Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

is the US navy unbeatable???

page: 13
0
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander

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?


Talk about the pot calling the kettle black


At least devilwasp is accurate in his discription - anyone who thinks that a sunburn can sink a carrier, quite frankly is an idiot.
You my friend are the one diregarding facts and who has the blinkers on - you have yet to respond to one of my posts, probably because they clearly show you to be living in LALA land //sigh//.

Anyway enough of your hypocracy, why don't you present some relevant facts for a change, you have yet to do so.




posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 06:11 PM
link   

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

I am not insutling anyone , I am simply passing my opinion that you would need to be an idiot to believe the sunburn can sink a carrier. Rogue and west point and to a small degree myself have shown that it is not at all possible.






There is a clearly outlined policy on ATS forums for such actions, please clarify your statement.
[/qoute]
Not to insult members, I know the rules thank you and Ihave not insulted him...if I wanted to I could thank you for asking.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Well devilwasp, you are insulting me, since I do beleave that the Sunburn is capable of breaking the keel of a carrier.

I have invested considerable time, resources and effort into my education, and do take offense when people choose to insult my efforts under the supposed security blanket of oppinionism.


I am not insutling anyone , I am simply passing my opinion that you would need to be an idiot to believe the sunburn can sink a carrier. Rogue and west point and to a small degree myself have shown that it is not at all possible.


I beleave an appology is in order, and if you disagree that insulting oppinions, even if they are supported by your pals, have no place on the ATS forum, I'm sure that ATS staff will be able to help us out with such a matter.

Please chose your words wisely in your reply to this one.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Hi StellarX, I know you're enjoying this, and just wanted to underline to why my reply to you was so limited.

Knowing the extremely predictable patterns of group psychology, it was only a matter of time before the mentality in question naturally results to insults, with attempts to validate such initiative by "group" reinforcement.

The next step is disassociation of the ones not willing to be affiliated with such issues.

Thus my unwillingness to associate you personally with the topic. I hope you appreciate my concerns.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
Knowing the extremely predictable patterns of group psychology, it was only a matter of time before the mentality in question naturally results to insults, with attempts to validate such initiative by "group" reinforcement.



LMAO, oh please, stop self agrandising yourself. You have used your fair share of insults in this thread and others. The problem is you make all these claims, yet fail to back them up, then you pretend you didn't see our responses


Once again you haven't reposnded to a single post of mine, the reason is obvious, they prove your statements incorrect. Kind of hard to take you seriously, most people seem to have come to the same conclusion.

your arguments are weak at best, running to the mods isn't going to make them any stronger. As stetaed previously anyone who thinks a Sunburn can sink a carrier is an idiot.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
Well devilwasp, you are insulting me, since I do beleave that the Sunburn is capable of breaking the keel of a carrier.

Fair enough if you wish to think that go ahead.


I have invested considerable time, resources and effort into my education, and do take offense when people choose to insult my efforts under the supposed security blanket of oppinionism.

I do believe I am allowed to say what I think on a subject as long as it does not break T+C which I have not.



I beleave an appology is in order, and if you disagree that insulting oppinions, even if they are supported by your pals, have no place on the ATS forum, I'm sure that ATS staff will be able to help us out with such a matter.

I dont care what you believe anymore to be frank, there are double standards at work here.


Please chose your words wisely in your reply to this one.

Dont worry I have, IMO you are clinging to threads, but ofcourse even that is an insult.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 08:03 PM
link   
OK then, as per ATS rules, I have moved the issue of insults to the appropriate setting, and now we all can get back to the topic at hand.

as devilwasp correctly pointed out;


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


i wonder if anyone has done the calculations I have outlined in my previous post?



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
i wonder if anyone has done the calculations I have outlined in my previous post?

Velocity and mass mean nothing....we are talking about it breaking the ships back....how can it do that when the warhead detonates atleast 10 decks up!



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by iskander
i wonder if anyone has done the calculations I have outlined in my previous post?

Velocity and mass mean nothing....we are talking about it breaking the ships back....how can it do that when the warhead detonates atleast 10 decks up!


Precisely dw. Also, we are talking aboout dozens of feet of steel in spaced decks that the warhead would hvae to penetrate. Considering the warhead is only of SAP variety I doubt it could penetrate more than a few feet of steel.

BTW. Isknader, what calculations have you outlined in your previous post, all you have is some vague statements. Besides your previous attempt at calculations were shown to be very inaccurate, well not accurate at all.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   
devolwasp, what do you base your opinions on?

In detail please.


how can it do that when the warhead detonates atleast 10 decks up!


How many decks are on the Nimitz class carrier?

What is the operating principle of Sunburns detonator?

How many decks does the penetrator breech before detonation?

What would the projected effect of the 320kg warhead be?

No speculation please, but calculated data.

In other words results, not opinion.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
devolwasp, what do you base your opinions on?

In detail please.

How many decks are on the Nimitz class carrier?

What is the operating principle of Sunburns detonator?

How many decks does the penetrator breech before detonation?

What would the projected effect of the 320kg warhead be?

No speculation please, but calculated data.

In other words results, not opinion.


Hmm whre is your data ? Come on, you make all these assumptions why don't you back them up. The Sunburn as I hvae told you about 3-4 times in this thread has a time delay fuze allowing it to penetrate into the side hull of a ship. It doesn't have an aero ballistic attack as you like to fanatasize about, that would completely ruin the purpose of the missile
Nor does it have a hard target penetrator fuse, enouigh with all this BS - Why don't you for once present some fact.


All the wings and tail surfaces are folded when the missile is in the launcher. Internally the radar seeker is in the nose with the guidance system, batteries and radio altimeter in the remainder of the front compartment, and the 300 kg semi-armor-piercing warhead immediately behind.Much of the rear of the missile is occupied by a solid propellant booster through which runs the ramjet nozzle. Actuators are to be found below the tail surfaces. The 3M82 "Mosquito" missiles have the fastest flying speed among all antiship missiles in today's world. It reaches Mach 3 at a high altitude and its maximum low-altitude speed is M2.2, triple the speed of the American Harpoon. 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...


There you go there are some facts to counter your wild specualtion, I suggest you do alot more reading before you start mouthing off to other members.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 11:02 PM
link   
NO

pain and simple

just as ask SPAIN
4 example

sure the US has a powerful navy but so did the BRITISH at one time

there have been many great navies to have sailed the vast seas through out time

the US won't be the last only time will tell



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Just to get this roiling again,


From the theory of "long-rod penetration," in this limit the maximum possible depth D of penetration is proportional to the length and density of the penetrator and inversely proportional to the density of the target. The maximum depth of penetration depends only weakly on the yield strength of the penetrator. For typical values for steel and concrete, we expect an upper bound to the penetration depth to be roughly 10 times the missile length, or about 100 feet for a 10 foot missile. In actual practice the impact velocity and penetration depth must be well below this to ensure the missile and its contents are not severely damaged.


npc.sarov.ru...

Sunburn length: 32 ft x100 = 3200ft. Cut that even by 70%.

USS Nimitz (CVN-68) - Height keel to mast: 244 ft.

Does not matter how you spin it, Sunburn "zips" trough a carrier like a bullet through a soda can.

Iraqi Project-202 superbunker was breached (most probably) by free fall GBU-28, which is essentially a canon barrel packed with HE.

Tomahawk Titanium Case 320kg (700 lb) Block III class penetration warhead, given the momentum of the Sunburn will easily reach the keel and detonate its payload, completely destroying its section.


www.freepatentsonline.com...

www.ucsusa.org...

www.stratmag.com...



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
Just to get this roiling again,


From the theory of "long-rod penetration," in this limit the maximum possible depth D of penetration is proportional to the length and density of the penetrator and inversely proportional to the density of the target. The maximum depth of penetration depends only weakly on the yield strength of the penetrator. For typical values for steel and concrete, we expect an upper bound to the penetration depth to be roughly 10 times the missile length, or about 100 feet for a 10 foot missile. In actual practice the impact velocity and penetration depth must be well below this to ensure the missile and its contents are not severely damaged.


Sunburn length: 32 ft x100 = 3200ft. Cut that even by 70%.

USS Nimitz (CVN-68) - Height keel to mast: 244 ft.

Does not matter how you spin it, Sunburn "zips" trough a carrier like a bullet through a soda can.



Erm no, the penetrator refers to the warhead not the whole missile
What is the length of the Sunburn warhead ? You don't even know that so how can you say it will zip through a carrier.
Once again the Sunburn isn't a hard target pentrator, it doens't have the density for any type of long rod effect.

The BLU-109 has a penetration depth of around 6 feet and the BLU-113 which was the 5000lb weapon has a pentration depth of 20 feet through reinfirced concrete - PENETRATION DEPTH OF BUNKER BUSTRS. For solid steel the figures would be far less. As you can see even specially designe hard target weapons don't penetrate anywhere near the depth of a carrier and these are specially designed warheads far tougher than the Sunburn.

LOL, also as you article states any high speed impact will severly damage the contents of the penetrator.



Iraqi Project-202 superbunker was breached (most probably) by free fall GBU-28, which is essentially a canon barrel packed with HE.


Erm yes that was a 5 000 lb warhead with a very high densty, extremely high strength steel ( far tougher than the sunburn ) and a very small cross section. That is a completely different weapon and cannot be compared int eh slightest to a Sunburn. To make the comparison is ignorant.

BTW. Why do you persist that the Sunburn will attack a carrier from the top, this has already been proved incorrect several times in this thread. It goes against all the reasons the Sunburn was built. USN defences will have far more time to attack and kill the Sunburn if it has to rise to 10-20-30 000 feet to dive into a carrier. It will be seen along way away.

PLEASE DENY IGNORANCE - this is getting silly.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 03:11 AM
link   
According to a member here which i have verified with other people. the chinese sunburns have a titanium encased warhead



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
According to a member here which i have verified with other people. the chinese sunburns have a titanium encased warhead


Interesting, however, the exisiting sunburn was more than capable of penatrating the reativly thin skin on most ships. The Iowa class BB's being the notable exception.

As impressive as the Sunburn is and as impressive as the Bhramos may be, Warships and carriers in general are pretty robust crafts. The carrier alone is huge. Now a few hits may disable the carrier which for a short engagement may be victory in and of itself. A CVN that cannot launch and recover aircraft is no better than a nuclear powered love boat.

That being said, the key to remeber is defence in depth. First the target has to get close which means avaoiding the BARCAP which can target launch platforms and missiles themselves, plus all the other sensors (E-2C's etc, 688I's etc), Also factor in the addition to the AESA equiped super Hornets which can carry what like 10 AMRAAMS, Then past the Aegis, then past the ESSM, then past the RAM, then finaly the CIWS system. ITs a pretty impressive defensive screen.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
devolwasp, what do you base your opinions on?

It has been posted before that the missile detonates a few miliseconds after impact, there is no way it could travel 20 odd decks in that ammount of time.




How many decks are on the Nimitz class carrier?

24 from hull to antenae


What is the operating principle of Sunburns detonator?

Detonates while passing through the hull:


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.



How many decks does the penetrator breech before detonation?

1 the flight deck since it goes off while going through the hull.


What would the projected effect of the 320kg warhead be?

Against several decks, equipment and varios other variables I dont know but I severly doubt it will travel through several decks each made of several inches of steel.


No speculation please, but calculated data.

In other words results, not opinion.

Impossible to provide since the US navy has not provided any deck plans nor any information about what is stored on a nimitz class carrier not have we supplied what area the missile is hitting.

Are you willing to agree its pointless to argue about facts when neither of us will get the facts from the US navy because they are classified.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
One a month? No one every couple 1.2 if you do it right since we like to round up seems ok.


So suddenly from a few months (2 , and I'm being generous, months = 100% more than you suggested) we go to accepting my 'inflation' ( 1 instead of 1.2 which is 20% less) as it's a terrible sin? Thanks hey.


BTW, thats a completely diffrent source and idea from what you orginally implied...remember I was in chat when rogue gave you those links.


It's not any different than what i originally said. Massive ships sinks and it's not like they were not designed to survive what people thought were the norm. Fact is if your basic assumptions are wrong then all bets are off as to what becomes possible when the freak 'incidents' happen.


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.


Hull design is not a hit or miss affair as they have very specific sea conditions in mind when they design these large modern ships. They now believe that rogue waves are in fact the leading cause in these large ships going down. If you have another theory then feel free to say as much as long as you do not tell me it's bad ship design or pirates.



The most dangerous rogue wave is the one that breaks and hundreds of ships have been sunk by breaking rogue waves in the last 30 years. They also devastated the 1998 Sydney to Hobart yacht race.

www.abc.net.au...



For years scientists and marine experts have dismissed such stories as superstition. Walls of water do not rise out of the blue, they said. But now research has revealed that 'killer waves' do exist and regularly devastate ships around the world. They defy all scientific understanding and no craft is capable of withstanding their impact.

'Rogue waves in the past have been ignored and regarded as rare events,' said Jim Gunson, the Met Office's expert on ocean waves. 'Now we are finally getting a handle on them and finding out how common they are.'

These mammoth events are not tidal waves or tsunamis, however. Nor are they caused by earthquakes or landslides. They are single, massive walls of water that rise up - for no known reason - and destroy dozens of ships and oil rigs every year.

observer.guardian.co.uk...



Once dismissed as a nautical myth, freakish ocean waves that rise as tall as ten-storey apartment blocks have been accepted as a leading cause of large ship sinkings. Results from ESA's

ERS satellites helped establish the widespread existence of these 'rogue' waves and are now being used to study their origins.Severe weather has sunk more than 200 supertankers and container ships exceeding 200 metres in length during the last two decades. Rogue waves are believed to be the major cause in many such cases.

www.esa.int...


These super cargo/tankers/passenger liners can be insured for up to 2 billion USD and i am not convinced that the insurance guys wont do their job to inspect the ships. It's after all not navy ships.



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.


Well what exactly is supporting what in such a big ship? How much of what can you afford to lose before structural integrity is seriously compromised? They had all their days fighting fires ( out of control fires sank many without the bomb doing any serious damage to the structure) on second world war carriers. I know my claims are vague but it just does not seem to me that you have a good grasp of what sort of damage even small slow moving bombs could manage against the huge fire risk that is your average carrier.

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


Well considering what you know about waves how sure are you really about what 'overshock' can do? I'm no expert on this topic and it seems to me that you might not be as much of one as you believe either.



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.


Ship design is really that advanced? Well feel free to support that claim if you care to. It is not crazy to suggest that a single missile can sink a ship since size is no protecting factor against such things in fact happening. What you can argue is that the missile's explosive effects alone will not be likely to sink the ship if you want to try that reasoning.

Stellar

[edit on 12-4-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
So suddenly from a few months (2 , and I'm being generous, months = 100% more than you suggested) we go to accepting my 'inflation' ( 1 instead of 1.2 which is 20% less) as it's a terrible sin? Thanks hey.

I was obviosly misinformed but after all we are talking averages here so we do not know when these incidents happened, now do we?



It's not any different than what i originally said. Massive ships sinks and it's not like they were not designed to survive what people thought were the norm. Fact is if your basic assumptions are wrong then all bets are off as to what becomes possible when the freak 'incidents' happen.

Its not normal for waves to be 25 metres high no matter where you are, hell you only get them in force 6's or higher.
They know what "normal" conditions are, its the freak conditions that no one can prepare for....unless you suggest us building ships bigger than 25 off the water line?



Hull design is not a hit or miss affair as they have very specific sea conditions in mind when they design these large modern ships. They now believe that rogue waves are in fact the leading cause in these large ships going down. If you have another theory then feel free to say as much as long as you do not tell me it's bad ship design or pirates.


Oh hull construction IS a hit or miss affair , unless your telling me that we shall be using only steel from now on?

New materials are a large portion of the problem, would new ships survive if they had stronger materials when faced against a rogue wave?











These super cargo/tankers/passenger liners can be insured for up to 2 billion USD and i am not convinced that the insurance guys wont do their job to inspect the ships. It's after all not navy ships.


Inspecting ships or "surveying" as they call it, and yes my company does do that, does take place but even then you cant plan for every evntuality or every wave.
Rogue waves are always considered but frankly new materials, ship design and varios other factors all contribute to the fate of a ship. IE: a Catermaran will be far more stable in rough conditions than a simple round hull. For examles on stable hulls look at the RIB or rigid inflatable boat, they are true sea boats and will survive rough weather where as a regular displacement craft will be knocked and rocked about , the same goes for a simple cathedral style hull.



Well what exactly is supporting what in such a big ship?

The dekcs support the decks, its all interlaced.


How much of what can you afford to lose before structural integrity is seriously compromised?

Quite a lot onboard a carrier due to her size.


They had all their days fighting fires ( out of control fires sank many without the bomb doing any serious damage to the structure) on second world war carriers.

Fire fighting then and now has come a long way, there are may new ways to put out fires but it is still a big danger. One of the biggest dangers with fires is that it could spread to other areas of the ship IE: Engine room, bilges, fuel tanks, holds, armoury, magazine.


I know my claims are vague but it just does not seem to me that you have a good grasp of what sort of damage even small slow moving bombs could manage against the huge fire risk that is your average carrier.

Even free falling bombs will cause damage, its the degree of damage that they can cause which makes the diffrence.


Well considering what you know about waves how sure are you really about what 'overshock' can do? I'm no expert on this topic and it seems to me that you might not be as much of one as you believe either.


I am no expert and I never said I was, your the one placing words in my mouth old man.
You think overpressure will damage the hull enough to wreck her? Well then why did the invicible not "shake apart" after those free falling bombs where dropped onto her? Or the indomitable....?



Ship design is really that advanced? Well feel free to support that claim if you care to.

Sure, in world war 1 and 2 the idea of having a a peaked bow was still around, nowadays this is not so because we have a bulbous ball at the

We are now seriosly concieving caterman and trimeran hull styles due to thier stability , an idea which would have been laughed at 60 odd years ago.


It is not crazy to suggest that a single missile can sink a ship since size is no protecting factor against such things in fact happening.

Lol it is when we are talking about stability and talking about the ships ability to stop fragments.



What you can argue is that the missile's explosive effects alone will not be likely to sink the ship if you want to try that reasoning.

Yes and the fragments will not damage the keel enough to sink her.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   
I'm sorry but the claim is still absurd - a single Sunburn isn't going to take out a 100,000 ton CVN. The comparison with commercial vessels is misleading, they are not built to withstand the kind of punishment a warship is. Especially a supercarrier. These things were designed, among other things, to withstand a nuclear near miss. They are extremely hard to sink. They are also, unlike most modern warships, armored, with a torpedo belt and armored flight deck.

Now, a single Sunburn, hitting the right spot, might be able to score a mission kill - doing enough damage to prevent flight operations. But as far as actually sinking a CVN, that would take a great deal more damage than any single conventionally armed weapon is going to create.

To give you an idea how hard it is to sink a large warship, in 1946, USS Saratoga (laid down in 1927 and displacing only 39,000 tons) was used as part of a target fleet in a pair of nuclear tests. In test Able, an airburst, she took only mild damage. For test Baker, an underwater detonation, she was only about 800 yards from a 20kt explosion, and still took over eight hours to sink, with no damage control efforts whatsoever.

As far as the kinetic energy of a Sunburn, it packs quite a punch. But consider this - a WW2 16" gun delivered a 2,000lb armor-piercing explosive-packed projectile traveling at about 1500mph. And a single hit was still insufficient to sink far smaller vessels than a CVN.

[edit on 4/12/06 by xmotex]






top topics



 
0
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join