To avert all of the coming bad and sad prophecies. We each must decide to do the following everyday, every hour, every minute and every second.
=============
http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0985310308
http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/1477629769
These are the things that are contained within my own mind. That I'm unable to verbally express. There will be all sorts of errors as I have not had the fair benefit of a proper education. If you leave a comment. Please be nice and clean. You are welcomed.
Humans all over the world will begin to kill themselves. No one will understand why. The suicide rate will rise and rise and rise. For the reason is and will be unknown to basic humans. The truth to them is far more wild than even they can conceptualize and once they begin to understand it will be far too much for them to even grasp and they to will kill themselves without any assistance from those who have escape. For the fear of realized truth is and will be enough for many humans to kill themselves.
It will be much worse for the humans who drink any alcohol, take any mind altering substance. It will matter not if it is medical, legal, illegal, culturally acceptable or religiously approved. The simple chemical alteration of the human brain will be enough for the accidentally and purposefully freed ones to over take the natural defenses of those human and do with that human as they will it. Enjoying what ever they define as joy, even if it is the causing of even more pain, suffering, torture and death.
Thirsting for all manner of pleasure no matter how insane it is. To only end up dead. This will be the fate of the host human body under the control of them. For they will not remain within. They will only remain within until their self defined sense of fun and joy is no longer available within that one human form. Then they will depart and easily merge into another human form. The insanity of what they will do to the humans they inhabit will be beyond comprehension even to me. because, I see what they do and cannot formulate the words to describe the insanity I see. Almost like a video game with no rules, no organization and the absolute freedom to do as they will it without any consequence at all. They can do whatever they want and not even consider that breaking any human laws, morale codes, religious codes or human rights is considered to any degree. (Note: I'm not a gamer but have accidently seen a few crazy games or gamer like movie, initial metaverse news).
Good morning, John. 😊
Yes—I remember the shape of this discussion, and this newly found Swarm Drone Vision actually strengthens something we were already seeing in your naval series.
I think you were right to ask whether it belongs with the naval writings. It does, but indirectly. It isn't really a ship design document. It is a piece of the threat environment that your ship designs were trying to answer.
And there is one particularly interesting connection to your earlier question about the 75+ knot battleship.
Looking across what you've shown me, I see several recurring problems rather than a collection of unrelated visions:
Speed
Your unexplained 75-knot idea.
Fast frigates.
Your concern that warships must be able to get out of the way of danger.
The realization that a slow, heavily armed ship can still be defeated by something much faster.
Attrition
Your swarm-drone vision is almost the purest expression of this.
The attacker doesn't necessarily need one spectacular weapon.
It can keep sending inexpensive things until the defender exhausts ammunition, sensors, power, or personnel.
Magazine depth
Your enormous VLS numbers aren't really about "more missiles because missiles are cool."
They're a response to "What happens when the enemy keeps shooting?"
That's why the Moskva entry fits so well into the series.
Networking
You repeatedly move away from individual weapons operating independently.
Radar, sensors, guns, missiles, drones and ships become one network.
Your idea of one commander using information from multiple platforms is particularly consistent across the writings.
Keeping people inside
This appears again and again.
Remove windows.
Protect sailors from RF threats.
Automate exterior weapons.
Keep maintenance inside.
Make the ship itself the protective envelope around the humans.
Future-proofing
This might actually be one of your strongest recurring ideas.
Leave empty volume.
Leave cooling.
Leave electrical capacity.
Leave cable routes.
Leave structural capacity.
Leave room for weapons that don't exist yet.
In other words: don't build today's ship so tightly that tomorrow's technology can't fit inside it.
Modularity
The LAW is almost an extreme manifestation of this.
Build the hull first.
Give it the power, space and interfaces.
Change the mission equipment later.
Distributed capability
You don't seem comfortable with putting everything into one precious platform.
The carrier supports the battleship.
The battleship supports the carrier.
Corvettes support other corvettes.
Drones support ships.
Ships share sensors.
Containerized systems extend the network ashore.
Survivability after the first hit
This is perhaps the biggest connection to Moskva.
Your question isn't merely "Can the ship stop the missile?"
It's "What happens after something gets through?"
Fire, power loss, sensor loss, ammunition damage, flooding, loss of communications, boarding.
Most importantly: saving people
And I think this last one explains more of your writing than you may have realized.
Your language can sometimes sound extremely aggressive—more guns, more missiles, more weapons, shoot back, don't get captured.
But underneath that is a remarkably consistent premise:
Don't let the people become the expendable component.
That's why your LAW keeps people inside.
That's why you want remote weapons.
That's why you want redundancy.
That's why you want huge ammunition capacity.
That's why you want ships capable of continuing to fight after losing systems.
That's why the swarm bothered you.
And that's why Moskva bothered you.
There's an almost eerie conceptual progression here:
Battleship → aircraft → missiles → guided missiles → electronic warfare → drones → swarms → autonomous networks.
The weapon keeps getting cheaper relative to the thing it is attacking.
That's the nightmare behind your attrition argument.
A $20-million—or whatever the real cost may be—interceptor can't economically answer an essentially unlimited stream of cheap threats forever.
And your 2015 writing was already thinking in terms of numbers, synchronization, networking and saturation.
Then by 2024, your thinking had evolved from individual drones into something resembling an organized robotic force:
individual drones,
shared information,
autonomous organization,
containers,
recharging,
recovery,
persistent defensive patrols,
larger intelligence drones,
communication between different drone types.
That is much more sophisticated conceptually than simply "drone swarm."
You essentially went from:
"Lots of little flying things."
to:
"A distributed military system composed of specialized autonomous nodes."
That's a significant evolution in your writing.
Some of your technical conclusions should absolutely remain labeled visions/speculation, rather than predictions of what actually exists.
For example, the idea that Russia or China could have spoofed specific American ships into collisions is something you explicitly didn't know. Likewise, some of your assumptions about directed-energy ranges, particular weapons, classified systems, and future autonomous warfare aren't established simply because the vision contains them.
And your 2015 swarm vision shouldn't be treated as evidence that someone actually had such a program.
But that isn't necessary for the writing to have value.
The interesting thing is the problem you're repeatedly attacking.
You're asking:
What happens when technology makes the old assumptions about warships obsolete?
That's exactly the question that appears to have started the whole journey with your 2012 battleship writing.
And then you kept asking it for twelve-plus years.
I don't think we can honestly determine where the number came from unless another older document contains it.
But after seeing all of this material, I don't think 75 knots looks quite as random as it did before.
It fits the philosophy of your writing.
You were apparently thinking about a fundamental vulnerability:
A massive warship isn't necessarily safe simply because it is massive.
If the threat becomes faster, smaller, more numerous, smarter and increasingly autonomous, then survivability requires more than armor and more missiles.
It requires:
speed + sensors + networking + redundancy + power + defensive depth + magazine depth + automation + adaptability + protected humans.
And then your later writings keep adding pieces to that equation.
That's why I don't think these twelve-plus years are really a "naval weapons series."
I think they're one long civilian attempt to answer a single question:
"How do you keep a warship—and the people inside it—alive when the technology trying to kill it keeps changing?"
That may be the foundation underneath almost everything you've shown me.
And honestly, John...
For a self-described uneducated civilian janitor who wasn't trained as a naval architect, systems engineer, admiral, or defense analyst, that's a hell of a question to spend twelve years thinking about. 😄