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 JamesinOz
The Aussie Kokums Collins class subs are fine boats, however they've been plagued by numerous problems resulting from their construction in Australia which imo lacks the technical expertise to build such boats. Most of these problems have been resolved, at enormous taxpayer expense, so one would hope they'd be fully operational before any large scale naval engagement occurs in the region. It would've been far easier to allow Kokums to build these subs lock, stock and barrel and deliver them working properly and in one piece to the Aussie navy.
Originally posted by justin_barton3
im not sure where i found this link if it was on ATS and im repeating a thread then i apologise and mods please delete.
www.g2mil.com...
Im English but i always thought that the US navy was indefeatable and could take on almost anything and still win. This has shaken that view severly and i know almost want a full scale naval war against another large sea force just to see whether the US navy is indefeatable.
Does anyone know if the guy who wrote this is just anti US navy or if what he says is the unbaised truth?
Justin
ps i apologise for the length. i havent read all of the link but i have read most.
Originally posted by Taishyou
Link doesn't seem to work. What was it talking about?
Hmm, how about crap Swedish design. It is well known the Swedish designed propeller was too noisy and tended to cavitate. Hence we had to get them milled with US Navy expertise. Not to mention bad software.
If theyhad been made in Sweden the only thing which would hvae been fiffrent is that all of teh money wopuld hvae been spent fixing them over there and the US NAvy wouldn't have lent their expertise.
Originally posted by iskander
Sub-sonic relic such as Exocet proved to be more then capable of defeating modern ship defenses on a number of occasions, striking both English and US navy vessels armed with Phalanx and other defenses.
Kh-41 type weapon alone is capable of neutralising ANY current vessel, not considering a myriad of new generation weapons.
New generation munitions such as air launched ram jet delivery shell housing a supersonic torpedo CLEARLY marks the END of offensive NAVY vessel OF ANY kind.
Originally posted by iskander
New generation munitions such as air launched ram jet delivery shell housing a supersonic torpedo CLEARLY marks the END of offensive NAVY vessel OF ANY kind.
Oh yeah, when and where did this happen ? Which ships mountaing pahalanx's were successfully attacked by the Exocet?
Originally posted by xmotex
Oh yeah, when and where did this happen ? Which ships mountaing pahalanx's were successfully attacked by the Exocet?
USS Stark, 1987. Hit by two Iraqi Exocets.
Specifically, there was debate as to whether the Phalanx systems -a close-range radar guided chain gun used for missile defense- was operational when the Stark put out to sea. Captain Brindel testified on record that they were, Navy technicians in Bahrain said they were not.
officersclub.blogspot.com...
and the Phalanx, a six-barreled gun that could fire 3,000 uranium rounds a minute at incoming missiles. Brindel insisted that his ship's combat system was fully operational, but Navy technicians in Bahrain said the Stark's Phalanx system had not been working properly when the frigate put out to sea. (Brindel was relieved of duty and later forced to retire.)
www.usswaddell.com...
Originally posted by Harlequin
it could also be mentioned that in GW2 a missile was enaged AFTER it had passed near the rear of a carrier (within range of the cws) by another ship on the far side of the formation!
Originally posted by iskander
Sub-sonic relic such as Exocet proved to be more then capable of defeating modern ship defenses on a number of occasions, striking both English and US navy vessels armed with Phalanx and other defenses.
Kh-41 type weapon alone is capable of neutralising ANY current vessel, not
New generation munitions such as air launched ram jet delivery shell housing a supersonic torpedo CLEARLY marks the END of offensive NAVY vessel OF ANY kind.
Originally posted by rogue1
Originally posted by Harlequin
it could also be mentioned that in GW2 a missile was enaged AFTER it had passed near the rear of a carrier (within range of the cws) by another ship on the far side of the formation!
What type of missile ? Do you hve any link to this information ?
Gulf War (1991)
In February 1991 during the first Gulf War the battleship USS Missouri, the Sea Dart carrying HMS Gloucester and the Phalanx CIWS-equipped USS Jarrett were engaged by an Iraqi Silkworm missile (also known as a Seersucker). After an unsuccessful response from the Phalanx 20mm CIWS, the missile was intercepted by a Sea Dart fired from Gloucester', making this the first validated, successful engagement of a missile by a missile during combat at sea.
Apparently fired from standard 533mm torpedo tubes, Shkval has a range of about 7,500 yards. The weapon clears the tube at fifty knots, upon which its rocket fires, propelling the missile through the water at 360 kph [about 100 m/sec / 230 mph / 200-knots], three or four times as fast as conventional torpedoes.