Interesting, but I disagree with his idea that missiles would be a viable weapon.Currently, the only way one can sink or damage a warship (theoretically, since we haven't seen any naval battles on the scale of, say Jutland or Leyte Gulf) that is well eqipped (DP cannon, CIWS Vulcans, SAMs, etc) is through saturation attack. That is, trying to launch as much ordinance so that it overwhelms the defences and something gets through. Although that's a pretty rough assesment, its a good rule of thumb.
In the future, the defensive capabilities of warships will only increase, barring any unforseen plateaus. This is especially true as in space, and using directed energy weapons (such as lasers) one doesn't need to practicably worry about gravity, curviture of the earth, etc. Therefore, I think most weapons would have a range to line-of-sight. Without the need for ballistic computers and the like, coupled with better sensors, as well as the very long engagement ranges that would naturally evolve (again, all other things being equal), the range a ship would need to launch ordinance would be so great that the defending ship could pick off the projectiles at its leisure, or they would have to get so close that the launching ship would be well under the guns of the defender. Already the British has a SAM that can engage artillery shells (Sea Skua?); I dont think its outside the realm of possibilities that such improvements would continue. I also strongly dissaggree with his assumption that they wouldn't use nukes; any fleet planner worth his salt will design his fleet to at least cope with this eventuality, since not everyone wants to play by the rules (as we're seeing right now...). Damon. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
