Iowa class BB, they don't build them like that today

It is clear you think that military personnel should get $10 a month, zero training, and have to buy their own food and uniforms too. plus has to do all maintenance for free after hours, on top of working 16 hours a 7, day days a week. I gather you also think BBs run on solar power.

An BB isn't a drone. Even with adding automation they have huge crews. They burn $250,000.00 in fuel PER DAY. Depending on fuel costs, at flank speed $500,000.00. Figuring in medical, training, and all the rest, plus officers and those who are career so then retirement and lifetime medical, those who get disability, the GI bill and more, the cost of 1 crew member is way over $100,000.00 per year. It takes FOUR crews just on duty. There also are the training personnel. Dockside personnel. The cost of support ships and crews.
If a BB could be operated for $1 Billion a year it would be on the budget plan.

Once again, your messages are just a cross between raging and fantasy when you post that 16 inch artillery shells and powder now costs only $500. By your same calculations, a bomber only costs about $25,000 and bombs only about $300 each. Fortunately, the Navy does not pretend this is 1910 and makes it plans about the real world.

 

Maybe some people have a problem with comprehending how long three seconds are in a combat situation ? That's the time lag when dealing with UAV's (drones) and other unmanned weapons systems. Star Trekkies and other geeks have a hard time acknowledging WHY THE NEXT FIGHTER WILL BE MANNED, AND THE ONE AFTER THAT.

 

You got it in one Apach, yet somehow they're going to put a cruise missile up the gun barrel of a ship moving at better than 30 knots at 900km/hour with a several second delay. Do they have any idea of how foolish they sound?

 

To add to my post #194:

 

Keep living in the past if you like, but fortunately younger minds will make the decisions - or at least hopefully. Each year what was considered the threshold of computer capability is exceeded - as they also increasingly diminish in size and energy requirements. It wasn't that long ago it was claimed that a computer could never master the game of chess. That is ancient history.
You MAY be smarter about computers than Stephen Hawkins and Bill Gates, but I'm skeptical. They, and others, don't even question the future senario of autonomous military killing machines that exceed the capabilities of humans, but rather question whether they can be controlled indefinitely as they become "smarter" and more capable even at survival than humans.

The advantage of autonomous attack/fighter aircraft are many. The aircraft would be smaller. They can withstand g-forces no human can approach. They can take risks, even suicidal, that pilots can not. They can see and hear in all directions at the same time, process it all faster, and across greater spectrums. They are not hindered by emotions. Already they can fly aircraft that humans alone cannot, though there still is a pilot. Robots move faster and more precisely. The technical folks who design and service state-of-the-art military aircraft already claim they more are flying the plane for their programming and systems than are the on-board pilots. The technology for mission specific or autonomous seek-and-destroy aircraft already exists. It is simply a matter of building them.

What you claim is impossible is, in fact, inevitable. And soon. You messages are no different than those who claimed that ships will always have sails and vehicles will never replace horses.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, and Saddam Hussein's troops were surrendering to drones.

 

Could you picture driving a car through the streets or on bumper to bumper traffic on a freeway when every time you turned the steering wheel or applied the breaks or accelerated or deaccelerated there was a 3 second delay ? Even a 1/2 second delay !

For a trekkie I suppose they sound more like a Ferengi.

 

That too.

 

Google’s self-driving cars have autonomously driven over 1 million miles

http://http://venturebeat.com/2015/06/03/googles-self-driving-cars-have-driven-over-1-million-miles/
http://venturebeat.com/2015/06/03/googles-self-driving-cars-have-driven-over-1-million-miles/

 

Just another example of dumbing down America or appeasing stupid people who can't drive.

It all started when stupid people who were spastics and couldn't comprehend shifting a manual transmission.

It has gotten even worse, calling AAA to change a flat tire.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/10/31/study-self-driving-cars-accidents/74946614/

 

Truly autonomous unmanned aircraft might be in the future, but not any time soon. UAV's have many advantages over a manned vehicle, but the problem is the ability of the UAV to make its own decisions - and they have to be the right decisions and that's hard. It has to discriminate between a man carrying a shovel and a man carrying a rpg, it has to be able to tell when its not safe to launch because the target is passing a building that contains a day care and a dozen children just went into it, it has to know that the plane that just shot a missile at it is really a friendly making a mistake.

Technological superiority is not everything. In Chuck Yeager's autobiography, he talks about the time he was the maintenance officer and made it his job to test fly every plane before it was released from maintenance, in his "test" flights he would dogfight any plane he encountered including the newest hottest (at the time) fighters when he was in an old plane, Yeager almost always won.

The brain (computer) in the plane is most important.

"Artificial intelligence" comes in different forms but its really functionally just a long series of if-then statements that a human wrote. Some AI can actually learn but that's in very specific tasks such as compensating a part of a plane autopilot for damage to a specific part of the plane. Its a long way from being truly intelligent.

 

Those are all challenges for sure, but each senario you suggest are decisions that ultimately a computer will be able to better make. Such systems ultimately have the potential to better determine between a shovel and a rifle, because it will be able to see better, more precisely, and across a broader spectrum. While not totally eliminating potential error in decision processing, the rate of error will likely be less likely than a human would make as the computer system is making decisions at computer speed with no emotional distractions and essentially could be 100 "brains" making decisions rather than one.

It will be an evolutionary process of course. The first tasks for which you can buy UAVs now for a few hundreds dollars to do, is to attack specific immoble targets in autonomous flights and return. Next will be added seek-and-destroy of clearly defineable targets such as all tanks and trucks within a specific area. Air combat of selective target parameters also would not be much of a challenge technologically. Complex decision processing such as the example you gave of children on the scene come later on, but those are errors pilots make now.

Of people working in the area of computers and aircraft their concerns are in a different direction, specifically systems integrity (ie hacking/malicious software). Since such machines that are similar would likely all use the same software, which is constantly updated, there is the potential of software being hacked. If so, it would knock out ALL such machines rendering them useless. The necessity to remain autonomous also becomes vital so such machines could not be taken over or hacked while in operation.

Most aircraft now is so dependent upon computers (as are the pilots), this is now a real concern even for manned aircraft. One such military teckie I know comments that the the computer programmers who programmed the plane's equipment usually is more flying the aircraft than the aircrews in the aircraft, for which the pilots are more there to deal with potential anomolies and potential systems failure. When I asked how difficult would it be to program aircraft to take off, fly to its destination and land all on its own, the response was that many can do that now and that's a piece of cake technologically. It is 1.) the decision process involving complex variables and 2.) enhancing the ability of the aircraft to "see" and "know" its surroundings better (ie improving sensory ability/sensors) that is the challenge for the future. IF the computers/robots can see and know its relevant surrounding and situation the system can reacte faster and more precisely than can a pilot and with less pilot-error potential.

This also is increasingly current function of many computer systems - for the computers to override the pilot if the pilot/aircrew really screws up. Warning lights and buzzers increasingly also include computer override. Pilot error is still the #1 cause of aircraft disasters, for which increasingly computers will not just warn, but have veto power. As nearly all controls are now "fly by wire" rather than cables and pullies, in a sense already know the pilots aren't directly flying the plane but instead are telling onboard computers what they want the plane to do and the computers/robots onboard then execute the commands from the pilot milli-second by milli-second.

The sensory/vision of the computers is a huge area of interest in improvement. Just like police now have computers that are reading license plates automatically looking for those for which there are warrants for the driver, potentially aircraft could use facial recognition and other specific parameters to look for a specific person, specific vehicle or vehicle type to "kill." For example, all trucks with a gun mounted on it. The challenge is not the ability of a computer to make that definition-decision, but rather the sensory vision ability to do so at distance for greater coverage now. Could the computer confuse a Toyota carrying pipes for a Toyota carrying a 2omm? Sure. But so could a pilot.

On the plus side, a drone being shot down is a significantly less lose than a manned helicopter or manned aircraft being shot down in terms of both human lose and the cost of the aircraft. Drones are significantly cheaper.

Its all coming. Its just a question of when. However, the questions are not just of computer ability, but of security and of sensory capabilities.

 

The concerns of such as Hawkins and Gates is that in military equipment it is necessary to program in self survival. For example, that the drone avoid being shotdown. Super computers are so complex that as the ability to make decisions is enhanced, there is the potential of such computers going outside of their self defense parameters, essentially developing a will to live and/or a desire to destroy/kill. Having no sense of emotions, mercy or justice, such a destroy/kill in self survival or mission-goal error could have disasterous effects, particularly since the same software tends to be used through all such machines in the system. This enemy could become us. This is further complicated because a specific goal of software design is for computers to have the ability to self-educate and self-learn, in a sense the ability to reprogram themselves to constantly superior programming.

Since the systems are designed to exceed human capabilities, if such a drone malfunctioned in that manner it would be a real problem. Since software is shared, then all killing-machines with it could decide that we - humans - are the enemy. Since programming in decision processing to avoid destruction is so similar to will-to-live, the concern is that giving computers highly advanced decision making ability poises the potential of unintended consequences.

There also is the human factor of what if a person of evil intentions programs malicious goals into such killing machines? Thus while sent off on a specific mission, the evil alternative mission is carried out instead. As computers become more powerful, more compact and software more complex, they increasingly approach becoming their own version of a life form. No morality. No ethics. No sense of humanity or justice. Just emotionlessly performing tasks IT decides to perform. It may decide we are an obsticle or enemy, or just really screw up. Or maybe they'll all just go on strike deciding "no," when really needed to function.

So while you are questioning if computer/robot war machines will ever have capabilities exceeding human ability, the true top geeky people who actually build computers and design software see the other side of the coin. They don't question the inevitability of being able to do so. Rather, they question the total potential consequences of succeeding in doing so. Do we really WANT computers that are "smarter" and "more capable" than humans IF the ability to kill/destroy is within that capability, calculating process and design?

You see these as questions maybe hundreds of years in the future. They see these as the issues within the next decade, two at the most. And that does not consider the issues of they now do have the ability to directly interface computers with living brains - and then both the brains and computers are "smarter" and faster. So far, they have only used rat and monkey brains directly wired to computers to perform robot-tasks. Potentially, we could become the robots of the computers with them telling us what to do directly to our brains rather than visa versa.

 

The problem here is that most people really do not know the capabilities of ships in the military. So they basically make things up.

Top cruising speed of the USS New Jersey was 33 knots.
Top cruising speed of the USS Nimitz is 31 knots.
Top cruising speed of the USS Michael Murphy (newest Arleigh Burke class destroyer) is "30+ knots" (commonly accepted as 33 knots).

Now as we can see, the BBs were not slow at all, but among the fastest ships in service. And that brings us to their main purpose, as the keystone of an amphibious task group. And what is the speed of the ships that would make up such a force today?

USS America, LHA-6, 22 knots.
USS Whidbey Island, LSD-41, 20 knots.
USS Iwo Jima, LHD-7, 22 knots.

Seems to me that even a repurposed BB would be running circles around those with ease.

Then kindly name a single weapon short of a nuke that can seriously damage them. Give us a single missle that can cause serious damage to a BB class ship.

We basically stopped making the Battleships because in the BB the ultimate design was made. Kind of like how every US carrier made since the USS Nimitz has basically been the repeat of the last.

And the Iowa Class is still a capable ship. The pulling of them from the Reserve Fleet and turned into museums was not only illegal, but criminal. The reason they were placed in that status was because it was realized that they might need to be used again.

And interesting that you mention Leyte Gulf. Basically the last charge of a surface group against a group backed by carriers, the Japanese instead using their aircraft as human guided missiles.

And how well did that work out for them, eh?

Oh, and in closing, remember the general loadout of the fleets Battleships were operating with.

Amphibious groups. "Baby Flattops". Today armed with AV8B Harriers, soon with the F-35B. A battleship in a modern fleet would have a formidable air wing as part of the group.

 

You know I have long been a supporter of creating a "Modern Battleship". Not a BB, but a modern variation, something akin to the Alaska class, rear gun deck replaced with missile launching systems, and upgraded armor similar to the Iowa class BBs. Make them nuclear powered, but keep the fuel bunkers for refuling their support ships.

And a complement of 6 12" guns with modern gun control and LRLAP would be a serious threat to anybody. Some in this forum are almost wetting themselves over a ship with 2 5" guns that can fire 100 miles. Imagine what 6 12" guns with that capability could do. Of course, I would also like to see them with laser designators.

Can you say "12" Copperhead"?

 

We use aircraft.
Not satellites to relay Optical Guidance Data.

AboveAlpha

- - - Updated - - -

That's why we are building Rail Guns.

AboveAlpha

 

But there's a problem with the rail gun.

We already have watched the cancellation of the Zumwalt DDG-1000, a ship that is suppose to have two 155 MM rail guns. But while under construction it became known that the Zumwalt was over weight and just did not have zero tons growth margin so radar systems has to be eliminated and it's secondary gun armament the Bofor 57 MM gun was also eliminated and replaced with a dinky little 30 MM chain gun.

Somebody really (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up big time, a new class of warship with no growth capability.

 

I remember when it was discovered that the Clinton administration broke the law. Yes it was criminal, a felony but what was said, "What are we going to do, impeach President Clinton a second time " ?

 

Your right.

They really screwed up the engineering on that design.

That design is over 15 years old.

The new class takes into account huge breakthroughs in super-conduction.

AboveAlpha

 

It takes a whole lot of electrical energy to fire a rail gun. Same with laser weapons.

What is different with the Zumwalt class destroyers from other navy ships in the past eighty years it's all electric, it's driven by two electric motors.

Now electric driven surface warships aren't nothing new. The battleships of the New Mexico class were electric driven and so was the aircraft carrier USS Lexington (CV-2)

Copper isn't light or cheap. The Zumwalt must have a lot of copper.

I hear there were a lot of electrician involved in building the Zumwalt's.
Bath Iron Works who is building the Zumwalt's has blamed the shortage of qualified electricians for the delays and being behind schedule for the next two Zumwalt class DDG's. But I have also heard some blaming the IBEW electricians union.

 

They will be supplied power by 2 of the new A1B Nuclear Reactors as each A1B generates 300 Megawatts thus 2 will generate 600 Megawatts.

That is MORE than enough power.

AboveAlpha

 

Oh....they will not be using Copper in the new design.

It is a Metametal.

Expensive...but capable of superconductivity and capable of carrying 100 times the electrical power of copper lines of equal gauge per cm.

AboveAlpha

 

I'm not just referring to the electrical conductors but the generators and motors that are mostly copper wiring.

 

Metametal.

It will add $1.4 Billion to the price tag.

AboveAlpha

 

You'll have to provide a reliable link. "Metametal" ???

 

Metametals are able to align their Atomic/Molecular Matrix in order to achieve Superconductivity.

The mechanisms for alignment can be anything from an electrical charge to photonic bombardment to EM fields.

It is relatively new tech....20 years old.

Highly expensive.

Top-Secret.

AboveAlpha...p.s...although this is not the same thing it will point you in the right direction. Run a search on Bose-Einstein Condensates.