Forget Sunburn - enter the new carrier killer

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 11:09 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.




posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Unknown Perpetrator
 


I'm aware of MC02 and the after effects of it, there have been similar events in the past as well. Assuming that military plans are impervious to flaws is just as foolish as assuming the missiles in question here will always work as advertised. Without specific information on the systems simulated and more information on the scenario it's not wise to extrapolate that into "...a Salvo of 10 Brahmos missiles total cost $20 million dollars to sink a $5 billion american supercarrier not to mention loss of american lives...".


Originally posted by Harlequin
in controlled `tests` CIWS hit everything thrown at it - in reality , in 1991 it missed in the only wartime use of an ASCM against a US ship...


Technically it hit what it engaged, the only problem is it engaged the wrong target. If the Silkworm was still outside the CIWS tracking/engagement envelope then it makes sense for it to go after something within it when in an autonomous engagement mode.


Originally posted by Harlequin
i do agree it is a much better option than a gun - but its not the be all and end of of ship defence


It's not. A CBG has a layer defense which incorporated various intercepts missiles, aircraft, electronic and hard countermeasures. Anyone system by itself will not neutralize all threats effectively, they complement each other in capability.



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by WestPoint23
 



Technically it hit what it engaged, the only problem is it engaged the wrong target. If the Silkworm was still outside the CIWS tracking/engagement envelope then it makes sense for it to go after something within it when in an autonomous engagement mode.


it tracked , engaged and missed the silkworm (CIWS on the Jarret) which flew passed the missouri and was shot down by the gloucester with sea dart missle.



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


I was not aware that it tracked and attempted to engage the Silkworm missile. My impression was that the Sea Dart was the only system in the area that engaged the Silkworm.



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 12:19 PM
link   
The silkworm flew between the Jarret and the Missouri - which is why the Missouri got hit by the 20mm rounds from the CIWS , the Gloucester being on the far side engaed and killed the silkworm - confirmed by an A-6 driver - who then went in land and bombed the launcher.

Interestingly the only injury was a sailor on the Missouri who had his ear cut by shrapnel from a piece of plastic damaged by the 20mm rounds



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


That would contradict many sources which claim the Phalanx engaged the countermeasures the Missouri fired in response to the Silkworm.



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Bottom line, several people on here have stated that a carrier is obsolete simply because a missile has the capability to hit it.

What those people managed to ignore was the fact that carriers travel in Carrier Battle Groups. The whole purpose of the CBG is to protect the capital ship at the center. There are layers upon layers upon layers of defense. Yes, it is possible for one missile to get through and score a hit, but what are the chances?

Technology is constantly changing and when one suppose impervious missile is created one day, there are counter measures to it the next. For when a new bullet is created, you make body armor to counter it.

That's all this is, I'm sure in due time there will be sufficient defensive parameters to counter most, if not all threats and only through complemented layered defense systems. I don't think any one system is enough to stop all threats.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 06:17 PM
link   
it's meaningless if we loose the carriers we will respond with Nukes, no other option, particulalry if we are going to loose all those planes in flight and there is no place to land...



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Sunburn this, blah b;lah blah, silkworm that, blah blah blah blah, chinese super anti-ship bm, blah blah blah blah.

All meaning less BS, tossed around by people who really dont want a fight with us.



An enemy might get lucky and sink a carrier or two in the beginning of a conflict and sure well lose some ships, thats part of warfare, but we got a lot of em, and we can build more.
And contrary to what most of you believe we wont go at it alone, weve got plenty of friends.


Anyone who thinks we are just gonna steam around and present ourselves as a target during a real war is quite mistaken. Real world warfare is not a simulation or even a live fire wargame, its WAR.
If the S hits the fan, no one will be able to get within shooting distance of a carrier.
You wont find a cbg in places like the persian gulf until after the area has been secured. Its not really needed.
We have the ability to project force strategically like no one else.



Hopefully nobody is stupid enough to start lighting off Nuke tipped sunburns because the retaliation will be fierce and terrible. Once that first ballon goes up its game on, and the world will never be the same.
Why do so many knuckleheads out there want for the end of the world.



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
it does have terminal guidance - which is the whole `thing` about it

That is based on a static target, not a moving one. That is the whole problem that I have with this system. There is a reason why they don't put a terminal homing system on ballistic missiles.



and ciws is obselete and searam isn`t as good as they want you to believe


Really? Care to site your sources on that? I know plenty of folks who are alive and well today because of those systems.



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Im just going to say it once.... "Lasers"

The US is advancing quite rapidly in this field, and will have solid state lasers in the not so distant future. This will be more than adequate to deter a salvo of sunburns, etc, as it will move at the speed of light. The US already has a chemical based laser on a modified 747, and will have a laser gun ship on the AC-130 platform by 2010-2015.

So one has to start to judge the practicality of such a weapon device the chinese, and Russians appear to be working on. It seems they will be obsolete soon enough.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by West Coast
 


I wasnt going to use the L word but there you go.

Expect a whole host of directed energy weapons in the near future, from lasers to proton beams to microwave lasers and such.

A patent was issued to the US department of defence, last year for an orbital platform with a charged particle beam weapon.
The patent statment indicates that the weapon has a dual purpose, one is to destroy a range of targets from LEO to the ground.
And to detect hidden explosives by making them explode when painted by the device, even if buried .

Just a couple of weeks ago I happened on an article about an aegis cruiser?, that is being fitted with the mounting structure for some type of containerized system, one on each side of the ship.
It is bigger that what is needed for the current ciws systems, going several decks into the ship.
A laser? or maybe MetalStorm,
thats something tha hasne been brought up and is in the works and works very well.
MetalStorm, for those not familliar, multi bullet per tube solid state fired weapon, that can fire at rates in excess of 1 million rounds a minute.
It a design that is adaptable from hand guns up to artillery, they have test fired 155mm rounds.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by COOL HAND
 


it has a maneuvering warhead - or did you miss that as well?


and i know plenty of DEAD people thanks to the failures of CIWS.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by mopusvindictus
 


no the USA wouldn`t start nuking because it lost a carrier - believe it or not they are not that stupid.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by mopusvindictus
 


no the USA wouldn`t start nuking because it lost a carrier - believe it or not they are not that stupid.


Not according to the armchair generals round here. They have an overwhemling US superiority in both nukes, carriers even handguns which makes you wonder why the US hasn't destroyed both China and Russia and is still getting ass-whupped along with the rest of NATO in Afghanistan ??

It's very puzzling.

The fact that the carrier groups have such layered defenses tell you the russian anti-ship capability is very high.... the capability of AEGIS and other things...well, they shot down an
Iranian airliner after all so I wouldn't get as pumped up as the triumphalist US techno nerds round here.

They're drunk on squashing gant sized opponents with 70's tech and they're not very good at that



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 07:25 AM
link   
All these surface defenses sound great, but what about attack submarines? The undersea chess game?

Russia's ordering a new generation, China's been doing same, heck even Brazil and Argentina are getting into the game now that they've found huge oil reserves off the Brazilian coast and the US announces it is resurrecting the 4th fleet.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by gottago
All these surface defenses sound great, but what about attack submarines? The undersea chess game?


Subs have always represented the most efficient and practical way of actually sinking a carrier instead of simply causing damage. Of course you need a large fleet of nuke boats to keep up with CBGs, highly trained crews, sophisticated electronics, etc... Much more demanding than purchasing a few missiles.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Laser systems are overhyped.... if they are onboard a ship then they are subject to the same constraints as other systems. Lasers are line of sight, sea skimming missiles in choppy seas can't be targetted effectively. Targets can only be engaged once they come over the horizon and lasers still need moving lens and mirrors to engage multiple targets. The next gen missile are Mach 5 hypersonic with maneuverable terminal stage warheads (Hell they could use support ships for line of sight cover and they themselves come under fire

Not to mention countermeasures, Shuttle tiles, mirrored warheads to reflect the laser, rifled missiles to spread the heat across a larger surface area, decoys etc.... Spin off Star Wars technology is subject to the same failures of Star Wars itself..... even airborne laser plaforms won't be able to engage in fog or low cloud cover. Then there's blind spots, you would need two lasers per ship to get 360 degree coverage.

Sounds like the MIC trying to sell very expensive snakeoil to me.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 09:56 AM
link   
the whole problem with actually shooting at missiles 90+ miles away is you have to see them - todays sea skimmers - especially the likes of the `Shipwreck` and brahmos all sit at 30 feet - in a salvo attack 1 missile is a 30,000 feet relaying via data link to the rest of the salvo - so whilst AEGIS might be able to shoot lots - the horizon gets in the way at sea level ;

its great for the likes of `kingfish` which tool along at 30k feet - but not sea skimmers

you could counter with airbourne radar - but they do have a hard job seeing an object 20 feet long against the reflections of the sea.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unknown Perpetrator
Lasers are line of sight, sea skimming missiles in choppy seas can't be targetted effectively.


Please explain.


Originally posted by Unknown Perpetrator
Targets can only be engaged once they come over the horizon and lasers still need moving lens and mirrors to engage multiple targets.


From a land based systems yes. In the not too distant future the idea of mounting 150+Kw lasers on small airborne systems such as helicopters will become a reality. Once efficiency and power increase and price drops we can talk about mass produced dedicated (large) aircraft, a modified P-8 for example. It could loiter over an area and in concerts with other systems target a potential threat.


Originally posted by Unknown Perpetrator
The next gen missile are Mach 5 hypersonic with maneuverable terminal stage warheads...


Speed does not really matter if you can detect and target such a missile before it comes into the terminal stage. The layered defense concept of course would be at the forefront in this approach too.


Originally posted by Unknown Perpetrator
Not to mention countermeasures, Shuttle tiles, mirrored warheads to reflect the laser, rifled missiles to spread the heat across a larger surface area, decoys etc....


A missile with a thermal tile blanket would not have the same performance characteristics. Mirrors or some type of gloss finish become a non factor with the power output currently attainable.


Originally posted by Unknown Perpetrator
...even airborne laser plaforms won't be able to engage in fog or low cloud cover.


Both scientifically and tactically that's not an insurmountable obstacle. Still, if one has to wait for low clouds and fog to launch a missile attack they are at a severe disadvantageous.

Again, one kind of defensive system cannot by itself be some sort of magic shield. However in an integrated and layer system a threat can be reduced and managed, even if not totally eliminated.

Personally I think the future will lie in electronic attack. Not just jamming or destroying a missiles electronics, but even "hacking" into them. It's not as far fetched as you think. We can already do jamming and frying, considerable effort, in terms of R&D, is currently being spent to further increase our capability in this area.


Originally posted by Harelquin
...you could counter with airbourne radar - but they do have a hard job seeing an object 20 feet long against the reflections of the sea.


Unless the missile has very advanced LO properties this is not an obstacle or today's AWACS and or other airborne systems with very advanced radars and sensors.

[edit on 8-10-2008 by WestPoint23]





 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join