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 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?
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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by shortmanx5
have the harriers taken out any f-18s, f-16s,f-22,etc i didnt think so.
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.
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]
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.
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?
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.
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.
To your baseless questions and uninformed assumptions, take the time and look up hypersonic missiles for your self.
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]
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.
"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."
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.
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]