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.
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.
Being forced to prove the same facts over and over again is simply counter productive, draining, and hinders the discussion.
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.
Things I disagree with:
-The US navy has no means of defeating the Sunburn missile.
Chris Cox, R -Calif., now working for a Washington-based think-tank, says the U.S. Navy cannot stop the Sunburn.
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.
You have not "debunked" my last "claim" that a sunburn cant sink a carrier without nukes.
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.
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.
Doubt it 3 buicks weigh a hell of a lot les than 4500 kg but even then it still would not sink a carrier.
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?
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
No kidding ha? How about looking at least something up before giving us your "guesses" on everything?
Multiply it by 3, take your time, what do we get?
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.
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?
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;
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.
Originally posted by iskander
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?
BTW, 4500kg = 10K lb, 1 Buick 3500lb X 3 = 10500 lb, resulting in 500 lb difference, not what ever you figured there.
I dont really see where your equation came from.
Its transferred into compressive, tenstile, heat, sound and varios other forms of energy.
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.
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.
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.
physics. m1 v1 - m2 v2
Sunburn effectivness is measured ONLY by the potency of its warhead, while completely ommiting the massive kinetic energy of the missile itself.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Please read my posts and respond accordingly. It only forces me repeat whats already been stated previously, and wastes other peoples time.
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.
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.
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".
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?