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: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by shortmanx5
I know f-16 and f-22 dont land on aircraft carriers, i was using it as an example.

Why though? Both those would probably never encounter any fighters this side of the pond.


it wouldnt take 13 carriers but its nice to know we have that option. Isnt it??

See paper plane UK's post.


And yes i would sent them to fight your "advanced airforce" the f-18 would handle any planes you throw at them.

You mean the tornado and eurofighter two of the most advanced aicraft in the world?


its easy to win wars when countries fight with less advanced versions of the weapons you have.

Really? Less advanced huh?
Well then mate hows YOUR less advanced versions of the weapons that WE have?
You know like the stinger, the ARAAM?


Yea what about the joint strike fighter, be a pal and let me know how the dumbed down verison is. Thats how it works we get tye best you get the good.




posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by shortmanx5
Yea what about the joint strike fighter, be a pal and let me know how the dumbed down verison is. Thats how it works we get tye best you get the good.

Dumbed down? You now saying your marine corp JSF's (doubt they'll get them) are downgraded?
Sure mate go ahead....
Mate it isnt about best and good, its about how stupid this argument is.
We have nearly the exact same kit, hell we trade tech all the time (look up the JSF , the UK being the only level one member) but heh take it how you want it.

Dude you really need to get a grip on this idea that your country is the best, frankly it isnt and neither is mine. You seem scared that if you loose total and complete dominance over air, sea and land you will be destroyed, the face of the matter is: You wont.

Think about who your allies are? Some of the most powerful militaries in the world, look at NATO! NATO has the ability to anihlate a good portion of the planet with non nuclear weapons alone, it has global strike capability and is most probably the second most powerful military force to date. The first being the UN since it could technically create a very powerful force depending on the situation but I doubt it.


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 08:09 PM
link   
my countrys better than yours (nernerner)


seriously i don't know why everyone is arguing about the royal navy and the US navy, its not like theres going to be a war between both countrys (in our lifetime) is there?


but yeah, just to clear one thing up to 'shortman', no we won't be getting a downgraded F-35!!

thats what all the fuss is about right now, the JSF project orginally started out as a JOINT project between the US/UK (it is not an all american aircraft as SOME people think)!!

we've been working on designing it/banged in a huge sum of money into the project/gave details of our unique (STOVL).

but the US is stalling on their end of the deal, and if we don't get the software codes the UK needs we will pull out of the JSF project and move onto plan(b).

but things will work out in the end
- without the UK in the jsf project, they will be no jsf project (end of)!!

other nations will pull out, and the US as a nation can't afford to go alone in the project by itself.


[edit on 28-3-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

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.




Air launched ram jet delievery shell for super sonic torpedos???

This is just pure speculation, supersonic supercavitating torpedos are classified if any exist, so details are theoretical for us. As is any Modern operational ram jet delievery system for said torpedo.

I mean if your going to just throw out theoretical technology why not Hyper sonic torpedos with anti-matter warheads while your at it.



Hi ShadowXIX, please take the time and look up the physics of super cavitation.

Here is a link to ramjet delivery vehicles.

www.friends-partners.org...

If for you it's really a great leap to put two and two together, it's your thing.

You know, back in the day, for some people the idea that the world was round was also highly theoretical and scandalous. I live the present my self, super cavitation being a part of it.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

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.

English navy? Thiers no such thing.
Theres a royal navy hell mabye thats what you meant but there hasnt been an "english navy" for several centuries now...Exocet never sunk any british vessels with phalanx's , because we only equiped them after we had won the war. Unless your saying that britian had a small war inbetween just to keep us going and to keep us occupied until desert storm?
Air launched onnly works if theres something to launch it off, btw look up metal storm it might suprise you.
Or point laser weaponry, cant beat speed of light.



devilwasp, you're correct about my error in reference to the English/Royal Navy, I was stuck in the periwinkle blues' post.

The rest of you're comment does not apply to anything, just re-read my post.


Please, metal storm? Are you serious? I found it laughable years ago. All that program was ever intended to do is syphon R&D money. Another obvious fleecing devised by a retired US general that went "private sector" with his Australian company.

Give me a break.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 02:02 AM
link   

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.

Still I think comments about the "helplessness" of surface vessels against cruise missile attack are exaggerated. The USN, the Russians and the Europeans all have developed systems capable of taking out incoming cruise missiles. Defeating large scale cruise missile attacks was the primary purpose for creating the Aegis system.

And taking out Mach 3 AShCM's does not require an ABM system. SM-2 was designed with that kind of threat in mind, as was ASTER and probably SA-N-6 and HQ-9.

[edit on 3/20/06 by xmotex]


A cruise missile is not the same as Mach 3.5 ramjet sustainer with a solid booster for the aeroballistic terminal phase all while pulling 30Gs. Look up the numbers. SM-2 is not a player here by its very concept, and it sure is a surprise to hear that apparently it was designed with capability to intercept a 1M by 10M target pulling 30G at Mach 3.5.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 02:31 AM
link   
devilwasp


"Or point laser weaponry, cant beat speed of light. "

Been done already.

A Mach 7 anti-ship missile will not need to maneuver heavily in its terminal phase. At those speeds a basic top attack will do. Final approach, tracking cone breaks away revealing a high temperature diffuser (look it up, don't be lazy), calculate the amount of energy required to burn through it given the available intercept time, and the result is obvious to people with understanding of basic physics.

If a laser diffuser concept confuses you, look up the principal of laser propulsion, and then reverse it.

Just to make sure, a Mach 7 missile would again be a ramjet sustainer/solid booster hybrid.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
devilwasp, you're correct about my error in reference to the English/Royal Navy, I was stuck in the periwinkle blues' post.

The rest of you're comment does not apply to anything, just re-read my post.

No it doesnt you specifically said it would beat any "english" ship , that is strictly not true and has never happened.



Please, metal storm? Are you serious? I found it laughable years ago. All that program was ever intended to do is syphon R&D money. Another obvious fleecing devised by a retired US general that went "private sector" with his Australian company.

Give me a break.

Yeah thats your opinion, I on the other hold it a bit higher than that.



Originally posted by iskander
devilwasp


"Or point laser weaponry, cant beat speed of light. "

Been done already.

A Mach 7 anti-ship missile will not need to maneuver heavily in its terminal phase. At those speeds a basic top attack will do. Final approach, tracking cone breaks away revealing a high temperature diffuser (look it up, don't be lazy), calculate the amount of energy required to burn through it given the available intercept time, and the result is obvious to people with understanding of basic physics.

If a laser diffuser concept confuses you, look up the principal of laser propulsion, and then reverse it.

Just to make sure, a Mach 7 missile would again be a ramjet sustainer/solid booster hybrid.

Point laser defence works with other systems not simply alone, also what aircraft can deliver a mach 7 ramjet anti ship missile?
Not many I can assume considering most ships detect the aircraft well before they strike.


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by shortmanx5
have the harriers taken out any f-18s, f-16s,f-22,etc i didnt think so.

Actually in the hands of a good pilot,yes they can. They can almost llitereally stop and hover let the fighter blow by and launch a heat seeker. Former Marine Corps Air Wing so I klnda know what they can do.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   


A cruise missile is not the same as Mach 3.5 ramjet sustainer with a solid booster for the aeroballistic terminal phase all while pulling 30Gs. Look up the numbers. SM-2 is not a player here by its very concept, and it sure is a surprise to hear that apparently it was designed with capability to intercept a 1M by 10M target pulling 30G at Mach 3.5.


SM-2 was designed for long-range interception of supersonic AShCM's like Raduga, Bazalt and Granat. That was the primary focus of it's development. So yeah, I don't think it's unrealistic to think that it can intercept them, considering that's precisely the role it was created for - look it up. It wasn't Exocet that SM-2 was designed to beat, but the high speed missiles the Soviets developed during the Cold War.

High supersonic AShCM's are not new, Raduga (Kingfish) first deployed in what, the mid 1960's? And it's actually faster than it's sucessors, which are mostly in the Mach 2.0 - 3.0 range. While I am hardly of the "USN is unbeatable" school, neither do I really believe the USN is totally unprepared for a threat that's been around for four decades.

And by the way, a missile wouldn't go very far if it was pulling 30 g's "all the while" - they maneuver violently in the terminal phase to defeat point defense systems - which won't do much when SM-2 is engaging it 30 or 40nm out.

[edit on 3/31/06 by xmotex]



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   
NOTHING IS UNBEATABLE

The roman Empire was also considered to be unbeatable.

Is was also a way of thinking, they tried to convince people to be like them because it was "the right way".

I think you can compare the US with the roman Empire.
(AND REMEMBER THE ROMAN EMPIRE IS NO MORE!!)


Just a thought



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by iskander
devilwasp, you're correct about my error in reference to the English/Royal Navy, I was stuck in the periwinkle blues' post.

The rest of you're comment does not apply to anything, just re-read my post.

No it doesnt you specifically said it would beat any "english" ship , that is strictly not true and has never happened.



Please, metal storm? Are you serious? I found it laughable years ago. All that program was ever intended to do is syphon R&D money. Another obvious fleecing devised by a retired US general that went "private sector" with his Australian company.

Give me a break.

Yeah thats your opinion, I on the other hold it a bit higher than that.



Originally posted by iskander
devilwasp


"Or point laser weaponry, cant beat speed of light. "

Been done already.

A Mach 7 anti-ship missile will not need to maneuver heavily in its terminal phase. At those speeds a basic top attack will do. Final approach, tracking cone breaks away revealing a high temperature diffuser (look it up, don't be lazy), calculate the amount of energy required to burn through it given the available intercept time, and the result is obvious to people with understanding of basic physics.

If a laser diffuser concept confuses you, look up the principal of laser propulsion, and then reverse it.

Just to make sure, a Mach 7 missile would again be a ramjet sustainer/solid booster hybrid.

Point laser defence works with other systems not simply alone, also what aircraft can deliver a mach 7 ramjet anti ship missile?
Not many I can assume considering most ships detect the aircraft well before they strike.


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]


"No it doesnt you specifically said it would beat any "english" ship , that is strictly not true and has never happened."

devilwasp, you're ether dyslexic, which I'll understand given your effort to deal with it, or you're not processing data very well. Read the post again, repeat as needed.

Metal Storm issue.

Here is the truth of the situation;

"In the announcement of the Company's annual results on 16 March I made a statement that the Company had sufficient resources based on confirmed contract income and expected costs to sustain it until late July 2006"

And how the CEO describes a 4 month dead line to bankruptcy;

"We have never been in a stronger position to secure our objective of building sustainable revenue streams and profits for our shareholders."

Stocks

www.forbes.com...

devilwasp, here is where the buck stops, literally. Since you are so found of this "absolutely revolutionery" 21ct century concept of sequential muzzule loading, would you care to invest in Metal Storm Limited stock?

Here is the five year chart,

www.investorguide.com... compidx=aaaaa%7E0&ma=0&maval=


stock peaks in 2004 do to a contract announcment;


"The Arlington, Va.-based company said that as part of the Small Business Innovation Research program award granted by the U.S. Navy, Metal Storm "will work with U.S. engineering and technology company Foster-Miller in a funded program designed to circumvent new and serious threats that are difficult to defeat with existing shipboard weapons and countermeasures." Shares of Metal Storm traded up 75 cents, or 14.7%, to $5.87."

The contract is GONE, and any sensible adult with the basic understanding of finance clearly sees that the whole "Metal Storm" concept is nothing more then the another scheme to separate taxpayers from their defense dollars, and make a play or two on the stock under the umbrella of bribe based contracts engineered for the sole purpose of stock manipulation.

That happens when a fleecing plan has runs its curse, and the last drops are squeezed out as golden parachutes.

Economics my friend, don't lie, people do.


"Point laser defence works with other systems not simply alone, also what aircraft can deliver a mach 7 ramjet anti ship missile?
Not many I can assume considering most ships detect the aircraft well before they strike."

devilwasp, I'm familiar with this cycle all to well. Lets count them off;

You dispute with out grounds, assume, conjure and "opinions", you do not accept or acknowledge answers provided, think that if someone disagrees with your views they must have something to prove, all while expecting everything to be given to you on a silver platter.

It's a summary of a teenage psyche.

To your baseless questions and uninformed assumptions, take the time and look up hypersonic missiles for your self.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
"No it doesnt you specifically said it would beat any "english" ship , that is strictly not true and has never happened."

devilwasp, you're ether dyslexic, which I'll understand given your effort to deal with it, or you're not processing data very well. Read the post again, repeat as needed.

Thats pretty damm offensive I'd say, please take that "dyslexic" part back. Some of my best friends are, it makes no bearing on thier reasoning or thier mental ability. Now I understood your point you said an english ship had been beaten with phalanx or had generalised both british and american ships as being unable to defend themselves from missile attack with CIWS, which is untrue since no RN ship has been lost to anti ship missile attack when fitted with CIWS.


devilwasp, here is where the buck stops, literally. Since you are so found of this "absolutely revolutionery" 21ct century concept of sequential muzzule loading, would you care to invest in Metal Storm Limited stock?

Your bringing in "economics" into this I dont care for them, I care for the practical capabilities of this weapon system.



The contract is GONE, and any sensible adult with the basic understanding of finance clearly sees that the whole "Metal Storm" concept is nothing more then the another scheme to separate taxpayers from their defense dollars, and make a play or two on the stock under the umbrella of bribe based contracts engineered for the sole purpose of stock manipulation.

This the sensible basic understanding of finace that bought the F-22 and the JSF?



That happens when a fleecing plan has runs its curse, and the last drops are squeezed out as golden parachutes.

Economics my friend, don't lie, people do.

Economics can be spun, twisted, changed and mended to suit what ever situation, agenda or task that is needed of it same with people.
I am more interested in WHAT this weapon can and WILL be able to do, not how much money I will make out of it.





devilwasp, I'm familiar with this cycle all to well. Lets count them off;

You dispute with out grounds, assume, conjure and "opinions", you do not accept or acknowledge answers provided, think that if someone disagrees with your views they must have something to prove, all while expecting everything to be given to you on a silver platter.

Is that your best physcological opinion, well thank you for it but well I'm sorry if you think I expect everything on a "silver" platter yet want proof of something that I am told is true.
But hey, your an adult right....that means you know better and you are wiser, sorry but I dont buy that one bit.




To your baseless questions and uninformed assumptions, take the time and look up hypersonic missiles for your self.

With respect I have along with the laser weaponry, I would like to see what shielding that a hypersonic weapon has, no doubt something that can withstand 5600 F, mind you ballistic missiles come in at over 2,000 °C and the ballistic missile defence laser is supposed to be able to abilterate that.
Is it so hard to think that they could not managed another 1000 odd degrees off a nuclear generator or something smaller? Mabye even multiple lasers.


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex


A cruise missile is not the same as Mach 3.5 ramjet sustainer with a solid booster for the aeroballistic terminal phase all while pulling 30Gs. Look up the numbers. SM-2 is not a player here by its very concept, and it sure is a surprise to hear that apparently it was designed with capability to intercept a 1M by 10M target pulling 30G at Mach 3.5.


SM-2 was designed for long-range interception of supersonic AShCM's like Raduga, Bazalt and Granat. That was the primary focus of it's development. So yeah, I don't think it's unrealistic to think that it can intercept them, considering that's precisely the role it was created for - look it up. It wasn't Exocet that SM-2 was designed to beat, but the high speed missiles the Soviets developed during the Cold War.

High supersonic AShCM's are not new, Raduga (Kingfish) first deployed in what, the mid 1960's? And it's actually faster than it's sucessors, which are mostly in the Mach 2.0 - 3.0 range. While I am hardly of the "USN is unbeatable" school, neither do I really believe the USN is totally unprepared for a threat that's been around for four decades.

And by the way, a missile wouldn't go very far if it was pulling 30 g's "all the while" - they maneuver violently in the terminal phase to defeat point defense systems - which won't do much when SM-2 is engaging it 30 or 40nm out.

[edit on 3/31/06 by xmotex]


xmotex,

Right,

www.globalsecurity.org...

"A high supersonic speed was specified to reduce the target’s time to deploy self-defense weapons, indeed the weapon was designed specifically to strike ships with the Aegis command and weapon control system and the SM-2 surface-to-air missile."

If you are actually interested, I can point you in the right direction where you can find all the answers to your questions. Like what it takes to make things go really fast, etc.

Again, is it the infliction of the new generation, inability to follow basic sentence structure? Everything has to spelled out these days? No wonder cash registers in fast food chain's for the past decade have pictures of food items rather then numbers. I wonder when letters will be traded for pop icon reference as means of communication. I'm a horrible speller, but at least I take the time to read and understand what it is that I'm reading.

I'm sorry xmotex, the rest of you post holds no merit, therefore I'm unable to comment.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   
The US NAvy uses sea skimming supersonic drone missiles to test their point defence weaponry all the time. They even procured some Russian Kh31 Krypton ASCM's back in the mid 90's, which are essentailly scaled down versions of the Moskit. The threat is hardly knew and unknown to the USN.

Iskander stop insulting people, your knowledge is hardly enviable



Originally posted by iskander

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

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.




Air launched ram jet delievery shell for super sonic torpedos???

This is just pure speculation, supersonic supercavitating torpedos are classified if any exist, so details are theoretical for us. As is any Modern operational ram jet delievery system for said torpedo.

I mean if your going to just throw out theoretical technology why not Hyper sonic torpedos with anti-matter warheads while your at it.



Hi ShadowXIX, please take the time and look up the physics of super cavitation.

Here is a link to ramjet delivery vehicles.

www.friends-partners.org...

If for you it's really a great leap to put two and two together, it's your thing.

You know, back in the day, for some people the idea that the world was round was also highly theoretical and scandalous. I live the present my self, super cavitation being a part of it.


Also I fail to see how this link you provided to 40+ year old ramjet technology someon makes your prediction carry any weight. These vehicles are not only very old they are huge and would make easy targets. Not to mention the technical hurdles of delivering something into the water at " Mach 7 ", it would be like hitting concret

Also what in the hell would be the point to deliver torpedos using a supersonic vehicle
Seems you really haven't thought your statement through. What's even funnier is you insult other people for questioning it.

Then you go on about all this other BS about Mach 7 ASM's
you really are living in a fantasy land.

[edit on 31-3-2006 by rogue1]



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   


"A high supersonic speed was specified to reduce the target’s time to deploy self-defense weapons, indeed the weapon was designed specifically to strike ships with the Aegis command and weapon control system and the SM-2 surface-to-air missile."


What does that prove?

The Moskit was designed to try to defeat SM-2.
SM-2 was designed to try to defeat missiles like the Moskit.
That's the way these things work... there is nothing magical about supersonic AShCM's, they are not somehow immune to interception.

I can quote Globalsecurity too, watch:



The SM-2 is a solid propellant-fueled, tail-controlled, surface to air missile fired by surface ships. Designed to counter high-speed, high-altitude anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs) in an advanced ECM environment, its primary mode of target engagement uses mid-course guidance with radar illumination of the target by the ship for missile homing during the terminal phase.


Despite oozing attitude (and immaturity), you have not provided anything that refutes my point... as far as "the current generation" goes, I wouldn't know, I'm 37


[edit on 3/31/06 by xmotex]



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 11:12 PM
link   
The mis-conception here is the missiles that were developed were not developed faster and faster they were developed to be more sopishticated.

The AEGIS was designed to defeat a saturated attack from mach 3, 500km missiles like the AS-6, AS-4 while the moskit has been designed to beat the AEGIS system by out manuvering the countering missiles.

The "Kitchen" was programed to be fired in volleys and the first missile guided the rest, when the leading missile got destroyed the second in line was then the leader until it destroyed its target or got destroyed themselves.

While the Moskit is a fast sea skimmer that manuvers to the target. I think the approch was high-low or low-low. eg it tries to null out the CWIS which is now being replaced by the RAM system or the evolved sea sparrow.


But all this is based on the moskit not being detected



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex


"A high supersonic speed was specified to reduce the target’s time to deploy self-defense weapons, indeed the weapon was designed specifically to strike ships with the Aegis command and weapon control system and the SM-2 surface-to-air missile."


What does that prove?

The Moskit was designed to try to defeat SM-2.
SM-2 was designed to try to defeat missiles like the Moskit.
That's the way these things work... there is nothing magical about supersonic AShCM's, they are not somehow immune to interception.

I can quote Globalsecurity too, watch:



The SM-2 is a solid propellant-fueled, tail-controlled, surface to air missile fired by surface ships. Designed to counter high-speed, high-altitude anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs) in an advanced ECM environment, its primary mode of target engagement uses mid-course guidance with radar illumination of the target by the ship for missile homing during the terminal phase.


Despite oozing attitude (and immaturity), you have not provided anything that refutes my point... as far as "the current generation" goes, I wouldn't know, I'm 37


[edit on 3/31/06 by xmotex]


xmotex, take a note from chinawhite, he/she (?) is absolutely correct here, and remember, that for some people it really does take "Myth Busters" to prove that a human cannot catch a bullet with his teeth.

Oh yea, my wife is 34, and she has more sense then you care to show, no pun intended, just a reference to you conduct.

Cheers.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 01:01 AM
link   
The US Navy is not unbeatable, but it can put a "can of whoop ass" whenever and wherever.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Sure, a 10th dan kyokushinkai karate master "can put a "can of whoop ass" whenever and wherever", util some guy zips a slug through his head from 300 yards away.

The trick here is putting all that "whoop ass" to guys with out guns, and in the modern world their numbers are dwindling fast.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join