For the non-technical, a TWT is a Traveling Wave Tube. It takes whatever you feed it - in this case the missile radar signal - and amplifies it. It does not matter what you feed it - the missile radar can change frequency pulse to pulse (unlikely) - and the TWT will simply amplify whatever it gets and send it back. Amplifying it means the signal appears very strong, thus simulating a big target (the normal target does NOT amplify your radar pulse). This tends to look like a good signal because it is really at the right bearing and range to begin with, and it is very strong - it must be the "real" carrier - so we hope the enemy missile "thinks." This was a British idea, first used in combat in the Falklands War. One of the chopper pilots who flew with it was a Royal Prince. [He won a medal for a daring rescue on South Georgia in horrible conditions, the other helos having all gone down in previous attempts.] The nightmare is that the missile might not be listening to its radar - and modern missiles are smarter than the old ones used to be.

When it was first admitted that ASCMs could be a threat (only after Elat was sunk in 1967), the CWIS was specified as a "war emergency measure." The tactical laser weapon was supposed to be the "long term solution." It has not been easy to get there. It is still not there. But, yes, in principle, we always wanted it. You don't run out of ammunition for a tactical laser. If you have more than one on each bearing, it would be almost impossible not to have one instantly available if required. But will Congress buy enough? It never did buy enough CWIS - there should be at least 3 and preferably 4 on every small ship - and 8 or even 12 on a large one. Other countries do this, but we do not. THEL will have the same problem. We may know the optimum configuration, but will we use it?

One of the benefits of THEL is immediate results. You aim, you shoot, you score (or miss). Other systems take a minute or two to find out the results. A laser based defense system would be very efficient from a time viewpoint. And with the nature of things, it will bne made smaller and smaller, till it will fit in an aircraft. One thing to add to the TWT info, while normally it just "enhances" the recieved signal, it's very common to modulate the outgoing signal for deception purposes. We were actually doing this in the 70s. You can tell if it's working by the way the missile responds.

"You don't run out of ammunition for a tactical laser." From what I understand, both THEL and ABL are currently chemical lasers. Obviously you can run out of chemical fuel... However, there is much research going on to provide a solid state laser capability. The link below not only discusses THEL but also talks a bit about solid state lasers. The most notable quotes: "(power must) be increased to 100 kilowatts needed to blast enemy rockets from roughly 5 miles away." "A 100-kilowatt laser will require 1 megawatt of input power.". I assume nuclear vessels have this kind of power or could concentrate it in massive capacitor banks between firings. http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/systems/THEL.html

The issue for any AShM is updating on finals (if it gets through the various screens) Sunburn users have got a few obstacles to get through before they lift their chances of hitting any target - let alone the CVN/CV. If China (as an eg) gets the EU embargo lifted, then they'll be able to make some generational changes. As long as Rumsfeld doesn't continue to cut the guts out of force levels and capability, then it will be less of a problem. But, China will be lining up France and Germany to buy more goodies on the open market. They'll play them on a break.

Just a quick note - CVNs have 140K shaft HP which is 480MW (yup thats 480 megawatts) of thermal power. Somebody told me that it's way more than needed, so fire up them lasers and lets cook some missiles.

Something about Rumsfeld - our military is in a tremendous transition phase. There's an interesting thread (at least I think so :) ) on Fighters, Bombers... it's the JSF vs X45. Some of this stuff is amazing. EJ provided this link http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2004/q3/nr_040719a.html UAVs are coming to carriers soon. Because of size etc, it might be possible to put 100-150 attack aircraft on 1 carrier. And they are stealthy. Then we have Aegis class ships getting their own unmanned subs! Fantastic. And weaponwise the SDBs and lasers it's mind boggling. I'm glad Rumsfeld is there right now. It's a big task and he's the right guy to do it. (Even if I disagree with him about tanks)

I don't have difficulties with some of the emerging technologies, but I also think that until those assets become "idiot proof" (secure data links, doctrine issues etc) then caution needs to happen with the knife on the big ticket items: ie: future CVN's, more Seawolf/Virginias, F-22's and Spaced based delivery and management. (an extension of ForceNET)

Electric armour (deployed as netting around the ship). Juice it up from nuclear charged capacitors. The faraday cage effect would make the ship hard to light up too. Okay, I'll go to sleep now.

No such thing as a bad idea, just some are not as good as others. Eerily, I had a similar idea for carriers. I wanted to drop cargo nets from the flight deack on both sides of the ship. The nets would be of rope except for some foil on the inside (towards the hull). The nets themselves would not reflect much, and would attenuate the radar signal a bit. What part of the radar that hit the hull would bounce back and hit the foil on the cargo nets, thus blocking it from being sent back to the bad guy. Worse comes to worse the missile hits the net anyway and reduces it's speed, so it doesn't penetrate the hull as much. Time to get back to watching Rocky 32