|
Like the numbers probably dont count the lifetime maintenance cost which will be astronomical given there are only 3 of them
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 15:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 19:11 |
|
|
It also has 80 VLS cells, which is kind of meh for a ship of its size, newer Russian heavy frigates/demi-destroyers are 64, Arleigh Burke is 90-96, and the type 55 is 112.
Ardennes has issued a correction as of 15:49 on Jan 21, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 15:33
|
|
|
Jel Shaker posted:but now they’ve done the R&D any future boats are going to be dirt cheap Makes sense. Just like with pharmaceuticals.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 16:07
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/grantshapps/status/1748680995350470774?t=SkWoUhcNGeeV0Dop26zGJA&s=19 Anyway thank you for the comedy, forums poster dead gay comedy forums. I have yet to the ascend to the plane of adding marginalia on top of highlights I wonder if Russia or China reads this stuff to navigate their foreign policy planning
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 17:14
|
|
|
Cao Ni Ma posted:Like the numbers probably dont count the lifetime maintenance cost which will be astronomical given there are only 3 of them I remember when I was stationed in Mayport the first one kept limping back there because it was foiled multiple times trying to transit from Virginia to San Diego by things such as “saltwater corrosion” and “almost capsizing in mild to calm seas.”
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 17:25
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:https://twitter.com/grantshapps/status/1748680995350470774?t=SkWoUhcNGeeV0Dop26zGJA&s=19 quote:Trials were to begin in 2018, followed by a major demonstration in 2019, however the COVID-19 pandemic and technical problems caused delays. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 17:26
|
|
|
Would be cool if congress kept force feeding the military munitions of various calibers and types and their associated guns or launchers instead of "you must buy another 300 engineless Abrams hulls that go straight to the boneyard" every year
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 17:27
|
|
|
Justin Tyme posted:Would be cool if congress kept force feeding the military munitions of various calibers and types and their associated guns or launchers instead of "you must buy another 300 engineless Abrams hulls that go straight to the boneyard" every year It’s probably for the best at this point
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 17:37
|
|
|
7 years and $100,000,000 to shoot down one drone in a controlled test with a laboratory research device not intended for real world use headline: wow! cost effective!
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 17:41
|
|
|
laser got sick, sorry
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 17:44
|
|
|
China and Iran will have Clantech ER pulse lasers before our wildly corrupt and inefficient procurement system is close to making this deployable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 17:45
|
|
|
it's weird for anyone to act like this kind of stuff gives anyone a technological edge anymore because everything is now international conglomerate... there's no state secrets anymore. They pretend there is but its bullshit. If lasers were suddenly cost effective then everyone would have lasers. I guess it might give someone an edge if they were the first ones to equip them AND they immediately went to war before anyone could do intelligence gathering by reading wikipedia.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 17:51
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:it's weird for anyone to act like this kind of stuff gives anyone a technological edge anymore because everything is now international conglomerate... there's no state secrets anymore. They pretend there is but its bullshit. If lasers were suddenly cost effective then everyone would have lasers. I guess it might give someone an edge if they were the first ones to equip them AND they immediately went to war before anyone could do intelligence gathering by reading wikipedia. *dons foiled helmet* The reason they do this kinda poo poo is because 1) grift, 2) psyop, and 3) the mundane way to kill a drone is to fire RF at it, and at the energies used by that laser you'd probably burn out electronics but then the meddlesomes in the population may not be too afraid of a milspec drone you can defeat with an array of microwave ovens in the back of a 1992 Toyota pickup.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 17:59
|
|
|
Don't you need a large power source to use laser? Seems to be bigger vaporware than railgun. Also useless in bad weather.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 18:05
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:https://twitter.com/grantshapps/status/1748680995350470774?t=SkWoUhcNGeeV0Dop26zGJA&s=19 Good thing it never rains or is foggy in the UK. If that were the case, this would be a tremendously stupid idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 18:06
|
|
|
stephenthinkpad posted:Don't you need a large power source to use laser? Seems to be bigger vaporware than railgun. The Zumwalt design was built around having a power plant that could accommodate a laser. However, it’s now a lightly armed destroyer because they never built the laser.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 18:08
|
|
|
stephenthinkpad posted:Don't you need a large power source to use laser? Seems to be bigger vaporware than railgun. Big navy ships have big power sources. That part is fine
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 18:16
|
|
|
stephenthinkpad posted:Don't you need a large power source to use laser? Seems to be bigger vaporware than railgun. lasers are useless in air lol, they only work at extremely close range because you lose power heating the air which in turn fucks up the beam as it passes through it
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 18:19
|
|
|
genericnick posted:Big navy ships have big power sources. That part is fine Not really, most older hulls in my understanding would have issues effectively routing that much power that quickly
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 18:24
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:Not really, most older hulls in my understanding would have issues effectively routing that much power that quickly I mean sure, you can't just tack a laser on and call it a day, but if you're building a new ship there's no reason why it shouldn't work. Now, if it'd be good for anything is another question.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 18:29
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:lasers are useless in air lol, they only work at extremely close range because you lose power heating the air which in turn fucks up the beam as it passes through it
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 18:32
|
|
|
what if you encase the laser in some kind of packaging in order to shield it from the air?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 18:34
|
|
|
as far as i can recall my undergrad physics classes this probably wouldn't work, but it'd be super funny to see the reaction of the hms laserboat crew if some enterprising third world fellows were to strap a big ol' mirror onto a flying lawnmower and send it straight at them
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 18:36
|
|
|
genericnick posted:if you're building a new ship there's no reason why it shouldn't work. Unfortunately due to cost overruns and the COVID 19 pandemic, the uss lasershark has been delayed indefinitely and also dissolved entirely in seawater
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 18:37
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:https://twitter.com/grantshapps/status/1748680995350470774?t=SkWoUhcNGeeV0Dop26zGJA&s=19 glad to be providing entertainment through the sheer power of Posting (I was taking screengrabs with skip and sketch, doing with the mouse is, well you know it's hard but then it gives a proper flair, makes it goonier) quote:I wonder if Russia or China reads this stuff to navigate their foreign policy planning Doing this and reading that made me remember something that a professor of mine said back then, elaborating upon something that Lenin said about reading The Economist, where the real value of it was to get the vibes of the anglo capitalists; same thing with the Financial Times or the Wall St Journal. This was pol econ III. Maybe it was the fact that I yet had to start caring of my brain and was drinking frequently (and being a decade ago), but doing this silly shitposting exercise jolted me back to that class. The point of his lesson there was if you want to know what capitalists are doing and what they think about what they are doing, you go to the financial reports. Companies that go public are required to provide information and report accounting to the public, after all -- and by public read "investors". This doesn't mean transparency; they hide client information and order details if they feel it is necessary (see Rheinmetall's report), but they comment the most relevant facts of their activity. What is truly relevant here is that reports might abstain, omit or be mistaken; they can also be deceiving in forecast or outlook (especially when polishing a turd), but they cannot lie on a fundamental basic level. Like, they cannot say that they have earned a contract when that didn't happen. What they can report stuff like "we are predicted to start producing in 2025 and finish delivery by 2028" and deliberately stretch that order for more years and no worries at all. The golden nugget within financial information lies in the proper interpretation of such things. How come a company that keeps delaying or providing additional support to a just launched ship can afford to have a very positive forecast? The practical observation would be "these guys must be doing a shitshow over there"; the capitalist investor, however, appreciates the company doing good business because it means greater stock value and dividends for them. In terms of foreign policy, I think this is just reference information to be had, to see where the money is going and how much they are spending, but it's just sausage-making details that China and Russia are certainly aware of. What is definitely not going to be readily available for the public are inventory details and control, the details of delivery, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 18:41
|
|
|
lol at them bragging about the precision tho woah, you made a laser that goes in a straight line? here have another hundred mil
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 18:42
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:https://twitter.com/grantshapps/status/1748680995350470774?t=SkWoUhcNGeeV0Dop26zGJA&s=19 Im sure this will work wonders in todays world of dozens of swarming flying lawnmowers raining on you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 18:42
|
|
|
stephenthinkpad posted:Don't you need a large power source to use laser? Seems to be bigger vaporware than railgun. This chinese generator thing came up recently. So directed energy weapons could be another case where the PLA delivers on western vaporware. Although I think they're more about blinding and damaging things, which is less dramatic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 18:44
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:lasers are useless in air lol, they only work at extremely close range because you lose power heating the air which in turn fucks up the beam as it passes through it i think they're solving that by playing with pulses and other aspects of the spell. something about burning a channel through the air, then delivering the energy before it can collapses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 18:55
|
|
|
all of your questions will be answered just as soon as some eve online guy with a clearance loses a battleship to a bunch of drones
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 19:06
|
|
|
Mandel Brotset posted:what if you encase the laser in some kind of packaging in order to shield it from the air? Ah yes, Tibanna Gas 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 19:52
|
|
|
There's IR wavelengths that the atmosphere are transparent to. No idea if they'd be useful for weapons though. Also my layperson rear end would worry about a countermeasure rocket that's a bunch of retro reflectors on a missile. You try to shoot down a missile and everyone on deck has permanent eye damage from the scattered light
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 19:57
|
|
|
Fellatio del Toro posted:all of your questions will be answered just as soon as some eve online guy with a clearance loses a battleship to a bunch of drones so video games are just like real life
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 20:16
|
|
|
SixteenShells posted:Also my layperson rear end would worry about a countermeasure rocket that's a bunch of retro reflectors on a missile. You try to shoot down a missile and everyone on deck has permanent eye damage from the scattered light The countermeasure is that lasers don't work, and also a missile hitting a ship and exploding hurts more than eye damage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 20:26
|
|
|
Cao Ni Ma posted:Im sure this will work wonders in todays world of dozens of swarming flying lawnmowers raining on you. a laser would be a significantly better tool against flying lawnmowers than against traditional airpower still pointless, because there are better directed energy weapons to deal with drones that already exist, of course
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 20:40
|
|
|
I remember reading Popular Science articles about how the US military would soon have operationally-deployed laser weapons over twenty years ago, when I was a child, and even then I remember thinking it smelled fishy I just looked up the program those fawning articles were about, YAL-1, to see what happened in the intervening time, and what happened is that, after nearly 20 years of development and multiple billions of dollars wasted, they ended up with a laser which had less than 10% of its intended range (in an anti-ballistic-missile role, the laser would have to basically be flying directly over the launch site), and also didn't consistently work even within that extremely close range, failing to destroy target missiles multiple times in controlled test environments in ideal conditions it was cancelled a decade ago and the weapon and everything associated with it have since been consigned to the garbage lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 21:27
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:https://twitter.com/grantshapps/status/1748680995350470774?t=SkWoUhcNGeeV0Dop26zGJA&s=19 China's weapon industry already has a laser anti-drone platform called "silent hunter" in service in Saudi Arabia already lol so the UK is only ~6 years behind
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 21:39
|
|
|
Cao Ni Ma posted:Like the numbers probably dont count the lifetime maintenance cost which will be astronomical given there are only 3 of them Every part bespoke.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 21:41
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It also has 80 VLS cells, which is kind of meh for a ship of its size, newer Russian heavy frigates/demi-destroyers are 64, Arleigh Burke is 90-96, and the type 55 is 112. One of the great things about VLS cells is nobody has to know how many are actually loaded. Or how many actually can be in total, even if all the stores on hand are bought out for use. That theoretical ship has 100 VLS cells. Is it loaded with 100 weapons? Just 4 weapons? Are they all empty and the theoretical capability is just for show due to cost and supply issues? It's not like the old external launchers where you could visually count the loadout at a glance. Though that did lead to some interesting dummy and cardboard derivatives. Australia's problem ridden hunter frigate program originally had a piddling 32 VLS cells. I figured our government intended to cheap out and never load them anyway with more than a the bare minimum to operate the system, say once.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 21:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 19:11 |
|
|
DancingShade posted:One of the great things about VLS cells is nobody has to know how many are actually loaded. Or how many actually can be in total, even if all the stores on hand are bought out for use. I don't buy this entirely. You can't see a ship's magazines, but you wouldn't assume in a wartime cruise they only brought 50 76mm rounds for the main gun. If they usually put to sea with 60% of their torpedoes, anti-submarine rockets etc., I would guess they aim for 60% of their VLS cells. I realize that their stocks might be hosed, but the entire purpose of a warship is as a platform for weapons, so they would just stay in Naples rather than go sail around on a pleasure cruise, surely?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 21:49
|
|