 Editor in Chief Bill   | 10 May 2013 6:11 p.m. PST |
Autonomous attack systems may be heralding the twilight of the aircraft-carrier era, but the venerable platform will remain important by returning to its pre–World War II operational roots… link |
| Generalstoner49 | 10 May 2013 8:33 p.m. PST |
I think if the US perfects the hypersonic cruise missile it will lead to a whole way that changes naval warfare… till then it seems s little gimicky to me. |
| Dark Knights And Bloody Dawns | 11 May 2013 2:02 a.m. PST |
I can see the big guns returning although not in their present form. An intelligent shell is far cheaper than an expensive missile which in turn is cheaper than an expensive aircraft. link How long before 100 miles becomes 200 etc? |
| Tgunner | 11 May 2013 3:07 a.m. PST |
So will it be the arsenal ship or the neo-battleship that displaces the carrier? |
| Mako11 | 11 May 2013 3:24 a.m. PST |
Neither. It'll be the hypersonic missile launching submarine, with over the horizon/satellite/GPS guidance for the missiles. |
| Klebert L Hall | 11 May 2013 4:39 a.m. PST |
So will it be the arsenal ship or the neo-battleship that displaces the carrier? Probably won't be anything that replaces the carrier, any time soon. When there's only one navy in the world, chances of a major naval war are low.
-Kle. |
| wminsing | 11 May 2013 7:15 a.m. PST |
It'll be the hypersonic missile launching submarine, with over the horizon/satellite/GPS guidance for the missiles. I agree with Mako on this; the future 'capital ship' is going to be the tactical missile submarine. -Will |
| Fonthill Hoser | 11 May 2013 8:19 a.m. PST |
I was thinking the same thing about SSGNs, but the article makes the point that from a sustainable firepower standpoint thay are lacking due to the inability to reload missiles at sea. Hoser |
| Dan 055 | 11 May 2013 8:48 a.m. PST |
What makes you think that, in a shooting war, the satellites will survive past the first 5 minutes? |
 aegiscg47  | 11 May 2013 9:58 a.m. PST |
If the satellites for all combatants do go in the first five minutes it will mean an even more lopsided victory for the US Navy than it currently would be against any opponent. They regularly practice recon and targeting without satellites, so that would be a massive advantage. Carrier task forces would be free from their "sailing in between and around" satellite coverage which would make them even more dangerous opponents. |
| Lion in the Stars | 11 May 2013 10:35 a.m. PST |
And if the satellites stay up, well, GPS-guided death and destruction. Remember that Tomahawk missiles are pre-GPS, and use a fairly interesting 'scene matching' guidance system for coarse guidance. The GPS systems bring their accuracy up from 'which building in the block' to 'which window'. |
| CorpCommander | 11 May 2013 10:57 a.m. PST |
How about the hacker who disables a multi-billion dollar fleet from a basement while eating takeout? Cyber operations are going to be the most cost effective for the next few decades until we figure out better methods of pervasive cyber-security. |
| Augustus | 11 May 2013 11:23 a.m. PST |
No system will ever be 100% impenetrable to hackers. Hmm. Thousands of floater drones deployed by drone aircraft dotting the ocean, ready to send off hypersonic drones to do their drone nastiness to other drones whose recon drones never saw them thanks to jamming drones and drone attacks from hunter-killer drones guided by drone satellites? |
| Mako11 | 11 May 2013 7:43 p.m. PST |
From what I've heard, there are backups for the satellites, and that probably m3ans backups for the backups, hopefully. |
| GarrisonMiniatures | 12 May 2013 11:57 a.m. PST |
No problems with hacking if the surveillence drones are on preplotted courses with constant recording/transmitting og info. Likewise, hunter/predator drones that will automatically shoot on anything that match certain criteria. Only thing you would have to worry about then would be signals the drones send back being jammed, or the integral radars used within the drones for interception purposes. |
