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 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
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.
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.
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".[/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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by iskander
Hi StellarX, it's not an assumption on my part, but a calculated effort.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It wasn't nearly cut in half, also you can't compare a tiny several thgousand tonnes destroyer ot a carrier- simply ludicrous.
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
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.
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.
"So, still think you're going to sink it with one missile?
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.
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 but the debris from one sunburn missile would not reach the back and most likely not break it if it did.
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 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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.