On 11/21/23 10:05 PM, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
> <https://archive.is/Hi7H1> wsj.com
>
> New Chinese submarines and sensors to catch U.S. subs will alter the
> balance of power .. The era of unchallenged dominance of the U.S. under
> the seas around China is ending ..
>
> Yet more good news for the world.

The USA has such sensors as well.

No more hiding under the sea.

That IS a big, fuckin' HUGE, paradigm shift ...

IMHO, subs and big carriers are now obsolete.
Lots of smaller, mostly automated/AI, missile
and drone transports are the future of Sea Power.

Tom Cruise made his last "Top Gun" movie JUST in
time. Sorry, humans can't do snappy supersonic
maneuvers at 20+Gs ... but the AI-piloted drones
CAN. China reportedly came out with a hot new-gen
AI chip about two years ago. It's in all their
weapons systems by now.

Over a decade ago I saw stuff on how even deep
subs movement could be detected using holographic
interference techniques. The computing power has
gone up 10+x since then. Subs were great tech since
1916, but that doesn't mean they'd be good forever.

Hmmmmm ... MAYbe the US/EU military should STOP
spending vast quantities of money on promoting
"Woke-ism" and instead spend it on stuff that
actually improves military effectiveness ???
Our ENEMIES have ....

Meanwhile Oleg, inform Vlad and Xi that NOBODY
is buying their BS.

56d.1152, <news:o52cnbAMFtiH5cD4nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@earthlink.com>
> On 11/21/23 10:05 PM, Oleg Smirnov wrote:

>> <https://archive.is/Hi7H1> wsj.com
>>
>> New Chinese submarines and sensors to catch U.S. subs will alter the
>> balance of power .. The era of unchallenged dominance of the U.S. under
>> the seas around China is ending ..
>>
>> Yet more good news for the world.
>
> The USA has such sensors as well.
>
> No more hiding under the sea.
>
> That IS a big, fuckin' HUGE, paradigm shift ...
>
> IMHO, subs and big carriers are now obsolete.
> Lots of smaller, mostly automated/AI, missile
> and drone transports are the future of Sea Power.

If the American military want to operate in remote seas
then they would need something big anyway, - in order to
bring all the small stuff there. And the h-sonic missiles
must be pretty good to sink the American big. The problem
is that the drug-addicted obese Americans used to see
those big ships as a symbol of power and might. So as
soon as a couple of them have been sunk, it will cause a
total panics. The American populace will start themselves
killing and looting each other.

> Tom Cruise made his last "Top Gun" movie JUST in
> time. Sorry, humans can't do snappy supersonic
> maneuvers at 20+Gs ... but the AI-piloted drones
> CAN. China reportedly came out with a hot new-gen
> AI chip about two years ago. It's in all their
> weapons systems by now.
>
> Over a decade ago I saw stuff on how even deep
> subs movement could be detected using holographic
> interference techniques. The computing power has
> gone up 10+x since then. Subs were great tech since
> 1916, but that doesn't mean they'd be good forever.
>
> Hmmmmm ... MAYbe the US/EU military should STOP
> spending vast quantities of money on promoting
> "Woke-ism" and instead spend it on stuff that
> actually improves military effectiveness ???
> Our ENEMIES have ....
>
> Meanwhile Oleg, inform Vlad and Xi that NOBODY
> is buying their BS.

On 11/21/23 11:44 PM, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
> 56d.1152, <news:o52cnbAMFtiH5cD4nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@earthlink.com>
>> On 11/21/23 10:05 PM, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
>
>>> <https://archive.is/Hi7H1> wsj.com
>>>
>>> New Chinese submarines and sensors to catch U.S. subs will alter the
>>> balance of power .. The era of unchallenged dominance of the U.S.
>>> under the seas around China is ending ..
>>>
>>> Yet more good news for the world.
>>
>> The USA has such sensors as well.
>>
>> No more hiding under the sea.
>>
>> That IS a big, fuckin' HUGE, paradigm shift ...
>>
>> IMHO, subs and big carriers are now obsolete.
>> Lots of smaller, mostly automated/AI, missile
>> and drone transports are the future of Sea Power.
>
> If the American military want to operate in remote seas
> then they would need something big anyway,

Nope. But that's the mistake you'd LIKE to promote ..
how much does Vlad pay you ?

The Future of sea-power is large quantities of
relatively cheap, redundant, missile/drone
platforms. Too many, too mobile, to target
easily.

An actual 'carrier' is a HUGE/SLOW target. ONE
good missile hit and it's ALL OVER. The Brits
got the hint during the Falklands campaign.

20 SMALLISH missile/drone platforms though, a
LOT more secure.

56d.1153, <news:pr2cnc9Q7snpBcD4nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@earthlink.com>
> On 11/21/23 11:44 PM, Oleg Smirnov wrote:

>>> IMHO, subs and big carriers are now obsolete.
>>> Lots of smaller, mostly automated/AI, missile
>>> and drone transports are the future of Sea Power.
>>
>> If the American military want to operate in remote seas
>> then they would need something big anyway,
>
>
> Nope. But that's the mistake you'd LIKE to promote ..
> how much does Vlad pay you ?
>
> The Future of sea-power is large quantities of
> relatively cheap, redundant, missile/drone
> platforms. Too many, too mobile, to target
> easily.
>
> An actual 'carrier' is a HUGE/SLOW target. ONE
> good missile hit and it's ALL OVER. The Brits
> got the hint during the Falklands campaign.
>
> 20 SMALLISH missile/drone platforms though, a
> LOT more secure.

Smaller stuff means also a shorter range of operation.

....

Still, I advise you to take antidepressants.

On 11/22/23 1:27 AM, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
> 56d.1153, <news:pr2cnc9Q7snpBcD4nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@earthlink.com>
>> On 11/21/23 11:44 PM, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
>
>>>> IMHO, subs and big carriers are now obsolete.
>>>> Lots of smaller, mostly automated/AI, missile
>>>> and drone transports are the future of Sea Power.
>>>
>>> If the American military want to operate in remote seas
>>> then they would need something big anyway,
>>
>>
>>   Nope. But that's the mistake you'd LIKE to promote ..
>>   how much does Vlad pay you ?
>>
>>   The Future of sea-power is large quantities of
>>   relatively cheap, redundant, missile/drone
>>   platforms. Too many, too mobile, to target
>>   easily.
>>
>>   An actual 'carrier' is a HUGE/SLOW target. ONE
>>   good missile hit and it's ALL OVER. The Brits
>>   got the hint during the Falklands campaign.
>>
>>   20 SMALLISH missile/drone platforms though, a
>>   LOT more secure.
>
> Smaller stuff means also a shorter range of operation.

Not necessarily. Smaller ships use less fuel. If you
don't need living space and such for many/any humans
you can fill that space with fuel and arms. There is
also the option of nuclear power for some assets.

I note Russia isn't really into big carriers. Maybe
their people thought-out this stuff a long time ago ?
Carriers are *impressive* - just as those big old
battleships with giant guns were before them. As
said, they are also BIG SLOW TARGETS with TOO many
assets concentrated in one place.

I'm not sure even super-lasers could defend against
a 'dancing' Mach-9 missile coming in. Israel just
field-tested a laser system to augment Iron Dome
however ... good enough for most Hamas/Hezbollah
missiles and shells ... but that's still basically
slow stupid stuff. Add just a little "dance", "wobble",
to the missile and a laser won't be able to keep one
spot in focus and concentrate enough energy unless
it's just a gigantic unit. Lasers sound good, but
they also have serious limitations as weapons.

In any case, automation/'AI' is a game-changer. There
may not be many "sailors" 20 years from now. The "Top
Gun" will be an AI mostly-autonomous attack craft that
can learn from experience - and have the "experience"
of other such devices uploaded into its brain.

> ...
>
> Still, I advise you to take antidepressants.

Those are bad for you. They should be reserved for
those who are SERIOUSLY fucked up - and then only
with cautions. Of late they're handed out like
candy - mostly because pills are all docs have,
so remember the "If all you have is a hammer ..."
thing.

TV/ads/movies give people the impression
they are supposed to be "happy" all the time - and
the docs are just burnt out on that, hand out "happy
pills" by the megaton just to shut 'em up. Some
anti-Ds are permanently addictive too - once you start
you CAN'T stop. Ones that act on norepinephrine systems
are most infamous for that.

Besides, I'm mostly Danish - we have a genetic quirk
that's sort of like an anti-D built right in. It's
why Denmark usually tops the "Happiest Place" ranks,
not so much because of 'socialism'. The genetically
further away you get, the stats take a less pleasant
turn .

56d.1153, <news:BA-dna6aE5OcU8P4nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
> On 11/22/23 1:27 AM, Oleg Smirnov wrote:

>> Smaller stuff means also a shorter range of operation.
>
>
> Not necessarily. Smaller ships use less fuel. If you
> don't need living space and such for many/any humans
> you can fill that space with fuel and arms.

Small stuff does small effect. It needs to be many.
And moving a small device over long distances reduces
the ratio of its effect to the cost of navigation.

> There is
> also the option of nuclear power for some assets.

In deed <https://tinyurl.com/ytq6h4gv>

> I note Russia isn't really into big carriers. Maybe
> their people thought-out this stuff a long time ago ?
> Carriers are *impressive* - just as those big old
> battleships with giant guns were before them. As
> said, they are also BIG SLOW TARGETS with TOO many
> assets concentrated in one place.

Their people are not that seering really. The two reasons
are there. The 1st is that the Soviets simply did not set
the task of delivering military over long sea distances.
The USSR supported misc "people's movements" in the world,
but the agenda was that the locals must be the true doers
there rather then the Soviet military. They didn't plan
remote wars like the American wars in Vietnam/Iraq/etc.

The 2nd reason is that Russia doesn't have an easy access
to global seas. Baltic, Black seas are multiple-gated by
straits. In far-eastern south, there are Japanese islands
getting in the way. Further to the north there's no way to
build an ice-free year-round port. The only Russia's true
global port is Murmansk, which is expensive due to cold
climate and it's geographically close to the NATO enemies.

In turn, America has a big natural advantage due to easy
access to the global ocean, but this advantage will be
fading away as progress of technical developments makes
all natural barriers more easily permeable and thus less
important from the military perspective, so one day a war
may come to the America own soil, which would be just as
Americans have well deserved it.

> I'm not sure even super-lasers could defend against
> a 'dancing' Mach-9 missile coming in. Israel just
> field-tested a laser system to augment Iron Dome
> however ... good enough for most Hamas/Hezbollah
> missiles and shells ... but that's still basically
> slow stupid stuff. Add just a little "dance", "wobble",
> to the missile and a laser won't be able to keep one
> spot in focus and concentrate enough energy unless
> it's just a gigantic unit. Lasers sound good, but
> they also have serious limitations as weapons.
>
> In any case, automation/'AI' is a game-changer. There
> may not be many "sailors" 20 years from now. The "Top
> Gun" will be an AI mostly-autonomous attack craft that
> can learn from experience - and have the "experience"
> of other such devices uploaded into its brain.
>
>
>> ...
>>
>> Still, I advise you to take antidepressants.
>
> Those are bad for you. They should be reserved for
> those who are SERIOUSLY fucked up - and then only
> with cautions. Of late they're handed out like
> candy - mostly because pills are all docs have,
> so remember the "If all you have is a hammer ..."
> thing.
>
> TV/ads/movies give people the impression
> they are supposed to be "happy" all the time - and
> the docs are just burnt out on that, hand out "happy
> pills" by the megaton just to shut 'em up. Some
> anti-Ds are permanently addictive too - once you start
> you CAN'T stop. Ones that act on norepinephrine systems
> are most infamous for that.
>
> Besides, I'm mostly Danish - we have a genetic quirk
> that's sort of like an anti-D built right in. It's
> why Denmark usually tops the "Happiest Place" ranks,
> not so much because of 'socialism'. The genetically
> further away you get, the stats take a less pleasant
> turn .

On 11/23/23 10:21 AM, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
> 56d.1153, <news:BA-dna6aE5OcU8P4nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
>> On 11/22/23 1:27 AM, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
>
>>> Smaller stuff means also a shorter range of operation.
>>
>>
>>   Not necessarily. Smaller ships use less fuel. If you
>>   don't need living space and such for many/any humans
>>   you can fill that space with fuel and arms.
>
> Small stuff does small effect. It needs to be many.
> And moving a small device over long distances reduces the ratio of its
> effect to the cost of navigation.
>
>> There is
>>   also the option of nuclear power for some assets.
>
> In deed <https://tinyurl.com/ytq6h4gv>

I really see the Many/Smaller model to be The Future
of naval - maybe more - mil infrastructure. '

BIG assets are BIG disasters if compromised - and
it's now easier and easier to compromise such.

"Carrier Group" ? Take out the carrier and the rest
are kinda useless. Carriers are BIG/SLOW targets.

Small/redundant/autonomous assets are THE way to go.
Just Too Many to zap in a stroke.

Ships with dozens/hundreds/thousands of humans are
a WASTE OF SPACE and humans are NOT the cutting edge
anymore.

And if small/many means spending a BIT more fuel -
WELL, WORTH IT.

Inform yer buddy Vlad and collect yer monthly
vodka ration.

Yea yea ... we're like to IMAGINE that the "Top
Guns" are gonna be like Tom Cruise. But that's
just not true. It's gonna be "AI"-piloted
platforms ... many times faster, more robust,
entities. Every good one will instantly pass
along its tricks to all others. China is Almost
There now. The USA/EU had better GET there like
REALLY FAST.

Not sure 'decline' nations CAN however ...