So now that are Aircraft carriers are obsolete

a reply to: PatriotGames4u

The problem with RODS or orbs is their air drag. It deforms the weapon and reduces it to less than half effective,regardless of the craft it is launched from.

This crap again?

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: PatriotGames4u

The problem with RODS or orbs is their air drag. It deforms the weapon and reduces it to less than half effective,regardless of the craft it is launched from.

True, but less so for rods.

Spheres are designed to take advantage of this though, building up massive heat on the way down for a gigantic steam explosion or timed airburst.

Temps that are difficult to even describe.

Not much of a problem for rods at these speeds, the friction induced slowing on the way down is accounted for, and perfectly acceptable.

A single one would instantly turn 3GD concrete into powder.

Or a downtown urban area into a valley.

These are not just 'dropped' as many inaccurately describe, they are 'launched' from an 'aircraft' traveling at speeds that few could even comprehend, and that aircraft brings the projectiles past a good portion of the atmospheric issues before 'launching'.

It isn't an issue anymore.

originally posted by: schuyler
Carriers are not at all obsolete. They remain capable of putting 10 acres of sovereign American (or British or French or Indian or Chinese) territory...

I noticed that Russia wasn't on your list. Are you leaving the Sovietski Smoksi off because it's in drydock for repairs (again) or because it is actually obsolete?

a reply to: PhantomAntics


The existing platform I described is NOT space based, though extremely close.

It's still technically a stubby winged highly maneuverable atmospheric aircraft. Barely.

With speeds to EASILY outrun the fastest missiles any other country is even attempting to develop.

Or even intercept & destroy the fastest 'hypersonic' missiles that anybody has ever tested.

Even from half a planet away in some cases.

Speed is classified, but nobody here (except maybe Zaphod) would ever believe, or even be able to comprehend just how fast these things are.

Airburst nukes over one's own territory, or lasers far, far, far more powerful than humans are currently able to produce are the only potential defense, besides developing a faster platform of course.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


It was obsolete before they built the dry dock where it was constructed.

And never mission worthy.

It IS the closest anyone has ever come to matching ours, which is not even remotely 'close'.

ccp 'might' surpass the russian beast in a few years though.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

How about "because it makes tugboats high value targets"?

a reply to: PatriotGames4u

still nothing compared to our BT's.

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u



We publicly acknowledged having built 5 of these 'planes' before they stopped giving updates when the program went dark, and there are almost always at least 2 in the air 24x7.

Wow. Can you point to any public info on this program?

What keeps these craft up 24x7? What's the fuel?

a reply to: mbkennel

They fly on bullshyte

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u



We publicly acknowledged having built 5 of these 'planes' before they stopped giving updates when the program went dark, and there are almost always at least 2 in the air 24x7.

Wow. Can you point to any public info on this program?

What keeps these craft up 24x7? What's the fuel?

Not anymore, the program went dark during Obama, but the aircraft was discussed here extensively before that.

Including it's EXTREMELY long flight duration capability and incredibly high speeds @ ~10x 'hypersonic', but that was just the experimental test vehicles, it has been briefly 'tracked' by amateur space watchers at much greater speeds since then.

Sat images of rapid expansion activity where they are based were also posted here, AFTER going dark.

Several here have guessed about how it's powered over the years, but I honestly don't know the answer. I do know it rides a disposable rocket built by another of my employer's divisions to altitude and initial speed, or sometimes gets a Delta ride, but that rocket is quickly discarded once reaching it's desired altitude, so this is NOT rocket powered.

I also know they typically carry solar panels that can be deployed to recharge batteries for controls, but doubt that has anything to with propulsion.

My best guess is that it doesn't require much in the way of engines or fuel since it's damn near orbital altitude at EXTREME speed soon after the initial rocket ride.

I've always wanted to discuss physics of such speed and altitude with Phage, but haven't had the opportunity yet. I strongly suspect he could figure out how they do it.

The only ways I know of for landing it are the single longest runway in the world, or kamikaze.


There has NEVER been any public disclosure of the aircraft's weapon system that I'm aware of, but any engineering, physics, or military aircraft knowledgable person can confirm everything I posted about it based on aircraft speed, projectile mass/shape, and composition of the projectiles carried by those aircraft.

Hope some of that helps.

I honestly don't know much of what you asked, and only left out names & locations, plus actual speed & duration from what I do know.

a reply to: PatriotGames4u

Here's a picture of the aircraft.

Sounds like it could be the f-37 program that went vanta black in the early 2000s. There were a small fleet of modified tankers carrying BS7 fuel. Which was a clue something rather exotic was flying around. The aircraft was rumored to use FO/S-58 scramjet turbines. It was the predecessor to what became the TR2A.

a reply to: Ravenwatcher

Aircraft carriers will never be obsolete as long as they are or remain a primary tool for projecting power.

In modern and post-modern times, CVs have always been a projection of national power or a nation's power. And the projection of power is a principle foundation (one of a few others) of/in international security studies and warfare. Eventually, and possibly to your argument, CVs, as with BBs, Dreadnaughts, etc. of the past, will be replaced with something else. But even so, that something else will become a mechanism of projecting power or a nation's power.

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u
a reply to: Ravenwatcher


That both ccp and russian silo doors take more time to open than for a rod descent?

That destroying them after that point results in a Tunguska type air burst 'explosion' on the ground?

Or that a ground strike from one of these has roughly the same localized impact as the Tunguska air burst, with zero radiation issues? (7-10 megaton, depending on conditions)

What's the physics of this? KE dropped 'rods' don't do anything remotely like this.

Or that air burst versions are available to destroy all troops, civilians and vehicles in a 100 square mile area without destroying the most critical ground based infrastructure?

Or that the spheres are capable of creating a supervolcano sized steam explosion and tsunami in any large body of water?

Or that a single rod can be used to instantly pulverize 3GD if desired?

Or that these fully loaded 'planes' can be drop launched from inside a certain carrier capable (barely) aircraft with near zero warning?

(Drop launch hasn't been tested yet as far as I know, but isn't all that challenging from an engineering perspective)

And that these 'planes' are so affordable (for us anyway) that we could choose to just kamikaze fleets of them into additional targets after dropping rod instead of returning to CONUS for reload?

We publicly acknowledged having built 5 of these 'planes' before they stopped giving updates when the program went dark, and there are almost always at least 2 in the air 24x7.

Can you point to the public acknowledgement and explanation what these are technically? It seems fanciful to me.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
a reply to: Ravenwatcher

You want some orbital platform available to attack a spot on the surface only a couple of specific times per day?

The advantage of the aircraft carrier is it local to the area being attacked and available all the time. Most of the time, just the threat of it being there has an affect on enemy forces. There will be no constant threat from an orbital platform.

Now, if you can get a carrier to fly or float in air without being in orbit, that would work. It must be able to stay in attacking range for a single area on the surface all day every day for at lease several months to be effective.

If you were to park such a space platform in geostationary orbit you would have similar locality benefit of a carrier anchored offshore, and in fact you could make it easier to project force even in land locked areas, though geostat is in a higher orbital plane so for anything traveling to the surface, it'll increase travel time and probably require some propulsion. Anyway, the energy requirements to move something of that mass to a new orbit and then maintain it would not be trivial.

If you can manage to make the energy requirements for orbital maneuvers a non-factor, you would have some neat capabilities from something like this, but it seems too "Pie in the Sky" for present times. The carrier group concept is established, battle tested and infinitely cheaper == not going anywhere soon.

originally posted by: Mantiss2021
a reply to: Ravenwatcher

Those so-called "Rods from God" are not the next-Gen super weapons you might think they are.

In reality, they would suffer from the same vulnerabilities and limitations that currennent ICBM-based warheads suffer: their path-to-target trajectories are predictable (since they lack any true maneuverability once launched) and thus interdictable by defensive countermeasures.

And, as such countermeasures become more effective, the "Rods" loose more of their advantage as a weapon.

As to "aircraft carriers in space"...Maybe lay off the Sci-Fi for a while and focus on the hard realities of spaceflight for a bit?

First off, there's the cost and complexity of getting something that could conceivablely considered an "aircraft carrier" into orbit. Then there is the on-going cost and difficulty of maintaining it, and all the "aircraft" it carries, while in orbit. And, of course, maintenance, and support (ie. resupply), would be made only more complex, and critical, by the fact an object in orbit must expend resources (ie, fuel) to change orbit and/or maneuver in orbit.

Finally, there is the problem that all objects in orbit share, from the standpoint of being defensible in a hostile situation: orbits are predictable, and thus easy to target.

a dropping rod form orbit is not interdict able...

a bunch of anti missile lasers systems and drone sacrificial interdiction will suffice.

a reply to: MConnalley

It's also not going to be overly accurate, or wipe out large areas as so many seem to think they will.

It doesn't matter what you shoot, targeting is and always will be the main issue. You have to get something in range to report the carrier's location and keep reporting it until your weapon gets there. I spent about five years on and around carriers. In my opinion the most vulnerable time for a carrier is when they are in port. When somebody with a range finder and a cell phone is there to report it's location. When it's crew is on liberty and we are not expecting an attack. Then a carrier is vulnerable. On the open ocean, underway, knowing that there is a possible threat, a carrier is a harder target than you think.