The Ship Model Forum

Also, CVs are no more vulnerable today than they were at the height of the Cold War. A coast defense navy with submarines and patrol boats is probably the least vulnerable. Blue water navies have to stick their necks out.

In 2010, I got to meet Dr. Ron Arkin, or Georgia Tech, who literally wrote the book for the US Military on Armed, Autonomous Warfare:

http://robotics.gatech.edu/team/faculty/arkin

http://www.amazon.com/Governing-Lethal- ... nald+arkin

By what I know of AI systems, we will be able, by 2020, to have Combat AIs that are better than people at operating according to our rules of war, and in determining whether an attack is feasible or not (and how to avoid, or minimize, civilian casualties).

Robots/AIs are also not subject to fatigue, anger, hatred, etc. They are less likely to make mistakes based upon these.

In terms of Aircraft, they can also operate in far smaller aircraft, with far higher maneuverability than can a human (able to perform maneuvers that would literally kill a human being).

The ships needed for such weapons are also very different from out current Supercarriers.

Where our current Ford-class (and older Nimitz-class) ships carry about 75 - 90 Aircraft, a CVN carrying drones would be carrying somewhere between 200 and 500 of them, with roughly ⅓ to ½ being expendable (if all are expendable, then a single carrier could carry nearly 800 such aircraft).

Remember, not only are you eliminating the pilot (and the life support system for him, and the cockpit, but also the fuel needed to carry all of those things), but the carrier loses the need to carry quarters, food, and supporting logistical infrastructure for the flight crew, which reduces the crew needed to support maintenance of the aircraft as well.

Combat Air Vehicles also do not need a Carrier to be launched from. They could be carried in racks on other ships, and only fly to a "Recovery Vehicle" (another support vessel) where they landed, and were processed for re-packinging in launch systems.

Given the trend toward automation, we will likely see the crew required for large warships shrink as well, meaning that a Super-Carrier isn't going to need as many crew, thus either reducing its size, or increasing its armaments and capabilities.

Other drone ships could be used to operate in support of the carrier, which could be much cheaper than manned ships, and possibly expendable in situations where protecting the carrier allowed for the sacrifice of the drone-ship to retaliate against a target.

There are a LOT of asymmetries involved that we are just now beginning to consider.

AI is a game changer that humans have a hard time coping with, because it so radically alters an environment that it makes predicting future changes difficult.

MB

_________________
OMG LOOK! A signature

Working on:


1/700 (All Fall 1942):
HIJMS Nagara
HIJMS Aoba & Kinugasa
USS San Francisco
USS Helena
USS St. Louis
USS Laffey & Farenholt
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 4 - 7
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 13 - 16

I hate to think how many people will die needlessly in AI wars!
The point about people is that while they are fallible, they are also responsible. If the computer decides to wipe out a city (extreme example I know) then who do you blame? And as a computer, it only does what it is programmed to do so any software errors and it's WWIII.

The problem with computers is that they are programmed by people, so you have fallible inputting into unthinking and away you go!

If Microsoft can't (or can't be bothered) get Windows 10 to work with Games for Windows Live then I think I would rather not have them (or some other IT company) tinkering with weapons of mass destruction.

_________________
In 1757 Admiral John Byng was shot "pour encourager les autres". Voltaire

If you read Dr. Arkin's book, you would understand that a computer is FAR LESS LIKELY to "wipe out a city" than is an errant human.

The AIs that the Military uses for weapon platforms have a clear logic-trail, which traces responsibility to a specific line of code, which can then be traced to a specific person.

And, the Problem with People is that they are Fallible.

Computers are fallible only in so far as their programming. Which means their fallibility is PREDICTABLE. Humans.... Not so.

With humans, we might see the exact same failures MANY times, even after trying to put solutions in place to prevent them.

A Robot is only going to make a mistake once before that mistake is traced to the relevant code and corrected. And most of these will show up during Testing. And none of those mistakes are going to be due to anger, fear, revenge, fatigue, hunger, thirst, etc.

I would suggest reading Dr. Arkin's book on the subject, which is a reflection of the actual policies that the US Military (And NATO) have adopted for Armed, Autonomous Robots.

It addresses many of the concerns people have, which are largely a product of Hollywood, and of Cultural Tropes that cause these beliefs to persist.

MB

_________________
OMG LOOK! A signature

Working on:


1/700 (All Fall 1942):
HIJMS Nagara
HIJMS Aoba & Kinugasa
USS San Francisco
USS Helena
USS St. Louis
USS Laffey & Farenholt
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 4 - 7
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 13 - 16

The same can be said of people.

But the people are likely to keep making the same mistakes over, and over, and over again.

Yet, as I said, the computer will only make the same mistake ONCE.

Again, if you read his book, he addresses these issues.

Humans are simply not reliable when compared to a Machine for the rules-of-war that we now use.

And the major opposition to their use is primarily in the form of what is known as the "Frankenstein Complex" (where the machine will run out of human control, and rampage across the countryside"), or the "Terminator Complex" (The machine will develop some pathology that causes it to begin killing humans at every opportunity).

These are simply due to the same fears that people had of airplanes, or automobiles when they were first introduced. They are irrational fears that are technically just as, or more, relevant to humans, over which we have vastly less control that we do over a machine (which is actually total control over the latter).

The remaining prejudice is that of "blame."

People want to be able to point to a specific person to assign "Blame" for mistakes. And we want to think that the agency responsible for "killing" others "feels" something over that (for which there is some concern as far as wanting to avoid conflict, but is a futile worry when that concern usually leads to dangerous pathologies on a battlefield in humans). For a machine, all you want it to consider is "Does this situation meet the rules I have for taking a life?" (which is exactly what a human does, only vastly more fallible than would a robot).

We are discovering this same problem in States in the USA, or European Countries, over the issue of Self-Driving Cars (whose fault is it when the cars gets in an accident, or hurts someone). Elon Musk short-circuited much of this debate by simply saying "It is out fault. It is the manufacturers' fault if a self-driving car injuries someone, or gets in a wreck."

Ron Arkin addresses these issues, as well as the philosophical issues.

And the thinking within the Military is that leaving human beings in charge of many decisions involved in "When to pull the trigger" is dangerous. The human being is too prone to externalities that negative effect its decision making.

MB

_________________
OMG LOOK! A signature

Working on:


1/700 (All Fall 1942):
HIJMS Nagara
HIJMS Aoba & Kinugasa
USS San Francisco
USS Helena
USS St. Louis
USS Laffey & Farenholt
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 4 - 7
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 13 - 16

Carriers are the Political arm of America's Military. Of course they are obsolete in a modern War situation. They have been for a few decades now.But they serve well in little wars and world policing while supporting her allies. They also support America's foreign policy be it military or humane. The submarine is the major offensive weapon in their arsenal. The submarine program continues to grow and improve getting a huge part of the budget and proactive planning. Especially in the realm of intel gathering. This as well as the U.S. nuclear deterrent. This factor alone is probably why there has been no global War between superpowers since WW2. Besides Carriers look Kool.

If aircraft carriers are obsolete then that must mean aircraft are obsolete too so that will save everybody a lot of money when we dismantle all the airforces. I suspect that Russia and China won't be doing so anytime soon!

_________________
In 1757 Admiral John Byng was shot "pour encourager les autres". Voltaire

Oh yes...carries are so obsolete...that's why the new Asiatic naval race is over carriers...

That might or might not have anything to do with their being obsolete.

Remember that in the 1920s and 1930s the Major Powers still sought to build greater and more Powerful Battleships, neglecting Carriers and Escort Craft.

Yet it would turn out that the Battleships themselves would be Obsolete for the role in which they were envisioned: A Decisive Battle against other Battleships.

It could be that the Asian Powers are just emulating what the current Major World Naval Power (The USA) has as its centerpiece weapon in its Naval Arsenal.

This isn't to say that the Carriers will be useless to these countries.... Only that given any Major War, the Carriers would soon find themselves at the mercy of Submarines, Submarine launch Missiles and Drones, and Surface Launched Drones.

MB

_________________
OMG LOOK! A signature

Working on:


1/700 (All Fall 1942):
HIJMS Nagara
HIJMS Aoba & Kinugasa
USS San Francisco
USS Helena
USS St. Louis
USS Laffey & Farenholt
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 4 - 7
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 13 - 16

Do not be too proud of this technology.

One can never test for all possible inputs. When the B737 switched to fly by wire, the were several mysterious crashes with the lost of all on board. It was later discovered that at certain airspeed, angle of attack and vertical speed (this is simplified) in combination with particular control and throttle movements, the software put the plane into a vertical dive.

However, in fairness, at Three Mile Island, the computer was right and the human was wrong. But be aware that the human was not one of Rickover's "boys."

Well, if the sea is so dangerous then the US should save some money by scrapping all of its amphibious ships as well! The reality is that war is inherently risky and aircraft carriers would be prime targets in any conflict but that is because they are still the most flexible war fighting platforms ever created.

In fact far from abandoning carriers, I think the US should be trying to provide them with the best aircraft. The F-35 is not one of those. It is an enormous mistake which the US, UK and all of the other countries will have to live with for a long time to come. I think the US needs to commission a programme for a replacement for the S-3 Viking. It amazes me that that capability was allowed to disappear.

As long as the aircraft is useful and as versatile as it is in war then the US will need aircraft carriers.

_________________
In 1757 Admiral John Byng was shot "pour encourager les autres". Voltaire

Below is only my opinion and I am sure there are flaws in my limited knowledge. I am agreeable to disagreement. But I think its hard to dispute the last paragraph.

Are aircraft carriers obsolete? In my opinion, no. If it were obsolete China's naval shipyards wouldn't be building it in the decades ahead. They know the value and usefulness of aircraft carriers. The US has broad interests to protect worldwide and no surface ship on the planet can offer power projection the way a CVN can. A CVN isn't unsinkable. It is not even lightly armed. However CVNs do not operate alone. It operates as a carrier strike group (CSG) comprising cruisers, destroyers, frigates and submarines. These together with a CVN's embarked air-wing provide anti-submarine, anti-ship and anti-aircraft cover beyond the horizon. The CSG is also aided by space satellites for reconnaissance, targeting and communications. Modern warfare is highly networked centric - Command, Control, Communications, Cyber, Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance (C5ISR), Link 16, etc.

ECMs and ECCMs also plays a major role which means hypersonic anti-ship missiles targeting a CSG can be denied a shot because its parent ship's radar has been electronically disabled. You can't shoot at what you can't see. A cousin of ECM is malicious malware like 'STUXNET" that crippled Iran's nuclear program. In the not too distant future unmanned drones will be operating off aircraft carriers with autonomous capabilities. The X-47B and later versions is only the beginning. Ditto unmanned ASW drones http://www.navaldrones.com/ACTUV.html and submarines. In combat situations a CSG would operate in open ocean, never inside choke points or in between two land masses for obvious reasons.

Land based aircraft will always be constrained by range. Aircraft carriers has advantages over land airfields. A friendly nation turned foe means you have to pack up and leave including surrendering whatever infrastructure you have built. A USN CVN is 4.5 acres of sovereign US territory that don't need anybody's permission so long as it operates in international waters off any country's coastline. Aircraft carriers also serves as visible component of soft power diplomacy in the form of aiding in Humanitarian Aid and Disaster Relief (HADR) operations. Aircraft carriers are highly mobile and versatile and will be around for the foreseeable future.

_________________
I like sniffing plastic........ and the instruction sheet.

Must be that time of year when the certain defense publications come out with their usual "we don't have enough carriers, panic!" fear mongering articles:

National Interest

_________________
"Haijun" means "navy" in Mandarin Chinese.

"You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something in your life."- Winston Churchill

Of course it is. We're approaching the end of the fiscal year and, as has been the tradition for better part of a decade, there's no budget for FY17. So, scare mongering is all the rage to ensure your project gets funding.

_________________
On the workbench:
Gecko 1/16 Panzer II Ausf. F

Recently completed:
Panda 1/16 Pz.38(t)
Takom 1/16 Panzer I Ausf. B
Trumpeter 1/350 Severomrsk (Udaloy)
Trumpeter 1/350 Project 956E Sovremenny
Hobbyboss 1/350 Voltaire

I do not think the aircraft carrier will ever be obsolete. What do these politicians think that foreign countries will always be happy to allow their airbases to be used which are in bombing and strike range of other countries. At least the aircraft carrier can be deployed and hidden in an ocean and allow a strike against a foreign power before they get a chance to fight back. Even deploying a carrier forces the opponent to deploy their forces in search of the carrier thereby weakening their defensive lines in their pursuit of finding the carrier. Not only that the US being able to deploy carriers into the Pacific would easily be able to counter threats like if China ever decided to send ships towards the USA. There is also the protection of shipping role to factor in in which the navy can protect ships at sea with its carriers.

This article/essay seems very biased, and I disagree with it, but I’m going to throw it out here for discussion as I’m sure there are far more knowledgeable persons here who can analyze and critique it much clearer than I can....

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... r-is-dead/

_________________
Thomas E. Johnson

http://www.youtube.com/user/ThomasEJohnson

It seems to me that all one has to do these days is claim to have developed a super-weapon that can defeat all attempts to stop it and some people run around crying "the end of the world is nigh!".

The aircraft carrier does not go to sea on its own, it dos not fight on its own and it does not represent the only capability to wage war that the US has in its arsenal. It is still the most effective power projection system and the most flexible.

_________________
In 1757 Admiral John Byng was shot "pour encourager les autres". Voltaire

Fortunately naval power was not tested/challenged in the last decades and therefore there can be only guesses what kind of systems will dominate in the future and if certain ship types are still useful or not.

_________________

This "article" is but the latest example of the risk/panic displayed by the press of late. They seem to have the attitude that "we must be able to win a war without losses or casualties or the cost is too high". Unfortunately, that will never be the case. So if zero losses is the standard, pull out your white flags now. Very few in the media have noted that, since 9/11, in the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined, we have had fewer casualties than the US Marines suffered on Iwo Jima alone. It has never occurred to that media that those who have given their all in these wars willingly took that risk to preserve our rights here in the US - including the rights of the media to cry gloom and doom. Freedom does not come for free.

As for the "merits" of the argument in the "article", the author has totally ignored one critical element. The "super weapons" he describes have yet to be tested in combat. He only assumes they are as lethal as the owners have claimed. The battleship was declared dead at the time of the invention of the Whitehead torpedo. While the torpedo eventually did contribute to the demise of the battleship as the prime naval platform, it was many years after the first torpedo before that weapon matured sufficiently to become the threat it was touted to be. It was again declared dead with the invention of the aircraft. Again, the weapon had to mature further before it actually could threaten a battleship. When the carrier was first invented, detractors (many of them from the battleship community) felt that such soft targets would be totally disabled and sunk by the first hit. WW-II showed that even those relatively soft CV's were much tougher than first believed. Far more hits were usually needed to disable the ship and still more to sink it. Most damaged carriers made it back to base for repairs - many after continuing to fight for a time after the damage was inflicted.

But even assuming the new missiles will be able to pinpoint and hit a carrier, there is very little proof that the ship will be disabled, let alone sunk. That is not to say a carrier can't be sunk, just that there is no proof these missiles will always do so. Where the missile hits is important. To sink a ship, you basically either need to start overwhelming fires or put enough holes in the bottom to let out all the air. With a highly compartmented hull, it takes more than a few holes to flood the whole interior. Even still, we have lost carriers before without losing the war. Granted, today's ships are much more of a capital investment, but they are combatants, and are intended to go in harm's way. There is no need to panic if one gets harmed!

The bottom line on this "article" is that the author is taking all of the missile maker's claims at face value and is declaring them as the victor before the first shot is fired. No proof is offered, and in his mind, none is needed. Such a closed mind is totally unworthy of belonging to a free press corp.

The age of the aircraft carrier is far from over. They're one of the most powerful platforms to exist in human history. That said, I've always felt that our strategy was a bit too supercarrier-centric and that a potential foe might some day exploit our single-mindedness and dependency on that one means of projecting force. While I wholeheartedly endorse the maintenance of a strong carrier arm, I wonder if we wouldn't benefit from diversification.

_________________
The most attractive project, to me, is the one that I've just heard someone say can't be done.