Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="aramis erak" data-source="post: 8552673" data-attributes="member: 6779310">Oh, those. They're not terribly effective except for deafening. EMP weapons are more likely to be used.Cannon are the best naval  offensive weapon for sustained combat; mass drivers are not yet reliable enough to replace them, but will likely do so eventually. Lasers, due to LoS and atmospheric diffraction, have little place as offensive naval weapons. They have a lot of place as point defense, but they're still not efficient enough to match the Phalanx CIWS in the short run. Superconductor-based capacitors may be able to change that... And for CIWS, short run is the important one. Note: The average naval battle starts beyond the horizon since the advent of the naval spotter with a radio... those early CA, BC, and BB carried seaplanes served as forward observers for the indirect fire of cannon. The last 40 years, missiles have had a lot of play, but cannon are harder to intercept and less likely to be a total miss if hit by CIWS. Current trends in naval warfare have resulted in BC and BB falling out of service; their flagship role has, in the US, UK, USSR, and Commonwealth, been replaced by cruiser-sized and BB-sized carriers; ship-launched missiles are falling out of favor due to the much wider use of CIWS, including by the PRC and USSR.  The USN is moving to drones rapidly; any floating arcology is going to use drones and aircraft to keep threats far from the arcology. Once a potential aggressor is within cannon range, it's already too late. A  DD with dual 5" QF can drop a pair of 30kg shells every 3 seconds, burning a a thousand plus CIWS shots or more. A line of 5 such DD? the CIWS will wind up either overwhelmed in part or burning ammo prodigiously; 10 shells per 3 seconds.... the rain of shrapnel is going to start infalling. And a functional self-supporting arcology is going to need a lot of surface area with minimal protections, so as to manufacture foodstuffs.A converted cruise ship can't handle cannon, can't handle CIWS mounts other than laser type (the decks aren't resilient enough, as they're designed only for passengers), can't handle the battery/capacitor weight near the L-CIWS, can't handle the needed armor for shrapnel proofing (the issue isn't enough flotation for the batteries and armor, but where the center of mass will be; it will be moved above waterline, and so severely increase capsizing risk. If the battery banks are below waterline, that makes them much less durable.)It's easier to convert military shipping to a town, than a cruise ship to combat useful...</blockquote>

Verification