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: 12
0
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
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

Well the missile explodes as it passes through the hull, yet he says it will break the back, to do that you'd need to explode again.




posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 02:24 PM
link   
I think the example of the single fifty cal shell striking a moving truck might tell alot about this discussion. A single such bullet will certainly make a hole in whatever part of the truck frame it strikes. However, do to the structural loads already expected of that componet, (in this case the ladder frame), and the fact that designers, especially warship designers, do not make the equipment they design just barely capable, that ladder frame will be physicly large enough to take realtively little structural damage, as a percentage of it's overall strength. Further, that relatively small amount of structural damage is unlikely to exceed the margins already built into the design.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 02:48 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.


You haven't proved that in the slightest
your numbers are wrong to begin with and comparing a DU penetrator and extrapolating it's mass out to a launch weight sunburn is completely werong and bares no resembelance to reality or proper physics


[quoteInstead of going into rather complicated physics involved

IS this implying you coould, lol.


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.


So what you're saying is your equations arebn't accurate at all. Thereofre they are wrong.


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.


LOL, now this is funny. How would you know thw Sunburn has enough momentum to lass through the hull after fragmenting like a " hollow point bullet ". The very nature of a hollow point meabs it's pentrations is reduced. You could have to bullets of the same wight, same velocity - the norrmal bullet will go straight through and the hollow point won't. Where are you eaquationbs prioving this with a sunburn - you don't take any of these effects you claim into account.



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


Well, if you don't answer the question or sompletely ignore it, as you do with mine




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.


I suggest you actually work out what missile you're talking about - it is the Kh31 Krypton.


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


Oh yes we know what you eman, you haven't proved any of it though - your eqautions don't even come close. Also as I have said previously, your equations are wrong.


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".[/quoite]

LOL, once again just hot air statements - the manufactureres ( the people who made it - the onews who know what tey're talking about ) don't claim anywhere near the lethality that you do
I wonder who I'd believe.



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.


You should write science fiction or something - they don't need to base there ideas in reality either. Hopping missiles LOL.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

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



Hi StellarX, it's not an assumption on my part, but a calculated effort.

When one is told something, information is always contaminated and distorted by passing through a maze of social and phycological filters, and does not carry the same value as information that is either proved or disproved by personal effort invested into the investigation/education process. Findings from such investment assume personal value to the individual that committed such effort.

Unfortunately, in a environment of mediocrity and industrialized fallacy, it is all to easy to persuade the masses that it is their pseudo-individual right to indiscriminately believe in, or discard what ever they want. It is only a marketing/public opinion shaping tool.

The very concept of public opinion clearly describes what it really means.

Opinion;

1) A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion�� (Elizabeth Drew).
2) A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion. (exception in our case)
3) A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing: has a low opinion of braggarts. (personal views not relevant to the topic)
4) The prevailing view: public opinion. is speculation for the lack of factual data. Speculation.

I base my opinions on the available facts. Individuals that choose to ignore facts and base their opinion on beliefs which are NOT substantiated by reason, positive knowledge or proof, exercise in ignorance.

Speculation;

1) A conclusion, opinion, or theory reached by conjecture.
2) Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition.


And to the final element involved;

Conjecture;

1) Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork.
2) A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork: The commentators made various conjectures about the outcome of the next election.

The ones that rely on the above mentioned in debate, engage in what ATS forum is here to deny, ignorance.

The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.

Denial (applicable);

1) A refusal to grant the truth of a statement or allegation; a contradiction.
2) A refusal to accept or believe something, such as a doctrine or belief.
3) Psychology. An unconscious defense mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings

Therefore, If one is unable - show them how, if one is unwilling - give them a reason, if one is in denial - give them time, and if all fails, do not fool your self that they do not hold an agenda, and realize that you're just in their way.

Reason does not fail, people do.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 08:59 PM
link   
To remain constructive, lets set the conditions, variable and their parameters.

We know that by utilizing the stated horizontal attack, Sunburn completely penetrates the hull of the ship, and detonates its warhead at pre-calculated penetration depth.

In short, it uses exactly the same principal as a bunker busting bomb, sensors of which literally count floor breech by its penetrator, and detonate the warhead at the predetermined point.

Having calculated that Sunburn is capable of completely penetrating the whole mass of a carrier, logic dictates that by using a top attack it will behave exactly as a bunker busting bomb, counting the decks breached by its penetrator, and detonating the warhead at the most viable part of the ship, or its keel.

Knowing this we have to establish, will the momentum force of the projectile coupled with the chemical force of the warhead cause critical damage to the keel and initiate a chain reaction of structural collapse.

Even with out using classified data, we can calculate the type and amount of armor which will be required to sustain such damage.

With out having done the numbers my self but thinking logically, I can only theorize that in order to effectively protect a carrier from such a weapon, it will have to be constructed as a massive reinforced concrete bunker, which by default renders such a vessel unable to sustain buoyancy and its own structural integrity.

In conclusion, given the parameters and stated capabilities of the Sunburn missile, unlike conventional weapons in its category, it behaves as a anti-ship "bunker buster", therefore no amount of armor can protect a conventional surface vessel, regardless of its size/origin.

The only plausible solution might be the use of Pykecrete "floating island" concept of WWII.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Well, counting the number of decks penetrated and detonating at or near the keel is a fine idea, provided you know a number of things which are unknown under actual warlike conditions. It is not always possible to know exactly what class of ship you are engaging, and even knowing that, the enemy may not have knowledge of exatly how many decks to program thier missile to plumet through. Further complicating this matter, ships do not have a uniform number of decks from bow to sten, as such things as engineering spaces and voids may take up several decks worth of space in the vertcle plane.

Still, the Sunburne utilises a low level horizontal attack because that's what allows it such a good chance of reaching the target in the first place. The size and speed of the missile are not killing factors in themselves, they are the means to accellerate that missile to it's target. And to do so with a very large warhead. That warhead will do most of the damage because it will detonate inside the ship. (explosions in confined spaces are bad) Severe damage will occur, if the warhead detonates. I say this because a number of anti-ship missiles and even torpedos throughout history have had problems where they just might fail, do to heavy damage to the warhead from the impact. Even if the warhead fails, you've still got a few tons of burning missile lodged into the side of your ship, with a warhead that might go at any moment, and you're out of action for the time being.

Still, the damage inflicted by such a missile should not suffice to do enough structural damage to cause an aircraft carrier to sink. I'm quickly begining to think most of the parties to this argument are acting a bit foolishly though, as the success or failure of the United States Navy as a whole, in a magor regional conflict, will not hinge solely on the loss or disabling of a single vessel, even if it's a carrier.

And as long as there is a use for aircraft, there is a use for aircraft carriers.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
To remain constructive, lets set the conditions, variable and their parameters.

We know that by utilizing the stated horizontal attack, Sunburn completely penetrates the hull of the ship, and detonates its warhead at pre-calculated penetration depth.


No it's fuse detonates after an intial preiod of time from contact with the hull - several milliseconds. Hence why the warhead is classes as Semi Armour Piercing.


In short, it uses exactly the same principal as a bunker busting bomb, sensors of which literally count floor breech by its penetrator, and detonate the warhead at the predetermined point.


As above it does not use that type of fuse.


Having calculated that Sunburn is capable of completely penetrating the whole mass of a carrier, logic dictates that by using a top attack it will behave exactly as a bunker busting bomb, counting the decks breached by its penetrator, and detonating the warhead at the most viable part of the ship, or its keel.


This is funny, you're calculations for another time have not proved anything, especially that it can go straight through a ship
You leave out so many inputs that your calculations aren't even close to being accurate.
Just one example - the launch weight of a Sunburn is 4500kg, that's fully loaded with fuel and a rocket motor - it isn't going to dtrike a ship with nearly that much weight.



With out having done the numbers my self but thinking logically, I can only theorize that in order to effectively protect a carrier from such a weapon, it will have to be constructed as a massive reinforced concrete bunker, which by default renders such a vessel unable to sustain buoyancy and its own structural integrity.


LOL, you're joking right - the numbers you have done are completely wrong anyway. Come on, are we going to adhere to any fact here



In conclusion, given the parameters and stated capabilities of the Sunburn missile, unlike conventional weapons in its category, it behaves as a anti-ship "bunker buster", therefore no amount of armor can protect a conventional surface vessel, regardless of its size/origin.


Complete and utter bunk. For the 5th time - for the really stupid - the manufacturer themsleves claim that it takes up to 5 hits to diavle a 20 000 tonne ship. DO you read anything I say, or do you just pretend it sin't there so you can ignore the factual information and continue raving

Come on, you ignore anything which doesn't fit your bizarre assumptions even from the makers of the Sunburn. Also you make ridiculous comparisons.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 12:14 AM
link   
Also I have seen the 54,000 ton figure listed several times for the Nimitz class CVN's. They are in actuality just over 100,000 tons. And I doubt there is a single non-nuclear weapon that could sink one, ever a heavyweight torpedo like a MK 48. These are huge ships, built to absorb massive amounts of damage and remain afloat.

Not that there is any likelihood that a CVN would be hit by just a single missile - any sensible opponent would be trying to overwhelm the CVBG's defenses with multiple missiles arriving simultaneously.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
Hi StellarX, it's not an assumption on my part, but a calculated effort.


I realize that but effort alone is meaningless when going up against some people. I am glad to see you know that but are willing to keep trying anyways.


Therefore, If one is unable - show them how, if one is unwilling - give them a reason, if one is in denial - give them time, and if all fails, do not fool your self that they do not hold an agenda, and realize that you're just in their way.

Reason does not fail, people do.


Well written and thanks for all the work so far. Since you clearly know the odd's you are up against ( i thought you did not) i have nothing to add but praise and some small contributions.

Stellar



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Well the missile explodes as it passes through the hull, yet he says it will break the back, to do that you'd need to explode again.


They lose about one super tanker/super cargo ship every month on the worlds oceans and they assume that it has to do with freak waves that simply displace so much water that it breaks the ships back thus sinking it. Warships are constructed by different means obviously but the structure is still interdependent and loss of enough might in fact break the ships back. I simply can not do that kind of math, so i am not going to try, but considering what i have seen world war two torpedoes do with simple explosives power against battleships of the time i am open to the notion that top attack at mach 3 can in fact make a rather deep hole in any given ship.

The USS Stark was nearly sliced in half ( so they keep saying at least) by two exocet hits and Cruise missiles have so far shown themselves to be highly destructive in general.

Stellar



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 03:08 PM
link   
the problem there is that the Sunburn does not use a terminal dive manuver. Simply put, it's going too fast at the moment of impact to turn that sharply. rather, it uses a huge frigging warhead to achieve the destructive effect.

USS Stark, one of my favorite examples of why Aluminum is a stupid material to build warships out of.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
but considering what i have seen world war two torpedoes do with simple explosives power against battleships of the time i am open to the notion that top attack at mach 3 can in fact make a rather deep hole in any given ship.


And what did they do ? It took the Yamato at least 5 bombs and 10 torpedos to sink her.



The USS Stark was nearly sliced in half ( so they keep saying at least) by two exocet hits and Cruise missiles have so far shown themselves to be highly destructive in general.


It wasn't nearly cut in half, also you can't compare a tiny several thgousand tonnes destroyer ot a carrier- simply ludicrous.




posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   
The UUS stark has a huge RCS its a huge target.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
They lose about one super tanker/super cargo ship every month on the worlds oceans and they assume that it has to do with freak waves that simply displace so much water that it breaks the ships back thus sinking it.

With respect, one a month? Come on....even the merchant navy doesnt agree with that statement...mabye one every few months yeah but not one every month.
Plus no they dont assume it has to do with "freak waves" or anything else magical....mostly its due to construction of the hulls.

There was a ship used as an example a largo 20,000 TEU'er which was off the coast of japan. That area of sea is supposed to be pretty rough at times , well anyhow the tanker was using a new steel alloy on her hull instead of the usual steel. What is assumed happened was that she went over a large wave, and due to the fact that the hull is designed to hold material as long as there is something for it to push against and remain rigid. What they believe is that part of her went over the wave and met with air therefore with no water for the hull to push against it snapped off therefore sinking the ship.



Warships are constructed by different means obviously but the structure is still interdependent and loss of enough might in fact break the ships back.

Yes but the debris from one sunburn missile would not reach the back and most likely not break it if it did.


I simply can not do that kind of math, so i am not going to try, but considering what i have seen world war two torpedoes do with simple explosives power against battleships of the time i am open to the notion that top attack at mach 3 can in fact make a rather deep hole in any given ship.

Torpedoes are a diffrent story from missiles, water cant be compressed to a degree so when something is exploded underneath something floating in the water the force will travel in the direction of least resistance. IE the boat, it effectively focuses the blast of the warhead to the ships back....ever noticed why warships had strong undersides?


The USS Stark was nearly sliced in half ( so they keep saying at least) by two exocet hits and Cruise missiles have so far shown themselves to be highly destructive in general.

The USS Stark was a destroyer not a nimitz nuclear carrier, there is a slight diffrent in size and the ammount of power needed to snap the back.
Even the designeds of the missile agree on that!



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 05:28 PM
link   

It wasn't nearly cut in half, also you can't compare a tiny several thgousand tonnes destroyer ot a carrier- simply ludicrous.


I couldn’t agree with you more! A Nimitz class carrier displaces anywhere from 97,000-104,000 Tons, the USS Stark displaces ~3640 Tons, you would need 27 USS Stark’s to equal one Nimitz class carrier, can people see why such a comparison is absurd? One more thing, the USS Stark had an all aluminum hull, the Nimitz class has an all steel hull and an all steal deck.


The general arrangement of these ships is similar to the previous Kitty Hawk class with respect to flight deck, hangar, elevators, and island structure, e.g., the island is aft of the Number 1 and 2 elevators, with the Number 4 elevator on the port side aft of the angled deck and opposite the Number 3 elevator. The angled deck is canted to port at 9°3’. The general excellence of the Nimitz design precluded major changes to later ships in the class. CVN-71 and subsequent ships incorporate improved magazine protection; CVN-73 and later ships feature improved topside ballistic protection; CVN-74 and later ships are constructed with HSLA-100 steel.



USS Nimitz (CVN-68) Specifications

Length of flight deck: 1,092 ft.
Width of flight deck: 252 ft.
Height keel to mast: 244 ft. (equal to 24-story building)
Area of flight deck: 4.5 acres
Displacement of carrier: 97,000 tons


So, still think you're going to sink it with one missile?

[edit on 10-4-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   
StellarX, I think this is a best reply I can offer:

"Brave New World Revisited", A. Huxley

And getting back to the grind,


Also I have seen the 54,000 ton figure listed several times for the Nimitz class CVN's. They are in actuality just over 100,000 tons.


-Fully loaded displacement (the weight of water displaced by the ship when in full combat mode) - 97,000 tons (~88,000 metric tons)
-Weight of structural steel - 60,000 tons (~54,000 metric tons).

science.howstuffworks.com...

Information is your friend.


the problem there is that the Sunburn does not use a terminal dive manuver. Simply put, it's going too fast at the moment of impact to turn that sharply. rather, it uses a huge frigging warhead to achieve the destructive effect.


In its terminal phase of a horizontal attack, Sunburns speed is Mach 2.5, because that's how much speed is bled to pull 10Gs in random evasive maneuvers.

As I have clearly (and repeatedly) stated that considering Krypton, assuming that Sunburn is not capable of a aerobalistic attack is simply ignorant.

Mach 2.5 evasive maneuvers at 10Gs, let's look into that just on the surface.

No maned craft is capable of pulling 10Gs at Mach 2.5, which leaves intercept of such craft to ABM platforms, zero of which are in service.


"So, still think you're going to sink it with one missile?


WestPoint23, what I think is irrelevant, what numbers state is simply a fact. Displacement is not a factor, structural weight is. Here is a simple calculation you can do to help us all out.

Given the information provided by this page;

science.howstuffworks.com...

Round everything of, and calculate its internal space in cubic meters.

Then lets disregard the added weight , and assume that the hull, bulkheads/partitions and the deck are made out of 1 inch rolled armor plating.

The whole carrier made out of 1 inch armor plates.

Knowing the rounded area and the number of bulkheads/partitions, combine all of the bulkhead armor plates into one thick slab of steel.

Then feel free to calculate if a bunker busting type warhead will be able to penetrate the TOTAL thickness of the armor.

Please bring your findings to the participants of this debate, and then we all can make up our own mind if it's possible or not.

To make sure, please include only the hull of the ship, and leave out the tower, since it only makes up for the X of total square footage of the deck.

Let's get to it.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
With respect, one a month? Come on....even the merchant navy doesnt agree with that statement...mabye one every few months yeah but not one every month.


They in fact do and you know i have the links proving that large ships , including on average (200 in two decades) 10 super tanks/cargo ships per year, sinks every month. Why assume i would make that up?


Plus no they dont assume it has to do with "freak waves" or anything else magical....mostly its due to construction of the hulls.


Yes they ( some scientist) have been claiming as much for decades but they had to drag the science community ,kicking and screaming as always, to that realisation in the last few years. You know where to find the links considering your knowledge on topic.


Yes but the debris from one sunburn missile would not reach the back and most likely not break it if it did.


The debris from the sunburn/cruise missile is not the only things that do damage but your probably quite right in saying that it will not reach the back to break it. The missile warhead/displaced material does not have to reach the ships 'back' to break it as you well know.


Torpedoes are a diffrent story from missiles, water cant be compressed to a degree so when something is exploded underneath something floating in the water the force will travel in the direction of least resistance. IE the boat, it effectively focuses the blast of the warhead to the ships back....ever noticed why warships had strong undersides?


That specific situation leads to ships not only sinking ( back being broken) but sinking very fast. The sunburn or like missile using a top attack is in like manner going to induce a directed pressure which i presumed might have a like effect on weaking the overal structure so that normal sailing or wave action might distribute the weight inefficiently to slowly start breaking the ship apart. Since this is speculation there is really no need to shout or insult if you can correct me or just feel like trying.


The USS Stark was a destroyer not a nimitz nuclear carrier, there is a slight diffrent in size and the ammount of power needed to snap the back.
Even the designeds of the missile agree on that!


There is a huge difference in size but imo that size will only count against you considering you can only reinforce a structure so much against a local displacement of structure/mass before the extra armor/mass added to protect starts causing inefficient distribution of mass thus weaking the overall structure even more. All i am suggesting is that second world war ships sank and that there is only so much you can do to strengthen the structure beyond what was done 50 years ago. Ship structure design has not gone very far at all compared to the leaps in the weapon techhology meant to destroy them.

Stellar

[edit on 11-4-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
They in fact do and you know i have the links proving that large ships , including on average (200 in two decades) 10 super tanks/cargo ships per year, sinks every month. Why assume i would make that up?

One a month? No one every couple 1.2 if you do it right since we like to round up seems ok.
BTW, thats a completely diffrent source and idea from what you orginally implied...remember I was in chat when rogue gave you those links.



Yes they ( some scientist) have been claiming as much for decades but they had to drag the science community ,kicking and screaming as always, to that realisation in the last few years. You know where to find the links considering your knowledge on topic.

That hull constuction is still hit or miss?
No one knows why such large numbers of ships dissapear be it rogue waves, pirates or safety.



The debris from the sunburn/cruise missile is not the only things that do damage but your probably quite right in saying that it will not reach the back to break it. The missile warhead/displaced material does not have to reach the ships 'back' to break it as you well know.

Ehhh, yes it does....otherwise the hull is fine and not touched. The only damage is inside unless the decks colapse but the rest of the ship is supporting them.



That specific situation leads to ships not only sinking ( back being broken) but sinking very fast. The sunburn or like missile using a top attack is in like manner going to induce a directed pressure which i presumed might have a like effect on weaking the overal structure so that normal sailing or wave action might distribute the weight inefficiently to slowly start breaking the ship apart. Since this is speculation there is really no need to shout or insult if you can correct me or just feel like trying.

lol more chance of a wave pulling the ship apart than the overshock ripping her slowly apart.



There is a huge difference in size but imo that size will only count against you considering you can only reinforce a structure so much against a local displacement of structure/mass before the extra armor/mass added to protect starts causing inefficient distribution of mass thus weaking the overall structure even more. All i am suggesting is that second world war ships sank and that there is only so much you can do to strengthen the structure beyond what was done 50 years ago. Ship structure design has not gone very far at all compared to the leaps in the weapon techhology meant to destroy them.

Ship design is very advanced nowadays much better than world war 2 and frankly even suggesting that a sunburn can sink a nimitz without a nuke is idiotic and frankly your only adding fuel.


Stellar

[edit on 11-4-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   
This conversation is getting laughable, seems Iskander can't stick with any facts and completely ignores those poresented by other when it doesn't fit in with his fantasy. Simple fact is a Sunburn will not sink a carrier and absolutely no evidence has been presented to say it can.

A shame iskander refuses to acknowledge this - What ever happened to deny ignorance



Originally posted by iskander
As I have clearly (and repeatedly) stated that considering Krypton, assuming that Sunburn is not capable of a aerobalistic attack is simply ignorant.

Mach 2.5 evasive maneuvers at 10Gs, let's look into that just on the surface.

No maned craft is capable of pulling 10Gs at Mach 2.5, which leaves intercept of such craft to ABM platforms, zero of which are in service.


Oh yeah BTW - It is the Kh-15 Kickback ( not Krypton ) which climbs to 40 km altitude and then dives at mach 5, kinnda makes it an easy target for Standard missiles. Using this type of attack profile completely goes against what he Sunburn was designed for - that is to evade defences by skimming above the ocean to present as little time as possible to interecept. So to assume that the Sunburn would have the same profile is ridiculous and is entirely against the concept of the missile



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Ship design is very advanced nowadays much better than world war 2 and frankly even suggesting that a sunburn can sink a nimitz without a nuke is idiotic and frankly your only adding fuel.


devilwasp, I am correct in understanding that you are insulting people that present facts contrary to your beliefs by calling them idiots?

There is a clearly outlined policy on ATS forums for such actions, please clarify your statement.

edit: skipped a word

[edit on 11-4-2006 by iskander]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join