An isolationist America: Would it be good or bad?

[Deleted]

To end the 50 year tyranny of the guided missile once and for all. If you can replace a CIWS with a laser that can fire fast and engage multiple targets at once, it makes any ship nearly immune from surface based attacks. Jets couldnt get close to launch anti ship weapons, and any kind of anti-ship ballistic missile could be destroyed as well.

In fact it's already happening: http://www.janes.com/article/11811/n...-ponce-in-2014

The end of the Carrier era and the return to the Battleship era?

[Skroe]

The end of the Carrier era and the return to the Battleship era?

Ironically kind of! The things railguns fire aren't solid objects. They're actually projectiles with payloads. They can have precision manuevering capability and be fired over the horizon at a high rate.

But where they are most useful is point defense. That's another way of saying, when another ship or plane fires a guided missile at you, if that missile isn't destroyed before it hits, your ship is a goner. Currently the Navy has two layers. It uses the Destroyers to fire Standard Missiles (thats their name) to intercept jets and guided missiles at a longer range. The US Navy spent 40 years developing Aegis... it is classified unofficially as a Megaproject because they engineered entire classes around the simple idea of protecting the carrier with ships that can sense incoming missiles and jets and fire. The second layer is the Close in Layer... when AEGIS has failed and something got through. That utilizes a minigun and more recently smaller guided missiles, to try to shoot the guided missiles out of the air before they hit.


Rail guns and lasers move at a velocity so fast though (far faster than any guided missile) and at a far greater range, it gives both more time and more reliabily. It's easier to hit a moving target when the projectile you're using has a higher velocity after all. That's the general idea. And with respect to lasers, that velocity is the speed of light in air.

Rail guns offer another major benefit: they have no explosives in them. What happens if you hit a Destroyer where it is carrying all its Standard Missiles? Secondary explosions. The "magazine" blows up. In World War II, many ships weren't lost to direct hits, but due to magazine fires destroying the ship. In modern ships, the Magazine is the most heavily armored part of the ship, but if future ships carry innert ordinance that does damage due to kinect energy or thermal energy, rather than chemical energy , it means the magazine is not longer an explosion hazard, which means ships can be built without that heavy armor, and thus be lighter and faster, and on top of that if they do somehow suffer hits, be far more survivable.

Carriers wont be going anywhere though. If anything we'll produce more, because the Ford Class has an Electromagnetic Catapult. Catapults on all other carriers cannot launch small objects like Drones - they are simply too small. The Ford class, using one that can be calibrated very precisely for the size of its payload, can launch craft of all types. It's very likey that a Ford class in the 2020s will carry 45 manned aircraft and 35 drones, all armed with both conventional and laser defense weaponry or something of that nature.

Battleships though, as we know them, won't come. Rather the role of Lasers and Rail Guns seems to be initially purely defense and eventually attack, but as an alternative to the very capable Standard Missile. The Standard Missile 3, as we saw in 2003, with a mere Software upgrade, turned into an Anti-Satellite weapon. That isn't something a rail gun or laser could do.

All put together what do you see? A Navy which since the invention of the guided missile has obsessed over making its ships not sitting ducks to them, first with Aegis in the 1970s-the present, and now with these true anti-guided missile weapons.

[Deleted]

Ironically kind of!

Wow! that was a very informative post. It's a very interesting picture of how modern navies are developing. If the carriers get the capability to self-defend with great accuracy, yes, they won't be sitting ducks in need of escort anymore. The only thing that could limit that is the cost.
Thanks!

[Skroe]

Wow! that was a very informative post. It's a very interesting picture of how modern navies are developing. If the carriers get the capability to self-defend with great accuracy, yes, they won't be sitting ducks in need of escort anymore. The only thing that could limit that is the cost.
Thanks!

Well modern Navy.

It's worth noting, the US spent 40 years developing Aegis and shared the technology with its allies bit by bit over the course of it, but Aegis is as "comprehensive" as it gets in NATO and allies navies (like Japan). All ships using it interoperate and share data in a network. But it was pretty much such a huge development program - think of it was what the Navy was doing while the Air Force was developing stealth for it's stealth bombers and fighters - that there are similar but no truly as comprehensive systems.

Something similar is happening with the technologies being developed now. No other countries are developing electromagnetic catapults for example. France and the UK want them for their next class of carrier they are jointly developing, but may just buy the American implimentation of the concept that is designed to launch the F-35s those carriers will be carrying anyway. As far as railgun and laser technology... no one else has been making the investment. People have been talking about lasers and the Navy since the early 1990s. But thats because its always been a long term plan for the far future. Like how we talk about a Martian colony one day, we have the ambition and a picture of it in our head, but the means to turn that into a reality had not arrived yet. In some cases basic science - like the proper materials or computers capable of modeling it correctly, hadn't arrived yet.

Well with rail guns and lasers, the future is arriving, slowly but surely. The last 5 years has seen things move from table top experiments to things that could concievably be put on ships if there wasn't an intent to develop it more before taking that step.

But the point is, like with Aegis, this has been a multi-decade, major investment, an investment no one else is making. The US is likely to be alone in the world for many years in having ships that produce far more energy than they need to operate because no other Navy in the world will have the associate weapons that make that a requirement. Like if the UK, with its navy, hasn't been investing in laser and rail based weaponry, why should it spend the extra expense developing an entirely new power generation system. In fact, it's moving backwards in a sense: the next class for the UK and France will be gas turbine, and not nuclear.

This is a serious strategic advantage. US ships that are immune to guided missiles could be 6 miles off the coast of China and not be as paranoid about whats hiding in costal farm houses. China, not having spent a cent on this technology and with no way to counter it, will not have no way to respond.

[Adam Jensen]

I don't advocate a full pull-out from the rest of the world, but I would like to see the US stop trying to be the world police all the damn time and focus more on its own domestic problems.

[Deleted]

This is a serious strategic advantage. US ships that are immune to guided missiles could be 6 miles off the coast of China and not be as paranoid about whats hiding in costal farm houses. China, not having spent a cent on this technology and with no way to counter it, will not have no way to respond.

I don't know much about the actual developments, but i've read that China is spending mostly on the unmanned and semi-autonomous drones, precisely with the goal of countering naval superiority, using attack on swarms.

I hope such thing never happens, but from a merely technological point of view, sounds like an impressive confrontation.

[Wildtree]

Israel is more than capable of defending itself and handling the region

Only because of the mighty Military machinery that backs them up for decades. US and Europe pumped everything into Israel to make it a stronghold in the middle east, and not because they are good friends, but because of self interest.

Leave the French to follow up, Leave them at the back to set up the route they instinctively set up for retreat. Leave the the UK and the germans to go forward and make use of the french infrastructure to move supplies forward.

Leave the Germans out entirely.
Germany may supply material and money. They will not join an offensive aggressive war. That is point of fact against the German constitution.
If the EU could ever bypass Germany's dominating role within the EU's structure to kick off any invasive war, they would have to do so without the German forces. And thinking forward, I'm pretty sure also without the high tech tools from German companies unless the government allows the trade.

[The One Percent]

ALL KINDS OF INFORMATION DIRECTLY TO YOUR BRAIN

That was the first really informative and well thought out thing I've read on MMOC in weeks, if not months.

[Sunseeker]

Battleships though, as we know them, won't come. Rather the role of Lasers and Rail Guns seems to be initially purely defense and eventually attack, but as an alternative to the very capable Standard Missile. The Standard Missile 3, as we saw in 2003, with a mere Software upgrade, turned into an Anti-Satellite weapon. That isn't something a rail gun or laser could do.

Well it is something a powerful enough laser could do. But not something that is rationally mount-able on a battleship(maybe if it's the ONLY gun on the ship), but by the time we get something that can do that, we'd likely already have much more useful short-range lasers, better rail guns and particle cannons(which are similar to both of the before but not to be confused).

Missiles will stick around for a long time, though as you indicate, their roles will become increasingly long-distance.

[nyc81991]

That is not the definition of isolationist. What you described would be called minding our own business. Don't listen to everything the mainstream media says.

An isolationist America would not be involved in anything international. That would include things like trade.

[Deleted]

That is not the definition of isolationist. What you described would be called minding our own business. Don't listen to everything the mainstream media says.

An isolationist America would not be involved in anything international. That would include things like trade.

I think you are mistaken. What you are talking about is "autarkic". An isolationist nation still trades with the outer world but their foreign policy is total neutrality and disengagement.
The US during the early XX c. was fairly isolationistic, but their trade with the rest of the world was as important as always, and they were a large receptor of immigration. What stirred the US outside that isolationism was the return to the idea of defending their commercial interests by means of a foreign policy (Japanese expansionism was a very real threat, not only to the American holdings in the Phillipines, but mostly, to the trade with China).

[obdigore]

I think you are mistaken. What you are talking about is "autarkic". An isolationist nation still trades with the outer world but their foreign policy is total neutrality and disengagement.
The US during the early XX c. was fairly isolationistic, but their trade with the rest of the world was as important as always, and they were a large receptor of immigration. What stirred the US outside that isolationism was the return to the idea of defending their commercial interests by means of a foreign policy (Japanese expansionism was a very real threat, not only to the American holdings in the Phillipines, but mostly, to the trade with China).

No, Isolationism is refusing to have anything to do with any other countries, including trade.

Autarkic is about being self sufficient, either militarily or economically or both. It doesn't actually mean you don't do things like trade, just that you don't have to.

Before WW2, the US was non-interventionist, which mean you don't deal with the internal/military affairs of other nations, but you can and do trade with them.

[Deleted]

No, Isolationism is refusing to have anything to do with any other countries, including trade.

I understand that isolationism including no-trade with foreign nations is more in the line of the older mercantilism or state capitalism, where the state itself would stablish commercial relations with other states. If the state puts barriers to trade with foreign nations for private entities within the nation, it would be called protectionist, in addition to isolationist...

...i can be mistaken, though, historical economy is not my field of expertise. So, does isolationism also include protectionism?

[obdigore]

I understand that isolationism including no-trade with foreign nations is more in the line of the older mercantilism or state capitalism, where the state itself would stablish commercial relations with other states. If the state puts barriers to trade with foreign nations for private entities within the nation, it would be called protectionist, in addition to isolationist...

...i can be mistaken, though, historical economy is not my field of expertise. So, does isolationism also include protectionism?

Protectionism is generally economic only, and kind of. Isolationism generally has no need for protectionism since you aren't trading with other countries.

That said Isolationism is a much more old fashioned idea that really doesn't work with current tech.

[Deleted]

America actually keeps Israel on a leash.

If America went isolationist, Israel would realize that financial support was about to dry up. So they'd be forced to use their military to "fix" the Palestinian problem once and for all. They'd probably go on the offense and drive the Palestinians out completely and take ALL of their land. And if any country around them tried to stop them, they'd get it, too.

Israel would probably have to turn Iran into a smoking crater in the ground.

The only time Israel really wanted negotiate as equal partners was after the war of 1973, Israel did won in the end but it was not a crunching victory, If US do not support Israel, Israel will not go to the negation table with a total arrogance, we have total military superior we will determine everything style, but yes we won but we can not count on it next time, so let's try to negotiate a good solution

Why would a semi working democratic Iran pose a greater threat then the real world semi working democratic Turkey? Remember US did do a coup to overcome the Iran democracy to install there own pet dictator.

[Nathreim]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Support_debate

Seems the Navy wants its battleships back.

[Mavett]

Only because of the mighty Military machinery that backs them up for decades. US and Europe pumped everything into Israel to make it a stronghold in the middle east, and not because they are good friends, but because of self interest.

Leave the Germans out entirely.
Germany may supply material and money. They will not join an offensive aggressive war. That is point of fact against the German constitution.
If the EU could ever bypass Germany's dominating role within the EU's structure to kick off any invasive war, they would have to do so without the German forces. And thinking forward, I'm pretty sure also without the high tech tools from German companies unless the government allows the trade.

And the neighbouring countries were pumped with the best soviet weapons of the time, some of them far exceeding in numbers and in quality compared to some western weapons in Israeli posession, and somehow they still lost with odds greatly in their favour. having good commanders and well trained troops was the decisive factor in Israeli wars, and not the way you try to portray it as if it's successes on the field rely solely on the western military hardware.

---------- Post added 2013-06-25 at 10:43 AM ----------

The only time Israel really wanted negotiate as equal partners was after the war of 1973, Israel did won in the end but it was not a crunching victory, If US do not support Israel, Israel will not go to the negation table with a total arrogance, we have total military superior we will determine everything style, but yes we won but we can not count on it next time, so let's try to negotiate a good solution

Why would a semi working democratic Iran pose a greater threat then the real world semi working democratic Turkey? Remember US did do a coup to overcome the Iran democracy to install there own pet dictator.

Has nothing to do with heading to the negotiating table with arrogance, but simply realizing in what neighbourhood they live, concessions in the Middle East are seen as weakness and the bloodthirsty crowd that sorrounds Israel would not hesitate for a second to go for it's throat again and again.

[nyc81991]

I think you are mistaken. What you are talking about is "autarkic". An isolationist nation still trades with the outer world but their foreign policy is total neutrality and disengagement.
The US during the early XX c. was fairly isolationistic, but their trade with the rest of the world was as important as always, and they were a large receptor of immigration. What stirred the US outside that isolationism was the return to the idea of defending their commercial interests by means of a foreign policy (Japanese expansionism was a very real threat, not only to the American holdings in the Phillipines, but mostly, to the trade with China).

Here is the literal definition of isolationist - "A national policy of abstaining from political and economic relations with other countries"

There is a huge problem with people taking what the mainstream media says as fact without doing any further research into things.

Like I said, What you and the OP are talking about is called "Minding our own business". Nothing more.