this ram-jet missile steers.

>>10005556

Not really. Things are slowing down actually.

We did what we could with pistols

then with guns

then with machine guns

then with mortars

then with planes

then with rockets

It is just the final polishing of "architecture"

It still takes men on the ground to "take the flag"

>>10005565

>>where are you going to find power on a naval vessel powered by 8 nuclear reactors

Good luck converting all this power to lasers. They are horribly inefficient.

(today's lasers are completely chemical tho)

>>10005566

wrong id mate

>>10005577

>yet to exist

>actual picture of one of the systems

This is the problem with russian shills. The ruble buys shit.

>>10005577

If they're 50km away, they have already been sighted.

Not to mention they wouldn't have enough time to accelerate to Mach 8…

>>10005577

Come on, man. think. Capacitors. You charge them with excess electricity during the day and discharge them with the big ol' zap.

>>10005565

>8 nuclear reactors

The Enterprise has been out of service since 2012. Nimitz class only have 2 reactors each but almost as much overall power

>>10005582

Oh shit, I'm sorry.

>>10005228

>At such speeds, avoiding anything is pie easy

Well if avoiding things was a missile's job then you'd be set. Unfortunately for you a missile's actual job it to HIT things.

>even slight banking will result in 1km deviation from course?

Okay so your fancy missile now misses by 1km, it can't get back on target in time because its going so fast it passes its target before it has time to readjust.

>And i bet she can pull 10G's

You're not pulling high g maneuvers at scramjet speeds, for starters like I said earlier you simply don't have the control surfaces to do it. More importantly vehicles moving at this speed are already operating at the limits of material technology. In other words they can barely hold together just flying in a straight line.

I will however concede that lasers at the moment are pretty shitty and couldn't stop this thing.

Anyways this whole argument is rather pointless the main takeaway should be that this article is nothing more than britcuck fearmongering designed to mentally prepare people for war with Russia. I mean for gods sake russia already has the capability to destroy aircraft carriers its called launch a hundred missiles at once.

>>10005594

Also, it was in reference to the reaction of a machine vs a human. Since the ural mountain shitposter thinks we all sit on the shores with binoculars

>>10005582

>At mach 8 it can coast for final 5km flight. It is very easy to turn off the engines.

At mach 8 it will have a massive IR signature even with the engines turned off. Especially if it's sea skimming.

>>10004859

>We probably have

>attack us

Who is "we" and "us"? The government, nation, and economic engine working in concert to exterminate our race? Nothing quite like a thread that implies just the possibility of military superiority over the US to bring all the ZOGlings out in force.

>>10005581

>Russian's ram-jet travels at 1% speed of light ! Think of that. It is insane.

uh, I think you got your maths a lil bit wrong

1% of speed of light would be 3000 km/s

1000 times the 3 km/s of the missile

3000 km/s is in the ballpark of 10 times the orbital velocity of the solar system around the center of the Milky Way

>>10005600

Aircraft carriers in WW2 had an average survival time of 48 hours after being located.

>>10005582

>W-what is ICBM.

Big, and not sea skimming.

>>10005576

Well, I don't know if the current laser system can do that, so I won't say.

>>10005584

What, you meant your shitty laser burning shitty rockets at 1,5 km?

>>10005585

And? Slavshits shoot 15 of them at the same time. Good luck.

More like 50, knowing their history. And 50 of these things are cheaper than a carrier

>>10005589

If it has ever been so simple as just storing electricity you don't use for later. If the US debuts new battery tech next year, I think your solution will work. But don't tell me you are just going to charge up when ivans show up for their usual missile spam.

>>10005623

The idea would be that you keep them charged until you need them, but granted, such a system would be both complicated and expensive. The American military does seem to like overly complicated and expensive, though.

>>10005623

Oh Ivan, you realize our shitty railgun fires at 2.4km/s da?

>>10005645

That is slower than this thing flying mid trajectory. And that is the muzzle velocity of your railgun.

Also

>Using bullets to intercept bullets

>Having enough railgun to spam at a low profile bullet

>Having enough guns to ever shoot down a slavshit missile spam

>Still thinking Im eastern ZOG

>Literally spewing mindless opinions to defend western ZOG

>Still a non thinking subhuman

WEW

>>10005663

Something that only exists in your tiny mind and is certainly not installed on aircraft carrier just to shoot down missles.

>>10005585

>If they're 50km away, they have already been sighted. Not to mention they wouldn't have enough time to accelerate to Mach 8…

>What is horizon for 100 shekels.

At that distance, you can't see the ship that far away due to curvature of earth

>>10005600

>Well if avoiding things was a missile's job then you'd be set. Unfortunately for you a missile's actual job it to HIT things.

Because it is absolutely mandatory to fly in a straight course for year 2017 missile ?

You know you can make it wobble around just by shifting the weight around. Hitting one of these is impossible.

>Okay so your fancy missile now misses by 1km, it can't get back on target in time because its going so fast it passes its target before it has time to readjust.

Why would it choose to miss ?

I have already said that these missiles actually overshoot the ship and then return back to it to penetrate it from upper deck.

>You're not pulling high g maneuvers at scramjet speeds, for starters like I said earlier you simply don't have the control surfaces to do it. More importantly vehicles moving at this speed are already operating at the limits of material technology. In other words they can barely hold together just flying in a straight line.

I see where the problem lies. High G maneuvers are illegal in your state.

>You're not pulling high g maneuvers at scramjet speeds, for starters like I said earlier you simply don't have the control surfaces to do it.

>What are airbrakes

>More importantly vehicles moving at this speed are already operating at the limits of material technology. In other words they can barely hold together just flying in a straight line.

I doubt that. Rocket tech is not new. I mean, russians have S-300 and even S-200 is pretty fast.

They only replaced the "thrusty part" with ramjet.

I am certain that even electronics are just one version up from Igor v1.3a to Igor v1.3b.

>At mach 8 it will have a massive IR signature even with the engines turned off. Especially if it's sea skimming.

Didn't think of that.

There are ways around it I am most certain.

>>10005616

>uh, I think you got your maths a lil bit wrong

I did. Thanks for correction

It is 1ppm of light then:)

>>10005663

>>what are supercapacitors

Supercapacitors are too slow to release/dump energy. They are more like batteries in that subject (and most of the times, a lot worse)

You need to discharge your capacitor bank at 1ms or less. That is MW of power.

Perhaps GW.

Let's say it is doable.

You can have smaller ships that serve nothing but generators and cap banks for their rail guns.

Compared to a relatively "compact" chemical laser that only requires a couple of chemicals you can store in tanks.

Lasers is where it is at. Just not at current energies, speeds and costs.

Communism can threaten the world?

>>10005667

>you cannot fire such a high power appliance without capacitors. It's like the flash on a camera, the batteries are incapable of delivering the necessary amps so the capacitor stores the needed energy and releases it way quicker than the batteries ever could.

>>10005667

There are probably millions of super capacitors on your average warship, its old tech.

>>10005667

>I havingk no idea how Americanski tech is workings

We have supercapacitors fucktard.

>>10005691

I did not mean to meme arrow.

>>10005690

Does. It DOES threaten the world.

>>10005702

>>10005691

>>10005713

And none of these would ever power a metal vaporizing laser long enough to destroy a mach 8 ramjet. For a long time.

Again, we are talking about existing tech here. Not your fairytale.

>>10005691

You are correct. Capacitors are mandatory for railguns.

(Fast capacitors)

>>10005702

>There are probably millions of super capacitors on your average warship, its old tech.

There is a big difference between slow release energy storage and "Pulse capacitor"

As well as pulse applications having plenty of their own issues.

Like screw terminals unscrewing themselves absolutely for no fucking reason.

Random explosions due to insulator defects.

Instant death scenarios where capacitor bank recharges itself from no external input even after it has been discharged completely.

/There are easier ways to kill yourself/

>>10005733

Already done.

>>10005729

>And none of these would ever power a metal vaporizing laser long enough to destroy a mach 8 ramjet.

How would you know? The speed does not change how much energy you need to warp the nose cone.

>>10005742

sauce?

>>10005744

You are right. I made a claim without thinking. Please tell all of us about this new supercapacitors that will release gigawatts of power directly to the laser device in a few seconds needed to stop a Mach 8 ramjet.

>>10005744

I don't think you'll have much luck using lasers to thermally warping the nosecone of a hypersonic missile designed to punch through thick soupy sea-level atmosphere.

>>10005687

No, supercapacitors are extremely fast when it comes to both charge and discharge. they completely dump their energy. They do tend to have a lower voltage which is why they tend to be connected in series. They also leak which is why they are still working on a better capacitor that acts more like a battery in terms of stability with the same charge/discharge rates.

>>10005687

Ships are tall, and they also use drones for surveillance now.

There are also these things called satellites, I don't know if you've heard of them.

>>10005746

DARPA literally gets paid to think of cool ideas like this, which they put in filing cabinets and secure servers until someone wants to make the ideas real.

>>10005787

What's the effective range?

>>10005764

I'm sure it was designed to withstand 150kw of energy being dumped into a single point. You're right Ivan, everyone else including the scientists building the fucker, are wrong.

>>10005792

DARPA should hire me.

>>10005796

It's surely ablative. It will likely handle it just fine.

>>10005780

Satellites also do second quick thermal imaging nowadays? Jolly gees, tell us all about it.

>>10005787

Nice, it is like ww2, but faster! Certainly not having to worry about exploding at the exact correct time near the damn thing first!

>>10005787

They melt and fuse to the barrel? Do you have an explosive charge to break them free from the canister that is strong enough to handle being fired out of the gun?

>>10005802

Of course, komrade. 150kw is nothink.

It would be funny if these missiles are just a distraction and real attack is coming from a torpedo.

>>10005804

You're an idiot.

The satellites track the object from its initial launch point, wherever it may be.

That's what the IR satellites do, they track heat signatures and missile launches.

>>10005802

You think they put an ablative heat shield suitable for reentry from orbit into a missile that's never going to exit the atmosphere nor get fast enough to achieve reentry heat in the lower atmosphere?

>>10005829

They're doing that too.

>>10005264

ha

>USA launches missile

>also launches anti missile

>they hit each other

Wow, America strong.

>>10005829

It would be hilarious if the Russians used all kinds of high tech missiles to distract from Ivan with scuba diving gear and a tungsten carbide hand drill.

>>10005804

We've had live thermal in satellites for ages. Hell Skysat-1 was a private sat that did it so they could sell the service.

You guys are stupid if you think real military techs are revealed before wars

>>10005264

Yup. Different tech though. Non hypersonic.

>>10005841

Mach 8 in lower atmosphere will make that thing get hot as fuck. The Sprint missile used ablative shielding too. It went a bit faster, but glowed white hot.

>>10005687

>Because it is absolutely mandatory to fly in a straight course

It is when you have a scramjet strapped to you belly.

>you can make it wobble around just by shifting the weight around

I'm starting to feel like a broken record. The immense drag and inertia involved in mach 6+ atmospheric flight means that you can not make sudden delta Vs without LITERALLY tearing you aircraft apart. This is a limitation of the actual materials involved you can not get around it with clever engineering.

>these missiles actually overshoot the ship and then return

So your super missile whose only advantage is speed works by overpassing its target and turning around thus slowing it down and making sure point defenses have two opportunities to hit it. Brilliant.

>>10005861

>drill holes into the bottom of the ship

How long would it take a dozen half-inch holes in the bottom of a Nimitz to sink the ship, assuming no remedial action was taken? Can anybody work out that math?

>>10005877

/thread

>>10004785

You cannot invade America. It is 100% impossible. Russia could already nuke the USA via nuclear subs. This missile tech is for someone else. I keep telling you guys Trump can fuck over the zog by sitting back and doing nothing.

>>10005898

It would not even sink because the bilge pumps would dump it all out

>>10005898

You can get the crew to plug the holes with some wooden wedges pretty quick.

I'd bet it would take a month or more to fill the ship with a dozen half inch holes at the very bottom of the hull.

>>10005907

Totally agree, even if the bilge pumps were off, it would take

FOREVER

If the ship sank because of that, it was the crew's negligence that sank the ship.

>>10005907

What if the bilge pumps ran so long the reactor ran out of fuel so they all turned off. How much longer would it take with no pumping or plugging?

>>10005877

This but also, you must realize that sometimes revealing something can have more of an effect on the enemy than not revealing it. It's called intimidation.

>>10005907

Plus all the compartmentalization.

>>10005926

There is a ship full of meat pumps.

>>10005927

Ofc but you would never reveal all your cards. And when russia does reveal something, they know USA have other cards too.

In any case, what is public state is obsolete.

>>10005933

Imagining the ship were a ghost ship with no power? I imagine it'd still take a year or more.

>>10005796

the problem with laser defense will be to "dump it into a single point"

lasers have a range, because of decoherence, aggravated by atmospheric absorbtion/distortion

you would be hard-pressed to transfer this amount of energy at a stationary target at 30 km

now consider that it's moving at 3 km/s, and you have a real fucking huge problem tracking it and moving your laser beam fast enough and precisely enough to stay on this "single point"

any microsecond deviation from the spot you've lit so far will result in a large amount of the heat you've succesfuly transfered to dissipate

because there's a considerable amount of air the missile flies through that is able to take away the heat in excess of the temperature the misile cone reaches by friction/compression

if you heat the missile cone enough to change air behavior around it but not enough to destroy it, you've just added modifications to its trajectory that make keeping hitting the same spot with the laser more difficult, which means that the cone has more chances to survive

and if the missile autocorrects, your laser has done fuck all to prevent impact

>>10005940

>In any case, what is public state is obsolete.

Hardly. You must realize that the real weapon here is the announcement of this thing rather than the missile itself. Announcing this will force the USA to adapt and spend a lot of money doing so.

>>10005944

Is there ghost water?

>>10005746

An article a couple of years ago.

It is basically a mine with torpedo with acoustical tracking.

It sits dormant and launches only when proper ship signature is detected. Meaning, you can mine your own ports and it wouldn't explode your ship.

Amazing little buggers.

This is very old design:

http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/USNAVY/CHAPTER-13-A.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_24_mine

Replacing the torpedo with a rocket is easy work.

>>10005771

>No, supercapacitors are extremely fast when it comes to both charge and discharge. they completely dump their energy. They do tend to have a lower voltage which is why they tend to be connected in series. They also leak which is why they are still working on a better capacitor that acts more like a battery in terms of stability with the same charge/discharge rates.

>What are pulse capacitors for 500% Igor.

>What is pulsed energy storage

https://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/505712

Pulsed storage is not new tech.

Super capacitors are not high MJ/100ns storage.

>>10005780

>Ships are tall, and they also use drones for surveillance now.

>What is cryocooling of passive Thermal-IR sensors for 100$ Ivan.

I have never heard of satelites before Igor. Please, do explain this subject to me in detail. I am all ears.

>>10005787

>Canister shot out of a railgun. Find a flaw.

Flaw ?

>Railgun

>>10005796

>I'm sure it was designed to withstand 150kw of energy being dumped into a single point. You're right Ivan, everyone else including the scientists building the fucker, are wrong.

Gee. Because ruşsian scientists that build ramjet rockets cannot build heat shields for said rocket, even when it heats up to 500°C due to air friction.

It all makes sense now !

>>10005795

>What's the effective range?

10km from US treasury

>>10005802

>It's surely ablative. It will likely handle it just fine.

Yeah. I think even 2cm of cheap ISO-9001 IKEA grade sawdust and glue - kitchen board would give ample protection for those 10 seconds of travel time.

>>10005812

>Of course, komrade. 150kw is nothink.

Compared to 1MW of air resistance with 1MW ram jet engine.

>>10005829

>It would be funny if these missiles are just a distraction and real attack is coming from a torpedo.

Even torpedos are rocket powered nowdays :)

>>10005837

>That's what the IR satellites do, they track heat signatures and missile launches.

What is signal path delay

What is sensor response time

10 seconds to kill. Have fun.

>>10005841

You think they put an ablative heat shield suitable for reentry from orbit into a missile that's never going to exit the atmosphere nor get fast enough to achieve reentry heat in the lower atmosphere?

I doubt it would be ablative. Standard steel tip would work out just fine.

Even tungsten if you desire so.

>>10005718

The crew finds it a good argument.

One missile, 3500 points.

>>10005969

Never said it was new faggot. I'm the guy telling ivan we already have these things.

>>10005928

Like Titanic.

>>10005992

They left their bulkheads open.

>>10005962

Huh no. They announce things they have developped already quite a while ago and are like : "Check this out."

Meanwhile they have other things they have oir are working on it that they will not reveal.

See, for exemple if someone had a new weapon that could wipe 3/4 of the population in 1 shot, do you think they would say it?

>>10005992

The Titanic sank because the compartments failed because one of the bulk heads was compromised from the heat of a coal fire.

FFS the Israelis weren't even able to sink the liberty.

Fuck your drill.

>ridf tries to explain to everyone that their gay hyperfast missile could withstand a cloud of flak at mach 8

>can't read or understand modern technology

>some eurabian starts screaming about muh ziomutts

Top kek, the russians built a cloud of soon to be broken shit disguised as a missile and there are actual anons taking ridf seriously.

>>10006002

Didn't their bulkheads also not go floor to ceiling leaving an overflow for water to spill over into other compartments?

>>10006020

Yes, but that was only a problem because that one bulkhead burst. If it hadn't, the Titanic wouldn't have sunk.

A fast annihilation by super missiles beats a slow death by modernism.

>>10006024

>>10006020

Reminder it was built by JP Morgan, all the financiers found last-minute reasons to not be onboard, and ever major opponent of the Federal Reserve died when it sank.

>>10006028

fugg, brb moving to NORK

>>10004573

>CIWS

Modern ships neither have enough CIWS, nor does it matter.

Shooting down one when it is 3 miles away is not going to help much if it's traveling head-on, and several more are inbound within a second.

Modern aircraft carriers, surface ships and the F35 are a waste of money.

>>10005862

>We've had live thermal in satellites for ages. Hell Skysat-1 was a private sat that did it so they could sell the service.

>Images are delivered with panchromatic, multispectral and pansharpened data. Videos are full motion black and white 30 frames per second, duration up to 90 seconds, field of view 2 km by 1.1 km, resolution 1.1 m.

Good luck with 2km FOV

>>10005897

>It is when you have a scramjet strapped to you belly.

Then explain how missile does any course corrections in real time ?

>I'm starting to feel like a broken record. The immense drag and inertia involved in mach 6+ atmospheric flight means that you can not make sudden delta Vs without LITERALLY tearing you aircraft apart. This is a limitation of the actual materials involved you can not get around it with clever engineering.

You are a broken record. This missile is already a functioning version.

Flight controls already can steer it to overshoot the ship.

Which part of "it is doable" don't you get.

Materials can be improved, physics cannot.

>So your super missile whose only advantage is speed works by overpassing its target and turning around thus slowing it down and making sure point defenses have two opportunities to hit it. Brilliant.

You are a special kind of idiot aren't you.

It does that to ensure higher kill probability.

It has enough speed to go completely thru the ship if it wants to.

>>10005898

>How long would it take a dozen half-inch holes in the bottom of a Nimitz to sink the ship, assuming no remedial action was taken? Can anybody work out that math?

>What is grenade in water:)

Jokes aside, probably around 1000.

These ships have huge water pumps.

Big ships are impossible to sink. Observe israeli strike on us ship.

>>10005926

>What if the bilge pumps ran so long the reactor ran out of fuel so they all turned off. How much longer would it take with no pumping or plugging?

About 20 years for reactor to lose part of it's power.

Good luck not getting ground up in propeller after you've done your job;)

>>10005953

Spotted the science-anon

>>10005988

>Never said it was new faggot. I'm the guy telling ivan we already have these things.

I see you fail to grasp super caps won't help pulsed storage systems

>>10006020

>Didn't their bulkheads also not go floor to ceiling leaving an overflow for water to spill over into other compartments?

I did notice that. Seemed like pretty stupid idea.

>>10006031

yep

>>10004891

>Point defense lasers

Those suffer from inefficiency (lasers aren't 100% energy efficient) and refraction in the atmosphere. There is also a limit on how fast a laser can ablate materials. (The superheated material will expand and block the laser)

A thin layer of polished aluminum is enough to counter military laser systems when massed.

>>10006071

They are about 1-2% efficient in reality. Depends on type of pumping. Chemical ones are better at this as well as being of higher energy density.

>>10005511

What's the origin of that gif? Looks 1960's or 70's.

>>10006066

That was when a commercial entity released it a few years ago. Good luck stopping the tech dead in it's tracks. Because of course nothing is ever improved upon, right?

>>10006092

Looks like 2k slav.

>>10005511

That speed of light graphic is absolutely terrible.

>>10006081

>1-2% efficient in reality

Yes. Which is arguably terrible considering how bulky the power systems.

>Chemical ones are better at this as well as being of higher energy density.

Those have the problem of being even more expensive and dangerous to handle. (Requiring both rare deuterium and very reactive fluorine)

There exist alternative laser types, but those have the problem of not scaling well (diode based). Once we get to 30-70% efficiency at UV frequencies things will be a lot more interesting.

Right now it's just a waste of money.

>>10005898

You'd need any an army of ivans with drills and to basically turn the entire hull into swiss cheese. Even then they can seal off sections and prevent water from flooding anywhere critical.

Hell I bet a sailor could plug a hole with his finger to stop it.

>>10006118

>waste of money

Then how do you get to the point where we can have 30-70% efficiency?

>>10005274

What's it like being so new?

>>10006122

>I bet a sailor could plug a hole with his finger to stop it.

so, need to drill more holes than there are sailors aboard

multiplied by 2 hands, if holes are close enough

multiplied by fingers if holes are reaaaal close

then when all sailors are busy plugging, some getting greative with big toe like in twister game, Ivan climb aircraft carrier and capture flag

>>10006106

>That was when a commercial entity released it a few years ago. Good luck stopping the tech dead in it's tracks. Because of course nothing is ever improved upon, right?

You need a lot of processing power, a lot of cooling and a lot of bandwith to increase fow.

>>10006118

>Those have the problem of being even more expensive and dangerous to handle. (Requiring both rare deuterium and very reactive fluorine)

They have moved to Iodine lasers now.

They appear easy to operate, but I lack the first hand experience.

Hoever, both are insanely toxic to operate.

>>10006135

>Then how do you get to the point where we can have 30-70% efficiency?

You can't. Optical systems suck.

About 5% is best you can get. Like ever.

>>10006180

>Now you are thinking with portals.

Remove a couple of holes because not all sailors have all the fingers.

Add the number of holes for sailors with dicks

And sailors who have all the toes.

You are operating with a lot of holes.

Basically

Even in hole drilling operation.

Women are worse option.

Amazing even.

(Unless they bring strapons on board, but those are illegal afaik)

(I did not account for multi dick Chernobyl-Ivans and Igors)

>>10006180

then Ivan mocks umerikan sailors in ridiculous position

lol faggots

and vat dis?

>take picture of umerikan sailor plugging hole with dick

>>10006188

Low tech beats high tech only when you don't care about people.

It is preferable to use high tech stuff in war, less casualties and more veterans.

>>10006203

>>take picture of umerikan sailor plugging hole with dick

No no no no

Amerikan got things wrong

Ivan drill square hole !

Then you cannot plug with finger !

(What have we come to:))

>>10006207

except he is talking about replacing high-tech weapons with masses of low-tech drones.

>>10006188

Except they do have tactical utility which is why this stage of development is out of the lab and being put to use. It will continue to evolve. Like much of our military.

>>10006199

>You need lots

Yes and every iteration requires less and while also providing more because of technological progress. Hence, claiming the stuff doesn't exist when we have already shown the basics and the fact it does, is bullshit.

All I'm doing is shining light on the claims of non-existence. Quibble over semantics all you like but the stuff exists and is beyond what we have knowledge of (think time limits before details etc are declassified not scary spooky alternative magic juju)).

>you can't

Rhetorical question you need to continue to develop regardless. It isn't about efficiency anymore when you move to power sources like nuke reactors and then hiding behind "muh efficiency" when you can just make it bigger and throw more energy into it ultimately. Oh the ships are too small to hold it? Make it bigger or mount it on the coast. But but but… yeah we can all move the goal posts all day long.

Fact remains, we are still progressing and smarter people than the posters here are figuring out how to make it work even with all the "gotchas" you think you're throwing into the mix.

>>10006215

>India is contaminating Antarctica without visiting simply by shitting towards it

>>10006207

There's different forms of high-tech. There's multiplying the combat effectiveness of your troops and keeping them alive. And then there's blowing money on useless stuff.

Take a look at how the Russians operate. Their new MBT (T-14) has a remote turret and a separate armored compartment that increases crew survivability.

Yet it's both cheaper, safer and easier (and cheaper) to maintain than our M1 Abrams.

While we are wasting billions of aircraft carriers and other surface that may as well be sunk within the first few weeks of hostilities, they're investing in mass-produced anti-ship missiles that will render out surface fleet either obsolete or useless.

It's a question of economics. And right now the US military is not economical.

>>10006236

>Except they do have tactical utility which is why this stage of development is out of the lab and being put to use. It will continue to evolve. Like much of our military.

Deployment =/= tactical utility. Right now it's useful against low-tech opponents with no armor… Which is a situation where even a 50cal or a drone would suffice.

A 30 kw 2-4% efficient laser is not going to zap it's way through a missile barrage traveling at several times the speed of sound.

>>10006199

>About 5% is best you can get. Like ever.

You can go higher with metal vapor lasers, diode lasers, etc. But again scaling is the problem here.

>>10006000

Obviously they would not reveal weapons that civilian population. The simple fact that they even developed such a weapon is already bad PR. Meanwhile this thing is specifically meant to target carriers and ships, which are military targets. This is a pure intimidation strategy, this thing doesn't even have to work, as long as it makes the enemy believe that it exists, it's job is done. And the worst thing is that the USA cannot just say "it's bullshit" and not adapt either, since you can never really know which ones are bullshit and which ones are the real deal.

>>10006288

weapons that target civilian population*

>>10004640

>We shot down a satellite.

The nice thing about orbital mechanics is that you can predict an objects trajectory centuries into the future. There's nothing hard about shooting down a satellite because you can calculate exactly where it will be at exactly what time, anywhere in it's orbit.

>>10005581

>They actually do. These rockets have optically identifying AI - as well as radar identifying AI.

>If you can spare one rocket, you can shoot one in the air and it will find it's own target.

>It is more like fire and forget system - just for ship.

No, that's not in existance. FFS even the money pit of the F-35 doesn't have AI.

>>10006286

You mean a dome?

>>10006333

Automatic Target Recognition in AShMs exists.

>>10006236

>Yes and every iteration requires less and while also providing more because of technological progress. Hence, claiming the stuff doesn't exist when we have already shown the basics and the fact it does, is bullshit. All I'm doing is shining light on the claims of non-existence. Quibble over semantics all you like but the stuff exists and is beyond what we have knowledge of (think time limits before details etc are declassified not scary spooky alternative magic juju)).

Optical photography is one thing. Thermal-IR is completely another. Wide angles and high resolutions and high speed data streams are another.

Power is pricey in space. You only have limited amount. Same is with optics for your camera.

Sensors themselves can be improved. Optical technology is pretty much where it is, only factor is cost.

>Rhetorical question you need to continue to develop regardless. It isn't about efficiency anymore when you move to power sources like nuke reactors and then hiding behind "muh efficiency" when you can just make it bigger and throw more energy into it ultimately. Oh the ships are too small to hold it? Make it bigger or mount it on the coast. But but but… yeah we can all move the goal posts all day long.

You are just speaking nonsense by now and running around the field in underwear.

Energy consumption issues can be mitigated, energy dissipation issues cannot.

We are talking about MW of power needing to be dissipated.

If we build 10MW laser with 10% efficiency, we need to dissipate about 90MW of heat. That is /A fucking lot/ of heat.

Power supply issues have been resolved with chemical lasers already. It is a non-issue at this point.

>Fact remains, we are still progressing and smarter people than the posters here are figuring out how to make it work even with all the "gotchas" you think you're throwing into the mix.

You can't progress over perfection and physics, no matter how many shekels you throw in.

Gun is a gun and laser is a laser.

Lasers are troubling when you want reliability and compactness.

Artillery propellant from 60s still works today.

There are more issues than your complaining about "moving goalposts".

No goalposts have been moved, you only bumped into another obstacle you need to overcome.

>>10006272

>There's different forms of high-tech. There's multiplying the combat effectiveness of your troops and keeping them alive. And then there's blowing money on useless stuff. Take a look at how the Russians operate. Their new MBT (T-14) has a remote turret and a separate armored compartment that increases crew survivability.

Yeah I saw that. Survivability was something russians never gave two shits about. Most of their tanks were deathtraps.

>(((Abrams)))'s both cheaper, safer and easier (and cheaper) to maintain than our M1 Abrams.

M1 abrams is surgeon's blade compared to a hammer.

M1A2 is old stuff but it is good enough for what is required.

Russians however have a lot of territory to cover and it is preferable to increase tanks' fuel efficiency in that regard.

>While we are wasting billions of aircraft carriers and other surface that may as well be sunk within the first few weeks of hostilities, they're investing in mass-produced anti-ship missiles that will render out surface fleet either obsolete or useless.

Aircraft carriers are not that easy to sink. It is doable but not advisable.

They are mostly some kind of "pressure" on the regime that they want to influence.

>It's a question of economics. And right now the US military is not economical.

It doesn't need to be when all you need to do is up the tax rate.

It could be made economical but that is not really a priority.

Financial collapse is far more threatening than some 3rd world dictatorship.

Obsolete equipment is last of their worries now.

>>10006272

>You can go higher with metal vapor lasers, diode lasers, etc. But again scaling is the problem here.

Both are low power for this application. There is only so much you can do and field applications usually go for - good reliability and modest resource requirements.

Against ramjets, we are talking about 10MW and more for at least 10s.

Huge amount of power.

Things are not all that easy at such levels.

>>10006333

>No, that's not in existance. FFS even the money pit of the F-35 doesn't have AI.

It is not 1990's anymore.

Tomahawks have radar assisted terain map. And they are very old tech.

(F-35 is a fat piece of shit tho)

>>10006354

no need to protect it from above, it can't go higher than a bird or we would of had spacebirds long ago

>>10006386

>Tomahawks have radar assisted terain map. And they are very old tech.

Shit, terrain mapping dates back to the 1950s.

>>10006441

Dissipates in air. It is only useful in space

And even that, very limited.

>>10006438

Yep. Optical and radar AI is very advanced right now.

(And US navy was worried of loosing tomahawks because desert terrain was too mundane to make any sense of it)

Radar signatures of planes and ships are also a thing. Cheap to identify and very useful.

We, normies - are wayyyy behind on tech.

Only thing we are in the front is probably Wlan devices. There is a lot of signal shaping magic and reflection usage nowdays.

Nothing to be shy of.

>>10006286

Nice taste in manga.

sage for off-topic.

>>10005787

Railguns are a fucking meme, the real ones have a shorter range than a normal 152mm gun AND they have to use a full metal projectile (no warheads) to get them to even fly that far.

>In b4 but but but it goes really fast.

Yeah… for a few thousands meters, it decelerate extremely fast.

It's about the worst thing you can put on a ship (but a ship is the only thing that will fit one).

Sure in theory it's awesome, like communism…

>>10004676

>mach 3

Yes, they do fire at mach 3 you imbecile - any rifle caliber bullet tends to go around that fast. But the missile in OP is HYPERSONIC, which means mach 5 or more

>CIWS can't hit shit that's moving really really fast

You don't shoot something out of the air by having bullets catch up with it, you shoot it by putting the bullets on a trajectory that will intersect the target. The faster something goes relative to your CIWS, the more it resembles just scattering bullets in front of the object's path. But it works.

>>10000000

>>10006547

dude

what you said

>any rifle caliber bullet tends to go around that fast. But the missile in OP is HYPERSONIC, which means mach 5 or more

that was precisely my point

>you shoot it by putting the bullets on a trajectory that will intersect the target. The faster something goes relative to your CIWS, the more it resembles just scattering bullets in front of the object's path

when your bullets go at 1km/s, you need to calculate the trajectory of a 3km/s missile and then fire your gun when it's at more than 4 km to have a chance to hit it 1 km away from your ship

if in 1 second the missile makes a 1° trajectory change, it's 50 meters away from the point where you expected to hit it and it's 3 km closer

and your CIWS, let's suppose it's been hollywood-overboosted, with a 100 rounds per second RoF, cannot cover all the possible surface of a 50m radius circle with 100 bullets

you moron

>>10006643

>when your bullets go at 1km/s, you need to calculate the trajectory of a 3km/s missile and then fire your gun when it's at more than 4 km to have a chance to hit it 1 km away from your ship

>if in 1 second the missile makes a 1° trajectory change, it's 50 meters away from the point where you expected to hit it and it's 3 km closer

Yes. Why would this be a problem? It's not that hard to come up with a targeting solution such that the ballistic arcs of the bullets fired some time before all roughly intersect the target trajectory. The numbers sound big and bad, but it's quite simple with the computing power we have these days.

>>10006643

>cannot cover all the possible surface of a 50m radius circle with 100 bullets

Also, why 50m? Quite arbitrary. Why would they fire only for one second? The round will stay in the air for longer than 1 second. And you can have multiple phalanxes on your ship. And you don't need to cover the entire area in bullets, you need to achieve a sufficient density of bullets so that at least a couple of hits are guaranteed. Keep in mind that the hypersonic missile is not only hypersonic to you, it's hypersonic to itself. Moving at 3km/s massively limits terminal guidance jinking. It won't be doing any loop-de-loops that's for sure.

sage for double post

>>10006719

your computer is not a time machine

you don't know where and by how much the target will have deviated from the trajectory you hoped it had after you have fired your bullets and 1 whole second before they fail to hit it where it is not

>>10006743

>why 50m? Quite arbitrary

sinus of 1° angle * 3000 meters = 52,357meter. I rounded down to 50m

this is the distance away from where you were shooting at that the missile reaches in just one fucking second

>The round will stay in the air for longer than 1 second

but once the missile and the round have crossed each other a few 10's of meters away, the missile doesn't give a fuck about the round

>you can have multiple phalanxes on your ship

yes, but

>And you don't need to cover the entire area in bullets

yes you do actually

if you only cover half the area, you have 50% chances to miss

and if the missile can make a 2° turn instead of a 1°, its deviation is close to double that

which means you need to cover 4 times the surface

but even if you hit it with one miraculous bullet 1 km away, you won't prevent it from hitting the ship it's aiming for 0.33 second later

try looking through your windows (if you don't live in a cave) at some landmark 1 kilometer away, then tap a rhythm with your fingers at 3 tap per second, 180bpm

the interval between two taps is the missile going from the landmark to your face

CIWS is sad and hilarious bullshit against this missile

>>10006870

>I wanted to destroy every one of your arguments, but it seems you are far too stupid to see reason so I will use my time in something more worthwhile. I am just letting you know, that you are the most retarded person in this thread.

>Not an argument

I remember that NASA definitely had the project of a hypersonic jet. And I remember that the russians were concerned about it just a couple of years ago.

Then there was the emails scandal involving HRC.

And now all of a sudden… the russians have hypersonic jet technology.

>>10006885

>russia is communist

Hi, paid shill.

>>10006924

They've been working on it since the '80s.

Goyim, no! Russians are the enemy!

>>10006931

and I totally forgot to mention,

THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF SHELLS REQUIRED WILL BE FAR LOWER IF YOU USE AIRBURST/SHRAPNEL

>>10006833

>sinus of 1° angle * 3000 meters = 52,357meter. I rounded down to 50m

>this is the distance away from where you were shooting at that the missile reaches in just one fucking second

>and if the missile can make a 2° turn instead of a 1°, its deviation is close to double that

btw, I just went over the numbers, a 2° trajectory change in 1 second resulting in a 100m deviation corresponds to a 10G maneuver, which is suspected to be perfectly within reach of such a missile

let's suppose the CIWS has been hollywood-improved to hit something at 6km range, with bullets flying at constant 1km/s speed

if the missile has the same "S trajectory" evasive methods as the ssn22 moskit, it flies like that all the time, even when it is not in the last 2 seconds (6 fucking kilometers) of its flight path and in extreme range of the CIWS

meaning that if it has been perfectly tracked for all its flight, and the CIWS begins to shoot hoping to hit it 6km away (in 6 seconds of its bullets flight), the ciws must begin firing when the missile is 24 km away, and in 6 seconds the missile will have flown 18 km, and could be 900 meters on any side and altitude of its position just by making 1° turns

but don't worry, you have all of second 5 to correct your firing, and you can aim where you think the missile will be while it's just 20 km away, if you're not too imprecise on its exact position, speed and heading, and your uncertainty on where the fuck it will be is just 750m

>>10006939

>AIRBURST/SHRAPNEL

no, the missile flies faster than the shockwave of the charge

>>10006939

Precisely what proximity fused 20mm round do you propose CIWS use against these missiles?

>>10006944

Again with the ass-backward's understanding of geometry? You blow up the projectile before it's right next to you so that the intersects the cloud of debris, dumbass, just like they already do in both AAA shells and AA missiles.

>>10006941

CIWS is going to be your last line of defense anyway. You could litter the thing's trajectory with anti-air missiles of your own. Those can carry a considerably larger explosive load and can therefore engage when dealing with larger uncertainties. Hell, if you are really worried about this you can just use nuclear-tipped interceptors. A small, sub-kT warhead can easily do the job and you only need one or maybe a couple to make sure.

>>10006944

think before you post.

air burst can be detonated in front of the missile, and force the missile to fly through a field of (relatively) stationary pieces of metal. there is nothing different between shooting a mach 6 bullet at an object and having an object travel mach 6 into a stationary bullet

>>10006964

I am no expert, but I don't think creating a remotely detonated shell with tight timing tolerances would be particularly difficult. With that, it just becomes a matter of sensors and software.

>>10006490

>Railguns are a fucking meme, the real ones have a shorter range than a normal 152mm gun AND they have to use a full metal projectile (no warheads) to get them to even fly that far.

At high velocities you don't need a warhead.

Read about god rods.

It is pretty fucking scary.

>>10006547

>You don't shoot something out of the air by having bullets catch up with it, you shoot it by putting the bullets on a trajectory that will intersect the target. The faster something goes relative to your CIWS, the more it resembles just scattering bullets in front of the object's path. But it works.

It works ok for current targets. CIWS was made for slow flying shit.

This flying shit flies at DOUBLE the velocity CIWS is spreading hot metal around.

>>10006643

>when your bullets go at 1km/s, you need to calculate the trajectory of a 3km/s missile and then fire your gun when it's at more than 4 km to have a chance to hit it 1 km away from your ship if in 1 second the missile makes a 1° trajectory change, it's 50 meters away from the point where you expected to hit it and it's 3 km closer

You actually understand what the problem is. Quite rare.

>>10006719

You are not speaking about a computer anymore but a predictor. GIGO applies.

>>10006743

>It won't be doing any loop-de-loops that's for sure.

>When current missile slightly overshoots the target and returns to it to enhance the lethality.

Good luck with your CIWS:)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho_VHOjzMX0

This is a missile with NO warhead. Observe speed at 0:05

IT OBLITERATES THE TANK

Now let me blow your brains out

it travels at HALF the ram-jet missile speed.

HALF

Which means it has only a QUARTER of kinetic energy.

> NASA's X-43A scramjet with a new world speed record for a jet-powered aircraft - Mach 9.6, or nearly 7,000 mph. The X-43A set the new mark and broke its own world record on its third and final flight on Nov. 16, 2004.

> Nov. 16, 2004

> 2004

> https://www.nasa.gov/missions/research/x43-main.html

>>10006977

>This flying shit flies at DOUBLE the velocity CIWS is spreading hot metal around.

then you can shoot sooner

>>10004543 (OP)

>Zircon could render Navy's new £6.2billion ($7.9billion) aircraft carriers useless

>could

A bunch of sand niggers in fastboats can take down any aircraft carrier , Navy simulations have proven that year after year, aircraft carriers are a massive waste.