DDE

How would I be to prove the "2" in H2O if questioned? A silly idea, but I realize I don't know/remember how to.

I don't think WWII is representative because submarines used active sonar sparingly, if at all.

very unlikely. You're stuck with considerable hydrodynamic noise, but close to the surface. With difficulty. Those were pretty small ships. Assuming the observer even knows what to look for? Still rather short. Doubtful. Passive sonar isn't actually optimized to listen for human-made noises but rather for machinery-made noises.

Taken to extreme length, it looks like this: And also like this: Likely AS. You need extreme off-bore targeting/lock-on-after-launch capability, and to my knowledge on the short-range R-73 has that for the moment.

You may be doing it wrong. One, somewhat controversial like of advocacy, calls to reduce the use of active sensors. Or bigger missiles. Supercruise increases costs and clashes with stealth, especially infrared stealth.

That's a big assumption. Lucas reportedly made a big effort to erase the originals. No, they don't, because that's not how the market works, or so their marketers tell them. They need to (a) pander to non-fans, preferably to the Chinese audience, and (b) milk the fans with merch rather than movies. They can make more money with one merch addict than with ten cinephiles. They're staying the course with (a) even despite TLJ's relative flop, with a large chunk of novels being translated (and it's difficult to tell from the coverage, but these may be pre-Disney EU novels ). And (b) is validated by Baby Yoda.

Citation needed. It is my understanding that there are no "standard" shells for it to use.

@ARS

Interesting. This guy has been trying to count all of the launches of Roscosmos-made missiles and rockets. Apparently, judging by official statistics, one space vehicle launch is unaccounted for.

You can't win it all with hard science in movies.

130 mm, with one German boat experimenting with a turret from a 155 mm self-propelled howitzer. The Zumwalt carries two 155 mm guns, but the $1 mln/round guided munitions won't be delivered 'in the foreseeable future', leaving the magazines empty. Missiles have longer range and in many cases travel faster. That leaves guns two advantages: more rounds in less space, and cheaper rounds. That leaves them no room in ship-to-ship engagements unless the target is of the "Somali pirates with RPGs" type. They do have a niche in naval gunfire support (hence the two guns on Zumwalt and the four guns on Sovremennyi) and there's controversy whether large-bore flak guns have use in the present environment. The Italians, who tend to plop a 76 mm rapid-fire gun whenever there's room, have developed guided anti-aircraft/missile rounds for it, which should act as close-range mini-missiles with alternative, much more compact propulsion.

You're overthinking it. The R-36 just feeds some propellant into the others' tank, where they combust to provide the pressurization.

Pretty much the standard ones - material compatibility is always a concern. RD-253 uses an oxidizer-rich PB, RD-0234 does too and its been rated to use ClF5 with minimum modifications. As an aside, the 'closed-cycle'/staged combustion They're into a variety of weird cycles. Say, they're trying to use the tap-off cycle, where they use the main TC as the gas generator, even though they have to cool the exhaust down before routing it into the turbine.

Why bother with magnetics rather than solid fixtures? I imagine it was just a retrofit aerospike and not an engine with multiple peripheral thrust cells to reduce the load on the actual aerospike.

As if a late WWI mechanical computer couldn't account for lead time on the fly, pun intended.

You have unlimited life support and next-to-unlimited battery power in KSP. A reentry vehicle does not.

Instead of, and a proper RAM launcher is the better option if necessary alterations can be made. You don't need to reach that far. Look at this one: CIWS with clear fields of fire to either side are surprisingly rare, probably because a terraced superstructure has a large radar signature: Not entirely true. WWII saw rapid development of centralized targeting and mechanized training of the weapons. @ARS

Velocities involved in air combat are such that the impact power of the projectile is materially influenced by the relative speed of two aircraft. In some situations, you really can't shoot at a target within nominal range because it outruns bullets.

A CIWS does not guarantee defense against even a single missile. Surface warfare-focused ships generally pack more firepower than they themselves can take (current USN warships are an aberration, really, with 8 AShMs vs almost a hundred SAMs - compare with a Russian frigate with 16 AShMs and 32 SAMs), even with the totality of CIWS and longer-ranged SAMs. So the answer is an emphatic "yes". Economical compared to what other option, anyway?

*30 mm And that's the innermost layer. The Italians think this can work as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJpqNFkd9gI

You're missing the very important part: the entire structure of the ship that transfers the load from the gun's trunnions to the water. Which typically is quite considerable. Without water, the recoil only faces the inertia of the ship itself, requiring much less bracing than a "wet" warship would need; lack of gravity has zero effect. The induced rotational moment would, however, be an issue.

There is insufficient data for a meaningful reply. The particulars of technology - and I know you're a fan of eschewing realism whenever it's excessively constricting - determine the comparative effectiveness. For example, seventy years ago smaller ships were clearly outranged by larger ones, but nowadays, given external targeting, they're just as effective as larger ones with the same VLS count. At the same time, some capabilities cannot be miniaturized: you just can't make a small aircraft carrier, small ships have a lower sea state threshold for when the weather is too bad for them to fight, and if nuclear propulsion is desirable for global endurance, it's a lot more on larger hulls. Moving an uncooperative, misshapen, potentially explosive chunk of metal is a daunting endeavor that will cripple your mobility - assuming it's at all possible, since fighters aren't tugs - and open you up to kinetic fire, which will become far more damaging with the added sources of shrapnel. Just add a second fighter's worth of armour onto your fighters. The problem here is that, unlike a tank, a space fighter is unlikely to be shielded against the collateral damage from the destruction of another fighter in direct proximity. There is a hard and fast rule of never taking cover behind stricken tanks, because they tend to explode.

Kosmos-2542 has launched a subsatellite. https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/7285111 They're also pretty open that it's intended for visual snooping on other satellites.

Don't forget 1700 g of acceleration required to achieve that. We have a literal countdown there. Oops, ninja'd. Well, we know that the rules on shields have been thrown out the window - again: the dreadnought in the opening battle doesn't have shields. Any shields.