It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

is the US navy unbeatable???

page: 10
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Umm.. Some have ranges almost twice that (300km) and travel at supersonic speeds (Mach 2.5+) at sea skimming levels.


Well, the greater the range the bigger the missile, the bigger the missile the easier it will be to detect and destroy.




posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 11:11 AM
link   
by WHAT


and don`t you dare say `ABL`

as they are 0 in service.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Travellar
Ships would do much better, they have far better sensors, are purpose built for 24 hour operation, don't hang out in the same place waiting to get shot at, and tend to keep a not inconsiderable open killing field between them and the launch sites.


Why would ships do much better and where is the evidence when they have been hit so often with so little trouble? Is land based radar and detection systems not built for 24 hour operation? Land forces never move around? Cruise missiles can not be brought closer by other platforms to be launched?

Your not helping and not even coming close to contributing.


No weaving through mountains to sneak up on them.


Link indicating there were mountains to hide behind in this instance? Any terrain that would help hide the missile track in any of the five instances?


and as stated above, the article posted is delusional fantasy.


Your read the wrong one and am silently swearing at you for even typing up this response when you can not even figure out which article to read ( which you clearly did not do).


It states a few erronious arguments about the vulnerability of warships, then uses that as justification to say "see, no need for a navy."


Wrong article but the one your attacking was not nearly as bad as you suggest.


Most anti ship missiles I've ever heard of have ranges not much over 100 miles.


Well then you have not heard much about them i guess?


Anything longer wouldn't be useful as even the slowest target will move by the time it arrived.


And cruise missiles are unguided these days( they have'nt for decades)? Why do you even type?


And aircraft can fly further than that, even without refueling.


But aircraft can fly forever if their filled to capacity with fuel and not much else. There are very few navies in the world that does not deploy short range coastal missile boats that can seriously put the hurt on you if you pretend their not there.


Of course, the article also seems to hinge on an enemy willing to start a nuclear war for one pop-shot at the US Navy.


That is not what the second article suggested at all. It suggested that a nation who is going to be attacked by a superior force might deploy tactical nuclear weapons just to show that it is willing to inflict losses full well knowing that you can not nuke their cities any more than they could/would yours.


Sink a carrier with a nuke? That would be tragic, but we've got eleven more, and your country now glows in the dark.


Can't say i see the US using nukes on a enemy city centers just because they got a carrier nuked. It will take a bit more than that as a carrier is strictly a military target.

Stellar



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Well, the greater the range the bigger the missile, the bigger the missile the easier it will be to detect and destroy.


Well they also seem to be getting faster and i am not sure what the logic is that leads you to believe that a bigger missile means it will be easier to shoot down. That extra speed and inertia means your defenses will have less time to respond and that i will also need more stopping power to actually destroy the warhead/missile.

Stellar



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 04:04 PM
link   
ah, my apologies. I ntended only to answer your question about would ships do any better, then moved on to the article in the post before yours. I did not inted to respond to your own comments as delusional fantasy.

Ships can, I suppose be struck easily enough with cruise missiles, provided they either are equipped with no air defences capable of striking low elevation targets, or have them turned off for fear they might accidently shoot something. Neither is the case with the US Navy, which is the subject of this thread. As I recall, none of those modified cruise missiles actually got direct hits on thier targets anyhow, (unless the shopping mall was a target), so I suppose I'd be hard pressed to say they'd do much worse against ships either.

As for the article stated somewhere on the last page, (Prior to StellarX's post), the numbers are badly misstated, the assumptions are absurd, and absolutely no alternitive is provided or suggested.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Well they also seem to be getting faster and i am not sure what the logic is that leads you to believe that a bigger missile means it will be easier to shoot down.


Well obviously a bigger missile makes a bigger target making it more succeptable to being hit. Even at several times the spped of soud, USN phalanx guns would be able to track and fireon the missile.
IMO, the USN should move to the heavier 30mm Goalkeeper gatlnig CIWS - much more stopping power and shell cacpacity.


That extra speed and inertia means your defenses will have less time to respond and that i will also need more stopping power to actually destroy the warhead/missile.


Even the 20mm Phalanx CIWS has enough stopping power to shoot down any missile, if a round hits. They fire DUsabot slugs at over 1 km/s, if one of those round hits, something coming in at the same speed in the opposite direction, it's dead.

Stellar



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 04:53 PM
link   

"Navy a liability?
Ok mate, just then asking how do we defend our merchant ships? "


Traditional deployment of the carrier fleet in the light of new generation of anti-ship weapons makes such deployment a liability just as the traditional armor deployment in urban environment in the light of shaped charged anti-tank weapons. What is so hard to understand here?

It has been proved by history time and time again. Ignorance of such obvious, time proved facts result in military blunders of catastrophic proportions. In the case of tank deployment in urban environment, the most recent example would be massive tank losses suffered by Russian army in the first Chechen war. Paper pushing generals ignored the fact that Chechens were well armed and organized, and against all logic sent wave after wave of tanks to assault the city with out the support of infantry.

Deploying the carrier group with in striking range of new anti-ship weapons is suicidal, which was factually proved during exercises mentioned in my post above.

Belief that the carrier group is invincible in face of new generation of weapons, is just as futile as the dogma that the mighty tank was invincible to infantry. The latter misconception has been proved wrong, and for some people it will take a catastrophic to accept that the first one is also just as wrong.

I would like to point out, that with the invent of machine gun, during WWI for the lack of any ideas generals have sent their troops to certain death in waves after waves of suicidal charges, just to be cut down by machine gun fire time and time again.

The logical reality of this new generation of anti-ship weapons is of the same importance as the machine gun of WWI, shaped charge of WWII, etc. Attempts to dispute so otherwise are driven either by sheer stubbornness or misguided patriotism.

A few notes on flawed logic.

[qute]Hmm, obviously haven't heard of mid air refuelling.

Air refueling can only be conducted in secure area. Both AWACS and refueling tankers are primary targets, and can not operate with in the strike zone of the enemy.



There is only rumour about the Shkval II and even that seems more like fantasy how big would the torpedo have to be to be able to reach 60 miles. the standard 533mm Shkval can barely reach 7km with it's rocket duel, you can imagine the corresponding upscale in size to reach 60 miles. Also how would it be guided ? Complete and utter bunk.


Shkav II will most likely rely on a sea-skimming ramjet delivery module with GPS/Internal guidance, deploying the torpedo upon reaching its deployment zone. Before attempting to dispute, please consider widely available information on the topic discussed.


I am amazed at how wrong most of the things stated in that article are. Almost like it is falsified or something.


It never seized to amaze that some people attempt to discredit statements made by government officials by presenting their own baseless "opinions."

It is up to any given individual to form an opinions if June Teuffel attempted to falsify her testimony to the US House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, yet until an investigation of such claims proves it to be a fact, her statements are factual, and can not be disputed by "opinions", "gut feelings", "premonitions", and other non factual notions.



once again absolutely no fact just guess work. There is no information whatsoever except what is repeated verbatim on other sites, that the Russians announced they have a Shkval II, which may or may not be true. The more I read the more unlikely it seems.


The factual existence of F-117 was not "announced" to the Russians for decades for obvious reasons. Its very designation as a fighter is misleading. Considering that there is Shkval 1, which is more then 2 decades old, only a fool will believe that the Shkval 2 does not exist only because Russian did not care to show us one and tell us everything about it.

If one speculated that Russians have a weapon which remotely destroys ships by irradiating their hulls with some sort of energy which causes metal so instantaneously rust and fall apart, for the lack of any previous weapons or concepts of such type I will seriously doubt its existence with out supporting evidence.

In the case of Shkval, I only have to download a video to watch it in operation.


and as stated above, the article posted is delusional fantasy. It states a few erronious arguments about the vulnerability of warships, then uses that as justification to say "see, no need for a navy."


Again, if one chooses to believe that US House of Representatives Armed Services Committee holds official hearings to exercise their imagination and indulge in "delusional fantasy", it is their right to hold such an opinion, much as the right of some people to think that the earth is flat and so on, but it's not reality, it is an unsupported individual choice of opinion, and in this discussion we are in fact discussing reality.

No statements have been maid to the fact that there is no need for a Navy, only that the traditional deployment of such is obsolete, much as traditional deployment of tanks, etc. Please fully read members posts before jumping the gun and assuming upon what others have stated.

A nuclear warhead is not necessary to destroy a carrier by a single weapon. A charge detonated directly under a ship creates a massive gas bubble that lifts the ships out of the water which breaks its back under its own weight. 450 kilos of HE does that quiet effortlessly.

I appreciate factual contribution brought to this debate by StellarX and others, and also urge all to follow the very goal of the ATS forums - "Deny Ignorance"

Cheers.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
Air refueling can only be conducted in secure area. Both AWACS and refueling tankers are primary targets, and can not operate with in the strike zone of the enemy.


Not true in many conflicts tanker aircraft moved into hostile territory to help aircraft.

Here is one such example:
www.wpafb.af.mil...

ALso in GWI tankers were known to be on station in "hostile territory" to tank inbound and outbound F-117 etc.

The MC-130 also is designed to

Combat Shadow flies clandestine or low visibility, low-level missions into politically sensitive or hostile territory to provide air refueling for special operations helicopters. Source


However back on topic.

Anti shipping technology has faded a bit with the ending of the cold war. However, just as you rightfull point out that arrogance is often the cause of military blunders, so is overestimating the focers arrayed against you.

The Iranian rocket torpedo or the oft touted Bhramos missile, the Sunburn etc are perpetualy touted as a carrier killer but the proof as they say is in the pudding. THe error I see in this is the assumption that the USN (hidebound for sure) is in a state of static development. If India or Iran can develop a novel anti ship system is it not resonable that the USN does the same?

[edit on 4/6/06 by FredT]



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander

Hmm, obviously haven't heard of mid air refuelling.


Air refueling can only be conducted in secure area. Both AWACS and refueling tankers are primary targets, and can not operate with in the strike zone of the enemy.


Hang on, how far from the target is this strike zone, 400 km or something. Planes can easily be mid air refuellled hundred of km's from the target, they will have enough endurance to make it there and back.




There is only rumour about the Shkval II and even that seems more like fantasy how big would the torpedo have to be to be able to reach 60 miles. the standard 533mm Shkval can barely reach 7km with it's rocket duel, you can imagine the corresponding upscale in size to reach 60 miles. Also how would it be guided ? Complete and utter bunk.


Shkav II will most likely rely on a sea-skimming ramjet delivery module with GPS/Internal guidance, deploying the torpedo upon reaching its deployment zone. Before attempting to dispute, please consider widely available information on the topic discussed.


Yes, I have read your link(s) regarding that. One member did a good post disouting some of the stuff. Those Soviet 50's and 60's era ranjet stratgic cruise missiles are massive, where is this technology to deliver a Shkval torpedo with one of these type weapons ?
I belive when they are talking about this supposed Shkval II's range, thye 0 miles is meant to be entirely underwater. So I'm not sure how they could fit this into a standard 533mm or even 650mm torpedo.



I am amazed at how wrong most of the things stated in that article are. Almost like it is falsified or something.


It never seized to amaze that some people attempt to discredit statements made by government officials by presenting their own baseless "opinions."


These aren't opinions they are actually the facts in the statement which were wrong. A carrier does not have 10 000 personel aboard it has 6 000, nor is a 200kt weapon 6 times more powerful than Hiroshima





once again absolutely no fact just guess work. There is no information whatsoever except what is repeated verbatim on other sites, that the Russians announced they have a Shkval II, which may or may not be true. The more I read the more unlikely it seems.


The factual existence of F-117 was not "announced" to the Russians for decades for obvious reasons. Its very designation as a fighter is misleading. Considering that there is Shkval 1, which is more then 2 decades old, only a fool will believe that the Shkval 2 does not exist only because Russian did not care to show us one and tell us everything about it.


And your information on the Shkval II is based on what fact, where is the actual information about it. More to the point find me an actual officail Russian article about it, not some rumour the Rusians' announced it which is repaeted verbatim on every other website. I can find no such official release nor any facts released about it anywhere. Nothing but speculation on what may or may not exist.



In the case of Shkval, I only have to download a video to watch it in operation.


And, how does this prove anything you say about a Shkval II ?




A nuclear warhead is not necessary to destroy a carrier by a single weapon. A charge detonated directly under a ship creates a massive gas bubble that lifts the ships out of the water which breaks its back under its own weight. 450 kilos of HE does that quiet effortlessly.


What ? The Shkval only has a 210kg warhead. A half ton warhead would break the back of a destroyer frigate class ship, but something as heavy as a carrier would need several hits.


I appreciate factual contribution brought to this debate by StellarX and others, and also urge all to follow the very goal of the ATS forums - "Deny Ignorance"


Hmm, I believe we all have. You still haven't responded to my answer to your post about anti-laser hardening



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   

"Even the 20mm Phalanx CIWS has enough stopping power to shoot down any missile, if a round hits. They fire DUsabot slugs at over 1 km/s, if one of those round hits, something coming in at the same speed in the opposite direction, it's dead. "


Can some one please explain to mad scientist why 30mm frag is better then 20mm AP(S), and why it is actually rather difficult to literally hit a bullet with a bullet. I don't have it in me.


Not true in many conflicts tanker aircraft moved into hostile territory to help aircraft.


Exactly, it's a desperate measure, not a standard deployment. You're point being?


Anti shipping technology has faded a bit with the ending of the cold war.


Really? I haven't noticed, what do you base that notion on?


However, just as you rightfull point out that arrogance is often the cause of military blunders, so is overestimating the focers arrayed against you.

The Iranian rocket torpedo or the oft touted Bhramos missile, the Sunburn etc are perpetualy touted as a carrier killer but the proof as they say is in the pudding. THe error I see in this is the assumption that the USN (hidebound for sure) is in a state of static development. If India or Iran can develop a novel anti ship system is it not resonable that the USN does the same?


All of those weapons have been REPEATEDLY and OPENLY tested to make SELLING point at arms trade shows, and because US media does not show such ADVERTISING clips of torpedoes and missiles tearing their targets to shreds, it certainly does not mean that their effectiveness is "over hyped". It's only a matter of public opinion, which in combat is just as useful as a boom box.

For the public the only "proof as they say is in the pudding" will be a CNN report showing the rescue operation of survivors from a sunk carrier. Then "I told you so" can only insult the memory of lost sailors, because somebody didn't do their job.

I have absolutely no doubt that we can make the best of anything, yet bureaucracy bribery and corruption seem to form basis of our defense system, so which comparable anti-ship weapons USN has put in service?



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
If you read the article you would have noticed it mentioning that 10 000 American navy personal have tested positive for banned substances between i think 2001 and 2003. If you think you can build the best navy in the world on that basis i imagine we have different standards entirely. History has shown that numbers rarely wins the day when it's all you bring to the party.


Does any other Navy routinely test as often ? I really doubt it.
If you want to bring substance abuse into it, better keep an eye
on the British and Aussie Navies. Talk about alchoholics.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
Can some one please explain to mad scientist why 30mm frag is better then 20mm AP(S), and why it is actually rather difficult to literally hit a bullet with a bullet. I don't have it in me.

Its not difficult if you spray with about 6000 rounds at the one target.



Exactly, it's a desperate measure, not a standard deployment. You're point being?

Its desperate to supply aircraft with fuel?
Is the point of air superiority so that you CAN send tankers in?




All of those weapons have been REPEATEDLY and OPENLY tested to make SELLING point at arms trade shows, and because US media does not show such ADVERTISING clips of torpedoes and missiles tearing their targets to shreds, it certainly does not mean that their effectiveness is "over hyped". It's only a matter of public opinion, which in combat is just as useful as a boom box.

The sunburn cant sinnk a carrier unless it uses a nuke, I believe the USN tested it on the last carrier they sunk.


For the public the only "proof as they say is in the pudding" will be a CNN report showing the rescue operation of survivors from a sunk carrier. Then "I told you so" can only insult the memory of lost sailors, because somebody didn't do their job.

Or the tests conducted by america against their own carrier....


I have absolutely no doubt that we can make the best of anything, yet bureaucracy bribery and corruption seem to form basis of our defense system, so which comparable anti-ship weapons USN has put in service?

None because there is no navy the US or the RN need to sink that is as dangerous as ours.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 08:10 PM
link   
devilwasp I appeal to you, please, please make some sense once in a while, and if in doubt, google is your friend.

USN has NEVER tested the Sunburn, it only simulated its approach vectors by using Krypton which was purchased for such tests.

Details are provided below from various sources.

Just to keep the interest of readers of such a long list on the obvious, here's a tid bit from the very end of this post


Chris Cox, R -Calif., now working for a Washington-based think-tank, says the U.S. Navy cannot stop the Sunburn.



Here's more on what is COMMONLY known and UNDENIABLY accepted as FACT by DOD, all picked form the very first google search page, so here we go, buckle your seat belts and hold on;

A source of official Department of the Navy reports on Sunburn and the imminent danger it present to USN fleet;

www.softwar.net...


With an effective range of just under 1,500 meters, the Phalanx is a marginal weapon against the Sunburn, due to the high speed of the missile (770 meters a second). Even a destroyed missile could still spray the ship with fragments – damaging radars, weapons, and causing casualties. It would not be as bad as a direct hit, but it still would require the ship to undergo repairs.


www.strategypage.com...



“Nonsense!” you are probably thinking. That���s impossible. How could a few picayune destroyers threaten the US Pacific fleet?”

Here is where the story thickens: Summer Pulse amounted to a tacit acknowledgement, obvious to anyone paying attention, that the United States has been eclipsed in an important area of military technology, and that this qualitative edge is now being wielded by others, including the Chinese; because those otherwise very ordinary destroyers were, in fact, launching platforms for Russian-made 3M-82 Moskit anti-ship cruise missiles (NATO designation: SS-N-22 Sunburn), a weapon for which the US Navy currently has no defense. Here I am not suggesting that the US status of lone world Superpower has been surpassed. I am simply saying that a new global balance of power is emerging, in which other individual states may, on occasion, achieve “an asymmetric advantage��� over the US. And this, in my view, explains the immense scale of Summer Pulse. The US show last summer of overwhelming strength was calculated to send a message.

The Sunburn Missile

I was shocked when I learned the facts about these Russian-made cruise missiles. The problem is that so many of us suffer from two common misperceptions. The first follows from our assumption that Russia is militarily weak, as a result of the breakup of the old Soviet system. Actually, this is accurate, but it does not reflect the complexities. Although the Russian navy continues to rust in port, and the Russian army is in disarray, in certain key areas Russian technology is actually superior to our own. And nowhere is this truer than in the vital area of anti-ship cruise missile technology, where the Russians hold at least a ten-year lead over the US. The second misperception has to do with our complacency in general about missiles-as-weapons –– probably attributable to the pathetic performance of Saddam Hussein���s Scuds during the first Gulf war: a dangerous illusion that I will now attempt to rectify.

Many years ago, Soviet planners gave up trying to match the US Navy ship for ship, gun for gun, and dollar for dollar. The Soviets simply could not compete with the high levels of US spending required to build up and maintain a huge naval armada. They shrewdly adopted an alternative approach based on strategic defense. They searched for weaknesses, and sought relatively inexpensive ways to exploit those weaknesses. The Soviets succeeded: by developing several supersonic anti-ship missiles, one of which, the SS-N-22 Sunburn, has been called “the most lethal missile in the world today.”


www.informationclearinghouse.info...


At the same time American engineers and Russian engineers improved the Krypton, the Clinton/Gore administration turned down a Russian offer to buy all of its SS-N-22 Sunburn supersonic cruise missiles. The SS-N-22 Sunburn is considered "the most lethal anti-ship missile in the world" and the No. 1 threat to U.S. Navy aircraft carriers. The improved Krypton was intended to simulate the SS-N-22 Sunburn.


www.newsmax.com...


"Nevertheless, defense analysts agree that the U.S. is fully a decade behind Russia in high-speed cruise missile designs. Russia currently deploys and exports the supersonic SS-N-22 Moskit cruise missile, NATO codenamed "Sunburn." The SS-N-22 is considered the most lethal anti-ship missile in the world, and flies at over 2.5 times the speed of sound only a few feet from the surface of the water." [This speed amounts to almost 1,700 miles per hour, or 28 miles per minute].


www.cuttingedge.org...


"The Russians should not be selling the Sunburn to anyone," stated Al Santoli, national security advisor to Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R.-Calif.

"This is an example of the criminal abandonment of essential military research and development by the Clinton administration," he said. "The Clinton administration is responsible for this lapse in critical research. We have known about the Sunburn for years. We could have, and should have, developed a counter before this."



Santoli is not the only defense analyst who is concerned about the new Sunburn missile. According to two top China experts, the Sunburn missiles and the new Russian destroyers are a significant threat to the U.S. Navy.



Last July, defense analyst Richard D. Fisher also wrote an evaluation of the Russian-built Sunburn missile being sold to China. Fisher, a former defense analyst for Rep. Chris Cox, R -Calif., now working for a Washington-based think-tank, says the U.S. Navy cannot stop the Sunburn.


www.worldnetdaily.com...

If anyone attempts to argue with this, I can only wish them the best, because it's like arguing that a man can catch a bullet with his teeth, EVEN after the "Myth Busters" episode proving so otherwise.

So once again, USN is NOT invincible, until enormous resources and drastic restructuring are committed to its modernization.

edit:spelling




[edit on 6-4-2006 by iskander]



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
devilwasp I appeal to you, please, please make some sense once in a while, and if in doubt, google is your friend.

If your going to resort to snipes like that please restrain from posting, I thought you where supposed to be the adult here. Act like one.


USN has NEVER tested the Sunburn, it only simulated its approach vectors by using Krypton which was purchased for such tests.

Ok my mistake I apologise but to be fair both missiles are A2S missiles and both missiles travel at the same speed, the krypton going abotu 0.1 mach slower in the initial stage. The US probably doesnt have anything on its ships RIGHT NOW that can stop the sunburn since it is after all a new weapon. And I will agree it is a very deadly weapon and probably the best Anti ship missile out there but to say that it could sink a carrier is not really worth it because it couldnt.
Unless it carried a nuke and I dont think anyone with a nuke would willingly use it on an american carrier.



So once again, USN is NOT invincible, until enormous resources and drastic restructuring are committed to its modernization.

No navy's invincible, there just very hard to destroy and the US navy is hard to destroy. It will never be invincible but the US navy is getting closer to near impossible to kill, dont believe me fair enough....your choice.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 10:25 PM
link   
THe threats posed by the Sunburn et al. has lead to the development of the RAM or rolling airframe missile which is essentialy a sidewinder with a stinger head.

navysite.de...

Its main benifit is that it engages leakers at a longer range to aviod fragging the ship during an intercept

From the same site is the future for point defence untill the advent of lasers



The SEA RAM Anti-Ship Missile Defense System under development by RSC and RAMSYS is an evolved Close-In Weapon System (CIWS) comprising key attributes of both the existing Phalanx CIWS and the RAM Guided Missile Weapon System. SEA RAM is designed to extend the battle space of the CIWS and enable the ship to effectively engage multiple targets.
Leveraged technology from Phalanx and RAM integrates elements of each system into the self-contained SEA RAM System. An 11-missile round RAM guide assembly, loaded with RAM Block 1 guided missiles, replaces the 20 mm gun of Phalanx.
SEA RAM combines the superior accuracy, large intercept range and high maneuverability of RAM with the high resolution search-and-track sensor system and reliable quick response capability of Phalanx Block 1B.
navysite.de...


[edit on 4/6/06 by FredT]



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 10:39 PM
link   
The USN has a layered defense for protecting its ships. First of course would be CAP, it would try to take out the launching platforms before they could launch their weapons. Second would be the SM-2ER, next depending on the ship is the ESSM followed by the RAM and finally the CIWS aka Phalanx. I wouldn’t make such a bold claim that the USN cannot stop a Sunburn as only the USN probably knows that for sure.
One more thing, modern anti ship missiles can be made to change course or altitude by using picket ships as effective screens for a carrier.


[edit on 6-4-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 10:48 PM
link   
devilwasp I'm not sniping, and I do believe I'm allowed to share my irritation when my contributions to ATS forums are being questioned by individuals which them selves have not put the effort of looking into the facts.

Being forced to prove the same facts over and over again is simply counter productive, draining, and hinders the discussion.


Unless it carried a nuke and I dont think anyone with a nuke would willingly use it on an american carrier.


Here is where we can help each other;

Sunburn weighs 4500 kg (9,921lb), carried a 320kg 9(705lb) warhead, with maximum speed of Mach 3 (994.4 m/s, 3262 f/s)

If you could calculate and share with us the energy such a projectile will transfer on a hull of a carrier in joules (SI kg-m2/s2), with its corresponding effect on the target, even with out detonation of its warhead, it would surely clear up the air.

Kind of like what would three Buick's flying at a speed of a rifle bullet do to a building, while having an option of detonating 700 lb. of HE in their trunks.

It would answer both of our questions on where ever the Sunburn can destroy a carrier or not.

I have "pondered" upon that my self, but do not have the numbers to support it, and that's where I would appreciate your effort.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Well since I see more members are pitching in, why don't we spread the load and ask everyone to contribute to such a energy transfer calculation.

Don't be shy jump right in.

WestPoint23 we can do this all day.

You'll present your personal opinion, and I will reference a testimony of a professional whose job is to discuss such matters.

Kind of like you being a jaywalker crossing on a red light while convinced that as soon as a pedestrian steps on the road every one should stop, and me being a semi-truck disagreeing on that notion with the laws of physics, inertia being one in particular.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 01:20 AM
link   
phalanx has issue`s engaging missiles at 600 mph - it missed the only one shot at the missouri during GW1 and had to be shot down by the british sea dart missile. the phalanx was fired by one of missouri`s guard ships , and some of the rounds actually hit the battleship!



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander

"Even the 20mm Phalanx CIWS has enough stopping power to shoot down any missile, if a round hits. They fire DUsabot slugs at over 1 km/s, if one of those round hits, something coming in at the same speed in the opposite direction, it's dead. "


Can some one please explain to mad scientist why 30mm frag is better then 20mm AP(S), and why it is actually rather difficult to literally hit a bullet with a bullet. I don't have it in me.


Gee you don't say
Which is why CIWS are designed to hit the target and why they have an extraordinarily high rate of fire. You seem to need to do a little more reading. You back up what I said anyway, which is that the 30mm Goalkeeper would be a better weapon, I fail to see your point other than agreeing with me


BTW, I like how you disregard the rest of my post, a bit too informative for you. I guess all your posturing on this supposedly Shkval II is crap
You seem to make all these assumptions, yet cannot back any of it up.

I apeal to you to make some snese rather than attacking other members



PS. I would apreciate if you'd answer my responses to yours. You have some interesting things to say - if I am wrong please show me some contrary information - not just your own extrapolations of where you thing technology may take weaponry.


[edit on 7-4-2006 by mad scientist]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join