Science Or Anti-Science?

Politics...

I think this is in response to the recently passed budget law. Basically, if the 6-member panel can't come to a delusion on what to cut, then the defense budget gets a significant cut.

The defense department is in full swing to illustrate the impact of all these cuts with their own version of shock and awe when they announce all the programs that are likely to be cut. The premise is that it will pull the heartstrings of congress to find their cuts elsewhere.

You will see a lot more of this in the coming months.

"...if the 6-member panel can't come to a delusion..."

LOL. Was that deliberate or a Freudian slip?

No slip.

While sitting on the can this morning I figured out the problem. At least as far as the US is concerned. This may be OT, but I've got to post it somewhere.

I think the root of our problems, the primary cause, besides the addiction to power.....................................is that our leaders have an almost pathological need to be liked and respected. Not only in the US, but around the world.

They have spent a ton of money trying to get there...................they haven't.............................and the money is gone.

is it a problem or a symptom?

we've all had that boss

I think it's a problem. They've spent decades paying people to like them, nobody really likes them, and the money is gone.

Oops, maybe they read my comments at the time

Everything is crazy. We can't seem to win the low tech war on muslim extremists. I wonder who all of these super weapons are intended to be used on. They will do nothing to help us in the protracted wars that we're in.

How can you wage a war on a tactic?

we helped to create the conditions that gave rise to extremists, by supporting repressive regimes, who were good for business or opposed the russians

I know it.

We shouldn't be spending 100s of billions of dollars on weapons systems without an identifiable enemy.

The Russians don't care. If they ever feel threatened, they'll just release all of their nukes. What more of a deterrent does anyone need?

All of these super weapons remind me of a Monty Python episode that I saw a long time ago about larger and larger weapons being deployed to kill a single mosquito.

I'll see if I can find it.

This might be it.

We are also putting the extra burden on ourselves to fight these wars with zero or near zero collateral damage. The enemies are well aware of this. As long as they hide among civilians and we are bent on protecting civilians, these wars will never end.

How can you compare WW2 to Afghanistan or Iraq?

Afganistan has been embattled for 1500 years or so, no one has been able to maintain control, for any amount of time

Iraq is another ongoing mess started decades ago by the British, the coalition should have finished the job the 1st time around. a political failure

there are no technical solutions to political problems...

You may have missed my point.

It is not the reasons we fight our wars, but the tactics we use to fight our wars that I was talking about.

To my comparisons should be valid. One used a blanket approach to destruction and killing. The other is a surgical approach and the rules of engagement are very restrictive.

The reasons for the actions dictate the tactics

the surgical approach in some ways exacerbates the problems in both theaters of operation

Using military tactics for what is in effect a problem of law & order, no surprise the outcome is less than optimal

We have deviated from my original point.

Nevertheless, the tactics for any engagement are determined by the end goal of the conflict and the theater you must operate in.

There may be other constraining factors such as the politics driving the mission.

The reason for going to war or any conflict may drive the tactics, but I tend to think of it as the reasons for a conflict will determine what the desired outcome should be.

That is, if one party is attacked, the the reason they respond is the attack itself. However, before you attack you have to set up the goals for the mission.

Once the goals are determined, the method or tactic to get there is worked out.

It is much like engineering. First you define the problem, then what outcome you want (i.e., Statement of Work). From there you develop the high-level requirements (HLR) and devolve those into low level requirements (LLR). Finally you execute to plan.

Tactics are more like the low level requirements.

The tools available define the nature of the preferred solution

when you have a hammer everything looks like a nail

we weren't attacked by either country

after 9/11 our government looked around for someone to shythammer

just like an engineer will try to use the same familiar solutions to every problem

ask the military to solve a problem & for the most part they will look for a way to play with all their fun toys.

This is not bad, it just is. Organizations do what they do, inside their comfort zones

Exactly what point are you trying to make here?

http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/760720/Re-Science-Or-Anti-Science

there are no technical solutions to political problems

the bloated military industrial complex will continue to waste trillions chasing shiny baubles & unilaterally intervening in the affairs of other countries

the navy did a pre-emptive strike [OP] a month before the recent manufactured debt ceiling crisis in an effort to get in front of the next round of budget talks [ohh look we're responsible, we cut something]

What if analysis of the tactics demonstrates your military machine is going to loose?

Do you tell the politicians the "probable outcome" or is that a "low level requirement"

E.g. would it have not been better tactics to send in KFC and MacDonald's than the CIA to arm the Taliban against the Russians? Or just corporatize and run the opium business?

Ditto Vietnam, after the Viet Minh threw out the French?

Anyhow, back to the topic - what "delivered effectiveness" difference is there between that projectile being 'magnetically accelerated' verses conventionally firing it in say a 155? Zip, it's a simple mass velocity equation.

Is there any difference in accuracy? No, both are 'point and shoot'.

What it might be good for, over a 155, is launching a small guided scramjet full of HE.

But that would be 'lateral thinking'.

And this 'lack of' is out of your point that "Tactics are more like the low level requirements"

And that leads to investing in the 'tactically useless'.

And that 'tactically useless' realization is why the USN is now undergoing a frantic turnaround in capital equipment thinking.

You wrote, "Do you tell the politicians the "probable outcome" or is that a "low level requirement"?"

If you can't execute the engineering design to the requirements do you tell your superiors or just deliver a product that doesn't meet specs?

Most engineers would raise the flag on that one.

As far as tactics go, think of it in engineering terms: What to build - How to build.

What to build is contained in the requirements suite. It sets the end game. This is what we want to make.

How to build is the tactical equation on how to execute to a plan that satisfies the requirements of what to build.

There usually are a number of paths one can take to satisfy the requirements, but the desired tactic to execute will be a decision based on the Speed, Quality, Cost triangle.

You wrote, "Anyhow, back to the topic - what "delivered effectiveness" difference is there between that projectile being 'magnetically accelerated' verses conventionally firing it in say a 155? Zip, it's a simple mass velocity equation."

It's much more than that. There are cost issues, time on delivery, repeatability, ability to work in changing environments, etc.

The end game is (in part) to protect the ships at sea and to extend the reach of both offensive and defensive weapons.

Many weapon systems have a deterrent factor. They may never get used, but they do a good job of preventing a conflict. Nuclear weapons have done that job well. They are so awful no state dare uses them without dire consequences. The same goes with missile shields. Unlikely they would be used, but they shape the way countries do business with each other.

That same game extends down to lower level weapon systems. Th projection of power shapes geopolitics around the world. Weapon systems are just some of the tools in the toolbox to do that.

That same game extends down to lower level weapon systems. Th projection of power shapes geopolitics around the world. Weapon systems are just some of the tools in the toolbox to do that.

when you act like a bully, you will be treated as one. weapons of mass & minor destruction aren't the only tools in the geopolitical toolbox.

the perception of power as a tool assumes the desired outcome to be domination/subjugation.

try as you might, you can't do brain surgery with a chainsaw

I thought it was interesting they showed the accelerator installed in a carrier - which as you know - is the prime target in a blue water fleet. Given a missile is headed right at the carrier, who has the bigger target? It or the escorts?

Answer lies in; they also showed the laser aimed at the nose? of a missile in profile.

So why not fit accelerators to the escorts? Because they take too much power and won't fit.

So; why would you not simply be issuing all the escort shield with Mk5 dart AP ammo for the regular guns?

That ammo would 'reach' as far, if not further than the Mk 4.4 accelerator dart.

The rate of fire is far higher and the chance of a hitting anything 'far away', or not, is far higher with a fleet coordinated phalanx approach.

Or what you have here is a major tactical blunder on two fronts. Neither weapon is superior to current art. Both are so limited, how to tactically circumvent them is obvious. A wall of darts projected anywhere in the fleets enclosing hemisphere - not so easy.

So why isn't the 'magic formula' arriving at that conclusion?

I am not working on that program and I can't comment on your questions.

There may be other factors in play that drive these decisions and they may or may not be valid.

As missile technology changes and advances, so to must the defensive measures to engage them.

These new programs may have some advantages in keeping pace with new technology or engaging multiple simultaneous threats and they may not due to their maturity level.

The questions are not program specific, just exampling the mindset that leads to "hi tech" solutions for 'hi tech' sake.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not anti-hi tech. Far from it. What I am for is 'appropriate tech' and somewhere in the system you outlined 'appropriate' seems to get lost.

It's as if "we want to do X" comes down the chain and "why" doesn't come with it.

A thought on "keeping pace"

34point5, you have made some very valid points there in your arguments. GA from me.

I'd say the primary target would be one of our super carriers, because they are a power projection platform first and foremost, with subsequent "follow-on" targets being the major escorts like a Ticonderoga Class Aegis cruiser, or one of the newer Destroyers (DG 51 etc).

I'm only postulating here, but I think the reason why they showed the FEL inside the carrier is because eventually it will find it's way into the newest USN carrier class being built....the CVN 78, the USS George Bush, which is currently under construction by Grumman and scheduled for a 2015 launch date. It's going to replace the aging CVN 65, the USS Enterprise which was built in the mid-60's and now showing it's age and lower capabilities for subsequent upgrading. In regard to the CVN 78, I believe that the keel hasn't been laid yet, as they're in the process of building modular components now. It will be featuring a very capable and upgraded nuclear reactor and electrical system to accept future weapons systems and electrical use. From what I have read so far, the electrical generation system is capable of producing twice the amount of juice than that found on the latest Nimitz class carriers. It'll also feature an electrically-operated aircraft launching and recover systems, thereby eliminating the stream-powered launchers and hydraulically-operated systems respectively.

Possibly they'd fit out the escorts eventually when they're able to reduce the size of the systems and their power draw. Almost all recently built USN escorts are not nuclear powered, but instead are turbine-powered, so there is an inherent lack of power generation already present in those designs. Possibly future escorts will be fitted if the power supply problem is overcome.

Yeppers, the Mk. 5 dart, if modified, could be launched by 4.5-inch guns found on current USN escort ships. It'd have to be a sabot round and most likely be made of DU. Problem with those guns is their rate of fire and can only target one incoming object at a time, not multiple targets simultaneously. Most USN escorts only have a single main gun located forward of the bridge...there's no room for one near the stern due to the helicopter landing pad and storage "shed"....plus modifying the read deck and underlying structure to accept an additional gun is most likely not feasible as such a change would probably interfere with the turbine engine, transmission and the power shaft.

The Phalanx multi-barrel gun (an electrically-driven rotary cannon) has always been the weapon of last resort and has always been meant for "in close" target destruction. It was never meant to reach out and touch an incoming aircraft or missile target at great distance, say like a cruise missile or an Exocet or what have you...only used to supplement the vertically-launched Standard missiles that each escort and the carrier carry and deploy as the primary fleet defense weapon. I personally like having a Phalanx on board as a spray and pray weapon....so far there's no replacement to spitting out DU rounds (ie, kinetic energy penetrators) at such an incredible rate and with extreme accurately too.

Had development of the two systems continued there's no doubt they could have matured in terms of capability and range much more than their current state...and possibly ended up more flexible in targeting multiple targets at greater ranges than currently fleet deployed weapon systems.

If we don't do it, somebody else will eventually will build these weapons....that in my estimation will most likely be China first. They're flush with cash, scientists, engineers and techs...and apparently want to be masters of the universe.

A well thought through response Captain. Just to clarify a couple of areas in my post; I meant 'phalanx' more in the ancient context, rather than the current small bore gun, (also named after that context). You would be putting that 'dart wall' out 10's of klicks.

I agree on the lack of guns, but this is also due to a 'program design' fixated on 'missiles are the answer'. Airforce did it at one point too.

Speaking of 'upgrade impact'; of the 3 approaches (given equivalent effectiveness): is it 'better value' to fit a twin in place of the single deck gun (and carry the additional energy requirement in a shell casing), or gut and re-power the entire vessel/systems and find space for the new thing and it's ancillaries?

On the 'numbers' to get a wall of DU darts - and as this seems to be moving to China; 7th Fleet

But say a 'carrier fleet' is typically nine vessels includes two nuclear submarines, two missile cruisers, one missile destroyer, two destroyers, and a supply ship - you are a bit 'thin all round' if the air power can't keep things at a distance.

I just read the whole article.

All I can say is........a cold war between the US and China would be a really strange beast.

Also one we can't even afford to think about.

War?

more like some kind of twisted interfamily rivalry

we owe uncle china a bunch of money

paying uncle back would wreck the business that is mutually owned by the 2 of us

the nephew US has a spending problem, but there is no way for the uncle to force a treatment program

you can't help someone with the problem they don't feel they have

sure we have some moments of clarity, but they don't last long once the withdrawl starts

look what just happened, for all the bluster about "doing something", the can got kicked down the road & everyone took off on a 5 week all expenses paid vacation

Just two points:-

1. When I saw the title of this post I was sure Roger P was going to be involved. Afterall this seems to be his favourite topic at the moment.

2. Has the US the money to actually do this? I don't think China will be about to loan out money for this .

You wrote, "Has the US the money to actually do this? I don't think China will be about to loan out money for this?"

No. We will just have to print more of it.

OK. That seems quite reasonable. Any chance they could print a couple extra for me?

Absolutely, much of the budget is appropriated for entitlements, so join the club. ;-)

After reading the article and viewing the 2 videos, it appears that some level of maturity of both weapons systems has been achieved and that further R&D is surely needed.

The actions of Congress in regards to fully terminating these programs is yet another demonstration of political ineptness in it's finest form....a form of ass-backwards short-term thinking instead of a comprehensive well-thought-out long-term program hierarchy. This seems to happen all too often in Congress' actions and thinking (or lack of it). We get ahead of the rest of the world in a given technology only to kill it off for political expediency thereby wasting Billions of Buckaroos, and as a predictable result we wait sometimes a decade to pick up the ball again to finish a program and implement it when a threat looms on the horizon or some other country catches up and surpasses us in a given weapons technology.....then we panic and spent many times more to reconstitute the technology program. Foolishness at it's finest.

At the rate that China is enlarging, and improving, all segments of it's military IMO these two systems are going to be needed by the USN. For crying out loud, the writing is on the wall. How many of you are even aware that the Chinese Navy is building super carriers at this very moment. They're hell bent on establishing and rapidly building "Blue Water Navy", something they have lacked for a long time, where they can openly confront the USN on the open seas and possibly win, instead of within their territorial waters, ie, "Brown Water". That's where the real threat will exist in the very near future.

And let's not forget that at heart that the Chinese government is still thought and though Communist, no matter how much they have embraced capitalist means into their economy....that was and is a plan to boost their previously weak economic system so they could afford the advanced toys for their expanded military machine. They've already stolen secrets to the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II and God knows what else.....they're hacking our corporations, defense contractors, high tech corporations and government agencies...even the UN and the IMF for Pete's sake! No doubt it's all "state-sponsored" to gain a technological edge and close the technology gap that has existed between us and them.

It's obvious that they're all hell bent on becoming the domineering Super Power on a global scale, instead of just being a big bully in Asia only and the Western Pacific (mainly restricted in the South China Sea. With their population, ICBMs, and cash abundance (thanks to us mainly), the only thing they so far have lacked up to this point was a credible military that could operate outside their current sphere of influence. Eventually they will surpass us there as well, and as a result we will not have a credible counter deterrence nor the influence and/or change the world for the better. I sincerely fear we will eventually be faced with as showdown between our two countries, or even worse, a shooting war sometimes down the road.

IMO, we going to need these weapons systems eventually.....the billions of $$$ saved by cancelling these two programs won't make the slightest dent in the overall scheme of "Black Budgets", nor the national debt.

There, I've said my peace. I know my views won't be shared by others in here and I fully expect a new round of attacks, which is the usual MO used by some. But so be it...

These programs are targeted not because the politicians are inept, but because they shrewdly know it is the path of least resistance.

Canceling other entitlements that have brought us to the point where we are broke would be a much bigger battle to win. So, they pick on the low hanging fruit.

It has nothing to do with making sound choices because it is politics.

CaptMoosie,

I agree with you that this is a likely scenario! GA to you.

The Chinese had been treated by European forces between 1800 and 1910 very very badly, so they try hard to prevent any more such experience.

And ist is very likely that they will be the dominant military power in a large part of the Pacific soon.

And very likely their guided anti-aircraft-carrier weapon which is said to have a range of many 1000 km and a final velocity near 7000km/h will be tested and operational within a few years.

So where is the chance for the carrier to win? Maybe with a FEL, but 100 KW with a bad focusing is not really much.

I assume that there is only one chance: raise a tax equivalent to the salary difference (or ratio) of any two countries on any import and share with them the income from this tax!

This will leave content both of them, the US and Europe and Japan regaining their production capabilities and China and India and all the others with the tendency to raise salaries.

Only this would enable true competition and may be partnership.

Only this will give the financial system and the governments a chance of survival!

So let the USN build the FEL and the railgun and bring it to production level, they may be able to divert money from other programs. (NIF for example.)

Else there will be economic war, cold war or hot war!

RHABE

The news media is over-hyping this Chinese carrier way beyond reality.

China's carrier, Varyag, is a former Soviet carrier bought by the Chinese and reconditioned so it will float. Essentially, China bought a hull and added engines and other equipment. It is not a super carrier.

Compare China's experience to the West's experience running aircraft carriers and you see a huge disparity in expertise.

China is just getting started in this foray and has a very, very steep learning curve ahead of them. This will keep them busy for the next decade or two before they get operational procedures down to where they are competent.

If they're using Chinese parts, they'd better put together a massive maintainence force.

Probably not.

I think they are using our parts and sending us the counterfeits.

AH, sorry I wasn't talking about the Varyag. I remember reading (possibly in Jane's..) recently that the Chinese have designed a new carrier closely resembling a Nimitz class carrier, and have begun laying it's keel. The Japanese government (rightfully so) is nervous about these recent developments. Ditto with the South Koreans. Both rely heavily on sea-shipped imports such as iron ore, heavy metals and oil. the Chinese could possibly cut-off the shipping lanes with an expanded Blue Water navy and strangle them to death, much like what the Nazi subs almost accomplished by closing off Britain's the sea lifeline from Canada and the US during the early years of WWII.

Well, it didn't take the Soviet Navy (and later Russian Navy) too long to develop carriers and make them operational and flying everything from VSTOL/STOL aircraft to navalized Flankers. Once you have the super carrier technology in hand it won't take long to become a menace. I firmly believe the Chinese carrier ops will be up and running faster than everyone assumes, and not that steep of a learning curve afterall...

I hope I'm wrong, but the evidence is all too clear, and I don't even have a US Intelligence Crystal Ball sitting in front of me to see it.

I do get a paid intelligence subscription and so far there has been no chatter about anything in the pipeline beyond the Varyag.

However, I am sure there are all kinds of plans being floated around.

Not that I don't take the Chinese militarization seriously, but there has been a lot of media hype that is overblown as rumors tend to be.

China tends to be very persistent, but also very methodical in their development cycles. This means there are really few surprises and makes their future fairly predictable.

China is very concerned about its regional waters and the US Southeastern Reengagement Act has put pressure on China to step up their development as well as putting Western powers in a better negotiation position.

They really need those Lasers to shoot into the sky at approaching debris of every nature.ds

Those long range missiles ,could they be used in the Future as rockets to attach to and actually move or propel Asteroids using their Guidance system.ds?