Does Ballistic Missile Can Attack Aircraft Carrier Successfully?

page: 6
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
I am not seeking credibility because its very hard to change someones mind. Im presenting the other view.

And im not going to look though archieves which are over 1000 post long and would take me at least 2 hours to go though half a year of post. And no im not going to spend 2 hours looking at my computer screen


Ahem ok so we should just take your word
even though you demand proof from others. Well, if you don't care about credibility then why bother posting ? No one is going to bother reading what you say.




posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Your telling me you can place an ICBM within 50 metres of a carrier group?



Originally posted by devilwasp

Well imagine a very big claymore with the most advanced S2A systems of over 10 ships combined firepower going against 1 very expensive missile....kinda waste of a missile I'd say.



why do you keep on saying ICBM are you trying to say intercontinental ballictic missile or intermediate range missiles.

if you read the janes article :

www.war-sky.com...#

you will notice they are only planning to do this with SRBM and MRBM aka short and mediam range ballitic missiles from ranges of 150km to 600km with missiles form the following classes or technology based from the following missiles with the obvious modifications :

- b611 range 150km similar to iskander but shorter range.
- df15 range upto 600km
- df21/21a range upto 2150km(21) or 2500km(21a)

ballistic missiles of this range are neither expensive to make or hard becuase they already have good accuracy. and with the addion of a chinese local positioning system and IR/radar scanners added to the warhead it should have enough accuracy to hit a ship. and now you must also understand for example the tomahawk cruise missiles cost between $400,000-$1,000,000 each these ballistic missiles will be much cheeper to make then those cruise missiles not only becuase the work labour is cheeper and also materials are cheeper but becuase some of the tech is also cheeper like for example the solid fuel boosters or even the liquid fuel boosters will be much cheeper to make(becuase they already have them in mass production) then the tomahawks expensive turbofan engine and also the expsive terrian mapping system used in the missile wont be needed becuase the ballistic missile has a top down attack style and will just need to find ship on a empty sea surface. these missile will be affordable and are not as difficult as people make it seem.



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by iqonx
why do you keep on saying ICBM are you trying to say intercontinental ballictic missile or intermediate range missiles.

Intercontinental, why would I say ICBM for intermediate range missile?



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by iqonx
why do you keep on saying ICBM are you trying to say intercontinental ballictic missile or intermediate range missiles.

Intercontinental, why would I say ICBM for intermediate range missile?


i was just wondering where you got ICBM from the janes report only talks about SRBM and MRBM.



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
Ahem ok so we should just take your word
even though you demand proof from others. Well, if you don't care about credibility then why bother posting ? No one is going to bother reading what you say.


Would you look through 1000+ post or about 2-3hours just to prove someone wrong?. I sure wouldn't. And if your one of those people i told you were to search and the rough date of the article

Why do people post theories about UFOs or polictical scandals?. Do you tink they have proof or just going by their word or opinion. I wouldn't make anything up just to try sway your opinion. Quite frankly i dont care what you think. THats the truth. I only continued this to humour you



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
Would you look through 1000+ post or about 2-3hours just to prove someone wrong?. I sure wouldn't. And if your one of those people i told you were to search and the rough date of the article


You're the one making the cliams, the onus is on you to provide teh information. If you're lazy just say so.



Why do people post theories about UFOs or polictical scandals?. Do you tink they have proof or just going by their word or opinion. I wouldn't make anything up just to try sway your opinion. Quite frankly i dont care what you think. THats the truth. I only continued this to humour you


Oh ok, so what you're really saying is this Chinese Anti-ship ballistic missile is fantasy and has no factual basis. Ahh I see now.
BTW, I am so hurt you don't care what I think
LMAO. I only respond to you so that other members won't be sucked into your half truths and lies. Then again you're doing a good job of that yourself.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 04:38 AM
link   
mad scientist,

If your not even going to try provide facts to disprove me then im not going to bother with you. If you put a acusation againest me please do it with some facts/proof


Originally posted by mad scientist
If you're lazy just say so.


I've already stated that i will not go though 6 months of post just to please you



Oh ok, so what you're really saying is this Chinese Anti-ship ballistic missile is fantasy and has no factual basis.


Just in this very thread i have stated this was for real. I am not contridicting myself


I only respond to you so that other members won't be sucked into your half truths and lies.


Go prove me wrong by going to the forums i said and check them out.

I gave you a lsit of needed technologys that was mentiond and examples of them already in service. I also gave you the missile in question. Its called the D-15/A and has been deployed for a number of years now



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
mad scientist,

If your not even going to try provide facts to disprove me then im not going to bother with you. If you put a acusation againest me please do it with some facts/proof


That's rich, where are your facts ? You don't actually provide any apart from the designation of one chinese missile which is already in service. That's hardly proving anything is it. I hvae already posted several items which show the Chinese technological hurdles they'll hvae to overcome, to which you don't respond.

You've already said, that you're too lazy to find them .....

[edit on 13-2-2006 by mad scientist]



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
I hvae already posted several items which show the Chinese technological hurdles they'll hvae to overcome, to which you don't respond.


Where?



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 02:17 AM
link   
^^^ Erm, read the thread, surely you can manage that it isn't anywhere near a thousand posts, lol.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 03:44 AM
link   
^^

And which ones did i not answer with either examples or "technological" hurdles in service?



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   
You'll need to know or assume these things when solving the topic problem, assuming EAM retargeting:

1. The damage radius for a nominal W88 detonation. Note the differences between surface-burst or variable air-burst, with respect to the sea and it's unique properties.
2. The minimum and maximum ranges of the UGM-133.
3. The position of the in-range Trident selected for the sortie execution.
4. The target aimpoint locations. Feel free to use all available warheads.
5. The last known position, course and speed of the target.
6. The time it takes to create, approve and transmit a retargeting EAM.
7. The time it takes for the crew of an alert Trident to break and respond to a retargeting EAM.


Fifteen minutes to first missile launch, after the above. Sub-one-hour flight time. Make-up your own mind. Ignore everyone else.


MT2 (SS)
Strategic Fire Control Division
USS Kentucky (Gold) / USS Alaska (Blue)
1999-2004



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
^^

And which ones did i not answer with either examples or "technological" hurdles in service?


You have given no examples
You talk in vagueries. ie. it might have active radar, it might have infra red guidance. Absolutely no specifics.

Also there is absolutely no information whatsoever, that the Phalcon radar can detect surface targets anywhere near 450km, do not confuse airborne targets with surface ones. Ever heard of radar horzon
You make far to many suppositions based on no facts.

[edit on 14-2-2006 by rogue1]



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 10:25 PM
link   
REALLY?

Theres difference in saying specific examples of the actual systems and there is "technological" hurdles.......

Did i say surface detection?
.I refered to it as the detection range nothing specific like you say



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
Did i say surface detection?
.I refered to it as the detection range nothing specific like you say


Gawd, you can't even remember waht you say. You said that the Phalcon could detect ships out to 500km
Obviously you are wrong and now you're trying to deny you said it. Lucky you can't vhange your posts otherwise you might have got away with it.


Posted by Chinawhite
balance beam radar search range is about 300km for fighters and 450km for ships. The KJ-2000 is a much large plane with a much more powerful radar so im just assuming it can at least go 50km more so about 500km






[edit on 15-2-2006 by rogue1]



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 01:04 AM
link   


Where is the Phalcon even mentioned in my quote?

I cant see it



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
Where is the Phalcon even mentioned in my quote?

I cant see it


LMAO, comsidering the Phalcon is even more advanced than indegenous Chinese radar it makes your claims even more ridiculous.
Obviously you don't have anything to back you up


Kinda blows your BS about Chinese airborne radar being able to detect a carrier group outside the range of the air patrol



Posted by chinawhite
because the Phalcon is reported to hvae a rnage of 500km and that was what i was basing it off


[edit on 15-2-2006 by rogue1]



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 01:46 AM
link   
Blah blah chit chit



Originally posted by rogue1
LMAO, comsidering the Phalcon is even more advanced than indegenous Chinese radar it makes your claims even more ridiculous.
Obviously you don't have anything to back you up


Lets see you back your claims up

Now please tell me your chinese government sources
. Because the chinese radar thus far has no published stats or are you assuming something.

Deny Ignorance


The benefits of the “Over the Horizon Radar” accrue to the Phalcon AWACS, by operating at about 30,000 feet and thus being able to monitor low level activity in the air space up to ranges of 500 km. On India’s western borders, such surveillance over sea will yield optimum results in reporting both air and sea activity.

Yeah yeah yeah heres my source

Surely "Radar horizon" will take such a dramtic effect that you are trying to over play



Kinda blows your BS about Chinese airborne radar being able to detect a carrier group outside the range of the air patrol


Where did i say surface targets.?
.

Whats the range of a US air patrol?. Not 500km for sure



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
Now please tell me your chinese government sources
. Because the chinese radar thus far has no published stats or are you assuming something.


Gee no sources yet you claim it has a detection range of 500 km
sigh. Consider this the CHinese wouldn't be tring to aquire the Phalcon if it wasn't superior to anything the Chinese have.



Kinda blows your BS about Chinese airborne radar being able to detect a carrier group outside the range of the air patrol


Where did i say surface targets.?
.

Whats the range of a US air patrol?. Not 500km for sure


Ahem, once again you forget what you say. You said that they would use AWACS type aircraft as one of the sensors to find CBG's for targetting by this so called anti-ship ballistic missile.
Maybe you just can't articulate what you're trying to say.



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Gee no sources yet you claim it has a detection range of 500 km
sigh.


Did i claim something? . Wait a second, I said assuming
. Oh wait, If i assume something i must be claiming it



Posted by ChinawhiteKJ-2000 is a much large plane with a much more powerful radar so im just assuming it can at least go 50km more so about 500km


Funny attempt . As i remember it you were the one claiming with out any sources



Consider this the Chinese wouldn't be tring to aquire the Phalcon if it wasn't superior to anything the Chinese have.


You might want to consider the timeframe of this
. The deal was made in 1996. Thats 10 years about. This was more of a space filler because chinese radar at the time was still primary platter arrays and not yet advanced. Considering the small purchase of only 1 plane while a further 3 could be possible this was more of a capability filled since china did not as of yet have a ESA radar.

Since then china has developed and mechanical phased arrays and electical phased array radars. So from the 1996 to now that is 10 years and in those ten years china went from dish radars to Phased arrays

Do you think china was planning on only having 1-4 AWACS aircraft. Even now there are around 3-4 in testing. with about 5 more smaller Y-8 in testing also. those radars were only intended as capabilty fillers. So dont compare different time scales

And considering the Phalcon is not the newest of technology and is 13 years old. It is not the most advanced technology either. And considering both are different technoloies this is surprising you trying to say one is inferior to the other


Ahem, once again you forget what you say. You said that they would use AWACS type aircraft as one of the sensors to find CBG's for targetting by this so called anti-ship ballistic missile.


No i was talking to mad scientist while you brought up the issue of chinese aircraft being with-in the limits of US fighters or US radar.

Difference.


Look inot a technology called TVM. Its used on sams. The guiding radar paints the target and keeps radar lock on it until it hits the target. THe AWACS will be flying some distance away and wouldn't be under immident danger from US fighters because its such a large distance away.

What the downside of this technology used on SAMs is they SAM radar has to keep radar locked on it unitl it hits and this leaves room for anti-radation missiles. While the AWACS is not under pressure from Anti-radation missiles because of the sheer distance away. And a ballistic missile can travel a lot faster than any fighter i know


[edit on 15-2-2006 by chinawhite]





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join