is the US navy unbeatable???

You don't say. (figure of speech).

Non essential post, please remove.

Thank you,

iskander



Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 4/2/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

[edit on 2-4-2006 by iskander]

[edit on 2-4-2006 by iskander]

Originally posted by iskander
You don't say. (figure of speech).

Sorry, I don't understand the response Well do you agree or disagree with his points ?

[edit on 2-4-2006 by mad scientist]

Back to the topic of this discussion:
is the US navy unbeatable???

Please discuss the topic of this thread, not other members.
Thank you.

Originally posted by iskander
5600 F

Here is the link to a high temperature ceramic lens which >focuses< a 1mw beam, reaching temperatures of 55000°F.

Follow me on this one >reverse the cone

Thank you!

Considering the heavy political price of loosing even a few ships, and the low cost of effective anti-ship weapons, US NAVY is not unbeatable, just like any other NAVY in the rest of the world isn't.

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
Back to the topic of this discussion:
is the US navy unbeatable???

Please discuss the topic of this thread, not other members.
Thank you.

i thought I was Rogue1 made some good points about lasers being able to shoot down missiles. I was wondering what Iskanders take on it was as rogue1 quoted his words. That's all.
Iskander didn't really prove that missiles could really be hardened to lasers, especially as missiles are fragile wepaons.

Also, through a bit f research myself, any ship born laser system should be more powerful than the THEL as it can draw on much more power and size isn't as big a factor.

[edit on 2-4-2006 by mad scientist]

Originally posted by iskander
Thank you!

Considering the heavy political price of loosing even a few ships, and the low cost of effective anti-ship weapons, US NAVY is not unbeatable, just like any other NAVY in the rest of the world isn't.

Low cost?>??
Compared to a ship mabye but its still very expensive to equip to general fighters or inteceptors.
I doubt it would be worth it or that you would get the funding, ramt jet is the way they are going and current alloys can survive the heat.

This is perfect;

www.globalsecurity.org...

At Mach 4, as the hypersonic weapon passes through the lower atmosphere in the terminal phase of its flight, its surface reaches about 1200 degrees Fahrenheit. This level is within the tolerance range of new titanium and inconel materials. At Mach 6, however, the surface temperatures exceed 2800 F and at Mach 8 over 5600 F; skin materials, as well as internal temperature control, become a much larger issue.

The need for exotic materials I have mentioned previously.

"We were not talking about laser propultion or lenses, we are talking about missiles. I dont think the military will want a very expensive I'm guessing lens in thier missiles, or will they? "

That why I specified - reverse the cone.

I have also previously mentioned that new high density ceramics are denser then steel, making it a natural perpetrator, heat shield as well as a laser deflector.

The amount of energy it'll take to burn through lets say 600mm deflector which can withstand temperatures of 55000°F will be astronomical. Considering the speed and energy required I can't imagine what it will really take to bring down a hypersonic missile in a terminal phase of a top attack. It's a far cry from burning volatile Katusha rockets and shell/mortar fuses. HE detonates, it does not explode from heating it.

[edit on 2-4-2006 by iskander]

[edit on 2-4-2006 by iskander]

Originally posted by iskander
The need for exotic materials I have mentioned previously.

Uh yeah like I said they only need a thousand odd more degrees to sort it.

That why I specified - reverse the cone.

Reverse thje cone? For what use? So the radar bounces off the glass?

I have also previously mentioned that new high density ceramics are denser then steel, making it a natural perpetrator, heat shield as well as a laser deflector.

Laser deflector? You mean like a mirror? so what? The heat still affects the area being deflected no matter the surface.

The amount of energy it'll take to burn through lets say 600mm deflector which can withstand temperatures of 55000°F will be astronomical. Considering the speed and energy required I can't imagine what it will really take to bring down a hypersonic missile in a terminal phase of a top attack. It's a far cry from burning volatile Katusha rockets and shell/mortar fuses. HE detonates, it does not explode from heating it.

A laser deflector still has heat applied to it and think of the other CIWS weapon systems like sea sparrow, phalanx and varios other weapon systesm.


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

Originally posted by iskander
I have also previously mentioned that new high density ceramics are denser then steel, making it a natural perpetrator, heat shield as well as a laser deflector.

Well it depends on how focused the beam is. With the mini spaceship the beam apparently has to be focused by the mirror on the back end of the lightcraft, causing the air to be superheated and explode. The beam on a FEL weapon would be far more focused to begin with, depositing the same energy on a smaller target and that doesn't take into account that future deployed lasers on ships ( if they were to be FEL ) would be more powerful as well.
If the beam was more tightly focused on the lightcraft it would probably destroy it hence why the lightcraft has to focus the beam.

The amount of energy it'll take to burn through lets say 600mm deflector which can withstand temperatures of 55000°F will be astronomical. Considering the speed and energy required I can't imagine what it will really take to bring down a hypersonic missile in a terminal phase of a top attack.

Well from the articles, if the front of the missile was heated to 55000F then the temperature difference from the front to back of the missile would probably cause too greater stress on the frame destroying it. Even the air heated to 55000F causes an explosion per your article, are you saying the missile would be hardened against that as well ?

It's a far cry from burning volatile Katusha rockets and shell/mortar fuses. HE detonates, it does not explode from heating it.

Well the shock of exploding superheated air maybe enough to detonate the HE inside the warhead, have you thought of that ?

[edit on 2-4-2006 by mad scientist]

Originally posted by Harlequin
chinawhite - you are SERIOUSLY mistaken about the engagement range of ANY ciws:

The ranges are actualy classifled so i subsituted my guess on engament ranges. 5km lock on target and at 1km hopefully have destroyed it

Originally posted by darksided
Not sure when the China-Defense forum will have the pics restored, but it is a safe bet they will restore eventually, since they run so many dedicated pic threads.

the chinese military always shows their equipment off but im more interested in the munitions. Its hard finding good pictures of them. The only one i think i have seen is a very small glimse of it being fired out of its lanucher

China-defense always goes though things like this. I think it was back up like a week ago

double your ranges, I think those number are correct for miles, not Kilometers.

An interesting point, the political cost of loosing ships compared to the financial cost of expending missiles to inflict such losses. focuses the overall discussion very tightly on what the victory conditions are. If we get in a tiff with Iran, and loose 2 destroyers, it's a trajedy. If we get into a major conflict with China, and loose 10, well, at least it wasn't 20, 30 or more. I suppose the political cost is inversly proportional to the size of the threat and expected losses.

I sad it before, and I will say it again. Traditional concept of the carrier group is obsolete, finito, time to move on into the 21st century.

A wargame Marshall conducted a few weeks ago had China attacking Taiwan in 2005, and USA rushing to Taiwan's defence. One finding of his simulation was: "But the Pentagon's array of wonder weapons came up short. Three aircraft carriers had to stay so far offshore -- out of range of Chinese anti-ship missiles -- that their jets could not even reach mainland China." Marshall then prepared a secret report for President Bush, "Strategy for a Long Peace – A Quick Look" in which he argued for de-emphasizing the US Navy's current reliance on aircraft carriers and recommended a cut in their numbers.

According to Commander Fred Levien, Chairman, Information Warfare Curriculum, USA's Naval Postgraduate School, a major reason for the vulnerability of large ships is the recent deployment by Russia of its revolutionary Shkval torpedo which uses supercavitation technology. Shkval, Russian for "Squall", has a range of over sixty miles and an underwater speed of more than three hundred miles per hour, more than five times that of any torpedo
deployed by NATO.

Jack Spencer of Heritage Foundation and David Miller of Jane's International Defense Review stated that it was so fast that even if a targeted NATO aircraft carrier or submarine detected an incoming Shkval, it would not have enough time to evade it or launch a counterattack.

Shkval even has the capability to strike the US Navy's Polaris submarines before they can launch their intercontinental ballistic missiles. Stating that a single $ 200,000 Shkval could cause fatalities to all the ten thousand servicemen on board each US aircraft carrier, Levien added: "Fitted with a nuclear warhead, Shkval could obliterate entire US naval battle groups and abruptly blow a hole in USA's carrier-based air superiority doctrine…Shkval could tilt the entire existing geopolitical balance of power."

Another Russian weapon that NATO navies currently have no defence against is the SS-N-22 Sunburn missile, launched from Sovremenny destroyers. In her testimony before the US House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, leading defence expert June Teuffel painted the following scenario: "Nine feet above water, traveling at twice the speed of sound, with a 200-kiloton nuclear warhead, the radar-guided Sunburn missile can weave its way through smaller ships until it reaches its real target - a US aircraft carrier. At the last instant, it would pop up from the ocean's surface, smash into the side of the carrier and set off a nuclear explosion six times as powerful as Hiroshima. The US Navy has nothing that can stop it."

www.satribune.com...

The 60 mile Shkval mentioned is the Shkval II

www.supercavitation.com...

There is nothing more to say. No Navy is not only unbeatable, it's simply a liability.

Navy a liability?
Ok mate, just then asking how do we defend our merchant ships?

20 March, Camp Commando Kuwait, Operation IRAQI FREEDOM.
Marines of the I Marine Expeditionary Force (IMEF) Headquarters are on alert in their forward-deployed position at Camp Commando Kuwait awaiting the initiation of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF). A U.S. Air Force officer attached to IMEF monitors a terminal that will alert the headquarters of any detected ballistic missile or cruise missile attacks.

Marines deployed north and east of the headquarters suddenly observe a low-flying missile passing overhead, pointed towards Kuwait in the direction of Camp Commando. IMEF’s air defense computer terminals display nothing out of the ordinary, and no Scud alert is sounded. Marines in the headquarters are astonished and surprised to hear the signature of a low-flying jet engine overhead, followed by the noise and concussion from a large warhead blast.
An Iraqi Seersucker antiship cruise missile converted into a land attack role has just missed decapitating IMEF by a mere one hundred yards. The missile, launched from the Faw peninsula, flew undetected and unengaged straight through the heart of an alert and robust U.S. theater air and missile defense system. Following this attack, the U.S. Marines maintained a Combat Air Patrol (CAP) of F/A-18s over the Faw peninsula for several days.
Fortunately, the cruise missile in this instance was armed with only a conventional warhead. Because of their payload capabilities and their inherent ability to fly over large swaths of land, land attack cruise missiles (LACM) are a platform optimized for the employment of chemical or biological weapons. Currently, such an attack would likely go undetected, preventing U.S. forces from donning protective equipment and taking shelter.
During OIF, five Chinese-built CSSC-3 “Seersucker” antiship cruise missiles (ASCMs) were launched by Iraq against land targets in Kuwait. The attack described above was the first. A second attack, using two Seersucker cruise missiles on 28 March, was aimed at ships at the naval base of Kuwait City. One missile homed in on a radar reflector, the other on a seafront shopping center. Two Seersuckers were also launched on 31 March—one at the port at Umm Qasr and the other at troops at Safwan. Not a single one of these missiles was targeted or even detected in-flight.


www.jfsc.ndu.edu/current_students/documents_policies/documents/jca_cca_awsp/Cruise_Missile_Defense_Final.doc

So i wonder how well ships will actually do considering their sensors are rather far older and their missiles much the same.

Stellar

[edit on 5-4-2006 by StellarX]

Originally posted by iskander
I sad it before, and I will say it again. Traditional concept of the carrier group is obsolete, finito, time to move on into the 21st century.

This article below is full of errors, hardly seems credible.

A wargame Marshall conducted a few weeks ago had China attacking Taiwan in 2005, and USA rushing to Taiwan's defence. One finding of his simulation was: "But the Pentagon's array of wonder weapons came up short. Three aircraft carriers had to stay so far offshore -- out of range of Chinese anti-ship missiles -- that their jets could not even reach mainland China."

Hmm, obviously haven't heard of mid air refuelling

According to Commander Fred Levien, Chairman, Information Warfare Curriculum, USA's Naval Postgraduate School, a major reason for the vulnerability of large ships is the recent deployment by Russia of its revolutionary Shkval torpedo which uses supercavitation technology. Shkval, Russian for "Squall", has a range of over sixty miles and an underwater speed of more than three hundred miles per hour, more than five times that of any torpedo deployed by NATO.

There is only rumour about the Shkval II and even that seems more like fantasy how big would the torpedo have to be to be able to reach 60 miles. the standard 533mm Shkval can barely reach 7km with it's rocket duel, you can imagine the corresponding upscale in size to reach 60 miles. Also how would it be guided ? Complete and utter bunk.

Shkval even has the capability to strike the US Navy's Polaris submarines before they can launch their intercontinental ballistic missiles. Stating that a single $ 200,000 Shkval could cause fatalities to all the ten thousand servicemen on board each US aircraft carrier, Levien added: "Fitted with a nuclear warhead, Shkval could obliterate entire US naval battle groups and abruptly blow a hole in USA's carrier-based air superiority doctrine…Shkval could tilt the entire existing geopolitical balance of power."

Erm, Polaris missile subs were taken out of service decades ago A Us Carrier has a complement of about 6000 personnel not 10 000 How can this article be believed in the slightest when even the most basic things stated are completely wrong

Another Russian weapon that NATO navies currently have no defence against is the SS-N-22 Sunburn missile, launched from Sovremenny destroyers. In her testimony before the US House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, leading defence expert June Teuffel painted the following scenario: "Nine feet above water, traveling at twice the speed of sound, with a 200-kiloton nuclear warhead, the radar-guided Sunburn missile can weave its way through smaller ships until it reaches its real target - a US aircraft carrier. At the last instant, it would pop up from the ocean's surface, smash into the side of the carrier and set off a nuclear explosion six times as powerful as Hiroshima. The US Navy has nothing that can stop it."

www.satribune.com...

Once again more inconsistencies, Hiroshima was about 12-15 Kt, therefore a 200kt warhead being 6 times more powerful is completely wrong. I am amazed at how wrong most of the things stated in that article are. Almost like it is falsified or something.

The 60 mile Shkval mentioned is the Shkval II

www.supercavitation.com...

once again absolutely no fact just guess work. There is no information whatsoever except what is repeated verbatim on other sites, that the Russians announced they have a Shkval II, which may or may not be true. The more I read the more unlikely it seems.

There is nothing more to say. No Navy is not only unbeatable, it's simply a liability.

Well that depends if you believe in facts or fantasy So far I've seen a lot of fantasy.



[edit on 6-4-2006 by mad scientist]

Originally posted by StellarX
So i wonder how well ships will actually do considering their sensors are rather far older and their missiles much the same.

Stellar

[edit on 5-4-2006 by StellarX]

Ships would do much better, they have far better sensors, are purpose built for 24 hour operation, don't hang out in the same place waiting to get shot at, and tend to keep a not inconsiderable open killing field between them and the launch sites. No weaving through mountains to sneak up on them.

and as stated above, the article posted is delusional fantasy. It states a few erronious arguments about the vulnerability of warships, then uses that as justification to say "see, no need for a navy." Most anti ship missiles I've ever heard of have ranges not much over 100 miles. Anything longer wouldn't be useful as even the slowest target will move by the time it arrived. And aircraft can fly further than that, even without refueling. Of course, the article also seems to hinge on an enemy willing to start a nuclear war for one pop-shot at the US Navy. Sink a carrier with a nuke? That would be tragic, but we've got eleven more, and your country now glows in the dark.

Originally posted by Travellar
Ships would do much better, they have far better sensors, are purpose built for 24 hour operation, don't hang out in the same place waiting to get shot at, and tend to keep a not inconsiderable open killing field between them and the launch sites. No weaving through mountains to sneak up on them.

and as stated above, the article posted is delusional fantasy. It states a few erronious arguments about the vulnerability of warships, then uses that as justification to say "see, no need for a navy." Most anti ship missiles I've ever heard of have ranges not much over 100 miles. Anything longer wouldn't be useful as even the slowest target will move by the time it arrived. And aircraft can fly further than that, even without refueling. Of course, the article also seems to hinge on an enemy willing to start a nuclear war for one pop-shot at the US Navy. Sink a carrier with a nuke? That would be tragic, but we've got eleven more, and your country now glows in the dark.

Umm.. Some have ranges almost twice that (300km) and travel at supersonic speeds (Mach 2.5+) at sea skimming levels.

Also most countries that can actually build a tactical nuke small enough to fit onto a cruise missile(here only Russia and maybe China) will also have the ability to maky your country(US) glow in the dark.

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Also most countries that can actually build a tactical nuke small enough to fit onto a cruise missile(here only Russia and maybe China) will also have the ability to maky your country(US) glow in the dark.

Yeah but I wonder which country will be a parking lot and which country will just have one or two cities glowing?

understood, but my point was it's foolish to assume something's obsolete just because it can be destroyed with a nuclear weapon. And it's also foolish to assume nuclear weapons will be the first resort in times of crisis. There have been plenty of conflicts fought without nukes, and it is reasonable to find solutions on how to fight them on a non-nuclear level.