Carbon fiber clouds hiding naval destroyers from anti-ship missiles

[gambit]

So..... when do the dreadnought returns

When the US Navy says so. Am being serious. I do see a time when the battleship will make its return to the seas.

 

[SvenSvensonov]

When the US Navy says so. Am being serious. I do see a time when the battleship will make its return to the seas.

Battleships or gun cruisers? Both armed with railguns can be very effective, though battleships would be more heavily armed, and nuclear power is an obvious requirement for such a system due to its power requirements. While I don't see much need now for a return of the Iowa's, building a new class of either type of ship could be a cost-effective augment or replacement to the expensive missile cruisers currently in service. Unfortunately destroyers seem to be the surface combatant the Navy is looking at as its future.

 

[Nefer]

Battleships or gun cruisers? Both armed with railguns can be very effective, though battleships would be more heavily armed, and nuclear power is an obvious requirement for such a system due to its power requirements. While I don't see much need now for a return of the Iowa's, building a new class of either type of ship could be a cost-effective augment or replacement to the expensive missile cruisers currently in service. Unfortunately destroyers seem to be the surface combatant the Navy is looking at as its future.

That also,..... great.... in the future we will have cases with damned if you sink it and damned if you don't

Please Lockhead, let your fusion energy be radioactive free

 

[SvenSvensonov]

That also,..... great.... in the future we will have cases with damned if you sink it and damned if you don't

Nuclear armed cruisers aren't the future, they were the past. The US Navy retired its nuclear cruisers due to their cost and the cost of replacing or servicing their nuclear reactors.

The Long Beach Class, Califonia Class, and Virginia Class of the USN were all nuclear powered.

 

[The SC]

This technology would be best for fighter aircraft that has exposed engines, like the Chinese 5th generation fighter J-20, and many 4th generation fighters.

 

[SvenSvensonov]

This technology would be best for fighter aircraft that has exposed engines, like the Chinese 5th generation fighter J-20, and many 4th generation fighters.

Or you end up with a giant flame-thrower screaming out your tail pipe. Without knowing the chemical composition it would be hard to make a determination. Also a big smoke cloud billowing from an aircraft with both be too ineffective as a fast moving aircraft would leave the cloud too quickly and the cloud could indicate to an unaware enemy that a plane is in the area. If you can make the cloud linger it could even disrupt friendly radars or observabilitity.

 

[The SC]

Or you end up with a giant flame-thrower screaming out your tail pipe. Without knowing the chemical composition it would be hard to make a determination. Also a big smoke cloud billowing from an aircraft with both be too ineffective as a fast moving aircraft would leave the cloud too quickly and the cloud could indicate to an unaware enemy that a plane is in the area. If you can make the cloud linger it could even disrupt friendly radars or observabilitity.

To be used just like other decoys, for very short times covering its path from radars.
What friendly radars? This is when it has hit its targets and heading back home. This will be mostly potent fro the J-20, since it is has a very low RCS from the front.
I hope your not saying this out of patriotism or jealousy, because if they need it, they will get it or something similar, since it is public news and the technology is readily available to anyone familiar with carbon fiber and nano-technologies, throughout papers and research.

 

[SvenSvensonov]

To be used just like other decoys, for very short times covering its path from radars.
What friendly radars? This is when it has hit its targets and heading back home. This will be mostly potent fro the J-20, since it is has a very low RCS from the front.
I hope your not saying this out of patriotism or jealousy, because if they need it, they will get it or something similar, since it is public news and the technology is readily available to anyone familiar with carbon fiber and nano-technologies, throughout papers and research.

My question is how could it be an effective decoy? An aircraft moving at 500 nm is going to be far away from the could very quickly and thus observable again to radar from enemy systems. Also the question of whether a cloud that lingers could be propagated and maintained in a form that would be continuous enough to act as a decoy must be answered. Dumping chemicals into the atmosphere doesn't always form a lingering cloud. Could formation is dependent on other factors and smoke plumes, if a cloud is not the intended shape, dissipate quickly due to their lack of continuity. Its an interesting idea, but not a practical one.

 

[The SC]

My question is how could it be an effective decoy? An aircraft moving at 500 nm is going to be far away from the could very quickly and thus observable again to radar from enemy systems. Also the question of whether a cloud that lingers could be propagated and maintained in a form that would be continuous enough to act as a decoy must be answered. Dumping chemicals into the atmosphere doesn't always form a lingering cloud. Could formation is dependent on other factors and smoke plumes, if a cloud is not the intended shape, dissipate quickly due to their lack of continuity. Its an interesting idea, but not a practical one.

I and you have seen sustained smoke coming out of an airplane, be it in airshows or else. Would that answer your question?

 

[Oldman1]

torpedoes....still the best way to sink a ship .

Indeed, but what if the U.S. Navy has something to counter it?

 

[SvenSvensonov]

I and you have seen sustained smoke coming out of an airplane, be it in airshows or else. Would that answer your question?

No, it wouldn't. High speed, maneuvering aircraft are going to scatter smoke being laid from them. Take a look at contrails from airliners. Sometimes they linger if the conditions are right, sometimes they aren't even able to form in the first place. If the conditions are right it could work, but when are the conditions always right? Its just extra equipment that is going to be a weight burden on an aircraft that doesn't need it.

 

[The SC]

No, it wouldn't. High speed, maneuvering aircraft are going to scatter smoke being laid from them. Take a look at contrails from airliners. Sometimes they linger if the conditions are right, sometimes they aren't even able to form in the first place. If the conditions are right it could work, but when are the conditions always right? Its just extra equipment that is going to be a weight burden on an aircraft that doesn't need it.

It was just a thought, I am pretty sure their is an engineering solution to it.
It did not seem a very potent solution for the navy either, since it only covers the back, in a frontal or side attack, it will have no significance.

 

[Kloitra]

To be used just like other decoys, for very short times covering its path from radars.
What friendly radars? This is when it has hit its targets and heading back home. This will be mostly potent fro the J-20, since it is has a very low RCS from the front.

Are the cloud generator small and light enough to be fit on plane? Their power consumption? The material required to fuel the cloud generator light, compact enough? Would it be able to produce sufficient quantity of smoke despite the cloud being dissipated at 800 km/hour? Would it not create a bigger thermal/visual signal?

 

[The SC]

It won't be that difficult, since gas smoke dispensers are wildly used in anti-riots, that is for the size.
The gaseous carbon fiber can be made heavier if need be to dissipate slowly giving a chance to the aircraft to fly back safely, while the radar seeking missiles will be disoriented by the smoke. This is good for radar seeking missiles, but there are other kinds of missiles, and other kinds of decoys to fool them. Still, this just gives more chance to the aircraft to escape a missile, just like the flares. In reality it depends on how many missiles are launched at the aircraft and their different seeking head technologies.

 

[C130]

When the US Navy says so. Am being serious. I do see a time when the battleship will make its return to the seas.

I can see a nuclear powered battleship with huge rail guns and point defense lasers.