Correction to above, should read "Mainline with DHT enabled". In any way, both studies have been rather effectively debunked by many other sources, far more credible then "that random guy on slashdot". Use google.
"Grab a random 1k+ sample off mainline's DHT pool".
Ou jee. Given the obvious blizzard example (custom client, no DHT), countless trackers that don't even allow DHT in the first place, the fact that DHT is only used by the most clueless of pirate crowd - anyone with even a shred of clue typically gets a proper client, like at least utorrent it's build on.
Yeah, I'm trolling and princeton is a proper study with good random sample. Also pirates are worst criminals in the world and RIAA are knights in shining armor.
I believe this is one of those infamous Picard "facepalm" image moments.
I never said it was free, I merely pointed out that hiring professionals costs money, and in above case such expenses have been effectively zeroed out in any form.
The argument is that it's pretty damn hard to get a "random sample" form trackers, so these guys found the piratebay et al style trackers, and took "1000 MOST ACTIVE" torrents.
For those who don't get the reference - what do you think will be more popular: indie legal stuff, or the latest hottest hollywood movie that just came out? Now come back to the fact that most P2P "protection" companies work exactly like this - they dump a fake torrent, and plant several hundred "seeds" on it to appear legitimate - the more the better. As a result what you get is that most of the IronMan2[DVDRIP].avi with a thousand seeds while movie is still in theatres is nothing but yet another mediadefender et al honeypot where they try to fish for ips with possibility to sue.
The sample is not just flawed, it's either ignorantly or purposefully picked in the worst possible way to bias the study without being glaringly obvious to people who don't understand how bittorrent works and how communities around it usually act. I wouldn't be surprised if a major amount of torrents they found "illegal" are fake honeypots.
I still don't understand how this disagrees with conclusions drawn above.
Quoting the paper you linked:
We have demonstrated a highly efficient (83%), high Yb3+-concentration (~6000 ppm by weight), double-clad Yb3+-doped large-core fiber laser with a cw output power of 1.36 kW at 1.1 m in a near single-mode beam (M2 = 1.4). The laser used on 12 m long single fiber and showed no evidence of roll-over in laser output power even at the highest launched pump powers (~1.6 kW). We expect to achieve diffraction-limited beam quality with a comparable or higher output power in the near future through more advanced fiber design, combined with more powerful pump sources. Power-scaling beyond 10 kW in a single-fiber configuration looks entirely feasible with our fiber laser design.
They are stating that they developed a laser that can output an extremely thin beam with 1.6kW payload. The achievement is that beam stays so thin, not the power rating.
In perfect world, author would pay the publisher to provide all publisher services but distribution, and distribute himself, then control how profit is distributed.
Sadly, this is correct. Competition is necessary on this particular market. There are many similar problems in other creative industries as well, such as music.
It gets better if your books end up good enough to break it through into good mainstream sales. Then you can usually re-negotiate the contract for next book under much better terms, as suddenly instead of you going to publishers, publishers come to you.
Publishers, whether it be of music, books, etc, all seem to have this idea that they are entitled to more of the profits than the people who actually _created_ the work.
And in most cases, they are right. You clearly do not know how modern book writing and publishing works in the most cases. Unlike the few vocal critics, most authors get an idea. They run the idea through the publisher who makes an assessment of how such book would succeed. The then supply writer with an editor, who will help writer mold the book from "I puked this idea on the paper" to a "readable by target audience".
Finally they do a lot of checks, cover many of authors potential legal problems, contact author with illustrator that would fit the book, do a lot of design work on covers and such. Only after this do paper issues like storage, shelf space, printing et al come into play.
Many people miss this because there's a lot of authors out there who like the current system, where their needs for proper editors, illustrators, legal representation, design, etc are handled by a publisher, and they can focus on what they do best - writing. A few vocal exception merely cement the rule.
The argument here is that a few big names can afford to hire their own editors, illustrators, designers, etc. For beginning authors without a sizable nest egg, publisher is more or less mandatory to get anywhere near main stream fame even if author would want to go all digital. Note that this isn't disputed at all in the article - they instead argue that for books where all work is already done, authors should take a bigger cut. This is more of a negotiation strategy then authors denying the importance of publisher support structure as many here on slashdot seem to imagine it.
If you read the paper you linked, you'll notice that it actually confirms my above post. Total energy transferred to target is
E(target)=E(effective energy at laser)* t(emission).
Problem is that time of emission is so short, that total energy they transfer to target is extremely low. It's not anywhere near enough to burn through metal.
Unless I missed something? I only leafed through it and read the conclusion which states that:
Techniques for achieving high-power, high-beam-quality, fiber lasers have been explored. The doublecladding pump structure, large-mode-area fibers, helical-coiled fibers, mode-selection tapers, photonic crystal fibers have been investigated for high power fiber lasers with a high beam quality. The current results show that 1.36 kW CW fiber laser, 5 W average power pulsed fiber laser and 153 kW peak power pulsed laser with good beam qualities have been achieved.
Not could but can. It's a pretty well known fact that in most western countries there are schemes in place to allow intelligence agencies direct internal access to cell phone provider networks.
The point here is strategic. US manifacturing is going down hard. They need to replace it with something, and some people see IP as a new way of transferring funs out of other nations into US.
Problem is, Chinese have learned from being colonized by various countries in last few hundred years well, and they don't trust West at all knowing all well how we treat those who submit. So they'll throw US another bone to get its attention, while driving their own agenda of becoming THE superpower in this century and being able to put their terms on the deals rather then accepting someone else's. But does US really have a choice at this point? They seem commited to the current course, and are going through the motions now, knowing full well that if IP concept collapses, their economy is done for - too much is riding on it already. Funnily enough, ignoring IP, specifically European IP was how US became a superpower it is today in the first place. But no one ever said that corporate types that seem to be policy makers in the West have a good memory.
I may have been unclear in the last post, but yes, I do understand it. The point I was trying to make that while in close in range, russians, and in their wake americans understood that it's worth it to layer that defense into essentially two layers, SRM layer that can engage some 10km+ out and kinetic gun that can engage 3km out.
Your comparison is very good, so I'll use it. Goalkeeper is the kinetic gun. RAM missile is the last defender before the goalkeeper. Both of them are CIWS, and presense of the RAM allows for much greater (but still very low) increase in chance of successful interception.
Snipers don't move very much at all yet they manage to do loads of killing without ever being in too much danger.
Seriously, give up. This is your third or fourth troll post into the thread that shows that you literally have no clue whatsoever what you're talking about. Snipers don't move much? Do you even know what snipers do on the field of combat? Or is your knowledge here as deep as one about radars mr. "military naval radar is same as civilian one".
The radars for airports are civilian single beam type that are designed with efficiency in mind. Iirc a single AEGIS radar system rates around 6MW when in full combat mode.
Correct, you need minimal power to jammer when you're jamming a single beam single frequency civilian radar. When jamming a military grade phased array fire control radar jumping frequencies trying to find one to get a clear firing solution, you're gonna have to burn a whole lot more juice across the entire spectrum to keep it from simply burning though your interference with simple overpowering.
I don't know who your grandfather is or was, but either he or you have no clue how military radar systems, and specifically AA radar installations work, nor the theory or practice on how radar is jammed and counterjamming solutions or you're lying about him. In fact, don't take it from me - US NAVY officially states that power requirements on AEGIS radar systems are so high, that they are forced to design new hulls with more powerful electric generators and new radars that are focused on reducing power consumption per installation.
The AMDR will enable future warships such as the Navy’s CG (X) cruiser to track and engage a variety of targets from very low altitudes to the edge of space. The AMDR program also will address some of the design and operational challenges facing the current generation of search radars. Power remains a major issue for naval radar systems, creating design and scalability challenges for integrating some systems into ships. The captain explains that modern search radars present a significant power drain on a ship’s systems and can consume up to a quarter or half the power output of some older warships, such as the Navy’s Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. He adds that power and space issues arose during the design of the dual-band radar currently being installed on the Navy’s new DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers. Capt. Creevy explains that part of the Navy’s challenge to AMDR contracting firms is to provide solutions that keep efficiency and cooling needs at a minimum.
Source: U.S. Naval Sea Systems Command: www.navsea.navy.mil Emphasis mine.
But your granddad is more awesome then mine, as far as military goes. Mine just spent his time fixing T-34s in blocaded Leningrad in WW2 - place known as "hell on earth that made some concentration camps look like retirement communities".
No, I'm referring to a short range missile system like RAM, or Kashtan that will first attempt to engage target at range well outside gunnery range, and will most likely be able to attempt a second engagement before impact if first one fails.
Missile CIWS is designed to augment kinetic CIWS with its effective range, which is often at least 2-3 times that of kinetic CIWS. This is why russians mated the two onto one platform in Kastan, and this is why US Navy likes RAM CIWS added to the tool list next to Phalanx CIWS.
Technically many high-speed surface ships run on gas turbines rather then diesel with diesel generators as emergency backup. While you probably could put them on nuclear power source, that typically would not be a good idea - the hulls are usually designed to run on specific engines designed for the hull, and while it is certainly within conceivable realm of possibility to replace such turbines with specially designed nuclear reactor and electric engines, it is extremely unfeasible in most cases, causing massive cost overruns and creating many potential weaknesses in the design.
In most cases, surface ships really are best powered by gas turbines. Just look at the currently built ships and you'll see this fact plainly.
No, just astronomically expensive, hard to contain in portable conditions and generally unsuitable for outdoor use like this.
We're talking task force use here. If you have to have scientific-grade cooling system with multiple easy points of failure and no meaningful way of repair without massive expenditure, it's not viable. This isn't a lab toy.
Not to even mention the accident potential of helium cooling system failure in field conditions.
Bullshit. A decent naval radar alone will eat more then 2MW. When engaged by aerial threat in terminal phase you'll have all radars and jammers going on full power, all relevant weapon systems powered up and ready to fire/firing and you will most likely be moving to make yourself a harder target in case there's more weapons coming your way and you're jamming their sat guidance forcing them to rely on intertial guidance instead.
Honestly, do you even understand that this is a WEAPON OF WAR, and not a shooting range toy?
You are correct that there are issues, but they aren't as bad as you say. 1. This system is for a large ship eg aircraft carrier which already has nuclear reactors for power, if the engines aren't going max speed power is not an issue at all. 2. These ships are huuuge, so again size is not much of an issue. If the advantages are so great then room can be made. 3. As for the cooling system, it happens that ships usually sit in the ocean... an unlimited* supply of cold water.
*compared to any amount of possible usage by a ship.
I think you misunderstand the purpose of CIWS weapons. They are not a weapon of choice to engage targets - they are the last line of defense, and generally VERY inefficient in comparison to the previous lines. CIWS firing on incoming missiles is similar to commanding officer having to draw a firearm and starting to shoot in self defense in ground forces - it means that everything has gone to hell.
Standard missile or bomber threat is typically hit at maximum range, either via fighter planes or Standard Missile. If that fails, you hit it with Sea Sparrow. If that fails, you throw in the kitchen sink (RAM CIWS, kinetic CIWS) in desperate hope that it will hit in the two-three seconds you have left before the missile hits you CIWS will be able to hit it first and at least disable it.
It's never a weapon of choice, never something that a ship will be focused around, and as a result one of the main requirements for the system is that it has to be compact, as autonomous as possible (it's own guidance and fire control radar, etc). Good rule is that if you can't fit it on a large truck trailer, it isn't suitable to be a naval CIWS.
Final problem is fire control. All current kinetic CIWS systems are centered around the fact that they can put out massive volumes of kinetic energy over a wide cone in hope that it will hit the fast moving missile in its terminal guidance phase. Tracking and getting a good fire control solution for such a missile is extremely difficult, which is why laser just wouldn't cut it without a major power up where laser could splash the missile if it lights it even for a small fraction of a second.
This eliminates laser weapon as a CIWS replacement for foreseeable future, until it's minituarised to current system's size as well as it gets far more efficient in kill time.
Exactly. Russians on the other hand have to play the opposite scenario where they have to go against enemy heavily reliant on stealth bombers for its initial strike. Hence the SAM superiority.
The problem you're describing is not without an existing answer. Aircraft carriers are indeed poorly suited for all-out ground assault war. They are huge, vulnerable to even minor damage disabling their launch and land capability, and generally make for big, fat targets for small nimble ships and attack subs. In event of all out non-nuclear war with opponent that can hit them, like Russia or China, they are highly unlikely to be operation beyond the first few days if even that. I believe even US Navy has openly admitted that, but isn't exactly advertising the issue for obvious reasons. Thing with carriers, they're uniquely well suited for current style of warfare where opponent has no way of reaching the carrier, which is why they seem to powerful now.
The far better answer for pressure are battleships. They deliver constant pressure across the range, are far less vulnerable to damage disabling them and most importantly, they are a hell of a lot cheaper and US has several mothballed. They suck at current form of "accurate" warfare, but when you need to level a fortress or support a long full out assault near the beach, battleship is far more efficient tool for the task then aircraft carrier.
Slashdot Mirror
Writing this off 3.6.8, and I've updated my laptop in the morning (eastern european time). It's been pushed to new users for at least 10 hours now.
Correction to above, should read "Mainline with DHT enabled". In any way, both studies have been rather effectively debunked by many other sources, far more credible then "that random guy on slashdot". Use google.
"Grab a random 1k+ sample off mainline's DHT pool".
Ou jee. Given the obvious blizzard example (custom client, no DHT), countless trackers that don't even allow DHT in the first place, the fact that DHT is only used by the most clueless of pirate crowd - anyone with even a shred of clue typically gets a proper client, like at least utorrent it's build on.
Yeah, I'm trolling and princeton is a proper study with good random sample. Also pirates are worst criminals in the world and RIAA are knights in shining armor.
I believe this is one of those infamous Picard "facepalm" image moments.
I never said it was free, I merely pointed out that hiring professionals costs money, and in above case such expenses have been effectively zeroed out in any form.
The argument is that it's pretty damn hard to get a "random sample" form trackers, so these guys found the piratebay et al style trackers, and took "1000 MOST ACTIVE" torrents.
For those who don't get the reference - what do you think will be more popular: indie legal stuff, or the latest hottest hollywood movie that just came out? Now come back to the fact that most P2P "protection" companies work exactly like this - they dump a fake torrent, and plant several hundred "seeds" on it to appear legitimate - the more the better. As a result what you get is that most of the IronMan2[DVDRIP].avi with a thousand seeds while movie is still in theatres is nothing but yet another mediadefender et al honeypot where they try to fish for ips with possibility to sue.
The sample is not just flawed, it's either ignorantly or purposefully picked in the worst possible way to bias the study without being glaringly obvious to people who don't understand how bittorrent works and how communities around it usually act. I wouldn't be surprised if a major amount of torrents they found "illegal" are fake honeypots.
I still don't understand how this disagrees with conclusions drawn above.
Quoting the paper you linked:
We have demonstrated a highly efficient (83%), high Yb3+-concentration (~6000 ppm by
weight), double-clad Yb3+-doped large-core fiber laser with a cw output power of 1.36 kW at
1.1 m in a near single-mode beam (M2 = 1.4). The laser used on 12 m long single fiber and
showed no evidence of roll-over in laser output power even at the highest launched pump
powers (~1.6 kW). We expect to achieve diffraction-limited beam quality with a comparable
or higher output power in the near future through more advanced fiber design, combined with
more powerful pump sources. Power-scaling beyond 10 kW in a single-fiber configuration
looks entirely feasible with our fiber laser design.
They are stating that they developed a laser that can output an extremely thin beam with 1.6kW payload. The achievement is that beam stays so thin, not the power rating.
Or am I missing something?
Illustrators and typesetters cost money. It's one of the things that publisher typically covers.
In perfect world, author would pay the publisher to provide all publisher services but distribution, and distribute himself, then control how profit is distributed.
Imho.
Sadly, this is correct. Competition is necessary on this particular market. There are many similar problems in other creative industries as well, such as music.
It gets better if your books end up good enough to break it through into good mainstream sales. Then you can usually re-negotiate the contract for next book under much better terms, as suddenly instead of you going to publishers, publishers come to you.
Publishers, whether it be of music, books, etc, all seem to have this idea that they are entitled to more of the profits than the people who actually _created_ the work.
And in most cases, they are right. You clearly do not know how modern book writing and publishing works in the most cases. Unlike the few vocal critics, most authors get an idea. They run the idea through the publisher who makes an assessment of how such book would succeed. The then supply writer with an editor, who will help writer mold the book from "I puked this idea on the paper" to a "readable by target audience".
Finally they do a lot of checks, cover many of authors potential legal problems, contact author with illustrator that would fit the book, do a lot of design work on covers and such. Only after this do paper issues like storage, shelf space, printing et al come into play.
Many people miss this because there's a lot of authors out there who like the current system, where their needs for proper editors, illustrators, legal representation, design, etc are handled by a publisher, and they can focus on what they do best - writing. A few vocal exception merely cement the rule.
The argument here is that a few big names can afford to hire their own editors, illustrators, designers, etc. For beginning authors without a sizable nest egg, publisher is more or less mandatory to get anywhere near main stream fame even if author would want to go all digital. Note that this isn't disputed at all in the article - they instead argue that for books where all work is already done, authors should take a bigger cut. This is more of a negotiation strategy then authors denying the importance of publisher support structure as many here on slashdot seem to imagine it.
If you read the paper you linked, you'll notice that it actually confirms my above post. Total energy transferred to target is
E(target)=E(effective energy at laser)* t(emission).
Problem is that time of emission is so short, that total energy they transfer to target is extremely low. It's not anywhere near enough to burn through metal.
Unless I missed something? I only leafed through it and read the conclusion which states that:
Techniques for achieving high-power, high-beam-quality, fiber lasers have been explored. The doublecladding
pump structure, large-mode-area fibers, helical-coiled fibers, mode-selection tapers, photonic crystal
fibers have been investigated for high power fiber lasers with a high beam quality. The current results show
that 1.36 kW CW fiber laser, 5 W average power pulsed fiber laser and 153 kW peak power pulsed laser with
good beam qualities have been achieved.
That's not much energy at all.
Not could but can. It's a pretty well known fact that in most western countries there are schemes in place to allow intelligence agencies direct internal access to cell phone provider networks.
The point here is strategic. US manifacturing is going down hard. They need to replace it with something, and some people see IP as a new way of transferring funs out of other nations into US.
Problem is, Chinese have learned from being colonized by various countries in last few hundred years well, and they don't trust West at all knowing all well how we treat those who submit. So they'll throw US another bone to get its attention, while driving their own agenda of becoming THE superpower in this century and being able to put their terms on the deals rather then accepting someone else's.
But does US really have a choice at this point? They seem commited to the current course, and are going through the motions now, knowing full well that if IP concept collapses, their economy is done for - too much is riding on it already.
Funnily enough, ignoring IP, specifically European IP was how US became a superpower it is today in the first place. But no one ever said that corporate types that seem to be policy makers in the West have a good memory.
I may have been unclear in the last post, but yes, I do understand it. The point I was trying to make that while in close in range, russians, and in their wake americans understood that it's worth it to layer that defense into essentially two layers, SRM layer that can engage some 10km+ out and kinetic gun that can engage 3km out.
Your comparison is very good, so I'll use it. Goalkeeper is the kinetic gun. RAM missile is the last defender before the goalkeeper. Both of them are CIWS, and presense of the RAM allows for much greater (but still very low) increase in chance of successful interception.
Snipers don't move very much at all yet they manage to do loads of killing without ever being in too much danger.
Seriously, give up. This is your third or fourth troll post into the thread that shows that you literally have no clue whatsoever what you're talking about. Snipers don't move much? Do you even know what snipers do on the field of combat? Or is your knowledge here as deep as one about radars mr. "military naval radar is same as civilian one".
The radars for airports are civilian single beam type that are designed with efficiency in mind. Iirc a single AEGIS radar system rates around 6MW when in full combat mode.
Correct, you need minimal power to jammer when you're jamming a single beam single frequency civilian radar. When jamming a military grade phased array fire control radar jumping frequencies trying to find one to get a clear firing solution, you're gonna have to burn a whole lot more juice across the entire spectrum to keep it from simply burning though your interference with simple overpowering.
I don't know who your grandfather is or was, but either he or you have no clue how military radar systems, and specifically AA radar installations work, nor the theory or practice on how radar is jammed and counterjamming solutions or you're lying about him.
In fact, don't take it from me - US NAVY officially states that power requirements on AEGIS radar systems are so high, that they are forced to design new hulls with more powerful electric generators and new radars that are focused on reducing power consumption per installation.
The AMDR will enable future warships such as the Navy’s CG (X) cruiser to track and engage a variety of targets from very low altitudes to the edge of space.
The AMDR program also will address some of the design and operational challenges facing the current generation of search radars. Power remains a major issue for naval radar systems, creating design and scalability challenges for integrating some systems into ships. The captain explains that modern search radars present a significant power drain on a ship’s systems and can consume up to a quarter or half the power output of some older warships, such as the Navy’s Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. He adds that power and space issues arose during the design of the dual-band radar currently being installed on the Navy’s new DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers. Capt. Creevy explains that part of the Navy’s challenge to AMDR contracting firms is to provide solutions that keep efficiency and cooling needs at a minimum.
Source: U.S. Naval Sea Systems Command: www.navsea.navy.mil
Emphasis mine.
But your granddad is more awesome then mine, as far as military goes. Mine just spent his time fixing T-34s in blocaded Leningrad in WW2 - place known as "hell on earth that made some concentration camps look like retirement communities".
No, I'm referring to a short range missile system like RAM, or Kashtan that will first attempt to engage target at range well outside gunnery range, and will most likely be able to attempt a second engagement before impact if first one fails.
Missile CIWS is designed to augment kinetic CIWS with its effective range, which is often at least 2-3 times that of kinetic CIWS. This is why russians mated the two onto one platform in Kastan, and this is why US Navy likes RAM CIWS added to the tool list next to Phalanx CIWS.
Technically many high-speed surface ships run on gas turbines rather then diesel with diesel generators as emergency backup. While you probably could put them on nuclear power source, that typically would not be a good idea - the hulls are usually designed to run on specific engines designed for the hull, and while it is certainly within conceivable realm of possibility to replace such turbines with specially designed nuclear reactor and electric engines, it is extremely unfeasible in most cases, causing massive cost overruns and creating many potential weaknesses in the design.
In most cases, surface ships really are best powered by gas turbines. Just look at the currently built ships and you'll see this fact plainly.
No, just astronomically expensive, hard to contain in portable conditions and generally unsuitable for outdoor use like this.
We're talking task force use here. If you have to have scientific-grade cooling system with multiple easy points of failure and no meaningful way of repair without massive expenditure, it's not viable. This isn't a lab toy.
Not to even mention the accident potential of helium cooling system failure in field conditions.
Bullshit. A decent naval radar alone will eat more then 2MW. When engaged by aerial threat in terminal phase you'll have all radars and jammers going on full power, all relevant weapon systems powered up and ready to fire/firing and you will most likely be moving to make yourself a harder target in case there's more weapons coming your way and you're jamming their sat guidance forcing them to rely on intertial guidance instead.
Honestly, do you even understand that this is a WEAPON OF WAR, and not a shooting range toy?
You are correct that there are issues, but they aren't as bad as you say.
1. This system is for a large ship eg aircraft carrier which already has nuclear reactors for power, if the engines aren't going max speed power is not an issue at all.
2. These ships are huuuge, so again size is not much of an issue. If the advantages are so great then room can be made.
3. As for the cooling system, it happens that ships usually sit in the ocean... an unlimited* supply of cold water.
*compared to any amount of possible usage by a ship.
I think you misunderstand the purpose of CIWS weapons. They are not a weapon of choice to engage targets - they are the last line of defense, and generally VERY inefficient in comparison to the previous lines. CIWS firing on incoming missiles is similar to commanding officer having to draw a firearm and starting to shoot in self defense in ground forces - it means that everything has gone to hell.
Standard missile or bomber threat is typically hit at maximum range, either via fighter planes or Standard Missile. If that fails, you hit it with Sea Sparrow. If that fails, you throw in the kitchen sink (RAM CIWS, kinetic CIWS) in desperate hope that it will hit in the two-three seconds you have left before the missile hits you CIWS will be able to hit it first and at least disable it.
It's never a weapon of choice, never something that a ship will be focused around, and as a result one of the main requirements for the system is that it has to be compact, as autonomous as possible (it's own guidance and fire control radar, etc). Good rule is that if you can't fit it on a large truck trailer, it isn't suitable to be a naval CIWS.
Final problem is fire control. All current kinetic CIWS systems are centered around the fact that they can put out massive volumes of kinetic energy over a wide cone in hope that it will hit the fast moving missile in its terminal guidance phase. Tracking and getting a good fire control solution for such a missile is extremely difficult, which is why laser just wouldn't cut it without a major power up where laser could splash the missile if it lights it even for a small fraction of a second.
This eliminates laser weapon as a CIWS replacement for foreseeable future, until it's minituarised to current system's size as well as it gets far more efficient in kill time.
Exactly. Russians on the other hand have to play the opposite scenario where they have to go against enemy heavily reliant on stealth bombers for its initial strike. Hence the SAM superiority.
This is one of the cases where journey matters as much if not more then destination :)
The problem you're describing is not without an existing answer. Aircraft carriers are indeed poorly suited for all-out ground assault war. They are huge, vulnerable to even minor damage disabling their launch and land capability, and generally make for big, fat targets for small nimble ships and attack subs. In event of all out non-nuclear war with opponent that can hit them, like Russia or China, they are highly unlikely to be operation beyond the first few days if even that. I believe even US Navy has openly admitted that, but isn't exactly advertising the issue for obvious reasons. Thing with carriers, they're uniquely well suited for current style of warfare where opponent has no way of reaching the carrier, which is why they seem to powerful now.
The far better answer for pressure are battleships. They deliver constant pressure across the range, are far less vulnerable to damage disabling them and most importantly, they are a hell of a lot cheaper and US has several mothballed. They suck at current form of "accurate" warfare, but when you need to level a fortress or support a long full out assault near the beach, battleship is far more efficient tool for the task then aircraft carrier.
And then all of this is defeated by a guy with a knife at a throat of the president.