Today air power is a decisive factor and aircraft carriers dominate marine warfare since Second World War. However, with the advent of femtosecond lasers the amount of power delivered in pulse can reach terra-watts (e.g. as one being used in NIF). The filament created by such a laser can cut through any material, and in particular can damage/detonate any incoming missile. The ship protected by anti missile defense based on lasers should be immune to air assaults. The only thread left are kinetic penetrators that are not affected by lasers and this means big guns and heavy armor. Are Battleships be back in 21’st century ?

-al

No.

So just how does the laser protect the big battleship from underwater torpedo's? If the radar cannot detect the missiles because they are at sea level that to would create a problem.

torpedoes doesn't change equation, since they affect air carrier and battleship same way. (how about anti-torpedoes nets?) As for the low flying missiles, they are detected very well but in close range (few km) which is too late for today defense systems. Lasers should be fast enough to deal with them.
-al

torpedoes doesn't change equation, since they affect air carrier and battleship same way.
And a smaller faster ship will have more chance of escaping.


(how about anti-torpedoes nets?)
Not while under weigh...


As for the low flying missiles, they are detected very well but in close range (few km) which is too late for today defense systems. Lasers should be fast enough to deal with them.
Detected very well? They're getting lower and faster (and more dense).
More difficult to detect and hit, and if the entire thing isn't taken out...

And a smaller faster ship will have more chance of escaping.

there are no fast enough ship to outrun guided torpeado. With dumb one your chances are much better.



Detected very well? They're getting lower and faster (and more dense).
More difficult to detect and hit, and if the entire thing isn't taken out...

You know, rep rate for lasers is very high (kHz,MHz,GHz,...). I lay a bet it is easier to double laser rep rate then double number of missiles. The rest is computer power.

there are no fast enough ship to outrun guided torpeado. With dumb one your chances are much better.
Depends on how soon they're spotted doesn't it?


You know, rep rate for lasers is very high (kHz,MHz,GHz,...). I lay a bet it is easier to double laser rep rate then double number of missiles. The rest is computer power.
No, it's detecting a low hypersonic target and then getting a firing solution before it impacts.
Doesn't matter how good the weapon is if you don't pick up the target in the sea clutter.

Depends on how soon they're spotted doesn't it?

No, If you can't confuse it and you run slower it will get you, perhaps little later if you paddle faster.



No, it's detecting a low hypersonic target and then getting a firing solution before it impacts.
Doesn't matter how good the weapon is if you don't pick up the target in the sea clutter.

So computers are important and your detection system too. If missile can be detected within 2km distance, this gives something like 2-3 sec to react. Movable mirror technology actuates with 50Hz, so should be fast enough. The biggest hard nut I see is reliable detection, for that I can only speculate. At close distance you have benefit of detecting not only the hypersonic target, but also the compressed air distortion, so it is little easier.

What if they put a mirror on the tip of the missile to reflect the laser away?

No, If you can't confuse it and you run slower it will get you, perhaps little later if you paddle faster.
Tut tut.
Basics: if you spot it far enough away and start running then it runs out of fuel before it catches you...
Or the launching sub decides that his exposure is going to be too high to wait and track the target to impact so he forgets about it and looks for an easier target.


So computers are important and your detection system too. If missile can be detected within 2km distance, this gives something like 2-3 sec to react. Movable mirror technology actuates with 50Hz, so should be fast enough. The biggest hard nut I see is reliable detection, for that I can only speculate. At close distance you have benefit of detecting not only the hypersonic target, but also the compressed air distortion, so it is little easier.
IF it can be detected, they're getting faster and lower.

What if they put a mirror on the tip of the missile to reflect the laser away?

Makes no difference if laser beam has enough power density.

IF it can be detected, they're getting faster and lower.
lower is not a problem since typically you have unobstructed horizon on the high see. faster, how fast they are flying ? 2-3 Machs ? This still leave more then a second to react with 1km detection. Lowering the signature might make things more diffcult, but if you want it to fly at very high speeds the areodynamics can't be ignored.

The most deadly weapon is still the AK-47.

lower is not a problem since typically you have unobstructed horizon on the high see.
Didn't I just mention sea clutter?
Lower is a serious problem, because you get returns from the sea itself.


faster, how fast they are flying ? 2-3 Machs ? This still leave more then a second to react with 1km detection. Lowering the signature might make things more diffcult, but if you want it to fly at very high speeds the areodynamics can't be ignored.
Sunburn currently does Mach 2.5 at 5 metres or so and faster/ lower ones are not far away.
And the faster missiles get the more they can use body lift and lose the wings - the main reflector for radar.

Didn't I just mention sea clutter?
Lower is a serious problem, because you get returns from the sea itself.
.
Doppler radar can eliminate all the clutter, since they look only at shifted frequencies corresponding to targets moving toward you.



Sunburn currently does Mach 2.5 at 5 metres or so and faster/ lower ones are not far away.
And the faster missiles get the more they can use body lift and lose the wings - the main reflector for radar.

Hmm, It looks (from my reading) that for now Sunburn can sneak undetected under Navy radar system. Looks like detection is as a weakest link in this hypothetical defence system.

.Doppler radar can eliminate all the clutter, since they look only at shifted frequencies corresponding to targets moving toward you.
Of course it can: when looking at a fixed background.
Which the sea is not.
Sea clutter is the REASON sea-skimmer missiles were invented.


Hmm, It looks (from my reading) that for now Sunburn can sneak undetected under Navy radar system. Looks like detection is as a weakest link in this hypothetical defence system.
Sunburn is/ was the threat that worried the USN most.
To the extent that they bought some from the Russians...

The battleship deferred to the carrier because a carrier has a greater striking range using its embarked airwing. Read about the Battle of the Coral Sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_coral_sea). It was the first naval engagement where two fleets clashed without entering visual range, and is widely regarded by naval historians as the battleship's death knell.

The 16"/50cal rifles of the famed Iowa class battleships had a max effective range of around 40km. Today, a F/A-18E has a combat radius of 730km. A carrier strike group can cover about 330 times as much geographical area as one of the old Iowas could with its rifles, with more ordnance delivery options, and far more reliable communication with ground troops. The battleship is an obvious loser here, and until an indirect fire weapon exists that has (just a guess here) at least a few hundred km of range, carrier-based strike aircraft will continue to be the mainstay of naval tactical power projection.

For some personal anecdotes, I'm currently part of an ANGLICO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Naval_Gunfire_Liaison_Company) company. The only time I've personally called for naval surface fire support (NSFS - shipboard guns or missiles) was for clearing a beachhead of mines during a training exercise. Coordinating a NSFS fire mission has a detached feeling to it, because the fire controlman on the other end of the radio is nestled in the dark corner of CIC on a cruiser or destroyer bobbing way out in the blue. Close air support (CAS) missions, on the other hand, have a more intimate feeling. The pilot you're talking to overhead can see the target you're vectoring him in on, and can respond to changes in the target's behavior by altering their approach. Pilots also can use their birds-eye view of the battlefield to provide tactical intel in real-time, like warning of an enemy presence around the next corner. Finally, the sound of low-bypass turbofans roaring over the battlefield, sometimes chasing a sonic boom, can have a powerful psychological effect on blue and red forces alike, especially when said engine noise correlates with stuff exploding all around you.

The US Navy has examined lasers before (the Sea Light program) and other neat direct fire weapons like railguns (they've got the world's most powerful over in Maryland right now). You are right in that directed energy effectors are someday probably going to make great defensive weapons. However, the primary mission of a carrier group is to secure the battlespace at sea and project power ashore, over the horizon; about 20km from the weatherdecks of a surface ship. You need indirect fires for that. Interestingly enough, the Zumwalt class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DD(X)#Advanced_Gun_System_.28AGS.29) is supposedly going to pack a pair of 155mm smoothbore cannons that will fire somewhat of a gun-launched missile able to hit targets out to around 200km with a circular error probable of 50 meters. Very impressive range and precision for a surface fire, but nowhere near the interdiction range of strike aircraft. I hope it doesn't get canceled. I know the Marine Corps has wanted a capability like that for a long, long time.

.
Hmm, It looks (from my reading) that for now Sunburn can sneak undetected under Navy radar system. Looks like detection is as a weakest link in this hypothetical defence system.
Well, that is a bit unlikely as the launch aircraft would be detected by the carrier's fleet defense and/or early warning aircraft before they got close enough to launch their missiles from standoff range.

Owned

I think it is possible that the battleship will be back which is kind of good. I always liked them. Avaiation allowed naval warfare to extend its reach and deliver ordinance more effectively and accurately. But with the age of electronics, I think manned aircraft will be a thing of the past. Planes could be flown remotely...now I know aviators are not going to like it. But it is reality.

But with the age of electronics, I think manned aircraft will be a thing of the past. Planes could be flown remotely...now I know aviators are not going to like it. But it is reality.


But what if the "enemy" gets the frequencies that are used to control the unmanned aircraft and turns them against those who built them?

IT is called encryption and redundancy and insulation. All of our electronic warfare systems must be insulated regardless of having a human on board or not.

My prediction, alongside the information given by Echo3Romeo, is that the modern carrier will transform into somewhat of a hybrid battleship-carrier by century's end. The addition of big guns and other weapons onto carriers simply makes sense when there will be a need for heavy bombardment and other strikes which aircraft cannot provide as well. Not to mention that very soon the absolute disadvantage of big ships (their vulnerability to precision weapons) will be offset by active defenses (the lasers referenced), thereby leading the way to a return of those things.

That being said, it won't be until World War 3 (which hopefully will have very limited nuclear warfare) until these weapons are needed again. And/or space wars, where the Navy will become the most prominent part of any military. Although the latter is far more hypothetical than WW3.

I think it is possible that the battleship will be back which is kind of good. I always liked them.

How does that translate into "battleship is back"? It only makes it even cheaper to sink them.

That's turn of the century thinking. Turn of the 19th century, that is.

The addition of big guns and other weapons onto carriers simply makes sense when there will be a need for heavy bombardment and other strikes which aircraft cannot provide as well. Not to mention that very soon the absolute disadvantage of big ships (their vulnerability to precision weapons) will be offset by active defenses (the lasers referenced), thereby leading the way to a return of those things.


One submarine could easily sink a multibillion dollar battleship.

Geoff, re-read my statement. Did I say the battleship was back? NOOO! I said it was possible that it could come back.

Well I don't think a battleship per size but the introduction of Laser Destroyers would likely be the next Dreadnought of these times, an all electric combine cycle drive Destroyer will be faster, more energy efficient and have tens of megawatts at disposal for energy weapons like high powered electrical lasers or a rail gun. A Destroyer with a rail gun could hurl shells 200-300 miles in land, that like a standard cruise missile!

Surely if high power electric lasers become common air combat with be as anything in the air could be knocked out from 200+ miles away far faster and cheaper then with a missile.

Geoff, re-read my statement. Did I say the battleship was back? NOOO! I said it was possible that it could come back.

And I'm certifying that it won't. Thanks.

Surely if high power electric lasers become common air combat with be as anything in the air could be knocked out from 200+ miles away far faster and cheaper then with a missile.
Indeed, and such are the hopes of the Airborne Laser (ABL) program; the 747-400 freighter with a chemical laser shoehorned inside of it that will hopefully shoot down its first ICBM target vehicle by next fall, unless they've moved the goalpost recently. There is also a plan to stuff a ~100kW pulsed solid state laser into the F-35C, into the empty space normally occupied by its forward lift fan in the Navy/Marine Corps versions, and power it via the turbine's PTO shaft. Now that would be really fucking cool.

There are at least two problems with using weapons-class lasers inside the atmosphere though. The first is that their range is inherently limited due to the curvature of the earth. As noted, the horizon from the weatherdecks of a surface ship is about 20km away and a laser can only hit what is visible from the output mirror. The second, more serious problem, is thermal blooming of the beam. The atmosphere absorbs enough of a megawatt-class beam to heat up and change its refractive index and rate of attenuation. The ABL will correct for this by using a smaller, less powerful reference beam immediately adjacent to the main beam to sample atmospheric conditions along its axis of propagation. Flying above 35,000 feet also puts it above some of the sea level meteorologic phenomena that would make beam pointing more problematic. In any case, a laser mounted on a surface ship would suffer greatly at the hands of the maritime environment. I remember watching squids wax down the radomes of their SATCOM antennas every so often, to keep water from adhering to them and interfering with the microwave signals. I shudder to think what kind of maintenance the output window of a beam director would need, or how much shit would end up melting if seawater collected on the aperture. Anyway, I doubt a surface ship's laser would have much range. The MTHEL testbed (the land-based one that's been shooting down rockets, mortars, and artillery shells for years) has conducted all its shootdowns within 5km. That could've been a synthetic range limitation for some other reason, though. I'm not sure.

Echo3Romeo,

Both problems can be overcome, air borne targets have a tendency to be above the horizon :rolleyes: and bloming can be dealt with by using selective IR frequencies that a near perfectly transparent in air and by using multiple beams focused on one target thus avoiding the photothermal runaway saturation limit of air.

Watch out below! Torpedo's away! :eek:

Watch out below! Torpedo's away! :eek:

Torpedoes from what?

Cosmictraveller:


One submarine could easily sink a multibillion dollar battleship.

So?

One anti-submarine fighter can sink a billion dollar nuclear submarine with air-to-sea torpedos.

Also, the future of warfare:

http://kidi.hit.bg/Super%20Star%20Destroyer.jpg

Also, the future of warfare:

http://kidi.hit.bg/Super%20Star%20Destroyer.jpg

No, the future of warfare (by the time intergalactic battleships are technically feasible) will be no warfare, no war what so ever: war will be a behavior that will be cleansed with the human race.

ElectricFetus:


No, the future of warfare (by the time intergalactic battleships are technically feasible) will be no warfare, no war what so ever: war will be a behavior that will be cleansed with the human race.

Then we shall be quick prey for brutal aliens who do not favour our pacifism.

With the end of war, comes the end of civilization, engenuity, virtue, et cetera.

It is notable that the warrior as an organized class/caste coincides entirely with the development of civilization and culture.

And what greater joy is there, ultimatey, than defeating one's enemies?

ElectricFetus:
Then we shall be quick prey for brutal aliens who do not favour our pacifism.


There are no brutal aliens, if the were we would never have had evolved as they would have invaded millions of years ago. Even if not then there are to very likely scenarios, either we are waaaaay more advance then them, in which case we have nothing to fear, or they are waaaaay more advanced then us in which case we will be dead before we even relies it. The chances of being even close to equal matches are nil.


With the end of war, comes the end of civilization, engenuity, virtue, et cetera.
and the beginning of utopia, complete agreement of thought and complete understanding of the universe, perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure.


It is notable that the warrior as an organized class/caste coincides entirely with the development of civilization and culture. And what greater joy is there, ultimatey, than defeating one's enemies?
For humans they did, but why should the future generations care about how talking monkeys organized their society, other then to examine the curious behavior of animals?

Electricfetus:


There are no brutal aliens, if the were we would never have had evolved as they would have invaded millions of years ago. Even if not then there are to very likely scenarios, either we are waaaaay more advance then them, in which case we have nothing to fear, or they are waaaaay more advanced then us in which case we will be dead before we even relies it. The chances of being even close to equal matches are nil.[quote]

The galaxy, least of all the universe, is massive. The chance of meeting an alien species in our brief time on this planet is highly unlikely, especially when we have done nothing to draw attention to ourselves until 60 years ago, with the broadcasting of the Berlin Olympics into space.

Moreover, there are indeed brutal aliens if there is civilization in space. These aliens will come knocking on our door and laugh at our pacifism as they perpetuate genocide for resources if the time comes. Renouncing war is foolishness .

[quote]and the beginning of utopia, complete agreement of thought and complete understanding of the universe, perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure.

Civilization without war is dystopia. We will not understand the universe more - we shall lose the Will to Life. WE shall not become perfect - we shall become slothful. We shall not become genuine - the genuine comes with courage and without war there is little. We will not become complete - for we will not have our war nature. Crystalline and pure are nonsense.


For humans they did, but why should the future generations care about how talking monkeys organized their society, other then to examine the curious behavior of animals?

We shall never be anything more than "talking monkeys".

The galaxy, least of all the universe, is massive. The chance of meeting an alien species in our brief time on this planet is highly unlikely, especially when we have done nothing to draw attention to ourselves until 60 years ago, with the broadcasting of the Berlin Olympics into space.

Moreover, there are indeed brutal aliens if there is civilization in space. These aliens will come knocking on our door and laugh at our pacifism as they perpetuate genocide for resources if the time comes. Renouncing war is foolishness .
Technically we been beaming out radio signal for twice as long, if you had read carl's books and not just a movie based of one you would understand. But sure space is big, but time is vast too, over the billions of years chances a if their were such aliens, an exploration party would have past through the solar system at least once, and there was at least 4 billion years at which the earth would have been consider terreformable and at least 500 million in which it would be completely habitable, in short any scouting party would have noted the viability of the earth if they had such desires.

How do you know their are "brutal aliens" out there? Are you purview to information not known outside of area 51?


Civilization without war is dystopia. We will not understand the universe more - we shall lose the Will to Life. WE shall not become perfect - we shall become slothful. We shall not become genuine - the genuine comes with courage and without war there is little. We will not become complete - for we will not have our war nature. Crystalline and pure are nonsense.
You mean human civilization, you keep forgetting the human part is an evolutionary variable not a constant.


We shall never be anything more than "talking monkeys".
Exactly! That why the day will come when we are discarded like the wasteful husks of meat that we are!

Space warfare is far too expensive for anyone advanced enough to get there and live for any decent amount of time.

In order for the battleship to be revived, there will need to be a driving issue. Some event to cause a sea change in thought leadership. Most of the Navy's senior officers have deep seated ties and emotional commitments to naval aviation. Those ties will need to be broken before the battleship will come back into the fleet. When naval aviation began there was serious foot dragging on the part of Navy leadership, they were old battleship guys. Now the aviation guys are in charge.

Aviators are not going to give up their place in the plane very easily.

In order for the battleship to be revived, there will need to be a driving issue. Some event to cause a sea change in thought leadership. Most of the Navy's senior officers have deep seated ties and emotional commitments to naval aviation. Those ties will need to be broken before the battleship will come back into the fleet. When naval aviation began there was serious foot dragging on the part of Navy leadership, they were old battleship guys. Now the aviation guys are in charge.

Aviators are not going to give up their place in the plane very easily.

UCAV and Lasers should do the trick. Not really like the old battle ships per say, probably nothing beyond 25kt in displacement, these will simply be heavy cruisers at best, but with laser cannons and maybe a rail gun they will have the firepower of 10 of todays cruisers!

I think it is possible that the battleship will be back which is kind of good. I always liked them. Avaiation allowed naval warfare to extend its reach and deliver ordinance more effectively and accurately. But with the age of electronics, I think manned aircraft will be a thing of the past. Planes could be flown remotely...now I know aviators are not going to like it. But it is reality.

Sorry, you can't replace a M-1 eyeball, or a Sentient Computer, on site.

Echo3Romeo,

Both problems can be overcome, air borne targets have a tendency to be above the horizon :rolleyes: and bloming can be dealt with by using selective IR frequencies that a near perfectly transparent in air and by using multiple beams focused on one target thus avoiding the photothermal runaway saturation limit of air.
I'm well aware of the horizon equation, Mr. Uppity. If you read the thread, you'll see a running comparison between the capabilities and limitations of a laser weapon and the various contemporary methods of kinetic strike, and how they might affect the longevity of the paradigm (guns, missiles, and aircraft). What the military needs now is the ability to project power ashore many hundreds of kilometers, well over the horizon of a surface vessel. Lasers cannot do that, and will never be able to. I think the numerous advantages of laser weapons in air warfare are well understood by all of us already.

As for the blooming issue, researchers have been trying to overcome that one since the late 1970s when HELSTF (http://www.wsmr.army.mil/capabilities/bd/testing/lab_fac/helstf.html) opened. The only way that has had any success has been to use a reference beam that parallels the main beam as I described in my previous post. I'm trying to picture an application of your solutions and it doesn't seem very practical with present-day technology. The chemical and semiconductor lasers being looked into for weapons use are beholden to certain wavelengths by virtue of their internal medium, and are not readily tuneable. I like the idea of coordinating multiple beams onto one target simultaneously, but we need to walk before we can run.

I'm well aware of the horizon equation, Mr. Uppity. If you read the thread, you'll see a running comparison between the capabilities and limitations of a laser weapon and the various contemporary methods of kinetic strike, and how they might affect the longevity of the paradigm (guns, missiles, and aircraft). What the military needs now is the ability to project power ashore many hundreds of kilometers, well over the horizon of a surface vessel. Lasers cannot do that, and will never be able to. I think the numerous advantages of laser weapons in air warfare are well understood by all of us already.

As for the blooming issue, researchers have been trying to overcome that one since the late 1970s when HELSTF (http://www.wsmr.army.mil/capabilities/bd/testing/lab_fac/helstf.html) opened. The only way that has had any success has been to use a reference beam that parallels the main beam as I described in my previous post. I'm trying to picture an application of your solutions and it doesn't seem very practical with present-day technology. The chemical and semiconductor lasers being looked into for weapons use are beholden to certain wavelengths by virtue of their internal medium, and are not readily tuneable. I like the idea of coordinating multiple beams onto one target simultaneously, but we need to walk before we can run.

No, laser are for defense, for render aircraft attacks against ships useless in a way that would have given WW2 admirals orgasms. Even attacking missiles and artillery can be knocked out of the sky.

The wavelength of the laser is chosen by design, I never said anything about tuneablity, then again a free electron laser does not have that problem.

Remember we are talking long term here? Single laser beams will be replaced by arrays once the technology gets cheap enough.

We are talking about the use of small, cheap weapons against a big, expensive floating target. It don't wash economically. Next.

Sorry, you can't replace a M-1 eyeball, or a Sentient Computer, on site.
Like Terrence Howard's character said in Iron Man: "No unmanned plane can match a pilot's instinct and judgement."

Manned and unmanned aircraft both have their places in today's battlespace. There are things each of them can do that the other can't. With that said, I personally think the services need to embrace UAVs faster than they have been. Especially the Air Force, whose fighter pilot officer culture doesn't like the idea that enlistees fly the unmanned stuff, and some zit-faced 20 year old A1C from rural Pennsyltucky could end up being the one who waxes Osama with a Hellfire-armed Predator.

I agree with that part of what joepistole was saying; every halfway decent military in the world has a lot of institutional inertia behind it. Most of the time it is a good thing. As you'll agree, we draw a lot of our strength from our traditions and history is a great source of the esprit de corps for any warrior culture. But sometimes, as is happening with the adoption of UAVs, that conservative reverence for tradition becomes a stumbling block that inhibits evolution. As far as the US military goes, for the most part we keep a good coefficient of tradition without being too stuffy. Just like the move to 5.56mm, right SFC? :D

No, laser are for defense, for render aircraft attacks against ships useless in a way that would have given WW2 admirals orgasms. Even attacking missiles and artillery can be knocked out of the sky.

The wavelength of the laser is chosen by design, I never said anything about tuneablity, then again a free electron laser does not have that problem.

Remember we are talking long term here? Single laser beams will be replaced by arrays once the technology gets cheap enough.
In that case, we're on the same page. The Navy is already doing some exploratory work into free electron lasers:

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=841301


FREE ELECTRON LASERS; NATIONAL SECURITY; NATIONAL DEFENSE; MEGAWATT POWER RANGE

Description/Abstract

An airborne megawatt (MW) average power Free-Electron Laser (FEL) is now a possibility. In the process of shrinking the FEL parameters to fit on ship, a surprisingly lightweight and compact design has been achieved. There are multiple motivations for using a FEL for a high-power airborne system for Defense and Security: Diverse mission requirements can be met by a single system. The MW of light can be made available with any time structure for time periods from microseconds to hours, i.e. there is a nearly unlimited magazine. The wavelength of the light can be chosen to be from the far infrared (IR) to the near ultraviolet (UV) thereby best meeting mission requirements. The FEL light can be modulated for detecting the same pattern in the small fraction of light reflected from the target resulting in greatly enhanced targeting control. The entire MW class FEL including all of its subsystems can be carried by large commercial size airplanes or on an airship. Adequate electrical power can be generated on the plane or airship to run the FEL as long as the plane or airship has fuel to fly. The light from the FEL will work well with relay mirror systems. The required R&D to achieve the MW level is well understood. The coupling of the capabilities of an airborne FEL to diverse mission requirements provides unique opportunities.

*splooge*

Like Terrence Howard's character said in Iron Man: "No unmanned plane can match a pilot's instinct and judgment."


Yeah, but no manned plane can maneuver, fly as tirelessly or unwaveringly or even as cheaply as an unmanned plane could.

Tele-judgement, Tele-impulsivity, and even secure-uplink Fly-by-Ire are all available now.

Cosmictraveller
One anti-submarine fighter can sink a billion dollar nuclear submarine with air-to-sea torpedos.

But they first must locate it which in todays stealth subs is very hard to do. Unlike a huge battleship that is easily detected by satellites then sending there whereabouts to the submarine.

Like Terrence Howard's character said in Iron Man: "No unmanned plane can match a pilot's instinct and judgement :D

I have more confidence in technology. And I would say, no man can do 12G either. Technology would allow us to have military platforms that are not limited by human physical limitations.

Cosmictraveller:


But they first must locate it which in todays stealth subs is very hard to do. Unlike a huge battleship that is easily detected by satellites then sending there whereabouts to the submarine.

There are advantages to huge, unstealthy stuff, too. See: Tanks compared to commandos.

Electricfetus:


Technically we been beaming out radio signal for twice as long, if you had read carl's books and not just a movie based of one you would understand. But sure space is big, but time is vast too, over the billions of years chances a if their were such aliens, an exploration party would have past through the solar system at least once, and there was at least 4 billion years at which the earth would have been consider terreformable and at least 500 million in which it would be completely habitable, in short any scouting party would have noted the viability of the earth if they had such desires.

The vastness of space is such that entire star systems can go unexplored even in billions of years. Moreover, the most conservative elements only place 10 civilizations in the galaxy's history, and it is very likely that owing to evolution, that they'd not have the whole of 4 billion years of this generation of stars/planets to evolve to the point of space travel by sapient beings. They might have a billion years for that, which is no proof that we'd ever have contact with them, past, present, or perhaps even future. But it is almost certain they are out there.


How do you know their are "brutal aliens" out there? Are you purview to information not known outside of area 51?

It makes perfect sense and is reasonable. War is an inevitable occurrence amongst sapient beings. Even amongst non-sapient beings, such as ants, we get this.


You mean human civilization, you keep forgetting the human part is an evolutionary variable not a constant.

No, I mean civilization itself. War is a noble, glorious thing, that is inalterable as part of any civilization without disaster.


You mean human civilization, you keep forgetting the human part is an evolutionary variable not a constant.

Neither will that happen. We are Gods. So long as we keep our war-spirit, at least.

The vastness of space is such that entire star systems can go unexplored even in billions of years. Moreover, the most conservative elements only place 10 civilizations in the galaxy's history, and it is very likely that owing to evolution, that they'd not have the whole of 4 billion years of this generation of stars/planets to evolve to the point of space travel by sapient beings. They might have a billion years for that, which is no proof that we'd ever have contact with them, past, present, or perhaps even future. But it is almost certain they are out there.

No the most conservative place 1 civilization in the whole universe: us. Although the probability we are the only ones is unlikely it's still exist because we can't at this time determine how often sentient life happens, let alone life of this planet, with a survey of 1 we are kind of guessing in the dark how many other civilizations are out their: it could be many, it could be none.

Now if they are out their we can calculate how advance they will be, based on how long our civilization has been around chances are that alien civilization will either be un-evolved worms or far more advance then we, just 100 year difference in technology would doom us.



It makes perfect sense and is reasonable. War is an inevitable occurrence amongst sapient beings. Even amongst non-sapient beings, such as ants, we get this.

Animals make war, already noted, try again with a being not driven by Darwinian forces.



No, I mean civilization itself. War is a noble, glorious thing, that is inalterable as part of any civilization without disaster.

Then by that definition we won't have a civilization, we will have something better!



Neither will that happen. We are Gods. So long as we keep our war-spirit, at least.
LOL, we are just animals that think to much of our selves. When we do become gods we will be immortal and omniscience, we will be free from human emotions like hate and anger, even disagreement will be non-existent, and we won't be animals or humans anymore.

Like Terrence Howard's character said in Iron Man: "No unmanned plane can match a pilot's instinct and judgement."

Manned and unmanned aircraft both have their places in today's battlespace. There are things each of them can do that the other can't. With that said, I personally think the services need to embrace UAVs faster than they have been. Especially the Air Force, whose fighter pilot officer culture doesn't like the idea that enlistees fly the unmanned stuff, and some zit-faced 20 year old A1C from rural Pennsyltucky could end up being the one who waxes Osama with a Hellfire-armed Predator.

I agree with that part of what joepistole was saying; every halfway decent military in the world has a lot of institutional inertia behind it. Most of the time it is a good thing. As you'll agree, we draw a lot of our strength from our traditions and history is a great source of the esprit de corps for any warrior culture. But sometimes, as is happening with the adoption of UAVs, that conservative reverence for tradition becomes a stumbling block that inhibits evolution. As far as the US military goes, for the most part we keep a good coefficient of tradition without being too stuffy. Just like the move to 5.56mm, right SFC? :D

Semper Fi Mac, but I am still a 7.62 man, reach out and touch some one.

But I will agree, that we do need to embrace the UAV, as you say there are time when UAVs, are far more efficient for the task at hand.

As for me, I really don't care if a A-1-C get the OBL, or Pilot with a over inflated opinion of himself, or a hard ass 0317, a hard kill, is a hard kill, and I give credit full credit to anyone, who has the balls to pull the trigger, something a lot of our politician don't have the balls to do.

The biggest screw up for the military can be traced back to the REMF in Washington City.

REMF=Congress

Electricfetus:


No the most conservative place 1 civilization in the whole universe: us. Although the probability we are the only ones is unlikely it's still exist because we can't at this time determine how often sentient life happens, let alone life of this planet, with a survey of 1 we are kind of guessing in the dark how many other civilizations are out their: it could be many, it could be none.

Now if they are out their we can calculate how advance they will be, based on how long our civilization has been around chances are that alien civilization will either be un-evolved worms or far more advance then we, just 100 year difference in technology would doom us.

That assumes a relatively normal level of advancement in technology. We're fast approaching a point where innovation will take centuries and millennia again.

and I was referencing the standard "equation" for the likelyhood of other civilizations of sapient beings.


Animals make war, already noted, try again with a being not driven by Darwinian forces.

Any sapient being, Darwinian or not, will make war. So long as it requires resources, so long as there are ideologies, so long as they need living space, so long as their is money, religion, love, hate, et cetera, there will be war. And when there is no war, we'll be so decadent as to be unsavable. We'll likely revert back to being apeish.


Then by that definition we won't have a civilization, we will have something better!

No, we'll de-evolve, in a sense. We'll become more animal than man.


LOL, we are just animals that think to much of our selves. When we do become gods we will be immortal and omniscience, we will be free from human emotions like hate and anger, even disagreement will be non-existent, and we won't be animals or humans anymore.

We shall never be immortal and omniscient and freed from hate or anger. Hate and anger are useful and good things - one should hate and feel anger towards bad things. Disagreement will not be "non-existent" as there will always be controversy.

ANd oh, we shall always be humans. But humans are themselves Gods and Gods love war.

The battleship deferred to the carrier because a carrier has a greater striking range using its embarked airwing. Read about the Battle of the Coral Sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_coral_sea). It was the first naval engagement where two fleets clashed without entering visual range, and is widely regarded by naval historians as the battleship's death knell.

The 16"/50cal rifles of the famed Iowa class battleships had a max effective range of around 40km. Today, a F/A-18E has a combat radius of 730km. A carrier strike group can cover about 330 times as much geographical area as one of the old Iowas could with its rifles, with more ordnance delivery options, and far more reliable communication with ground troops. The battleship is an obvious loser here, and until an indirect fire weapon exists that has (just a guess here) at least a few hundred km of range, carrier-based strike aircraft will continue to be the mainstay of naval tactical power projection.

For some personal anecdotes, I'm currently part of an ANGLICO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Naval_Gunfire_Liaison_Company) company. The only time I've personally called for naval surface fire support (NSFS - shipboard guns or missiles) was for clearing a beachhead of mines during a training exercise. Coordinating a NSFS fire mission has a detached feeling to it, because the fire controlman on the other end of the radio is nestled in the dark corner of CIC on a cruiser or destroyer bobbing way out in the blue. Close air support (CAS) missions, on the other hand, have a more intimate feeling. The pilot you're talking to overhead can see the target you're vectoring him in on, and can respond to changes in the target's behavior by altering their approach. Pilots also can use their birds-eye view of the battlefield to provide tactical intel in real-time, like warning of an enemy presence around the next corner. Finally, the sound of low-bypass turbofans roaring over the battlefield, sometimes chasing a sonic boom, can have a powerful psychological effect on blue and red forces alike, especially when said engine noise correlates with stuff exploding all around you.

The US Navy has examined lasers before (the Sea Light program) and other neat direct fire weapons like railguns (they've got the world's most powerful over in Maryland right now). You are right in that directed energy effectors are someday probably going to make great defensive weapons. However, the primary mission of a carrier group is to secure the battlespace at sea and project power ashore, over the horizon; about 20km from the weatherdecks of a surface ship. You need indirect fires for that. Interestingly enough, the Zumwalt class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DD(X)#Advanced_Gun_System_.28AGS.29) is supposedly going to pack a pair of 155mm smoothbore cannons that will fire somewhat of a gun-launched missile able to hit targets out to around 200km with a circular error probable of 50 meters. Very impressive range and precision for a surface fire, but nowhere near the interdiction range of strike aircraft. I hope it doesn't get canceled. I know the Marine Corps has wanted a capability like that for a long, long time.

Exactly so.

Or rather, one needs to consider why bringing the battleship "back" makes sense. The entire point of a battleship was that it was large enough to be a platform for massive guns. Such weapons are redundent now, thanks to cruise missiles and air strikes.

The fact a battleship could possibly protect itself better now, to me, has nothing to do with launching a revolution. The battleship would still have to pull close to shore, where it would lob antiquated shells at targets easier and more effectively destroyed by missiles and bombardment.

Countezero:


Or rather, one needs to consider why bringing the battleship "back" makes sense. The entire point of a battleship was that it was large enough to be a platform for massive guns. Such weapons are redundent now, thanks to cruise missiles and air strikes.

You forget a host of reasons why battleship guns are superior

1. Shells are far more affordable than guided cruise missiles or guided bombs.

2. More shells for equal damage can be carried onboard a single ship compared to aircraft bombs or cruise missiles.

3. Sustained bombardment is higher than missile or airstrikes.

4. Modern artillery is as accurate as missiles and airstrikes.

5. Artillery requires no fuel.

6. It is more difficult to destroy a battleship than it is to shoot down a fighter bomber (this wouldn't matter much in the cruise missile debate).

In WW3 (not in limited wars) the battleship fullfills EVERYTHING a Naval commander will want.

That assumes a relatively normal level of advancement in technology. We're fast approaching a point where innovation will take centuries and millennia again.
lol! and what gives you that idea? True the human brain is reaching its limits but we relying more and more on computers to assist us.


and I was referencing the standard "equation" for the likelyhood of other civilizations of sapient beings.


Yes, Yes I know. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ztl8CG3Sys)


Any sapient being, Darwinian or not, will make war. So long as it requires resources, so long as there are ideologies, so long as they need living space, so long as their is money, religion, love, hate, et cetera, there will be war. And when there is no war, we'll be so decadent as to be unsavable. We'll likely revert back to being apeish.

No, not talking about a sapient being, first of all our succesors might not even qualify as alive, they don't reproduce rather they manufacture, an don't evolve Darwinian they evolve psuedo-larmarkian, they won't have money, religion, hate (they may have love) they won't need air, water or food, being immortal time will be irrelevant, they don't need form as they can take any that can be manufacture. I would call that omnipotence not decadence.


No, we'll de-evolve, in a sense. We'll become more animal than man.

You don't keep up with modern futurism do you? Singularity, transhumanism, etc, all over your head? Their a big difference between Sci-Fi and Sci-Spec, one is a fantasy (like stellar battle ships) the other is a honest projections of the future (powerflight, cars, cell phones, computers, internet, AI, technological singularity, transhumanism.)


We shall never be immortal and omniscient and freed from hate or anger. Hate and anger are useful and good things - one should hate and feel anger towards bad things. Disagreement will not be "non-existent" as there will always be controversy.
Your still thinking as if we will be human.


ANd oh, we shall always be humans. But humans are themselves Gods and Gods love war.
Three scenarios, we upgrade, we coexist or we go extinct, coexistence is grossly unstable so eventually its either upgrade or extinction, thus we will either be something greater then human or dead.

Countezero:



You forget a host of reasons why battleship guns are superior

1. Shells are far more affordable than guided cruise missiles or guided bombs.

2. More shells for equal damage can be carried onboard a single ship compared to aircraft bombs or cruise missiles.

3. Sustained bombardment is higher than missile or airstrikes.

4. Modern artillery is as accurate as missiles and airstrikes.

5. Artillery requires no fuel.

6. It is more difficult to destroy a battleship than it is to shoot down a fighter bomber (this wouldn't matter much in the cruise missile debate).

In WW3 (not in limited wars) the battleship fullfills EVERYTHING a Naval commander will want.

Good points. I will ponder them...

Electric Fetus:


lol! and what gives you that idea? True the human brain is reaching its limits but we relying more and more on computers to assist us.

Human minds and computers are both turing machines in some regard. Turing machines are computationally equivalent. Computers won't be able to do shit to help us, in other words, as they can only do things more powerfully, not innovatively. Furthermore, innovation and computers do not go hand in ahnd whatsoever. Computers are not creative intelligences, or intelligences at all. They are computational. This is where we are actually different and superior.


No, not talking about a sapient being, first of all our succesors might not even qualify as alive, they don't reproduce rather they manufacture, an don't evolve Darwinian they evolve psuedo-larmarkian, they won't have money, religion, hate (they may have love) they won't need air, water or food, being immortal time will be irrelevant, they don't need form as they can take any that can be manufacture. I would call that omnipotence not decadence.

They will certainly have money (exchange), religion (belief if they are alive), and hate (it is useful), and they will need energy, and they will not be "immortal" and time will be relevant. Moreover, manufacturing needs resources.

Also, you seem to think that AI is a possibility. The hard problem of consciousness refutes this.


You don't keep up with modern futurism do you? Singularity, transhumanism, etc, all over your head? Their a big difference between Sci-Fi and Sci-Spec, one is a fantasy (like stellar battle ships) the other is a honest projections of the future (powerflight, cars, cell phones, computers, internet, AI, technological singularity, transhumanism.)

Transhumanism is, quite bluntly, a joke. AI., "technological singularity" (an absurd and meaningless term), transhumanism, et cetera, are not honest projections. And science fiction did not predict most of thet hings you referenced.

Also, I am an Orange Catholic. "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of man's mind". Rather Mentats than computers.

Biological life is infinitely superior to "technological intelligences" (a contradiction of terms).


Your still thinking as if we will be human.

WE always will.


Three scenarios, we upgrade, we coexist or we go extinct, coexistence is grossly unstable so eventually its either upgrade or extinction, thus we will either be something greater then human or dead.

Your three scenarios are flawed. We will not upgrade. We will not coexist. And we won't go extinct. We will make glorious war on eachother forever and ever, driving us to new greatness through struggle and combat.

Countezero:


Good points. I will ponder them...

Tell me what you think.

I made somewhat of a joke posting an image of a Super Star Destroyer. But the idea of a battleship/carrier hybrid, especially with modern technology that addresses the reasons why the battlehsip was decommissioned, makes perfect sense in the next big war. But right now, war is for the ground forces. The Navy is basically the taxi cab for the Marines so long as Islamic terrorism is the main threat.

Human minds and computers are both turing machines in some regard. Turing machines are computationally equivalent. Computers won't be able to do shit to help us, in other words, as they can only do things more powerfully, not innovatively. Furthermore, innovation and computers do not go hand in ahnd whatsoever. Computers are not creative intelligences, or intelligences at all. They are computational. This is where we are actually different and superior.
You assume the we can't improve the are amplitude in innovation. For example evolutionary programs have already designed technology superior to that that humans could come up with. By the way I never said computer we intelligence, we may require analog neural nets rather then digital number crunchers to bet human thought. Superiority depends on the criteria, think about that the next time you need a calculator, relies that that tiny chunk of silicon can do something you can thousands of time faster, sure there are many things the calculator can't do, but as technology advances those things get less and less.


they will certainly have money (exchange), religion (belief if they are alive), and hate (it is useful), and they will need energy, and they will not be "immortal" and time will be relevant. Moreover, manufacturing needs resources.

Nope, when they exchange they demand nothing, they will have not wants or desires that they can't simply reprogram out if they can't achieve them or if they cause conflicts. Their beliefs will be agnostics at best. Hate has no use for non-animals, if they need too they will wipe out the the old homo sapiens, but they will feel no hate in doing it, it will simply be a calculated decision based purely on logic. Their needs in energy and manufacturing will be a millionth ours, they will think as one and as many, any conflicting goals will lead to a singular and universally agreed compromise in milliseconds. They will live as long as the universe does, that pretty close to immortal.


Also, you seem to think that AI is a possibility. The hard problem of consciousness refutes this.

If AI is not possible then the human conscience is not either. Assuming "computers" will forever be unintelligent is as foolish as assuming man will never achieve powered flight! The human brain functions and is a function of physical laws, therefor all of its components and the whole can be understood within this universe (unless you want to argue for a supernatural soul) even if we can't emulate it en silico we could just grow a human brain (can't beat'em join'em solution) and then improve its design or augment it.


Transhumanism is, quite bluntly, a joke. AI., "technological singularity" (an absurd and meaningless term), transhumanism, et cetera, are not honest projections. And science fiction did not predict most of thet hings you referenced.

Nope Sci-Spec predicted all of those things, Sci-fi didn't (well actually most sci-spec ends up in sci-fi). Also blatantly disregarding things is not a valid argument.


Also, I am an Orange Catholic. "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of man's mind". Rather Mentats than computers.

then that your prerogative, mine is to do exactly the opposite.


Biological life is infinitely superior to "technological intelligences" (a contradiction of terms).
Infinite, how so?


Your three scenarios are flawed. We will not upgrade. We will not coexist. And we won't go extinct. We will make glorious war on eachother forever and ever, driving us to new greatness through struggle and combat.
And your reasoning is?

I think this is all a subject for a different thread.

Electricfetus:


You assume the we can't improve the are amplitude in innovation. For example evolutionary programs have already designed technology superior to that that humans could come up with. By the way I never said computer we intelligence, we may require analog neural nets rather then digital number crunchers to bet human thought. Superiority depends on the criteria, think about that the next time you need a calculator, relies that that tiny chunk of silicon can do something you can thousands of time faster, sure there are many things the calculator can't do, but as technology advances those things get less and less.

They have not created anything "better than a human could come up with". Again: Turing Machine equivalence. Furthermore, I'd haev you reference what they have "achieved so well". That and human creative intelligence trumps that.

Analog neural nets? Unlikely to work. As again, it assumes the hard problem of consciousness is solvable, where all indications show that it is not.

Calculation is easier with computers, but it isn't needed as we have mathematical skills of our own. In fact, as Idiot Savants and "human calculators" prove, we match digital computing skills in calculation given appropriate time. We will thus have Mentat-equivalents one day that can match our computers pound for pound.


Nope, when they exchange they demand nothing, they will have not wants or desires that they can't simply reprogram out if they can't achieve them or if they cause conflicts. Their beliefs will be agnostics at best. Hate has no use for non-animals, if they need too they will wipe out the the old homo sapiens, but they will feel no hate in doing it, it will simply be a calculated decision based purely on logic. Their needs in energy and manufacturing will be a millionth ours, they will think as one and as many, any conflicting goals will lead to a singular and universally agreed compromise in milliseconds. They will live as long as the universe does, that pretty close to immortal.

They exchange and demand nothing? Then the system will collapse.

Without desire there is no action and "reprogramming" will not stop the need for desires.

Their beliefs are very likely to be "Cylonesque" if they do develop religion.

Hate is indeed useful even for "machines" or other lifeforms. To hate what is bad induces doing what is good.

Machines use far more energy than us to begin with. Therefore, your position that they'll have a "millionth less needs" is ridiculous. They'll have a million more!

Compromise will be not be attained and they will not have a "hive mind". Individuality has dramatic reasons to continue and disagreements will force the hand of these beings.

They would fail far sooner than the universe and far sooner than life.


If AI is not possible then the human conscience is not either. Assuming "computers" will forever be unintelligent is as foolish as assuming man will never achieve powered flight! The human brain functions and is a function of physical laws, therefor all of its components and the whole can be understood within this universe (unless you want to argue for a supernatural soul) even if we can't emulate it en silico we could just grow a human brain (can't beat'em join'em solution) and then improve its design or augment it.

We know we are conscious and our consciousness depends upon a non-physical resolution of the hard problem of consciousness. As such, computers will never attain consciousness so long as this is the right answer. Your position that the human brain works under "physical laws" is unfounded as of yet, whereas the dualist option recognizes the fact that there are features of consciousness that have no place whatsoever in a physicalist paradigm.


Nope Sci-Spec predicted all of those things, Sci-fi didn't (well actually most sci-spec ends up in sci-fi). Also blatantly disregarding things is not a valid argument.

Not really, no. Speculative fiction had some notable guesses (Vernes was notable) but often missed things completely. In fact, the exception is that it gets something right.


Infinite, how so?

The ability to evolve and to be conscious.


And your reasoning is?

Upgrading = extinction.
Coexistence = decadence.
Extinction = irrational and anti-productive (MAD prevents it and technology prevents pretty much everything else).

Struggle and striving will sustain any species by constantly reintroducing pressures to innovate, to become better, to become more. War is a great struggle and serves as one of the best means of instituting innovation.


I think this is all a subject for a different thread.

Agreed.

Torpedos encased in an air bubble may have the capability of 200-300 miles per hour under water. Still in the research phase. The US Navy have a number of new ships coming out with stealth capability. Yes, this includes new battleships with advace weaponary that will include lasers. But with their capability of throwing out a wall of lead, lasers may not make much sense. Their new Metal Rain fires a million rounds per minute, hard to get through. Even the new miniguns placed on helicopters fire around 3 thousand rounds per minute, imagine 20 of those guns firing outbound on a ship towards a missle or plane.

Electricfetus:
That assumes a relatively normal level of advancement in technology. We're fast approaching a point where innovation will take centuries and millennia again.


Sorry to disagree with you, it hasn't happened yet, and the time frame that you propose will never come to be.

In war, innovation, and technology advances go into hyperdrive.
War is where the innovation is given free reign.

Look at WWII, we started with piston powered aircraft in the 250 mph. and ended up with Jets, 500mph+ aircraft, and the capability to develope supersonic aircraft, it was thought at the begining of the war that nothing cound go faster than the speed of sound.

World War II. Hans Guido Mutke

9 April 1945 in a Messerschmitt Me 262.


Mütke reported not just transonic buffeting but the resumption of normal control once a certain speed was exceeded, then a resumption of severe buffeting once the 262 slowed again.

Confermed after the war by flight testing by the U.S. Military.


On page 13 of the "Me 262 A-1 Pilot's Handbook" issued by Headquarters Air Materiel Command, Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio as Report No. F-SU-1111-ND on 10 January 1946: "Speeds of 950 km/h (590 mph) are reported to have been attained in a shallow dive 20° to 30° from the horizontal. No vertical dives were made. At speeds of 950 to 1000 km/h (590 to 620 mph) the air flow around the aircraft reaches the speed of sound, and it is reported that the control surfaces no longer effect the direction of flight. The results vary with different airplanes: some wing over and dive while others dive gradually. It is also reported that once the speed of sound is exceeded, this condition disappears and normal control is restored" . The comments about restoration of flight control and cessation of buffeting above Mach 1 are very significant in a 1946 document.


Proponents of the claim also often believe that after the end of the war the allied powers had no interest in emphasizing any German achievements during the war. Mutke's claim, however, is unique and without controlled, experimental confirmation. A computer based performance analysis of the Me 262, carried out in 1999 at the Munich Technical University, has shown that the Me 262 could exceed Mach 1.

Buffalo Roam:


Sorry to disagree with you, it hasn't happened yet, and the time frame that you propose will never come to be.

In war, innovation, and technology advances go into hyperdrive.
War is where the innovation is given free reign.

I agree there will be refinement. Bigger and better. But we're fast approaching the time where quantum leaps in innovation are going to return back to a century timespan. We're reaching the theoretical limit for an expansive point of technological innovation.

Buffalo Roam:



I agree there will be refinement. Bigger and better. But we're fast approaching the time where quantum leaps in innovation are going to return back to a century timespan. We're reaching the theoretical limit for an expansive point of technological innovation.

Not even, it was once said that,


Everything that can be invented has been invented.
Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. patent office, 1899

Buffalo Roam:


Not even, it was once said that,

Progress is not eternal and human history repudiates infinitely long periods of technological growth.

Progress is not eternal and human history repudiates infinitely long periods of technological growth.

Human history is replete with technological advances, from the time we first walked the planet, till today.

Tell me what you think.
Reduced cost and the ability to sustain bombardment are the main reasons I've seen cited for why the USN/USMC is pushing for the Zumwalt to carry the vertical gun system.

I think the emphasis for how important those two attributes are has been lost on the majority, as it is easy to get myopic and think the only enemies we'll ever fight until the zombie apocalypse will be ragtag terrorists, where such attributes are all but worthless. But when the next symmetrical enemy shows itself we'll be glad to have a cheap, sustainable, deep-strike NSFS platform in the arsenal.

Buffalo Roam:


Human history is replete with technological advances, from the time we first walked the planet, till today.

SEparated by long lulls in human innovation. A situation which bears repeating soon.

Echo3Romeo:


I think the emphasis for how important those two attributes are has been lost on the majority, as it is easy to get myopic and think the only enemies we'll ever fight until the zombie apocalypse will be ragtag terrorists, where such attributes are all but worthless. But when the next symmetrical enemy shows itself we'll be glad to have a cheap, sustainable, deep-strike NSFS platform in the arsenal.

Precisely.

In a war with CHina, or the Russian federation, or any other true roughly parity-level enemy, we will need battleships of a modern standard to force the campaign in our favour.

Buffalo Roam:



SEparated by long lulls in human innovation. A situation which bears repeating soon.

Only in retaliative terms.

Humans have been on a steady advancement since the beginning of time, there have been spurts of technological advancement, but those technological advancements have never stopped, and the rate of advancement has never slowed down, the more we know the faster we advance, knowledge doesn't slow down, it never has, and never will, it is self propagating, and at exponential rates,

The more we know, the faster we advance, the faster we advance, the more we know.

Buffalo Roam:


Humans have been on a steady advancement since the beginning of time, there have been spurts of technological advancement, but those technological advancements have never stopped, and the rate of advancement has never slowed down, the more we know the faster we advance, knowledge doesn't slow down, it never has, and never will, it is self propagating, and at exponential rates

Incorrect. There have been many times when knowledge and innovation have slowed or even regressed. Moreover, there is only a limited amount of things we can do. After a certain point, we'll have "done what can be done" and thereafter progress on a century timebase.

Exactly! That why the day will come when we are discarded like the wasteful husks of meat that we are!
Mmm, meat . . .


Also, I am an Orange Catholic. "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of man's mind". Rather Mentats than computers.
But we don't have a copy of the mentat handbook.

The latest chess computers are unbeatable even by human grandmasters.

Zephyr:


Also, I am an Orange Catholic. "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of man's mind". Rather Mentats than computers.

We'll write one.


The latest chess computers are unbeatable even by human grandmasters.

Only in time restraints.

As chess is a formal system, a Turing Machine can emulate it. The human mind can function as a turing machine and all computers are turing machines. All turing machines are equally powerful given time. Ergo, a chess computer can never get more than 50 percent certainty over two games of alternating black and white with a human being.

All turing machines are equally powerful given time.
Yes, but time is important. Your PC may have the same theoretical capabilities as ENIAC, but I'm fairly sure you prefer your PC.

A problem that you can't solve before the heat death of the universe is intractable - practically unsolvable. Many NP Complete problems seem to fall in that category for reasonably sized inputs.

Even a few decades, much shorter than the lifespan of the universe, may be too long for a human to wait.

Zephyr:


Yes, but time is important. Your PC may have the same theoretical capabilities as ENIAC, but I'm fairly sure you prefer your PC.

A problem that you can't solve before the heat death of the universe is intractable - practically unsolvable. Many NP Complete problems seem to fall in that category for reasonably sized inputs.

Even a few decades, much shorter than the lifespan of the universe, may be too long for a human to wait.

Of course.

That being said, humans show remarkably high rates of calculation in certain situations. Idiot Savants reach absurdly high levels of calculation speed.

One also has to consider that human beings are constantly processing more information than an average computer could hope to do so currently, with less heat, less problems, et cetera, constantly. Trillions of nerve endings being processed every millisecond. Outstanding power.

Buffalo Roam:


Humans have been on a steady advancement since the beginning of time, there have been spurts of technological advancement, but those technological advancements have never stopped, and the rate of advancement has never slowed down, the more we know the faster we advance, knowledge doesn't slow down, it never has, and never will, it is self propagating, and at exponential rates

Incorrect. There have been many times when knowledge and innovation have slowed or even regressed. Moreover, there is only a limited amount of things we can do. After a certain point, we'll have "done what can be done" and thereafter progress on a century timebase.

Incorrect, knowledge may in a local area regress, but as for the whole of knowledge, it has always advanced, and at a exponential rate.

Warfare is a waste of time