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: 11
0
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Things I agree with:
- The Sunburn is (one of ) the most lethal missile(s) in the world today.
- The Sunburn is unlikely to sink a carrier on it's own.

Things I disagree with:
-The US navy has no means of defeating the Sunburn missile.

Frankly, you do not need to sink an aircraft carrier to take it at least temporarily out of action. Anything that stops it's flight ops stops it's combat power untill flight ops can be restored.

I don't know where these notions of 300 NMI cruise missiles are coming from, but to assume that mid air refualing cannot be accomplished inside that arc is assuming that the enemy also has surface to air missiles with such range. Air defence sites are a primary target for the first wave of attacking aircraft and tomahawk missiles. As are shore instalations with such weapons as long range anti-ship missiles. Once those targets are neutralised, the fleet is free to park off the shore and thumb thier noses at enemy forces on the beach.

Incidently, a 20 mm armor piercing round is quite sufficient to kill a missile. Missiles don't exactly carry much armor, and guidance electronics respond badly to having holes punched through them.




posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
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.

You are sniping, and I have been looking into the facts.


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

You have not "debunked" my last "claim" that a sunburn cant sink a carrier without nukes.



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)

And you think that ammount of kinetic energy will sink a carrier? Come on, we havent even discussed losses in energy and never mind the fact that a carrier has more than ample boyancy to keep her afloat no matter where the sunburn hits her.



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.

Clear up the air? With kinetic energy alone it can damage a carrier yes, no one disputes that....what I am disputing is the fact that a carrier cant be sunk by one.



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.

Doubt it 3 buicks weigh a hell of a lot les than 4500 kg but even then it still would not sink a carrier.




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.

Well lets supposed the missile hits her midships right band on the water line, that sound fair enough?
Now just guessing I'd say something traveling at mach 3 suddenly hitting a steel wall would undoubtably cause a rather large hole , yes no?
Considering how much water fills the area which is now open to the sea do you honuestly think that it will sink? Taking the carriers weight and size into consideration?
IMO no due to her massive size it would take more than a few hits to sink her....I cant give any numbers because I dont have all the data.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Here's a thought...

In 1987 the USS Stark (FFG-31) was hit by two AM-39 Exocet missiles, yet did not sink.

Calculate the mass of the FFG-7 ship, its tonnage, the speed and warhead size of the Exocets - then extrapolate.

It seems to me that it would take alot more than just 1 SS-N-22 to sink a US carrier...........



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Things I disagree with:
-The US navy has no means of defeating the Sunburn missile.


Travellar, feel free to disagree, but it's not me you'll be disagreeing with, it's with industry professionals and government officials whose job it is to know about these things.


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


To make an analogy, consider the following;

It's kind of like a dog disagreeing with a lamp post, and other then barking the only way the dog can contribute is by urinating on the post.

I do ABSOLUTELY agree with you on the following;


Frankly, you do not need to sink an aircraft carrier to take it at least temporarily out of action. Anything that stops it's flight ops stops it's combat power untill flight ops can be restored.


It is a true pleasure to note that you are absolutely correct there.

Now to devilwasp.


You have not "debunked" my last "claim" that a sunburn cant sink a carrier without nukes.


Well that's just the point devilwasp. There is nothing I have to "debunk", and in hopes that if you do the math you just might understand something for your self, you still want other people to do all the work for you.


And you think that ammount of kinetic energy will sink a carrier? Come on, we havent even discussed losses in energy and never mind the fact that a carrier has more than ample boyancy to keep her afloat no matter where the sunburn hits her.


And what amount of kinetic energy would that be? We can't really ask such questions until we know the amount, right? Or you'll try to weasel out of this one to? Do the math, come back, and we'll take it from there.


Clear up the air? With kinetic energy alone it can damage a carrier yes, no one disputes that....what I am disputing is the fact that a carrier cant be sunk by one.


Again, what energy? How much of it, and how much of it it takes to vaporise metal into an explosive cloud? How much metal will be vaporised? How will it explode? Establish the variables involved, then we all can decide what is plausible, and what is not, until then you are guessing, which means you know diddly squat and waste the air of the cyberspace.


Doubt it 3 buicks weigh a hell of a lot les than 4500 kg but even then it still would not sink a carrier.


No kidding ha? How about looking at least something up before giving us your "guesses" on everything? Follow me on t his one, lift a finger ant paste the following link in you browser address window;

www.www.buick.com... - click GO,

In "Specifications" section, under "Curb weight" what does it say? Multiply it by 3, take your time, what do we get? It is a valid question, because technically I am of by a margin of how many pounds?


Well lets supposed the missile hits her midships right band on the water line, that sound fair enough?


No devilwasp, lets not "suppose", lets KNOW shall we? Unless off course you could care less to what is fact and what is crap, then I'll understand you're motivation behind you participation in these forums, and take a note for the future.


Now just guessing I'd say something traveling at mach 3 suddenly hitting a steel wall


No devilwasp, lets not guess, and not say. If you don't know, please take the time to do so, and then share what you have learned with the community. When people that DO know share their findings with the community, have the common sense to distinguish knowledge from ignorance. Ignorance is not knowing, just to make it clear. So in this case, what does it make you? Are we still on the same page or you're going to get all personal again?


would undoubtably cause a rather large hole , yes no?


No its not how it works my friend. You don't give me a dollar and ask for a twenty back in change. What you are attempting to say here is that your guess can not be doubted. To simplify even further, what you have sad is something like this "I do not know, therefore I must be right", which is fallacy, and what is quickly becoming a pattern here, I again recommend this very informative source which explores the culture of fallacy in depth;

www.fallacyfiles.org...

So if you again attempt to pull that flawed home made logic of yours, on the grounds of everything that's true I beg you not to.

This is all I will say on the debate conduct, because pointing out that before trying to play logic one should learn their ABCs is not my job, and technically should be the moderators job, but since we live in this new reality of mediocrity and political correctness, these days one can not even say what is true and what is not, if fear of hurting homebody's' "feelings" and their "opinions".

"with all these opinions and their corresponding a$$holes, we'll all end up drowning in a sea of adult sized diapers, and suffocate in their corresponding stench." So please keep yours to your self and help keep the environment free of pollution.

So far Pyros is the only one diligent enough to at least propose a course of action.

Pyros its a good start, but we'll have to take a completely different approach.

The Exocet weighs in at 670 kg + 165 kg shaped HE frag.

We're talking over five Exocets to one Sunburn just by weight, but the deciding factor lies in its subsonic speed of M0.93.

The drastic difference in energy's transferred can not support your proposed extrapolation.

To get this rolling, one might want to look into the damage caused to US carriers by Japanese kamikaze pilots in their aluminum/wooden prop driven zeros weighing in at 6000lb fully loaded, and traveling at half the speed Exocet does.

On kamikaze missions they were sent with only enough fuel to get there and with no ammo, so deduct the appropriate load from the gross.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
To get this rolling, one might want to look into the damage caused to US carriers by Japanese kamikaze pilots in their aluminum/wooden prop driven zeros weighing in at 6000lb fully loaded, and traveling at half the speed Exocet does.

On kamikaze missions they were sent with only enough fuel to get there and with no ammo, so deduct the appropriate load from the gross.


Actually most of the Kamikazes which hit US ships were carrying bombs, that's where most of the damage came from. Also stating the obvious, WWII were far far smaller than their nuclear counterparts today. Not to mention a large part of the Sunburns weight is made up by a solid rocket booster and kerosine fuel storage. It's not going to hit the carrier with a 4500kg weight, more like 2000kg.

As for a Sunburn killing a carrier, very unlikely, the carrier just has too much mass and could absorb a hit. As other people have stated flight ops may be curtailed, but that is hardly sinking it.
It seems that the manufactureres don't even have the gaul to state that one can kill a carrier. Let alone one with kinetic energy alone



The missile takes only 2 minutes to cover its full range and manufacturers state that 1-2 missiles could incapacitate a destroyer while 1-5 missiles could sink a 20000 ton merchantman. An extended range missile, 9M80E is now available.

warfare.ru...


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



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   
since when does anyone think that just 1 ASM will sink a carrier????


3 maybe 4 will put it `out of action`and unless the firefighting equivilent of a small city fails to put out any fires then it won`t sink.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
Well that's just the point devilwasp. There is nothing I have to "debunk", and in hopes that if you do the math you just might understand something for your self, you still want other people to do all the work for you.

What maths? The maths that a single missile cannot sink a ship of that size without nuclear weapons?
I dont need maths to figure out that even if there are several compartments blown open and all of them fill with water, the shear size of the carrier will keep it afloat.



And what amount of kinetic energy would that be?

2 giga joules.


We can't really ask such questions until we know the amount, right? Or you'll try to weasel out of this one to? Do the math, come back, and we'll take it from there.

I already have, but ofcourse we will never know what ammount of space is "full" of water now will we because we need this to work out the force going down (weight of water) compared to the force going up (boyancy of the rest of the ship).



Again, what energy? How much of it, and how much of it it takes to vaporise metal into an explosive cloud?

Quite a bit.


How much metal will be vaporised?

How many compartments will be comprised?
More than 8 ? 12? 100?


How will it explode?

Usually it goes bang when its inside the ship.....unless it goes pop.


Establish the variables involved, then we all can decide what is plausible, and what is not, until then you are guessing, which means you know diddly squat and waste the air of the cyberspace.

We cant until we can get deck plans, pick a target area and see the extent of damage.



No kidding ha? How about looking at least something up before giving us your "guesses" on everything?

My mistake, I was looking at its max payload..You are right but slightly OVER 4500 kg, infact near double it.
2 buicks even then its still near a 1000 kgs heavier than the missile so I dont see your point since a buick is "slightly" bigger than a sunburn.


Multiply it by 3, take your time, what do we get?

7000 odd kilograms....slighty heavier than a sunburn.





No devilwasp, lets not "suppose", lets KNOW shall we?

Let KNOW? so you know WHERE missiles are going to strike?


Unless off course you could care less to what is fact and what is crap, then I'll understand you're motivation behind you participation in these forums, and take a note for the future.

Fact? You want facts fine:
A) Its a pop up missile so will most likely hit ABOVE the water line therefore no water would enter it.
B) Most of the force would either go out of the hole it entered of through the bulkheads.

C) Air does not sink a ship unless it is UNDER the ship, so that really rules out the sinking area unless high seas come in and the water reaches the hole.

D) We dont know where or what it will hit now do we? It could hit the stern, the bow, port or starboard quarters?



No devilwasp, lets not guess, and not say. If you don't know, please take the time to do so, and then share what you have learned with the community.

Fact is we cant do anything OTHER than guess unless you have the deck plans for a carrier, the UTS for the armour on a carrier, the thickness of the armour , the position of the missile hit and the damage caused by the explosive.

Do you have the above?


When people that DO know share their findings with the community, have the common sense to distinguish knowledge from ignorance. Ignorance is not knowing, just to make it clear. So in this case, what does it make you? Are we still on the same page or you're going to get all personal again?

Mabye you'd like to get off the "you have no facts" argument and look at what your saying. Since neither of us have deckplans or damage statistics or any of the above I mentioned then we can neither disprove nor prove anything now which one of us is ignorant if NEITHER or us have ANY of the facts needed?



No its not how it works my friend. You don't give me a dollar and ask for a twenty back in change. What you are attempting to say here is that your guess can not be doubted. To simplify even further, what you have sad is something like this "I do not know, therefore I must be right", which is fallacy, and what is quickly becoming a pattern here, I again recommend this very informative source which explores the culture of fallacy in depth;

Get off your high horse : If something weighing 4.5 mega grams slams into metal at several times the speed of sound (340 metres per second) then it will cause a rather large hole or are you going to claim since I dont know what metal and what that "something" is I am wrong.





So if you again attempt to pull that flawed home made logic of yours, on the grounds of everything that's true I beg you not to.

Flawed logic? Its the logic of physics, if somethng heavy going very fast hits somthing that cant withstand the hit then it will crumple and with the right amount of force it will make a big hole.
Are you denying this?

I'm going to ask you once nicely and politely : Are you going to behave as an adult, treat me like one and mabye just mabye once answer the question without insulting me?

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   
they might be unbeatabel considering the carrier
Then again the sunburn missile is proof against that.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   
devilwasp, 2 gigajouls is correct, basic ballistics, no we're getting somewhere, you're a shooter so I am.

ballistic joules-

p weight in grams X square of mv in m/s / by 2000.

But that's just the tip of the iceberg. What happens to all that energy when it is transferred through a collision?

Kind of like we know the energy 3 Buicks retain while flying at 995m/s, but what will happen when they slam into a brick wall?

BTW, 4500kg = 10K lb, 1 Buick 3500lb X 3 = 10500 lb, resulting in 500 lb difference, not what ever you figured there.

Let's do it quick and dirty.

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

Nimitz class - Weight of structural steel - 54000 tons (54000000kg) with max of speed 15 m/s

Momentum (a product of inertia and velocity or .kg*m/s) is when a mass has a velocity. In this case m=4500kg * v=995 m/s

Initial conditions m=4500kg * v=995 m/s

momentum = 4477500

Initial momentum p = m1v1 + m2v2 = 814477500 kg m/s .

Initial kinetic energy KE = 1/2 m1v12 + 1/2 m2v22 = 8302556250 joules

Final conditions:

given velocity of mass m1 is v'1 = -0.3 m/s.

velocity of mass m2 is v'2 =15 m/s

final momentum constrained to be p' = m1v'1 + m2v'2 =814477500 kg m/s

Final kinetic energy KE = 1/2 m1v'12 + 1/2 m2v'22 = 6142371003.85209 joules

Naturally meaning: final kinetic energy is less than the initial value.To increase its kinetic energy include energy release triggered by the impact af the 320kg of HE, increased chemical energy impact of which feel free to calculate on your own.

Keeping true to our initial conditions, given a perfectly elastic case, we confirm;
v'1(elastic) =-964.836 m/s

v'2(elastic) =15 m/s

Meaning: velocity of separation after the collision is = to the velocity of approach before the collision. (like a bullet going through a watermelon)

Given that two masses fuse together (density variables) the final velocity combination will =

V_inelastic =15 m/s

With final kinetic energy of;

KEinelastic = 6816818305.345849 joules

And this is quick and dirty under zero grav/resistance, while excluding variables such as chemical energy release/overpressure from the collision, fragmentation/cavitation effect etc.

Even with out getting in depth, at the very least a ballistic pendulum model should be used.

Break a leg.

Or if you want to skip all the boring numbers, load a 12 gage buckshot and from couple of feet blast a Barbie play house with it, see what happens.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Hmm, you've used the wrong weight for teh Sunburn. 4500kg is it's launch weight ie. when it has it's full load of fuel and a rocket booster, it would weigh far less when it hits it's target. Also you have to take into account the density of the missile.

As I have already posted the manufactuer claims 1-2 will disable ( not sink ) a frigate and 1-5 will disable a 20 000 ton freighter. So obviously it takes quite a few to destroy a carrier.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
weight in grams X square of mv in m/s / by 2000.

actually I believe we were "slightly" off, I forgot to square it.
Its actually: 2,624,400,000,000 joules.
I dont really see where your equation came from.



But that's just the tip of the iceberg. What happens to all that energy when it is transferred through a collision?

Its transferred into compressive, tenstile, heat, sound and varios other forms of energy.




BTW, 4500kg = 10K lb, 1 Buick 3500lb X 3 = 10500 lb, resulting in 500 lb difference, not what ever you figured there.

I read the payload not the cars weight, they where next to each other.
My bad.
How thick is this metal you are bending by the way since you kind of left that out?....and what has the velocity of the carrier got to do with anything? Since that really doesnt come into the equation of what would happene when a missile smacks into the side of the carrier.

Also are we thinking that the missile explodes after or before the missile enters the carrier?
If so how far away will the bulk heads be? We need to calculate the blast damage caused by peak overpressure, to do that we need distance.

Lots of variables....but the fact is do you honuestly think it would sink a carrier ? Given its size, shape, bouyancy and basically the ammount of air kept inside?
I think it wouldnt but heh.




[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Perhaps a certain perspective on probabilities would be useful here. Especially as there are few certainties in warfare.

There is no certainty of being able to shoot an SS-N-22 down. Likewise, there is no certainty of getting one through without it being intercepted. So while an argument can be made against claims that "we can stop it", and equally valid argument can be made against claims that "we can't stop it". Further discussion on this matter would require numbers which are classified. Thus, further discussion is somewhat meaningless.

On to the question of sinking an Aircraft Carrier. There seems to be some (though very little) agreement that one or more missiles may be able to knock out flight operations. Since there's no certainty of any individual missile getting through in the first place, a volly of missiles seems the more logical approach. That, and crossing you fingers that whoever's on watch isn't paying attention. The possible net result is a carrier out of action. Sunk or not, we can move on to the next two points.

First, The removal of one aircraft carrier, while potentially devastating, is not a show-stopper for the US Navy. Plenty of firepower still remains in surving surface ships, additional carriers, amphibs, and submarines. (to say nothing of other branches of military service) The volley of sunburns launched has in theory at this point dealt a blow to the USN, but it's not a knockout blow by a long shot.

Second, after launching a volly of missiles at the carrier or carrier group, the locations of the launch site have been revealed, and the launchers will not last long enough to pose a threat on the following day. Air launched missiles may still pose a threat, but they won't be available in the volleys neccisary, and even well defended airfields aren't immune from attack.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 06:35 AM
link   
Now I deeply worried that facing so many Iranian small attacker boat how US navy's aircraft carrier can go through the Hormuz channel. In my view, helicopter is the best weapon to suppress High-speed Attacker Boat, so US navy should equipe more attacker-helicopter like Aparchi. Also something like MetalStorm will be useful very much.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 11:23 AM
link   
I'm glad you caught that "we were slightly of", on positive note now we both have something to agree on.


I dont really see where your equation came from.


physics. m1 v1 - m2 v2


Its transferred into compressive, tenstile, heat, sound and varios other forms of energy.


It was not a question, but an omission of other variables which further increase the impact effects of the collision.


At the terminal phase of the flight, the missile descends to an altitude of 7 meters and starts performing random evasive maneuvers of up to 10 Gs to avoid the targets airdefences - it impacts with its target at a speed of Mach 2.5 and penetrates the hull of the target after which the 320 kg HE(300 kg for 3M80) warhead is detonated while the missile passes through the hull.


Note that the publisized attack method of the Sunburn is a conventional low altitude side attack and utilising the warhead to inflict the damage to the vessel, while the missile itself entirely passes through the hull.

Sunburn effectivness is measured ONLY by the potency of its warhead, while completely ommiting the massive kinetic energy of the missile itself.


In order to effectively disable a target the following number of 3M80 hits is required (average): against a destroyer - 1.2 , against a transport ship (up to 20000 t) - 1.5.


It is important to realise that the chemical energy of the warhead is literally dwarfed by the kinetic energy the of the missile it self.

home19.inet.tele.dk...

Being "cousisns" It will be foolish to assume that a Sunburn does not use the aeroballistic attack of the Kh-15 Krypton. Eeroballistic attack executed by the Sunburn will literally slice a ship in half.

No phycisc here, just common sense.

M829A2 penetrator rounded weight = 5kg, rounded mv = 1600 m/s with the rounded 7 mjoules of m.e.

960mm rha penetration, just a hair short of one meter.

So in short, 5kg traveling really fast, zips through 60 tons of armor busting it open like a tin can. Let's not get into where it hits, if the magazine detonates or not, etc, it's non essential.

Lets transfer the effect quick and dirty style.

900 penetrators will make up the mass of a single Sunburn, to compensate for mv difference, even though mass takes precedence over mv in our particular case, lets cut the mass anyway by 37%, ending up with 567 perpetrators.

60 tons x 567 = 34020 tons, destroyed in the similar manner by a 2700kg projectile at roughtly 1000 m/s.

So even with out physics, one should at least understand that a 54000 ton Nimitz class can NOT survive the loss of over a half of it's structural integrity.

A nuclear tipped Sunburn creates a wake which demolishes the carrier GROUP, not just the carrier. While damage to the outside targets will not be critical, it will render them totally inept, and completely open to conventional attack.

edit:spelling


[edit on 8-4-2006 by iskander]



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
I'm glad you caught that "we were slightly of", on positive note now we both have something to agree on.

Been a while since I done Velocity equations, we mostly focus on bouyancy and heat right now..



physics. m1 v1 - m2 v2

So why on earth are you working out speed and mass if we know both of them ?






Sunburn effectivness is measured ONLY by the potency of its warhead, while completely ommiting the massive kinetic energy of the missile itself.

And the flying shrapnel from the now non exisitant missile flying at mach 3ish through the hull is not effective?






Being "cousisns" It will be foolish to assume that a Sunburn does not use the aeroballistic attack of the Kh-15 Krypton. Eeroballistic attack executed by the Sunburn will literally slice a ship in half.

No phycisc here, just common sense.

You think that because it explodes in air that it will "slice" a carrier in half?
Yeah.....good luck with that...








So even with out physics, one should at least understand that a 54000 ton Nimitz class can NOT survive the loss of over a half of it's structural integrity.

Your talking about a tank shell designed to cut through the armour of a tank with DU material in it which is far more dense than the steel or high temprature materials in a sunburn missile....

A single missile is not going to sink a carrier , sorry but unless it hits the magazine, engine room or mabye even some of the aircraft under the deck the carrier wont sink.

Simply blowing holes in a carrier 7 metres above the waterline will not sink her, it might leave a nice big hole for the crew to look through but not sink her. The whole point of missiles is to hit the ship and cause fires, kill crew ,damage the ship and allow water into her.

A fire and flooding are the 2 nightmares for sailors, hence why the enemy want to start fires...once it starts on a ship its very difficult to put out. Unless the crew act very quickly.




A nuclear tipped Sunburn creates a wake which demolishes the carrier GROUP, not just the carrier. While damage to the outside targets will not be critical, it will render them totally inept, and completely open to conventional attack.

Nuclear weapons are not on the discussion....thank you.



[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 03:48 PM
link   

So why on earth are you working out speed and mass if we know both of them ?[/quote[

devilwasp, what these numbers prove, is that the projective of such mass and speed, just by its kinetic energy (regardless of its density) simply blows clean through the mass of the carrier.

Instead of going into rather complicated physics involved, calculation of one-dimensional collision between two masses and the apparent conservation of momentum is more then enough to support Sunburns stated capabilities.


And the flying shrapnel from the now non exisitant missile flying at mach 3ish through the hull is not effective?


As I have clearly stated previously, other contributing impact variables are not factored in the equations, because such calculations require the type of physics modeling that people get payed serious money for, and I'm not working here, just sharing a though or two.

For example, If you can build such physics models, you should be building collision models for the auto industry and making a good living doing it.


You think that because it explodes in air that it will "slice" a carrier in half?
Yeah.....good luck with that...


Wrong again, please read my previous post.


Your talking about a tank shell designed to cut through the armour of a tank with DU material in it which is far more dense than the steel or high temprature materials in a sunburn missile....


Wrong, if Sunburn was a giant penetrator it would cleanly pass through the hull and inflict much less damage. Being what it is, it acts much like a hollow point / fragmentation bullet. The fragmentation effect coupled with its initial kinetic energy drastically widens the effected area, while still retaining enough momentum to completely pass through the hull.


Simply blowing holes in a carrier 7 metres above the waterline will not sink her, it might leave a nice big hole for the crew to look through but not sink her. The whole point of missiles is to hit the ship and cause fires, kill crew ,damage the ship and allow water into her.


Please read my posts and respond accordingly. It only forces me repeat whats already been stated previously, and wastes other peoples time.

That is in fact the stated "intended use" of such tremendously powerful weapon, and again, as I have clearly stated previously;

[qute]Being "cousisns" It will be foolish to assume that a Sunburn does not use the aeroballistic attack of the Kh-15 Krypton. Eeroballistic attack executed by the Sunburn will literally slice a ship in half.


Meaning if the Sunburn executes a top attack, it will strike the deck and blow all the way through slicing the keel.

The effect is similar to the effect of hollow point fragmenting bullet. While entrance is clean, the fragmentation expands the channel exponentially, thus the blunt of the damage will be caused to keel of the ship, effectively "breaking its back".

From there its only a matter of a chain reaction. By destroying the keel, under its own weight and the immense forces of its forward momentum, the ship will literally fold and tear it self apart. Consider the forces involved in the case of the carriers speed of 15 m/s and its weight of 54000 tons. We already have the momentum numbers, just apply them to the structural integrity tolerances with out the support of load bearing infrastructure. Not being able to withstand such loads, the hull will start tearing, bulkheads crumpling, flooding, fire. It's horrible to imagine such a catastrophic calamity.

To simplify, think of a truck going 50 m/p, then its ladder frame being struck by a fragmenting .50 cal round and severing it completely. It is only a matter of time before the rest of the frame completely fails and disintegrates, resulting in complete destruction of the truck. By the time it spots it will be a pile of pieces scattered all over the place. Engine here, axle's there, cabin upside down, etc.

Smaller, faster, stealthier, that's the future, not a lumbering giant pretending it's not a target.

Instead of ignoring the reality and committing enormous resources to protect an obsolete concept of a carrier group, such resources should be allocated to the reality of the 21st century Naval warfare, which will increasingly mirror air combat, -> speed is life.

Sunburn/Shkval combination very well might be a reality of today, giving such a concept an ability of attacking both surface and submerged targets. How are we not to think that such combination is not able to intercept air targets as well?

21st century will combine all three great powers of military technology. Plane, ship and submersible will be combined into a single platform.

A stealthy WIG tuned lifting body, being able of shallow submersion, now that'll make one hell of a craft, which in turn will be hunted by a "hopping" missile, chasing it from the air into the depths of the sea and back, leaving a carrier to the history books, just as its predecessor, the battleship.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
devilwasp, what these numbers prove, is that the projective of such mass and speed, just by its kinetic energy (regardless of its density) simply blows clean through the mass of the carrier.

Instead of going into rather complicated physics involved, calculation of one-dimensional collision between two masses and the apparent conservation of momentum is more then enough to support Sunburns stated capabilities.

You have proven it can go through armour, no one was denying. I was wondering what the thickness of the armour.



As I have clearly stated previously, other contributing impact variables are not factored in the equations, because such calculations require the type of physics modeling that people get payed serious money for, and I'm not working here, just sharing a though or two.

....You said it was measured in effectiveness...I pointed out one aspect of the missile that is not a variable since it will happen.

[quote
Wrong again, please read my previous post.

Aeroballistic:Ballistics, especially of missiles, in the atmosphere



Wrong, if Sunburn was a giant penetrator it would cleanly pass through the hull and inflict much less damage.

Theres nothign "clean" about using brute force to pass through solids.


Being what it is, it acts much like a hollow point / fragmentation bullet.

So why mention DU munitions?


The fragmentation effect coupled with its initial kinetic energy drastically widens the effected area, while still retaining enough momentum to completely pass through the hull.

What does this have to do with sinking a carrier? No one denied it could cut through the armour.



Please read my posts and respond accordingly. It only forces me repeat whats already been stated previously, and wastes other peoples time.

Wastes time? You have never answered my question: How would she sink?
[qoute]
That is in fact the stated "intended use" of such tremendously powerful weapon, and again, as I have clearly stated previously;


[qute]
Meaning if the Sunburn executes a top attack, it will strike the deck and blow all the way through slicing the keel.

On a carrier!! Do you know how many decks, planes, equipment and bulkheads the missile would need to pass through to REACH the keel?
Plus since the detonation happens at the point of impact then how would it destroy the keel?
Also if its a top attack then your telling me it woud fly right up into the carriers air defence then suddenly aim itself onto the carrier deck. Your telling me it does near 270 angle turns (if its a pop up missile it will need to turn near 180 to climb up then turn the degrees down to hit the deck) at mach 3?





From there its only a matter of a chain reaction. By destroying the keel, under its own weight and the immense forces of its forward momentum, the ship will literally fold and tear it self apart. Consider the forces involved in the case of the carriers speed of 15 m/s and its weight of 54000 tons. We already have the momentum numbers, just apply them to the structural integrity tolerances with out the support of load bearing infrastructure. Not being able to withstand such loads, the hull will start tearing, bulkheads crumpling, flooding, fire. It's horrible to imagine such a catastrophic calamity.

How do the explosives get down there if they explode on the deck.....One sunburn could not do the damage you describe it would requiere something that had a delayed charge and being able to pass through ALL the decks most likely 20 of them.







Instead of ignoring the reality and committing enormous resources to protect an obsolete concept of a carrier group, such resources should be allocated to the reality of the 21st century Naval warfare, which will increasingly mirror air combat, -> speed is life.

This is "your" reality, not the actual one....a carrier task force does more than just send up planes, it cooridinates sea attacks, boardings, maritime patrols , etc etc.
You think an F-22 can board a tanker?
You think an sunburn can sink every ship out there? No, sorry but even the producers deny what you claim lol.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 05:27 PM
link   
devilwasp, I'm done here.

I've laid out everything plain and clear, you simply chose to ignore the obvious facts supported by physics which you clearly do not grasp, and just result to keep saying "no it isn't, no it can't".

There is a definition to such behavior, the behavior which ATS forums attempt to deny by promoting reason etc yet there are terminal cases.

I'm done running in circles with you my friend, there is nothing funny about it, and be it as it may, have a good one mate.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
devilwasp, I'm done here.

I've laid out everything plain and clear, you simply chose to ignore the obvious facts supported by physics which you clearly do not grasp, and just result to keep saying "no it isn't, no it can't".

Plain and clear? You've plainly laid out that something heavy going at the speed of sound can go through steel..... You have refused to answer the question: How can explosives detonate twice?



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Plain and clear? You've plainly laid out that something heavy going at the speed of sound can go through steel..... You have refused to answer the question: How can explosives detonate twice?


Refresh my memory; why does it need to( or are assumed to, somehow) detonate twice? I think Iskander's problem lies in that he assumes math will help when simple English rarely has effect on people with a properly constructed bias.
I think I'll take a stab at this issue and see where it leads me.

Stellar



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join